Integrated Essay

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:18, “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” This idea must be remembered whenever people approach pagans with the Gospel, but we must also be careful when approaching a brother with disputes and ideas in the Church. C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, offers this thought about the disputes within the Church, “the questions which divide Christians from one another often involve points of high Theology or even of ecclesiastical history.”(1) Since this paper addresses many doctrinal beliefs and theories that many are conflicted about, it is necessary to first address the dangers of a paper such as this one. Also, since pride may trip many while discussing topics such as these, this essay much be approached with humility and an open mind (and I sincerely hope that this essay was written entirely with just that).
C.S. Lewis wrote an article entitled “We Have No Right to Happiness;” the article dwells on just that matter, and the title sums up the main point of the article. One could go further to say, however, that we have no right to happiness because we do not know how to pursue happiness. Our finite minds will move toward finite things of this world, rather then moving toward the infinite joys of the infinite, and infinitely personal, God. Cornelius Plantinga Jr. addresses a similar concept in his book Engaging God’s World (3) and, in the first chapter of the book, on creation. Plantinga references Lewis in this chapter to make the point that the mortals of this earth desire not too much but too little. That God created man to experience Him, but we are content with pursuing money, sex, and fame (comparable by Lewis to mud in comparison to Heaven). Man has no right to happiness because man does not know what will make him happy.
Man does not know rightly what will make him happy, but a saved man does know what will bring him joy. Man does not necessarily have the right to joy, but man is called to joy: “Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice!” (Philippians 4:4) Joy could be defined, as Calvin College Professor Paulo F. Ribeiro would say, as Jesus and you with nothing in between, or perhaps more accurately defined as the promise of Jesus and you with nothing in between. The thought that we have no right to happiness may bring to thought the common idea in the Christian Reformed Church of total depravity. Plantinga addresses total depravity when talking about the fall, saying that man can do nothing without God. The concept of total depravity could be viewed in many different ways, but it does not stand alone. Without common grace, total depravity would not make the least bit of sense. The idea of common grace is that God gives his grace to everyone: the oxygen we breath, the food we eat, or even the things we enjoy are all gifts from God that he need not give us.
The issues that lie in the matters of common grace and total depravity are not by any means how we define them. In all seriousness, you do not need to have a concrete definition or belief around these two ideas to be saved; however, you do need the building blocks of them. That said, it would be arrogant to believe that one understands every intricate detail behind the ideas of common grace and total depravity. In 1 Corinthians 1:20, Paul goes on to say “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” In order to discuss topics such as these, we must hold strong to the foundation of our beliefs, but we also must discuss to search for truth, not to prove ourselves right. C.S. Lewis in his article entitled “Bulverism” says this, “Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.”(4) We must shape our idea of discussion around the facts that God makes foolish the wisdom of the wise, and that we must search for truth. We must approach these discussions with the humility to search for the truth, even if the truth might be contrary to what you believe.
All this said to approach, once again, the idea that we have no right to happiness, even if someone holds a contrasting view, bear with me as we search for the truth. Lewis, in this article, uses the example of a married man who divorces his wife for another woman. A colleague of Lewis told him, “after all, he has the right to be happy.” Lewis contradicts this by saying that if happiness is circumstantial (based on money, job, family...) then one would ultimately always long for happiness, or always long for “something more.” So a man may leave his wife in pursuit of happiness, but he will not be satisfied by that nor by the next thing. By the time he were to achieve all his goals in life, how many people would he have stepped on, how many people would he have denied the right to happiness? And even then, would he be happy?
My father divorced my mother when I was very young. He told her, “I’m just not happy.” So he left her, and my family, in pursuit of his happiness. He has been pursuing happiness now, with no regard to those around him, for over ten years, and I can attest to his misery. Lewis compares the “right to happiness” with being six feet tall. A man may think he has a right to be six feet tall, but he does not know how to attain it. A man may pursue every option possible to attempt to make himself six feet tall and not grow an inch. Happiness alludes people much like height alludes a short man.
The ideas expressed thus far regarding our right to happiness have been purely based on logic and offer a message to pagans and Christians alike, but Christians have a much higher calling of happiness that many call joy. Christians are called to be Christlike, to follow the example of the Messiah - indeed Christians have no rights. Christ, being entirely man and entirely God, chose to demean himself to the status of a man; he forfeited his godly rights and became flesh. Accordingly, Christians have no rights. Not only do Christians lack the right to happiness, but the right to daily bread, the right to the air we breath. Ultimately, in accordance with the idea of total depravity and common grace, not even the pagans have a right to anything, but Christians ought to know that they lack the right to anything.
With the thought that humans have no right to anything, one could think that God ultimately is not good, but that is far from true. Many pagans view God as a powerful dictator with his list of rules simply waiting for someone to mess up; this also is a folly view. Plantinga addresses this thought when addressing the ten commandments. The ten commandments are not a set of rules intended to limit man, but rather a set of instructions on how to achieve shalom. Imagine, as Plantinga suggests, what the world would be for a day if everyone followed the ten commandments. God has always provided for his people: during the plague in Europe there existed one community that was not affected. This community was a Jewish community, following Mosaic law: washing their hands before eating, and burying their waste. God gave his people these laws to protect them, not to limit them. God removed our “right” to happiness (and everything else) to protect us.
“God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God.”(5) Lewis said this in his sermon “The Weight of Glory,” addressing the thought of whether God created goodness or if goodness was simply around already. The conclusion Lewis came to is that neither could be entirely true, but the truth must have a little of both. As Christians, we are not called to fully understand perfectly the idea of goodness and God, but we are called to acknowledge that God is good, that God is love; as Christians, we are not called to fully understand perfectly common grace, total depravity, or the fact that we have no right to happiness; we are not called to understand perfectly the reason why God created us; we are not called to understand perfectly God. But we are called to acknowledge that God exists; we are called to live for God. Because we are not intended to understand these concepts, we must not go out of our way to achieve understanding of them. Because we were not intended to know what makes us happy, we cannot pursue our own happiness.










Works used:

1: C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
2: C.S. Lewis, “We Have No Right to Happiness”
3: Cornelius Plantinga Jr., Engaging God’s World.
4: C.S. Lewis, “Bulverism” From God in the Dock
5. C.S. Lewis, “The Weight of Glory”

Man or Rabbit?

This essay caught me a little off guard, as Lewis has a tendency of doing. The question Lewis addresses is "Can't you lead a good life without believing in Christianity?" This is a question I have thought to myself a few times before. I think, how can anyone lead a good life without Christ? How can anyone even attempt to have joy? Lewis knocks this question out of the park.

Lewis first comments that the person asking this question is not searching for the truth of the universe. The person asking this question is simply wondering whether or not a "good" life can be lead without Christianity, they really do not care to know whether or not Christianity is true. Christianity, if true, to them would be a burden that they would have to either carry, or run away from. But, ironically enough, by simply asking this question they are not being "good."

Let me explain. There are many different dimensions in which a person could be "good." Many different ways. As believers, we know that God is good, and that everything good is from God. Lewis put it very well in his essay, The Poison of Subjectivism by saying, "God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God." What I want to hit on with this thought is that ignoring, or not pursuing, the truth is in and of itself not good. So by asking this question, someone is asking if they can be "good" while forfeiting the truth, which I would respond to that (and I believe Lewis would as well) by saying: no.

Lewis goes a little deeper in this thought by addressing the concept of honest ignorance and dishonest ignorance. Asking about Christianity ultimately would mean that you know about Christianity, or at least that it exists. And if you know about it, and do not attempt to seek the truth, you cannot plead honest ignorance. People who truly have honest ignorance towards Christianity would not be able to ask this question because they would not know about Christianity. And, perhaps, (as Lewis suggests) these men could lead a good life, and perhaps, on the final day of judgment they could know God.

In Christ,

Ben

Plantinga Ch. 5

This chapter caused to raise my brow from time to time. There were concepts, not necessarily ones that he was stressing, or even points he was making. But there were concepts that came across in this chapter that I did not quite agree with. So here is my list of disagreements:

1. When Plantinga talks of a prime citizen of the Kingdom, he says that "A prime citizen has been redeemed far down in her spirit." This strikes an odd chord in me, but perhaps I have an incorrect idea of redemption. In my mind, there are two phases of redemption that we can acquire as long as we are left on this fallen earth. We can either be redeemed or not. We can either ask forgiveness for our sins (and save our souls) or we can neglect to ask forgiveness (and condemn our souls). With that in mind, does someone really get "redeemed far down in her spirit" while someone else only gets redeemed to a small extent?

2. Plantinga first talks about the Kingdom as everything around us, all of creation is God's Kingdom. But when when he talks of involvement in the Kingdom, it seems to me that he refers to it as something that is to come. I have been lead to believe that the Kingdom is something that we participate in now. That we further the Kingdom here and now, that he Holy Spirit works through us while we are still on earth.

3. Plantinga suggests that to become a prime citizen of the Kingdom, the first step is to get involved in the local church. I would very much agree. The only thing that struck me in this section was that he seemed to reinforce the idea of the church as a building. Or maybe just the concept of the church local church being the church, when the church really is all believers everywhere, the body and bride of Christ. I think that we have associated "the church" with "a section of the church." I think that we no longer have a distinction between these two concepts. And perhaps that is why the church does not operate as one body.

It likely seems like I am simply grasping for straws for disagreements sake, but I do not think I am. These topics are so incredibly important, and they must become gut reactions, they must become our stock reactions. I think that every time that "the church" is mentioned, it should be in a sense of the church body, a larger sense then it usually is used. That could help us immeasurably to instill in our brains a sense of unity in the body. Like anything, repetition is the way to convince the brain of something.

In Christ,

Ben

The Inner Ring

This article, at first glance, seemed almost trivial to me. Of course there are inner rings, it is incredibly necessary for anything to run properly. And, yes, people need to be excluded from these inner rings. This is one of many set backs to living in a fallen world, you must be able to protect yourself, your church, your government, or your military. If the world were not fallen... You could say that about anything. But we must acknowledge that the world is fallen, and we must make the appropriate adjustments.

I noticed quickly, however, that this article was not talking about the trivial aspect of the inner ring (even though if you take living for the Kingdom seriously, nothing is trivial). This article was speaking to the problems of the inner ring, and the one that seemed to be the root of every problem was motives. Motives of exclusion, and motives for being part of an inner ring.

Lewis says that if you desire to be in an inner ring, you are desiring something folly. To desire something that would put you in an inner ring is fine, but only if being in the inner ring is a consequence, not a goal. He also said that if you exclude for the sake of exclusion, that is also wrong.

The terrible side to this is that we all are parts of bad inner rings (or perhaps the inner ring itself is good, but we have bad motives behind the inner ring and exclusion). Often times we do not even notice this, but that is because nobody voices this problem, and as a result, we do not examine our inner rings. We have doctors examine our bodies to ensure our physical health, but we never examine our inner rings to ensure our spiritual health, which is far more important.

Jesus even had an inner circle, he had a very good inner circle. It was humility that earned this inner circle, in order to live with Jesus you lived homeless, you were persecuted, it was almost an inner circle that nobody wanted to be in (at times at least). How many were persecuted in the name of Jesus?

Another thing you can observe about Jesus' circle is that it was very open to sharing. Not particularly inviting people to join, but Jesus never turned people away who wanted to hear him, not even the children. His disciples wanted to be exclusive by sending away the children, but Jesus let them come. You can also observe, on the same topic, how Jesus had the necessary exclusivity in his circle.

Only by observing Jesus' circle, and striving in every way to be Christlike would we be able to attain an inner circle even close to being good. Jesus set the example, and let us now follow.

In Christ,

Ben

The Mission

The Mission is the movie I went to see for class. It was actually quite a stunning film, not by any means in cinematography or acting, but none the less, stunning. It was about an Indian tribe that was originally a very violent tribe. Killing the settling colonies, but ultimately only for their own survival. Then some priests came to the tribe and interacted, they learned their language and traditions, and became part of the tribe. They built a church, and won many for Christ. The bonds formed there were incredible. But then the settling colonies decided that the Indians must move, they must leave their land. The Indians would not hear it, and they fought back (only to be slaughtered).

But the most extraordinary part of this whole ordeal was the involvement of the priests. Most of the priests fought with the Indians, but there was one who could not. He said that he must be peaceful. He stayed in the village as it was being attacked, and led somewhat of a church service. He began with the choir singing, and then marched them straight at the assailants. No mercy was shown, not love offered. Many were slaughtered who were doing nothing more then praying.

First I ask the question, what priest made the right judgment? The ones who fought, or the one who did not? Next I ask you, if you were in the position of the priests, what do you think you would do?

I intend to attempt to answer the questions I lay out, but not easily, and most likely not entirely. I believe that the priest who stayed did the right thing. The more that I look into the sticky topic of war from a Christian view point, the more I am conflicted. I am conflicted on the question of whether war is like Christ or not. Early Christians faced death on a Roman cross, yet they did not rebel and attack the Romans. They faced constant persecution, something I cannot imagine, yet they remained peaceful. Yes, in the Old Testament there are many stories of God inspired war, but what about the New Testament?

The only answer that I can come up with is this (and this is an answer in my heart): to protect ones self, you cannot murder. To protect ones self, you cannot steal. To protect ones self, war seems to me to be not like Christ.

So in that I believe I answer the second question for myself as well, I would like to think that I would choose peace. That I could praise God until the moment I died.

In Christ,

Ben

Eros

I want to begin by saying that this article was a bit difficult for me to understand. But I got out of it a lot, simply did not entirely understand all of it.

I very much enjoy Lewis' sides on this thought of Eros, of love like a woman and man experience for each other. Lewis says something that I want to talk about in this chapter: "We use a most unfortunate idiom when we say, of a lustful man prowling the streets, that lie "wants a woman." Strictly speaking, a woman is just what he does not want. He wants a pleasure for which a woman happens to be the necessary piece of apparatus." He used an example when he did the recording for this chapter too. He said that a man does not want a cigarette for the cigarette, he wants the affects of the cigarette. How often, when someone finished a pack of cigarettes do they keep the box? They discard it, and this happens to women very often.

I do not think that this statement is referring only to sexual "pleasure" but rather anything, emotional, physical or spiritual (I think that covers about everything). Many men use women (I use these examples from the man's perspective simply because I am a man and can understand it, woman do it too, but for the purpose of this posting I will focus on the man's flaw) for many different reasons, and the worst part is that a lot of them do not even know. There are great, awesome Christian men who are very selfish in relationships, and they are blind to their selfishness. That is why, often times, when a girl brings up problems in the relationship, the man will be defensive and think that she is making things up, or over reacting.

But how can we, the ignorant man, be sure that we do not fall into this? First: communicate openly about everything. This initiative must be taken by the man, and once taken it frees the man and the woman to bring things us that bother them. Second: discuss and set boundaries for the physical, spiritual, and emotional aspect of your relationship (this will also help with the first thought). By setting up boundaries, and constantly keeping them up for discussion, you can be sure that you are both on the same page of the relationship. A lot of times, one person will get further involved in the relationship then the other, this can cause problems.

Again, this posting is geared towards men, and the things I mention are initiatives that must be taken by the man of the relationship.

This topic is of extreme importance to me, because I believe that men are not living up to their role in relationships, or in families. So many times I comfort my friends when they just got out of a relationship only to be offering them advice for their next relationship that fails from the same problems. And the bottom line, as hard as it is to admit, is these things happen because we are not being men like God shows us to be men in our relationships.

Also, just a few thoughts I had on this topic: first, like Adriana said today during class, be friends before you date. This is so incredibly important. Second, I believe that far too many relationships move far too fast. People do not set boundaries (if they do, they are poorly set). How many relationships become all about physical aspects, rather then what matters?

Randy Alcorn has a list of different standards that he holds every boy to if that boy intends to date his daughters. He and his wife sit down his daughter and the boy, and go over this list. One of the points I think we all need to remember, "focus on talking, not touching." We have plenty of time to experience each others bodies after marriage. Another point he makes is that if either man or woman in a relationship get sexually stimulated by anything you do, you have gone too far. That is God's warning to us, he built our bodies like that. If you do things that get you sexually excited, what other purpose should it have then to have sex? Take a step back, protect your integrity, protect your relationship.

If we are truly to become Christlike, we are to give up everything that we have as our precepts of a relationship, and observe what the bible tells us about relationships. Only then will you be able to be the man of a relationship as God has called you to be.

In Christ,

Ben

Plantinga Ch. 4

One of the concepts that was talked about in this chapter is being one with Christ in death so that you can be resurrected. I would like to expand on the concept of being one with Christ (or being Christlike) and also the concept of taking up your cross and dying every day (ultimately part of being Christlike).

To be Christlike is to conform in every manner to the ways of the Lord, but this can be a very interesting topic in the depth of society. There are very clear cut scenarios where one option would be Christlike and the other would not, but there are many areas where the decision is harder to make. One scenario I have in mind is this: you are a vegetarian, and you have new neighbors. Your neighbors invite you over for dinner (they are not Christians), and it turns out that this neighbor works for a steak distributor of the highest caliber. You show up to dinner and he has slaved all day to prepare the nicest stake you would ever have seen in your entire life without spending hundreds of dollars on one dinner. What do you do? Do you eat the steak? Do you politely decline?

This would be a very difficult scenario indeed, but let me tell you why you should, in fact, attempt to eat this steak.

You should eat the steak because we are called to be all things for all people (as long as they are morally right). If you wish to witness to the poor, become poor. If you wish to witness to a runner, become a runner...

The main reason why your vegetarian diet does not matter in the least is the comparison to the salvation of another. We are not told to be vegetarians in order to secure our salvation, so going back on that is not nearly as important as someone else's salvation. Also, as our professor said in class, if we are truly taking up our cross daily and dying with Christ, we are already dead. How can we be concerned about what we are eating if we are dead?

As C.S. Lewis said, die before death, or else it's too late (paraphrasing).

In Christ,

Ben

Learning in Wartime

The question addressed in this essay is this: "What is the use of beginning a task which we have so little chance of finishing? or even if we ourselves should happen not to be interrupted by death or military service, why should we - indeed how can we - continue to take an interest in these placid occupations when the lives of our friends and the liberties of Europe are in the balance? Is it not like fiddling while Rome burns?"

Ultimately Lewis answers this question very easily in saying that even people in the war, even people in the trenches are thinking about something else. They are not entirely submerged in thoughts of battle and victory, but in thoughts of family, and religion. And he says that there will always be bad philosophy, so there needs to be good philosophy to counter it. If you are not going to be reading good books you will be reading bad books.

But above all else Lewis answers the questions with this one quote, "The war creates no absolutely new situation: it simply aggravates the permanent human situation so that we can no longer ignore it... Human culture has always had to exist under the shadow of something infinitely more important than itself." Incredibly powerful, and no explanation or application is necessary to follow that quote. But what I do want to touch on is a quote that he says later in the essay, one that can be applied in everyone's life and should be the means and reason for everything we do.

"Never, in peace or war, commit your virtue or your happiness to the future. Happy work is best done by the man who take his long-term plans somewhat lightly and works from moment to moment 'as to the Lord'. It is only our daily bread that we are encouraged to ask for. The present is the only time in which any duty can be done or any grace received."

This quote is a concept that can touch on anything and everything we do. Point one, live "moment to moment." Do not worry about what you will wear or eat (see Matthew 7). If you cannot live in the present then you are not truly alive. Many people attempt to escape their past or live in the anticipation of the future, either way they are not in the present, therefore (for all practical purposes) dead.

On this same point I want to offer a bit of my own life experience. A week before move in day for Fall semester I was broken up with by my girlfriend. This blow was crushing to me, and I think I fell into a bit of depression. But, looking back, the reason it was so hard is because I lived the first half of the Fall semester in my past. I was hoping for my past to repeat itself, hoping to have it back, and I couldn't exist in the present. I hated who I was, impersonal, bad at communicating, lazy... It was a difficult time because I was not living in the present, I was living int he past.

Next point of Lewis' quote is "as to the Lord." Do everything as a blessing or worship to the Lord. A constant theme that has been brought up time and time again in this class is that everything you do either brings you closer to Heaven or Hell. In this case, everything you do either glorifies God or rebels against him. Give everything in your life to God: every class you attend, every job you work, every song you sing, every nap you take, every night you sleep, every time you smile, every sunset you see... Everything belongs to the Lord, but take the initiative to give it to him.

Ultimately, live every moment in the present, and give your present to God. This is how we are called to live, and this is the only way we can truly be living.

In Christ,

Ben

The Poison of Subjectivism

How did the moral law get written? Lewis looks at this question in his essay The Poison of Subjectivism. He addresses a common question in his essay, "Are these things right because God commands them, or does God command them because they are right?" His point is that we neither are right, neither could be right on its own, but both together, somehow must be right. We cannot see this, we cannot understand this exactly. All that could be said about this is that God is good, or God is love (ultimately a similar concept). Lewis says this by saying, "God is not merely good, but goodness, goodness is not merely divine, but God."

You could then say that whenever good is done, God is brought to earth, whenever someone loves (truly loves) they bring a bit of God to earth.

Anyway, why can we not understand the concept of goodness, or the concept of how moral law came about? Lewis proposes a concept of a cube coming into a 2D plain. This cube would either appear as 6 separate squares, or as just one side of the cube, either way you would not be able to see all of the cube. I like this analogy, let me develop it.

Assume you are in existance only in a 2D plane. You either face the positive direction or the negative direction, you move either up or down, or the the right or to the left. There is no depth, there is nothing beyond the 2D plane. Now the fact that a 3D world exists would not be evident unless it was revealed. Suppose that the God living in this 3D world decides to show himself. He simply puts his finger into the plain and withdraws it.

When the finger enters, it would first appear as a dot, then grow into a circle, then as it retracts it would shrink back into a dot and disappear. People who saw this may be taken aback. This "point, then circle, then point" simply appears, then disappears. A science man may say that this was nothing, just a point circle then point. But a religious man may say that this is something greater putting its influence on the 2D world. Even if people believed this, they would never be able to explain it. They simply could not rap their mind around it, because it is a concept that doesn't seem to exist.

This concept could be much compared to goodness. We cannot fully understand it, but we cannot ignore the fact that it happened (or exists)

In Christ,

Ben

Fall

Our discussion during class took a somewhat unfavorable turn for me. See, I am under the impression that doctrine is not very important. Does it truly matter if God has predestined everyone to Heaven or Hell? Well, of course, the answer to that question is yes, it does matter. However, that should never in the least bit affect how you interact with a person. The same applies for nearly every doctrinal debate that stands.

So why do we discuss this? What is the point? To understand. But there is this: one cannot actually understand God, and I'm not sure we are really called to understand God. God gives us everything we need to know in the Bible about himself in one phrase "God is love." Or perhaps what would be a better example is "I am the I am." So let us focus on things such as this.

One student said that debates on doctrine such as this one could be viewed as iron sharpening iron, perhaps. The sad truth is that many are not sharpened in the right way through debates such as this one. For many in discussions such as this, we do not seek the truth, but we seek to prove ourselves correct. Perhaps debate would be a better word. And if we debate with no interest in actually pursuing the truth, then we cannot debate in a healthy way and ought not to.

So when Plantinga talks about the Fall in Engaging God's World, I'm not sure if I see the benefit in a lot of what Plantinga had to say. We must understand that we are fallen, we must understand that we cannot save ourselves, that no act we do is going to bring us salvation. We must understand that our only hope lies in Jesus Christ, but why all of this other stuff? Do we really have to figure God out? Do we really have to know of this total depravity? In fact, it is very possible that our finite minds cannot understand a lot of the doctrine of the Bible (because it was written by an infinite mind).

My final point is this: If no act or knowledge of our own can save ourselves, or others, and God is an infinite being that lives outside of time and space, what does knowing this doctrine do for us? Clearly, an understanding of total depravity will not help you win someone for God because an act or knowledge of our own cannot bring someone to salvation. Only Jesus Christ can bring someone to the Lord.

Just a disclaimer, I am not trying to trash doctrine or witnessing or anything, but this is just something that has been battling in my mind for a few years now.

In Christ,

Ben

The Listening

Today in class we listened to people who knew C.S. Lewis talking about him. It was really quite incredible to hear of this man's actual manliness. To hear of how genuine he was, and how much his writing wasn't just what he wrote.

What I mean by that is: someone said, when being interviewed, that some of the best works of Lewis were simply his conversations. That he conversed in such a way that is ought to have been remembered, but now has just turned into mist like everyone else's. This is quite a loss. However, you also see another side to this. Lewis constantly thought in his analyzing way, constantly challenging things. One of his acquaintances said that he dared not joke around Lewis because he would take it so seriously. He would say things like, "really? hmmm, is that how you feel about it? Of course that could not be true if you take this into account..."

In that way, you could say that Lewis was almost plagued by his mind, an odd thought indeed. Because of this, there are many things that Lewis simply would be inept at. We must bear this in mind when we read and speak of his, that he is only human. He was indeed a tool, and his incredible works are still being used by the masses, but he was human. There are many things that I am sure I could do better then Lewis (obviously writing or speaking not among them). There are many things I am sure that anyone reading this blog could do better then Lewis. So why did Lewis have such an impact?

C.S. Lewis gave his life to God when he was 31 (if my memory serves), but he gave it fully. Paul became a Christian only later in his life, after an awakening. The disciples simply followed this rabbi who called himself Jesus after living the beginnings of their lives completely Jewish. Oddly enough, it seems that many of the greatest Christians are people who came into the faith later, why is this? How can this be?

I propose an answer to the question, and that is this: often, people who convert to Christianity later in their life live a fiery hot life for Christ. As opposed to those who grew up in the faith, it is all they know, they never questioned it, or made their faith their own. Lewis had only one faith, and that faith was his own. When he became a Christian, there was no more doubt in his mind, he was not simply following what his parents had told him, or the church he grew up in. He came to his faith on his own. And in this he was able to be fiery hot, and God used him.

Lewis sacrificed much for the Lord, how much do we, who were brought up in the faith, sacrifice? Perhaps we ought to make our faith our own, perhaps then we will not be luke-warm. Perhaps then our gifts from the Lord with be utilized. Only when we are humble to the fullest will we be able to do great things, only when we surrender, and accept suffering.

In Christ,

Ben

Mere Christianity

One comment I would like to make before I begin. The logic that C.S. Lewis observes in Mere Christianity is incredibly sound. It seems that his logic cannot be reproached in the least. Absolutely astonishing.

Anyway, I would like to talk on an issue that he addresses in the preface of this incredible book. The idea of how the Christian faith is presented to the pagans of this world. Imagine, if you will, that you knew nothing of the saving power of Christ. You knew the doctrine that the radicals professed about Christianity, but you knew nothing of the power of it. You were told by some that you must confess your sins or you would go to this "Hell" and live eternally in suffering. What would you think?

Rather, present the gospel in one of two ways (depending on who you are presenting it to). Either through an incredible display of Love, or an incredible display of logic, but ultimately you ought to use both. We should follow Christ's example by presenting love and logic to all, but it should be different to pagans then it is to fellow christians. This is very important.

You should never approach a pagan like you would a fellow Christian. You should never attempt to present doctrine to someone who does not care. Nor should you propose that they need to repent from their sins. This simply looks like foolishness to them (refer to 1st Corinthians 1:18). But you must live in example, that they may be attracted to it, or you must offer them something that will make sense.

This is what C.S. Lewis does in Mere Christianity. He proposes sound, irrefutable logic that ultimately shows why people truly do believe that there is some higher being. Then he goes on to point towards the God of Christianity later in the book.

Point being, we must follow his example in offering sound logic.

In Christ,

Ben

I Do Not Like Board Games (another random post)

I do not like board games. I do not like board games for the same reason why I don’t like television. You can play games as a community, and perhaps it will build more community then watching television, but television can also be communal. I do not like television because it has absolutely no vitalization of our will and ability to create. But, come to think of it, neither does playing games. When you play a game, you take out the pieces, enjoy yourself for sometime and then put the pieces back. The only thing that has changed is that somebody has won. What have they won? A game. And, stupid as it seems, by winning that game they have given themselves a name in that game.

This name transpires into our lives, and “the family member who always wins Settlers” suddenly becomes the “intelligent one” or is simply boosted that much more in the appreciation of the family. We may not intend for this to happen, and we may not be even conscious of this happening, but it does. That person who wins becomes the person who wins. Then, that person suddenly has a reputation to maintain that he never bartered for in the first place. When he loses, there is boasting in the new winner, and the new winner will often put down the old winner in an attempt to make his or her victory that much greater.

Do you not see? Through the simple act of communal games, we put each other on pedestals only to later knock each other off. It is bad to be on a pedestal because it will make you feel important, or superior, but also because you will fall harder when you finally are knocked off.

So let us do something communally that truly is communal. Let us come together and create. We shall not waste our creative abilities by watching the television, nor by playing games. We shall use our creative abilities to sing songs together, for I know that my family is blessed in the realm of music. Perhaps we shall use our creative abilities to help the needy around us. Perhaps we shall use our creative abilities to make cards for those whom we love. Is this not what the youngest of us do? Create constantly? Why has that stopped in us as we have reached old age?

The Screwtape Letters

C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters is a very very powerful book (I have not read it, but I have read Randy Alcorns Lord Foulgrin's Letters which follows a very similar format). The simple concept of intercepting the plots of demons who are directly tempting us, deliberately leading us into Hell is very profound. If nothing else, this book can open your eyes incredibly to spiritual warfare, to how weak we are, but also how powerful God is (notice in this reading "if you suppress it entirely - which, by the way, The Enemy will probably not allow you to do." Even the demons fighting against God realize that they are entirely powerless to bypass his command.)

As was brought up in class today, people, in light of demons, either do not believe in them, or believe in them but are far too fascinated. These are both incredible advantages to demons, and disadvantages to us. I want to focus on both of these aspects in this entry.

Spiritual warfare is real! Do not let yourself believe that only what you can see, touch, smell, or feel is real. That would be simply foolish and contradictory for a christian to believe. To believe that God exists and not demons, that would be utterly silly. Not only silly, but it would be down right stupid. We are at war! We can approach this war in one of two ways: first, by suiting up with the full armor of God (reference Ephesians 6) or, second, by simply ignoring the attacks on our spirit, and living in ignorance. Ignorance is bliss, but ignorance can lead you slowly and gently into ruin, a blissful journey into destruction.

Just to clarify, I do not think that your spiritual integrity lies at risk here. Jesus has saved you, rejoice! But, do not be foolish and throw away the rest of the time you have left to influence the earth.

Do not let your fascination with demons lead you to demons. This would also be very foolish, yet we find ourselves at it time and time again. After reading Lord Foulgrin's Letters, I was very strongly convicted to not dabble around with demons. To leave the protection of God by your choice and to seek out demons is to put yourself deliberately at risk.

But how exactly do we pursue demons? Is this really an issue in our culture here and today? The answer to the latter is: yes. And by explaining I shall answer the first question as well. How often have you heard of people going to "Hell's Bridge" or the local graveyard, and doing stupid things, like driving in three circles then putting the car in reverse, in order to "see ghosts?" Do not fool yourself, there are many who indeed have seen ghosts by doing things like this, and luckily, returned unharmed. However, what do you think these "ghosts" are? The supernatural can be explained as either angels or demons.

Be aware, and protect yourself. A man at war will not leave his army behind and venture into the army of the enemy. We are at war, and we must take this very seriously. God offers us protection, a demon has absolutely no power over the blood of Christ, and through the Holy Spirit, all the power of Christ is available to us. But when we go looking for demons, we may very well forfeit the protection that God offers us.

I cannot speak with authority on the nature of the previous paragraph, but if a question even exists, then the danger also exists. May you be diligent, and protect your souls from the Devil's schemes, for he is like a lion lurking in the reeds just waiting for us to wander from the pack. He desires nothing more then to sink his teeth into you and tear your soul apart. Do not give him the pleasure.

In Christ,

Ben

Creation

In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. God created the stars, the sun, the sky, the land, and the ocean. God created the animals and fruits of the land. Lastly, God created man. After creating each of these things, He declared them good. Then of course comes the Fall, which brings us to the time in which we now live, but the point is that God declared His creation good.

The world is fallen. Certainly the apple trees did not cause this. Certainly the cows that provide us with meat did not cause this. Man caused the fall, and every man, woman, and other living creature is subject to the fall. But, even though everything is fallen, even though everything was changed as result of the fall, God's creation is still good.

Because creation is good, we who now dwell in creation have a responsibility to treat creation well. We have a responsibility to care for this planet that we have been given to live on. But above all else, we have a responsibility to the people around us. Even though man is prone to wander, and has a sinful nature, man was created good.

All that to say, man is good. Now, what is to be done with that? We must be able to look past this fallen body of a man. We must be able to look past the fallen mind of a man. We must not judge based on these things, but rather we must look at the soul of a man. For the soul is what God sees, the soul is what God redeems.

In Christ,

Ben

The Weight of Glory

How often do I look at my neighbor with some sort of bitter emotion? How often do I judge my neighbor? How often do I put my neighbor down in an attempt to make myself look that little bit better? How often do I look at my neighbor and only see a physical body?

After answering those questions, I can understand what Lewis meant when he said "The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbor's glory should be laid daily on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken." Don't you see it? Our neighbors were created in the image of God, they are children of God. If our neighbors have accepted Christ, then they are even just as far along spiritually as we are. Where do I get off judging them?

That is where the weight of my neighbors glory becomes my burden to carry. I must humble myself to the point where I look at my neighbor and see their soul. I must conform myself to the ways of Christ (humility being one of the greatest lessons taught) to the point where I can look upon someone who has nothing but scorn for me, and love them with the love of Christ.

In Christ,

Ben

Our English Sylabus

This document made me realize just how fortunate I am to be taking this course as a Freshman. Also, I realized how fortunate I am to be taking a great DCM. My friends complain about their DCM, that it is not meaningful, or applicable (though I'm sure after reading what we have read thus far, they would learn just how applicable their course likely is). By taking the words of this course to heart and living them out through my education, I will not only get a much more superior education, but I will enjoy myself while I do it.

However, I do still believe that the professors of Calvin College should ALL read this document. For example: the History 151 course I took first semester was dreadful. Even people who very much enjoy History (one a History major) could not enjoy this class. We covered from the years 200,000 BC to 1,500 AD. Even if someone set aside an incredible amount of time every day for this class, they would become "a mere globetrotter." Perhaps if this professor has simply narrowed down the covered subject of the course, there could have been more actual learning. Perhaps if the professor had only focused on the rise and fall of major empires starting with the Romans up until the 1500's.

This course instantly came to mind when our professor told us about how he teaches, and how he swore never to teach. Dates and primary sources were thrown at us from a textbook and a reader, and the only purpose of the class (at least in my mind) was to regurgitate the massive amount of information on an exam. And let me tell you, you have to eat a lot to vomit that much information.

Even with courses like that, however, we must pursue knowledge. The only reason I got up at 7:30 AM to go to that class was because it was a class I must take in order to graduate and become a high school choir director. Perhaps if I were actually thirsting for knowledge, I would have been able to enjoy that class.

I really cannot blame the professor, because as the professor said today during class, "favorable conditions never happen." We will get the professors that we get, and we will have to work with that. If we view a course simply as a stepping stone, the only importance that course will have will be that of a stepping stone. But if we view that course as a pursuit of knowledge, then that course will be as valuable as any other course we ever take.

In Christ,

Ben

A Random Thought About Joy

Our professor said that JOY is Jesus and You with nothing (0) in between. At first thought I agreed with this, but I must change my perception of it. Because we are called to have joy now, we experience joy here and now where we are in our sinful bodies. Certainly, our joy will be far greater once there truly is nothing between us and Jesus, but we have joy now, here, in our sin we are graced with joy. So how? Why?

I propose JOY is the promise of Jesus and You with nothing (0) in between. We have joy now, when we throw so much garbage between Jesus and ourselves. But we have been promised through the eternal grace and mercy of God that one day there will be nothing between Jesus and his bride. That is joy. Joy is a promise.

Without this promise, what would we draw our happiness from? We could draw happiness from money for a short time, maybe sex, maybe alcohol, maybe drugs. But there would be complete emptiness in all of us without the promise of joy.

In Christ,

Ben

Plantinga

In the first chapter of Engaging God's World, Plantinga talks about longing and hope. One area I would like to comment about is C.S. Lewis' quote and Plantinga's response. The quote says that we don't long for enough, that we have eternal life and all we want is what is present here and now. How we could go to the beach, but we would rather stay in the slums playing with the mud.

This is a very interesting point. Someone in class said that one reason we act like this is because we just don't know how great eternal life is going to be, we cannot grasp heaven. And I agree with this. But I would like to offer another dimension to it. There are many things in this world, right now, that seem very very attractive. Money, sex, fame, even drugs could be very attractive to us mortal, limited beings. But the thing we don't understand is that these things are not fulfilling.

Perhaps we would never be able to see the shallow levels of these things until we have looked along with them. But I think that the most applicable argument towards this would be similar to that of C.S. Lewis' article We Have No Right to Happiness. We don't know what will make us happy. We cannot see the true depths of real joy. Like our professor said, J.O.Y. is Jesus and You with nothing (0) in between.

So as we might pursue fame, money, sex, drugs, and success, we are just putting more and more between us and Jesus, therefore getting further and further from Joy. We think that because we have more mud in the slums that we will be happy, but who wants more mud? More dirt? We have to get out of the slums for joy, for true happiness.

In Christ,

Ben

We Have No Right to Happiness

Based on the title, you may think the article by C.S. Lewis speaks of cruelty, or limiting. When in reality I would suggest that is speaks to quite the opposite. Lewis focuses primarily on "sexual happiness" and how some people think they have the "right to (sexual) happiness." He then goes on to disprove this idea. Lewis suggests that we cannot have the right to sexual happiness, because if we did, then we would simply follow these sexual impulses every time we had them, "after all, he had the right to be happy."

When a man desires to leave his wife, he does so in the idea that he has a "right" to happiness that morally allows him to. Lewis suggests that he has no such moral right, and that a man leaving his wife is not simply an offense having to do with sexual morality, but rather an offense against honesty.

So, while divorce rate climbs because we follow our sexual happiness, what happens to the character of man? Whenever a man is dishonest, especially when he can excuse his dishonesty in his mind, that man becomes more dishonest.

A man has the ability to make the choice to divorce his wife, true. A man has the right to divorce his wife, true. But I sincerely doubt that this man in question will achieve happiness from this. A man does not have a right to be 6' tall, because he does not know how to obtain it. Likewise, a man does not have the right to be happy, because he does not know how to obtain it. He may think that he has a right to happiness, he may think that he is pursuing happiness, but I sincerely doubt this.

The strongest example of this that I can offer is my dad. My dad divorced my mom when I was eight. His reasoning? He kept on saying to my mom, "I am just not happy." So, he took his "right to happiness" and divorced my mom. I think he honestly thought he was morally justified in this, and that he honestly thought he would make himself happy through this. But I can attest to his misery today. He might blame his misery on his circumstances, but that cannot be. His misery is blamed on the fact that he thought he had (and still thinks he has) the right to pursue his happiness.

I suggest that man does not know how to pursue happiness, so we cannot have a right to happiness.

In Christ,

Ben

Bulverism

C.S. Lewis put a name to something that nobody else yet named, bulverism. The concept of bulverism exists everywhere, and everyone knows that it does, yet it went unnamed for far too long. Bulverism is the concept that it is easier to discredit a source then to disprove an idea. If one is arguing in a debate, and knows he is wrong, he most likely will not admit that he is wrong. Rather, he will go to the only source possible to try to convince the audience he is right, he will attempt to discredit the person he is debating with. Bulverism gets very dirty very fast.

When I was reading C.S. Lewis' article entitled "Bulverism," the only thing I could think of was politics. How often will a politician in debate actually attempt to disprove the other politician's idea? The main source of political debate is bulverism. This is a tragic idea. People, rather then searching for truth, slander the name of their opponent. People try to discredit their opponent so much that the audience will think that they are the more credible source. This should not be. The pursuit should be of the actual truth. C.S. Lewis hit this right on the head in his article when he said, "Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall."

All who are reading this, do not think you are off the hook simply because you are not a politician. Everyone who has ever advocated for a decision in government, or any decision anywhere, has played the role of a politician. And the sad truth is that many of us use bulverism as our primary tactic of getting people to decide with us. Rather then searching for truth, we are desperate to make the consensus to be in our favor. We often slander the names of those around us. Things as simple as when you are trying to decide what movie to watch, "remember last time he picked out the movie?"

C.S. Lewis went on to make the point that if every idea was discredited because of the source it comes from, then every idea must be discredited, including the idea just mentioned. Then there would be no ideas anywhere that could hold true, there would be no truth.

Let us put aside our pride and our prejudice (no reference to the movie intended) and search for the actual truth. Let us not simply search to prove correct the ideas that we have, but let us rather search for the truth about the ideas we have.

In Christ,

Ben

Meditation in a Toolshed

The article, "Meditation in a Toolshed," by C.S. Lewis talks about looking at something and looking along with something. A classic example of this would be love. When someone falls in love, they see love by looking along with love, by experiencing it. But when someone examines the purely scientific parts of love, they see "an affair of the young man's genes and a recognised biological stimulus" as Lewis puts it. Point being, in my opinion, that you cannot look at something and form the same understanding as looking along with something.

During class today, we were told to introduce someone by telling the class their name, where they are from, their church affiliation, and why they chose to take the class. Being that I do not have a declared affiliation, I thought that the concept Lewis addresses in his article went very well with the introductions done in class. Being that I attend a CRC college, many of the students are affiliated with the CRC, and being affiliated with the CRC, those students have many traditions, doctrines, and practices that other students do not share, such as the one student whose affiliation is Roman Catholic.

As I mentioned, I do not have a declared affiliation. I think that there is good in every denomination, and most of the arguments that have come up between denominations are petty and should not separate people. The body of Christ is to be one body, and the Kingdom to be one Kingdom, not divided against itself.

I used to declare myself Baptist. So, why now do I not declare myself an affiliation? To avoid quarrels and promote unity within the Body. Many people are stuck so strongly to their interpretation, or at least the way they have been taught to interpret, of doctrine or traditions that they will argue and quarrel and be mad at a brother or sister in Christ over these matters. I suggest that the Body be unified, and not quarrel over such things. There are very few doctrinal debates that actually have to do with one's salvation, so why do we debate them?

The reason this article brought this to my attention is because most people look along with their doctrine and traditions, while looking at other doctrine and traditions. They think that theirs is entirely accurate, therefore the others must not be accurate. I suggest that many of the things that divide us need not to divide us. A good Catholic confesses his sins on a regular basis, and perhaps a good Baptist should practice confession more often. If a man were to practice confession whole heartedly, and truly be confessing his sins, then he will experience the good of confession. But, if a man were to look at confession, he would not see the great experience.

Perhaps if we were to look at and along with every tradition or doctrine we did not agree with, we would be able to have a better understanding of that. We would be able to see why it helps those who do it. And perhaps, if all were able to do that, the Body would not be divided into these denominations and affiliations.

In Christ,

Ben

A Thousand Thoughts From Here

Welcome everyone!

I hope you can enjoy, be challenged, and challenge me through this blog as I add posts throughout the month of January.

In Christ,

Ben