Integrative Essay

Nathan Steensma

IDIS 150-02

Integrative Essay

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

C.S. Lewis and My Faith

When I was presented with the options for interim, I found myself at first annoyed. After having been subjected to Passport, Quest, and Prelude, I was quite sick of having to be pushed into classes or situations by Calvin College. The only redeeming quality that my forced Developing a Christian Mind class would have was that I could choose my class. Looking over the list of classes that I could take, I was immediately interested in the class on C.S. Lewis. I thought that reading on topics such as Christian apologetics would be extremely beneficial to my faith life. While this was true, there was such a large gamut of readings that I dived into in this class. Through the combinations of these things, I was moved, and this class had a large impact on my faith life.

One of the things that I had been extremely looking forward to reading from was Lewis’ Screwtape Letters. These dark, yet inspiring books would cause me to revaluate my faith, and look at just one idea of how the powers of evil work. I was disappointed however, when I found out that we were only reading one small selection from these letters, though it was an important chapter none the less. So, when my final project group decided to look at the Screwtape Letters, I was thrilled that I would get a second chance to check out these writings. This is when one chapter jumped out at me; the 16^th chapter. I would like to share something from this chapter, where Screwtape writes to Wormwood, “Surely you know that if a man can't be cured of churchgoing, the next best thing is to send him all over the neighborhood looking for the church that "suits" him until he becomes a taster or connoisseur of churches (Screwtape Letters, XVI).” This struck me very hard, as it has a very personal impact on my life. I was born into the CRC, and was there for several years until the choices of the denomination at Synod 1995, and the implementation of those choices in my church. My family then left the CRC church in favor of a small Orthodox Presbyterian Church, where we remained for a time. This church was where I spent the majority of my childhood, and I have very fond memories of my time there. The church was very tight-knit, and church picnics or pot-luck dinners were always fun and enjoyable. After a few years of a new pastor, however, my family decided to move on again. This resulted in trying several Reformed churches, and spending a year at a PCA church, before returning to the same CRC church that I was born into. Over the course of about 10 years, I attended many churches only to end up full circle at the very same church that I had started at. However, I was never really happy at this CRC church, and remain unhappy over many issues, including theology, the preaching, and the worship style, among many things. Once I came to Calvin, I was able to try the many Christian Reformed churches that abound around the city, and surely enough I found ones that I am happy with.

The question that Lewis provoked still remains however: am I being duped by the devil, or am I just trying to find happiness in my church life? My thoughts have led me to many places, and I have come to several conclusions. First, we should be happy in our worship (Psalm 100), and we should do that in joy. If we go into worship heavy hearted, we get nothing out of it, and God gets no glory out of it. The goal of our worship should be to glorify God, and come closer to him. Second, we should be able to enjoy fellowship with the people of the congregation (1 John 1:7). This means that we should enjoy the people that we worship with, that they help us in our walk, and we help them in their walk with the Lord. Third, the preaching and theology of the church should be in line with my beliefs. The Bible is infallible, but I also think it leaves room for debate, which means there can be multiple denominations of God’s people. Therefore, I should find the church that most closely follows my thoughts. So I think that I should to a certain extent look for a church that helps me glorify God the best, but not to the extent that it ruins or degrades my worship in any way. Clearly, this is an aspect of my faith that I need to work on, and I am glad that I was able to see that in this course.

Another thing that I found from the class was a reaffirmation of some of my theology, particularly in the aspect of a Reformed view point. Between the Neil Plantinga book Engaging God’s World, and some of Lewis’ readings, I was able to check some of my thoughts and be reaffirmed in my faith. One of the things that I read in class was an essay entitled “Man or Rabbit”. This work caused me to a double take at a certain aspect, regarding honest error, “Surely God will not punish a man for honest mistakes (Man or Rabbit, 110).” In the context from which this is taken, C.S. Lewis is debating the merits of an honest error. Lewis is making the argument that if someone has never heard at any time the gospel, then they cannot be condemned to this. This got me to thinking about what I believed in this aspect: for I believed that this is not true in any way, because sin must be forgiven. My first step to checking my belief was to find out what sin was, “We might define evil as…any deviation from the way God wants things to be…God hates sin (Plantinga, 51).” With this in mind, we have a definition of sin, anything that deviates from God’s perfect creation. Furthermore, as members of the human race, we have been subjected to original sin, meaning we have the tendency to sin at all times (Plantinga, 51). As the book of Romans states, “for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).” With this being said, we are totally depraved from God, for the wages of sin are death (Romans 6:23). This means, that there is no way to be saved, apart from a belief in Jesus’ death and resurrection. So therefore, I would disagree in Lewis’ opinion that having an honest error of not hearing about God would exonerate you from hell.

Another issue that Lewis raised that caused me to think was his thoughts in “No Right to Happiness.” In this essay, Lewis claims that we humans have no right to happiness; “A right to happiness doesn't, for me, make much more sense than a right to be six feet tall, or to have a millionaire for your father, or to get good weather whenever you want to have a picnic (“No Right To Happiness, 1).” Lewis cites the fact that we are fallen, and therefore have no rights whatsoever. This statement I would also have to disagree with. In such, I would like to prove this in a simple biblical proof. First, we are created by God, as humans, with many great traits: physical, mental, and emotional. Due to the fact that we have these traits, we can be expected to use them to glorify God. In such, we should be joyful when in worship with God, and therefore be happy. When God gave us things such as nature or other humans, he meant for us to be happy in our fellowship with these things. However, while we should be happy with these things, this happiness should only come in glorification of God, for instance, gratifying our sexual desires outside of marriage would not be a proper use of the happiness that God has given us.

I learned many things in my interim class, which was a great thing to have happen. I was challenged and reaffirmed in my faith, from readings, class discussions, and so many more aspects of this class. I enjoyed reading some of Lewis’ many works, and the many new perspectives I gained. Overall, I am glad that I had this opportunity to take this class, and I am even happier I had the opportunity to enjoy this class.

Works Cited

Lewis, C.S. Screwtape Letters. 1942

Lewis, C.S. “We Have No Right to Happiness.”

Lewis, C.S. “God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics.”

Plantinga, Cornelius. “Engaging God’s World.” 1989

The Holy Bible. New International Version

The Problem of Pain

There are two types of pain in the world, they shall be called Pain A and Pain B. Pain A is the physical pain you get when you fall down and cut your knee, when your nerve endings shoot signals of pain and physical damage. Pain B is the emotional pain we feel whenever there is something we dislike. Pain B can be both physical and emotional. While both are important pains, and both capable of being blogged on, C.S. Lewis was not a renowned scientist or medical doctor, so it is safe to say we will be exploring Pain B in "The Problem of Pain."

Lewis says makes his battery of intriguing points in this work, starting with an insight Lewis makes regarding human will, "We are not merely imperfect creatures who must be improved: we are...rebels who must lay down our arms." This is a very excellent point made by Lewis. First, we are indeed totally depraved of God. We are in every sense of the word imperfect creatures, we sin, we are corrupt, there is no way for us to have eternal life. However, we are perfect in the sense that we are made in God's image. So there is a glimmer of optimism. That being said, must realize our own imperfection, the fact that we are nothing apart from God. By laying down our arms, we let down our aggression and anger, and allow the Lord to work through us. Through his grace, we are then are able to be atoned with God the Father.

Another good point Lewis raises was when he commented on the pain that he himself feels. In this time of truth, Lewis states that if he knew of a clue as how to get away from pain, he would crawl through a sewer to retrieve it. Pain hurts; which is perhaps the most obvious thing that will ever be written. That is not what is profound though, what is profound is the fact that we are all cowards. C.S. Lewis is a coward, I am a coward, and the people who read this blog are cowards. However, Lewis is brave for admitting it, facing your fears head on is the best way to resolve them. In order to face our pains, the things that make us want to cower and shake, we must face them and work through them. A man should not be judged upon his wife, his car, or his job, but rather his moxy in the face of adversity. Cowardice is not the right answer, but admitting cowardice is the first step to solving it. Pain is awful, and terrible, but admitting to it is a step towards solving it.

Man or Rabbit?

Man or Rabbit is a very interesting read by C.S. Lewis. In this reading, Lewis questions whether those who are not Christians can still lead a good life. This was an extremely relevant article to me, as I attended a public high school, and I met many people who were not Christians who were still good people. However, what would they really be classified is a question worth asking, which is why I read Lewis' points with zeal.

However, I was first struck with something that Lewis said about honest mistakes. The basic principle of this is that if someone honestly has never heard of the gospel, but is a good person, then they are excused by God. I would whole-heartily disagree with this statement. Part of the tenants of being a Christian is that you absolutely need Jesus to be saved. Belief in him is the only way to salvation, he is the bridge between heaven and Hell, which we are doomed to enter if our souls are not saved. So for Lewis to say this I believe to unsound doctrine.

I didn't disagree with everything Lewis said though. He brought up the point of honest ignorance and honest errors. In this theory, honest ignorance would be someone who had never been around or heard anything regarding Christianity. However, this differs from those who have heard about the gospel, but would still like to lead a good life. This is wrong, as Lewis correctly notes. For one, this again is not believing in the goodness of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, the only way to receive salvation. With this in mind, we are struck with two opposing views. First, a person who is not a Christian, but is still a good person, is still useful to society and can benefit society. There are many people who are not Christians who are polite, kind, who volunteer, and make this world a better place. However, in the merits of God's kingdom, they are not good. If they are conscious enough to know God's love, but still reject it, they have clearly blasphemed God's name, and are not worthy of his kingdom. Likewise, they provide or add nothing to the furthering of his kingdom. So overall, the shunning of God's loving kindness and irresistible grace is wrong for both the ignorant and the knowledgeable.

Plantinga Ch. 5

In chapter five of Engaging God's World, Neil Plantinga lays out our obligation to have a Christian vocation. This is a very strong calling, that shows our obligations as members of Christ's kingdom to progress his kingdom in everything we do.

As we have already learned in this book, we are part of God's creation that has fallen and been redeemed by those whom God has called. As true members of God's kingdom, we should long for his kingdom come, his dominion to reign over all the earth. That is where his elect come in. We must learn to serve him in everything we do, we must be prime citizens of the kingdom of God. Plantinga relates this very well, as he clearly shows that we are prime citizens of the kingdom in everything we do: voting, working, playing. This means that we vote with the intentions of that candidate furthering God's kingdom, we work with the diligence of working for the Lord, and we play with the hope of glorifying God in what we do. The chapter makes special note of the place of politics in the church, mentioning that after John Calvin, it was considered the right thing to do as Christians. In what ways can we influence politics as Christians? The first thing we can do is vote for the candidates that best further God's kingdom. This means voting for candidates who support the stewardship of the earth, the rights of the unborn, the sanctity of biblical marriage. We must not be bulveristic in our support of a candidate based solely on party lines, but rather vote knowing that a candidate can have a profound impact on God's kingdom. The second thing we can do is offer our own talents in public service. Even a failed campaign, if giving Christians the option to vote for you, is a success. As the morality of America and the world seemingly decay, we must actively work to restore shalom to this fallen place.

Another area Plantinga calls us to have a vocation in God's kingdom is in our studies at Calvin College. He warns that we must not be lulled into spiritual deadness because we go to a Christian college. I find this to be true. I attended a Christian grade school, moved to a public high school, and then to Calvin. I believe my faith has grown everywhere, but surprisingly very much so at high school. When your faith is attacked daily by sinful thoughts and desires, your true mettle is shown. While I would like to think my faith is growing at Calvin, it is much easier to think that just going to a Christian college strengthens your faith. This is not so, and is a dangerous thought. We must work continually in our studies, our relationships, our jobs, and everything else, to challenge ourselves and emerge stronger in the Lord.

The Inner Ring

We all have experienced this before. Being in a group of friends, or if you are not so lucky, wishing to be in a specific ring of people. These rings are the focus of C.S. Lewis in his 1944 oration, "The Inner Ring." This ring has more implications than in High School, but also throughout everything we do in life.

When I first read of Lewis' inner ring, and started digesting this work, one of the first things I thought of was high school and the many cliques that exist. This is something that Lewis mentions in his writings. Too often we are to influenced by our social status, and try hard to achieve a group of friends that we deem will make us popular. Such vanity causes us to possibly say or do stupid things, and make us act unlike the people that we are. We must find out who we are, and then find friends whose interests conform with are own. Then we are truly happy. As Lewis states, "I am not going to say that the existence of Inner Rings is an evil." A circle of friends that hold you up in the Lord can be a very good thing, and something that will bring you happiness on earth, and a happier relationship with God.

This causes us to move now in a different direction, the impact of rings in the Christian faith. The first thing that must be addressed is rings within an individual congregation. These can be extremely harmful and dangerous. The difference between a ring and a clique is an extremely fine line, and one that can easily be crossed. A ring of say a youth group or a Bible Study is a good thing, but when that ring becomes a clique that doesn't welcome other members of the church or even worse visitor's to the church is very harmful. We also must be careful about making a ring as a church as a whole. The power of being members of Christ's kingdom is that we all have each other to lean on, however, there is always room for more into the fellowship of God. That means we must be open to welcoming new comers, to bring them in and care for them. One of the reasons that Gandhi didn't become a Christian is that he was shunned from a church once for the color of his skin. Certainly evil, and wrong. There is one more issue I would like to address and that is the issue of the rebuke of members of the Christian ring. It was mentioned in class that we must be more caring for those in the church who are dealing with struggles, and I would like to make some points. As Christians, we have a calling to love our fellow believers, and help them in their struggles. However, if there is reason to believe that they are bringing the body down, they must be thrown out; there is no place for them in the church. As the Bible emphatically states, those who come to the table of the Lord in an unworthy manner bring judgement upon themselves and everyone else. This is both terrifying and serious, and we must be conscious of its ramifications. We must be caring in our treatment of the Inner Ring of Christians.

An Inconvenient Truth

Last week I watched Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth." This highly acclaimed film shows the reasoning behind climate change and why it should worry us. While Gore made some good points, he also made several errors in his film, that harmed the cause that he was trying to promote.

Some of the points that he made were poor for several reasons. First, he often time reverted to emotional appeals such as: ethos, pathos, and logos. These appeals involved the calm scene of the river, the story of his son's tragic accident, his disappointment over his failed presidential bid, or even his use of an electrical lift to show data. Using such props and appeals overall weakens his argument, as it casts attention from the science, to other issues. Unfortunately, such a movie should not be made by a failed politician, as he wore his politics on his sleeve, taking unnecessary shots at the former President. The movie could ultimately add up to propaganda, and could be much better presented by somebody not named Al Gore. In addition, the former Vice President's science is also a little skewed, and while most of the data is true, not all of it is. Finally, the movie concluded without offering any solutions, and if we found the film moving, we are left without any ways to help change this tragic course we are now taking.

This being said, some good points are raised. First, we are indeed putting junk into our atmosphere. The issue is not if this is completely happening, but the results that will occur. I would argue that all the burning of fossil fuels as a result of the Industrial Revolution have indeed had a negative impact on the environment. However, I would like to suggest some ideas that I personally have; taken from a year of studying Wind Energy for my Senior High School Project. First, one major issue that must be addressed is deforestation and suburban sprawl. The more trees, the better, as trees soak up Carbon Dioxide, which is harming the environment. Is it really necessary for people to live in $500,000 homes in suburbs that were previously farmland and forest? No. A second misconception is that cows are causing global warming. This is plain stupid. The Obama administration has suggested putting taxes on cows for their flatulence. Not only would this cripple agriculture, but it would be unnecessary. The methane released from cows is much less than the methane released from dumps. One way to curb the methane from both is to capture it and use it as energy. The third misconception is that cars create massive amounts of global warming. While they do on a small scale, the push for tiny cars that should be known as death-traps, is wrong. Instead of forcing people to drive tiny cars, government should push mass transit, or even walking/bicycling. What a noble thought. Walking to the grocery store. This would decrease global warming and obesity. I have in 30 seconds curbed the global warming and health care problems in this country. What is it then that creates more global warming than cars? Coal power plants and other power plants that burn fossil fuels. These plants produce the vast majority of the energy in the world, and likewise, a high amount of the emissions. This can be altered with two things: energy efficiency and alternative energy. Turn off the lights when you leave the room, have a wood stove instead of a highly set furnace, and living in Michigan or New York like me, do you really need air conditioning? This alone would decrease carbon emissions. Secondly, alternative energy must be expanded. A fact that is not well known is that there is 1 Terra watt of harness able energy in the oceans off the coast of the United States. 1 Terra watt is 1 million Megawatts, or the sum of the energy used in the United States currently, plus much, much more. The world could easily decrease it's carbon footprint without having to buy carbon allowances, or any other silly idea Mr. Gore pats around.

Overall, this is a worth while movie to watch. If nothing else it gets you to think about what you believe in. However, don't blindly follow what you are told or what you see on a screen, because it isn't always fully true.

The Four Loves- Eros

The Four Loves was definitely an interesting read by C.S. Lewis. I definitely regret that I was only able to read/listen to just a small portion of this, as it answers many great questions regarding love. However, the section on Eros, which was read and in part listened to, was extremely informative and interesting. As college students, we are entering a time when many people find their life spouse, especially at a college such as Calvin. That being said, it is important to highlight several important spots from Lewis' writing. First, let us identify what is meant by Eros. Eros is considered to be human affection, where you are in love. However, this is distinct of sole sexual attraction, although it plays a small part in Eros.

The first thing that stood out to me is the fact that Eros is more than a sexual passion. Indeed, there is more to an attraction than the sole physical side. It is even suggested that you should be attracted to a personality before having a physical attraction. I would consider this a good although unrealistic way to get an attraction. Rarely, and I would even consider using the word never, is there someone so modest that they look solely at personality and other non-physical traits. The fact that attraction should be more that physical is nonetheless very important and worth noting. Let's use Hollywood as an example. Entertainers are some of the most attractive people on the face of the Earth, yet their marriages are tabloid farces, that often cause you to shake your head due to their ridiculousness. I would assume this is because the entertainers look solely at the physical. They don't realize time after time after time that there is more to a marriage than the physical. I think it would be wise to never learn any lessons ever from Hollywood loud-mouths, especially when Eros comes into consideration.

This brings up a similar passage from Lewis: the fact that no passion is self-preservative. I think that this connects well with the first ideal in that passion will not parlay itself out into a meaningful relationship. I would link passion to sort of a rash, hastily thought out emotion, and in such, an impulse that never turns out well. Oftentimes, we act before we think, we talk before we think, or other things that aren't smart. Much more often that not, these impulses do not end up well for us, and we regret what we say or do. So it is with passion in love also. Passion may start out strong, but it will eventually fizzle. Passion again is linked to a strong physical attraction, but a strong and healthy relationship is built on having an emotional connection, having similar ideas and beliefs, and then a physical connection. Passion must be subdued in order to realistically look at a relationship.

Lewis gives a good opinion, and one that is very accurate. He gives many words of wisdom that should not be discounted. We must certainly have Eros, but in the right sense, with attractions for the right reasons.