That's all

C. S. Lewis asked wrote about some serious issues. He raised more questions than he proposed answers. What answers did you find in your personal faith that Lewis helped you in through out this course?

God the Father

One thing that I've thought about for some time and even more in this class is what God looks like to me. God is an all powerful thing that has no equal and is entirely good. I remember my parents looking the same way to me when I was a child. I propose that God is a parent. God is a true parent. He takes care of us, teaches us, punishes us in hopes that we learn and grow and it's all done out of love. I see a parent doing the same thing. I'm curious to find what others think about this.

So, we have read several works by C.S. Lewis and the other Inklings, I'm curious to find out what everyone's favorite book was. My favorite book was The Great Divorce. I really enjoyed all the imagery dealing with those that have given their lives to God. They are fuller people than those that are lost within themselves and their desires. So, what does everyone think?

The amazing Blog, no one will ever read.

I would like to right an amendment blog to one I have previously written. It turns out there was a section in Four Loves that I came across while writing my final paper that answers a question I posed about God and Need love, and it turns out Lewis was way ahead of me and I must say I agree with him.
He says of our need love for God, basically that we are foul weather fans, when we need God we cry out to Him, but the instant that our life gets back on track we leave the religiosity we had clung to and go back to our normal lives. I think this is true, and something we always seem to do, but Lewis points out, that the need for God never goes away, only our realization of it. How amazingly awesome was this man guys? He was totally right, as I sit here, pulling an all nighter to get this final paper to were I want it to be, and taking a “study break” to write this blog post, I’m thinking how can I refocus my life on how I need God today? Because it says so so so many times in the bible that God strength is shown through our weakness. I don’t have to be strong, I don’t have to know all the answers, I can just trust that God does, and there can be part of my need. Although if at this point He could grant me a little bit more energy that doesn’t come from a glass bottle that would be nice too.
So yeah there is a question I will take with me from this class, were do I need God today? Because, I should always recognize my need love for Him, because He is my Creator and my Lord. And all God’s people said Amen.

P.S.
I love the quote “The Devil was sick, the Devil a monk would be.” Totally priceless.

Mine!

The notion of ownership in America is incredibly skewed. No, not skewed. Our notion of ownership is purely mistaken. We, as human inhabitants of this earth, cannot own any material good, any time, or any right. We are supposed to act as biblical stewards in regards to possessions, we operate inside of God's created time, and what rights we presume to have are merely granted us by the societies we live in. Therefore, any combination of suppositions as ridiculous as "I have a right to leisure time" is embraced by Satan's forces. In The Screwtape Letters, Uncle Screwtape affectionately encourages Wormwood to encourage such socially constructed assumptions in his patient.

In designing The Screwtape Letters, Lewis seemingly drew upon observable destructive Christian practices, and based demonic encouragements upon these common negative habits. I think he observed the fact that false belief in our earthly ownership affected Christians negatively and inferred that demons would greatly enjoy us to continue to believe that we can own anything on this earth.

As always, I think we need to examine our suppositions. I think we need to analyze our ideologies. I think we need to think realistically about counter-cultural Christianity.

The Last...sigh...

My friends, the end has come, and since this is about a day and a half late, it's probably the last one to be posted. But I just wanted to say, for those still reading, that it's been a pleasure to read and sit and think with all of you. Anyway, back to the post:

So the very last chapter: Probably my favorite of the whole book. Here we see what happens when the patient dies and chooses to go with God. My favorite line is probably, "You die and die and then you are beyond death. How could I ever have doubted it?"

My only issue with this part and, well, the whole book, is that the angels and demons can't see each other until the very end of the human's life. Maybe that's far from the point, but we see examples in the Bible of angels and demons knowing each other's names and wrestling against each other over countries, or rulers, etc. And the whole book kind of alludes to the idea that one side can't see the other, but then at the very end, it's like everyone's eyes are opened, not just the human's. And somehow I don't know if I believe that humans have that kind of...I don't know... power?

It's obvious that I really liked this book if I had to stretch that far just to come up with something I didn't agree with. In fact, I'd say that this has definitely jumped up to one of my favorite books of all time. I've read it once before, but I was too young to get most of it. So this time actually felt like the first time, and wow, I was blown away. I must say that a lot of times (almost the entire book) I felt like Screwtape and Wormwood were discussing what to do with ME. I think me and that patient have a lot in common.

Anyway, thanks for a great semester and to whomever is still reading (probably just you, Dr. Jensen), I look forward to taking more classes with you in the future!

Shalom!

Taylor

Screwtape in general . . .

I have been struggling for a while now, trying to find something to blog about over Screwtape. I have officially given up trying - there is no "one specific moment" in the entire book that I wish to pull out and study. So instead, I have decided to blog about the book in general.

I had never read Screwtape before this class. At first, I was a bit confused. (This will give away my blonde-ness . . .) I neglected to read the back of the book for a synopsis, and combined with no prior knowledge of this book, it made me think that Lewis had an uncle named Screwtape and that this book was going to be a type of correspondence series between Lewis and his uncle. Understandably, I thought at the beginning that I was getting a whole new side of Lewis. Then I read the back cover. :) That changed everything!

I was able to really get into my reading once I was reading it from the correct perspective. The imagery in this book is amazing! Chapter after chapter, I could picture everything Lewis was trying to portray.

I especially enjoyed the imagery of God and Satan being in battle over "my" (used as a general term here) soul. I had always thought of temptations being directly invented by Satan. This newfound knowledge of temptations being deviations of something God created as good has really changed my views. Isn't it interesting what Satan can use to bring us away from God? Something such as unselfishness can be twisted and made into a characteristic to be used to Satan's advantage!

I just really enjoyed this entire novel and the class discussions that went with it. I may not have talked much (ok, at all) in class, but I really enjoyed being there and listening to what the rest of you had to say about it.

The woman in Letter 22

I have been thinking a lot lately about this woman in Chapter 22, and first off I would love to be a woman described as such, and second I want to be her best friend. She seems to fit amazingly well with my views about what it says in Genesis that it was not right for man to be alone, and so God made an Ezer Kenegdo or life savor, comforter, and helper. The demons seem scared of her, which says that maybe Lewis thought a woman could help encourage a man to stay on the strait and narrow path that leads to God.
Chapter 22 in Screwtape goes very in depth into the type of woman that Wormwood’s patient fell in love with. She is described as being the kind of girl that just reeks of Christianity, and that it rubs off on everyone she comes in contact with and that and that would probably even more so be true of her husband/boyfriend. Screwtape all but said that “Filthy insipid little prude-and yet ready to fall into this booby’s arms like any other breeding animal. Why doesn’t the Enemy blast her for it, if He’s so moonstruck by virginity-instead of looking on there, grinning?” (Lewis)
This doesn’t keep completely with what Paul says in 1 Corinthians chapter 7. The letter says that a woman would distract a man from God, but this letter seems to make a woman sound like she is possible to help him to focus on God. I think that this is a high task to live up to, but it would probably be an amazing thing to try to strive for, but also makes me feel

A Very Present Darkness

While one of my primary contentions with some authors is their depersonalization of evil, Lewis exposes darkness as a living reality. His account of Screwtape and Wormwood puts flesh upon Ephesians 6:12: “…we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” Again unlike authors who would explain evil by an evolutionary process or other reasoning, Lewis traces the origin of evil to Lucifer’s rebellion against God and suggests that in His omnipotent sovereignty, God foresaw the pain that humans would cost Him but loved them enough to begin the story anyway.

Although Lewis leaves many questions unanswered in his portrayal of demonic forces, I agree with his portrait of a living, breathing evil. While this may seem like a predictably Christian response to one of Christianity’s greatest authors, Lewis creates an image that allows me to better grapple with the evil I see in the world. Rather than thinking of evil as a meaninglessly corrupted form of original creation or solely as a means to greater intimacy with God, the problem of evil makes more sense when I view it as a living force temporarily operating under the umbrella of God’s sovereignty. Moreover, I find that Lewis’ portrayal of an active evil largely agrees with the Biblical depiction of darkness. As John 10:10 delineates, “The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.” When I survey the splay of evil in the world today, I see an enemy at large – thieving, raping, destroying. Though I am deeply troubled by evil’s current reign, I believe it operates on a temporary condition of divine allowance, and somehow, this allowance will ultimately be used for the good and glory of God’s purpose.

Despite all the above, my general agreement with Lewis does not ameliorate my contentions with him. For example, the Letters suggest that evil has unrestricted access to and nearly omniscient knowledge of the human heart and mind. While “the Enemy” has tactics that leave demons bewildered or paralyzed, darkness actively exploits its knowledge of humans in temptation. Does God truly allow evil this much knowledge? Moreover, what does Lewis’ argument imply of human responsibility if all bad action and thought can be traced to demonic influence? To what extent is the free will free? Furthermore, Lewis raises questions for me about how God ministers to individuals in temptation. Where is the divine line between testing and trial? How does this reflect upon God’s justice? These are several of many wonderings that I am left to ponder at Screwtape’s final signature, but ultimately, Lewis’ image of a very present darkness is too compelling for me to deny.

Time...

I really liked the part in Screwtape Letters where Screwtape writes about Time. He encourages his nephew to make the "patient" think he owns his own time. That "we humans" can manage our own time-- forgetting that it is God who gave us the time to begin with. Time is something we all grapple with, and I've been really challenged to think about Time in my devotional this year. We so often complain that we don't have enough time, or we can't do something because we don't have time. Funny, but I think we DO have time, we just aren't using it properly. If we used the time God gave us, we would, so to speak, have much more time to accomplish what we need. When working to glorify God, we have plenty of time, but when we get caught up in our "own time" we lose the ability to "have time." It's an interesting thing to think about. It just really struck a chord within me.

Although Lewis and I have had many butting of heads moments, he has made me think about what is important, and what I believe. He didn't fail to do so with the Screwtape Letters.

My last post is short and sweet--but that's okay :)

Time is not on our side (contrary to the stones)

I think one of my favorite letters from the Screwtape Letters is 28. In this letter Screwtape is scolding his nephew for being happy about the bombing that is supposed to happen in the town where his client is at. Screwtape wants Wormwood to keep his patient alive because he is in the enemies' hands at that time and if he dies he will go to heaven, but if they buy time then there could be a chance to get him to turn away from the enemy (God).
He goes on to say that the longer people stay in the world, the more the world grows on them, and the more attached and comfortable people get in the world. This is why younger people are less unwilling to die than the aged and old people.
I like this because it seems that Lewis is giving homage to the youth. I feel that the world tells us to "be safe" and to "grow up" sometimes but in this letter , that is not what God wants. And I think I agree. I think that God asks us to be unsafe and irrational pretty often.
Quotes like, "Even if we contrive to keep them ignorant of explicit religion, the incalculable winds of fantesies and music and poetry- the mere face of a girl, the song of a bird. or the sight of a horizon- are always blowing our whole structure away. They will not apply themselves steadily to the worldly advancement." Make me believe that God wants the young at heart. He wants us to be whimsical and young so that we do not get attached to the earth that our spirits do not belong in. We need to keep our souls young so that when we hear that song, see that face, or look at that sunset, we can see the beauty of God. The question is, is this possible? Can we keep our hearts young so that we do not grow as attached to this world?

PS. I am post 200

Screwtape and the American Dream

I'm not sure what I think about Screwtape's idea of democracy. Well, the ideas that the book conveys that may apply to the way we think of our democracy.

Is it true that democracy can put everyone on an equal playing field; however, not by elevating the weak but by degrading the strong? Who is the enemy here? The people who work hard and are rewarded for it? Certainly not. That's the American Dream, that each American should have the opportunity and freedom to work hard and be able to pursue happiness (to go from being homeless to a stock broker organizing multi-million dollar deals, like in The Pursuit of Happyness), to break through the barriers of other people's prejudices against one's race, creed, sex, etc. to achieve one's goals. What we are told in movies and books is that our democracy makes that Dream possible--that each individual can become exceptional with hard work (or even just luck).

But is that how it really works? The caveat in this whole idea is that it should be available to everyone . Everyone should be a millionaire if they want to; however, we all know that that's just not possible, and if it was, it would be pointless if you had no more than anyone else. So what situation does that leave us in? Is it like Screwtape describes, we begin to envy everyone who was able to make that Dream a reality when we were not? Do we wish, as Americans in general, to keep everyone at a lower level in order to make ourselves all right with our own possible laziness, the times we'd rather watch television than go to an opera or read Aristotle?

In trying to not be prejudiced, have we become prejudiced against intelligence, success, morality? I'm sure most Americans would never admit that. And, if so, where does that leave people who really want to be better? Maybe we are too afraid of our own inadequacies, or maybe hate is too tempting...

All Done

Wow, that is all i can say about this book, is wow, Lewis once again writes another great book, i found myself drawn to letter number 21 and the passage found on page 114 " We "humans" produce this sense of ownership not only by pride but by confusion . . . my boots, through my dog, my country even to my God, They cant be taught to reduce all these senses to that of my boots, the my ownership, and to say my God in a sense not really very different from my boots, mean the god on who i have claim for my distinguished services and who i exploit from the pulpit. I think Lewis brings up a valid idea here to we unknowingly call God my God , or in a situation where you met someone of a different faith would you refer to him as my God or our God, in a sense this is silly, but honestly take a look, who are you to claim him.

I've really enjoyed the readings of C.S. Lewis. Growing up I had the mentality that my God was powerful, my God was all knowing, but was my God really without struggle?

Growing up, I was taught that God was constantly in battle with Satan. I came to believe that Satan was an evil that was equal to God's holiness. I've come to believe in my later years, that God has no equal. God is the one with the plan and that everything will be alright in the end, because God is the most powerful and because he is the all knowing. I've really enjoyed reading these books, because they focus on God's struggles, but not of power. They show that God struggles to return us back to the flock. He loves us so much, that He struggles and fights for us, even when we turn away.

The books focus on our decision, but not once does it show that God is lacking. God chooses to allow us to make mistakes. There is a lot to look into, but what do you all think about God's struggle? I enjoy that it isn't portrayed in the way that I grew up with. How was God's struggle portrayed with you all?

Final Thoughts

Hello! After we talked about everyone's favorite book in class, I thought I'd see what you all learned from the books. So here's the question I pose: what new thought or idea, philosophy or theology, did you guys find the most intriguing, different, wrong, etc.?

And for my blog, I thought I'd post mine. The most interesting new theological perspective for me was the one shown in The Great Divorce about who goes to Heaven and Hell and the idea that maybe after death comes, there are still chances. I had always been brought up with the idea that you get saved and go to Heaven or you don't and go to Hell. But then I always wrestled with the problems of losing salvation or people who don't hear it, etc. So I fell in love with Lewis' view portrayed in that book because it allows for Jesus' teachings and life to become the center again. Now, regardless of the technicalities, each person either lives the way God wants or doesn't, either focuses on God or others, or on his/herself. And that makes more sense when you start to think about all those "what if" scenarios. What if there's some remote tribe that never gets to hear the Gospel? What if a baby dies? What if someone commits suicide? What if someone is wrong about certain theologies, but gets the stuff most important to God right? And on and on...

So that was my favorite new idea. How about you?

Screwtape....

I have come to find myself, at numerous points throughout this class, walking a very interesting line. Part of me whole-heartily agrees with some Lewisian concept and thinks, “yes, finally!” while at the same time another part if arguing against the idea. For instance, the concept of Hell being chosen - something that begins on earth as someone turns away from God and desires self. Yes, I believe I resonate with this much more than I do with the idea of a fire-hole-like after life. However, I wonder, if Hell can be chosen by loving self and Heaven chosen by denying self, how powerful is the grace and salvation offered by God in this view?
This happened to me again as I was reading the Screwtape Letters. Though it may not at all be one of Lewis’ main concerns in writing the book - and he may have not thought much about it at all - I am wondering what is view of spiritual warfare is. I am not sure how everyone else views this matter but, I am not opposed to thinking that there is spiritual warfare. I think it is often seen in the Bible and have no reason to think it has not continued to present day. This I am in agreement with. However, there are times in the book where Lewis seems to be very dualistic. This does not settle well with me. There were moments when, it seemed, that the demons were very much battling God for a human soul, and it was not for certain which way the ball would fall. Now, I understand that we are supposed to take Screwtape for a liar in some points (though we are not directed as to where) and that we are only hearing it from one viewpoint - which might be very skewed. Still, I wonder what view Lewis was trying to portray. Anyone wish to weigh in?

This is it...

I just now realized that I am one blog short of eight, so here comes my last one! I want to talk about The Great Divorce again, so here goes.

In chapter 11, the narrator hears a conversation between a Ghost with the Lizard on his shoulder and the Angel. Eventually, the Angel destroys the Lizard and the Ghost is made solid and the Lizard turns into a horse.

The significance of this, I believe, is that the Ghost had to allow the Angel to intervene. This particular Ghost was rationalizing his sin (the Lizard) and refused to 'die' to his sin. That, afterall, is what hell is. When we live for ourselves and refuse to 'die to ourselves.' Obviously this person's sin was far too advanced, that he needed help. However, the Angel could not do all the work. The Ghost had to agree to it. As soon as the he uttered the words, the sin was removed. The Angel could not impose himself. God cannot impose his salvation over our lives before we surrender to it.

But at that moment we can be set free. When we die to ourselves, we are born again into a new and living hope, the hope of salvation and eternal life in the presence of God. It is never too late! Or is it? Some of the characters could not get on the bus. It was too late for them. They were too consumed by their own lives, that nothing else mattered. Some might say that no, there is a point where you are too far gone to come to Christ. I personally do not agree with that. Christ is always there for you to turn around to. So which is it? This Ghost made the right choice, but most didn't.

What is Your Motivation?

"For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience...Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that' only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilisations'. You see the little rift? 'Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.' That's the game." (p 127)

Throughout the course of reading this book I have discovered some very interesting things...but this information may be, in fact, one of the most thought-provoking ideas I have read.
The idea that we, as Christians, use God as a convenience is true...I believe. However, I think that there may be a thin line between using God as a convenience and 'conveniently' reaping the benefits that come with Christianity. Nevertheless, I do believe that Christianity is attractive to people for many reasons- not only for the one it should be- because it is true. So...how do we come to the mindset of viewing Christianity purely as truth?
I think a good example of choosing why to believe is represented in the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. With inductive reasoning you draw a conclusion- you are believing this because it is true- and then you see the evidence of its truth. However, when people use deductive reasoning they see the evidence and then draw the conclusion that it is true.
I obviously do not have the answers to this question...but I do have other questions. For example- Is it wrong to believe Christianity is true because of the evidence, instead of relying purely on faith? If so, what does this mean for people who promote Christianity and the good it brings to people's lives?
I suppose this question can only be answered individually- by looking inside at our own motivations.

Thoughts on Screwtape

I have always thought about the invisible war that is going on around us. The Bible says that we do not wrestle against flesh and blood but against prinicpalities and rulers of darkness. Books that I have read like Wild at Heart and This Present Darkness have fuled my minds curiosity about the spiritual war that cannot be seen but is felt within our hearts. I went in to reading Screwtape Letters with an eager expectation. Having read the book I feel like I understand the spiritual war better. Even if there is no way to really know. I feel that Lewis does a great job creating a likely scenario of how things really play out in that arena. I think Screwtape is a great book for all types of Christians. If we can strive to understand the demons (like Wormwood) and the stratagies they use to trip us up we can better understand whats going on inside and we can see those attacks coming before they hit. I also really appreciate how Lewis made a topic like this public. Call them out!! Show them for what they really are!!

Lead Us Not

In Letter 31, Screwtape writes "How well I know what happened at the instant when they snatched him from you! There was a sudden clearing of his eyes (was there not?) as he saw you for the first time, and recognised the part you had in him and knew that you had it no longer." These sentences really made me think and reflect on my own life. Right before I die, will I see the demons that have been tempting and haunting me all my life? Will I fear them or will I be relieved? Will I be able to recognize them, or at least some of them, before my death? Do I really think there is a demon "assigned" to me that is always with me trying to make me do bad things? No, but I believe there are forces at work that are doing just that. Temptations come in all different shapes in sizes, from people to chocolate cake and everything in between. We pray the words "and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." all the time, but how often do we stop to think about those words? We don't need extra help to sin, because we do that naturally. But to be good we do need help, help that can only come from God.

Pleasures

"Never forget that when we are dealing with any pleasure in its healthy and normal and satisfying form, we are, in a sense, on the Enemy's ground. I know we have won many a soul through pleasure. All the same, it is His invention, not ours. He made the pleasures: all our research so far has not enabled us to produce one." Uncle Screwtape, Letter 9

When I read this, I had to sit back and remember that God has created and made everything for us. Every thing that is, has been created by God. Satan cannot create anything. I guess I tend to associated temptations and pleasures with Satan, which I think is accurate, but he is not responsible for them. God has given us many things that Satan twists and turns into something used for evil.

This letter, and this book, affirms what I have picked up from some of the other CS Lewis works. What we perceive as evil or bad is a distortion of what is good. God gave us love, but Orual's love was twisted. Many of the characters from the Grey Town in the Great Divorce had twisted concepts of love and their meaning in the world.

I guess what I am getting at is that we should not necessarily fear evil, but be mindful of the good that can so easily be turned and twisted and lead to our dimise. Love is a perfect example that we have seen in previous works. Gluttony is another example. Food is a good thing! Our bodies need it, but too much of it is a sin?! Something good can be used for evil. After thinking about this, I feel as though I am walking on my toes, always on my guard. Is this good thing becoming something evil in my life?

We all know that God can use the bad in the world for good, but then Satan can use the good in the world for evil. This brings up the issue of how much power does Satan really have? Equal power like Frank Peretti’s says in This Present Darkness or limited power? That is a whole other topic to be saved for a rainy day...

power struggle

In class on Wednesday we talked about the very limited power of demons described in The Screwtape Letters and the contrast found in Frank Peretti’s book, This Present Darkness, where demons seem to have almost equal power as angels over the people and events of this world. I wonder which depiction is more accurate. We know from Revelations that God has the ultimate authority in heaven and on earth, but how much power earthly power does he allow Satan to have here and now? I am reminded on Ephesians 6:12 which says, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realm.” This verse makes it sound like Satan does have a considerable amount of power, but at the same time, Christ tells his disciples in Matthew 28:18, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” I guess it’s just weird to me to think that there is a balance of power on this earth between good and evil, but at the same time, evil only has power because God allows it to have power.

Mine

As I sit here staring at my computer screen wondering what to reflect on and knowing I have only 20 minutes to make up my mind, I recall that Screwtape mentions in one of his letters (XXI) the human tendency to place ownership on time. Even now I feel as though I must finish this blog post so that I can move on to doing the things I would rather do with "my" time. I am only too quick to believe that "my time is my own," and that I actually have the right to spend 24 hours of each day in my own way.

We wake up each morning, fully expecting that the plans we have can and should be executed in whatever manner we have in mind. When our time is our own we are fiercely possessive of it. Thus we are easily angered by things, people and situations that interfere. As Screwtape observes, "nothings throws [us] into a passion so easily as to find a tract of time which [we] reckoned on having at [our] own disposal unexpectedly taken from [us]." Why are we so upset by red lights? By waiting in line? By unexpected meetings or last minute assignments? Because they aren't a part of our day as we planned it and they take up time we could be spending doing something more egocentric.

Not only are we "put out" when things don't go as planned, but we can become downright hostile and angry, depending on how closely we cling to our schedules. "The more claims on life, therefore, that your patient can be induced to make," Screwtape tells his nephew, "the more often he will feel injured and, as a result, ill-tempered." I can give countless examples from my own life of when unexpected demands on my time have sent me into mental fits of rage. I want to make lunch and the sink is full of dishes. If it is "my turn" to do them, if I have planned them into my day, this isn't a problem. However, if I did not plan on doing them, the 15 minutes I spend washing the dishes I am livid with my roommates. A demand has been made on "my time," which I feel is being stolen from me.

We rarely recognize that we "can neither make, nor retain, one moment of time" and that "it all comes to [us] by pure gift." Screwtape goes on to posit that if we Christians who claim to live in service to God, were asked to really "give" him a full 24 hours of time (which doesn't belong to us in the first place), we would not hesitate. In fact, we would be relieved to the point of disappointment if allowed to spend any of that time amusing ourselves. We would be honored to give our time, to serve in whatever capacity. The time spent in random conversations, at stop lights, attending meetings, doing dishes and the like would no longer be taken from us, because it would not really belong to us, but to God. Screwtape points out that, if we were to really think about this for even a moment, we would be bound to realize that this is in fact the situation every day of our lives. Each day we live is not "ours," but is really God's.

How drastically my perspectives, and indeed my actions, would change if I lived with this mindset. Where do I get off thinking that I own my time, my body, my abilities? I did not make them. I can not make them. They do not belong to me. I selfishly wish such things had not been revealed to me, for now I must really rethink how I go about viewing my (or rather God's) time.

Real

In letter 30, Screwtape reminds Wormwood that they have worked for years to successfully confuse humans about the meaning of the word ‘real’. He talks about how Christians think they have a real spiritual experience when really it is the lighting and music in a room, playing on their emotions. He describes how a person says you can ‘really’ only experience a high dive by going off it, not by simply seeing the realness of its physical height. He goes on to talk about how it is beneficial if only negative emotions feel real and positive things become simply subjective points of view. It is the above part, about lights and music playing on one’s emotions that I related with. I can remember many youth conferences and camp experiences that were a spiritual high for me. Worship services where when the noise got louder people seemed to cry harder or sing louder; and it always seems that all the hands go up when the chorus of a song is played (not that I’m judging). I also remember older people who said that the reason that hymns were proper was because they did not play with your emotions and trick you into a false spiritual experience. Now as I read this book I wonder if these feelings are used by the devil to trick you into a false feeling of spirituality. I know of people who feel such emotion when they first accept Christ and then doubt everything because they never feel that way again. Biblically, Psalms often tells us to praise God with music and with dancing. Earlier in the book Screwtape talks about how they can create nothing; they simply twist what God created for good. My still in the process conclusion is that God created emotions and good feelings and I do not think it is wrong to have an emotional worship time. I think however that the devil probably does try to use this as something that makes people doubt when it does not happen constantly; a twisting of good for evil. Everything needs to be balanced, like Screwtape said, extremes of anything are good for tempters.

The Same Old Thing

When I was reading The Screwtape Letters, I came across something that really caught my attention. It was in letter 25 where Screwtape was advising Wormwood to make his human afraid of the “Same Old Thing.” It caught my attention because my roommates had discussed moving some things around in our room merely for the sake of changing things up. This isn’t bad of course but it just caught my attention to this passage and made me think of how true it was that most people do have this horror of the same old thing. In my psychology class this was used to partially explain the cause of mid-life crises. Often people assume that if something isn’t changing or adapting it has grown stagnant. This seems to be the idea that Screwtape wants to foster. I think that what Lewis was getting at with this letter is that there are some things in this life that shouldn’t change. I’m thinking perhaps a little consistency is a good thing, especially when dealing with religion. You don’t want to go changing things just because it’s been consistent and it's hard to follow a religion that changes its beliefs at the drop of a dime.

Lewis In General...

Perhaps this is too great an undertaking. Probably, this is not an original idea, considering the end of the class is at hand. I'd like to share my feelings about this semester's experience.

Firstly, Thank you. All of you have been outstanding dialogue partners about the myriad ideas in the works of Lewis and other Inklings. I'm sorry if ever you have felt that I speak too much...I feel like that some days.

Secondly, I think I started this class out a little overwhelmed. Lewis is so great a thinker and so beautiful a writer that I was scared of the task at hand. What do I have to say on any of these subjects? How can I even attempt to disagree with this genius?
Once I made the attempt, however, Lewis's genius became more of a kinship. I felt as though he was more of my brother in Christ, always encouraging me to see more clearly the issues that really matter. I'll never think the same way about basic things like community and salvation.

That being said, I also have learned how to disagree with someone with far more clout than I. I greatly respect Lewis's viewpoints that are somewhat inclusivist, yet my Reformed roots are a little too strong to assimilate them.

So, thank you for helping me learn so much this semester. I guarantee that I will continue to learn more and more in this realm. Every time I pick up a book by Lewis, I will remember eating my box lunch in class, laughing over the things Victoria said, and debating the finer points of Lewis's philosophy.

Truth

For my blog, I’m going to steal an idea that Cody had in class actually. Cody elaborated on that section in The Screwtape Letters where Screwtape explains that nothing is inherently good or evil in itself. He verbalized his idea that maybe the difference lies in how true the issue is. Love isn’t good or bad, but rather can only become good or bad. If it’s true love, it will be good. The more I thought about it, the more I agree. Especially when compared to stories from The Great Divorce. Taking just a few examples, the Big Ghost who met an old acquaintance who had murdered someone, the mother who lost her son, and the philosophical Ghost who met his old discussion buddy can all use that explanation. All of them had qualities that most people would say are good, but because they’re twisted, they’re bad.

The Big Ghost had a sense of right and wrong, but he let his own moral compass be the guide. He overlooked all his own sins and only focused on the other’s murder. He let a set of values get in the way of seeing the truth.

The mother had a maternal love for her son, but she became obsessed. Her love wasn’t true love and caring for her son but rather a selfish, need love. She twisted it until it wasn’t even about her son, just about her own past.

The philosophical Ghost fell in love with reason and searching for answers, but that turned into just a love of the search and the questions while he refused to accept any of the answers. He twisted a quest for truth into a never-ending journey of proposing thoughts and ideas that would bring applause.

General Revelation

“Even if we contrive to keep them ignorant of explicit religion, the incalculable winds of fantasy and music and poetry—the mere face of a girl, the song of a bird, or the sight of a horizon—are always blowing our whole structure away,” (SL 156) comments Screwtape.

In my book, someone once wrote “temptation of the devil” in the margins next to this section, which distracted me deeply for that is not what comes to my mind as I reflect on this passage. Instead, my mind connected this sentence to a previous one, which reads, “the truth is that the Enemy, having oddly destined these mere animals to life in His own eternal world, has guarded them pretty effectively from the danger of feeling at home anywhere else,” (SL 156).

To me what is guarding Christians (and maybe even non-Christians) from falling into the devils’ traps are those simple things—the mere face of a girl, the song of a bird, or the sight of a horizon—or the snow we recently had, which can be called General Revelation.

In my church, this idea means that God reveals himself to all humanity through nature. In doing so, God provides glimpse of himself to keep his children focused on him and to remind the devil that he is not in control, hence the “incalculable winds.” One thing about General Revelation needs to be clear; it does not mean to say that hurricanes, tornadoes and other natural disasters are revealing God’s wrath on the world for that is too literal of a translation. Instead, General Revelation means to reflect on the simple nature of things that reflect attributes of God such as he is the creator, without him, nothing would exist and he has total control.

I realize that just as Screwtape mentions that the youth go off on tangents, this subject also directs away from the main point of letter 28. Yet, I felt it was interesting to throw this idea out there in case anyone was having a fit about the snow because even the snow can reveal to us how awesome our creator is; we cannot make all those intricate snowflakes nor do we often realize that the snow provides spring moisture and kills off pests for a more comfortable spring. 

a mild sort of hell

I am a little confused by Lewis' descritpion of "Hell" in The Great Divorce. To Lewis, Hell is nothing like the "lake of fire" or the place of torture mentioned in Revelation. I accept the idea that "the lake of fire" may just be a metaphor and not an actual place, but it seems to me that hell should be more...well... negative (for lack of a better word). The dreary city in The Great divorce, although it is not a happy place by any means, doesnt seem to be terrible enough to be hell. The people in Hell don't even know that they are there. Wouldn't one be able to detect that they are in the place of ultimate evil? Why would the bible use words like "torture, torment, punishment, gnashing of teeth" if hell is just a mild feeling of dissatisfaction or isolation? The people in hell carry on their lives trying to make themselves happy by moving to different house, even going to cinemas and eating fish and chips. I wonder how they even have the hope or the idea of becoming happy in a place completely isolated from the source of true happiness and joy. I can see where Lewis is coming from with his portrayal of hell, but I still can't help but wonder if it won't be more terrible.

Faith as a Means

In Screwtape’s seventh letter to Wormwood he suggests, “Once you have made the World an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing” (34).

This quote stuck out because it relates to the book we just finished reading in class—The Great Divorce. The mother Pam wants to see her son Michael so badly that she was “treating God only as a means to Michael” (99). But, if Pam wishes to see her son she must “learn to want Someone Else besides Michael” (98) and no longer use faith as a means to her worldly end.

This sort of connects to something I read for another class of mine about the philosopher Sartre. Sartre was an existentialist, who believed that we as humans try to authenticate ourselves through an act of will, stressing the freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one’s acts.

Pam, then, could be said to be authenticating herself through her actions which the Spirit called a mistake—“‘All that ten years’ ritual of grief. Keeping his room exactly as he left it; keeping anniversaries; refusing to leave that house though Dick and Muriel were both wretched there’” (101-102). Pam is angered by the fact that her son was stolen away from her and she lets this event define her.

Even more than that, though, is the fact that Screwtape tells Wormwood that “you have almost won your man” (34) when faith is simply a means to what you desire most—and in this case, for Pam, faith is a means to Michael. Pam cannot journey toward the mountain because her mind is still controlled by the demons. She does not seem willing to “‘want God for His own sake’” (99).

Hardened Hearts

I really enjoyed Lewis’ The Great Divorce, and it was really thought provoking for me. However, that also made it difficult to come up with a blog topic. All the ideas and thoughts are still bouncing around and I can’t find any to focus on. So I thought I’d pick out a little piece of this book, and connect it to something else.

When reading this book, I was constantly struck by how much I saw myself in the characters from Hell. And one sentence, said by the Teacher George MacDonald, reminded me of passages in the Bible. He said of damned souls: “Their fists are clenched, their teeth are clenched, their eyes fast shut. First they will not, in the end they cannot, open their hands for gifts, or their mouths for food, or their eyes to see.” (p.538 in my book) This makes me think of times in the Bible where the author says that God hardened someone’s heart. The only specific case I can think of off the top of my head is Pharaoh in the story of Moses.

What’s interesting to me is that it seems to contradict Lewis’ account of the way it works. God hardening someone’s heart seems different than someone closing themselves off and eventually hardening their own heart. And I think with that difference, the theology changes, too. If it’s the person him/herself, it’s easy to accept (at least for me). If it’s God’s work, however, it’s harder to justify in our philosophies of free will and a good God. So I think we’re more likely to agree with Lewis’ version, but then that means we’re giving more credence to a human author than to God’s Word. But that’s kind of a tangent, because what I’m actually thinking is that the Bible isn’t literal. Because of the reasons already mentioned, if this passage were read literally, it would contradict our view of God and free will. However, if we can see it as written by a certain author in a certain historical context, I think it makes it much easier to grasp. Lewis seems to understand and run with this, so we have the result: his own view of how that might be interpreted.

But maybe he’s wrong; maybe God does harden people’s heart. How could that fit into our current views, or would we have to change them? What do you guys think?

Divorce and Pain...

In The Great Divorce I am most intrigued by the conversation between the woman Ghost and her Spirit brother about Michael. It is obvious that the Ghost has selfishly held on to Michael and his memory and that has kept her from entering Heaven. However, there are some points throughout the conversation that do not settle with me and, seem to be contradictory to Lewis’ ideas in the problem of pain.
First of all, since the woman is obviously experiencing great loss, I am not sure what the Spirit is trying to accomplish by telling her that it was God who took Michael away for both their sakes. I think that would have done little to entice her to reconsider her actions. Along those lines when the spirit says in reference to Michael dying, “the only remedy was to take away its object. It was a case for surgery,” I have to wonder what Lewis means by this. In The Problem of Pain Lewis seems to develop the thought that all pain comes from the broken and sinful state of humanity. That God does not create but allow the pain. Also at times in the problem of pain it seems that Lewis even suggests that God suffers with humanity.
This makes me wonder than what Lewis’ view actually is. Since the woman obviously did not wish Michael to be taken away, it would be easier (and possible more beneficial to the woman) to believe that God had not done it but, just allowed it. However, the Spirit directly says the opposite and suggests that it was necessary. So my question then is, does God allow sin and then create pain in order to possibly help one realize their sin? That does not seem right with me either since that is just God playing a game of chance.

Making Connections

There is so much going on in The Great Divorce that I don't know where to begin! One thing that I really noticed was the emphasis on the different kinds of love--specifically Need Love. We see examples of extreme need love through out THe Great Divorce, but we also see it in Orual and Psyche. Some of the relationships in this "Spirit and Ghost" world were definitely shown as Need Love gone really wrong! Pam and her obsession with her son, Michael, is a great example. All this woman could think about was her son, and "caring" for her son. And, if she couldn't have him in heaven, then she'd take him back to hell with her. This need love was so corrupted by her unwillingness to love anyone else. Again this is seen with the Woman who needed her Robert, so she could control him. She needed someone to do things to. Her need love was corrupted, like Pam's, because she could love nothing but the desire to need him.

I feel like sometimes we are like this as Christians. We start idolizing, needing, desiring things that will not fulfill us. They could make us "happy" for fleeting moments, but they will not bring us joy. Our love for these things, or even other people becomes so corrupt that we forget about the Gift Love God has given us. The spirit said all the women had to do was want something else in addition to "loving" their person, but the women saw this as an attack on their loved one. They refused. I feel like we do this alot. (Note the We implicative of me inclusive!) We feel attacked when someone is confronting us about a change we should make to improve our lives, to love God more. Instead we potentially shut them out and harden our hearts, and we reject God's gift love of Grace. While Lewis and I don't always have similar opinions, we do know that we need God's Grace--and I think that is a point Lewis makes very clear in the Great Divorce.

The "Dangerous Stimulants" of Higher Education

Most of the unfortunately self-centered ghosts in The Great Divorce drew nothing but pity and detached sympathy from my judgmental heart, but the artsy phantasm was the one that plucked - and almost snapped - my conviction-strings. According to the portrayal of artistic endeavors in The Great Divorce, all creative energy channeled through art should be towards and for God, and out of a love for God. This blinded artist is a demonstration of creative energy being taken too far in the incorrect direction: towards a love of the expression itself. In the ghostly artist's situation, his focus is more upon the painting itself than on the country it represents and reflects, but I think - and Lewis seems to think - that this sentiment applies to any sort of creative assertion. If harnessed for the right expressive reasons, then writing, musicianship, or design can all be God-glorifying. However, the guiding spirit warns the ghost that these forms of expression can be "drawn away from love of the thing he tells, to love of the telling till . . . they cannot be interested in God at all but only in what they say about Him."

Higher education is one of those potential vices. I find myself further and further drawn into the temptation to trust my own arguments, philosophies, and - scariest of all - rational theologies above the revelation of God and the power of the Holy Spirit. College has taught me to utilize my cognitive abilities to overcome and comprehend most any ideology, which subtly suggests that God's mysterious character simply has no place among higher intellectuals that can reason their way out of seemingly contradicting theologies. Thanks to The Great Divorce, I have realized that I must exert more effort in resisting this temptation to trust rational thought above the divine, no matter how mysterious the latter.

Beautifully Broken

Within The Great Divorce I found many ideas that I have been thinking on. One major thought was the idea that we need to first become broken before we can truely begin to see the kingdom of God. As the main character is travling through the Shadow of Life he encounters other Ghosts with their Solids. The Solids are often trying to persuade to give themselves up so that they may walk with them to Heaven. However, the idea of giving yourself up is a difficult process, which one must somehow achieve in hopes to live. But how does one do that? I believe that to truly change ourselves we must first become broken. The self that we are now, but first develop the need to change and one of the ways to do that is to be so overcome with life, that we can't handle our own burdens. Only then will we search out someone to help us. Only then can we change for the better. There are times, I know, when change may come about where we don't have to be destroyed in which to change, but there are people that are too stubborn to change otherwise. "When your own heart's been broken it will be time for you to think of talking." I find that sentence to be hold some truth. We must first be broken before we can begin to believe and speak of the truth. When we break a little of us must be given up in efforts to change and improve.

I know that some of this is confusing, I'm wondering what others think. So, yeah, go with it.

Convincing Arguments

When I was reading The Great Divorce I often seemed to be putting myself in the place of the ghosts and the spirits. I would think of how I might argue against both the ghosts and the spirits. Many times I would think that the spirits weren’t quite going against there arguments quite right. Some of the things they would say to the ghosts I thought would only aggravate them, and didn’t seem to be very helpful. It began to seem to me that the ghosts and spirits were having trouble relating to the other. They seemed to have completely different points of view. The ghosts’ arguments weren’t perfect either. They may have all had a little bit of a good argument at first, but then it usually degenerated into a horrible terrible thing. That kind of fits with the whole mother’s love gone wrong and man’s desire going bad to lust. The ghosts seemed to take what was good and then ruin it somehow. The spirits took what was perfect and tried to explain it to someone that wasn’t perfect. The explanation I thought of for this problem was that it is like trying to understand God’s timelessness. You can’t completely understand the perfect arguments unless you’re perfect just like you can’t understand timelessness until we ourselves become timeless.

"I Believe in a God of Love"

"Then some natural feelings are really better than others-I mean, are a better starting-point for the real thing?"
"Better and worse. There's something in natural affection which will lead it on to eternal love more easily than natural appetite could be led on. But there's also something in it which makes it easier to stop at the natural level and mistake it for the heavenly."

This little blip of conversation between George and 'the writer' contains such simple knowledge...but also incredibly profound. The fact that our 'natural feelings' can be used in such a good way- pointing us towards eternal love- is great; however, these feelings might just as easily be used to gain contentment. So, what determines how these feelings are practiced? This question is answered a couple of pages later.
"Everything else [not God] is good when it looks to Him and bad when it turns from Him."
I have found this to be a theme throughout Lewis's books. Though this statement seems extremely obvious- in real life it's not that easy. What is looking at God? What is turning from Him? Of course there are black and white areas...but what about the grey ones? How can we judge these aspects of life?
In an earlier reading (I'm not sure if it was this book or a previous one) it was said that one's fate is determined when they say to God, "Thy will be done" or when God says to them, "thy will be done". So...perhaps the difference between right and wrong comes down to who's will is being done. If this is true we should be judging all our actions on this standard.
When I actually think about applying this principle to my life, I shrink back from it. You see, I have lived my life being "ok" with not knowing certain things, claiming they are far too complex for me to wrap my mind around. However, if I apply this seemingly 'simple' idea to my belief system I find that I may have to make some hard choices...many that people may scorn, or call judgemental. I think this is why many people choose to ignore the tougher issues, we believe in a God of love- who understands and forgives ignorance. Perhaps we should take God a little more seriously? I think so.

Something to think about.

I have had the idea put on me about how hell can be a present state a lot lately. First in class with all of the different books with Lewis, from the Great Divorce, to problem of pain, to the hell on earth like state that Orule was in during Until We Have Faces, to Decent into Hell. It was just a very interesting something to think about and a sweet idea that Lewis introduced me too, then I listened to Rob bell give a sermon on Hell that I would like to share with you all because it is so cool with what we have been talking about it class.

The majority of the times "hell" is talked about in the bible is said by Jesus and referred to an actual place. In hell in Greek was Henna or Valley of Henna. This was a valley south of Jerusalem in a valley. Before Jesus it was used as a place of child sacrifice to the God Melech, this was later outlawed and the area began to be used as a dump. In the dump wild Dogs fought each other over food and squealed and bit each other, the people also always kept fire going in the valley in order to keep down the smell. This is where "fire that never goes out and weeping and gnashing of teeth comes from." (so interesting) So when Jesus was talking to the people of the time when he was talking about being cast in to the Henna he was talking about a place that could be identified with physically. The people knew what it was and what it was like there.

After listening to this sermon it kind of shed a new light on all of the ideas that we had covered in class about hell, it seamed to me that this idea was actually Biblical. I particularly liked the idea in the great divorce where what you want and what you do on earth becomes what you do later. So the more you lust over things and the more selfish you are the more you want those things in the after life. The life people live on earth becomes their own hell for eternity.

Shrinking Into Ourselves

While reading "The Great Divorce", i loved the imagery created by Lewis' description of the dwarf. I lead me to start thinking, when do i act like the dwarf, when do i get so caught up into myself, and worrying and carrying, only about my problems. When is my faith dwarf, and i keep trying to save myself, and not worrying about the bigger picture, and choosing me time over you time. I just am amazed by the power of just small part of stories that can affect you in Lewis' writing, "While it sounds merciful," he writes, "see what lurks behind it. The demand of the loveless and the self-imprisoned that they should be allowed to blackmail the universe: that till they consent to be happy (on their own terms) no one else shall taste joy: that theirs should be the final power; that Hell should be able to veto Heaven. "Great Divorce"

I can only imagine...

So, I was sitting back to start enjoying "The Screwtape Letters" for the second time, and it struck me quite forcefully that I was not yet finished with "The Great Divorce."  So, here I set about writing my initial conclusion after reading this book.  I'm sure as I reflect on this work again later on and throughout my life, this conclusion will change, but for now, I find myself terrified.

We've all heard songs like "I Can Only Imagine" by MercyMe.  Heaven is portrayed as overwhelmingly beautiful.  Our beings will be consumed by Love itself, and we will overflow with worship for him.  These images are certainly found in "The Great Divorce."  You would be hard-pressed to argue that Lewis disagrees with this picture of heaven.  There is another picture here, however, which strikes me even more.

As fallen humans, potential residents of hell or heaven, visit heaven's foyer on refrigerium, we see the ultimate shame of humanity:  we are insubstantial, only remnants of reality.  The stark real-ness of heaven shows us what we really are.  Humans are immaterial, vulnerable, uncomprehending, stubborn.  Heaven is found to be a dangerous place full of burning Spirits, ferocious beasts, and painful terrain.  Lewis, as the narrator of the novel, soon is struck by fear: "Terror whispered, 'This is no place for you' " (p. 58).  

This is not the first or only instance where Lewis correlates the great with the terrible.  Think of Aslan.  Williams also references a "terrible good."  I refuse to change my opinion of heaven; I am assured of the beauty and peace of the coming paradise.  This, however, is the first inkling I have had that heaven may also be dreadful. 

Tragedians and treasures.

Of all the different ways that the characters in The Great Divorce disappear, I think the most interesting to me was Frank and the Tragedian. Frank was loved by the most blessed woman, but he doesn't speak for himself, instead he lets this Tragedian speak for him. Frank begins to shrink, and the Tragedian stays the same size as he talks to his wife. Frank shrinks until all that's left is the Tragedian, and the blessed woman realizes she has been speaking to him all along. "I cannot love a lie." said the Lady. "I cannot love the thing which is not. I am in Love, and out of it I will not go." Then the Tragedian vanishes. The blessed woman was so in love with God that it didn't matter that she hadn't really known Frank. Through Frank's shrinking, the narrator realizes that the ghosts and everyone in the grey town are nothing compared to the vastness of Heaven. We are nothing compared to the vastness of Heaven. What we think is so important on earth, will be obsolete when we enter Heaven. It reminds me of Matthew 6:19, the treasures on earth vs. treasures in Heaven verse (I'm not going into it, I think you all probably know the verse I'm referring to). It makes all this stuff I have seem worthless when compared to the treasures in Heaven I'm going to recieve, treasures I can't even imagine yet.

A Ferris Wheel of Thought: Burdens, Abandonment, and Counterfeits

In my last post, I assessed Charles Williams’ idea of substitution through the lens of Christ’s teaching and Paul’s admonitions. Incidentally, two encounters in the resplendent heaven of The Great Divorce indicate the danger of carrying burdens, as the ghosts involved become so identified with their respective “burdens” that they cease to exist apart from them. In Chapter 10, a female ghost bears the “burden” of her husband Robert for the sake of “improving” him, and in Chapter 11, a mother bears the “burden” of supposed caring for her son, Michael. Although these examples are a distortion of Williams’ portrayal of substitution, Lewis succeeds in illustrating the danger of so seemingly noble a thing as carrying another’s burdens, even if the motivation be “love.” In both instances, dialogue reveals that the ghosts desire to have husband or son back is actually based upon destructive self-interest. Though the ghost of the wife snuffed out like “a dying candle flame” and the fate of the mother’s ghost is untold, we know that both ghosts are ultimately kept from becoming real and from loving God best by refusing to give up their “burdens.”

Paul admonishes in Galatians 6:2, “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.” While this is an imperative, The Great Divorce cautions our handling of “burdens,” even if they be familial connections. This brings to mind Jesus’ words in Luke 14: 26, 27, and 33: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple….In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.” This is a difficult teaching, and while I am not going to attempt a textual exegesis of the word hate, I am reminded that following Christ requires us to give up everything and love Christ above all else, even our own family and especially ourselves. As The Great Divorce illustrates, those who held some other love more highly than their desire for God were prevented from journeying toward the sunlit mountains.

In creating the characters of the ghosts, one of the things Lewis does so well is to draw upon elements of human nature that lie within all of us. Although the ghosts that essentially refuse salvation are maddening and exasperating, I find that Lewis creates space for empathy with them. While the ghosts are unable to see what glory they miss in refusing to give up their burdens, facades, and selves, we as readers do. Even through this fictional narrative, perhaps we can be spurred on toward greater abandonment to God – deliberately surrendering our false selves and other loves to Him. As The Great Divorce illustrates, it is not until we give up what is most precious to us that we begin to experience the abundance of life that God longs to give us. This again reminds me of Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:25: “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.”

On one final note, I would like to mention the little red lizard. Although this passage could be interpreted differently, I think it provides a powerful illustration of how things that seem good or provide pleasure can deceive us into believing that they are real. The man with the lizard on his shoulder was afraid of the pain it might cost him to give up the creature. It was not until he willingly endured the pain that the lizard was exposed as a counterfeit of the real thing. He had been terrified of parting with the sniveling little thing when all the while the creature was actually meant to be a stallion! To me, this was a powerful example of evil as a distortion of good, and what could be a more poignant illustration than lust. Ultimately, lust is a distortion of desire, and though it may speak into our ear and tell us it will be good, it is a counterfeit and bondage. I really appreciated Taylor’s honesty in the difficulty of giving it up, but when we do choose to go through that pain of letting it be killed daily within us, we draw closer to experiencing the strength and splendor of desire as God designed.

Spread the Joy

"Pity was meant to be a spur that drives joy to help misery." (p.131)

The first time I read this sentence, I was confused and couldn't figure how pity could be used to bring joy. Joy is the last thing I would think could result from pity. After reading it over and over again, I'm still uncertain, but feel that I have a better grasp on the idea behind this statement.

When someone pities someone else, they are feeling sorry for them. In a way, they are unconsciously elevating themselves above that other person. After seeing someone who has it worse off, you feel more optimistic about whatever it was that you were going through.

I am reading this statement as the "pity-er" bringing joy to the subject of their pity. Pity is the cause whose effect is a desire to bring that person out of their misery. Which makes sense. But how often does someone actually go through the work of helping the one they pity? And maybe that is what Lewis is getting at when he writes that "pity was MEANT to be . . . ." Pity in its original state was meant to make you want to help that other person. But it has become twisted and has now evolved into something completely different.

It's like when you complain to your friend about all the things you have to do and how the professors are out to get you and nothing is going right and . . . the list goes on. This kind of dialogue is meant to make the other person say something like "Oh, I'm so sorry. That's rough." and then continue with more consoling words to make us feel better. This makes them think of all the things THEY have going on, and we return the favor of consoling them. Then we sit in mutual solemness and ponder the chaos that is our lives. Our need for someone to "make things better" has in turn brought them down.

"Pity was meant to be a spur that drives joy to help misery." Every day, pity is being twisted into a tool used to bring joy, however momentarily, to oneself. What if, the next time we felt pity, we were to use that to make good? Can you imagine what the world would be like if we were to act on our feelings and bring joy to others in order to end their misery, rather than bring joy to ourselves?

Wussy Iguana=Kick-Butt Stallion

Easily one of my favorite parts of The Great Divorce was when the man with the whispering iguana on his shoulder is transformed into a Bright One and a mighty Stallion, both of which are wonderfully Solid. But as much as I like it, it's also so new and hard for me to grasp.

So let's be honest: I, as an imperfect, sinful, fallen young man, struggle with lust. I think it's something we would all shuffle our feet and quietly admit to under direct questioning. Lust is a horrible, nasty thing that poisons the soul and corrupts the mind. It weakens the Armor of God from the inside out. The only way to get rid of it is to let Someone else take it from you. You can try by yourself, like both the man in this story and Eustace Scrubb, but until you give it up, all you can do is make yourself feel better for a while. And it hurts to give it up. It hurts bad.

My problem is that, in this story, I wanted the Bright One to grab that stupid lizard, hurl it to the ground, stomp on it a couple times, maybe give it a good punt, and then watch as it popped out of existence. But no, it turned into a friggin sweet golden Stallion.

It blows my mind, but I guess it's true that God can turn our "poor, weak, whimpering, whispering" lust into the "richness and energy of desire which will arise when lust has been killed." Guess I'll just have to keep trying to wrap my mind around that idea...

Wonderful.

In or Ex

"There is but one good; that is God. Everything else is good when it looks to Him and bad when it turns from Him. And the higher and mightier it is in the natural order, the more demonic it will be if it rebels" (Lewis 106).

This part of the paragraph caught my attention because this passage is a point Lewis has been making all along through this book and even in The Lion, The Witch and The Waredrobe. Our ambitions, goals, activities and what have you are good when our eyes are focused on God. These things become evil or bad when our eyes turn away from God and look toward ourselves. The same point was made in LWW with the character (I forget his name) who worshiped Tash but in the end, was really doing good for Aslan.

What I have been puzzled with lately goes back to our dicussions about inclusivism and exclusivism. In the case of LWW, Lewis seems to be an advocate for inclusivism, saying that this character that did not know Aslan can still be "saved" because he still did good. But with the above passage, I feel like Lewis is supporting exclusivism. With exclusivism, we have to believe and belong to the only good, God. In the above passage, it says good is only done or reached when you see God. With inclusivism, you don't need to belong to the only good, God. You just have to do good.

Correct me if I am wrong. As I am sure I have said before, this stuff confusses me. But where does Lewis stand? Or is that really important? I think it is. What do you think?

The Dwarf and The Lady

I am intrigued by the discussion among the Lady, the Dwarf Ghost, and the Tragedian in chapters 12 and 13 of The Great Divorce. Both the Lady and the Dwarf/Tragedian's sides are amazing and enlightening to me.

Initially the Dwarf seems reasonable and really concerned for the Lady's welfare. A paraphrase: "Oh I'm so sad that you felt bad about what you did to me. All is forgiven and I really just want you to be happy." Then the Lady accepts his forgiveness and asks him to no longer feel worried about her.

Then the question that unravels it all: "You missed me?" the Dwarf asks. We see through the rest of the conversation that the Dwarf doesn't really want the Lady to be happy; he's not really thinking about her at all. He wants to be wanted, needed, loved--but only on his terms, in which he has all the power. This is the picture Lewis paints of a hell-bound soul that was the hardest--that hit home--the most for me.

The Dwarf is a picture of what I've often seen in people and what I've often caught myself doing: blackmailing others by their pity, as Lewis calls it. The thing that scares me about this is that its so deceptive. The Dwarf seems to use all the right words at times: "We have to face this", "What do you know about love?", "Don't break in on your sheltered, self-centered little heaven". He speaks with authority, like he's really just a counselor trying to help them both through a tough situation. Yet his intentions are so wrong, but does he even realize that's what he's doing? And when the Lady tells him what he's doing, he refuses to accept it.

The thing that amazed me about the Lady was that she was not taken in by his blackmailing. She recognized it for what it was; I don't know if I would be able to recognize that in another person. She did not feel like it was her duty to break her own heart over his self-created wretchedness. She trusted God enough to not let her joy be shaken. She refused to give in to him. She says, "Did you think joy was created to live always under that threat? Always defenceless against those who would rather be miserable than have their self-will crossed?" (132). She completely saw through his devices and freely accepted the love and joy offered by Christ, without reservation, without thinking that she's too undeserving to be in Love.

How often do I, consciously or unconsciously, use pity to manipulate others? How often do I let people who strip me of joy and peace in Christ--pricking my conscious unnecessarily or making room for compromise--manipulate me because they refuse to be comforted, they want to be wretched? Can I be bold enough to protect Christ in me from a person like the Dwarf? (Does that sentence even make sense?)

As MacDonald says, "Ye must distinguish. The action of Pity will live for ever: but the passion of Pity will not. The passion of Pity, the Pity we merely suffer, the ache that draws men to concede what should not be conceded and to flatter when they shoud speak truth, the pity that has cheated many a woman out of her virginity and many a statesman out of his honesty--that will die. It was used as a weapon by bad men against good ones: their weapon will be broken" (136).

Why does Hell exist? Lewis' answer

After finishing “The Great Divorce,” I kept thinking that Hell seems to be a topic close to Lewis’ heart, meaning that Lewis has a passion for thinking about why Hell exists in a world full of mercy in which God sent his son to descent into Hell and paid the ultimate price for human sins. Because of this passion, images are portrayed throughout certain books written by Lewis and an Inkling to offer a picture of why it still exists if the price for human sins has already been paid. Here is a little bit of my thinking process:

One piece of the image comes from Lewis in the Problem of Pain in which he states that there are some evil wills inside men that do not want to change. “ You will remember that in the parable, the saved go to a place made for them, while the damned go to a place never made for them at all,” (PP 127)…“What is cast (or casts itself) into Hell is not a man; it is remains,” (PP 128). These ideas seem to suggest that because humans have free will, they can choose to reject the gift God is offering all human beings. As a result, humans cast themselves into Hell.

Another piece of the image comes from The Last Battle in which Lewis writes about dwarfs huddled together in an open, lush green place. However, although they can hear Lucy and the other characters speaking to them, the dwarfs still believe that they are stuck in the dark stable. They cannot smell the fresh items offered to them, they think manure is being shoved in their face. “The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs” is a phrase they keep repeating. All this suggests that they are living for themselves; they are stuck in their own minds and that is their Hell according to Lewis. “Heaven” is there all around them if only they would reject their thinking but they will not.

Yet another piece of the puzzle comes from Descent into Hell, especially the character Wentworth. This character revealed that even though humans cast themselves into Hell because they will not reject their ways, there may still be windows of opportunity to turn back. However, there is a point of no return. All of this was shown through Wentworth’s decisions: first to not be happy for his friend about the knighthood. Then about not being able to spend time with Adela and soon he became more and more wrapped up in his mind even though there were opportunities to escape until the day he was asked to come and make sure the uniforms were made correctly. “He looked, and he swung, as if on his rope, as if at a point of decision—to go on or to climb up,” (DH 144) but as he walked around the guard and gave the answer Mrs. Parry wanted to hear, “His future was secure, both proximate and ultimate,” (DH 145).

A forth (and final?) image is noted in A Great Divorce reflects Lewis’ idea that going to Hell is becoming less human because it was not a place made for man. “A damned soul is nearly nothing: it is shrunk, shut up in itself…Their fists are clenched, their teeth are clenched, their eyes fast shut” (GD 139). They are merely ghost images that have no real existence.

God in the Great Divorce

When I think of heaven and hell my thoughts often are directed to God and Satan. Throughout the novel The Great Divorce readers are never introduced to a physical God character or a physical Devil. I think it is interesting that Lewis did this. We see glimpses of God through the spirits’ joy and their wisdom. They often mention God and each aspect of him is positive. I guess my first thought was: you can not write a book about heaven and hell and not include these two key leaders. Each new chapter I waited for some form of light or some deep voice, known as God to be introduced. But then I realized they are incredibly included, in fact they are what the book is filled with. I couldn’t help but thinking that the power moving the chess pieces represented God; that God is the one who anticipated the choices that would be made by different people (pg.144). We don’t meet God per say, yet how could Lewis explain God when he is so beyond our understanding. I think if he would have tried to physically explain God it would have taken away from the message of the book. The book is different than so many things I have been told about life after death, good different. Lewis does mention to the narrator through George Macdonald that what he has experienced is simply a dream and that he will not and should not try to fully explain or even comprehend what he heard and saw, because it is so much deeper. So I am glad the book is just the way it is. Yet I still wonder where in this ‘heaven’ God is; is He what the spirits are journeying into the mountains to see, or is he is journeying with them? And if Lewis would have introduced God as a character who looked a certain way and spoke, what would He have been like?

A Good Hurt

As I was reading the conversation between the Ghost with the lizard on his shoulder and the Angel, I wasn't reading it as exactly that type of conversation. I found myself reading it more as a conversation between myself (or any other sinner) and God.

I imagine the lizard as a personification of sin - choose any sin you like. We carry it around with us and listen to its whisperings in our ear, choosing to let it convince us of things that we normally would not be convinced of. God wants to take that sin from us and make us into a new creation. But he can only do that if the sin that we have been clinging to is "killed" - and this can't be done against our will.

The conversation turns almost comical if you read it from the viewpoint I was reading it from. Here is an Angel simply wanting to free us from something that we have said it could free us from - and then when we realize that it is going to hurt us, we chicken out and start talking in circles.

"I never said it wouldn't hurt you. I said it wouldn't kill you." Doesn't this sound like just the thing you would expect God to say? Releasing our sin hurts. But here is one of those paradoxes: it is a good hurt. It hurts initially, but in the long run? It's one of the best choices you could have made.

"I cannot kill it against your will. It is impossible. Have I your permission?" God needs our full cooperation to transform us into the person He meant for us to be. After receiving this permission, look at how the Ghost turned out! By accepting the fact that he would have to be hurt in order to live a better life, he allows the Angel to crush the lizard. We read that the Ghost "gave a scream of agony such as was never heard on Earth." Keep reading and we see that the Ghost is transformed into an Angel himself, and the lizard into a great stallion.

"I never said it wouldn't hurt you. I said it wouldn't kill you." God doesn't promise that it will be easy. God promises eternal life in exchange for a little Earthly discomfort.

Last Chapter: Great Divorce

When I was reading the last chapter of The Great Divorce a few things caught my eye. The first one was how similar the dream/vision of the dreaming narrator is to the men in the Bible who experienced visions of Heaven ). "Then vertigo and terror seized me" (PG. 143). John and Daniel had very similar responses to their visions/dreams. I also thought it was interesting how the Teacher instructs the narrator to explain to people that it was a dream so that he wouldn't be a fool who claimed to know what no mortal knows. I noticed how the men in the Bible also make a point to explain that what they saw was not from them but from a higher knowledge who gave this knowledge to man through dreams and visions. In the chapter the Teacher says that God has forbid that anyone claim this knowledge for themselves and I remember that Angel commanded John and Daniel to seal up their visions. I know these examples might sound simple but I thought they had a strong connection to some characters of the Bible and I couldnt help but wonder if Lewis used these men as examples from which to write this chapter?

I also appreciated the description that Lewis gave for this place. The trees grew bright, birds are singing, there was music of hounds and horns, sound of music from ten thousand tongues of men and woodland angels. It sounds quite merry! I imagine someplace better than earth being like that. I also felt like the language Lewis used to describe this places sounded Tolkienish...woodland angels=woodland elves? Maybe? Trees being alive?

I was also caught by the line "he too must once have known that no people find each other more absurd than lovers". I would have to say thats probably very true. The more you are intimate with someone the more they find out your little quirks the more absurd things get. I thought it was funny and also connected with what Lewis was saying about it being able to joke about sex and things like that.

A little late in arriving...

So this post is a touch behind schedule..but here goes.

I've been reading some posts about Need Love vs Gift Love and how it interacts with our relationship to God.

Here's my two cents:
I think with God, we have both Need Love and Gift Love for him. We are created to love him-it is intrinsic. Our soul longs for Him, whether or not we know it. It is only when we know we are loving Him that we are truly satisfied. (Like Orual was not satisfied unless she could love Psyche) On the other hand, I agree with Laura, we also have Gift Love for God. We die to ourselves to serve Him and his Kingdom.We find satisfaction in giving of ourselves to love and serve God. It's been interesting to watch Lewis weave the two ideas of Gift love and Need love into his work.

Heavenly Distinctions

The conversation with the painter in The Great Divorce about distinction intrigued me:

The Spirit explains to the painter, “‘But they aren’t distinguished—no more than anyone else. Don’t you understand? The Glory flows into everyone, and back from everyone: like light and mirrors. But the light’s the thing.’”

“‘Do you mean there are no famous men?’”

“‘They are all famous. They are all known, remembered, recognised by the only Mind that can give a perfect judgement.’”

What confuses me about this explanation is a later encounter with the Lady who is followed by a procession. The Teacher explains, “‘She is one of the great ones. Ye have heard that fame in this country and fame on Earth are two quite different things.’”

The two messages seem to be in conflict with one another. If everyone is famous, how can the Lady be recognized by others as being ‘one of the great ones’? It is not that everything that we accomplish in our earthly lives will fall away as if it never existed or occurred, but that only God shall remember. Heaven is not another Earth in the understanding that we live the same way. Rather, to become solid the Ghosts must move beyond their initial desires and wants in order to realize that it is only through God’s Love that joy comes. Love for God must come before all other things—even just a seed to begin the process. Fame should not matter. But then what does Lewis mean by distinguishing the Lady as one of the great ones?

I can only guess that because we are reading from the view of a Ghost who is not dead—only dreaming—that the lens we read through is earthly. Distinctions are noticed and pointed out because of the narrator’s own viewpoint. Lewis chose such a narrator in order to illustrate his purpose clearer. After all, if we read the novel from a Spirit’s view, the novel would be drastically different. I do not think these two are necessarily in complete conflict, but only seem to be so; however, I cannot explain any further.

Lonely...I'm Mr. Lonely...

Half jokingly (no, more than half) I've uttered the phrase "You're going to hell," to which a friend has responded "Well, I'll be among friends."
The difference between eternity in heaven and eternity in hell is drastically different depending on who you ask. Some see heaven as a bunch of people floating around on clouds, reuniting with other godly people, playing harps, wearing white robes and glowing in the heaven light. In contrast to this, hell is a dark party where people indulge their sinful desires, smoking, drinking and partaking of sexual pleasure by flaming red light. Though the flaws in both perceptions are numerous, I think the greatest fault in this perspective is the similar community that heaven and hell share.
Williams and Lewis, I believe, would argue that hell is by no means a place where one is "among friends." Rather it is a place we choose for ourselves that we might be by ourselves, and only on realizing this desire do we discover how much we detest it. Consider Lawrence Wentworth, a man whose desire to possess and be loved by Adela drives him deeper and deeper into self-deception. He pities himself and begins to loathe the woman he loved. His descent into hell is essentially a descent into himself, a withdrawing from society and reality that he might be with and love himself in his own mind and imagination. Yet even this is not love. "A man cannot love himself; he can only idolize it, and over the idol delightfully tyrannize--without purpose."
Wentworth denies all chances of coming back into community with others. He is driven by a desire to avoid others, to withdraw, to attempt to find pleasure in his imagined beloved. In the end even this vision leaves him. When the reader leaves Wentworth he is in the depths of hell, by himself without rope or moon to save him.
Is this not a more accurate depiction of the kind of hell we fear most? One in which we are cut off from community, separated from the love of God (even if we have only experienced it in the imperfect human version)? I would argue that anyone who really chooses hell is unaware of all they are losing. Hell is the utter absence of God. If we experience pain, loneliness and despair on this earth where God is present, how much more would we suffer in a hell where he is not? Perhaps threatening unbelievers with the flames of a hell filled with the sinful and unclean is not only ineffective, but dreadfully inaccurate.

Introspection = death?

On pages 67-8 of Descent Into Hell, a curious idea (at least to me) is presented. Williams talks about how the people on the Hill are close to the dead. He says, "If...the spirit of a man at death saw truly what he was and had been, so that whether he desired it or not a lucid power of intelligence all himself to him..." (67). It seems to me, as this discussion continues, that Williams says that humans aren't really afraid of dying itself as much as they fear the knowledge of oneself that occurs after death. They don't want the dead to bother them and tell them all that they try to hide or decieve themselves about. Later, Williams says, "Hysteria of self-knowledge, monotony of self-analysis, introspection spreading like disease, what was all this but the infection communicated over the unpurified borders of death?" (68).

So, I suppose my real question is, do people really hide and/or deceive themselves so much that they are deathly (pun intended) afraid to face who they really are? Could this have something to do with Pauline's fear of running into herself?

Orual and Us

In "Until We Have faces" I thought that Orual reminded me a little more of the Brute, or at least a combination of him and Unget. This mostly happens because of the comparison that I drew from the comparison in the second book when Orual is talking to Bardia's wife about Bardia's death. She accuses her of being like the brute and says, "They say the loving and the devouring are the same thing" She also talks about how much she loved her husband and how selfesh Orual was to take him away from her. Orual's selfishness with Bardia caused his wife so much pain. This sort of reminded me of when Orual showed her selfishness before with Psyche, Oruals selfishness of Psyche was what ended up causing her so much strife. And the interesting part here is that Orual called this all love. All of her selfish actions were acts of love to her.

Are humans capable of real perfect love, or does every thing that we call love have a small motive behind it, usually a selfish one? Are we like Orual and when we think we are sacrificing something, but we are really just doing it for ourselves? When we give to charity, is it because we truly are concerend about others or is it to get the good feeling inside? When two people are in love is it selfless, or do we love people to get something out of it? These are questions that this story brought up to me and made me look at my relationships. Lets see what you folks think.

Substitution....

I must admit that I have always been a little perplexed at the idea of carrying each other’s burdens. I have assumed that when we are directed to not worry about tomorrow and lay our burdens on Christ it is to clear away worldly distractions and stresses. This though does not seem to fit with Galatians 6:2 and Charles’ Williams interpretation of it. Or maybe it does, and I am just unaware of this.
I do not mean to seem harsh in saying I do not understand why we carry each other’s burdens. I realize that it is important to enter into a person’s suffering and come alongside them, etc…but, isn’t it arrogant to think that we can be a substitution for their burdens? For instance, as we discussed in class, when Stanhope takes on the burden of Pauline, what is it that he actually does? Merely imagining what it is like to be in her situation is kind and empathetic but, I don’t think would actually free her from her fear. And any instance in which Stanhope then actually bears the full burden of her fear and problem for her seems to be placing him within the same realm as Christ. So what does Stanhope’s actions really do except give Pauline a temporary and imagined sense of security?
Alright, enough ranting. I think my main point here is that there needs to be a distinction between bearing each others burdens and bearing with someone in love. It is impossible for any human being to act as a substitution for another human being - if that were so, there really would not be a need for Christ’s sacrifice on the cross (as that is the true substitution). However, we are called to be in community and bear each other’s burdens in love. I think an example of what I am getting at could be the body metaphor used by Paul. If the hand of the body gets injured the arm may not be able to be a substitution for it - the arm may not become the hand. However, it may offer tremendous and irreplaceable support for the hand that, without which, the hand may not have been able to properly heal. It can bear with the hand but it can not bear for the hand.

Rejoice with those who rejoice

One instance in Descent Into Hell that I tried to make sense of, is when Wentworth reads in the paper that Aston Moffatt has been knighted. "Wentworth knew he could share that pleasure... with a perfectly clear, if instantaneous, knowledge of what he did, he rejected joy instead. He instantaneously preferred anger, and at once it came; he invoked envy and it obliged him" (80). This situation reminded me of the command found in Ramns 15:12 which says, "rejoice with those who rejoice, mourn with those who mourn." How many of us actually conciously do this? When I rejoice in the sucesses of those around me, it is because I honestly and naturally feel happy for them inside, not because I analyze the situation and make the decision to be happy along with them. At least I don't think so. But Wentworth's situation gives the idea that it is a concious choice. As a fellow historian, he certainly had reason to rejoice in this accomplishment, if not for Moffatt personally, at least he could at least rejoice in the honor paid to the field of history. However, he chooses envy instead. He could have chosen to focus on the joy, but he didnt. I wonder: am I missing out on joy because I don't deliberately look for reasons to rejoice with others? Or is Williams wrong to turn something spiritual and emotional like joy into an alternative to be chosen through logic and (instantaneous) deliberation?