Archive for the ‘ Theology ’ Category

Building Narnia: Christians and War

from “God In The Dock,” a collection of essays by C.S. Lewis; the essay “Answers to Questions on Christianity.”

The Third Segment in the Building Narnia Review Series

In a series of questions, Mr. H.W. Bowen asked C.S. Lewis a particular question which I find to be a serious point of conflict within the spheres of Christian Ethics and Personal Identity.

H.W. Bowen – Christians are taught to love their neighbors. How, therefor, can they justify their attitude of support the war?

Lewis – You are told to love your neighbor as yourself. How do you love yourself? When I look into my own mind, I find that I do not love myself by thinking myself a dear old chap or having affectionate feelings. I do not think I love myself because I am particularly good, but, just because I am myself and quite apart from my character. I might detest something which I have done. Nevertheless, I may not cease to love myself. In other words, the definite distinctions that Christians make between hating sin and loving the sinner is one you have been making in your own case since the day you were born. You dislike what you have done, but, you don’t cease to love yourself. You may even think you ought to be hanged. You may even think you ought to go to the Police, own up, and be hanged. Love is not an affectionate feeling, but, a steady wish for the Loved One’s good as far as it can be obtained. It seems to me, therefor, that when the worse comes to worst and you can not restrain a man from doing harm by anything less than killing him, then a Christian must do that. That is my answer. I may be wrong. It is very difficult to answer.

(Op-Ed) And he’s right. It’s a very difficult question to answer.It’s a veritable can-of-worms. It’s difficult enough to wade through the hogwash of so many different opinions and ideals surrounding the question. You have Zionism, just-war, Tolstoyans, pacifism, supremacists, and a whole other slough of beliefs. It’s sometimes hard to remember in practicality what Jesus asked of Christians, Jews, and all people regarding murder and warfare. Do we settle for what Lewis says regarding “loving thy neighbor” or do we slide to the right and hardline with “what is right is right” or do we hang left and accept all that occurs and take the evil or harm as it comes? Why do we even need to think in those terms? What ultimate harm can another do that we feel the need to kill him? Will he kill us? If so, what is the nature of death and afterlife? Then… War? What about the Old Testament’s view of divinely inspired warfare and conquest? What about Jesus and the New Testament? What of passive-resistance? What is right? What is true?

See – Can o’ Worms.

Here is what I can safely assume we all know: we shouldn’t kill and we shouldn’t engage in unjust war.

Now, here is my opinion, and I mean strictly opinion. I claim to be neither educated on the subject at large or small, nor do I think that I would be better able to answer this great debate in so many small words if I were.

All ends in dust. Nothing on this earth is forever. What matters is our hearts and our actions. Small goods may cause large ripples over history and with that in mind no act is too small. I don’t believe we should wage an unrighteous war and I’m not even sure waging war in “self-defense” is ultimately worthy, either. All I know is that if I saw someone attacking or harming one I loved or even a complete stranger I would rush to their rescue if I was able and subdue the danger in any way possible. Does this mean killing a person? That, I do not know. I know that many soldiers feel conflict when in battle between their faith and duty to state. I would expect to be confused in such a situation. Hence, the importance of our heart. God knows it. I feel like we were all just put here to fart around and do the best we can. In those moments when we may be scared, confused, tense, or angry – in those moments when we may do something we regret or resent – that we may join in war or take the life of another who would harm our child or wives – all we can do in honesty is be as good as possible in our decisions and motives. It really is that simple in my mind. Now, I am not saying we shouldn’t disregard other modifiers, but, God knows our hearts. He will judge. The only truth I can know for certain is if we were all loving our neighbors from the get-go, then we wouldn’t need to worry about all this, no?

I fear this will be an unsatisfactory response and I make no claims that it is correct. This problem raises many questions and many conflicts (which… is a little redundant. Ha).

Friends, readers, layman, and theologians… add to the discussion. Bring in your voices. How can we answer this question and the others it raises?

Share
2011
04/27
POSTED BY
CATEGORY
Books
Culture
Theology
TAGS



Write comment

Building Narnia: The Great Divorce

The second addition to the C.S. Lewis review series: Building Narnia

Lewis’ famous quote, “Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither,” echoes throughout this work of fantasy written about the choices people make that keep them from accepting Heaven. A speculative fiction written in response to Blake’s “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell,” Lewis’ aim was not to arouse curiosity in the afterlife, nor to depict it in any actual sense. This work is full of allusions and citations from various famous resources and works, and contains a good many literary easter egg. You’ll find that references to the works of St. Augustine, John Milton’s Paradise Lost, Dante, Swedenborg, Lewis Carrol, George MacDonald, and John Bunyan abound throughout the tale. Lewis even takes the time to mention Aristotle in a disdainful way.

In order to understand the style of the story and the method of which Lewis conveys the moral of his tale, one must first gain a simple and brief understanding of Blake’s work. In his most influential work, Blake establishes a relationship of a “stable” and “totalitarian” Heaven and a “energized” and “Dionysian” Hell. Blake wrote his tale in response to Swedenborg’s Manichean view, weaving into existence a depolarized and unified vision of the cosmos, where all that encompasses Sin is, in fact, a part of the divine order. Hence, the Marriage. Lewis takes and allows the unified concept; yet, at the same time, he draws the borders of Heaven and Hell within Man’s own nature. The battle of the Divorce courts ultimately lies in the hearts and decisions of people.

Next, let us touch on the story itself. The Narrator, presumably Lewis, finds himself in the “Grey Town.” It is a place of mean and empty streets and perpetual twilight, where it is believed to be dawn or dusk, depending on the nature and hopes or fears of who you ask. It is later revealed that the Town is either Hell or Purgatory depending on the decisions that the souls make. Our narrator finds himself in an impossibly long queue at a bus station after a long and dispiriting journey through the city. Here, he witnesses others commit acts of violence, treachery, and deceit to gain position in the line, where likewise he watches people leave of their own accord due to stubbornness, impatience, lifestyle choice (I’m assuming he meant to comment on the salvation of homosexuals with this one)or mere frustration. It’s revealed that most people don’t know where this bus is going and those that do look to either exploit the destination, feel entitled to it, or look with elitist disfavor upon the others in the line. Eventually, the length of the wait is culled down to manageable level. This was all for no reason, for when the narrator finally boards the bus, he finds that less than half of the occupancy is filled.

While on the bus, he converses with a few of the other travelers. The sins of greed, pride, envy, and vanity come into play as foreshadowing of future events. One such sinful character explains the nature of the Grey Town to the narrator, saying that all people living there continuously move away from each other, falsely fulfill their every need on a mere wish, though their houses keep out no rain, the food cures no hunger, and the drink slakes no thirst. He speaks of how the people staying in the town grow to despise each other, quarrel ceaselessly, and keep moving away from each other until there’s no one within a million miles of another.

After a time, the bus finally brings them to the foothills of Heaven, depicted as an endless green country under a slow sunrise, full of streams, forests, fields, glades, and astonishing beauty. It also reveals the travelers to be ghosts. Such ghosts, that they can not change even the most minute detail of Heaven, such as walking on grass or lifting a leaf without the utmost pain. This speaks of the idea that Hell can not change Heaven. During some short time, it becomes clear that solid people are approaching: the spirits. They turn out to be men and women that the ghosts have known on Earth. The purpose of these Spirits is to convince the ghosts to let go of whatever Sin or emotion they hold on to that keeps them from achieving Heaven. Lewis’ mentor, George MacDonald, plays Dante’s Virgil to the narrator, explaining that these people can make the fundamental decision to allow Heaven to have become an extension of their time on Earth or reversely, Hell. This reveals the basis of Lewis’ tenet that we all must give up ourselves completely if we are ever to attain Heaven. The story wraps up with most of the ghosts denying Heaven, the revelation turning out to be a dream, and Lewis waking up during an air raid in London.

The morality of the tale may seem pretty simple to understand on the surface, but let’s dive deeper into the waters. In looking at his preface, you’ll see that Lewis criticizes the mindset that somehow, through compromise and avoiding to renounce yourself and Earth for God, you will still be allowed to retain Heaven. “You can not take all your luggage with you. On one journey, your right hand and right eye may be among the things you need to leave behind.”

He believes we’re not living in a world of circles, where if one wanders along the same path his whole life, he’ll eventually come back to a place that is reconcilable. Rather, much like the roads of the real world, every decision we make splits us off onto a new fork in the road, and that, though it may be hard and require a large amount of backtracking, we must do so if we can hope to retain grace. He goes further to say that it isn’t even enough to be merely a good person or how benevolent or malevolent we are in life is even a slight determining factor. It’s all in the heart. He makes this claim not under the basis of God rejecting us if we do not follow the right path. He claims that unless we put ourselves to right, we will be the ones who reject God. “If we accept Heaven, we shall not be able to retain even the simplest souvenirs of Hell or Earth.” Lewis feels that even in our most depraved wishes we are searching for a part of Heaven and that those things that we desired on Earth will be revealed to us in abundance in Heaven.

To expound further, Lewis illustrates throughout the interactions of the Spirits and the Ghosts in the story that Heaven and Hell are also the relinquishing of a mindset or resigning oneself to one in their own right. Heaven is the “opening-up” and acceptance of love, peace, etc. It is a learning experience in which we truly learn to love and are corrected; made perfect. Hell, on the other hand, is the closing up, the narrow-mindedness which disavows grace and love of God. The locking-up of the mind and retreating into one’s self denies reality and therefor, makes it Hell. Lewis does allow for hope, however, stating that the higher one becomes; the lower one can go, even down into Hell, and that Jesus had been the one to preach to all the souls lost there. So, even a man who “hates goodness,” has a chance at salvation at the End.
However, Lewis also gives several warnings. He calls out against narrow-mindedness and fanaticism by saying that, with these attitudes, even the greatest of works or ideas bear spoiled fruit.

To illustrate – “There have been men before now who got so interested in proving the existence of God that they came to care nothing for God Himself… as if the good Lord had nothing to do but exist! There have been some who were so occupied in spreading Christianity they never gave a thought to Christ. Man! Ye see it in smaller matters. Did ye never know a lover of books that with all his first editions and signed copies had lost the power to read them? Or an organizer of charities that had lost all love for the poor? It is the subtlest of snares.”

He warns against Universalism, perhaps his most heavily rallied against topic of discussion, in a lengthy-dialogue that can be summed up with the line, “Every disease that submits to a cure shall be cured: but we will not call blue yellow to please those that insist on still having jaundice, nor make a midden of the world’s garden for the sake of some who cannot abide the smell of roses.” His final warning is against those that would be falsely merciful towards others, which is little better than an act of blackmail in itself.

Lewis’ final message was one of how to live or more importantly…how to feel. He calls us to love, for love is Heaven and to deny love is, in essence, Hell. “You can not truly love until you love God.” This is one of the most important concepts of the story. It reinforces everything for which he makes a case: the nature of Heaven and Hell, the nature of the Human spirit, and the nature of the Human mind.

On the all and all, the Divorce was an enjoyably light read, yet was packed full of morality. The layers of each interaction can be read and re-read, still allowing for the observant reader to take away fresh commentary and new lesson.

Share
2011
03/31
POSTED BY
CATEGORY
Books
Culture
Theology
TAGS


Write comment

Two Trees

A bit of a disclaimer: I wrote this in my journal. This was only written so I would remember it. Nick read over it and felt it might be a good idea to post it, though I was a bit hesitant because I did not really plan on saying this to anyone in the format it is written. Like I said, It was really just written to myself to get the ideas out of my head. I guess I say all that to ask any reader to excuse any grammar, and syntax issues.  I am a notorious run-on sentence-o-neer, especially when I am feverishly trying to get an idea out. But, maybe some of you will find something of worth in these thoughts.

The more I study world religions, the more commonalities I find. An interesting trend I seem to notice is the dichotomy between two prevailing philosophies. On one side, there is an almost undeniable ubiquitous quality in every religion (for sake of this entry I’ll call this one “religion A”) being: There is one “All” or “cause” or “supreme being” that all creation (I use that term loosely in this philosophy, for a better term may be “bending” or “morphing”) emanates from. Hinduism’s “Brahman” Buddhism’s “Nirvana” (I mean that in its absolute end sense.) Various Egyptian cults, Thoth, to Hermetic circles (“the all”) (Hermes even being a transliteration/adoption of Thoth. The Greeks believed them to be one in the same.) To various Illuminated fraternities, (Theosophy’s research Madame Blavotsky” who interestingly enough learned most of her new age religion mixing from the “secret doctrines” from tibetan monks.) ushering humankind into its highest self and thus creating a paradoxical cycle of creation. Fully ascended man being the architect of his own creation. This, also a bit eery to me, sounds much like modern humanistic social gospel (I mean that in its purely humanistic sense, not the ushering in of the kingdom of God on Earth by Christ lived out in our lives version of the words “social gospel”, but the crafting of it by man alone: i.e. the crusades, the Spanish attempt at pillaging the new world to fund the infrastructure of a new world (King Ferdinand allegedly planned to hand the keys of Spain to Christ after “Christianizing the world.”)) even modern almost hedonistic philosophies via Aleister Crowley, or Anton LaVey. (“do as thou wilt”) The idea seems to be, we are expressions OF/and ARE the all-mighty and the ego is in some way a “false self.” (even within some circles of mystical Islam and esoterically “illuminated”  or “gnostic” Christianity you find belief that, God is the real “self” and that the Ego or Atma is an illusion. Though, the language changes to fit the various contexts.)

The over arching mythologies, cosmologies, and cosmogeneses seem roughly equivocal throughout both of these prevailing philosophies , i.e. Grand architect god creates hierarchy of spirit beings or splits into higher self expressions, then into lower physical expressions, etc. At least they are the same in the large picture .(Cause (God) forms other things.)
Religion B however, is unique in one large respect (this may make sense for my above exhaustive semantic specificity when distinguishing between the terms “form” or “create” and that of the terms “split” or “emanate.”)
While in Religion A we are, if you trace our lineage back far enough, in fact, God. We are Gods consciousness split into separate personalities. This is in every philosophy or understanding within the category I call “religion A” it is almost eerily similar throughout. The idea that we, at the core, are in fact God. This is where Religion B distinguishes itself. The largest most clear example in my opinion is that of the teachings of Christ. There is a specification on the love of the other, within Christ-centric teachings. “love your neighbor AS yourself.” is a huge distinction from “love yourself within your neighbor.”
In religion B we are not God. We are other, CREATED by God.

This idea in my opinion makes completion of the notion that God IS Love. If true Love is in fact “laying down one’s life” or “rejecting the self” this is only possible if the object receiving such gift is in fact NOT the self. If you are being selfless to you in another form, (say your reflection in a mirror or your own limbs.) you are not being selfless. If God split himself into several personalities, and then loved those separate personalities, he is the divine narcissist. He is SELF love. But, his Love could be made complete by the CREATION of the other. If he created separate wills from that of his own, and gave them the free operation of will to choose, then he finds an object of completing his love. Its not selfish in the sense that he needed to Love to achieve some goal. But if God IS Love and Love IS the preference of another over the self, then a necessary eventuality of God’s existence as Love is the creation of the recipient. This Idea, I have almost Exclusively found within the teachings of Christ  and the prophets of the old testament. (though the notion that God created differing wills then that of his own, that exist in distinction to his/hers exists within several circles of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.) In religion A, God, in my opinion, is self serving. He is basically holding a prism to his own light, splitting himself into parts, and then loving each of his own parts. It is self serving. But if God is Love, then the creation of the Other makes His Love perfect and complete. He gains nothing by loving his creation which is by nature less then the creator. So his Love is complete.
Religion group A: We are emanations of God. We ARE God split into separate personalities, but we are truly God. God loves us, but because we ARE God he/she really is in love with him/herself.

Religion group B: We are something distinct created by God. We are objects of affection. God loves something that is NOT him/herself.

It is a side note as well to me that the prevailing dichotomy within these philosophies seems to have its grounds in the biblical account of Adam and Eve. The serpent tells Them that “they will be as gods.” This idea seems to be the grand deception (if Christ is correct.) Religion A uses all of the same mechanical mythos and legend as religion B, but with one twist, if you follow it to its ends, we ARE God.

The Salvation that Christ offers has many layers that seem to hint at and validate the notion that man is not God.)
1st John 5:13 talks about believing in the name of the son of God. Further investigation into this yields several interesting results

“The name Yehoshua has the form of a compound of “Yeho-” and “shua”: Yeho- יְהוֹ is another form of יָהו Yahu, a theophoric element standing for the personal name of God YHWH, and שׁוּעַ shua‘ is a noun meaning “a cry for help”, “a saving cry” that is to say, a shout given when in need of rescue. Together, the name would then literally mean, “God is a saving-cry,” that is to say, shout to God when in need of help.”

The name of the son “Yeshua” being a “plea” to God seems to imply a distinction. The primary philosophy I keep seeing in Christ’s teachings is this notion of “taking up your cross” (the denial of self.) and following him. (implying a distinction between self and Christ.) He often critiques the thought of working to obtain righteousness (see the various interactions with pharisees “white washed tombs” etc.) and stresses the idea that salvation comes from God and is free to those who ask. I think one necessary understanding key to this shift he calls “repentance” is the idea: “on my own, I cannot achieve salvation. I need the help of God.” (the name being a plea to God seems to make much more sense with this understanding.) If we ARE God, on any level, the help we need comes from within (sound eerily similar to “new age” or “self help” philosophies permeating western thought. Which as a side note seems more and more to me to be hermetically founded verses the notion that it is Judeo-Christian in nature. The Rosicrucians and Free-Masons have heavy ties in Hermeticism.) But if we are distinct in nature, we would need help from God. This, in my opinion, is the primary philosophical/spiritual paradigm shift in the teachings of Christ. The denial of self via acceptance of the impossibility of crafting one’s own righteousness or perfection, and the willingness to be helped by God. This would make total sense of why God-incarnate found such favor in the poor and the weak. They are willing to ask for help. They know they are not enough on their own, they need aid. Also children in that context are dependent on their parents. They come FROM their parents, and are distinct in nature to their parents, thus, needing their parents to survive. If a Child was just an expression of the parent (which I believe they are, but I also believe they are distinct.) upon the child’s realization that he is in fact his own father, would cease to need the fathers aid. I think this is how Christ could BE God, but also distinct. Jesus would be the only emanation from God in this understanding. “The word of God.” Jesus says this as well “6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.”  the idea that man is an expression of his progenitors (our genes come from our parents.) and Christ is the expression of HIS progenitor; God. (Making sense of the son title.) He goes on to say that unless you are born of the spirit you cannot enter the kingdom of God. There is a beautiful dance going on here: Man is separate and distinct, It had to be so that he could be an object of Love, but God desires oneness with man, so He offers him adoption. If man is the expression of man, and Christ the expression of God, then why not have them marry and birth something new? The church! So you have oneness WITH distinction in this philosophy. The intermingling of two distinct gene pools. One side (man) gains the lineage of God, while God takes on the awfulness and sin of man. In any case, this all is only made possible by the created separation of man from God. Union can only exist between two or more distincts.

Share
2011
03/24
POSTED BY
CATEGORY
Ecumenical
Religion
Theology
TAGS

3 comments