Integrative Essay

Mark Willard

DCM – Integrating Reason, Imagination, and Faith

Professors Ribeiro

1/24/2010

They Asked For a Paper

Throughout the past three weeks, I have learned, and have been inspired to learn, more than a whole semester could have taught me.  More importantly however, this learning process was fun.  The concepts that C. S. Lewis brought into my life, along with the Christian knowledge that Plantinga gave me, has given me a new perspective on almost every area of my life.  I did not grow up in the Reformed church, so I was glad to hear about it in Engaging God’s World.  In an attempt to prove that I have indeed understood Reformed perspective, Creation, Fall, and Redemption will be the primary foci of the paper.  Though C. S. Lewis really never wrote anything specifically about this ideology that I know of, I hope his brilliance will be displayed not only in his excerpts, but in my method of writing.

Creation

“Creation was a way for God to spend himself.  I think we’re safe in assuming God wasn’t bored.[1]”  In this passage, Plantinga hits the nail on the head.  We are not toys made for God to play with…everything God made was good.  Christians today are bombarded with opposition to the idea of creation, especially from evolutionists.  It is not to say that evolution is blasphemy, but the belief that the universe is based on random events that somehow created an environment to sustain man is running rampant.  C. S. Lewis calls this group ‘Materialists’ in The Business of Heaven.  “If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.[2]”  Though we did not read this for class, the belief so summed up so well that the quotation had to be used.

There is a purpose for human life; more than just to live, learn, and die.  We must see the good of the world that has fallen, and use the power of Jesus Christ, mediator of creation[3], to bring about that good while we are here on earth.  It is easy to just start talking about the Fall, and forget the whole Creation part of the reformed vision, though.  For some reason, we lose sight of the fact that everything—EVERYTHING—God made is good.  Somewhere, way deep down, there is love in the heart of a serial killer.  We must try to tap into that beauty using God’s Word and not let evil, a parasite on goodness[4], blind us of out calling.

 Fall

“As matters stand, creation still declares the glory of God, but it also declares the tragedy of fallenness, of chaos, of painful carnivoruosness[5].”  The idea of the fall of man is enough for anyone to question his faith, whether it is manifested with Adam and Eve eating the apple or manifested in the act of adultery, the simple presence of sin is, in my opinion, a mystery.  To the best of my abilities, I have arrived at a suitable answer (at least for the time being) to why we are even tested with fallenness.  I believe that sin is here, corrupting us and bring about fallenness, because it provides discernment.  To provide evidence for this belief, in Meditation in a Toollshed, Lewis describes a beam of light that enters through a crack in in a dark shed.  “From where I stood that beam of light, with the specks of dust floating in it, was the most striking thing in the place. Everything else was almost pitch-black. I was seeing the beam, not seeing things by it.  Then I moved, so that the beam fell on my eyes. Instantly the whole previous picture vanished. I saw no toolshed, and (above all) no beam. Instead I saw, framed in the irregular cranny at the top of the door, green leaves moving on the branches of a tree outside and beyond that, 90 odd million miles away, the sun. Looking along the beam, and looking at the beam are very different experiences.[6]”

This is a clear demonstration of learning by experience versus learning by observation.  Although Lewis’ essay was not specifically designed to demonstrate the experience of sin, certainly it could be applicable in such a manner.  For example, I will not cheat on my wife because I have seen its effects on my own family.  On the other hand, I will not deceive my parents because I learned from the most brutal teacher of all: experience.  Had there never been sin for me to look along or look at, how could I, “Judge Angels[7]” as Paul writes?

Some might say, still, that only temptation is enough to provide discernment…that sin is not necessary.  After all, Jesus was tempted and he did not sin.  My problem with this is that, though Jesus did not sin, there was still sin to look along.  The world was still fallen, which allowed temptation to even exist.  And even if there was no sin to look along, Jesus is God, and therefore did not even need sin to understand discernment. 

There are more objections to my claim, but almost all will come down to the question, “Did God create sin?”  I know that I am going against Plantinga, as well as the CRC when I say this[8], but I believe the answer is “Yes.”  However, I do not have a problem if no one goes with me on this.  If someone wants to look at the issue as good versus evil, that is fine.  In essence that is what it is.

On a different note, we must all agree that the world has fallen into sin, and that’s not fun for us.  As Plantinga writes, though, “The good news is that God has addressed human corruption from outside the system, it is on this gracious initiative that Christian hope encounters[9].”

Redemption

            Grace.  Grace is what is offered from God if we want it.  Plantinga tells us that there is “double grace” in Christ, stating, “This lifelong conversion is called sanctification (or “becoming holier”), and regeneration is the explosion that starts its motor.  God alone regenerates, but we answer God’s calling to become sanctified people by trying to starve our old self (the one that is envious and hardhearted) and to feed our new self (the one that is grateful and compassionate) in the rhythm…[10]”  Admittedly, I did not fully understand Plantinga’s point at first.  Because of the great functionality of this class though, I asked for an explanation in one of my blogs, and sure enough, two classmates gave me help.  The point of the passage is that we constantly need filling up even after the redemption.  This is only through God’s grace, as we do not deserve forgiveness.  C. S. Lewis writes, “For mere improvement is not redemption, though redemption always improves people even here and now and will, in the end, improve them to a degree we cannot yet imagine. God became man to turn creatures into sons: not simply to produce better men of the old kind but to produce a new kind of man[11].”

            In this same manner, we must redeem the rest of the world, in addition to ourselves.  This idea is synonymous with the word vocation.  Vocation is our calling in life, and it is different for all of us.  In everyone, though, vocation is for the glory of God.  As a student at Calvin College, my goal is to find that vocation so I may go out and reform the world…in fact even before I leave this college, I must find my vocation.  The world has needs and it is our responsibility, as a citizen in the Kingdom of God, to spread Jesus’ name and prepare the way.

Conclusion

            The drama of Creation, Fall, and Redemption is the story of us: humanity.  It is a concept I had never heard of until I came to Calvin, but it essential for everyone to comprehend.  After taking DCM, I have developed a new perspective on the Reformed Church, and more importantly, I have developed a new attitude of life.  I fully respect the Reformed church, despite of my few disagreements on doctrine.  This is more of a “heart” change for me, rather than a “mindset” change.  C. S. Lewis has instilled in me the ability to think like a theologian, without actually being one, and in doing so I have learned so much.  As an example, here is part of a blog I wrote toward the end of the class:

“At the end of the conversation of Plantinga's book, I had one major conclusion.  As much as I may disagree with someone about something so minute, she is still my Sister that I should not exclude from an Inner Ring in which she might otherwise be a part of.  If I can worship the same God, pray to the same God, and earnestly seek truth alongside a man, he is my Brother.  For those who would claim that [a certain touchy subject] IS a big deal, I say that it is just as big of one for me, but in the end we do have a common ground.  We must balance the finding of truth, and the ability to practice Agape with one another.”

            So what did C. S. Lewis teach me?  Perhaps the ability to forgive, forget, and conquer the fear of being an outsider.  The class taught me to think for myself, and never, ever, tell why someone is wrong before proving that he is, indeed, actually wrong.

---

[1] Plantinga, Engaging God’s World, p.22

[2] C. S. Lewis, The Business of Heaven, p. 97

[3] Plantinga, p. 21

[4] Plantinga, p. 52

[5] Plantinga, p. 47

[6] C. S. Lewis, Meditation in a Toolshed, p. 1

[7] 1 Corinthians 6:3

[8] The Belgic Confession, Article 13

[9] Plantinga, p. 69

[10] Plantinga, p. 90

[11] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Book 4, Chapter 10  

The Problem of Pain

In The Problem of Pain, C. S. Lewis tackles something that is really beyond our understanding.  After reading the chapter assigned, I came to the conclusion that I didn't really learn anything.  This is not, in and of itself, a bad thing.  In fact, I suppose I did hear Lewis's opinion on it.  However, I believe that just about everything he says in this paper is fact, rather than predicated on belief.

It does not matter how old you are, that someday you will wonder why pain is even on this earth.  Or for instance, why there is even sin.  I am not writing to provide the answers, I am only writing to refute acclaimed answers.  For example, it is a written belief by one certain sect of Christianity that "God was not the author of Sin."  This statement, in my mind, makes no sense.  It does't matter how many sentences follow this to make the belief sound better (for example, "God allows sin to go on by the work of the Devil..."), because at the end of the day, God did not create everything on this earth.  For that matter, he did not create pain.  I do not agree with that statement, of course, I am merely displaying an obvious predicament to the belief.  Lewis writes that God speaks softly to us in pleasure, but yells with a megaphone at us when we are in pain.  We must understand that pain is a tool that God has, that is actually a very effective tool.

In a previous blog, I have written about the instance in which "God hardened Pharaoh's heart."  I believe that this can be represented with The Problem of Pain.  It is an easy comparison...why would God (specifically God, not Satan) make him not let the Israelites go.  At the same token, why is my friends mother dying of cancer?  Why is the adulterous husband not repenting of his destruction?  Many people simply say that these scenarios just simply do not parallel the one in the Bible, for, if they did, then that might imply that God is working against us.  Once again, I must state that I do not believe this but am merely displaying a belief (I have been known to confuse readers).  My point is, why wouldn't God let the Israelites go right off the bat?  Surely he had the power to do so.  Now, the obvious answer is to say that he did it to display his power and glory, which I will not argue.  But, what about the man who goes to his grave never professing Jesus Christ as his savior?  Where is God's power now?  God never "softened" the adulterer's heart...why not?

I am not going to answer the question that we have all wondered at one time or another, but I will provide my belief.  I believe that God will use the adulterer to display his Glory in the next life.  For eventually "Every knee will bow, and every tongue confess..."  And, if you can bear with me (it is beyond my understanding), God's glory is GREATER because of sin.

Plantinga Chapter 5

Today in class when my group discussed this chapter that is centered around Vocation, There was interesting discussion.  One member of my group is PRC, of which he claims does not believe in the whole 'vocation' thing (if I understood correctly).  I am neither PRC nor CRC, so I did not feel educated enough to comment.

Essentially, our conversation was dominated by discussion on predestination.  I guess that this was derived from the disagreement about vocation...that, if God is going to redeem the world, there isn't a reason to, as Plantinga puts it, reform the secular institutions.  As I said before, I have no dog in this fight.  However, I did respond with several questions predicated on this belief, including, "Well for that matter, what is the point in spreading the gospel if all will be redeemed by Jesus' second coming?"  Obviously, it didn't take long for the conversation to end with predestination (just follow the train of thought...get it?).  Anyway, in the discussion about the "p" word, as I'll call it, the response was that of a passage in Romans; that God uses the Word to call out those who are predestined.  One would think that this would answer the question, but I am not he.  "So," I said, "If God tells me to tell someone about Jesus, and I ignore it because it would be embarrassing, does that someone lose an opportunity in eternity?"  The answer was a quick, "no" because that person was obviously not predestined.

As you can see (or at least as I see it), it is a circular argument when talking about the "p" word.  That being said, to say I have no belief bu t only 'stupid questions' would be a lie.  I do believe that God knows all, as he is omnipotent.  He knows the fate of every man.  I also believe that we can not simply write some situation off as a matter of someone being predestined or not predestined.  We know nothing,so we must not make it an issue.

At the end of the conversation of Plantinga's book, I had one major conclusion.  As much as I may disagree with someone about something so minute, she is still my Sister that I should not exclude from an Inner Ring in which she might otherwise be a part of.  If I can worship the same God, pray to the same God, and earnestly seek truth alongside a man, he is my Brother.  For those who would claim that the "p" word IS a big deal, I say that it is just as big of one for me, but in the end we do have a common ground.  We must balance the finding of truth, and the ability to practice Agape with one another.

Man or Rabbit?

Another straightforward, thought-provoking essay by C. S. Lewis in which he, once again, makes me question my own intelligence.  I have thought, and even asked the question that he addresses in the essay: CAN'T YOU LEAD A GOOD LIFE WITHOUT BELIEVING IN CHRISTIANITY?  Unfortunately, I am not smart enough to write my feelings on the matter like he does, but I can say that I have answered the question in the same matter aloud...at least with the same emphases.  As Lewis eventually says, "The question before each of us is not 'Can someone lead a good life without Christianity?' The question is, 'Can I?...He is really asking, 'Need I bother about it? Mayn't I just evade the issue, just let sleeping dogs lie, and get on with being "good"? Aren't good intentions enough to keep me safe and blameless without knocking at that dreadful door and making sure whether there is, or isn't someone inside?'"

Lewis's point here is that the person asking this question, in reality, is more than likely interested in the makings of what might be, to him, God.  He is searching, and Christianity has aroused his mind.  Therefore, the answer to the question, as Lewis reluctantly says, is "Yes."  I say reluctantly because of course it is good for people to know God, and this fact trumps all objections that exert "no" for the answer.  The reason Lewis says it as if he is backed into a corner is that, for the person asking, the timing is a little off.  What I mean is, it would not be good for the man to 'become a Christian' so he could be say all the chants and learn the religion and have no actual heart.  We know that not everyone who goes to church really lives for God (I guess some could argue).  For the most part, the man who is drunk six out of seven days of the week and goes to church isn't necessarily 'living for God.'  Therefore, in the sense that the man asking the question is only looking at religion, the answer is no (I am not merely speaking in a literal sense).  The reason one could not respond "no" in this scenario is because the man would not be a Christian if he 'said the words' for the wrong reason.  Therefore the question of, "Is it good for me to be a Christian?" could only have an answer of 'yes.'

C. S. Lewis writes this in a way that assumes something of the asker, but I believe he is allowed to do this.  The only way someone else would seriously consider this question is a theologian, a good thinker, or a great thinker (a.k.a. C. S. Lewis).  Anyway, toodles...

The Inner Ring

In The Inner Ring, C. S. Lewis displays, not necessarily a huge problem, but a huge commonality in society.  The essay shows how social circles, begin, operate, and flaw.  In my opinion, this has been the easiest  of his essays to read, and it has been the most straightforward.  Essentially, Lewis claimed that social circles are not bad in and of themselves, but when they are formed for the wrong reasons they are unfruitful.  Gangs are possibly the most notable of "Inner Ring" failures, but there even spoiled inner rings in respectable society.  Lewis says that it all depends on how and why the group was formed.  If it was formed in order to leave out other people, and members get joy from that, then the inner ring is very bad.


The only case in which Lewis says that an Inner Ring is good, occurs when a scenario is what causes the group to form.  A common interest from all who are involved.  It is for the love of the substance, rather than inclusion of a group.  Perhaps, Lewis says, a quartet is to be formed.  Of course there can only be four individuals.  Though others will be left out, it is for the good of the quartet, and exclusion was only enforced because of circumstances.  We must not confuse this type of exclusion with "unrighteous" exclusion.

The Four Loves: Eros

Lewis's chapter on Eros is an attempt to define Eros, explain it, and apply it to our marriages and other relationships.  With this attempt he completely succeeds and leaves me with quotes that I will know forever.

"By Eros I mean of course that state which we call "being in love"..."  From the first sentence, Lewis lays a solid basis that will allow the chapter to flow smoothly and allow no gaps in thinking.  In fact several times while reading this I had to go back and figure out what Eros actually was.  Whether this is simply my ineptness or a fault of Lewis, I was still able to simply go back and be reminded of his terminology.  Now about the substance of this definition (and what he adds to it later), I adore it.  Essentially, Lewis claims that we can all "fall in love," at one time or another in our lives, but to "be in love" is an entirely new battlefield.  Lewis claims that Eros says, "It is better to be unhappy with her than to be happy with another."  In Lewis's analogy of 'diving into the pond,' "being in love" is when you keep swimming, even after the fun part (diving).  There are those that are obsessed with "falling in love," so they never learn "true love" (Eros).

I must now touch on submission.  We talked about it so much in class that I need to address it (Plus I was the one who said that the ideal woman should be submissive).  I will start by saying that whole thing about "wives submit to your husbands..." has, for some reason, put a bad taste in most Christians today (including males).  This is a problem!  I would like to say that the word has changed definitions due to change in culture, but this is simply not true.  It is simply ignorance.  I will say, though, that I was glad to hear laughter after I said the word, rather than raging disagreement.  I have looked at submission on several different angles, and have decided that I should explain.  When I say that the ideal woman should be submissive, this does assume that the man loves his wife as Christ loved the church.  If the response to this assumption is, "Well you didn't say THAT!" then we can go nowhere.  We were talking about ideals, therefore I assumed that the situation would be ideal (i. e. the man loves the wife, in-turn).  C. S. Lewis sums this up when he says, "This headship, then, is most fully embodied not in the husband we should all wish to be but in him whose marriage is most like a crucifixion; whose wife receives most and gives least, is most unworthy of him., is in her own mere nature least lovable....... So, in these terrible marriages, once they have come about, the "headship" of the husband, if only he can sustain it, is most Christ-like."

Now to respond to the lazy, unloving husband scenario.  I totally agree with Professor Ribiero that a woman should make decisions if the man is not loving her and doing his job.  When the father tells his wife that he doesn't give a dang about what his kids do or don't do, she should step in and take control.  This, however, does not disprove submission.  Clearly the wife has been patient with the husband, and has done nothing to keep her from doing anything, therefore she is still in submission.  One might say, "Well, what if the husband tells the wife that she can have no rules for her children? What then should she do?"  To this I say that this is indeed a terrible scenario in which the solution requires submission.  Not submission entirely, but to some extent.  It does not disprove the ideal quality that a woman should be submissive.

Lewis further agrees with my statements when he says, "The real danger is not that husbands may grasp the latter too eagerly; but that they will allow or compel their wives to usurp it."  A man must look for qualities in a woman that, when he is weak, she may support him and long for him to support her.  Pride is important to man, just as affection is important to women.  Submission and Loving are the two actions that provide these feelings, and we must both do this, man and wife, if Eros is to be good to us.

Plantinga Chapter 4

In Chapter 4: "Redemption," Plantinga helps me learn some of the stuff we learned in Prelude.  I'm not CRC, so all of this is new toe me, but I'm getting a better grasp of the system.  I had never before heard of the Catechisms (at least outside of Catholicism and Lutheranism) or even the Creeds.  My interests are quite peaked, but I am not at all ashamed of not knowing the Creeds or specific doctrines.  In fact, I am quite proud that the only thing that has really influenced my thinking up to this point has been the Bible and my dad.  Obviously there are other minor things, but primarily these are my sources.  I am definitely open to learning CRC history, and simply Christian history, but ideas provided in creeds are merely food for thought, not law.  So if I sound stupid with terminology, it's because I am.

When Plantinga talks about double grace, I am slightly confused but I think I get the point of it.  Essentially, when we accept God we are free from the bondage of sin, and free to do God's will.  I have heard this sermon a few times, that many people refuse Christianity because it "ties you down," when in fact we are free.  As far as three effects of the double grace, though, I have no idea what he's talking about.  He says regeneration, justification, and sanctification, are real events with real effects.  I still have no idea what he's talking about.  Can someone please explain when I've had this in my life?  He really leaves me hangin' here...

Learning in Wartime

"Learning in War-time" is another excellent essay by C. S. Lewis.  It is perhaps the most clear essay we have read as a class so far, though it is not my favorite of his.

In the essay, Lewis writes about one particular effect of war-time.  Writing to in insecure public of the late thirties and early forties, Lewis lays out a huge problem in society.  He attacks the fact that nobody can focus on anything but the War, and if you do, you are looked upon as someone who should care more.  "The moment we do so we can see that every Christian who comes to a university must at all times face a question compared with which the questions raised by the war are relatively unimportant. He must ask himself how it is right, or even psychologically possible,for creatures who are every moment advancing either to heaven or to hell, to spend any fraction of the little time allowed them in this world on such comparative trivialities as literature or art, mathematics or biology."

Lewis proceeds to examine this very real situation, and he then assesses it.  "The war creates no absolutely new situation: it simply aggravates the permanent human situation so that we can no longer ignore it."  The purpose of this statement is to reveal that War-time is just as relevant as "peace"-time, so we always need to focus on literary things.  Later on, Lewis provides three things that stand in our way of not thinking about the War: excitement, frustration, and fear.  Each provides its own distraction from the eternal, and we all fall into one some time or another.

Why I really like this piece, though, is because it can still be related to my life, even though Lewis does not come right out and say it.  We all go through wars, such as someones mother dying of cancer.  Or parents getting a divorce.  Or...anything really bad.  We all have it in some way, and I believe that instead of using these things as excuses during war-time, we need to be strong.  Of course I have sympathy for the fifteen-year old who watches his mother leave earth.  I understand that his grades will fall because of it.  However, that boy has no excuse to cheat on his wife twelve years down the road, and then blame it on tragedy he faced as a young boy.  That is not War-time.  We must be careful to know when War-time is, and when it is not.  I could go on with more examples (perhaps even more concrete), but I believe that Lewis would agree with what I have said so far...

Plantinga Chapter 3

In Chapter 3 of "Engaging God's World," I began to respect Plantinga much more than before.  I also came to a realization: Almost everyone in the rest of the class has heard this stuff several times over.  I did not learn this so much from reading the book, but from speaking with a fellow classmate and, I guess, just piecing it all together.  Another thing that I realized was the fact that it is not so much that I am so critical of Plantinga, it's just that I am so critical relative to others in my class.  The whole thing about Creation, Fall, and Redemption is very new to me.  This just explains my whole problem with Plantinga's assumptions...it's that they really are assumptions.  I'm not saying that Plantinga wrote this for only the CRC students, I'm just saying that maybe they know all of the assumptions and I don't.  Or maybe they don't even necessarily understand the other implications of the assumptions.  Either way, this realization does help me respect Plantinga's writing much more.

Besides my realization, however, I do not think Plantinga assumes as much as he does in other chapters.  Where I really liked the book was near the end of chapter three when he talks about where sin comes from.  He seemed to pose all of the right questions about God, while keeping his opinion to a minimum, and his statements careful.  He asks "Where does sin come from?" and even asks, "Does God have a hand in it?"  His are answers very careful and do not make any bold claims.  For that, I respect him.

Although I respect Plantinga greatly for this statement, I am bold in this case.  I do believe that God created everything...everything that can ever be thought of or that we can name, including sin.  I do not believe that God was taken off guard by "the devil" "doing his own thing."  Plantinga does justice to this argument, except when he talks about when "God hardened Pharaoh's heart."  Plantinga's conclusion is that the author simply means that, "God will rescue people when a hard heart is blocking the road out of Egypt."

I have a problem with this simple answer.  It simply does not respond to the scripture, where clearly God is the subject of the sentence.  In the same way that God blessed David, He hardened Pharaoh's heart.  I can agree that God does rescue people when a hard heart is blocking the road out of Egypt, but that is only one minor purpose pf the passage.  I believe that in the same way that we say, "The Devil tempted me," we can say, "God tested me."  Perhaps God just had one temptation after another for Pharaoh, and each time Pharaoh fell into temptation.  This belief is no different than proving Predestination or Free Will.  What I mean is, Pharaoh chose to keep the Israelites every time, even thought God was the one that hardened his heart in the first place.  Of course, God also knew that Pharaoh would deliver the Israelites when he did, so that is also in favor of predestination.  But this is not the focus of my point.

My point is, Plantinga should have never put this passage in here if he wasn't going to do anything with it.  He did not serve the passage justice, while he seemed to totally serve it justice.  Despite my complaint, though, I like his insecurity in this subject.  It is what I have been waiting for.

The Poison of Subjectivism

In "The Poison of Subjectivism," C. S. Lewis primarily focuses on self-examination.  In this essay, makes fun of one common statement that many make today.  We say, "Well, my I have different morals than he does," or simply, "I have morals, unlike him."  These statements would be considered foolish according to Lewis's standards, for we all have the same set of morals instilled by God.  When I say this, however, some claim that how can we all be instilled with the same morals.  When the Mayans (or whomever) were in a culture of sacrificing humans to foreign Gods, surely they weren't merely ignoring their instincts.  Then obviously we couldn't be instilled with a set of morals.

In response to this argument, and perhaps in the defense of Lewis, I claim that human sacrifice is not really part of the Moral Law.  Human sacrifice is not something that we are instilled NOT to do.  Because this appears to be a bold claim, perhaps I should use a more concrete example.

Polygamy.  In class, we all heard Professor Ribiero tell the story of the man who killed his four other wives in order to be baptized.  I'm not in a position to claim whether this man knew that killing his wives was wrong, but I am in a position to say that the only reason he thought his polygamy was wrong was because he was told that it was.  I do not think that his man was instilled with an idea that he must only have one wife, and nor do I think King Solomon was.  This statement makes me sound like I am arguing against myself, but my point is, I believe that polygamy is not in the law of morality.  That is not to say that there is no Law of Morality.  Only having one wife is not just in the Law.  Therefore, terrible things in culture that we practiced, that have been practiced, and that will be practiced in the future, are not really in the Moral Law.  I believe that the Moral Law simply implies that we know the difference between Right and Wrong.  therefore an example of the Moral Law is hard to come by.  The best way I can explain my definition of the Law of Morality in an example is with the following.  In a society where sacrificing every other 13 year-old son is fine, but to rob a family in the night is punishable by death, the man creeping outside of the house knows that what he is doing is deceptive and wrong.  However, the father who is sacrificing his son knows that what he is doing is right.  In fact, it may be selfish of the father to not sacrifice his son, so he has an extra hand to help out the family.  Is it wrong to sacrifice the son?  Of course this sounds like a silly question, but in the culture at the time, this question is a blatant No.  In our society, the answer is a blatant Yes.

To conclude, we all know right and wrong instinctively.  The thing that changes right and wrong is culture.  Of course there is ultimate right and wrong, but our interpretation of it changes.  I think Lewis would respect my opinion.

Mere Christianity

In "Mere Christianity," I must say that I love C. S. Lewis.  He does everything exactly like I would, leaving no gaps in his thinking.  Before Lewis even starts to tell us about God, he asks if there is even a right a nd a wrong.  I just love this approach (it is so unlike Plantinga's approach) becasue it does not assume things.  When talking about the very presence of God, one cannot just assume that there is such a thing as righteousness and evil, but he must prove it.  If I were an atheist (?), I must say that Lewis would be the only Christian author that  I could possibly read.  He does even not let the reader even really know of his faith, so I wouldn't be disgusted my the book right off the bat.  Anyway, as far as the substance of the excerpt we read from "Mere Christianity," (the first four chapters) it is simply awesome how Lewis even dreamed up this argument in his head.

In the introduction to his chapter on The Law of Human Nature, Lewis basically says that he got the idea to write this by thinking of how we humans quarrel all the time.  "They say things like this: 'How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?'--'That's my seat, I was there first'--'Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm'--Why should you shove in first?'--'Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine'--'Come on, you promised.' People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups."  Lewis goes on to say that it interests him that there is obviously some sort of standard that the complainer is trying to reach by making up some sort of special situation.  "He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise."  After this, Lewis says that obviously there is an agreement on what right and wrong are, because one man is trying to prove the other WRONG.  Lewis calls this agreement that is instilled in us, the Law of Nature.


In chapter two, Lewis devoted the entirety of it to refuting possible objections to the Law of Nature.
I will no get into them in this review, but I will say that this is the most impressive point of the paper, for he makes his claims virtually flawless.


In chapter three, Lewis brings about the Reality of the Law.  In it, he basically says that we constantly ignore the moral law for our own good.  He says, in very concise summary, that the Moral Law is not anything like the Law of Gravity.  For the Law of Gravity is true because it happens, not because, ideally, it should work.  The Moral Law rarely happens...it is rarely used by us.


The last chapter reveals how the Moral Law reveals a mystery of the universe.  In essence, Lewis says that God had to have created this universe because it is so perfect.  Not only this, but he says that God shows himself to us inside ourselves with the Moral Law.  For, "If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe--no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions? In the only case where you can expect to get an answer, the answer turns out to be Yes; and in the other cases, where you do not get an answer, you see why you do not."


I will end with this quotation form Lewis.  The Moral Law is instilled by God.
 

The Screwtape Letters: Letter XII

I have already had the blessing of reading several of the Screwtape Letters before this class, but every time i read them I gather entirely new thoughts.  I essence, The Screwtape Letters are a series of fictional letters from a high-class devil named Screwtape sent to a his nephew, Wormwood.  In the letters, Screwtape refers to God as 'the Enemy,' and the young Christian that Wormwood is 'working on' is known as 'the patient.'  It is indeed a brilliant backdrop, as even when Screwtape refers to 'good,' it is actually evil.

In reading Letter XII again and pondering the follow-up questions, I began to think about something I've never thought about before.  Lewis writes, "For this reason I am almost glad to hear that he is still a churchgoer and a communicant."  This phrase definitely raises suspicions, as even one of the review questions asks: How can churchgoing habits be good or bad?  I thought about this for a long time and decided that this question could be rephrased as: How can churchgoing be good or bad?  Many people would think that I am crazy for asking this question, claiming that of course everyone should always go to church.  Let me tell you a
story.

A very good friend of mine used to go to church devoutly, but I always questioned his out-of-church life.  One day he stopped going to chuch entirely and told me that I was "in bondage."  Meanwhile he continued to fall (in my opinion) to a path that was not good.  Bear in mind that this guy has known the Lord very closely and knowns the hypocrisy of the church, to whatever extent it has it.

The point of my example is that I believe that telling my friend to go back to church if you wan't to get close to God, may not be the right answer.  Does he even belong at church?  I personally think that It would be awesome if he started going to church again, but for me to tell him that he need to start going to church is not right.  Paul writes in Matthew that it is bad for the man who knew Christ and has fallen away, than for the man who never knew and will discover.  I believe that that scripture is applicable in my friend's case.  I think that going to church is a PRODUCT of knowing God, rather than a MEANS of getting to know got for the person that fell away.

Plantinga Chapter 2

In Chapter 2: Creation, I several problems, if not questions, about his claims.  I would call myself a skeptic, in general, but only because Plantinga states so many things that are assumed facts.  When I read C. S. Lewis, he rarely rattles off things that we should just, "know because of being alive."  Lewis rights from a better perspective of humility...that he simply wonders about God's creation and allows us to decide whether we can agree with him.  Plantinga, on the other hand, assumes such things like Jesus Christ mediating creation, or God resting intermittently during the days of creation.  He says that, "Each of these days also has a night.  And God rests then, too?"  What??? Plantinga assumes entirely that the word 'day' during creation, referred to 12-hr days of which we have today.  The problem with this assumption is that, more than likely, these days were not 12-hr days!  They could have easily been 24-hr days...or even an unspecified amount of time.  The original language for this term does not specify how long a day was.  For example, "In the day of your fathers..."  Anyway, I felt that this bizarre statement was made on feeble ground.  I enjoy hearing the bizarre and provocative, but not if they are based on feeble assumptions.


The other thing I had a problem with was the mediation of creation by Jesus Christ.  I do not necessarily disagree with Plantinga on the statement, I just dislike the evidence on which he makes this statement.  "...Christ is not only the son of God but also the "wisdom of God" and the "word of God.""  Okay so far..."These metaphors suggest that the work of Jesus Christ represents the intelligence and expressiveness of the triune God."  Here's where I have a problem.  Plantinga assumes that intelligence or expressiveness could simply not come from anything other than Jesus Christ.  Jesus is indeed a from of God, but not the only one.  There is a burning bush, as well as what Jacob wrestles with.  There are the words in the book that inspire me to be more faithful and there is are the words the hobo on the street speaks to me. To just assume that Jesus is the only "one" who can function in this way is very assuming.


There are other things such as this that I have encountered since delving into the book, but I feel as though I must express my frustration.  I will try to get over these things, and I believe that I can.  I know that Plantinga does not base his faith on these little issues, I guess I just wich he were C. S. Lewis...

The Weight of Glory

This is probably my favorite C. S. Lewis piece yet.  I gleamed so much from "The Weight of Glory," especially in application to my own life.


Lewis begins this essay by speaking of the reward of heaven, and eventually outlines three types of reward we see in real life.  The first, Lewis claims, is that of a reward with no natural connexion with the things one does to earn it.  As lewis puts it, "Money is not the natural reward of love; that is why we call a man mercenary if he marries a woman for the sake of her money."  This is not the type of reward we should seek, obviously.  This type could also be put into practice with the act of sex.  Love is not the natural reward for sex; in fact, it is just the opposite.    This is seen as Lewis proceeds into the next case, in which he says, "But marriage is the proper reward for a real lover, and he is not a mercenary for doing it."  Though I said that sex is the reward for love, I do not think I was necessarily wrong according to Lewis.  We are rewarded for love with marriage, which brings along with it sex.


Lewis goes on to say something that will stick with me.  He says, "The proper rewards are not simply tacked on to the activity for which they are given, but are the activity itself in consummation."  I feel that if we miss this point, nothing can be gleamed form this section of the essay (and. more than likely, the rest of the essay).  What this statement accomplishes is an admittance of being in glory, a topic i will cover shortly.  Without this statement, one would assume that marriage is an end of love.


The last scenario of pursuing a reward relates to striving for something that is not really the final goal, but is simply a step for the ultimate goal.  "The schoolboy beginning Greek grammar cannot look forward to his adult enjoyment of Sophocles as a lover looks 
forward to marriage or a general to victory. He has to begin by working for marks, or to escape punishment, or to please his parents, or, at best, in the hope of a future good which he cannot at present imagine or desire."  Indeed, I have applied this to my own decision to stick with engineering to attain a degree in engineering.  I have virtually no role model in engineering, so I know not what my final goal is, other than to graduate from Calvin wiht a degree.


The last topic I will cover , covers one take on Glory by Lewis.  He says that we love beauty so much, that we also want to be IN a certain beauty.  For example, when I first met my present girlfriend, I wanted to know everything about her...her family, her relationship with God, her friends.  I wanted to be a part of her life, and slowly that has happened.  Maybe I'm alone on this application of Lewis's statements on the longing to be IN beauty, but I would like to know.

Our English Syllabus

          In “Our English Syllabus,” Lewis tries his best to describe English classes at the University of Oxford.  To do this he goes extremely deep into what the mission of the classes is, ultimately defining two methods of then-modern schools.  Lewis speaks of education versus learning.  This provocative issue would never be opened had one brilliant mind not existed.  It is a bizarre concept unless it is explained thoroughly, which only C. S. Lewis can do.

          When I first read Lewis’s statement, “universities…are fighting against education on behalf of learning,” I was somewhat bracing for the usual Calvin College speech: We’re not like the other schools. When you get outta here, you’ll be a well-rounded individual who has gone through LIBERAL ARTS EDUCATION.

          Though this was a minor point of the syllabus (which, by the way, I do not disagree with… Excuse my previous sarcasm), the major themes to the syllabus were distinguishing a model student-professor relationship, as well as providing an accurate representation of how material for courses are selected.  The first point I mentioned is spelled out when Lewis states on page 85. 

“…the university student is essentially a different person from the school pupil. He is not a candidate for humanity; he is, in theory, already human. He is not a patient; nor is his tutor an operator who is doing something to him. The student is, or ought to be, a young man who is already beginning to follow learning for its own sake, and who attaches himself to an older student, not precisely to be taught, but to pick up what he can. From the very beginning the two ought to be fellow students.  And that means they ought not to be thinking about each other but about the subject. The schoolmaster must think about the pupil: everything he says is said to improve the boy's character or open his mind-the schoolmaster is there to make the pupil a 'good' man.  And the pupil must think about the master. Obedience is one of the virtues he has come to him to learn; his motive for reading one book and neglecting another must constantly be that he was told to.”

Though Calvin does not necessarily wear this precedent on its sleeve, in is nonetheless a common theme that I have had with one of my professors over my first semester here.  That class was by far my best experience of the semester, and for that I think that Lewis is a genius by expressing the syllabus in such an intricately beautiful manner.

Lewis’s other main point, of how course studies are selected, was also a pleasant change from the usual Calvin College message.  Basically, Lewis tells the students that there is an infinite amount of material for any subject, and a committee of professors will ultimately make the decisions on what is taught.  Lewis is saying that he will, unfortunately, short the students.  He never actually expresses this, but I believe that is his message.  He explains how he will select topics, using the picture of a tree.  The most important topics located in the roots of the tree, and proceeding up the trunk and out to the more unstable branches.

Overall, this syllabus is dynamite.  If every professor at Calvin enveloped himself in this approach, I believe that I would have an experience like the one in the first semester for every class.

No Right to Happiness

In, “Have no Right to Happiness” C. S. Lewis brings into light a very real and troubling situation.  In essence, Lewis tells us a story of a man who leaves his wife for another man’s wife.  This newly formed couple had left their spouses in order to seek happiness; something that was obviously not present in the previous relationships.  The man’s ex-wife was just too hung up in her children and had lost much of her good looks.  The woman’s ex-husband got all smashed up in the war, and in the process lost all of his liveliness.  So, two lonely people were left with unhappiness.  It was only fair then, right?  God sympathizes…?

This is where Lewis exploits the problems.  The whole aspect of God ‘wanting us to be happy’ is completely skewed.  Of course, God wants the best for us, but molding the scriptures into things that they are not does not gain God’s sympathy.  Even on that note, God doesn’t have sympathy, he has mercy.  Had the man who left his wife for another woman repented of his decision, had he seen his ways as wrong, he may receive mercy.  We dumb creatures do not know what happiness is, anyway.  As Lewis says, “In words that are cherished by all civil­ized men, but especially by Americans, it has been laid down that one of the rights of man is a right to 'the pursuit of happiness’”.

Lewis goes on in the essay to speak of the ‘privilege of sex,’ and how it should exist only with the intent of a lifelong commitment of two partners.  The happiness that is gained from destroying this lifelong commitment does indeed exist, but it is only illusionary.  Happiness in the sexual realm must not be seen as the man in the example saw it.  

Plantinga Chapter 1

In chapter 1 of Engaging God's World, Plantiga stresses two main points.   The first involves how we must realize and analyze our happiness.  Plantinga states that "Mozart and Schubert knew how to touch us in [music], but so do country and western singers, whose music is full of lonesome dreams and broken hearts."  Some things just make our hearts ache, and music is one thing that clearly demonstrates that.  These aches, Plantinga claims, are glimpses into personal longings, the ultimate of which being a perfect relationship with God.

Unfortunately, all of us humans ever reach our deepest longing.  C. S. Lewis writes, "It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong...fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at sea.  We are far too easily pleased."  I certainly feel like this in my own life.  My dad, 59, recently told me that the secret to life is reading.  I trust my dad, so why do I play videogames when I should be (pardon the cheesiness), engaging God's world.

The second point Plantinga tries to convey is that the deep longing to be with God produces hope.  Plantinga entitles this the Hope for Shalom.  Shalom is peace with God, and it is this that humans deeply yearn for.  This yearning produces a hope for mankind, that, though we are in a fallen world, we may be redeemed by God. We are a large part of this fallen world, and the hope produced by longing allows a certain persistence in reforming the world.  Plantinga does help me realize why Calvin is a proponent of such things as adoring nature, and even worldly things.  It is the longing for God in everything we do.

Bulverism

In 'Bulverism,' C. S. Lewis makes a mockery of a recurring theme of ideology of the 20th century.  Lewis introduces the ugliness of the way of the thinking by explaining the discoveries of both Marxians and Freudians.  These two groups of people studied different eras of historic in order to learn why these societies acted in the ways they did.  As lewis states, "Nowadays the Freudian will tell you to go and analyze the hundred: you will find that they all think Elizabeth a great queen because they all have a mother-complex."  This statement implies a certain "taintedness" to the people of that era.

Lewis attempts to tear this label-ism down, for as soon as one examines a system from outside of such system (i. e. history), he becomes an examination by another.  There is no escaping this fact.  Lewis demonstrates this thought process by defining 'Bulverism.'  Bulverism, founded after the fictional character Ezekiel Bulver, is the practice of showing a man why he is wrong, before explaining that the man is wrong.  Comically, Lewis writes that, as a child, Ezekiel heard his mother told his father during an argument, "Oh you say that because you are a man."  From that point on, Ezekiel realized that refutation is no necessary part of argument.  Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet.

Lewis goes on to explain the difference between basing decisions off of reason rather than cause.  What I gleamed from this part of the essay, is that in a Bulveristic paradigm, we do things to suit our own ambitions, refusing to look at the final product of our decisions.  Relying on reason, however, grants the ability to see a final result of a decision.

Meditation in a Toolshed

In this essay, C. S. Lewis provides extensive insight as to how we must go about learning.  He lays bare both the problems of learning by experience, as well as the problems of learning by observation.  He does this through his description of a dark toolshed in which one beam of sunlight shines through a crack.  If a man looks at the beam from the side and examines its contents, he sees the dust inside of the beam.  However, if the man stares directly into the beam, he sees the sun (and not the beam itself).  This is a brilliant way of demonstrating the two paradigms, experience and observation, but ultimately these lines of thought must merge for us to make righteous decisions.  As C. S. Lewis puts it, “…both accounts are equally correct in different ways, or …both are equally wrong.”  Relating this conclusion in my life will definitely affect my perception of others. For example, one member of my family is in a situation in which he tells me about frequently.  I tell him that he is in sin, but his response is, “You just don’t understand.”  I normally take this response as something ridiculous, because it is my perspective as an observer.  I will now consider my brother’s situation as if I am in his shoes.  Though this thinking is somewhat unfamiliar to me, I do now believe that learning by experience is acceptable in given scenarios.