A Counselor Reflects on Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
“If there were such a [Christian] society in existence and you or I visited it, I think we should come away with a curious impression… Each of us would like some bits of it, but I am afraid very few of us would like the whole thing. That is just what one would expect if Christianity is the total plan for the human machine. We have all departed from the total plan in different ways, and each of us wants to make out that his own modification of the original plan is the plan itself (p. 84-5).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
I wonder what the “author’s original intent” was when Duct Tape was invented? How many ways did the nameless 1942 employee of Johnson and Johnson think his/her invention would be used? Was there any notion that this product was become synonymous with on-the-fly, amateur fixes?
Now countless people stand back from a household project completed with Duct Tape, beaming with pride, as if their “ingenuity” was the very purpose for which this versatile product was invented. There is a sense in which that is a good picture of what we do with God’s will. We creatively utilize part of God’s will according to our need and preference, then stand back as if that is what God had in mind before the foundations of the world.
Lewis tries to alert us to this tendency by raising the question if any of us would be comfortable in a completely Christian and genuine society. His answer is “No” because each Christian takes pieces of the kingdom and pretends they’re the whole thing.
It is like me when I finish building a piece of pre-fabricated furniture my wife brings home. I put it together paying attention to the directions (more or less). But at the end there are always pieces left over, which I try to quietly stash in the garage before I ask her to come brag on my craftsmanship.
Conservatives would think a Christian society was too liberal (and vice versa). Intellectuals would think it too expressive (and vice versa). Legalists would think it too gracious (and vice versa).
What is the take away? It is easy to reflect on something like this and cynically conclude that this void means the whole thing is hoax. But in the end cynics would think that a Christian society is too certain (and vice versa).
I would offer a different take away – let us talk more honestly and patiently with those with whom we disagree. If we recognize our tendency to call our castle the whole kingdom, then let us talk to those who live in other castles.
But the point of this conversation is not to concede that every castle is equally valid. The point is to gain an appreciation for the whole kingdom by talking with those who live in (specialize, treasure) other parts of it. We must be careful not to assume that the largest castle is the closest approximation of the whole kingdom. The earth is 2/3 water but we mostly track its history by what happens on the other 1/3.
Personally, this challenges me to a level of humility that makes me uncomfortable. When I engage in this kind of interaction I often wonder if I’m wasting my time or compromising my values. But when I have done so well, I usually come away with a renewed sense that I am merely a steward of one of the King’s castles in a vast kingdom and that I am not competing with any other castle steward in His kingdom, even when our perspectives are seemingly at odds.
Posted 8 months, 1 week ago at 1:24 pm. Add a comment
A Counselor Reflects on Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
“If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something—some Real Morality—for them to be true about (p.13).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
Our language condemns us. But I am not referring to Luke 6:45, “The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.”
Nor am I referring to James 3:2, “For we all stumble in many ways, and if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body.”
Our language condemns us before we speak (or think) of anything rude, inappropriate, or blasphemous. Our language is filled with words of comparison (those ending in “-er” or “-est”), beauty, power, and significance. All of these types of words assume a standard and our awe reveals that we fall short of that standard.
The saddest part of this is that in our extremely self-centered culture we see this and retreat into shame, insecurity, and defensiveness. Instead the response should be one of celebration and self-forgetfulness.
We were given eyes not so that we could enjoy mirrors, but so that we could take in the glory of God. We were given consciences not so that we could become defense attorneys, but so that we could echo “Amen!” to God’s character.
The tragedy of our day is that we view truth (or any sense of standard) as our enemy. We have forgotten John 8:32, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free,” because we think the truth is first and foremost about us. IT’S NOT! Praise God!
Truth is the revelation of God. Because of our sinful nature we have grown to fear/resent what we were meant to fear/love. When we refuse to be humble we begin to view our only hope as our condemnation. We run from the only exit in a burning building and think we are wise (“enlightened”) for having done so.
The challenge of this post is to consider how we use our language of comparison. Do we live life constantly asking, “Do I matter? Am I good enough? Am I significant?” If we do, then truth (any sense of standard that creates awe) will be our emotional enemy.
Rather, let us strive to live with truth, beauty, power, and significance as the all-satisfying destination of our life-long journey; something we know we will only attain after reaching our point of greatest weakness and decay (death). It is only that sense of process by grace and eternity that will allow to embrace an “er” language without succumbing to shame, insecurity, and defensiveness.
Posted 1 year, 5 months ago at 1:04 pm. Add a comment
Culturally, we are told that if we could love ourselves more that would solve most of our life struggles. Jesus said that the starting point of discipleship was to deny ourselves (Luke 9:23). Culturally we are told that we must love ourselves before we can love anyone else. Paul said that we must count others as more significant than ourselves (Philippians 2:3).
This can lead to much confusion as Christian try to harmonize these two sets of instructions. The article below seeks to provide guidance on the subject.
Start with this reflection. What kind of word is self-esteem: noun, verb, or adjective? Is self-esteem more like that word power (noun), strong (adjective), or weight-lifting (verb)? Is self-esteem something you want (noun), an description you want to be true of you (adjective), or a way to pursue something (verb)?
The article below introduces the idea that self-esteem is a verb. It is a theory concerning human behavior that instructs people (rightly or wrongly) on how to pursue things like confidence, identity, security, purpose, and wisdom (nouns). The question is, “Does self-esteem provide a path that will help us arrive at those destinations?”
If you are intrigued and want to consider the matter further, you can read the entire article.
Posted 1 year, 9 months ago at 2:43 pm. Add a comment
A World Without Uniforms (v. 1):
Wouldn’t it be nice if the good guys really wore white hats and the bad guys really wore black hats? It would make the application of the Psalm 1 (and many other portions of Scripture) so much easier. The problem is that the line between good and evil goes straight down the middle of the human heart (credit to Alexander Solzhenitsyn). So as we seek to apply Psalm 1, we cannot take a strictly us-versus-them approach. As Pogo said, “We have seen the enemy and he is us.” As you seek to apply this psalm consider:
- What is your counsel of the wicked; both what you are prone to believe and what you dispense as “common sense”?
- What is your way of sinners? In your journey with Christ, which detours from the straight and narrow have trouble growing grass from frequent trodding?
- Where is your seat of mockers? What do you find delight or humor in that is not in keeping with the character and delight of God?
The goal of these questions is not guilt but delight. Until we take the time to examine our heart we will miss out on what God declares “blessed.” We will be settling for second best. As C.S. Lewis rightly declared, “We are far too easily pleased.”
Fads of Chaff
(Click Here for Printable PDF Handout)
Don’t we all have a love/hate relationship with old pictures? The nostalgia is wonderful. The fashion is dreadful. But we cling to the axiom, “All fashion eventually comes back in style!” Awkwardly, this is the message of Psalm 1.
The wicked are like chaff. They are blown away quickly. Yet the mere fact that the Bible so frequently addresses the same errors of folly and rebellion indicates that they (too) quickly come back in vogue.
This is true of cultures, generations, and individuals. We are foolish. Hence, we need a wisdom psalm like this one. Our foolishness brings large scale life disruption (God’s judgment—whether it be natural consequence or divine retribution). Yet we disgustingly return to our folly (Proverbs 26:11).
Our goal is to finally learn from our folly and God’s judgment so that we learn to love God’s wisdom over our folly (the message of Psalm 1). Use the following reflective questions to help you make application of Psalm 1.
- Make a list of your bad choices. Divide them into three headings: (1) All time greats; (2) day-to-day misdemeanors; and (3) I still don’t understand why it doesn’t work.
- Examine the list to determine the common lies embedded in these choices or common objects of pursuit in those choices.
- Study to determine the truths that counter the lies or the way God intends to meet those desires.
- Be honest with God about your doubts about His ways and ask that He change your heart.
- Confide in a trusted, mature Christian friend of the same gender regarding the commitments you are making (Hebrews 3:12-13).
Introduction to the “Living Our Faith” series.
TOOL: “Using Prayer Time to Cultivate Ministry”
BLOG: “Teachers Equipping Ministers Through Prayer Time“
Posted 2 years, 3 months ago at 2:49 am. Add a comment
The following excerpt is taken from Eugene H. Peterson’s book Eat This Book: A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids; 2006) pages 31-33. It is a lengthy quote and may need to be read several times, but it speaks with great clarity (at least in the mind of this blogger) to the times in which we live. The bold-faced, under-lined, and italicized text have been added to Dr. Peterson’s work to add emphasis to the portions this blogger believes capture the essence of texts meaning.
“Here’s how it works. It is important to observe that in the formulation of this new Trinity that defines the self as the sovereign text for living, the Bible is neither ignored nor banned; it holds; it holds, in fact, an honored place. But the three-personal Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is replaced by a very individualized personal Trinity of my Holy Wants, my Holy Needs, and my Holy Feelings.
We live in an age in which we have all been trained from the cradle to choose for ourselves what is best for us. We have a few years of apprenticeship at this before we are sent out on our own, but the training begins early. By the time we can hold a spoon we choose between half a dozen cereals for breakfast, ranging from Cheerios to Corn Flakes. Our tastes, inclinations, and appetites are consulted endlessly. We are soon deciding what clothes we will wear and in what style we will have our hair cut. The options proliferate: what TV channels we will view, what courses we will take in school, what college we will attend, what courses we will sign up for, what model and color of car we will buy, what church we will join. We learn early, with multiple confirmations as we grow older, that we have a say in the formation of our lives and, within certain bounds, the decisive say. If the culture does a thorough job on us – and it turns out to be mighty effective with most of us – we enter adulthood with the working assumption that whatever we need and want and feel forms the divine control center of our lives.
The new Holy Trinity. The sovereign self expresses itself in Holy Needs, Holy Wants, and Holy Feelings. The time and intelligence that our ancestors spent on understanding the sovereignty revealed in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are directed by our contemporaries in affirming and validating the sovereignty of our needs, wants, and feelings.
My needs are non-negotiable. My so-called rights, defined individually, are fundamental to my identity. My need for fulfillment, for expression, for affirmation, for sexual satisfaction, for respect, my need to get my own way – all these provide a foundation to the centrality of me and fortify my self against diminution.
My wants are evidence of my expanding sense of kingdom. I train myself to think big because I am big, important, significant. I am larger than life and so require more and more goods and services, more things and more power. Consumption and acquisition are the new fruits of the spirit.
My feelings are the truth of who I am. Any thing or person who can provide me with ecstasy, with excitement, with joy, with stimulus, with spiritual connection validates my sovereignty. This, of course, involves employing quite a large cast of therapists, travel agents, gadgets and machines, recreations and entertainments to cast out the devils of boredom or loss or discontent – all the feelings that undermine or challenge my self-sovereignty.
In the last two hundred years a huge literature, both scholarly and popular, has developed around understanding this new Holy Trinity of Needs, Wants, and Feelings that make up the sovereign self. It amounts to an immense output of learning. Our new class of spiritual masters is composed of scientists and economists, physicians and psychologists, educators and politicians, writers and artists. They are every bit as intelligent and passionate as our earlier church theologians and every bit as religious and serious, for they know that what they come up with has enormous implications for everyday living. The studies they conduct and the instruction they provide in the service of the god that is us, the godhead composed by our Holy Needs, Holy Wants, and Holy Feelings, are confidently pursued and very convincing. It is very hard not to be convinced with all these experts giving their witness. Under their tutelage I become quite sure that I am the authoritative text for the living of my life.
We might suppose that the preaching of this new Trinitarian religion poses no great threat to people who are baptized in the threefold name of the Trinity, who regularly and prayerfully recite the Trinitarian Apostles’ and Nicene creeds, who begin prayers with the invocation, “Our Father…,” who daily get out of bed to follow Jesus as Lord and Savior and frequently sing, “Come Holy Spirit, heavenly dove. . . .”
But this rival sovereignty is couched in such spiritual language, and we are so easily convinced of our own spiritual sovereignty, that it does catch our attention. The new spiritual masters assure us that all our spiritual needs are included in the new Trinity: our need for meaning and transcendence, our wanting a larger life, our feelings of spiritual significance – and, of course, there is plenty of space to make room for God, as much or as little as you like. The new Trinity doesn’t get rid of God or the Bible, it merely puts them to the service of needs, wants, and feelings. Which is fine with us, for we’ve been trained all our lives to treat everyone and everything that way. It goes with the territory. It’s the prerogative of sovereignty (pg 31-33).”
Posted 2 years, 7 months ago at 7:55 pm. 1 comment
