Integrative Essay

Over the past month or so our class has sought to “Develop a Christian Mind” while studying C.S. Lewis and his writings, one of the greatest Christian thinkers in the past century. And why must we put such effort into developing a Christian mind at all? Well, as In “Engaging God’s World”, Plantinga writes it is so that we may learn to live our lives “in continuity with Christ, taking on his mind and affections, acting as his body in the world, sharing his sufferings and his victories in the project of overcoming human misery and rebuilding God’s good creation.” (178) In short, it is so that we may better work for the kingdom of God. I can think of few better examples of someone who has devoted his entire life to God than C.S. Lewis.

When C.S. Lewis became a Christian he devoted everything to his belief. His life, his work, everything revolved around God. However, the thing that most impresses be about Lewis is not only his ardent defense of his faith but the sheer scope and number of books and essays he wrote. His mind was so finely tuned and sharp that he could write on nearly any topic, and write very well. The dedication it must have taken to accomplish everything he did is incredible to me. He wrote about philosophical topics, theology, ethics, science fiction, fantasy, morality, and numerous other topics. I can only hope that one day I will be able to have the kind of dedication Lewis had in my career.

One quote I particularly like from Lewis, that to me really shows his perspective on writing is this: “No man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring two pence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it." (Mere Christianity). To Lewis, innovation didn’t matter, originality didn’t matter, but rather it is the truth that reigns supreme. In my group’s presentation about Lewis’ approach to truth we were reminded of Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 which reads: “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, ‘Look! This is something new’? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time.” Originality is not something to seek, and Ecclesiastes says it is impossible to attain. Indeed, while reading Lewis I was not so much struck by how different or original his arguments were, they simply made a lot of sense.

While I did learn much from Lewis, it wasn’t always that what I learned was something new, but rather that Lewis wrote his essays so beautifully and simply that he brings to light matters that never occurred to me as important. One such topic I learned about is learning itself. Lewis’ idea of a college is a place where everyone is a student. The people we call “teachers” or “professors” are really just there to guide the process and help the students reach their full potential. A university student is there “not precisely to be taught, but to pick up what he can.” (Our English Syllabus) The example Professor Ribeiro used in class was striking to me. He told us of a story about a student who was angry that he did almost no lecturing. Rather, it was the students that were lecturing each other, having to learn about the topics themselves and then present their newfound knowledge to the class. The student said that he was paying the school a lot of money to be taught, but as Professor Ribeiro wisely pointed out, we are at college to learn, not to be taught. The job of a teacher isn’t to lecture, but to facilitate learning, however that is best achieved. The student’s job is to be obedient and humble (sometimes a hard thing for me to be) and be prepared to work hard and learn for the sake of learning, not for a grade.

In that process of learning, I have also realized this Interim that it is important to go about it the right way. In conversations and arguments especially, things like Bulverism must be avoided. Bulverism itself, as Lewis names it, is the idea that in order to win an argument one must simply assume the opponent is wrong and then “distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.” This really struck me perhaps because I am so often guilty of it. I am reminded of my childhood arguments with my brother. When we had a disagreement what we would end up arguing about was who was the most qualified to be right, who knew more about what we were arguing about rather than what the truth was. Of course, we see Bulverism in politics, but also in the academic world. The most qualified scientist, professor, or economist is assumed to be right by virtue of his or her qualifications rather than looking at the facts. Seeking truth is a wonderful thing, but because of Lewis I realize that how it is sought is in some ways just as important. If we do not enter an argument in humility, if we are not prepared to admit our faults and see where we are wrong, how can we learn?

Another theme both Lewis and Plantinga write about is self-evident truth, the first of which being our sensus divinitatus, our innate awareness of God that is in all people. I think both writers would agree that truth must start somewhere. There has to be some knowledge we simply know to be true, and that knowledge is the foundation for all the other knowledge of the world. Even atheists would agree that things like math must be true, and there is no evidence needed for it. Two plus two always equals four, no matter how you look at it. However, Lewis and Plantinga would also suggest that morality is also a self-evident truth. I found this very interesting, as I had never thought of it this way. In his essay “Poison of Subjectivism” Lewis speaks of morality by saying that “unless the measuring rod is independent of the things measured, we can do no measuring.” There must be a moral standard; otherwise the word morality becomes meaningless. How can we improve ourselves and become more moral people if there is no standard of morality to work for? Indeed, everyone seems to obey a code of morality, whether they admit it or not and as Plantinga suggests, it is for our own good. Rules like the Ten Commandments “are guides for a free and flourishing life.” The moral laws in this world are for our own benefit, and rather than limiting us can give us freedom.

While there are a few points about theology and life in general that Lewis and Plantinga would probably disagree on, Plantinga without doubt has a great admiration for C.S. Lewis, as I do. I also don’t agree with everything Lewis says, but he puts such thought and focus into everything he writes that he is so rarely wrong. He thinks everything out to the “absolute ruddy end” (Before We Can Communicate).

This class has truly been a blessing to me. Before this year I had read the “Chronicles of Narnia” but almost nothing else from Lewis. I loved reading his essays, perhaps even more than Narnia, because they really get at the essence of what he has to say; he says everything so simply and yet gracefully that everything he writes becomes interesting. However, I have been blessed not only by the lessons from Lewis, but also the lessons from my fellow students and the “older students”, my professors.

What strikes me most from my professors’ example is the passion Paulo and Adriana have for C.S. Lewis, but also for life. I remember Adriana talking about how much she wanted to go to Haiti when she heard of the disaster there. I remember Paulo speaking about the ethics of engineering. They both have integrated their beliefs into every part of their life and are truly prime citizens of the kingdom, passionately yearning for shalom here on earth. In the end, that is what I have most taken away from this interim. The examples I have seen of the passion and dedication to live life for God, no matter what one’s calling may be have impacted me greatly, and while I have yet to find out what I will be called to do, I know that I will go after it with a passion.

Works Cited

Lewis, C.S. “Before We Can Communicate.” God in the Dock. 26 January 2010

Lewis, C.S. “Bulverism.” God in the Dock. 26 January 2010.

Lewis, C.S. “Our English Syllabus.” Essay.

Lewis, C.S. “The Poison of Subjectivism.” Essay.

Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. 1952. Print.

NIV Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002. Print.

Plantinga, Cornelius Jr. Engaging God’s World: A Reformed Vision of Faith, Learning,
and Living. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

"The Problem of Pain" Chapter 6

"At first I am overwhelmed, and all my little happinesses look like broken toys. Then, slowly and reluctantly, bit by bit, I try to bring myself into the frame of mind that I should be in all times. I remind myself that all these toys were never intended to possess my heart, that my true good is in another world and my only real treasure is Christ"

Upon reading these lines I realized I have thought these thoughts before, and been in this situation. There are times, probably in everyone's life when things are going great. You are on a vacation, you have a new book to read, movie to watch, or game to play when you get sick, and are reminded that these pleasures are fleeting, doomed to fade if not soon, eventually. I remember one instance when I was on vacation as a kid, flying over the majestic Grand Canyon in Arizona in a five passenger plane when I got airsick. There was nowhere to go, nothing to do but let it out. Wow, did I feel horrible. Not only was there a big mess, but I was incredibly embarrassed, or perhaps ashamed is the better word. Whereas a few moments before I was so exited and elated to see such a cool place, my enjoyment turned to pain. While I don't think I learned the lesson C.S. Lewis suggests, that material pleasures are fleeting, I do believe it humbled me a bit.

It wasn't until later, upon contemplation on whether I truly believe in God (and decided I do), that I learned this lesson. There have been countless instances since that flight where I was so happy one moment, just to have pain take that happiness away a moment later. It has made me realize that happiness, specifically in material things, isn't everything. God is the only constant in this world, the only goal a person can stride for that will always be there. Aiming for anything else than to know and love God is like shooting an arrow at a target that might disappear a moment later, in the end it is just a waste of time.

"Man or Rabbit?"

The question asked of Lewis was "Can't you lead a good life without believing in Christianity?" His reply was most excellent, and scathing. Lewis only answers the question indirectly, but instead states that the question itself is foolish.

The question asked of C.S. Lewis implies that whether you can live a better life or not with or without Christianity is an important issue, as if faith in Christ should be taken up if one could live a better life that way. C.S. Lewis correctly points out that Christianity must either be true, or it must be false. A dedicated person would choose Christianity or not choose it after contemplation of whether or not they believe it to be true, not whether Christianity can benefit them somehow. That is like choosing a denomination based on which one has the better sanctuary, when you should choose a denomination based on whether you believe their central teachings.

I think that this kind of thinking is very common in American society. People will join a church because they like it more than another one. People will choose a job because it gives them more money, not because they are better at it or enjoy it more. This kind of thinking has been around for a long time, making choices based on perceived gains instead of more important reasons. This ideas ties in very well with "The Inner Ring", which said that if you choose friendships or seek to enter a "ring" because of something you think you will gain you are ultimately a "scoundrel". It is not only the destination that matters, but also the journey. Intentions are important, and it pays to make decisions for the right reasons.

Back to the original question, Lewis states that certainly there have been people who are not Christians but have lived very well. His hope, as well as mine, is that those people who have lived well, doing good deeds, will be forgiven at the gates of heaven and allowed to be admitted. However, being good without at least attempting to think of why he should be good is a hollow thing. It is like sleeping when you are not tired, the sleep just won't be as good as when you've had a full day. Either Christianity is true, and it is the reason for doing good deeds, or it isn't.

"The Inner Ring"

I have several different groups of friends, or "inner rings". Inevitably, these groups do become necessarily exclusive. There is simply a limit to the number of people that can fit into a single room, play cards, or sit on a couch. There is nothing wrong with having good groups of friends, or even being a little exclusive. Having a group of people that you care about, and who care about you is a great thing, and trying to have too many close friends is inevitably going to fail.

The thing to be careful is how we form these groups, and the reason for making friends. If we enter friendships with the motive of just being part of the group or because you think you can gain something from friendships they will invariably disappoint. Sure, you might gain whatever you think you might have, but in the end unless you change your attitude you probably won't have gained a real, meaningful friendship, just a shallow one that will die out or never become deep.

In the church, inner rings are also necessary, I believe. Churches should be very careful as to who they select to be their pastors, elders, and deacons. They should be people who stand by the central teachings of the church and truly care about the church they are a part of. Also, while I do not think anyone should be barred entrance into the church, as everyone needs God, I think churches should have a standard for membership. In order to gain membership, a person should also not only believe the central teachings of the church but be acting on those beliefs. This means that those who do not have their life in order or are still living sinfully should be asked to wait for membership until their life is in order. Membership in the church is not something that should be taken lightly. It is a commitment, one that should affect your life very much. If being a part of the Christian community of the church is not enough to make you want to get your life in order, perhaps you need to reevaluate you priorities and ask yourself if God is really the most important person in your life.

"Engaging God's World" Chapter 5

Desiring the kingdom

In our society we do in fact have a great deal of freedom to religion. Sure, there are many cases of persecution, but for the most part in America Christians are accepted. Now, while this freedom and acceptance is generally good, it can cause our desire for the kingdom to be lessened. Plantinga points out that the Israelites in the slavery wanted Christ's kingdom to come with all of their heart. In the time of slavery in America, the people who most longed for the kingdom of God were those who were enslaved.

We have easy lives; I have an easy life. I am a college student who often worries about what the future holds, but I never need to worry about whether I will be able to eat. I am not enslaved, I am not persecuted, I have faced no great challenges to my faith. I have a place to live, and there are people who love me. While I am thankful for all these things, sometimes I wonder if my faith would be stronger if my life were not so easy. In difficult times, we desire the kingdom even more. When we have nothing else, we value our faith and desire God's coming more than anything. In the difficult times we can truly see the need for God's salvation, in ways we cannot when times are good.

What we can do, then, is to work towards God's kingdom and think of it often. When we are not satisfied with the way things are, when we think of what life could be we want to work towards God's kingdom even more. In working for the kingdom, no matter what occupation we hold, we can get glimpses of the kind of life God intended for us, and we move toward it.

Like we discussed in class, it is not so much what we do but how we do it. Nearly any profession can be done to the glory of God, if done in the right spirit. I know for myself I find myself thinking so much more of what I will do, rather than how I will do it. At the end of the day, trusting that God will bring me where I need to go is what I strive for in my thoughts of the future.

"Eros"

There were a few points of Lewis' section on "Eros", the love between a man and a woman that I found very interesting. The first is that happiness is not necessarily a result of love, or even a goal. Lewis argues that people in love often would rather suffer together than be happy apart. Logic does not matter, trying to argue to the couple that they would be better off apart would be useless. Here, sometimes fortunately, sometimes unfortunately, I think Lewis is right. I know several couples who do not seem to bring each other any kind of happiness and yet, there they are, staying together. In fact, with one or two couples I've seen they seem far more unhappy when they are together; but I would never suggest they split up, because even if it were in their best interests, I know that I would not be listened to. Love can be blind, as the saying goes. However, this dedication is not all bad. It also means that the couple will not easily be split up, they will perhaps be more willing to stick together in hard times.

A second point Lewis makes that I found intriguing is that love itself can become an idol. It is not that we put the object of our love, our significant other, on a pedestal but rather that the love it self becomes a god to us. Love can become an excuse, a reason for doing things, whispering little things in our ear telling us to do things. I am reminded of a story I was once told, though I'm not sure if it was true or not. A man was very in love with a girl and they had decided to get married. Unfortunately the man didn't have enough money for a ring, but he desperately wanted to give one to his future wife. So, he broke into a diamond store and attempted to steal one, getting caught and thrown in jail in the process, believing he was doing it because of love, and his love made the theft o.k.. In the end, he could not give his girlfriend the ring, and more importantly, he could not be with her for years. Love had become his idol, and ruined him and his relationship.

Love between a man and a woman can be one of the most beautiful things in this world. However, if not entered into in the right spirit, it can be a bad thing. Lewis also used the beautiful analogy of a person diving into a pool. Falling in love is like diving: effortless and easy. It is swimming once you are in the pool that is the hard part, that is being In love. I know that I have certainly felt like I have fallen in love before, but I also know that I have never been in love. Being in love moves beyond the momentary joy of first finding a relationship, or looking at a pretty girl, it is a real desire for the person themselves, with them desiring you also. It is being willing to sacrifice and do nearly anything for the person you love (though this can get you into trouble). Eros is also, as we discussed in class, the closest thing we can get to the eternal love God has for us, and, like God's love, is incredibly valuable.

"Learning in Wartime"

"We are mistaken when we compare war with "normal life". Life has never been normal."

I believe C.S. Lewis' point here is that war, hard circumstances, pain, none of these things are excuses for failing to seek knowledge as a person should. There has been no time of complete peace in all of human history. There are always social problems if there are not wars. There are always some feelings of discontent if there are no social problems. To put it simply: life will never be perfect. It is an easy thing to make excuses as to why we should put our lives on hold and focus entirely on the war, or whatever problem we are facing. To do this, though, is to lessen oneself. It is reducing yourself to one dimension when before you were so full.

In applying this to religion, Lewis points out that when we become Christians, for most people their lives do not dramatically change. Thinking about God is a beautiful thing, but even religion cannot hold our attention all the time, Lewis says. What being a Christian should change is the attitude and spirit in which you do those things. We do not all have to quit our jobs and become missionaries to other countries, we simply have to make our faith evident in our daily life. I know for me when I decided on my own right to be a Christian rather than simply accepting my parents' faith I at first though "well, I should probably go to seminary, then". While I think my heart was in the right place in that my life should be devoted to God, not everyone can be a minister. I realized that it wasn't my calling, and I simply needed to bring God into my life, no matter what I do.

In the essay, Lewis also mentions some the things that can get in the way of us doing our work, our enemies. He mentions excitement, frustration, and fear. Excitement is an interesting one, because it is normally considered a positive emotion rather than a negative one, but it at times is our enemy. In class we also mentioned that things like tradition, religion, even love can sometimes be our enemy if we let it get in the way of living the kind of life we are meant to live.

"Engaging God's World" Chapter 4

Chapter four is about redemption, and how it can be achieved. Plantinga interestingly compares the Heidelberg Catechism to the ten commandments. The Catechism is an expansion of the commandments, showing "not only where we have gotten off the road, but also how to get back on it." Instead of merely not killing, we should refrain from hatred, envy, lust, all the things that might lead a person to kill. In the end, it all comes down to a much more positive statement about how we should live our lives: love your neighbor as yourself. If we seek shalom, we inevitably must love, the two go hand in hand.

With these commands we go about our daily lives seeking shalom. I know in my life I have a tendency to think of various parts of my life as separate. My high school friends are a separate thing than my college friends, my church life is a separate thing from my personal life, and my school life is separate from my home life. I often have to make a conscious shift in my mind in order to think of all my life as connected. I know also I sometimes act differently around different people, so much so that sometimes it seems like I am living multiple lives, and am trying to make them all fit together. While I like the fact that I can adapt to a variety of different situations, often my desire for shalom gets lost in the shuffle. If I am around a group of people who are obviously not Christian or not taking their faith seriously, I find it hard to speak of my faith.

But, as Plantinga and other theologians have been pointing out for hundreds of years, all of our lives belong to God, not just part. As Lewis also suggests in his essay "Learning in Wartime", this doesn't necessarily mean that we have to change all of our actions. For the most part, we still do the same things after we become Christians, but the spirit in which we do them is changed. We can still enjoy life, we can still live the kind of life we want to live, provided that life doesn't go against God's commands, but we must do it all to the glory of God and never for a moment cease to love each other.

"An Inconvenient Truth"

Before going into my actual position on the matter of global warming, I want to say that I don't believe that "An Inconvenient Truth" is a good argument for it. Throughout the movie Al Gore made several references to things "scientists" said, without showing any of the evidence or actual quotes from said scientists. Gore also made ridiculous comparison after ridiculous comparison in an attempt to play off of his audience's emotions. He compared global warming to WWII, polio, slavery, the tyranny of Britain in early American history, and many other things that in the end have nothing to do with the issue. Large parts of the movie were spent showing victims of hurricanes and other such natural disasters with almost no time spent discussing possible solutions for global warming (something Al Gore pretty much assumes to be true in the film). Also, much of the movie felt like a biography of Al Gore's life, which, while slightly interesting also has nothing to do with the issue of global warming. The only value I feel the movie had was that of scaring people into action, though I do not believe that scaring people into action is necessarily the right thing to do.

That being said, I believe the danger to our environment is something that should be taken very seriously. As Christians, we are called to be good stewards of the Earth, and besides that hurting our world will inevitably hurt us in the long run, if not the short. Whether or not carbon and other emissions will really cause damage on the scale Al Gore is implying, it will cause some damage and change the Earth in hard to predict ways. This is something we should be very careful about. The problem is, our current economy depends on industry, and industry largely depends on the burning of fossil fuels. So even if we want to eliminate carbon emissions, it would be incredibly costly to do so. The only real course of action we can take is to depend on our scientists working on alternative energy to find a viable alternative. So, that is my stance. Encourage, perhaps with money, those who are working on an alternative to the burning of fossil fuels and implement these alternative solutions.

"The Poison of Subjectivism"

When Lewis speaks of Subjectivism, he speaks of it in the moral sense. The idea is that there is no standard of morals that everyone is held accountable to. Morality is different for different people, and there is no absolute moral law. This idea, Lewis argues, is dead wrong.

Here I will explain what I think is the main problem with subjectivism. When we hold subjective morality, we cannot see things from another's point of view. Our truth becomes The truth. When this becomes problematic is when people commit evil acts thinking they are doing what is right. Hitler, who is generally called the most evil man in history, probably believed he was doing the right thing by exterminating the Jews, conquering the neighboring countries, and so on. He believed it was important for the survival of the Aryan race, and it would make the world a better, stronger place. I seriously doubt he woke up every morning thinking "Wow, I'm evil." Hitler most likely didn't kill for the sake of killing, but because in his misguided morality he probably believed that killing was in fact moral. In reality, evil often thinks it is good, and may even have some good results, just as the best lie is mostly truth and the best liar is the one who truly believes in the lie.

Really the only reliable way of combating this is to discard the idea of subjectivism and embrace the moral standards we all more or less employ anyway. As Lewis brilliantly pointed out, everyone obeys the moral laws, it is just that sometimes certain moral laws are too highly valued in regards to others. In the case of Hitler, perhaps self-preservation, ethnic pride and patriotism was simply too highly valued in comparison to the moral law that says we should not kill. It is finding the proper balance of moral law that really becomes valuable.

"Engaging God's World" Chapter 3

The subject of total depravity has been a difficult topic for me for much of my life. I have been raised in a CRC home and have been a part of a CRC church my whole life. I have read the catechisms many times, but still I take issue with the idea of total depravity. All of us are made in the image of God, and to say that we are completely sinful I think sends the wrong message. We are, in fact, inherently good, we are so because God made us so. While sin has twisted us, I don't believe it has removed all the initial good that was in us. There seems to be something wrong with telling a surgeon who has just saved a life that what he did was not a good thing, because he is incapable of doing good. In addition, would telling a person this lead him toward God? toward Christianity? I don't think so.

The message of the New Testament is one of salvation by grace, and certainly we need God's grace. We are imperfect beings, and we do not deserve to be together with God, a perfect being. We fall short of his glory. However, in order for our glory to fall short of God's, we must have some glory in the first place, granted to us by God. If nothing we do can be good, why make the effort? We would never be able to succeed. I take a far more optimistic view: that we can do good deeds, and we can in fact work for the kingdom of God here on Earth. Even non-believers can unknowingly work for God's kingdom, doing His will.

I also want to point out that to assume knowledge of every working of the mind of God is a dangerous thing. God's plan for humanity is God's plan for humanity, not meant to be known by us. While I do believe certain things about God because of what has been revealed by the Bible and the world he has created, I would never claim to know what God has in store for us or how he views our lives. Approaching such theological issues with humility is ultimately the best approach, so that such disagreements are not divisive, but simply bring us closer to God in our quest to understand Him.

"Mere Christianity"

The first four chapters of Lewis' summary of the core values of Christianity seem to be taken from a philosophical perspective rather than a theological one. He spends most of his time writing on the "law of human nature", an idea found nowhere in the Bible, yet Lewis seems to think it is an important foundation for the Christian notion of a God.

An idea that really rang true with me was his statement that while it may not always seems this way, in reality every culture has a pretty similar moral code. He simply says that people "have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first" which is true. I am trying to imagine a society now where this wasn't valued. Everyone would steal from their neighbors, lie whenever it would benefit them and act in their best interests. Basically, the society would immediately collapse under its own weight. It is easy to say society is flawed, there is so many problems with it, but really for the most part society is good. Most people follow the rules and most people have some level of respect for one of another. It is because deep down we know, its not only in society's best interests, but our own due to our dependence on society.

Another point of Lewis' I particularly liked was his explanation that when we make excuses for our behavior, it is only further proof of a moral law. Of course, I started thinking of the times I've made excuse after excuse for why I didn't do as well as I should have, or why I didn't win. In fact, I'm so good at this sometimes that I've made excuses before for why I might lose before a competition even starts(though not really anymore). If I'm about to play a game of chess, I might have said that I have a little bit of a headache before the game even started, so that later on if I lost it didn't seem like I was just making excuses (even though I really was). Excuses come naturally to people, and I know it is something I am especially guilty of. However, the fact that we make excuses just means there is something to excuse, some standard in which we should live by. In the example of competition, we are instilled with the desire to win, it is natural. We are also instilled with the desire to care about other people, if only we are not too proud to realize it.

The Real C.S. Lewis

When listening to the BBC program I wouldn't quite say I was surprised by what I heard; It mostly reinforced the kind of person I thought Lewis was and only raised my opinion of him. Lewis did so many things in his life that it amazes me. He served in the war, he wrote countless essays, he wrote many, many books and served as a professor at Oxford university, heading the Socratic Club, and probably much more. He gave numerous speeches, and one of the people on the program said that every word Lewis said should have been written down and printed off, his words were so well crafted.

If I were to meet Lewis in heaven, one of the first questions I'd ask is "how did you find the time for all of that?", but I think the BBC program really spelled it out: dedication, plain and simple. Lewis never wasted a moment, never had a trivial conversation, and was constantly sharpening his mind. He devoted his entire being into the academic world, and there has hardly been a thinker for hundreds of years that has matched the variety and scope of his writings. He also was human, though, genuinely caring about his wife and friends and having character flaws just like the rest of us. If I knew nothing more about Lewis than how dedicated he was to the Christian faith, I would respect him. But, the fact that he worked seemingly tirelessly defending it makes me respect him even more. What a man!

"Screwtape Letters"

The more I read of C.S. Lewis, the more I am interested in his writing. It amazes me that so far in the class we have read such a great variety of essays and stories. Just in a week we have read his works about thinking, learning, now the nature of evil and the devil (albeit very fictional). Also, I know he has written countless works about Christianity, as well as works of fantasy and science fiction; I don't know how he even found the time.

In Lewis' "Screwtape Letters" he very interestingly writes from the perspective of a devil named Screwtape writing letters to his more incompetent nephew Wormwood. I don't think another Christian writer has ever thought of such a thing. Screwtape is giving advice on how to turn a newly converted Christian away from his faith. He gives such advice as providing distractions, making church just a matter of going through the motions.

Lewis' main point in writing this, I believe, is to warn Christians of the dangers of inattentiveness. There are many responses and ways of dealing with such spiritual laziness, but I believe the best is community, one of the most essential things for a Christian. In class we discussed the many ways that this kind of community can take form. It can be having a group at church who you can really open up to, having parents who you can talk to about your problems, or simply having a friend who really cares about you who you can be accountable to. I know from personal experience it can be hard to find this kind of a thing, and also hard to make yourself accountable to someone else. No one really likes to be told that something they are doing isn't quite right. No one likes the feeling of, for lack of a better word, shame you can get upon telling someone you didn't go to church, or were doing something you weren't supposed to be doing. However, the act of telling, and maybe even the feeling of that shame is important to growth as a Christian, and as a human being.

The most important tactic to me seems to be honesty with oneself and being able to really examine your own actions, but a close second would definitely be honesty with other people. It is a terrible thing to have secrets weighing down upon your mind. My two biggest recommendations for a healthy Christian life, or just life in general are honesty and accountability.

"The Weight of Glory"

"...But the greatest of these is love." I Corinthians 13:13

For C.S. Lewis, Love, rather than unselfishness, is the greatest Christian ideal. To Lewis, unselfishness carries with it the idea that "our abstinence and not their happiness was the important point" whereas love is all about the other person. Love is forgetting oneself in the face of the one you love, caring more about their well being than your own. Unselfishness, after all, is a bit self-centered. I can only describe myself, speak about myself if I were to say I am unselfish, but to simply say "I love" is not enough; I would also need to say who or what I love. We can be unselfish people even if we live alone, speaking to no one as long as we are willing to give our money, or our things, or whatever. Love, on the other hand, requires someone to love. No one can call a person "loving" if they live alone, never speaking to anyone. It requires a daily carrying of your neighbor's "weight of glory" as Lewis writes. The "proper reward" for this would then be a valuable, genuine relationship, in which both sides are bettered by it.

Unselfishness, self-denial, these things aren't enough. In my philosophy class last semester we spoke a good deal about Plato, and his ideas about what makes a person moral. Morality, for him, is simply being the kind of person who would do good things. It means developing the kind of character that makes you want to help others. Good deeds by themselves are unimportant, they are only an indicator that you are developing the right kind of character. Here, I think Plato and Lewis would agree. If doing the right thing does not bring happiness, maybe a long look inside yourself is a good idea. Actively seeking shalom should be a joyful occasion, bringing happiness not only to those you help, but to yourself as well. This, I believe, is God's intention.

Plantinga Chapter 2

Chapter 2 of "Engaging God's World" deals largely with creation: how it happened, why God made us, whether we can mesh science with religion, and when. To me, all of creation is still the biggest evidence in my mind toward the existence of God. I cannot imagine such astounding complexity, such perfect conditions for life coming about all on its own. How could a fish possibly think of the need to grow legs, and then how could it will them to grow, unless someone was guiding the process? How could the amazing detail within every single atom and quark still escape the greatest scientists in the world? I do believe in evolution, but I also believe that evolution on the scale that brought humans into existence would have been impossible without God. I believe that God guided every step, every process that brought humanity into existence.

As for why God created us, I think Plantinga is dead on. He says that our creation was "neither a necessity or an accident..." but simply that "creation is an act that was fitting for God". While I do think he makes some assumptions here about God's nature, Plantinga is probably right. We are made in God's image, and as part of that we share some of the characteristics of God. Part of that is the desire to create. Humans make statues and monuments for the sake of having them, we write books for the sake of writing them, and we have children for the sake of procreation (though admittedly this is often not the case). If we are a reflection of God, however distorted, He must have a desire to create as well.

Plantinga also beautifully uses creation as visible proof that our God loves us. After all, what kind of a being would not love their creations? After all, why would anyone create such a complex and beautiful world and then cease to care about it? It is logical that if God made us, he loves us, and I find that thought very comforting.

"The Logical Song"

This will be a short entry as I simply want to make a connection between the song and "Our English Syllabus". I said earlier that in American society there can be a lot of pressure (or at least I felt a lot of pressure) to go to college. The writer of the "Logical Song" really seems to have suffered from this pressure. I believe it is because he did not want to learn for learning's sake, an idea Lewis suggests. Without the desire for learning we become "cynical" as the song states, and perhaps bitter. Learning should never be a chore, it should be desired. It is a failing of our education system if we cannot motivate students to want to learn, and that is perhaps the most valuable thing a teacher can impart to a student,

Our English Syllabus

"a perfect study of anything requires a knowledge of everything", C.S. Lewis quotes Hegel in saying. I think he's right. This immediately made me think of economics, which is my undeclared major. Economics involves everything. Every interaction between people, corporations, and nations are all part of economics. In order to fully grasp the economic situation of the world, one would have to study math, language, trade, international relations, business, history and a multitude of other subjects. Applying this to English, Lewis suggests that for a full understanding of the language and literature one would have to study French, Spanish, German, and Italian texts because of their impact on English writing. C.S. Lewis wisely points out that this cannot really be done.

So, if we cannot study everything then what should we study? Well, whatever we want. What we should not do, Lewis argues, is let someone else make the choices for us. Speaking to the college student, he says "it is time you learned to wrestle with nature for yourself". I think Lewis would perhaps be a bit disappointed with the core classes at Calvin. While I don't think Lewis would mind that we have to take some classes outside our major, he would probably advocate for more options, letting the student decide. For Lewis, college is a place for learning, not teaching. In his view everyone at a college is a student, professors are just the older students. Everyone is there to learn and explore God's world.

And on this point I very much agree with Lewis. College, particularly graduate studies, should be a place for exploring the topics that interest you. It should be free, with few restrictions getting in the way of seeking knowledge. In class, it was mentioned that college is almost expected in American society. It is the natural thing to do after high school for many. While this in many ways is a good thing seeing as how education is a good thing, I believe the effect of this is that many people are getting an education they do not really want or need. College should really be a place for those who want to be in college, a place of higher learning and thought. Education is good, vocation training is necessary and can also be very good, but learning is really something special.

Engaging God's World chapter 1

First of all, I want to say that I have been raised in the CRC church my whole life. The ideas of "shalom" and "hope" Plantinga writes of are ideas I have been indoctrinated in my whole life. However, while for me there seemed little new or original information presented and to me it was a little boring, Plantinga wrote about these ideas in a different, yet easy to read way.

Plantinga interestingly states that "if we hope as the prophets and apostles did, then we hope not only for ourselves but also for people we must struggle to understand." This idea, I believe, is beautiful. If we are to call ourselves Christians, loving our enemies and seeking shalom, than we should hope not only for our own prosperity, but everyone's. Along with this hope, "costly action" needs to come with it, so hope can become reality. One hundred years ago, equality in America for people of all races may have seemed a dream, but hope along with costly action made it for the most part a reality. Today, it is easy to call people "terrorists", "communists", "capitalist pigs", or a whole slew of other names that get in the way of hoping for their well-being as well as our own. It pays to remember we are called to work toward shalom, for yourself and your enemies.

While reading about these themes, I was reminded of a line in the preface that read "After all, a person's faith, even in idols, shapes most of what a person thinks and writes, and the Christian faith is in competition with other faiths for human hearts and minds". I can think of no greater example of this than C.S. Lewis. Over winter break I read most of the "Chronicles of Narnia", and in every book Lewis' belief in God was evident in the overarching story, every situation, and every character. Everything about it pointed to God, sometimes obviously, sometimes indirectly. I truly admire Lewis because I can see that he, to quote Plantinga, "hopes for shalom". I can only hope to have my thinking and writing and actions will affected by my faith to the degree Lewis' was.

"No Right to Happiness"

So, C.S. Lewis says we have no right to happiness? Yep, and I think he makes a strong argument. In the essay Lewis appears to focus on the right to sexual happiness, but his argument has stronger implications. To me, the most significant idea Lewis presents is that happiness is not a justification for any action, because happiness is not a right in the sense that happiness can be used as a reason for being allowed to do something.

In his essay, Lewis mainly uses the example of a marriage. If the wife wants to divorce leave her husband, fine. The law allows her to do so. However, the wife would be wrong in saying she is entitled to leave her husband because it would make her happy. Why should happiness have anything to do with it? Should we allow serial killers to kill because it would make them happy? No. Why then do we have this idea then that if a marriage, a commitment for life, is no longer easily bringing happiness that we should immediately abandon it? It seems fickle and wrong.

A very simple example of why what makes a person happy is not always best comes to mind: food. I often find great pleasure in eating food, however there are limits to it. I know while certain foods taste great, it is ultimately a bad thing to eat too much of them. I eat food not to bring me happiness, but to survive and be healthy, the happiness is only an added bonus. And this is what I think Lewis is arguing, that happiness is not a right, you are not entitled to it, it is only a wonderful bonus in life, an added plus, not the goal. Happiness is wonderful, but the happy solution, the happy choice, is not always the right one.

"Bulverism" Response

"The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became to be so silly." This is Bulverism, as Lewis names it.

Immediately I am reminded of my relationship, throughout my life, with my brother. In typical brotherly fashion we would bicker and fight all the time. It didn't really matter who was right, but only who won. I remember that quite often we would have a sever disagreement about something like who would win the basketball game tomorrow, and instead of arguing against my pick, my brother would simply say that I don't know anything about basketball and disregard my choice (though our roles were often reversed). We would be brutal, attacking the other person's character, throwing out insults left and right, until in the end we didn't really care about the game, or whatever it was, we were only mad at each other. When the game finally did roll around, it didn't matter very much, the argument was already over by that time.

Bulverism just seems childish to me (perhaps because I was so guilty of it as a kid). Every time I am guilty of it today, I feel like I have done a discredit to myself and whoever I was arguing with at the time. Bulverism doesn't seek truth, it doesn't make you gain knowledge, the only thing one can gain from employing it is the self-satisfaction of winning.

Lewis also makes the point that simply because a person wants to believe something (Lewis uses the phrase "tainted thought") this does not mean the person is wrong. The belief is not invalid simply because a person has ulterior motives for believing it.

Bulverism is also rampant in politics. Every politician attacks his or her opponent's views not only by trying to show that they are wrong, but merely assuming it and insulting the other candidate. It is often easier to attack a person's character than it is to be willing to admit you might be wrong. Because, if you are not going to employ Bulverism, there is a chance you will lose the argument. With Bulverism, you don't ever have to be wrong if you are more skilled at arguing. It is difficult to escape Bulverism, but in order to be a real seeker of truth, I feel Bulverism must be discarded.

"Meditation in a Toolshed" Response

In a nearly pitch-black tool shed C.S. Lewis glanced upon a beam of light. He could see the image for what it was, a beam of light. However, when moving so that the beam was upon his eyes, he was able to look along it and see another vision, one of trees, sky and the sun. The difference, he eloquently states is between looking along and looking at something.

To me, the most interesting example Lewis uses here in his essay is that of a physiologist studying pain. In a view of looking "at" it a physiologist can describe pain as the impulses upon our nervous system. However, this view is incomplete, or at least doesn't do pain justice. One can only understand pain once it has been experienced, looking "along" it. Telling someone who just burned themselves on a hot stove that "It's only your nervous system sending signals to your brain" wouldn't be a very nice or understanding thing to say. Without the experience of pain, the words have no meaning. I remember when I was a child I fell on to the road and scrapped a large chunk of skin off my elbow. But, I didn't feel any pain until I glanced at the wound and realized I had been hurt. This example was kind of a twist on pain: I wasn't able to look along it and experience it until I had looked at it. Again, telling me it was only neurons wouldn't have made me any happier. I believe that C.S. Lewis is hinting that experiencing the joys and comfort of religion is much the same. A mere understanding of what other people believe doesn't justify saying their religion is worthless. It takes full immersion, looking "along". Lewis argues, and I agree, that diving into such judgment without looking both at and along doesn't do you any favors. While looking "at" a situation may seem more objective that does not mean you are getting the better explanation. Sometimes, the best view can only be seen by being in the inside of the situation, you won't know until you look both ways.