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.

Plantinga Ch. 4

Redemption. This is the subject of the fourth chapter of Neil Plantinga's sometimes tedious manuscript Engaging God's World. Redemption is the process by which the elect are restored to God's favor through Jesus. Plantinga goes on to mention the many aspects of redemption, particularly the charge that we are given as redeemed.

As redeemed creatures, we have been given a charge. This famous charge has been taken from the end of Matthew, where we are told to go and make disciples of all nations. This is a wonderful command because it indicates several things. Firstly, all nations and all peoples have been saved by God. Secondly, that God has chosen people to be his. This second point has been worded as such due to the line from Ephesians 2 that it is by grace that we have been saved through faith, and that this salvation is a gift of God, it is nothing humans have done. This has caused me to ask many questions, and I would like to pose them here. As Prof. Ribiero said today, answering your own questions sometimes helps you learn that point even better. So with that in mind, why do we even take the time to evangelize, knowing that God's irresistible grace will bring his chosen to him? There are several answers that I can think of. First, Matthew 28 tells us to. Faith without works is dead, and although we can never "repay" our debt of being saved, we show our dedication and gratitude by obeying God. Second, we must take every opportunity to witness, to reform all things, not knowing who God has chosen. Therefore, we must always be conscious that we could be ministering to one of God's elect at any time.

Another thing that I liked from Plantinga's fourth chapter is his explanation of justification. As Plantinga states, justification is God's acceptance of sinners, on account of the atoning work of Jesus Christ. It is truly comforting that although we never can do anything right, it is still acceptable to God. If we think of all the times that we have sinned in the last week or even day, we are very humbled. Yet despite this, we are still able to be redeemed by God. I struggle with the fact that I can be accepted by God, despite all the times that I have sinned and willfully and knowingly disobeyed. It is humbling, and yet a wonderful fact.

Learning in War-Time

In 1939, C.S. Lewis preached a sermon at Oxford. Faced with the beginning of World War Two, Lewis addressed the issue of learning during war time. As usual, Lewis raises some good points that can be used by us to enhance our daily lives, particularly as we go through life at Calvin College.

One of the things that stuck out most to me was the paragraph on fear. Lewis correctly suggests that war threatens us with pain and death. Lewis goes on to state that death in war is better than dying of cancer or some other disease 40 or 50 years down the line. War leads us to think about our own mortality; not the fact that it is imminent, but rather the fact that there is a spiritual side to life. To anticipate death as a soon forthcoming event, it forces us to examine our thoughts about what happens after death. Inevitably, it draws some to the cross and Jesus. Lewis parallels this idea in "The Screwtape Letters" in which the apprentice devil is warned that the onslaught of World War 2 could have poor repercussions for the underworld. As Lewis states, it is always good for us to be aware of our mortality.

Lewis also champions the idea of learning from the past. The ageless adage that those who don't learn their history are doomed to repeat it is met head on by Lewis. As Lewis states, "Most of all, perhaps we need intimate knowledge of the past." Generally this is taken in a macro lens, however, this should be narrowed down to our own lives preferably. There are many things that I don't learn, particularly in things that are said and done. Self-analysis, particularly of the things that we sin against God, is vital. Unfortunately, as fallen beings, we may be doomed to continually screw up in one particular sin, however, with real work and realization, we can start to limit the times we make mistakes. It is an endless battle, indeed a battle that will end in defeat more than victory, however, it must be undertaken. It should be a goal of ours to learn from our sins, and try to correct them.

Plantinga Ch. 3

In Chapter 3 of "Engaging God's World" Plantinga talks about the fall. This was an interesting read that caused for heated debate in class. However, I would like to look at some things that stuck out to me.

First, we all know about the fallen human race. Since the time when Adam and Eve disobeyed explicit instructions from God regarding the fruit of the tree, we have been fallen, wretched creatures. This is where total depravity comes in. We sin in all that we do, we have no hope by ourselves to be clean or good in any way whatsoever. This is why we need to have God to wash away our sins, without his sacrifice on the cross, we would all be guaranteed of utter damnation.

Plantinga also raises an interesting point when he points out than in all evil, there is goodness. Upon closer thought, we realize that this is true, for the Devil, the master of evil, cannot create anything. God is perfect, everything he does is perfect in every way, and therefore everything that is done starts out good. The devil can only pervert and twist what is good, and so while he is powerful and dangerous, we know he is nowhere near as powerful as God.

The third interesting point is the topic of common grace. Common grace implies that God loves you, and shows grace to you, regardless of your status as a believer. I would agree with this, and say that there are many good things done by nonbelievers. I believe that good can be done by anyone, whether they be Jew, Muslim, or Christian. If we take good to be anything that honors God or helps his creation, then you can see where there are many things non-Christians do that is good. I find that saying that Christians exclusively can do good to be haughty and wrong.

The Poison of Subjectivism

The Poison of Subjectivism was an extremely hard essay to read. I am not ashamed in anyway to say that I had a lot of trouble with it, and was quite often confused and forced to re-read. I was able to get several things out of it though, which in the end made it worth the time it took to try to understand this writing.

First, I found it interesting to learn that the precepts of mercy are more frequent than the precepts of justice. This was fascinating as most people, including myself, tend to have a cynical view on people and society. Therefore, to find that throughout history, laws and precepts have tended towards mercy rather than justice is kind of shocking. I think it is a reflection of the fact that we have a merciful God, slow to anger and abounding in love. It shows that are tendencies should be towards mercy rather than justice, since as sinners, to a certain extent, who are we to pass justice on fellow sinners.

Secondly, Lewis raises an interesting analogy with his comparison of the Trinity to a cube. This is necessary because God is three distinct beings, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are completely united; three in one. I find this an interesting analogy not because I find the cube reference particularly insightful, but because of what Lewis says next. Lewis then mentions the two-dimensional way to look at a cube, which ruins either its distinctiveness or its unity. To me this shows that we cannot limit God to just one being at a time, or even worse, forget about one of his "sides." We must look at more of a lens than just the 2-D that we see, we must put on our 3-D glasses to get the full effect of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It is a tough task, one that is ardous and difficult, yet it must be done to have a fuller aspect of God. Sometimes, the most important lesson we learn in a reading is not the major point, but just a minor one that is put in by the author. I think his is how it is for me with this work from Lewis, while perhaps the major points escaped me, a minor point stuck out to me the most.

Mere Christianity

Mere Christianity is a great piece of literature that really does a good job of laying out the position of mankind and Christianity. C.S. Lewis uses a brief series of proofs to show his point that if there is indeed a series of Natural Laws, then humans are bound to break these laws, and that this must mean that there is some form of higher being whom dictated this law. C.S. Lewis at least in the piece that we read for class does not go as far as to show that this high Deity is indeed the God that Christians worship and believe in, but nonetheless, the evidence he gives is still compelling.

There are several interesting aspects that C.S. Lewis puts in this book. The first of which is Lewis' avoidance of denominational differences. I completely agree that if Mere Christianity is meant to help nonbelievers come to the Lord, then showing the many differences and disagreements that Christians have. One of the greatest points for Christianity is the fact that it is a loving religion, where you are taught that God is loving and compassionate. This brings up the question then of why there are even different denominations and why they are necessary. It should be noted that up until the Protestant Reformation there were not the many different denominations that we now know today. However, both Catholics and Protestants agree that changes need to be made, as witnessed by both the Catholic and Protestant Reformation. In addition, I think that while having one Catholic church, (Catholic in this sense being used as universal), this puts far to much power in the hands of a select few, and it is obvious that power corrupts. To relate to Lewis, we have a natural law with which we must con scribe, however we are prone and doubtlessly going to break this law. Moving back to denominational differences however. I was born CRC, then moved to a form of Presbyterianism, before going back to the CRC. Therefore I consider myself able to talk a bit about the differences in denominations. The Bible, which I think is infallible, is definitely open to different interpretations. While I may not agree with some interpretations, as long as there is a central belief in Jesus, with an active faith life, are we not believing in one and the same thing, with only several minor differences? I would say yes. However, these differences are great enough that I do not want to be subjected to them, and I feel comfortable saying that these differences can be necessary to a healthy relationship with God. I would get nothing out of a Sunday morning if what I heard week in and week out was frustrating and in my mind, untrue. Therefore, I think denominations are necessary and needed. However, they can not be mentioned to a new believer. Imagine going to a restaurant and receiving a phone book sized menu. Certainly you would be overwhelmed. You would need time to pick through the options before you could pick the items which you thought would most satisfy your hunger. So it is for the new convert also. They must have time to read the Bible, and understand God's word as they feel is correct. Overwhelming and showing differences is not the way to win over converts. So, it is certainly a good thing that Lewis did not produce "Extreme Christianity," as Mere Christianity worked much better for believer and nonbelievers alike.

Screwtape Letters

"The Screwtape Letters" are some of the most amazing letters I have ever read. In these letters, demon Screwtape advises his nephew Wormwood how to lead a believer down the path to hell. The letters are very thought provoking, and really cause one to sit back and examine there own faith life. Screwtape advises small steps to slowly turn a believer into a lukewarm Christian through distractions and other smoke and mirrors.

I had heard about this book before, however I had never read any part of it. Just reading the little bit that we did spoke to me about my own life. I constantly am distracted from my faith life, seemingly by trivial matters. There are times where I accidentally put off my praying; a very important aspect of faith. Sometimes there may be a semi-legitimate reason for this, but far too often it is for some stupid reason that shouldn't distract me. The excerpt from the letters shows how the devil capitalizes on these mistakes, driving believers to be distracted by more and more trivial things; as Lewis writes, you can soon consume a person with puttering about, reading the ads from yesterdays paper, and staring at a long dead fire. To me these letters also highlight the importance of not being ignorant in faith. This was something that my group talked about. For instance, going to church weekly doesn't automatically make you a Christian, or seal a first-class ticket to heaven. We must examine why we go to church: do we go because our parents make us, because its a habit, or because we enjoy the fellowship of fellow believers while we worship and praise the one true God. I will confess that I sometimes have felt safe in my faith because I go to church twice on Sundays, however this is not a good stance. I sometimes miss the point of why one goes to church, and this book caused me to reevaluate my faith. As the PowerPoint pointed out from Revelation 3: there are no lukewarm Christians, for they will be spit out. A powerful warning and message for us as we go about our walk with God.

Plantinga Ch.2

Neil Plantinga writes in his second chapter of "Engaging God's World" about Creation. In it he talks about many aspects of creation: the wonders of God's creation of humans, animals, and nature, and the responsibility of being created. God's creation is wonderful, it is perfect, and as so, is vast, complex, and unimaginable. Oftentimes I wonder how people can hold to the belief in complete evolution, when creation is so complex, beautiful, and amazing that random sequences have led to us evolving into what we are today. Plantinga mentions the half-million varieties of insects, the quarter-million species of plants, and it got me thinking of the wonders and complexities of God's creation. It is incredible and worthy of praise.

God also created humans, and we are blessed enough to be created in the image of God. This is truly a blessing that far too often goes unrealized; we humans are above all other creation since we have been made in the image of God. It is truly a privilege. However, with privilege comes responsibility and God did give us a task. He gave us the charge of having dominion over creation. We are in control, we are meant to be stewards of God's creation. This started from the time Adam named the animals, to the present. However, we have fallen far short of this mandate. Plantinga talks about texts that use the term conquest in regards to nature. While this was many years ago, our conquest continues to the present, if not in word then in deed. In our quest for a modern, civilized society, we have destroyed many beauties of nature. Woods are toppled so that the wealthy can live materialistically in suburban mansions, wetlands are covered over for the parking lot of yet another shopping mall, and other atrocities. We also pollute our air with power plants that burn coal, when we could use renewable energy like the wind. All of these examples show how inconsiderate we are, especially with respects to God's planet, of which we have been given stewardship. But stewardship is not what we are currently doing with our planet, and if we continue down the road we are now on, we will soon destroy all the beauties and complexities that life in this world give. Let us all work together to change this pattern, not in the name of pompous politicians who use this idea for the benefit of their earth-sized egos, but for God, whose creation we do not always faithfully steward.

The Weight of Glory

In perhaps his finest sermon, C.S. Lewis orates on "The Weight of Glory." Lewis brings up many elaborate points, to the point where if I were to talk about them all, I would probably end up making a sermon of mine own. Instead, I would like to discuss some of my favorite quotes, the ones that stuck out to me the most.

The first quote I liked, as did much of the class I would imagine, was the following, "We are half-hearted creatures...like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea." This is a great point that Lewis makes and later expounds upon. As Christians, we are perfectly content to get pleasure from many droll things: watching our favorite sports team, enjoying time at the beach, or walking through the woods. All of these things are good; gifts given to us by God for our enjoyment, and things we should and do enjoy. However, the greatness of these joys pales in comparison to the beauty and joy of heaven. It is incomprehensible, as Lewis notes. We can not imagine heaven, as human words cannot describe it. Human words only can describe something that is imaginable, in the physical. Heaven transcends these things. So we will keep making mud pies, unable to imagine or realize that there is a beautiful sandy beach, with sparkling water just a short trip away.

Another beautiful quote that Lewis uses is this, "When all the suns and nebulae have passed away, each one of you will still be alive. Nature is only the image, the symbol; but it is the symbol Scripture invites us to use." This quote piggy-backs off the first one, in that it uses nature and incomprehensibility to define the gap between heaven and earth. To me it underlines the total depravity that is the human race, we are so far from being in the glory of the Lord, without his grace we will never realize it. However, God is good and gracious and he gives us symbols of his care and love. Just as the rainbow pointed out God's love to Noah, the beauty of nature leaps out at us, pointing us to the awesomeness of God, and the awesomeness of being in his presence, once in heaven. Certainly, beautiful words by C.S. Lewis, making us think of many glorious things that are to be.

Our English Syllabus

C.S. Lewis writes a good piece in his essay "Our English Syllabus." In this essay, Lewis talks about the differences of education and learning, and also the differences between education and vocational training. Vocational training to Lewis, "is for slaves," and he claims that vocational training prepares one only for work. Lewis maintains that a good balance between learning and education. A student at Calvin would see this principle at work, as this liberal arts college requires a large amount of core curriculum for graduation. Lewis also has harsh words for education, as he tells us that learning is not education. Lewis equates education to a short period of time, where we cram in vast amounts of information in the hopes of performing well on exams, and then receiving a diploma, upon which, much of that information is forgotten and lost. This is not learning, however, since it is just temporary immersion. Real learning is a life long pursuit of the answers to endless questions about the universe. However, not everyone is C.S. Lewis, a professor who has endless hours to sit and read and absorb knowledge. The harsh realities of life are that we have to get jobs and make money, and fend for ourselves. Which Lewis understands to an extent. He realizes that his ideal is unattainable, so he suggests a small piece of learning that can serve students in college. Lewis suggests learning a little bit of everything, while trying to understand the roots of these educational finds. Lewis gives the example of a tree, to illustrate his idea. Take a healthy, lush, green tree, and consider that all the knowledge you could hope to accumulate in life. However, you can't learn all of that in a short time at college, so you begin to whittle away at the branches and the roots, material that you don't necessarily need. You can whittle away like this as long as you do not take away from the trunk, the tap-root of learning. That must be saved forever. This is the best way to get as much information as possible out of a very short amount of time.

Lewis also takes the time to mention leisure. He takes the time to mention that education is important in allowing for leisure. There are two ways that this could be interperted. First is the fact that education will allow for the enjoyment of work, such that the work becomes leisure. The second interpertation is that working hard will create time for leisure. Let's take a look at the first idea. Certainly it is stressed that our enjoyment should be our first pergotaive in finding an occupation, such that the work is not tediuos and uninteresting. However, regardless of the job, at some point all work becomes difficult, tedious, boring, and frustrating. So surely, this could not have been wholly what Lewis meant. Let's explore the second idea. As Christians, we have already been instructed to take a day of rest, a Sabbath from our work. Likewise, after many years, we retire from our work, and spend the rest of our time for leisure. Does Lewis then hint at the fact that we should accumulate wealth in order to laze about in condos in Florida? No, rather I think Lewis means that we should have separation from our vocational studies, and education would create this leisure. To me this seems like a plauible and smart thought.

No Right to Happiness?

C.S. Lewis raises some interesting points in his essay "Have no Right to Happiness." In this essay, Lewis raises the argument that humans do not have the right to happiness, due to the fact that we as humans don't really have the right to anything. Lewis strives to show how documents such as the Declaration of Independence, which guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness, is not actually a right. He mentions how there is a difference between pursuing legal happiness and happiness that may not necessarily benefit society. Throughout, Lewis skillfully gives the example of a mysterious Mr. and Mrs. A and B, who cross marriages based on vain reasoning. All of these things are Lewis' proof that happiness is indeed not a right.
While I agree with Lewis in some aspects, overall, I would tend to disagree with Lewis' claim that we have no right to happiness. Let's look at this with a religous lens, which is the only way we can truly decipher this. God created humans. He created humans in his image, the image of God. We are a perfect creation in his eyes. God gave humans many features: physical, mental, and emotional. He gave us these features for our pleasure, and ultimately to worship him. Happiness is one of these emotions that he has given us. It can commonly be used to glorify and praise God, one of the most powerful things we can do. Some people would argue that with the fall, all our rights have been forfeited, however, I would disagree. While as fallen creatures we are truly not deserving of anything, God did not take away our capacities because of sin. He is a good God, slow to anger and abounding in love. Therefore, I still believe that we have our rights to things such as happiness and joy, which can be used to glorify God. This is why I would disagree with Lewis on his thoughts that we have no right to happiness.

Plantiga Ch. 1

Neil Plantinga starts out his book "Engaging God's World" with a first chapter called Longing and Hope. This chapter starts out with an example from a John Knowles book, which describes the longing to break out in joy during beautiful summer days. Plantinga uses several more examples, from writers such as Augustine and C.S. Lewis, all of which have the goal of trying to show us that we should have a longing. But not just any longing, a longing for Christ. Plantinga notes that we should have a longing that does not corrupt or diminish, but that builds us up as people in God's image.
Plantinga then goes on to talk of longing as an ingredient of Hope. In this section, Plantinga describes hope as an imagining for a good state of affairs. He gives the example of the end of racism, and Dr. Martin Luther King's hope for this state.
Perhaps the thing that I liked most out of an otherwise boring reading was Plantiga's discussion on shalom at the end of the first chapter. Plantinga tells how shalom means much more than peace; it has a much broader meaning that means a universal flourishing and wholeness. As Christians, I feel that we too often live in the here and now, and though we may evangelize occasionally, but overall, we do not focus on pushing this world towards shalom. Christians should be ashamed of the condition of this fallen world, and should work to redeem it. It fits in with the mantra 'Creation, Fall, Redemption.' Christians have mastered 'Fall', but now we need to work towards redemption, which is part of restoring shalom in our world.

Bulverism

C.S. Lewis made a very intriguing point in his essay "God in the Dock." In it, Lewis talks about a term he coins 'Bulverism.' Bulverism, is according to Lewis, the art of arguing where one makes an attack not on the validity of an argument, but rather on the person arguing a certain point. This poor style of argument was named after Ezekiel Bulver, who discovered this from of debating while observing his parents fighting. This form of argument, where a person attacks the credibility of the debating person, rather than his argument, has become common place, and there are many areas where you can observe this.

Perhaps the most disturbing area where this has been used is in politics. In politics, it is common place to attack the name of a politician rather than his position. This can be seen most vigorously during the campaign season, when ads bombard our televisions, radios, and mailboxes. Often times, the ads negatively attack the opposing candidate, rather than their positions, or even the position of the candidate sending the message. Another political example is the thoughts of the voters. Oftentimes, voters will vote strictly on party lines, rather than on the candidate who best represents their views. This is seen on election day and also in the chambers of our politicians; for instance, the health care debate has fallen into a partisan debate, where politicians are voting almost entirely on party lines, rather than on their own beliefs, or the beliefs of their constituents, who politicians to often forget is who they are really voting for. This is Bulverism, as the attack is coming on not a view or an opinion, but on a label of a person. These are disturbing examples, which show the true state of our politicians, and the extremely negative affect Bulverism has had on our society.

Meditation in a Toolshed

"Meditation in a Tool shed" was a very interesting read. This essay talked about analysis either "at" or "along." Thinking "at" is more of an external or scientific analysis, while "along" is more of an emotional thought process. This led me to think of how this could be construed for a Christian life. As Christians, we have a highly emotional bond with God, high enough that our bond would generally be considered along. However, a very integral aspect of Christianity is evangelism, and looking along may not be the smartest strategy for converting nonbelievers. Let's consider Lewis' savages for example. We people of the Western world look at their rituals for crops, rain, and babies as unscientific and ridiculous. Yet, in perspective, how different are the rituals of the savages to those of Christians? To an outsider, they are a complex, rigid scene of oddities. However, these outsiders have not yet gotten the emotional connection to look along with these beliefs. So in order for a Christian conversion, we must use an "at" process to spread our convictions. However, there are limitations in using such a lens, and those being converted must slowly be adapted to have an emotional, or "along" view of Christianity. In other words, we must use both at and along thinking to have the highest probability of conversion.