Perspectives on Trials

Trials are experiences that human beings are all to familiar with.  They are inescapable and are in every area of life.  Jesus ensured His people that this would be the case.  In John 16:23, He says, “In the world you will have tribulation.  But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (ESV)  Is there a purpose to all this hurt and pain?  How can a good God allow terrible things to happen to people who love Him?  What good could possibly be worth all of the hurt and pain?  These are questions that are often raised by people in the midst of trials.  Despite how much pain is involved, there is an amazing purpose behind trials; they purify and strengthen faith, resulting in something “more precious than gold.”  

James 1: 2-4 assures believes that there is a purpose behind the trials that they so often experience.  James says:

“Count it all joy my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.  And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” (ESV)

Joy is defiantly not the default human reaction to trials.  Out of their sinful nature, people  naturally react to trials by becoming angry and bitter.  However, James implores people to count all of these trials as joy.  He does this not because he is crazy, but because he can see the end to which trials are the means: a believer who is “perfect and complete.”

Similarly 1 Peter 1: 6-7 gives believers the proper response to trials.  Peter says:

“In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith- more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire- may be found to result in praise and glory  and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (ESV)

Peter in not numb to the hurt and pain experienced by believers.  He knows that trials are grieving the people.  He doesn’t give the typical modern Sunday School copout answer by telling them to put on a happy face and pretend everything is fine.  He does, however, give them the appropriate response: rejoice.  Rejoice because their faith is being tested and proved to be genuine.  Rejoice because this process will give them something more precious than gold: genuine faith.

C.S. Lewis also deals with the issue of trials in The Problem of Pain.  He explains it by saying that humanity has rebelled against its Creator and humanity needs to surrender.  People must be broken and lay down their arms.  He says, “The human spirit will not even begin to try to surrender the self-will as long as all seems to be well with it.” (Lewis, The Problem of Pain, p. 90)  People need trials to realize that the way that they do life is not working and that they need to surrender to God to set things right.  Lewis says, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pain, it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” (Lewis, The Problem of Pain, p. 90)  Pain is how God gets through to humanity, it shatters that notions that all is well and that what people have is enough for them.  “The full acting out of the self’s surrender to God therefore demands pain: this action, to be perfect, must be done from the pure will to obey, in absence, or in the teeth of inclination.” (Lewis, The Problem of Pain, p. 98)  This quote echos exactly what the passage from James is saying.  Through  trials, faith is being perfected and people are being made to be more like Christ.  Trials are people’s wake up call that they cannot do life on their own.  In this realization, believers should rejoice because without it they would never be able to lay down their arms and truly surrender to God.  (Lewis, The Problem of Pain)

The Screwtape Letters are also full of great perspective of trials.  The perspective in the letters is not as direct as in The Problem of Pain, but with a little time and consideration some amazing truths about trials can be found in the letters from Screwtape to Wormwood.  In Letter XII, Screwtape warns Wormwood not to move too quickly saying, “My only fear is lest in attempting to hurry the patient you awaken him to a sense of his real position.”  (Lewis, The Srewtape Letters)  Screwtape does not want the patient to realize that he is drifting away from God and that his present course of action is not working.  Believers should rejoice in trials because they accomplish exactly what Screwtape is afraid of.  As was said in the previous section, trials are God’s way of shouting to people.  They awaken people to their “real position” by doing away with the notion that all is well.  After they have been woken up to reality people must turn to God.  Even though personal sin does not necessarily lead to many trials (John 9:3), trials present and amazing opportunity for believers to recognize sin and repent of it.  In doing this they “spoil the whole game” according to Screwtape.  Believers must take the opportunity to refocus their attention on God during trials.  If they are reluctant to think about God and neglect their relationship with Him than Screwtape gets exactly what he wants.  Screwtape says, “It does not matter how small the sins are provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and into Nothing.”  Christians must take each trial as an opportunity to have their faith strengthened, like James and Peter say, not to allow themselves to become separated from God. (Lewis, The Screwtape Letters)

There are also many great perspectives on trials in “We Have No Right to Happiness.”  Believers must not allow themselves to think that they have a “right to happiness” in the midst of their trials.  This attitude will certainly build up resentment toward the Christian and God: exactly what Screwtape is trying to do.  Lewis says, “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.” (Lewis, “We Have No Right to Happiness”)  Believers might be inclined to think that this “right to happiness” is just a way for unbelievers to justify their sin.  It is true that this is the case, but the “right to happiness” has also infiltrated Christianity.  It has simply manifested itself in a more Christian way.  They health and wealth gospel is full of claims to a “right to happiness” for Christians.  Claims like the following are made all the time: “If you have enough faith you will experience victory in you finances, your relationships, and your health!”  These claims are certainly tied to a “right to happiness” mentality and are very dangerous because they leave believers with a totally false perception of trials.  Instead of the biblical view that trials are for strengthening faith, trials are seen as evidence that the Christian does not have enough faith.  Trials must be understood through the Scriptures, not through the preaching of people on TV who do not understand the Bible.  Believers are to rejoice when they encounter trials of may kinds, because they result in something more precious than gold. (Lewis, “We Have No Right to Happiness.”)

In Engaging God’s World, Plantinga also gives many good insights regarding trials.  Plantinga does not often talk about trials explicitly, but his chapter on the fall is very helpful in understanding why trials exist.  When Adam and Eve disobeyed God they  allowed sin to enter the world.  The fall has left all humans depraved; they are sinners by nature and by choice.  Due to this reality, humans live against what is good for them and against one another.  Evil is what is wrong and it has corrupted everything in the world.  “We have in the world not just sins, but sin; not just wrong acts, but also wrong tendencies, habits, practices, and patterns that break down the integrity of persons, families, and whole cultures.” (Plantinga, p. 54)  Without sin in the world there would be no trials.  Trials are a direct result of the fact that humans live in a sinful world.  As long as people are still sinners by nature and choice they will hurt each other and themselves.  This is a sad reality of the fall.  As a result of the fall, all people will die a physical death and there will be pain and suffering in the world.  Christ is the answer to the two fold problem of trials.  First, it is Christ who uses trials to strengthen the faith of believers and make them more like Himself.  Secondly, it is Christ who has paid the ransom for sin and will someday return and heal all of the sickness, hurt, and death that is so often part of the human experience. (Plantinga)

Trials are a complex issue for believers to understand.  They are a result of the fall and sin entering into the world yet Christians are to rejoice in them.  They cause people who love God to grieve and hurt yet Peter and James compel believers to consider it pure joy.  Like Lewis says in The Problem of Pain, pain serves as the wake up call for humanity that all is not well and what people have is not enough for them.  Christians must avoid allowing resentment and separation, the things Screwtape wants, to build up between them and God by constantly reevaluating and repenting. Believers must also not allow a “right to happiness” mentality to seep in and cause them to misunderstand the purpose of trials.  What is ultimately important is keeping the big picture in mind.  God is using trials to strengthen believer’s faith and make this faith into something more precious than gold.  Despite how great the trial and how much pain is involved, faith more precious than gold is worth it.  When this is properly understood it calls for a proper response.  This response, like James and Peter say, is rejoicing in the pain, hurt, and struggle.  The response is not to put on a happy face and pretend that everything is fine, in this people are denying their God-given emotions and lying to themselves and others.  The right thing to do is to cry, to grieve, to hurt, but to rejoice in the midst of this; because despite the pain, believers should trust and obey God when He says that the results are worth it. 

Works Cited

The ESV Study Bible. Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2008. Print.

Lewis, C. S., and C. S. Lewis. The Screwtape Letters: with Screwtape Proposes a Toast. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001. Print.

Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain,. New York: Macmillan, 1944. Print.

Lewis, C. S. "We Have No “Right to Happiness”…C.S. Lewis." Web. 25 Jan. 2011. <http://www.calvin.edu/~pribeiro/>.

Plantinga, Cornelius. Engaging God's World: a Christian Vision of Faith, Learning, and Living. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002. Print.

The Problem of Pain

In this section of The Problem of Pain C.S. Lewis beautifully explains the purposes behind the pain that we so often experience.  We are rebels against God and it is pain that God uses to convince us to lay down our arms.  We are so often satisfied without God that He chooses to use pain to make us realize that we actually need Him.  God must 'break our will' like nurses used to break the wills of disobedient children and He does this through our pain.  We will not even begin to surrender our self-will to God if we are doing well with it.  However terrible it sounds, this pain must be continuous for as Lewis says 'However often we think we have broken the rebellious self we shall soon find it alive.'  We recognize pain easily because it it is 'unmasked, unmistakable evil; every man knows that something is wrong when he is being hurt.'  We can often ignore pleasure, but we cannot ignore pain.  Lewis says, "God whispers to us in our pleasure, he speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain, it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world."

I really liked this section because it made me think a lot about the purpose behind the pain that we so often experience.  I agree with Lewis that pain is what God uses to break our will and orient us back toward Himself.  Reflection back on my own life, some of the times of greatest pain, sorrow, and uncertainty were when my focus turned back to God.  If it were not for those times I would have missed out on so much in my relationship with God.  It is so easy, especially in our modern American society, to get so comfortable and independent that we think we have no need for God.  Like Lewis says, "We regard God as an airman regards a parachute; it's there for emergencies but he hopes he'll never have to use it."  I get stuck in this sinful frame of mind so often.  I think it is important to come back to the truth that God made us for Himself and we will never be satisfied without Him.  The attempt to do so is a sinful one indeed.  We need pain to break our wills and reorient us toward the truth.

The Bible also talks a lot about pain and trials.  James 1: 2-4 says,
"Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.  And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing."
Likewise 1 Peter 1: 6-7 say this,
"In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith- more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire- may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ."
Both of these passages communicate the same thing that Lewis is talking about: there is a purpose and a meaning behind the pain that we experience.  We are not called to be hypocritical Christians who always put on a happy face and deny our emotions.  We will be grieved by trials and these trials will often be very painful.  What these passages urge us to do is keep the end in mind while we are suffering through the means.  Our faith is being tested and strengthened and in this we should rejoice.  Our will is being broken are our hearts are being reoriented toward God.  No matter how horrible the pain, there is hope.  It is worth it because the reward of 'tested genuineness' of our faith is 'more precious than gold.'

Engaging God's World Chapter 5

In this chapter, Plantinga talks about vocation in the kingdom of God.  He says that we are all commissioned to be good citizens in the kingdom of God.  He refers to someone who accepts this commission with enthusiasm as a 'prime citizen' of the the kingdom.  The things of God seem sweet to a prime citizen and they long for the kingdom to come.  This person wants God to make things right in the world and takes up a role in that process.  The first organization that God uses to bring about his kingdom is the Christian church.  God also uses other organizations and means to bring his kingdom such as governments who protect freedom and administer justice.

This chapter was a very interesting one for me to read.  It was defiantly a section where I was constantly wrestling with the text to try and see how exactly all of this lines up with God's Word and my beliefs.  I think that he is on the right track, but it is very hard for me to tell because these issues are not mentioned often and in very much detail in Scripture.

Plantinga then moved on to talk about vocation and education.  He talked about how secular education fails to give students a Christian philosophy of life and vocation.  It also doesn't give them a philosophy of good and evil from the perspective of creation, fall, and redemption.  It is very difficult for Christian students to get the full picture of education and its spiritual implications from a secular institution.  Christian education, on the other hand,  seeks continuity between faith and learning.  Plantinga says,  "In this way your Christian higher education may serve both as your present vocation and as your preparation for a life long vocation as a prime citizen of the kingdom."

I completely agree with what Plantinga says in this section.  A Christian philosophy of learning is vitally important for all Christians.  I feel that Christian students in a secular educational environment do not know what they are missing.  The fact that we are Christians should completely change the way we view education.  If we truly believe what we claim to, there is something going on around us that is of eternal importance and this reality should change the way we see every subject and discipline.  

Man or Rabbit?

In this selection C.S. Lewis addresses one question.  This question is "Can't you lead a good life without believing in Christianity?"  He says that this question is the wrong one to ask because what this person is really saying is:
"I don't care whether Christianity is true of no.  I am not interested in finding out whether the real universe is more like what the Christians say than what the Materialists say."
The questioner is not seeking the truth, but rather only concerned with living a good life.  This person chooses beliefs not because they are true but because they are helpful.  Lewis says that this mentality probably comes from foolish preachers who preach Christianity as a band-aid for the world's problems and not as the truth.

I can see the mentality that Lewis is addressing in the church today.  There is so much emphasis on the positive things that Christianity can do for people that many may come to think these positive things are the sole purpose of Christianity.  I feel that this mentality has been further perpetuated by the "health and wealth gospel" that is preached in many churches.  The faith is portrayed as some kind of exchange where a person has faith and in return God fixes all their problems.  This is a complete misunderstanding of the Bible, all one has to do is read the stories of the early church to see that they had either health nor wealth.  What they did have was the truth, regardless of how helpful it is in this earthly life.

Lewis then goes on to talk about men who evade the gospel.  They do not what to find out whether Christianity is true or not because they foresee that if it is it has some implications that are not desirable to them.  Lewis says that this is like a man who will not look at his bank account because he is afraid of what will be there.  He compels people to seek the truth when he says this:
"Here is a door, behind which, according to some people, the secret of the universe is waiting for you.  Either that's true, or it isn't.  And if it isn't, then what the door really conceals is simply the greatest fraud, the most colossal 'sell' on record.  Isn't it obviously the job of every man (this is a man and not a rabbit) to find out which, and to devote his full energies either to serving this tremendous secret or to exposing and destroying this gigantic humbug?"

Lewis is compelling people to seek for themselves whether this thing we call Christianity is true.  It does not matter if it has implications that some people might not like.  If it is indeed true and they ignored it because of these implications they will find themselves much worse off.  All of this goes back to many other Lewis writings.  He is passionate about people seeking knowledge and truth.  This passion is very clear in "Our English Syllabus" and "Learning in Wartime."  He concludes by saying that Christianity would do these questioners good because it will hammer into their head that 'morality' or 'good' cannot be done without God.  He says, "Morality is a mountain which we cannot climb by our own efforts."

The Inner Ring

In this address to at the University of London C.S. Lewis talks about the reality of social hierarchies or Inner Rings as he calls them.  Everyone comes across the Inner Rings all throughout their social lives.  He says, "You discover gradually, in almost indefinable ways, that it exists and that you are outside it; and then later, perhaps, that you are inside it."  Each of these rings or cliques have their own slang, nicknames, and manners.  He adds this:
"It is not easy, even at a given moment, to say who is inside and who is outside.  Some people are obviously in and some are obviously out, but there are always several on the borderline."
Lewis says:
"There are no formal admissions or expulsions.  People think they are in it after they have in fact been pushed out of it, or before they have been allowed in: this provides great amusement for those really inside."
Lewis also talked about how the ring is referred to differently from the inside than from the outside.  From the inside it is called "You and Tony and me," but from the outside it is referred to as "So-and-so and his set" or "That gang."

This piece beings back a flood of high school memories.  I went to a small private school, so there were not very many Inner Rings to choose from.  This further increased the pressure to fit into one of them or to fit into the right one.  Looking back, I remember people, including myself, doing the dumbest things to try to get into a certain Inner Ring.  People engaged in lifestyles and activities that they would never actually choose to do if they were being themselves, but they did it for the sake of trying to get into a certain ring.  Most of the time this kind of desperate behavior didn't even work and it simply provided "great amusement for those really inside."  It is very true when Lewis says, "One of the most dominant elements [in men's lives] is the desire to be inside the local Ring and the terror of being left outside."  This terror of being life is a huge insecurity that doesn't allow people to be who they really are.

Lewis then goes on to talk about what he thinks about Inner Rings.  He says:
"I am not going to say that the existence of Inner Rings is an Evil.  It is certainly unavoidable."  It is not Inner Rings themselves that are the problem according to Lewis.  He is more concerned with the the desire that draws us into Inner Rings.  He says that this desire is one of the chief drivers of human action.  If this desire is allowed to run loose it will lead a person to become a "scoundrel."  This desire can lead one to neglect and shake off real friendships in order to try to be on the right side of the invisible line.  Lewis says, "Of all the passions, the passion for the Inner Ring is most skillful in making a man who is not yet a very bad man do very bad things."

The last quote was my favorite from the entire piece.  It is a quote that is extremely sad but extremely true.  The pressure to fit into a certain group can cause someone to do things to others that they would not have previously thought they were capable of.  I have had it several times in my life where I get to know someone on a one-on-one level and they seem like a great person.  Then I would be shocked to see that person treating others of myself very badly and be shocked.  I eventually noticed the pattern.  People are so insecure and long to be accepted so much that the entire way that they treat people is completely based on the group that they are hanging out with.  This reality is sad and needs to be addressed.  We should strive for consistency in how we treat everyone despite who is around.

The Four Loves: Eros

In this chapter Lewis discusses the romantic between the sexes called Eros.  He explains that the evolutionist view of Eros claims that there is sexual attraction, Venus, first and then the man falls in love with the woman.  He says that he doubts that this is at all common.  He says:
"Very often what comes first is simply a delighted pre-ocupation with the Beloved- a general, unspecified pre-occupation with her in her totality.  A man in this state really hasn't leisure to think of sex.  He is too busy thinking of a person.  The fact that she is a woman is far less important than the fact that she is herself.  He is full of desire, but the desire may not be sexually toned.  If you ask him what he wanted, the true reply would often be, 'To go on thinking about her.'"

I like this quote because it is a true description of what it feels like to be attracted to someone.  I am not talking about attraction in the sexual sense.  What Lewis describes is what a guy feels when he meets a girl that is simply amazing "in her totality."  I love the phrase "in her totality" because it describes what a man should really be attracted to.  A man who is attracted to a woman in this way is attracted to everything about her; her personality, smile, laugh, beauty, humor, intellect, faith, and style.  A man who is attracted like this is constantly being swept off his feet because everything he learns about her amazes him.

Lewis then goes on to talk about how he feels that sex is often taken too seriously.  He adds that it is important of course to take sex seriously theologically and morally.  However, the practice has become much to serious.  He says, "Banish play and laughter from the bed of love and you man let in a false goddess."  He later says this about the spirit of Venus:
"She herself is a mocking, mischievous spirit, far more elf than deity, and makes game of us.  When all external circumstances are finest for her service she will leave one or both of the lovers totally indisposed for it."
Lewis goes on to say that this might raise frustration and self-pity in some lovers.
"But sensible lovers laugh.  It is all part of the game; a game of catch-as-catch-can, and the escapes and tumbles and head-on collisions are to be treated as a romp."

I honestly didn't know what to make of this section when I first read it and it is still not totally clear to me.  I had never really thought of this as much of a problem before, but that may just be because I have no personal experience in this area.  I knew that Lewis thought that this was important because he devoted several pages to it.  As a I reread it again I saw some consistencies with it an the later section that talks about worshiping Eros.  What I can draw from this section is this: sex was made to be enjoyed and not worshiped.  If there is too much seriousness then there is no enjoyment and it is not serving its original purpose.

Lewis then talks about how Eros has some similar qualities to a deity.  It invites a quasi-religion when it is idolized because it can often sound like a god.  Lewis says this:
"We must not give unconditional obedience to the voice of Eros when he speaks most like a god.  Neither must we ignore or attempt to deny the god-like quality."
I think that this applies very well to "We Have No Right to Happiness."  We must use things much more than Eros to make decisions. We have no right to do whatever we feel like as long as Eros tells us to do it.  Lewis says, "This act, like any other, is justified (or not) by far more prosaic and definable criteria; by the keeping or breaking of promises, by justice or injustice, by charity or selfishness."

Show and Tell

For my show and tell I focused on the idea of repentance in The Screwtape Letters.  It is the one thing that Screwtape tells Wormwood to avoid at all costs.  I read excepts from a sermon by Mark Driscoll entitled "Jesus and Repentance" and read Luke 13:1-5, part of the passage for the sermon.  Here is the link the the sermon: http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/luke/jesus-and-repentance

Engaging God's World Chapter 4

I really like the way that Plantinga talks about God's law in the beginning of this chapter.  Even Christians seem to have a very negative view of God's law sometimes.  If is often seen as a burden and not an act of grace.  I love the way that Plantinga refutes this notion when his says this:
"We chafe under commandments.  They nick our pride and cramp our style.  We think they're for children.  In a secularist frame of mind, we human beings think of obedience to God's law as distasteful, even cowardly, knuckling under someone else's will.  But when we have been shorn of such self-deseption, we can see that God's law is in fact one more exhibit of God's grace.  What God carved in stone at Sinai was a recipe for real freedom."
This idea is so counter cultural for Americans.  We are all about individual liberty and cannot stand the idea of submitting to someone else's will.  However, when sin is entered into the story things become different.  Sin is bonding and enslaving.  When we allow it to, it takes us in and refuses to let us out.  Christ has set us free from the bonds of sin, but we willfully pick up our shackles and refasten them to our wrists and feet very often.  Obedience to God's law is freedom from sin, without obedience we will remain a slave to it.

I also really enjoyed reading about "Double Grace."  I have been well informed about the ideas of justification and sanctification but had never heard it put in these terms.  It is truly only by God's grace that he allows us to have either of these things.  I think that sanctification needs to be emphasized because we often see only justification as grace.  If we truly see sanctification as gracious gift of God it will change how we approach our daily lives.  Plantinga says "A Christian life needs a Holy Ghost miracle, but also our own hard work."  I also really liked a quote by Jonathan Edwards that says this:
"Passing affections easily produce words; and words are cheap;... Christian practice is a costly laborious thing.  The self-denial that is required of Christians, and the narrowness of the way that leads to life, don't consist in words, but in practice.  Hypocrites may much more easily be brought to talk like saints, than to act like saints."  It is through our sanctification that people will see Christ in us because we will be bearing fruit.  Unbelievers are tired of Christians who produce cheap words.  They are ready to see Christians who practice a costly and laborious self-denial.

Learning in War-Time

This was a great sermon because it presented and answered many great questions about allegiances and priorities.  C.S. Lewis says something very interesting and provocative when he says the following:
"To admit that we can retain our interest in learning under the shadow of these eternal issues, but not under the shadow of a European war, would be to admit that our ears are closed to the voice of reason and very wide open to the voice of our nerves and our mass emotions."
He makes an interesting comparison between the war and eternal issues such as heaven and hell.  He goes on the say this:
"Human culture has always had to exist under the shadow of something infinitely more important that itself.  If men had postponed the search for knowledge and beauty until they were secure the search would have never begun."
He is saying that war really doesn't change things that much when one chooses to look at the situation from a Christian perceptive.  "Life has never been normal."  We have always done what we do under the more important reality of eternal things.

Lewis says that the real question is not if there is a legitimate place for a scholar during war, but rather a place for a scholar considering the reality that there are still souls that need to be saved.  He goes on to say that Christianity does not exclude any normal human activities.  Rather the Bible says to do all things to the glory of God.  Christianity does not change the things we do in our normal lives, but rather it changes how and why we do them.  Lewis says that we are to exploit these things to supernatural ends.  If a man is given the gifts of a scholar and that is the vocation he is called to, he is being just as faithful to the work of God than if he were doing something else.

I really like the question the Lewis asks at the beginning of the sermon and how he turns it on its head.  Lewis has an amazing knack for making people see beyond their current reality and into the eternal one.  Many Christians do put a very heavy emphasis on going out and saving souls and their motivations seem to be very legitimate.  Lewis is not saying that going out and doing this is a bad thing, but what he is saying is that it is very important to bloom and bear fruit where you are planted.  I love when he says that we are to exploit normal, everyday living to supernatural ends.  Hearing that really compels me to be passionate about all the things that I do and do them for the glory of God especially with regard to vocation.  If this actually happens, people will take notice and want what the Christian has.  The person who lives this out will influence the people around them in an amazing way and they will have much opportunity to be used by God in the soul saving process.  God wants us to bear fruit where we are planted using the gifts that He has given to us.  If the Christian scholar and Christian missionary both execute this they have both been equally faithful.

Engaging God's World Chapter 3

Plantinga starts this chapter by talking about human decay.  There is poverty, sickness, hunger, injustice, and violence all over the world.  We can see human decay all around us.  Many have said that human depravity is the one part of Christian doctrine that can be proved.  Philosophers have pondered the human  condition for centuries and diagnosed this depravity as many different things.  "Human life is not the way it's supposed to be."  Secular thinkers diagnose the problem as many different things and prescribe many different things such as education, justice, and freedom.  Christians believe that these diagnosis and prescriptions are only getting part of the picture.

The Scriptures reveal what is really wrong with humanity.  The human race rebelled against God and allowed sin to enter into the world.  Now we have to realize the fact that we have a sinful nature.  We are "conceived and born in sin."  "Evil is what is wrong with the world."  This includes the entire created world, not just human nature.  Evil is any spoiling of the shalom that God intends.

Plantinga then moves on to talk about corruption.  Corruption happens when one takes their gifts from God and uses them for purposes other than what they were intended for.  It can also happen by putting foreign elements into relationships that don't belong in them.  Friendships can be polluted by ambition and sports can be polluted by taunting.  This is especially true with idolatry, an object becomes an idol when it is placed into a relationship that it does not belong.  By sinning we also wreck our integrity.  Our sin corrupts us so much that we are blinded by it and cannot see the difference between good and evil anymore.  Our sin also corrupts others as well as ourselves.  Abusive people break down the dignity of others.  What is perhaps worse is that the cycle repeats itself as victims become abusers.

I really enjoyed reading this chapter because it gives deep insight into the issues of the fall, sin, and evil.  These issues are all to close to home for every human being and it is very helpful to read them discussed at this deep of a level.  Reality as we see it is so complex because it is both the result of a creation that was declared "very good" by God and the fall which brought sin and evil into every aspect of the creation.  I liked how Plantinga explained how sin is now part of every area of the creation, not just human nature.  This is an interesting idea that does not get talked about very much because we often focus on personal morality.

The section on corruption was very insightful and practical.  I liked how he started with talking about how we used our gifts in ways that God did not intend.  The things we often do with our gifts seem so arrogant and ungrateful when looked at through this lens.  I also thought that the part about integrity was very good.  Sin corrupts our integrity and serves as a smoke screen that does not allow us to see the truth.   I have seen this in my own life with people I know who are deeply involve in sin.  They are blinded by their sin and they refuse to see reason.  This just reenforces the importance of dealing with sin by repenting of it so that our eyes do not become blinded by it.        

The Poison of Subjectivism

C.S. Lewis starts this piece by talking about value judgements.  He says that it was not until modern times that thinkers questioned whether their value judgments were objective or not.  The modern view believes that value judgements are not judgements at all.  He goes on to say a critique of that the Third Reich's definition of justice is perfectly groundless if we regard morality as a subjective sentiment to be altered at will.  There must be an objective standard to make judgements.

He than goes on to address moral reformers who seeks to make a "better" morality, something more "good" and "solid."  Lewis dismisses these reformers saying that they have to inevitably revert back to the standard of traditional morality in order to justify their position.  They are forced to appeal to the very thing that they are trying to overthrow.  They are sitting on a branch of the tree and trying to chop at the trunk of the tree at the same time.  There are two options according to Lewis, either keep traditional morality or have no values at all.

Lewis then goes on to talk about the idea that a permeant moral does not allow for progress.  He replies emphatically that having a permanent moral standard does the exact opposite.  If good is a fixed point then it is possible for a train to come nearer and nearer to it.  If good is not a fixed point than morality has no direction, there is no hope for even pointing the train in the right direction.  Morality would not be allowed to change for the better or for the worse.

Lewis says that we will perish if we do not have the nursery-like belief in absolute values.  He says if we return to these values we will favor candidates who solicit our votes by other standards than have recently been in fashion.  If we believe good is something to be created we will demand our leaders have  qualities such as "vision," "dynamism," and "creativity."  If we return to the objective view we will demand much more beneficial qualities such as virtue, knowledge, diligence, and skill.  For he says:
"Vison" is for sale, or claims to be for sale, everywhere.  But give me a man who will do a day's work for a day's pay, who will refuse bribes, who will not make up his facts, and who has learned his job"

I completely agree with Lewis that moral reformers have to hold on to a piece of traditional morality to justify their causes.  If they cannot tie their cause somehow to an objective value people will not believe that there is any authority behind what they say.  Even the people who claim some of the farthest out moral beliefs appeal to objective morality very often even if it is not on the surface of what they say.  This appeal lurks underneath what they say and is the only thing that gives anything they say any legitimacy in the minds of people listening.  They cannot claim that what they say has no objective standard behind it then there would be no reason for anyone to follow anything that they said.

I really liked how Lewis used that last paragraph to tie how a society's view about objective values changes how they select their leaders.  I do think that if a society does not have an absolute standard they will be drawn toward leaders who have vision, dynamism, and creativity.  If a society holds on to objective values they will be drawn to rulers with rarer and more beneficial qualities such as virtue, knowledge, diligence, and skill.  I really agree with him on this issue.  I think a very good gauge into a society's views about values are the qualities possessed by the rulers it selects.  Virtue, knowledge, diligence, and skill are much rarer and more beneficial qualities and they are the result of a belief in objective values.




 

Mere Christianity

In the preface to Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis talks about the task that he is trying to undertake with this book.  It is made up of a series of war time radio talks in which he painted the picture of Christianity to a nation at war.  The picture of Christianity that he is painting is not one of any specific denomination, but rather 'mere' Christianity, the classic doctrines that have been believed by almost all Christians at all times.  The motivation for doing this was that Lewis was convinced that the British people had never actually had someone lay out and explain the doctrines of 'mere' Christianity to them before.  He describes Christianity as a house with many rooms.  'Mere' Christianity is simply the rules that govern the entire house.  The rooms represent various churches.  Lewis says that no one should stay in the hall of the house but rather enter into one of the rooms because in the rooms there are fires and chairs and meals.  He says you must choose your door for the right reasons and then be kind to people who have chosen the other rooms, because after all, we are all living in the same house with the same house rules.

Lewis starts the first chapter by diving into what he calls the "Law of Nature" right away.  He insists that there is a standard of right and wrong that all people know.  It is a law like the law of gravity, however it is a special law because it can be chosen to not be followed.  He says that this can be concluded because cultures all around the world, though they have different codes of morality, have a central theme running through their morality that appeal to a higher standard of right and wrong that seems to be known by every human.  In chapter two, Lewis takes time to address some objections to the things that he has said in chapter one.  He addresses the claim that the Law of Nature is simply heard instinct by saying that it is actually that thing that tells your mind which instincts to suppress and which to encourage and thus it cannot be an instinct.  He says it cannot be merely a convention because if this were that case there would be nothing that make Christian morality better than Nazi morality.  The British could no more punish the Nazis for their behavior than they could punish them for the color of their hair because there is no absolute standard by which one morality is better than another.  He also says it cannot simply be that we think something is right or wrong based on its convenience to us either because a man who accidentally trips a man is less convenient but less wrong than a man who tries to trip a man and does not succeed.

In chapter three Lewis talks about the reality of the law.  He says that humans constantly break this law that they expect others to keep and know that they ought to keep themselves.  Lewis says that upon observation from an outsider it would seem that human beings have no law governing their behavior.  IT seems to Lewis that we have to admit that the Law of Nature is a real thing and that it is not from ourselves.  There must be something behind it in a different kind of reality.  In chapter four Lewis tries to unpack what lies behind the moral law.  He lays out the materialist view of reality and the religious view of reality and explains their implications.  He says in order to have insight into what lays beyond the universe and what the reasons are for this we must not look at science but rather at man for it is men who find themselves under the moral law.  He concludes by saying that he thinks that he has laid out a solid argument for the existence of the Law of Nature and something behind it that guides it, but is no where near the God of Christian doctrines yet.

The analogy of the house is one of my favorite parts of this book.  It holds up so well because it shows how we are to treat other Christians who might not share our specific beliefs and it also shows the importance of finding a church to become a part of.  I think that is very common for Christians to forget the "house rules" when dealing with one another.  If we were to all observe the "house rules" laid out in the Bible we would have more peace when dealing with one another and also be a better witness to unbelievers.  I also liked how Lewis said that one cannot stay in the hall but must enter a door and do it for the right reasons.  There are many people who claim to be Christians, and they may very well be, but unless they are part of a fellowship of believers (church) they are missing out on the fellowship and community we are compelled to have all throughout the New Testament.

I really liked reading about all of the contradictions that Lewis points out in other schools of thought.  People so often hold the position that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong but then appeal to one.  If there is no absolute standard for right and wrong then all bets are off.  If this is indeed the case then there is no such thing as justice or injustice and there is no real reason why terrible acts such as rape or murder are in any way bad.  This position is easy to hold at first because it give a man license to do whatever he wants.  This all seems great to him until he is wronged and he has to appeal to a higher standard in order to proclaim that he has been wronged.

The Screwtape Letters

This letter from Screwtape, a senior demon, begins with a commendation.  His nephew Wormwood is making excellent progress with "the patient."  "The patient" is a new christian and Wormwood is a demon whose mission is to secure damnation for this individual.  The progress being made is not specifically laid out, but it says that Wormwood and Srewtape have introduced a change that has carried him out of the orbit of God, referred to here as "the Enemy."  Screwtape tells Wormwood to always remain subtle when dealing with the patient.  He must be made to think that the choices which lead to this change of course are "trivial and revocable."  Screwtape emphasizes that the patient must not be made aware that he is heading away from God and into "the cold and dark of utmost space."  Wormwood is pleased to hear that the patient is still a churchgoer.  These external habits will make him feel like he has only "adopted a few new friends and amusements" but is in the same spiritual state as he was before.  He will not fully recognize sin and he will only feel the vague uneasy, feeling that he has not be doing well lately. 

Screwtape says he wants to encourage this vague and uneasy feeling as long as it does not lead to full repentance.  If this feeling is allowed to live it will increase the patient's reluctance to think about God.  He will live in a cloud of half-consious guilt that will cause him to dislike his religious duties but not to quit them.  This will eventually lead the patient to resent God.  He will think about him as little as often and eventually the patient will open his arms to Wormwood.  As time goes by, Wormwood will need less intense temptations to distract the patient form God.  Wormwood says, "You will no longer need a good book, which he likes to keep him from his prayers or his work or his sleep; a column of advertisements in yesterday's paper will do."  Eventually Wormwood aims to steal away the patients best years with idleness and nothingness, not with strong temptations but rather things the patient does not even enjoy.  Screwtape ends by compelling Wormwood to remember that it is not achieving great wickedness that really matters, but rather the extent he can separate the patient from God.  He says, "Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick."  He closes by saying that the best road to hell is a granule one with no sudden turns, milestones, or signposts.

The Screwtape Letters really forces christians to think about the everyday decisions that we make that often seem so trivial.  This is precisely the lie that Screwtape tells Wromwood to use: convince him that the choices he has made are small and insignificant when in fact the patient has strayed from God.  How we handle the little things shapes how we view the big things.  The goal of Screwtape’s the operation is to not allow the patient to make a big defining choice, but rather to allow him to slowly drift from God through choices that seem insignificant.  We must examine our hearts and our motivations often when making everyday choices because we do not know what the unseen consequences of them will be.

This letter should also make christians more intentional about repentance.  The reason that Wormwood will be allowed to make the patient resent God and cause more damage is that the patient was unwilling to repent for the small choices that he made.  His unwillingness to do this left him with the “dim uneasiness” and the feeling that he had just not been doing very well lately.  All of Screwtape’s further plans could have been eliminated if the patient would have been intentional about repentance.

Another thing that we must consider after reading this letter is how we invest our time and energy.  Screwtape wants Wormwood to lead the patient into distractions that he does not even like and that are nothingness.  We are often to easily amused and spend our time on nothingness.  We waste countless hours in front of a television or playing video games and have nothing to show for it.  How we invest our time is something that seems trivial at first, but it is in fact a very large thing to wrestle with.  Ultimately, time wasted on nothingness is simply a distraction from God.  It is doing precisely the thing that Screwtape wants, it is distracting and separating us from God.

Engaging God's World Chapter 2

In the first section of this chapter, Plantinga lays out a Biblical understanding of Jesus’s role in creation.  The Scriptures say that creation happened “through him,” “in him,” and even “for him.”  He then goes on to talk about the divine “hospitality” of the three Persons of God.  Each makes room for the other and causes the other to flourish.  Plantinga says that creation was neither a necessity nor an accident.  It is rather something that is very fitting with the nature of God.  Plangtinga says that God celebrates and even plays with his creation and creation in turn glorifies God.  He says that God revels Himself through Scripture and through creation and Christians should study both to better understand God.  Anyone can spot God’s wisdom in creation, but those who have studied creation have a deeper understanding of the marvel.

Plantinga then moves on to talk about the creation of human beings.  Humans were created in the image of God.  They were not created of their own kind, but of the same kind as God.  He then goes on to talk about the cultural mandate and how it is taken as a call to go to work by Calvinists and other activist christians.  Then he talks about how God rested on the seventh day. God is showing humans that there is a time for work and a time for rest from work, each in turn.  Christians have made this sabbath “a space for worship, for refreshment, for the silence that comes from the very rhythm of God.”  He then speaks about the problem of people taking dominion as a license to trash the earth and not to keep it.

The next section speaks of eight deeper meanings of the Christian doctrine of creation.  The world was originally created good and all creation comes from the wisdom of God.  God created the universe out of nothing, He was not limited by materials.  Christians are to love the creation but not worship it.  God created marriage as the good and right means of production and reproduction.  Each human is created in the image of God and they must balance their individual and corporate identities.  His eighth point is that Christians must reject both materialistic reduction and humanist exaggeration when it comes to the issue of humans being’s place in the scheme of things.

I really enjoyed reading this chapter because it brought up lots of new insights on creation that I had never heard before.  The christian doctrine of creation is filled with implications for how we are to see the world today.  It was interesting to read about the role that the Trinity played in creation, it was something I had not thought of much before.  I also really liked how Plantinga said that creation was neither necessary nor an accident.  I think it is important to understand that God created out of His own nature and delight, not because He was compelled to.  I also liked the emphasis that was put on understanding both Scripture and nature to have a truer understanding of creation.  I really liked that Plantinga listed and explained eight implications of the christian doctrine of creation.  It shows how weighty a doctrine creation is today with regard to how we see many issues.

I really like the connection that can be made between humans being created in the image of God and the section of “The Weight of Glory” where C.S. Lewis talks about the weight of our neighbor’s glory.  We do not known any mere mortals because humans were created in the image of God.  This defiantly changes the way we should treat our neighbors.  This realization is made possible by the doctrine of creation and it is indeed the weight of our neighbor’s glory.

The Weight of Glory

The Weight of Glory was a sermon originally preached by C.S. Lewis in 1942.  He begins with a discussion about the reward promised to Christians in the Gospels.  He says that this reward is not a like that of a bribe paid to mercenaries.  It is “the very consummation of their earthly discipleship. Lewis says that we have we cannot begin to know this reward at all except by “continuing to obey and finding the first reward of our obedience in our increasing power to desire the ultimate reward.”  He states that the desire for heaven is already in us but it is “not yet attached to the true object, and will even appear as the rival of that object.”  This desire causes us to think that beauty is actually in things such as books and music whereas the reality is that the beauty is only coming through them.  He goes on to say that his desire for Paradise does not prove that he will enjoy it, but it rather gives a pretty good indication that such a thing exists and that some men will.

He goes on to talk about the idea of glory.  He admits that this idea had not immediate appeal to him at all.  Glory suggested two ideas to him.  One was the idea of fame which seems to be a competitive passion from hell.  The other idea was that of luminosity and he says that he was not fond of the idea of being a living electric light bulb.  He then says that after reading what other Christians had to say on the matter, he began to see glory more as fame or good report with God.  This idea is like a good child who take pleasure in being praised by its parents.  He then speaks of the weight of this glory.  The fact that some of us will survive examination by God, that we will be approved by God, that God will delight it as an artist delights in his work; this fact seems impossible and it is a “weight or burden of glory which our thoughts can hardly sustain.”

Lewis goes on to talk about the weight of our neighbor’s glory.  He says it is hardly possible to think to often of about one’s neighbor’s glory.  Lewis says, “The load, or weight of my neighbor’s glory should be laid daily on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it.”  Everyone is destined to become a creature of infinite splendor or eternal horror.  All day long we are helping each other toward one of these destinations.  “It is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit- immortal horrors or everlasting splendors.  According to Lewis, we have to take each other seriously.  

I really loved reading this sermon.  It is so deep that it took a few times through of slow reflective reading to really allow it to sink in.  It is full of such rich, deep insight that is so lacking in the church today.  I do not often think about how I am made for heaven and not for this current world.  I think this conclusion can be reached if one truly examines their desires and looks at how often they do not attach them to the true object.  This false attachment seems evident in the way that modern people live their lives.  People search for meaning by often going around and attaching their desires to whatever seem like the right thing to attach them to at the time.

The fact that we are going to be approved by God is stunning and impossible sounding.  It was hard to see at first, but I am starting to realize what Lewis actually is getting at by calling it the “weight of glory.”  The fact that we Christians will be approved by God and that he will delight in us does seem impossible and there does seem to be a  weight or burden of glory that goes along with it.

The section that struck me that most in this sermon is the last section.  I personally feel that it is easier to see the weight or burden of my neighbor’s glory than my own.  The idea that everyone around us are all either infinite splendors or eternal horrors defiantly puts a weight or burden on how we treat our neighbors.  I love when he says that this is just as true when dealing with the simplest, dullest of people.  They to are immortals.  The weight of their glory compels me to treat them very differently than my sinful nature compels me to treat them.  It is a hard thing to see people for the spiritual reality they are. 

Our English Syllabus

C.S. Lewis begins this work by discussing education and learning.  He cites Aristotle and says that education should be preparation for leisure, which is the end of all human activity.  The purpose of education is to produced a "good man" and a "good citizen."  This a man of good feeling and good taste, and interesting and interested man, and almost a happy man.  Vocational training seeks to prepare the man not for leisure but for work.  Lewis says that if education is given up in the name of fairness and vocational training is given to all then civilization will die.  He says, "Human life means to me the life of beings for whom the leisured activities of thought, art, literature, conversation are the end, and the preservation and propagation merely the means."  Education makes one human.  In education the master is the agent and the pupil is the patient.

Lewis then moves on to talk about learning.  He says, "Now learning, considered in itself, has, on my view, no connection at all with education."  Learning is an activity for men who have already been humanized by education.  Men who want to learn must have a thirst for knowledge.  Universities are, according to Lewis, "institutions for the support and encouragement of men devoted to learning."  The university student ought to be beginning to follow learning for its own sake.  According to Lewis, universities are places of learning and not of teaching and education.  He goes on the say that in modern times Oxford has become a place of teaching.  This not the ideal situation according to Lewis because it should be the university's job to assume that its students are already human and now help them see some given tract of reality.

He then moves on to talk specifically about the english syllabus.  He says that the proper question for a freshman student is not 'What will do me the most good?' but rather 'What do I want to know?'  Lewis says students should forget about self improvement for four years and absorb themselves in "getting to know some part of reality, as it is in itself."  He says that the problem with a composite school is that it has been composed by a committee of professors.  "The life of learning knows nothing of this nicely balanced encyclopedic arrangement," according to Lewis.  If students want to learn this way they can stay in school, says Lewis.  Students should abandon this structured approach and "look at reality in the raw."  He says students must choose their own path and they are too old to have their education menu drawn up for them.  "Here's you gun, your spade, your fishing-tackle; go and get yourself a dinner," says Lewis.

This piece was a very interesting read, especially for a student at a liberal arts college.  Calvin prides itself with the breath of curriculum that is required for all students to graduate.  These core classes are claimed to be vital in making the students good human beings and good Christians once they graduate.  It seems like Calvin is using the Aristotelian logic.  They want to give their students a large breath of knowledge in order to make them a "good man."  According to Lewis this is education.  The students are being given a "menu" of areas of knowledge that a committee of professors feel will be good for them.  The students are not "pursing knowledge for its own sake."  They are not "looking at reality in the raw."

I think the undergraduate education should teach students how to pursue knowledge for its own sake, but I do not think that this pursuit should be expected form freshman.  I do not think that high school graduates are " human beings" in the sense Lewis uses the phrase in the writing.  Most are not yet educated enough yet to pursue knowledge for its own sake and almost all do not have the disciple to do it.  Providing a menu of courses selected by a committee of professors may seem restricting to some, but it is very helpful to others who do not yet know what they want to study and want to look into a wide range of options.  I think that the system that Lewis prefers would work in an ideal world that was full of passionate and driven students who knew exactly what they wanted to study.  In the real world however, it seems like there would not be enough disciple among students at the undergraduate level to make it work.    

Engaging God's World Chapter 1

Plantinga begins his work by writing about longing.  He uses an observation by C.S. Lewis to explain human longing, “Lewis observes that when we have it, we are seeking union with something from which we are separated.”  Plantinga then goes on to submit that our longings are unfulfillable because nothing on this earth can fully satisfy us.  The reason for this is that our final joy lies “beyond the walls of this world,” as J.R.R. Tolkien puts it.  According to Augustine, human beings want God because God has made humans that way because he made them for himself.  However, humans often divert this longing toward other things.

Plantinga uses his discussion on longing as a springboard into a section on hope.  He says that longing is an ingredient in hope.  To hope for something you have to really want it or long for it.  He goes on the submit that genuine hope always combines imagination, faith, and desire.  He uses Martin Luther King’s speech before the Lincoln Memorial as an example of the synthesis of imagination, faith, and desire.  He then goes on to say that the most eloquent addresses of human hope appeal to God because the peace of God transcends barriers.  

He then talks about what Christians’ hope should be aimed towards.  It should not be aimed only at ourselves with only our interests at heart.  Our hope should be looking out toward the futures of others.  This hope should be biblical. It will therefore spread out to cover all of humankind and the created order.  Plantinga says, like the Hebrew prophets we should hope for shalom.  In the Bible shalom means much more than simply peace.  It means universal flourishing, wholeness, and delight.  Shalom is the  way things should be and it is what Plantinga says Christians should aim their hope at.

I really enjoyed reading the first part of the chapter when Plantinga was writing about longing.  It seems important to evaluate our longings because they play a large role our motivations.  It is sobering to realize that nothing on this earth can fully satisfy us.  It is sobering because the implications are that we have wasted much of our lives attempting to find fulfillment in things that are ultimately fruitless.  I especially liked the C.S. Lewis quote in which he speaks about how our desires are too weak.  We so often are “half-hearted creatures, fooling around with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us.”  We intended are far too easily pleased.

The next section was an interesting read because it described hope to such great lengths.  It was quite abstract at parts, but there were a few practical points that can be taken away from it.  I liked how Plantinga emphasized that Martin Luther King’s speech publicly appealed to the righteousness of God because it is the transcendent standard of right and wrong.  Christians are put in a hard place in our current culture of political correctness and an appeal like this would not be taken well today.  I believe that it is vitally important for Christians to say what they mean and do it with authority as long as they also do so with humility.  Christians should not be afraid of being politically incorrect in order to speak truth.

Shalom is a word that gets constantly thrown around in reformed circles.  It is almost taken as a given that Christians are to try to bring as much shalom as possible everywhere they go.  This universal flourishing, wholeness, and delight seems to be a great idea.  I often find myself questioning this position because of the words of Jesus in Luke 12:51-53.  Jesus says: 

Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth?  No, I tell you, but rather division.  For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three.  They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

I remain very conflicted with regard to this issue.  I do believe Jesus came to bring both peace and the sword.  Both of these have solid scriptural basis.  In what scene he came to bring each of them I am still unsure. 

No Right to Happiness

This piece starts off with a quote by a character named Clare that says, "After all, they had a right to happiness."  The piece goes on to describe a situation where a husband leaves his wife for another woman. When his ex-wife commits suicide he responds with the following utterly pathetic quote in light of the situation.  He said, "But what could I do?  A man has a right to happiness.  I had to take my chance when it came."  Lewis uses this situation to set up his argument against a "right to happiness."  He especially focuses on this issue in the context of sexuality because he believes that the people who promote this opinion are concentrating on this issue.

Lewis starts by saying that he feels like a "right to happiness" doesn't make much sense because much of what effects happiness is out of human control.  He continues by outlining the difference between rights given by society and rights under the Natural Law.  Clare believes that there is a right to happiness in the Natural Law which should be behind all the laws of the state.  Lewis goes on to argue that if Clare is using the Natural Law as defined in the Declaration of Independence, which gives "the pursuit of happiness" as a right, to support her argument then she is taking it out of context.  This is because it does not say that happiness may be pursued by any and every means. 

C.S. Lewis believes that when Clare says happiness, she solely means "sexual happiness."  He believes this because she would not use happiness to justify other things such as greed or alcoholism.  Then he describes how society set out to treat sex like any other impulse, but it instead has treated it like no impulse has ever been treated by civilized people.  All other impulses have to be bridled, but society has proclaimed that the sexual impulse is immune from this necessity.  Lewis describes the result in this quote, "But every unkindness and breach of faith seems to be condoned provided that the object aimed at is 'four bare legs in bed'.  He finishes with two final thoughts.  The first is that a society in which tolerates conjugal infidelity must always be in the long run a society that is adverse to women.  The second is that if the sexual impulse is allowed to go unbridled then it will not be long before the same is tolerated for all other impulses.

I might seem harsh and overbearing in the sections following.  I do not mean ill toward any specific person and do not believe that anyone is beyond the grace of Jesus upon repentance.  I am passionate about these issues because I have seen to often what happens when people break their word and obligations to their spouses and families and then try to justify it with nonsense.  The "right to happiness" is nonsense, but it is believed by so many because our modern society promotes narcism and entitlement.  This "right" is found nowhere in Scripture and is revealed nowhere in nature.  Jesus’ most beloved friends on this earth, the eleven remaining disciples, all died a martyr's death except one. It is exactly like Lewis says, it is like claiming to have the right to be six feet tall or come from a rich family.  This right is not possible because it is out of our control.

Any man who is willing to leave his wife and family for another woman is a spineless liar and coward.  He choose to tell a woman that he would love her for life when he said his vows.  He choose to promise her that he would always provide for her and their family.  If he did not intend to do so then he was free to walk out the door then.  It is just very hard to have grace for any man who is willing to send his wife into single motherhood, let his kids go to bed every night without a dad, and most often send his family into poverty.  It is even harder to have grace for a man who does this and then tries to justify it using a "right to happiness," which in this case simply means a right to selfishness, narcism, and a denial of his most basic responsibilities as a man.  Just like when Lewis talks about acceptance of the unbridled sexual impulse leading to acceptance of other unbridled impulses, there is no limit to what a man is capable of when he has willfully broken his weeding vows and then has had the audacity to try to justify it.

I completely agree with Lewis when he says that a society where infidelity is tolerated is adverse to women.  The differences between men and women are especially manifested when it comes to the emotional life, which unquestionably plays a large role in sexuality.  Emotional connection is much more important for women and that doesn’t happen when infidelity is tolerated.  God is aware of how he made men and women differently and that is why he commands men to treat women a certain way in his word.  1st Peter 3:7 says this, "Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered."  "Weaker vessel" does not mean lesser person in this context.  The best analogy that I have heard that explains this verse is the idea of the woman as a vase and the man as a thermos.  The consequences of not handling a thermos with care are much less than the consequences of not handling a vase with care.  Men are to treat women differently than they treat their buddies.  They are to honor them by their actions and how they speak to them.  Infidelity leads to a culture of people using people for selfish motives and not actually loving people.  If a society is allowed to go on like this there will be a lot of thermoses that have a couple dents, but there will also be a lot of vases that are laying in pieces, completely shattered.

Bulverism

Lewis starts of this writing by explaining how, due to influences like modern psychology and philosophy, many see human thoughts a ideologically tainted.  He uses the example of people thinking that Queen Elizabeth was a good queen not strictly by her merits, but because they have a mother complex according to the Freudians.  He also uses the example of people thinking that freedom is a good thing not strictly because it is objectively good but because they are members of the bourgeoisie whose prosperity is increase by laissez-faire policy.  People can sit around all day and propose all sorts of different complexes and socio-economic reasoning that can try to explain why people's thoughts are tainted.

This is the ground work that Lewis lays before he moves on the the meat of this piece where he talks about Bulverism.  The name is derived from a fictional character that Lewis made up named Ezekiel Bulver.  Bulver overheard his parents discussing geometry when he was five years old.  His father said that the sum of two sides a triangle was greater than the third side.  His mother responded that he only says that because he is a man.  Bulver exclaims, "Assume 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."

Bulverism can be seen everywhere.  It occurs anytime someone does not address whether their opponent is actually right or wrong but instead tries to justify themselves by explaining how their opponent became so ill informed.  I have see this first hand in all spheres of life.  A few examples that that I can remember off hand are as follows: "You only believe that because you went to Christian school,"  "You only think that because you heard it at church," or "The only reason you are so convinced of that is because of the political party you support."  I confess that I myself have often used Bulverism as a weapon in debates.  It is a tactic that both side can use but it ends up leading no where.

I completely agree with Lewis when he says, "Until Bulverism is crushed, reason can play no effective part in human affairs."  Bulverism turns the debate over a legitimate issue into a petty debate over psychological or socio-economic conditions that have nothing to do with the legitimate issue at hand.  It robs the discussion of reason and often leads to people painting dishonest or exaggerated pictures of their opponents.  Bulverism is completely unnecessary for debating any issue, but the sad part is that it is often very effective in convincing large groups of simple people to believe a certain thing.

Peter tells Christians how handle people who disagree with them in 1st Peter 3:15.  This passage is specifically about how it respond to people who try to discredit the Christian faith, but I believe the principle found in it can be applied to all areas of disagreement and debate.  He says, "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always be prepared to make a defense for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect."  The three key words in this passage that apply to the issue of Bulverism are prepared, gentleness, and respect.

Bulverism can be avoided by following Peter's instruction.  It is very important to be well prepared whenever one goes into a debate.  Bulverism happens when one person runs out of real reasons why the opponent's idea is wrong. It is also important to be gentle with an opponent.  This can be done by sticking to the issues and not attacking the opponent personally.  One is not giving his defense with respect when Bulverism is used as a weapon against the opponent.  First of all, it is completely disrespectful to assume the causes behind what a person believes because it is impossible to know what all of their reasons are.  Secondly, it is disrespectful to all involved to take the debate outside the sphere of reason and to reduce it to loads of irrelevant information.