Human Wickedness

Hi everyone. My blog is going to focus on some points in Chapter 4 of the Problem of Pain. They are points that I found interesting and points that I felt were connected to my own life.

To start if off...

I found this point interesting "love may cause pain to it's object, but only on the supposition that that object needs alteration to become fully lovable." ((Page 48)

In trying to make sense of this world and the pain I have seen in others and in myself. I find myself questioning God and in all honesty, sometimes saying some very harsh words to Him. At times the world seems so unfair and when I dont get the things I want or things dont work out they way I want, I become extremely angry and I direct it towards God. The passage above has really helped me to understand the "why". It isnt God's fault because I am the one who needs alteration. I need alteration and there is going to be pain in the alteration. I guess its hard to look at it that way when stuff is going down...but nonetheless, it feels like thats the true reason behind pain. So I found that interesting and helpful in trying to understand God, pain, and myself.

Another point I found interesting ties in to the point above.

"And when men attempt to be Christians without this preliminary conciousness of sin, the result is almost bound to be a certain resentment against God as to one always inexplicably angry." (Page 50-51)

So maybe the reason why I get angry at God is because I do not have that foundational conciousness of sin. Lewis says that a recovery of the old sense of sin is vitally important to Christianity. What is the old sense of sin? It seems to be the assumption that we are terrible and its true! We are sinful creatures. So when I get angry at God I am really just frustrated because I am putting the blame in the wrong place and my anger stems from another form of frustration which is ignorance.

"We have a strange illusion that mere time cancels sin" (Page 54)

How true is that!? Well at least it feels very true for me. I have believed that illusion many times and maybe I still do. I always felt that if I stopped sinning and turned from it the whole thing would disappear and the shame would go as well.

Lewis says next that "The guilt is washed out not by time but by repentance and the blood of Christ. If we have repented of these early sins we should remember the price of our forgiveness and be humble." (Page54-55)

And this to me is the answer to the debacle. Nothing is going to take away the guilt, not time, not good deeds, not anything like that. You need to repent from your sin, turn from it completely, and then trust in the healing power of Christ. That is how your guilt leaves. And along with this we can see where we came from, the sins that Christ has given us power to conquer, and we can appreciate our forgivness greater and be humbled in the fact that we were given a precious gift.

This next point hit close to home for me (No pun intended as you will see!).

"But when we emerged form that bad society we made the horrible discovery that in the outer world our 'normal' was the kind of thing that no decent person ever dreamed of."

I am originally from California. What some Iowans might deem "a bad society". I myself have made the discovery that what I considered to be normal behavior out in Cali, is here a thing that no decent person would ever have dreamed of. I dont really have anything more to say about this other than it really stood out to me being from California and now living in the "bubble" we call the city of Orange!


"The emotion of shame has been valued not as an emotion but because of the insight to which it leads"

Shame feels like a terrible thing. Anyone who has felt it probably doesnt like it and doesnt want to ever feel it again. But shame in a way, can be a good thing. It leads us to greater insights. That terrible feeling you get when you sin that we call shame, allows you to greater understand the consequences of your actions and by providing that terrible feeling...you naturally dont want to do it again.

"No-depend on it; when the saints say that they-even they-are vile, they are recording truth with scientific accuracy."

I seem to forget that even the saints say that they are vile. So when I get caught up in trying to be perfect and then I mess up and get mad at myself. It would probably help to remember that even some of the most godliest men of all times considered themselves vile. "What a wretched man am I. Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to Jesus Christ."

I hope you liked my blog. Since we are all humans, a lot of our experiences are universal, so I am sure that in the way that these points connected to my own life, they probably might hit close to home for you as well.

God bless

Jordan Keckler

Philosophy of Eowyn Sheildmaiden of Rohan

To understand the following piece I want you to understand that I am working off of one basic principle that you may or may not agree with. I believe men and women to be fundamentally different in who they are not just body function.
So I began looking at the different parts in The Return of the King that spoke of Eowyn Shieldmaiden of Rohan. Looking at the description of Eowyn when she is fighting the Lord of the Nazgul on pages 842-842, there appears to be some confusion as to her place in this battle. On one side you have being described in ways that say she is quiet capable, “Still she did not blench: maiden of the Rohirrim, child of kings, slender but as a steel-blade, fair yet terrible.”(Tolkien 842) Here it sounds completely natural for her to be in the battle fighting the Nazgul but not a page earlier you have Merry’s reaction to the fact that this was Eowyn on the battlefield. “She should not die, so fair, so desperate! At least she should not die alone, unaided.”(Tolkien 842) Looking at this, what stands out to me is that she shouldn’t be dyeing on this field because she is a beautiful woman.
Moving on to when Eowyn is in the house of healing she meets with Faramir, who upon first seeing her totally starts crushing on her. But she says to him “Shadow lies on me still. Look not to me for healing! I am a shieldmaiden and my hand is ungentle.”(Tolkien 961)
When Eowyn is “healed” she gives the following analysis:
“I stand in Minas Anor, the Tower of the Sun, she said, ‘and behold the shadow has departed! I will be a shieldmaiden no longer, nor vie with the great Riders, not take joy only in the songs of slaying. I will be a healer, and love all things that grow and are not barren.” (Tolkien 965)
This all implies that maybe she is not being completely happy being a shieldmaiden, or just a shieldmaiden. But can she be something else as well as a shieldmaiden? Can a woman be a mother, a lover and a wife if she “takes joy only in the songs of slaying”? Did Eowyn have to change to become the bride of Faramir or could she have become both? I think that this is a question that is bugging many girls from my generation. We are told we can be anything we want to be, but can we really be it all? Many believe that it is in a woman’s fundamental nature to be a care giver, and that the roles which females have traditionally filled have required it.
So is it ok for a woman to do man’s work? Or does that make her broken? None of the other characters in Lord of the Rings seem to need to be healed from being soldiers, just Eowyn. So is a woman to focus simply on loving, or can she be a fighter? That is the question I leave you with.

Saved But Not Restored

After reading the three books, that I had to read and with no knowledge of the others in the series, I have found something that to me is worth thinking about at the least. This first came to me after reading prince Caspian and finding a new and darker Narina, but what struck me as a surprise is not only did Aslan let it get so bad, but also the fact that when he saved Narnia, he really did not bring it back to its glorious luster, instead he left it somewhat still broken. Which leads me to the question, can Aslan only save Narnia, and not restore it. We know that we were saved through Christ death on the cross, but like Aslan he was not able to restore our human lives on earth to the once beautiful and wonderful paradise that it once was long ago. I don’t know if this is a correlation or not, but it was just something that I had been thinking about.

I DONT KNOW!

Every day, I try to wrap my mind a little further around the topic of believing what you want to. We have had endless class discussions about whether or not you can truly make yourself believe something that has happened or if what your eyes are seeing is really there. This morning in Intro. to Lit. Study, Westerholm read the passage in Isaiah 6:8 that says, “Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?’ And I said, ‘Here am I. Send me!’” He was reading it and mentioned that many times people stop right there, because what comes next might erk some. I admit, the statement is strong and I have a hard time listening to it. Verse nine goes on to say, “Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.” Wow. Jesus is could be standing in front of these people, telling them everything they would ever need to hear, and they do not get it! Back to Narnia, Lucy is telling her siblings plain as day what happened and yet they cannot believe her. Are our minds capable of believing what we see and hear? Can we comprehend and decipher what we see? I think at some point what we want to believe crosses a line and moves toward what we are capable of believing. I am totally just throwing this out there for some insight. Like colorblind people. No offense to you impaired people out there, but obviously they are not capable of deciphering the difference between blue and green. I know our minds are limited and maybe what we want to believe is another one of those limits. I’ll leave you with the thought that God did not intend for us to discover everything, comprehend everything, and possibly believe everything. Please fill me in on what you think. I need all the help I can get with this one..

John 14:6

I would like to challenge a way of thinking we had in class the other day. In general, the class seemed to accept the answer of we don't really want to say people are going to hell, and maybe there is some way to be saved other than Christianity. As a Christian, this honestly scares me to think that people are too worried about other people's feelings to say if you don't believe in Jesus's sacrifice and you don't accept that salvation, you're going to hell. I'm here to tell you that the Bible has the ultimate authority on that, and it says: "Jesus answered, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the father except through me." (John 14:6) So, if Christ does not dwell in you, and you don't walk in the truth, you are going to hell. Plain and simple. The start of this argument came about in class when we were discussing Tash and Emeth. Emeth was a good man, who did good things, but he followed Tash. Someone stated that the idea for Emeth's salvation was that he was seeking after a god and doing good things, and then when he realized Aslan was the real god he sought to serve he was saved. This cannot at all be related to Christian theology when you remember John 14:6. If you work your whole life, doing good things, and seeking some fulfillment, and you never realize its God until you're standing in front of him being denied entrance, you will not be accepted into the kingdom. God has your name written in the book of life, but only if you believe in Him and what his Son did for you. I fear our class, though maybe you are all just "getting into the spirit of philosophy", is headed away from scriptural security. We should be able to hold fast to scripture despite philosophy's challenging our perspectives. Yes, it is good to think and to ponder and question, but it is not good if you start to encourage doubt, uncertainty and other negative things. This is only allowing room for the devil to sneak in and shake your footsteps. This may be a philosophy class, but it's taught at a Christian school by a Christian professor; shouldn't we remember our main goal: glorify God above all else? I feel that we should ultimately resolve with we can't know everything, but we can believe. Most importantly, we need to make clear distinctions between what we discuss as Narnian Theology and what is Christian Theology. The lines are often so blurry in class I don't know which side your on and whether or not some of you believe in Aslan or God.

In all things, Glorify God. Disciple the nations, love God, love people. That is our command. It must apply to all things, from taking out the trash, to C.S. Lewis and the Inklings. Please ask questions, but do not say things that cause the distinct line of Fiction and Truth to become blurred.

Desire for More

I was interested in the “desire for more” talked about in the essay by Eric Katz. He goes through in the essay talking about the different people’s wishes for the ring. He describes how characters always want something more that the ring can give them. Boromir wants the ring to destroy the forces of Mordor. He wants it to make Gondor into a greater nation, and he into the great captain of all the forces of Middle Earth to wipe out Mordor. Galadriel imagines herself as a great and terrible queen ruling over Middle Earth. "You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!" (FR, p. 410) When Sam puts on the ring he is tempted by envisioning himself as “Samwise the Strong.” He destroys Mordor and makes the land beautiful. All he would have to do in this temptation was take the ring. These are just some of the temptations for characters.
This essay seems to me to suggest that the wish for being greater or more than you are can cause the problems of evil and corruption. It reminds me of the original sin. Eve was tempted by the devil to take a fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This temptation for becoming more than what she was prompted her to take the fruit. This desire for more was the original cause for all the evil in the world for this is when sin entered the world. So is it wrong to want more? I myself am a college student, but I wish to become a doctor. In my opinion becoming a doctor would be a becoming of more than I currently am. Based on the essay is it more than I should be, or is it that I just haven’t reached where I am supposed to be yet? My belief is of course the latter.

Narnia: No Boundaries

As class discussion surrounding suspension of disbelief in Narnia unfolded today, I found myself buried in the analysis of the imaginative mind, specifically regarding children. An adult might love the immersive nature of fiction, but for a completely different reason than a young boy or girl. A child's imagination is seemingly quite active, for children are visibly prone to acting out or pretending, something adults fail to consider as an avenue of entertainment. Lord of the Rings is not an accessible book for youngsters; it contains extreme depth, profound language, and is grounded in a very firm reality, even if that reality is not necessarily conventional. Narnia is obviously enticing to children, but not simply because of the previously discussed simplicity. Narnia is - in many ways - a more fanciful tale than Lord of the Rings. Presumably, children find beauty in Narnia because of how real it could be, and how similar they are to the protagonists. Narnia is an interactive and unlimited world to a child, because there is no Tolkien to set up boundaries, or require explanations. Narnia leaves a child wanting more, and possibly believing that one day they could be drawn in through a painting - or even pulled in by a lion.

Cohesive and Disjointed Musings on Evil and Free Will

This semester, I am taking a seminar on evil that has been a fascinating overlap to some of our class discussions. Though the question of evil and suffering is not one I will undertake to address here, some of my ponderings on evil actually relate to Narnia. What follows are some gossamer strands of thought, and I invite you to consider some of these questions with me.

In class, we have frequently discussed the paradox between the goodness and terribleness of Aslan. “ ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you,” Mr. Beaver avers in LLW. Is a good lion one who seemingly disappears for long periods of time, leaving his creatures to bear with suffering and oppression? Is a good lion one who allows wickedness to prosper in his own kingdom? Is a good lion one who uses pain to free those who are bound, as in the case of Eustace? While The Chronicles is not an allegory, these questions of Aslan can translate into questions of God. Is a good God one who seems to withdraw as His creation labors under suffering and oppression? Is a good God one who allows evil to prosper in His kingdom? Is a good God one who uses pain to free those who are bound?

Though I am deeply troubled by evil’s current reign in the world, I believe it operates on a temporary condition of divine allowance, and somehow, this allowance will ultimately be used for the good of God’s creatures and the glory of His purposes. In the same way, evil is allowed to exist in Narnia for a time, but as was known from the beginning, Aslan would be the ultimate victor over evil and the final healer of all brokenness. If Aslan and God share in this parallel of bringing ultimate good, why must suffering and evil be allowed to exist in either world, then?

I find that Lewis himself provides some semblance of answer to this question in The Screwtape Letters. In one of these letters, the high-ranking demon Screwtape explains to his protégé and nephew, Wormwood, the baffling reality of human free will. Though the quote is lengthy and one our class will read by the end of the semester, I think it fitting to mention here: “One must face the fact that all the talk about His love for men, and His service being perfect freedom, is not (as one would gladly believe) mere propaganda, but an appalling truth. He really does want to fill the universe with a lot of loathsome little replicas of Himself – creatures whose life, on its miniature scale, will be qualitatively like His own, not because He has absorbed them but because their wills freely conform to His….It is during such trough periods, much more than during the peak periods, that it is growing into the sort of creature He wants it to be. Hence the prayers offered in the state of dryness are those which please Him best….he wants them to learn to walk and must therefore take away His hand; and if only the will to walk is really there He is pleased even with their stumbles. Do not be deceived, Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending to do our Enemy’s will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys” (39-40).

Though Screwtape is speaking of God, perhaps Aslan’s periods of absence from Narnia and his allowance of evil can be explained in the same way. If evil did not exist, would there be such a thing as free will? Perhaps part of the mysterious opportunity in evil is that it gives us the choice of response. Although we cannot control evil, we can control our reaction to it. Where does this leave God? In His allowance of evil, He gives us the freedom to choose Him or reject Him. (I’m purposely not going to open the theological can of worms suggested by that statement!) God doesn’t need the bad for His divine scheme, yet He’s promised to use it anyway. In the same way, Aslan’s actions give his creatures the freedom to believe him or reject him while he nevertheless promises to finally defeat evil. In the same way, just as God uses pain to free us from ourselves, Aslan uses his claws to free Eustace from the dragon’s scales.

Perhaps it is the Achilles heel of Satan that his worst attempts at evil and destruction can make a human a purer reflection of the image of God because of that human’s free will to find God in suffering.

Morality and Power

"Does the ring corrupt us?"
In The Rings of Tokien & Plato, issues of the co-existence of power and morality are argued. Questions such as "why be moral" and "does immense power destroy the need to be a moral person" are brought up. As interesting as these questions are, I would like to focus more on the question: "with immense power is it even possible to be moral?".
This year during RA training we were asked, "what would you do with a million dollars". As we went around one girl surprised me by saying, "I would pay off my debts, then my parents debts, and then I would give it all away and get rid of it because I don't like to think about who I would be if I was in posession of all that money". It was so interesting that she thought that because she had money, she would become someone she did not want to be.
I think the story of my friends perception of money can definitely be paralleled with the way the ring affected the characters in Tolkien's books. Throughout the article, many of the characters were brought up and it was shown how each was affected by the ring. Gollum, for example, was so affected by the ring that it was all he could "see". He was so trapped in it that he was miserable and had lost all meaning to his life. Boromer was corrupted by desire, even though he never actually posessed the ring. Galadriel refused the ring and stayed true to her integrity and principles. Tom Bombadil was not at all affected by the power of the ring while Frodo was captured by it.
At the beginning of this post I used the example of money, which many may think is not that big of a deal. However, with money comes power and with power comes the freeing of morality. Now, I am in no way making the claim that all those who are in power are immoral, but I am saying that the more powerful you become, the less of a need for morality there is. Oftentimes you hear of people "buying" others off. I have had people tell me they are not afraid of speeding tickets because the cop rents land from their father. I realize that is a small scale issue, but if you think about it, if something as small as a speeding ticket is deferred, how much more can the larger things in life be overlooked for a certain sum of money/power.

Fantastic Reality

It may have been Lewis (or my memory could serve me wrong) who noted that anything Tolkien had to say he took his time about saying, making him much of an ent himself. Such was my impression of him based on my first reading of the entirety of his essay On Faerie Stories. And yet, the truths contained within this essay (and others of the same nature) are arguably worth the time it takes to digest them. Tolkien's main points may even deserve the repetition they receive.

The concept that resonates with me most is the idea that we love faerie stories (and fantasy in general) because the deepest parts of us hope that the deepest parts of them are true. Author Anthony Lang is quoted in On Faerie Stories, as saying that children represent “the young age of man true to his early loves, and have this unblunted edge of belief, a fresh appetite for marvels.” Though Tolkien goes on to later pull this statement apart, I want to hold on to the truth in what Lang says. In most ways, life is easier as a child. It is the nature of childlike faith to believe without empirical evidence or systematic arguments. Fantasy, I believe, is often written for children because children will more readily suspend their belief and accept alternate worlds. Yet the older I get, the more I learn and the more skeptical I am tempted to become, the more I really do want to suspend my own beliefs and revert to childlike faith that believes without questioning. I want the myth, the story, the fantasy to be true. And I want them to be true, because there is something in the fantasy that is very much like I wish reality to be.

Tolkien says that "probably every writer making a secondary world, a fantasy, every sub-creator...hopes that he is drawing on reality: hopes that the peculiar quality of this secondary world (if not all the details) are derived from Reality, or are flowing into it." I would take that a step further and apply it to the reader as well. The reader too, hopes that the truths found in the secondary world can in some way be translated into the reality in which they live. We were created to live in a world quite different from the one in which we find ourselves. Even as Jewel did not find his "real home" until he was in Aslan's country, so we will not be satisfied until we reach reality as it ought to be. Lewis touches on the relationship between myth and reality in his review of The Lord of the Rings when he says that "the value of the myth is that it takes all the things we know and restores to them the rich significance which has been hidden by 'the veil of familiarity'." We may not be sure of what reality ought to be, but we are rather certain it is other than the reality we experience. Fantasy, in my experience, shines a light on what that reality might be. The myths, the stories, the fantasies help me to understand what I hope to be true.

Holy Ring of Power (batman)

I thought that the Rings of Plato essay was pretty good, and that we can use this advise as Christians, except the one of the most important quotes of the essay. I think that if Tolkien was writing this for Christians as well as philosophers he was a little off on this one. The passage I am thinking about reads , "Why be moral? Plato asks. And Tolkien answers, 'to be yourself.' What kind of life should I choose? A life that is in accord with my abilities. If you need a Ring of Power to live your life, you have chosen the wrong life."

The Bible is bursting with stories about people that do things beyond their own ability. For example. I don't think that Moses could send the plagues of Egypt by himself, and I don't think that David could have killed Goliath without a little extra support, they needed God's help. God called them to do things that were way beyond their abilities, but they had faith in God and did as He said.

Maybe God is our "Ring of Power" that we actually need to live the life that He has called us to.
I'm pretty sure that the Bible actually tells us that we can not do things apart from God. So why would Tolkien, a Christian writer, say something like this. I could certainly be twisting his words into something that is completely incorrect. Someone else should tell me what they think about this.

Your True Self

As I was reading the article for tomorrow (The Rings of Tolkien and Plato), I was inspired by the idea that by grasping one's true self a person is emboldened to defeat (refuse) temptation. The article talks about Sam as being able to resist the temptation of the Ring because he knew who he was and was content with his place in life. "Tolkien explains that two things keep Sam safe from the seductive power of the Ring: his love for Frodo and his own sense of self" (Katz, 18) (emphasis added). Sam is content to be a gardener with a little house and a happy life. He knows what he wants and who he is. He knows that the temptation he faces is not something he truly desires.

This reminded me of an idea that I read in Lewis's Mere Christianity. Lewis says that one's true identity is found in Christ. Who we are before Christ is a product of fear and slavery to sin: Once we are free in Christ we are free to be who we truly are. As Christians, we are not all called to be the same but to be the unique, beautiful, free person that He intended us to be. Free from doubt, fear, anxiety, anger, jealousy, discontent--absolutely free. (Please correct me if I'm mis-remembering Lewis.)

Lately I've been wracked with fear and anxiety about the future and my own true self. I was tempted to think that I'm less than who I am in Christ--like the Ring tempted Sam to be discontent with his place in life. God has shown me yet again that these thoughts are just that--temptations. Because I am a child of God and trusting Him with all my life, the lies of the enemy are not from a sub-conscious me--not who I am.

Know who you are in Christ and defeat temptation.

Avoidable?

Even though the last couple of posts were in reference to the articles we have been reading, I'm going to revert back to The Last Battle. There is an issue in this book that I have been pondering for a while now.

This was the first time I have ever read The Last Battle. I had only made it through the first chapter when I could read no further - I was so disgusted that I had to put the book down and go do something else.

My problem with the first chapter can be summed up in one word, or, rather, one character: Puzzle. Now, I understand that there are a few factors that I cannot take into account simply because Lewis does not supply them; one of these being how long Puzzle & Shift have been "friends." And I realize that charisma and guilt trips on the part of Shift could have a lot to do with Puzzle's behavior (besides that fact that Puzzle doesn't seem too keen). But my first thought after reading the first chapter of The Last Battle was that the entire "battle" could have been avoided if Puzzle had simply listened to his conscience and stood up for himself.

There are two passages in The Last Battle that mention Puzzle's uneasiness with the whole idea. "No, no, no," said Puzzle. "Don't say such dreadful things. It would be wrong, Shift. I may not be very clever but I know that much. What would become of us if the real Aslan turned up?" At this point, if Puzzle had just stood his ground and refused to be used for Shift's agenda, this whole "last battle" would never have occurred and Narnia could have remained in peace.

"There!" gasped Puzzle, as soon as he had breath to speak. "It's a sign, a warning. I knew we were doing something dreadfully wicked. Take this wretched skin off me at once." But once again, after a few smooth words from Shift, Puzzle gives in and goes along with the plan.

So this is my question: if Puzzle had simply denied Shift the right to control him and use him for his agenda, would Narnia have continued to exist peacefully? Or, (and this is a whole other topic really) was the battle going to happen anyway and even if Puzzle had stood up for himself, Narnia would still come to an end? Was there a greater force directing the events in this chapter? (Fate/destiny?) What do you think?

Believing the Impossible

I have four beautiful baby nieces. Well, they're not really "babies" anymore, strictly speaking. They're 7 (almost 8), 5, 2, and just over 1. They're adorable. They're all from the same mother, so they play together every day and have a lot of the same games, stories, clothes, toys, imaginary friends and everything else little girls have. I play with them whenever I go home, and sometimes it gets a little crazy...

See, the oldest two (Lily and Gracie) have got the most in-SANE imaginations. They show me their dolls and stuffed animals and tell me stories about all the adventures they've been going on lately, all impossible of course. Sometimes we'll play "Telephone" and they'll just make up words! They've had all kinds of restaurants, banks, grocery stores, fashion shows, you name it. And they're always so detailed in their creations, even going so far as giving you "money" to invest or buy stuff with.

I'll get to the point: Do I still believe in the impossible? Countless times Lily has come running to me with the utmost urgency about some security breech in her bank, or a new game she just invented, and of course I go along with it, but I would never, NEVER actually believe that what she was talking about was real. Why? Because it's impossible of course!

My struggle now: How can I learn to believe in the impossible again while remaining down to earth?

Worthy?

My thoughts are based off of a short expert from, Religion and Rocketry, “This is the point non-Christians always seem to forget. They seem to think that the Incarnation implies some particular merit or excellence in humanity. But of course it implies just the reverse: a particular demerit and depravity. No creature that deserved Redemption would need to be redeemed. They that are whole need not the physician. Christ died for men precisely because men are not worth dying for; to make them worth it.” C.S. Lewis, pg.86

I was struck by this comment as I read this essay. Lewis talks about non-Christians forgetting that Christians are not ‘excellent’ but rather are deprived, yet I myself have been thinking about the concept of worth lately. I know that I am not worth anything and that only in Christ do I find my value. But now that I have been redeemed how do I live that out without coming off as “righteous” in a pious way. I am made in the image of Christ and purchased with his blood, so I hold worth. Yet, I am sinful and often fall short so I am worthless. How am I to come before the throne? I know this book is not an allegory but I look to Aslan and the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve to maybe find an idea. When the children first approach Aslan they are terrified yet in awe at the same time. Aslan does not treat them poorly or criticize or judge them for losing Edmund or any of their faults. He welcomes them. In all the accounts Aslan has with others from the “good side”, in the three Narnia books I’ve read, he never belittles them; he does rebuke and correct them but never with the sense that they are not worthy to walk in confidence. So my thoughts are that we are definitely not worthy yet we are to live HUMBLY as people who have been made worthy and who hold value in Christ.

Both Good and Terrible?

Earlier this week we read the article "Aslan the Terrible." In it, Wielenberg discusses some of the ideas Lewis writes about in his book The Problem of Pain, the main idea being that the problems of society and our world prove that God doesn't exist. If there is a God who loves us, why would he inflict so much pain and suffering? I've often struggled with this question myself, because God is supposed to love us, yet He still causes suffering among His followers. Some of the reasons God would do this to His people are laid out in this article; He might hurt us because we are doing something wrong, to teach us a lesson, etc... When Aslan hurts Aravis, he does it to show her how the servant was punished after Aravis drugged her. He did it so Aravis knew what it felt like, to teach her a lesson.

So the title "Aslan the Terrible"...how does this fit in with the article? If Aslan is like God, he is both good and terrible. God is good, He rewards us when we follow Him, He does good things in our lives, but He is still terrible because He also has the power to cause suffering. It is easy for us to become angry with God when we face trials, and it is also easy for the world to reject Him when bad things happen. But when doing these things, He is just proving His love for us. While reading this article, I was reminded of a couple verses that go along well with the topic, so I'm going to end this with them. Romans 5:3-4 says "Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope."

The Rings

As I was reading the article about the rings of Plato and Tolkien, something struck me so I thought I'd see how you guys felt about it.

When reading about all the different characters' reactions to the ring and its powers, a pattern seemed to appear. I'm not sure if this was just me or if the author intended it this way, but either way, it seemed that the characters who were safe from its corruption were characters portrayed as being content with their own, smaller place in the world. The characters who did go after the ring had good intentions. Boromir wanted to help his people; Frodo wanted to fulfill the quest set out for him. Both could be said to have gone about their mission in the wrong way, but that's not even really the route the author takes. Instead, he seems to focus on the knowledge and contentment of the others in knowing who they are and what their place is.

This seems to be so opposite what we're taught in every aspect of life. As students, we're encouraged to apply ourselves in all our work and make the most of our time here. As U.S. Citizens, we're encouraged to be all that we can be. (Yeah, cliché, sorry!) As a part of our society, we're encouraged to get raises, earn promotions, and excel in our area of expertise. Our way of life is built around the idea that through hard work, we can get anything we want, and that we deserve that! Even as Christians, we're taught to strive for perfection in ourselves. Nothing prepares us for a message telling us to simply accept our place and be content.

I'm not really arguing for or against one side or the other. Mostly, the pattern the author seemed to be making was different to me, so I thought I'd share with you and see what kind of responses I got! So if any of you actually have time to read through all of these posts, I'd love to hear your opinions!

Problem of Religious Diversity

I also am going to write on the salvation of Emeth because I feel as though his redemption, although we cannot fully understand it, is warranted. It is true that Aslan says that he and Tash are opposites and I find no problem with this as long as we consider what Emeth actually believed and did while he thought he was worshipping Tash. I also agree with Laura that if we worship a false god or serve an evil god we would remain unfulfilled, for this is where Emeth stands. He is unfulfilled in his relationship with Tash, for he senses that something is not quite right.

Somehow (and this is the part I do not completely understand) Emeth does good in the name of Tash. He says of the man that is standing just inside the Stable waiting to kill the Narnians who enter that he “was a liar and a mocker and no true servant of Tash” (756). The description of this man would make more sense to us if you replaced “Tash” with “Aslan,” for to be opposite Aslan you would become a liar and mocker. Emeth also says that “the name of Aslan was hateful to me” (755), but could someone really hate Aslan if they knew the truth of his goodness? Could someone really serve Tash if they thought of him as evil? I think that Emeth is doing good and is following Aslan by thinking Tash has the characteristics Aslan actually does. As for the other Calormenes, maybe they worship Tash in fear rather than in reverence. Maybe they see Tash as a transcendent god who does not care for them—and their role as followers of Tash is to curb his anger towards them. Or maybe the Calormenes are actually atheists, for Rishda Tarkaan does not seem to believe in either Tash or Aslan.

The reason I say Emeth is unfulfilled is that he really desires to see Tash’s face and this is the reason he enters the Stable. Emeth became confused when he was told Tash and Aslan are one for, as I mentioned earlier, Aslan was hateful to Emeth. How, then, could the god Emeth spent his life seeking be the same that he spent his life hating? This is what causes Emeth to seek the face of Tash, although he is truly seeking the face of Aslan. Emeth is unfulfilled because he was seeking a false god, a god of evil when in reality Aslan was the one seeking him and Emeth just did not know it yet. After all, can we ever be truly fulfilled or ever end our search for God until we die?

seeking but not finding

In class today we used the situation with Emeth and his "salvation" and also talked about how it may represent people in our world who serve Gods other than the God of the Bible, or even people who have never had the opportunity to hear of the God of the Bible or His Son Jesus. I wonder if we arent being too hasty in making these comparisons. Aslan says "we are opposites...I and he are such different kinds that no servicewhich is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him" (LB chpt 15 pg 575). If Aslan represents Christ, the only thing that is the complete opposite of Christ is Satan. Is Allah the opposite of Christ? He certainly is not exactly the same, but he is also far from the opposite. Muslims believe that Allah is good, sovereign and compassionate. These are obvious similarities to the God of the Bible. But Emeth wasn't serving just another god, he was serving the antithesis of good. If Tash was just another name for Aslan, i would buy this whole salvation bit, but he's not. Tash exists and he is direct opposition to Aslan. I think by serving a god, we come to know more about that god. If it is a false god, we will remain unfulfilled. If we were seeking good and the god we were serving was evil, we would also remain unfulfilled. Even though Emeth was deceived by his society, how could he see Tash as good if he wasn't? Emeth heard lies about Aslan, yet if he really were seeking truth and goodness, don't you think he would have explored more about Aslan? To me, his belief in Tash shows mindless acceptance of "doctrines", not earnest seeking of truth. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Myth Became Fact

In the article it talks about the myth that remains.  Different views and philosophies on the world come and go.  But there is one myth that seems to stick around no matter what happens or how much it gets persecuted.   In a nutshell, it was this "myth that remains" idea that convinced Lewis to believe in Christianity.  Tolkien really stressed the idea that the Bible was true mythology.  So this whole idea of myth is just fascinating to me.  I actually read a book on C.S Lewis that talks about how every type of people/nation on the earth has a ancient myth about a god, who becomes human and dies to give life.  One example is the myth of the corn god.  He is a god who comes down, dies for his people, to be reborn into corn to feed them.  And Lewis understood this to be God, preparing everyone for Christ.  Preparing them to believe in a diety that becomes human in order to die that humanity might be saved.  That way when the true myth comes...it isn't hard to believe.  

The article also really got me to try to think and understand what has happened to Christianity and where does its true power lie?  Does its power lie in the written scripture?  Or does it lie somewhere else, somewhere maybe we have forgotten?  During Christ's life, I believe his message was able to spread so quickly, so powerfully, and so fast, because it was something that you witnessed.  You got to see people start to believe.  You got to see lives change everyday.  I think that is something we are missing today.  So why isn't it like this today?  Well for one, most of the world doesn't believe in Jesus.  So those who do and those who hold to his word, stick out like sore thumbs.  And it is this aspect of the Christian life that most people and even Christians can find repulsing and burdensome.  The article "Myth Became Fact" got me to realize that I do not want to be a highly educated pseudo-Christian.  Those people miss out on the message that Jesus said was simple.  This is also another reason why I appreciate the Chronicles of Narnia.  Lewis was able to create a story that gives us universal and biblical themes, in a way that isn't "forced".  I mean nobody wants to be beaten over the head bn a bible.   Thats not the way you try get people to understand God's truth.  That way doesn't work.  At least not in today's world.  Any thing you believe in the Bible can be countered by most intelligent people out there.  It is humbling and it has made me realize that you cannot convince people sometimes with mere words and arguments.  

There were some interesting biblical parallels that I found when I read the Voyage of the Dawn Treader.  I noticed something in the story about how Eustice becomes a dragon.  It is made plain that Eustice doesn't like to work.  In fact he ditches the crew because he doesnt want to work and at the same time he finds the dragons cave and the treasure.  This verse from Proverbs came to mind.  "The sluggards craving will be the death of him".  Eustace didnt want to work but craved the riches and then he found himself transformed into a dragon and a deep sleep (death)

I also thought that Reepicheeps story was reminiscent to that of Elijahs.  Reepicheep doesnt die.  He goes to Aslan's country.  Similiar to how Elijah was caught up to heaven.  

So I know that my topic was all over the place.  But that is how my mind works.

  

Deep down beliefs: Edmund and Susan's sinerity

After reading in the Narnia books, two phrases caught my attention.
1.“Deep down inside him he really knew that the white witch was bad and cruel,” (LWW 97) thought Edmund as walked to her house about to betray his siblings.
2.Ï really believed it was him…I mean deep down inside,” (PC) said Susan (to Lucy) after she finally saw Alsan.

At first, each phrase seemed similar because each character is admitting that they believed something “deep down inside,” which they originally ignored, but after examining the phrases, it seems as though each phrase has a completely different meaning; one phrase is sincere and one is just a cover up.

In the Narnia books, we’re granted the privilege of “seeing” the character’s thoughts at times, which brings about one of the differences between these two phrases. Edmund’s phrase comes from his thoughts (what he was thinking and feeling at that moment), which leads me to believe that he was very sincere about believing deep down that the witch was bad. However, Susan’s phrase comes to us from the narrator telling us what she said. Since she was human, it is a possibility that Susan was thinking something else (about covering up her actions?) during the time of her “confession” to Lucy. Therefore, Susan’s statement makes me question how sincere she was in her belief.

Edmund’s actions of that same evening in which he said the phrase indicate that he knew deep down what was true but something else was driving him to the witch. First, we find out that Edmund had not enjoyed the Beavers’ supper because he was thinking of Turkish Delight (“bad magic food,” LWW 95) during the meal. Then after he left, and was trying to think about the queen, the narrator writes, “be he managed to believe, or to pretend to believe, that she wouldn’t do anything very bad to them…because all these people…are her enemies,”(LWW 96). Afterwards, the narrator adds, “At least, that was the excuse he made in his own mind for what he was doing. It was not a very good excuse, however, for deep down inside him he really knew that the White Witch was bad and cruel, (LWW 97).

Susan’s actions were very different. First, she snapped at Lucy for waking the group up to show them nothing but air and to accuse Lucy of dreaming. Susan forgets past events that Lucy usually turns out to be right in order to satisfy her own desire—to go back to sleep. Then, once she’s awake, Susan wines that Lucy has no right to boss them around because she’s the youngest and shows no desire to believe in anything Lucy says. Finally, as the group follows Lucy, one by one they begin to see Alsan, but the narrator points out specifically that during the walk, “Everyone but Susan and the Dwarf could see him now, (PC 160). It was not until the group reached the top of the hill at the stone table that Susan could see Alsan and said to Lucy, “I really believed it was him…he, I mean—yesterday…I mean deep down inside. Or I could have, if I’d let myself. But I just wanted to get out of the woods. (PC 161)

Especially because Susan added, “Or I could have, if I’d let myself,” makes her sincerity highly questionable. With Edmund, the narrator points out that he was trying to find excuses but with Susan, the narrator seems to be showing that Susan has plenty of excuses readily available and makes me doubt her sincerity.
What do you think about Edmund and Susan's sincerity?

The problem of good.

I just finished reading the article Aslan the Terrible for class on Monday and am left with some questions. The author of the article outlines Lewis’ beliefs and solutions to the “problem of pain” that many people have struggled with. As I was reading the article, I was not really disagreeing with anything that the author had to say (some of it was rather interesting) but, started to wonder why we focus so much on understanding the problem of pain. I suppose it is human nature to try and figure things out but, why so much focus on the negative. Then, the author said something that, unless I am wrong in my understanding, I do not agree with:



“We can attain real happiness only by becoming worthy of God's love, and we can only do that by becoming better people.”


Here is my main qualm with this statement; when will we ever become worthy of God’s love? Never. Does that mean we will never attain real happiness? I don’t think I will ever become worthy of God’s love but do hope to someday know real happiness. This, to me, sounds somewhat like one must become worthy of heaven which, then seems to take away the power of the cross and the grace of God.


I’ll move away from that tangent now and back to my original thought: why must we focus so much on the negative problem of pain? I believe I am stealing from N.T. Wright here but, if we must learn to understand the problem of pain shouldn’t we also focus on the problem of good? That being, how can the world be a complete accident, a random thing, and yet still hold such a thing as beauty and value. There seems to be much intrinsic evil that we try to account for but, what about accounting for the intrinsic good? There is a problem of pain in the world but, there is also a problem of good. I think by focusing so much on the pain aspect of life we neglect a vital part of creation.

Mythstory

We probably won't get to discuss Lewis's essay "Myth Became Fact," but I feel as though it is absolutely worth a blog post, at least.  It was incredible.

I feel as though, by way of explanation, I should share a piece of my own story.  I grew up in the church knowing that the Bible was important, that Bible stories actually happened, and that God's Word was something necessary on a daily basis.  However, all that information never became passion.  I didn't follow a daily devotion regimen, I never really meditated on God's Word, I never hungered and burned to read my Bible.  Two summers ago, before beginning my freshman year here, I attended a conference in Chicago called MERGE.  MERGE goes through the whole Bible in 6 days, condensing and repackaging the Bible into 7 episodes that demonstrate the story-arc of the Bible as a whole.  I fell in love.  I've always loved reading, always loved movies, always loved stories.  Now, the Bible was a story, and it finally made sense to me.

Lewis's argues that Christianity's dependence on the myth of the Bible is its key component, as opposed to the doctrines that intellectuals and theologians propose as core.  Some people, e.g. everyone in my church, would be shocked to hear the Bible referred to as mere myth.  Nasty e-mails, caustic discussions at prayer groups, and threats of excommunication would erupt should I come forward as believing the Bible to be myth.  However, I think it fits.  If you look at any other culture's religion, it will be surrounded by fantastic folklore that literature has titled "myth."  But not the Bible.  Similar elements, language, and imagery is used, but the Bible is not to be considered myth.  

The beauty and power of our mythology is that it actually happened.  Our myth is history; our history is myth (hence this blog being titled "mythstory."  You see what I did?  I combined the two words...)  How incredible is that????  Consider the outrageous events of Greek mythology, or the calamitous stories in Norse mythology.  They're great stories.  They inspire, instruct, elate, but they never happened.  Ours Did!  I agree entirely with Lewis when he says: "God is more than a god, not less; Christ is more than Balder, not less.  We must not be ashamed of the mythical radiance resting on our theology" (p. 67).  Instead, I revel in it.

Problem Solved

Ok, so this isn't an official post, but I think I just figured something out:

"Aslan!" said Lucy almost a little reproachfully. "Don't make fun of me. As if anything I could do would make you visible!"
"It did," said Aslan. "Do you think I wouldn't obey my own rules?"

So there you have it. In Narnia, Aslan follows His own rules. Our world, however, is not Narnia. And Aslan is not Jesus. So I guess it doesn't solve anything for us, but in LWW, Aslan has to take Edmund's place because it follows His own rules.

It's All about Love

Over the last few days I have been thinking a lot about what I believe is a large theme of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe: love. Throughout the whole book, as is throughout human nature, there are mess-ups followed by redemption.
In class we talked about why Aslan had to die, and the truth is he did not, rather he chose to. As we talked through the issue and came up with different theories backed up by evidence, the one that truly stuck out to me was love. Of course Aslan did not have to sacrifice himself, he did not do a single thing wrong. However, because Edmund “sinned” a debt had to be paid. Normally, and in many cultures today, it would be Edmund’s responsibility to take the punishment- death. Nevertheless, Edmund does nothing.
Aslan loves Edmund enough to die for him- to use himself as a sacrifice.
Aslan allows the White Witch to destroy, humiliate, and slaughter him in order for the “sin” of Edmund to be washed away.
Even now as I think about how much Aslan sought after the children, and all of Narnia, I am blown away. I know when someone does me wrong, even in the smallest way, the last thing I want to do is help them. I think this is the point Lewis is making (put in my own words of course): love is not easy, it requires sacrifice. Throughout our life we will be hurt by people we love, or by the ones we don’t love, and he is calling us to keep loving them, even when it requires us to sacrifice ourselves.
And then comes that infamous word: balance. How much of ourselves should we give away before saying enough is enough? I certainly do not know the answer to this question and honestly I don’t know if I, or anyone, ever will.

Narnia, Magnifying Glasses, and Finite Understanding

During class conversation last week, the veracity of Lewis’ Narnian world came into question. How would Mr. and Mrs. Beaver acquire potatoes or jam, and how would the sudden thaw of a century-long winter not cause massive flooding? Why does Lewis choose to carefully explain some things, repeat seemingly unremarkable phrases as if they were very important, and leave us entirely bewildered at his meaning in other things? However much we can ascertain of Lewis and his world, we cannot ultimately know the mind of the writer. Many years from now, students studying Lewis will be asking similar questions and seeking to unravel the meaning behind the same words. Though Lewis does not flesh out the particulars as clearly as Tolkien, the details do not ultimately contain the scope of the story. Looking too closely through a magnifying glass creates distortion, but pulling back brings an object into clearer focus. Lewis doesn’t need all aspects of his Narnian world to make sense to us, but if we entrench ourselves in the details and discrepancies, his meaning may become lost on us.

Tangentially, though we are seeking to expand our understanding of C.S. Lewis, our class discussions have reminded me of the limits of the human mind. This is not to disparage the ideas that have been spoken, but no matter how expansive the thoughts we ponder and articulate, we are simply not able to wrap our mind around all the ideas we encounter. In our logical world of reasoned arguments, the thought that we cannot understand it all may seem threatening, disconcerting, or simply affronting. However, I think there is freedom both in plying the limits of our understanding and accepting that such limitations exist.

As philosophically as we may approach Lewis’ work, Narnia is still a world that takes the spirit of a child to fully enter. Lucy never doubted the reality of what she had seen, even though she did not understand it all. This makes me think of life in the Kingdom of God. We sometimes do not believe God for the things we do not understand of Him. How greatly we limit His power and misunderstand His being by relegating Him to the chambers of our finite understanding. “Can you search out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than the heaven – what can you do? Deeper than Sheol – what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth and broader than the sea” (Job 11:7-9).

The Fall only happened after man sinned too...

In class, I asked a question: “Why is it significant that Lewis uses a male to initiate the evil struggle or intent.” I grappled with the possibilities, and, after some discussions with my classmate and my roommate, I discovered two possible answers to my question.
The first answer I derived from Lewis background. Lewis had little interaction with women in his life. His mother died while he was young, he went to an all boy boarding school, and he didn’t marry until later in his life. These factors probably greatly influenced Lewis’s writings because he doesn’t understand women the way different authors do. Thus, I’ve decided he used males to depict his evil tendencies, he gave Edmund and Digory character flaws that instigate the evil/problems, and it’s all because he understands how boys/men/males in general function.
The second thought I had came through conversation with my roommate. She made the statement: “Well, the fall didn’t happen until man sinned too.” I shuddered when I heard that; it was like a statement of truth so profound it was eerie, isolated above the rest. Maybe, unintentionally or not, Lewis used males as the cause of evil because the fall does not happen until man sins too. So the fall of the Narnian world only came about because Digory rang the bell in Charn, and Edmund caused chaos because he fell captive to trickery and deception. So, women may have sinned first, but the fall did not happen until man sinned. I just, shudder at that connection (and the very idea). So whether either of those ideas actually answer the question is beside the point. I picked up on a few important factors in Lewis’s writing that may or may not be intentional, but certainly influenced the outlook in the Narnian adventures.

Edmund: The Ignorant to the Just

As I completed The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, I found my favorite part of the book was Edmund’s transformation. He is rude, self centered and just plain mean. He is also quick to act but not so quick to consider how his actions might affect and hurt those closest to him. However, as a human, he has a capacity for both good and evil and no matter how far he falls into the evil, there is still redemption available for him. Hmm, sound familiar?

Ed is so wrapped up in the Turkish delight that he does not care if the White Witch is evil. Like we have talked about, he mentally justifies his actions to himself for his own benefit and rationalizes both his and the Witch’s behavior. At this point I am thinking, “Wow, what a jerk of a brother.” Nevertheless, something happens to Edmund that I believe happens to all of us that have lost your heads in sight of ourselves. Common sense kicked in and his true allegiance became known. He realized what evil was and how it was working and then just like that, he chose to be submissive to Aslan and Aslan redeemed him.

Edmund’s transformation came to be because of his own will to be submissive to a higher power and he had the courage to make a change in himself, not only for his own betterment, but for those he cared about. It is similar with us as Christians. We can get so wrapped up in our own lives and what we need, we forget about who is ultimately important. We can fall so far into the snares of evil that we cannot escape on our, but need a savior. That is where our transformation begins. When we have courage to be submissive to God, we have made the ultimate transformation from self centered and ignorant to humble and just. Just like Edmund.

A Simple Realization...

While reading The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe for the first time since like, early high school, it hit me harder than ever before that Jesus died. Now, I realize that that sounds kinda funny... Yes, we all know that Jesus died and rose again on the third day and went to Heaven to prepare a place for us. And we can talk all day about Reconciliation or Ransom or who knows what all was exactly accomplished. There are lots of beautiful songs about "the wondrous cross" and other things praising Jesus' final act that saved us all.

But Jesus died.

I was reading about Aslan being beaten and mocked and shorn and that was all fine and good, I mean we've heard all about that and we've seen tons and tons of movies where people get tortured in horrified and gory ways, not to mention the Passion of the Christ and once you add that to all the bloody video games that callous us it's really not a problem to just skim over all that bad stuff but then... Dead?

Jesus died.

He wasn't just beaten and bruised and flogged and stabbed and punched and mocked and spit on. He was killed. Once again, it's not all the "how's" that hit me. Nor did all the repercussions of that sacrifice have such an impact. It was just the simple realization that Jesus actually died. That's all.

Deep Magic, Covenants and Star Trek Voyager

Spoiler Alert*, Aslan dies. Now, that we have that out of the way. After Aslan dies he returns from the dead he explains what has happened to Lucy as this:
“that though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read a different incantation. She would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards. . .” (Lewis 185).
So this piece definitely shows an evil leader (possible devil allegory) who was not equal to the good creator in the story, having been made not begotten.
In class we talked about if God had tricked Satan, and this brought to mind a couple of questions as I was driving today. So here are my questions and the possible answers I came up with.
1.) Did God create Satan before or after God’s covenants with humankind?
Before, so this is not a direct allegory since Satan is then aware of all of God’s promises, including the promise God makes to Eve in Genesis 3:15 “One of her (Eve) descents will crush your head. And you will bite his heel.” This covenant implies that Satan would lose, even if he accomplished a little. (Head crushing is better then heel biting) And this comment was said directly to Satan himself.
2.) Did God Trick Satan into killing Jesus? Was Satan just not paying enough attention to detail when he did it?
I actually have a third option, what if Satan wanted to be defeated? Mind you this is just a crazy idea, and I’m no were near believing it myself. But bear with me as I have fun running out a crazy idea. In Star Trek Voyager there is an Episode called “The Thaw”. In this episode there have been 3 people asleep in an interactive cryostasis unit that interlinked their brains. Quite by accident they create in this fake world in their minds a character that seems quite real and is very powerful and personifies fear. Well Captain Janeway comes to the conclusion that Fear’s greatest wish is to be defeated. And she was correct this personification was looking for someone strong enough to defeat him, and so I am wondering, did Satan want to be defeated? Is that his entire purpose? Because if not he is the biggest idiot ever that didn’t think through all the known facts.

Is it stealing?

I have decided to elaborate a bit futher on my thoughts for the comment that I made at the end of class. I asked if our being stolen by satan was really stealing if our sinful acts were done willingly. This relates to whether or not Edmund was at fault for his joining the side of the witch. If he wasn't at fault because of the magical Turkish delights, then he could be said to have been stolen away. He could be compared to being a drug addict. An addict tries a substance and gets hooked on it. They need their fix right? So they are not responsible for the things they do because they are under the influence of an addiction. They can't help it. Well then I think: what if they have to steal to buy the drugs needed to satisfy their addiction? Are they responsible for that crime. Or are they not responsible for their crime because of the addiction. What if they end up killing someone to feed their addiction? Are they responsible for what they've done?

Now in Edmund's case it is quite different because he didn't know that the turkish delight was magical and would make him want more. A drug addict chooses to do the drugs even knowing that they can become addicted. It is much more innocent since the witch is being kind to him after she decides to use him. It is after this that he learns more about the witch and how cruel she actually is from Lucy. He also gets another shove in the witches direction when Peter yells at him for being cruel to Lucy when he lies about visiting narnia. The witch promised him power over his siblings as well, so being yelled at would make him consider helping the witch all the more. This all makes it easier to say that Edmund isn't really at fault except for one thing. He made the choice to step onto the witch's sleigh even though her first actions toward him were hostile and not very friendly. At any point he could have chosen to get back on the right path even though the influences not to do so were greater. It's like the saying: "Don't dig yourself a hole you can't get out of." The witch never forced him to do anything. She only supplied the temptation. That again brings to mind the question of whether or not it is stealing or kidnapping if you willingly go with the thief or the kidnapper.

Humans In Narnia

Ok, before i write this i have never done this before, and dont really have a strong background in Narnian Lore, but I have personally find it interesting that with all these magical creatures, and animals he chose regular humans, to rule in it. At first i found myself thinking, maybe it was to make it easier to identify with readers, or maybe to make kids believe that they could be kings, or queen if the happened to stumble upon a new world via a wardrobe. My biggest reason i even bring this up is that i was wondering that if he chose humans as a redemtion, to show that humans, the creation of God, the being who have brought corruption into religon, but was he trying to show that even though there was corruton amoung the religon, people have taken the word of God and tried to make a profit off of it. So i bring the question did lews choose humans to rule a new world as a way to show that we are God only chosen ones , or to rule any world, or was it to show that we as christians need to find that child like faith, and truth to our religous belifs.

Now after saying this i dont know if this makes sense at all it was just some incorherent thought that was one my mind lately.

Unreasonable?

Today in class, and as I was reading the blog this afternoon, I was struck by the idea of rationality that is assumed in all our discussion: Was it rational for Susan and Peter to believe Lucy when she told them her fantastic story about Narnia? Could a logical mind really believe (whether they choose to or not) in a magic land just out of sight?

Background: Last fall in Music of the Church, I read a book called Wiser Than Despair by Quentin Faulkner. It is a history of music in the church and has a large portion on the effects of the Enlightenment on the Church in general and church music in particular. In this reading, I realized that the logical/rational/scientific way of thinking that we so easily take for granted is not the way that humans have thought throughout time; it's very new in the course of history. Does this mean that all the humans before, let's say, 1700 were devoid of the tools for thinking properly? Does this mean that we have the right to look down on them as less civilized?

My question: Why are we so dead-set against belief in the supernatural or the incredible? Does something not exist simply because we cannot scientifically prove it? Perhaps, in Narnia, Lewis is asking us to question what we see as reality. Is it only what we can touch? Or could there be more, unseen but completely real, that we refuse to recognize? Does it offend our rational sensibilities to trust in what we can't see? Perhaps the reason that Peter and Susan did not believe Lucy was that they would feel silly or childish in doing so.

Because most of you are Christians, I know that you do believe there is more to this world and this life than what we can touch. There is a God who loves and lives and moves, but do we expect Him to fit into our neat, scientific view of the world? Do we fear trusting Him with all that we are because He doesn't always make logical sense to us? Remember, "He is not a tame lion."

Lucy's Story

Today in class I started thinking about how Lucy’s story of Narnia is a lot like our own gospel story. I don’t want to draw too many correlations and connect dots that are not meant to be there but, I feel that it would be hard not to resonate with Lucy’s feelings and frustrations about Narnia. Lucy’s journey to Narnia is unexpected, obscure, and completely out-of-this-world. I don’t believe that there would be away for Lucy to have described her experience in any sort of way that would have tempted the other’s to whole-heartily believe her. However, I also don’t believe that, after encountering Narnia, it would be possible for anyone not to share that experience.
Obviously, there are a lot of correlations with the gospel story that can be taken from that (the experience of Christ and the good news, sharing that, etc…) but, what struck me the most was the reactions of the others. Given Peter and Susan’s beliefs of their world, and the “truths” they know that exist around them, I think Lewis’ description of their reaction is very realistic. If Lucy’s siblings had unwittingly believed her and her tales of a far off land, especially after failing in their attempt to get their themselves, we would see them as irrational. Who, on our views of knowledge and reason, rationally believe such stories. Peter and Susan had no reason to believe Lucy; no obligation, no proof. There seems to be no reason for them to believe in Narnia. In fact, them not believing seems to be a rational belief in their circumstance.
This makes me wonder then, if it is rational for certain people in certain circumstances to not believe the story of the gospels. That the story may be true but, there are people who have foundational beliefs and knowledge that would not rationally support our interpretation of the gospel story. I think from here I could go on a long tangent about translating the gospel in ways that are relevant for other cultures but I will leave that be for now and end here.

Grown-Ups are Icky...

Growing up loving Narnia but ignorant of C.S.Lewis, I must say I was shocked at this class beginning with hints at Lewis's sexism.  Typing frankly, who cares if he was sexist?  Narnia is still beautiful.  

(Perhaps a tangential philosophical question, but how can scarred, nasty creatures create beauty?  Consider, and return).

I read The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe this time looking for sexism, and I must say, I can see it.  I began reading The Magician's Nephew with the same intent, and was blown away.  Lewis, beyond sexist, is "agist."  

Consider Uncle Andrew.  Digory, one of two main characters, again children, lives with his aunt and uncle.  Uncle Andrew is described colorfully as a scary, eccentric, wicked being.  We meet Jadis, the Witch found and defeated in the second book in the series, in Charn, another world accessed by the Wood between the Worlds.  Seeing the two adults together, we realize that Lewis makes statement after statement that adults are the real villains, and children the protagonists of this life.

Pause.  Insert counterpoint.  The Cabby.  The Cabby's Wife.  Professor Kirke, who, in actuallity, is Digory.  These adults are not villified.  Notice here, however, that it is not age that defines adulthood, but behavior.  Adult behavior, Lewis seems to argue, is inherently villainous; instead, childlike innocence is to be preferred.  In all seven stories, children are the protagonists.  The humans encountered in Narnia (I'm thinking namely of the princes found in Prince Caspian, The Silver Chair, and The Last Battle) are also good by nature.  Shasta's guardian in The Horse and His Boy, the enchantress in The Silver Chair, Uncle Miraz and other Telarmine lords in Prince Caspian, and the Calormene soldiers in The Last Battle, are all villains of their stories, and, though perhaps not all purely human adults, all behave adultly.  

Forgive me: this is by no means exhaustive (at least, it shouldn't be).  Professor Kirke, as a character, intrigues me.  At first, he seemed to behave as an adult.  He thought logically; he reasoned like an adult.  Perhaps being childlike is simply the willingness to believe magic and fairy stories are true.  Jesus told his discliples that only the childlike shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  Maybe Jesus meant that only people willing to believe in such a fantastic place as His can actually get there.  Digest.  

Turkish Delight

Every time I read “The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe” I experience something unique. The book plays out in my head in a new way and I feel almost as though I’m reading it again for the first time. That is one of the reasons I love this book. I feel like Lewis wrote it wanting readers to come to their own conclusions and be involved in their own way in his fairy tale. The prevalent part for me this time around was when Edmund was offered the Turkish delight and he took it. My immediate thought is “silly Edmund, why would he eat it, can’t he see it’s a terrible idea”. As I thought about it, I realized that only because I know the context and the background of the White Witch do I think Edmund should say no. In reality the Turkish delight looked delicious to Edmund and why would he pass up one of his favourite foods? This reminded me that temptation often looks good, and is pleasurable for a moment, but has no eternal benefit or value. The Turkish delight simply got Edmund into more trouble; it was an instant gratification that lead to consequences. I have been reminded to look past instant gratification and look for the things that are eternal, no matter how delightfully the temptation appears to be wrapped.

Narnia and the Seven Deadly Sins

Okay, so this really has nothing to do with all the other posts or anything we talked about in class, but I found it pretty interesting. I was reading some interviews and other articles online about C.S. Lewis and the Narnia series, trying to inspire an idea for my blog post, and I came across several articles linking the Narna books to the Seven Deadly Sins. I thought it was interesting, so I looked into it a little more. Many critics have proposed that each of the seven books contains themes of one of the sins, and in LWW specifically the sin of gluttony. Whether this is actually true or not is something we may never find out, but it made sense to me as I read through some explanations. Obviously, gluttony is a problem Edmund struggles with in this first book, from the first taste of the magic Turkish Delight, that is all he can think about even when he is not with the Witch. Lewis goes back to this theme over and over, in chapter 4 he writes "But he still wanted to taste that Turkish Delight more than he wanted anything else." And in chapter 9 he writes "He had eaten his share of the dinner, but he hadn't really enjoyed it because he was thinking all the time about Turkish Delight." This sin has obviously become a theme in this book, but do you think Lewis really made each book center around one of the Seven Deadly Sins? Is it more than just a coincidence that it is this way?

Dangerously Good

My blog is more of a question than an observation. When Mr. Beaver is first telling the children about Aslan he says "'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you." (chpt. 8 pg 146). When I first read this statement it seemed so ironic to me, the way Mr. Beaver speaks with such frankness as if it were a King's nature to always be full of potentially dangerous power and yet still be "good". Aslan's not-safeness (i can't think of a good word to use) and his goodness walk hand in hand.
Isn't this contrary to what we are acustomed? We want our rulers to be safe, we want checks and balances to their power. Even if our rulers act "good" we are always suspicious that there may be a hidden flaw. In our world, power is easily corrupted, yet the Narnians do not hesitate to put their entire trust in Aslan even though he has the ability to rip them to shreds.
Of course if you think of Aslan as "God" it is possible for him to be entirely good and entirely trustworthy, but I still think it is interesting to think about because usually "safe" is "good," but not in this case. So what do you guys think... do Mr. Beaver's words make sense?

Just a story

I often have these thoughts while reading literature for an English class: why can't we just read it? Why can't we just enjoy the story? Get to know the characters? Breathe in the language and the atmosphere? I understand that sometimes a deeper understanding of the themes, background, or underlyings messages also increase the reader's appreciation of the story. However, sometimes I think we go to far in our analizing. This came to me again when reading through the blogs. I'm not slamming anyone's blogs because they were actually all really interesting points that got me thinking. But it did make me wonder again why, for a book to be considered worthy of our time, it has to be filled with secret hints and meaning. A book that's thought-provoking or deep or complex, fine. But why does the Narnia series, for example, have to be an allegory? Why can't they just be interesting stories and still be worth something for that fact alone?
I think this type of book (the kind that finds a happy medium between shallow and boring and yet not necessarily at the level of a higher education textbook) is the type that Lewis is referring to when he says that any good childrens' book is just a good book. Like good Disney movies (like Rascal mentions, and which, mostly, are childrens' stories), a good book, childrens' or not, will have more meaning as the reader progresses in his/her life. All of its factors will develop and mature with the reader, but the basic story will still be great.
Anyway, I'm not sure this adequately wraps up what I've been trying to put in words, but I hope it at least made sense! :)

Reading the Author into the Story

In one of our first classes we discussed the tendency to read the personal biography of the author into his story, and how this may alter and potentially taint our conception of the story. Though Lewis himself was adamantly opposed to this, I find it difficult to refrain. How can a story not reflect the attitudes, beliefs, preferences and life experiences of its creator? Even if the author attempts to present in her writing a moral code much different than the one to which she ascribes, the very depiction of this "alternative" code will evidently be the product of the writer (in this case a writer who holds views opposing those presented in the text). In other words, even if the story is written with the intent of presenting an opposing view, that very fact will more likely than not be evident in the final product.
If we cannot draw on the life experiences of the author as we attempt to make meaning of the story, on what can we draw? We can't very well ask the question, "What was Lewis up to?" if we aren't allowed to know or reflect on his personal context. Discussions that at first blush seem to rise completely from the text carry with them assumptions regarding the intent of the author. Many of these assumptions are necessarily based on our knowledge of the author's personal life, experiences and convictions. The settings of long hallways, empty rooms and hours spent indoors are not usual. In light of Lewis' background at Little Lea, however, they seem to us somehow more appropriate, more sensical. The mention of mythical dryads and giants along with talking animals might be seen as just another part of fantasy. In light of Lewis' extensive work in Classics and childhood world of Boxen, though, their presence takes on new meaning. Our knowledge of the author's personal belief system is of even greater interest and importance in our interpretation. Would we so readily see Aslan as a Christ figure if we were unaware of Lewis' Christian convictions? Would we indeed be very interested in the Narnia books at all if it weren't for Lewis' status in the Evangelical Christian world? I doubt it.
I would not go so far as to say that we must study the life of the author in detail in order to glean anything of value from his work, but I would say that proper interpretation and study requires a little background information, whether Lewis approved of it or not. One might argue that the Great Creator himself is best revealed in his creation. Can we not say the same about an author like Lewis?

Disney Movies and Sponge Bob

During class on Monday, we discussed the differences between a "children's book" and an " adult book", we talked about children's books being categorized in genres and if adults could, or should enjoy them. I am also pretty sure we talked about why Lewis decided to write the Narnia series as children books (or at least that's what i was thinking about during discussion). But a thought accured to me. Maybe Lewis wrote these children stories for adults.

When I was in elementary school I read the Narnia series. I loved the books, they were great stories. However; I didn't understand them as well as I did when I read them again in high school, not to mention now. This kind of reminds me of baby sitting my little cousin Jeff. Jeff and I love Sponge Bob, and Disney movies (the old stuff, not the crappy new episodes of sponge bob). We usually laugh and enjoy the same event or joke, but every once in awhile the writers throw in an adult joke or hidden symbolism that Jeff, at the green age of 7 just doesn't understand.

Writers of "children's" shows and movies constantly add in adult humor that goes completely over kids heads and even though it is entertaining to kids, they don't appreciate it to it's full potential. That is why in the beginning of, " The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe." Lewis writes, " But someday you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again." C.S. Lewis is certainly writing for the young reader, but I think that these fairy tales are meant for adults to read perhaps more than children.

Ode to Edmund

I have to say I'm struggling. I always struggled with Philosophy because questions can keep coming up and there never seems to be one right or wrong answer. I guess I have more of a scientific mind. I like evidence that supports one answer and throws out all the rest. However, I will give this philosophical thinking a stab.

Like one blogger, I too wondered what would have happened if a different child had met the witch. However, as I delved into the subject, I felt like I was focusing on the wrong question. Therefore, I began focus on what would have happened if Edmund had not been the first one to meet the witch and began to realized that he was really the perfect candidate to have the first encounter.

Main reasoning:
Without the severely flawed characteristics Edmund contained, he would have been less susceptible to the witch and the plot probably would not have twisted towards fulfilling the witch's desires that led to Aslan's death, resurrection, and redemption of Narnia. A completely different book would have formed.

Thus, we would have had a less interesting book to compare to the Christian beliefs because without Edmund being so flawed and giving us a person with whom we can compare, the beautiful and precious message would not have been revealed that God (Alsan) finds us when we're in our weakest state, will forgive us for what we've done, and use us in the plan he has for redeeming the world from evil (even though we were the cause of that evil).

Many may hate Edmund, but not only did one person say it correctly in class that "if you hate Edmund then you hate yourself," us hating Edmund and wishing someone less susceptible had met the witch leads us wishing for a different book that doesn't reveal ourselves as much and doesn't portray such wonderful messages to the secular and non-secular world.

Yep, so that's my stab. Forgive me if my thoughts are too simple. Feel free to expand on these ideas or tell me to try again. Like I said, I'm new at this philosophical thinking.

a book for all ages

What struck me most when reading The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was the middle paragraph on page 185 (forgive me for not typing it out--it is quite lengthy). It is the scene where Aslan has just come back to life and the first thing he does is playfully chase Susan and Lucy around the Table.

The significance and beauty of this scene lies in its appeal to all ages. Lewis writes, “It was a romp as no one has ever had except in Narnia; and whether it was more like playing with a thunderstorm or playing with a kitten Lucy could never make up her mind” (185). For the children who had witnessed the moments leading up to Aslan’s death, the reality of the Lion is overwhelming; but rather than going straight to battle Aslan provides a touching alternative – first the three rejoice his resurrection.

For the children, it is almost as if the pet they had had all their lives has died and yet somehow miraculously come back to life. Although this seems to be an understatement – since Aslan is certainly more than just a pet – this is the aspect of the scene that appeals to children. The list of verbs used by Lewis certainly alludes most commonly to child’s play: catch, diving, tossing, rolled, etc. As Prof. Jensen pointed out in class, children often can recite the facts taught to them about the Bible, but their understanding of what the Gospel really means does not develop until later on. By including this poignant scene of Lucy, Susan, and Aslan chasing each other and rolling in the lush, green grass around the Stone Table, Lewis attempts to include the children in the miracle of Christ’s restoration.

Alternatively, characterizing Aslan as a thunderstorm (in the above quote) reveals the Lion’s other side – one of authoritative intensity. Furthermore, the Lion illustrates this greatly through his roaring after the gaming has ended. Lewis describes the roaring Aslan’s face as “so terrible that they [Lucy and Susan] did not dare to look at it” (185). Older fans of the Narnia novels realize this is the key to Aslan’s representation of God on earth (Christ). Christ was both human and divine. Through describing Aslan as both a kitten and a thunderstorm, Lewis may be alluding to this significant distinction. Also – one last point – it may even be argued that since Lucy is the one who notes this, she is crossing into the more knowledgeable period of her life where belief in God takes on more import than memorizing Bible facts.