The Moral Boats of C.S. Lewis

It’s not too often that I read spiritual books written by non-Catholic thinkers, but I’ve gotten around to reading “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis. Lewis’s astute writing style and use of clever analogies reminds me a bit of Catholic apologists Frank Sheed and G.K. Chesterton. I have read “The Screwtape Letters”, but this is quite different.  The book is based on a series of radio broadcasts Lewis gave during WWII, talking about the Christian faith from a common sense perspective.

The theme stays with the basic ideals of Christianity without digging into the doctrinal and denominational differences, hence the “Mere” in the title. In the beginning of the book Lewis used an analogy of a great hall with many rooms leading out from the hall. The hall is Christianity itself and the many rooms are all the different denominations. He explains how his goal is to get people into the hall, and once inside, they can choose which doors to knock on and which room to finally go into. He cautions that the decision should not be based on which room looks best and has the most comfortable furniture. Rather, one should ask which is the "right" door and the "right" room.  As a Catholic I can certainly agree with that, but I would add that once inside a room, one should continue to study the denomination, its history and its founders. Study the history of the authority and the drill down to the base premises of the faith and see how well they stand up to reason.

The three parts of morality found in Book Three, Chapter I, also employ a clever metaphor involving boats. You have heard the Golden Rule, which is to do unto others what you would have done unto you, but have you heard of the Silver Rule? It says, “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you." In other words, do what you want as long as you do not hurt others. This is the first part of morality according to Lewis; I think of it as the first stage, since it involves just coexisting peacefully with others. Imagine a bunch of boats traveling together. Many would agree that as long as you do not hit the other boats traveling with you on life’s journey, everything is fine. Few would agree with the Benny Hill rule; “Do unto others, then run.”

 

Of course, the meaning of “hurt” can lead to an endless game of “point-counterpoint”. Doesn’t abortion involve hurting others? No problem; just change the definition of “others” and magically turn some “others” into “non-persons”. How about assisted suicide? Isn’t that hurting others? Of course not, we just call upon the Dogma of Consent. Does the death penalty hurt others? Some call it justice, but doesn’t it fall more along the lines of revenge in many cases? And what of sadomasochism; hurting others for depraved pleasure is certainly okay, right?

The second part, or maybe the second stage, of morality involves harmonizing what is inside of each individual. Besides not “hurting” others, how should I behave when I am alone? How should I treat myself when alone or with others? Where do my idle thoughts go? Does it matter what my ship is like on the inside as long as I do not hit other ships? It makes some sense on the surface, but stop and think for a moment; if you can’t handle your own boat, how can you possibly expect to avoid collisions with other boats?

The third part ,or third stage, is concerned with the purpose of the journey. What is the nature of the boats and of the ocean itself? Are you really the owner of the boat or are you only a steward?  What is the final destination of the fleet and what is the best course to get there? Erroneous beliefs about the nature of boats and the ocean will lead to wrongheaded thinking; wrongheaded thinking leads to bad boating behavior; bad boating behavior leads to bad boating habits; bad boating habits lead to a bad sailing character; a bad sailing character will lead to a lost fleet and a hopeless journey.

 

 

“You cannot make good men by law: and without good men you cannot have a good society.”

- C.S. Lewis

The Cosmos Knows Nothing

Last month, many of the daily scripture readings were from the book of Daniel. One verse in particular caught my attention because, even today, we spend much of our energy in pursuit of things which have no intelligence.

 

“you have rebelled against the Lord of heaven…and you praised the gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood and stone, that neither see nor hear nor have intelligence. But the God in whose hand is your very breath and the whole course of your life, you did not glorify.” (Daniel 5:23)

Some proudly go along living their lives with the premise that we come from nothing, are going back to nothing, all for the purpose of nothing. More simply put, we come from nothing intelligent for no intended purpose. Since intention implies intelligence, our being must be unplanned. It is curious that many of these same people are fascinated by science, and science fiction, that are full of speculations about making contact with intelligent cosmic dwellers – if only our instruments could be delicate enough or set in the right direction. We are reluctant to accept our loneliness in the universe.

Foolish humans!!!

Many atheists and agnostics can gladly agree that the known universe began some 13.7 billion years ago and they will also generally agree with the premise that every effect must have a cause, so if there was a big-bang there must also be a “big-banger”. They may even go so far as to agree that the big banger (whatever caused the big bang) must be something outside the known universe. Further still, they may consent to the metaphysical logic that demands the necessity of a “first cause”, sometimes called an uncaused cause, or prime mover, or unconditioned reality.

No matter how far causes are traced back, and no matter how much consensus there is, the consensus seems to crumble at the point of “intelligence”. For some, the universe needs to be “dumbly” there in order for it to suit their worldview. The cosmos is certainly intelligible, but there must be no intelligence behind it all. The first cause, whatever it is, can be mysterious, powerful, beautiful and mind-boggling, but it MUST also be completely mindless.

I find it superbly ironic that an intelligent discussion will diverge at the point of “intelligence”. C.S. Lewis said it intelligently (pun intended) in his book The Case for Christianity:

"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."

Mindlessness does not beget mindfulness.The cosmos as cosmos knows nothing. There is a first intelligence, and it does not come from a mindless universe.

Not by Reason Alone

Have you ever read the following verse in the Bible? “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). It might be shocking to many non-Catholic Christians, but an informed Catholic should be able to take it in stride and place it in its proper context. It is interesting to note however, that the ONLY time the words “faith” and “alone” appear together in the Bible is in that one verse from James. That being that said, reason alone is also not enough.

Faith is something personal, this is why Jesus first asked his disciples, “Who do others say I am?” All kinds of reasons were given with all kinds of reasoning, but then the real point of the dialog comes in when he asked, “Who do YOU say I am?” This makes it personal and God wants it personal.

This makes sense to me as a father myself. I want my kids to have personal faith in me, not because they have evidence combined with the calculating logic of reason, but just because I’m their father. Obviously this would not be about faith in my existence, but let’s use faith in my judgment as an example.

Dad: You need to trust my judgment.

Kid: There is no evidence that your judgment is better than mine.

Dad: I’ve lived a lot longer than you.

Kid: That is only evidence that you are older.

Dad: I gave you life and everything you have.

Kid: That is only evidence that you have money and you know The Stork.

Dad: What about all the other times I’ve been right?

Kid: Your astonishing random good luck is self-evident.

Dad: Mom and everyone else in the family trust my judgment.

Kid: That is evidence that they do not demand evidence.

Dad: You need to trust me.

Kid:  Sorry, you need to provide evidence that you are worthy of my trust, and not just any evidence. It must be evidence that satisfies me.

So, at this point would a good father obey the child and provide whatever specific evidence the child demands? I think not. The father may just let the child suffer the natural consequences of not trusting in order to learn how to trust in the first place. In fact, I could even see a good father intentionally hiding evidence so that the child would have no choice but to trust. This is the only way a healthy parent-child relationship can work. Often times I feel quite certain that God made children as stubborn as they are in order to show us grown-ups how we act towards Him!

Trust is key for any good relationship and same is true for our relationship with God. It won’t work without trust. This is demonstrated throughout all of salvation history. If you know the people and the Bible stories, you know when there was trust and when there was not. Think about Adam & Eve, then Noah, then Abraham, then Moses, then the Israelites, then the Kings of Israel, then Mary & Joseph, all the way up to Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane. Think about who trusted and who didn't and how did it turn out?

In the first chapter of John’s Gospel we read about the two disciples of John the Baptist following Jesus and then asking him “where are you staying?” He replied "Come, and you will see." So they went and they saw (see John 1:36-39). The same is true for us today. First you must ask, then you must “go”, and only then will you “see”. He who tries to be a mere observer experiences nothing. Only by entering the faith experiment in trust does one have an experience; only by cooperating does one ask at all, and only he who asks shall receive.

"I believe in God as I believe the sun had risen, not because I can see it, but because by way of it, I can see everything else."

- C.S. Lewis

Catholic Phony

Peter Kreeft has a fascinating way to describe how Catholics have been losing the culture war over the past few decades in a talk called “Winning the Culture War”, available on CD from Lighthouse Catholic Media. He describes how Satan plots to destroy Catholics à la Screwtape Letters. In case you are not familiar, The Screwtape Letters is a book by C.S. Lewis about an older demon, Uncle Screwtape, writing a series of letters to his nephew, Wormwood, about how to land a Christian in Hell.

 

The talk begins by explaining that God is being itself and the goal of Satan is to move us away from true being or “the real”, and move us toward non-being or “the unreal”. Moving toward the unreal makes us phony, and he used the acronym of P-H-O-N-E-Y to make some powerful points. Ironically, even the acronym of PHONEY is phony since it’s spelled incorrectly. The speaker seems intelligent enough to have planned it this way, but whatever the case, it is a very clever approach to bringing out problems within the Church that may not seem like problems on the surface. It acts almost like a modern-day examination of conscience. Are you P-H-O-N-E-Y?

Now hear this!

PLEASE NOTE: The following is paraphrased from Dr. Kreeft's talk and is written in the context of Satan giving instructions to other demons on how to completely destroy Catholics (along with the rest of civilized society), while at the same time making them think they are really faithful and quite helpful to the world.

 

 

 

P is for Politicization:

Make them treat politics as religion and religion as politics. Make them worship the elephant or the donkey instead of God. In this way they will make politics absolute and religion relative.

H is for Happy-Talk:

Keep them focused on peace, love, tolerance and non-judgmentalism. Convince them that the spiritual battleground is really a spiritual playground. Make them forget that in the past few decades they have lost about half their priests, two thirds of their nuns, Mass attendance went from 75% to 25% and confessions have been reduce by even more.

Don’t let them see that Catholic families are being destroyed at about the rate as non-Catholic families. They abort, contracept, sodomize, fornicate and divorce at about the same rate as everyone else, but make sure to convince them that all this is “progressive”. Of course we know that calling someone who supports these things “progressive” is like calling a cannibal a chef.

O is for Organizationalism:

Make sure they see the Church as an organization, not an organism; an earthy business instead of a supernatural mystery. Make them want success and not sanctity. Make them fear failure and not sin. Keep them busy and distracted; make them Marthas instead of Marys.

 

Do not allow any silence in their lives; prevent it at all costs because silence can lead to the “one thing” spoken of by Him at the house of Mary & Martha. This point cannot be emphasized enough. Use all the power and principalities at your disposal to keep them from contemplative silence which leads directly to the “one thing”. Nothing is more devastating to us and we have no defense against it (see Luke 10:38-42).

 

N is for Neo-Worship (worship of the new or fashionable):

Teach them that what is new is true and what is old is false. Make sure that they dismiss their “old’ weapons against evil and refer to them as “pre-Vatican II”. These things should include the Mass, the Eucharist, Eucharistic adoration, frequent confession, the Rosary, any traditional devotion to Mary or the saints, all dogmas and the whole idea of infallibility. In fact, it may even be possible to convince them Jesus himself is “pre-Vatican II”.

E is for Egalitarianism, especially among the sexes:

Men are superior to women at being men, and women are superior to men and being women, but make them think that men and women are the same. In this way the beauty of men and women is negated like making the beauty of black and the beauty of white into a dull gray. Make certain that any non-physical difference noted between men and women is immediately labeled as sexist bigotry. This will keep them quiet about the reality of the sexes.

Y is for Yuppiedom or Hedonism:

Make them shoppers instead of saints. Addiction to the comforts of this world will make them unwilling and unable to practice sacrificial love or embrace suffering. Make them want Christ without the cross, which is the same as no Christ at all.

Some Final Instructions:

Turn strength into weakness, but call it compassion. Make faithfulness faithlessness and have them call faithfulness fanaticism. Make them think of humility as stupidity and obedience as cowardice. Don’t overestimate them when they are lacking God’s Grace. In this state it is possible to convince them that good is evil and evil is good. Don’t underestimate yourselves; you can coax them into believing that snow is black if you need to. Make everything lead away from reality which will lead them to insanity. The unreal is the same as non-being, which is the same as non-living, which is exactly where we want them. Remember, the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).


The 2nd part of Peter Kreeft's talk deals with how Catholics can ultimately win the culture war. I’ll share some notes & thoughts on that part in a week or two. Until then, God bless.

To Know Christ Jesus – The Later Years

 

As you last recall, I recently finished a book called “To Know Christ Jesus” by theologian Frank Sheed. The book goes through the entire life of Jesus offering analysis you may not have run across in other literature, or heard in a typical Sunday homily. The last post highlighted some insights from the first thirty years of Christ’s life; this post will cover some things from the last three. Consider that this could be of immense use to you the next time you’re stuck in a game of Christian trivia, so here we go.

Ø  The public life of Jesus starts after the wedding at Cana. What were the very last words of Mary in the gospels? At Cana she says, “Do whatever he tells you.” If there must be last words from Our Lady, what could be more appropriate?

Ø  What really drove out the moneychangers during the cleansing of the temple in the second chapter of John’s gospel? Jesus was of average stature and He was “cleansing” with a whip made of ropes. It’s not like Jesus was 6’5” and 300 pounds. He did not have a knife, sword or spear. He was a carpenter, not a professional whip maker and there is no indication that His followers jumped-in to help. If buying and selling at the temple was a significant part of my livelihood, I might have grabbed a few friends and said, “Let’s take this guy out before he gets to our tables!”, but this was not the case.

What made the moneychangers scatter? Sheed suggests there must have been something in His manner as God that they could not stand against. Perhaps it was the blaze from God’s own eyes burning a fiery condemnation upon them.

 

Ø  What was the first record of Jesus saying He was the Christ? The woman at the well says, “I know the Messiah is coming” and the Lord answers, “I am he, the one who is speaking with you” (John 4:26). He had always avoided this direct statement until now. It is startling that this is first revealed by Him to a Samaritan, and a woman.

Ø  What was the most astonishing phrase to ever come from Jewish lips? After the beatitudes Jesus speaks of the law. “Moses said……, but I SAY to you”. This was unspeakable arrogance or madness, or – what? To make this sort of claim and not be stoned to death would indeed take a miracle worker.

Ø  What were the first words of kindness we hear from Jesus? When Peter tells the Lord to depart from him because he was a sinful man, the Lord replies, “Fear not” (see Luke 5:8-10). Peter did not know at the time that the more you were a sinner; the more you needed Jesus. It reminded me of JPII’s “be not afraid”.

Ø  What did Jesus do just before choosing the twelve Apostles? He spent the entire night in prayer (see Luke 6:12-16). Seems appropriate given the indescribable amount of permanent authority He would pass on to them.

Ø  What was the curious request of Jesus from the demons of Legion? “And they begged him repeatedly not to order them to go into the Abyss” (Luke 8:31). Sheed speculates that demons not only torment humans, but may also torment each other, to the point where some would prefer the company of pigs to the company of other demons in the “Abyss”. It reminded me of The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis when the older demon, Uncle Screwtape, was getting frustrated with the younger demon, Wormwood.

The case in which our Lord says of a demon, “This kind cannot be cast out, but by prayer and fasting” (Mark 9:29) seems to confirm a higher and lower level of demonic power, yet even the highest fall subject to those who totally subject themselves to God.


 

Ø  What was the only miracle of Jesus to appear in all four Gospels? The feeding of the five thousand. Sheed remarks that the Gospels do not state that the loaves were first multiplied and then passes out; it was more the presence of the loaves that was somehow multiplied. Multi-LOCATION of loaves might be a more precise term than multiplication of loaves. This reminded me of the Eucharist as being more of a Multi-LOCATION of Jesus instead of a multiplication of Jesus.

 

Ø  For those who think the bread of life discourse is figurative language, Sheed mentions that figures of speech are used to make obscure ideas more clear. Eating flesh and drinking blood would be monstrous examples of figures of speech, and would NOT help to make things more clear. Jesus was not known for this kind of bizarre figurative teaching.

Ø  Why did Jesus seem so harsh to those that would not accept Him? “For unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). To those who truly want to do God’s will, the grace to accept Him would have been given. Remember that Jesus could read the heart. The failure to accept was sure proof to Jesus that they desired their own will, not God’s. His harshness was reserved for those who had set their will against his Father’s.

Ø  When was the only time the invitation from Jesus to “follow me” was refused? The rich young man went away sad in Luke 18, Mark 10 & Mat 19. Jesus must have been sad too.

Ø  Who was the only character in all the parables of Jesus to have a name? Lazarus (see Luke 16:19-31). The name means “God has helped”.

Ø  One more piece of evidence that Satan is not omniscient is in Luke 22:3, when he entered into Judas, which ultimately led to the crucifixion of Jesus. Satan helping to bring about the death of Jesus, and thereby his own destruction, demonstrates a startling misjudgment on his part.

Ø  On the cross, Jesus says to His mother, “Woman, behold your son” and to John, “Behold you mother”. This is not merely a domestic arrangement. If He chose to say it at this time it must be a part of the redemptive process. John went on to live with Mary and one can only imagine the dinner conversation in that house and how much they must have learned from each other, but we would suspect John learned more from Mary by virtue of her immaculate intellect. John’s gospel is said to be of “High Christology”; since he spent so much time with Mary, it would be strange if it were otherwise.

Ø  For those who hold that the resurrection of Christ is a myth, Sheed points out that a myth-maker would surly elaborate on a spectacular emergence from the tomb, but there is not a word about it in the Gospels. The angel had rolled away the stone, but this was not to let Him out, but to let others in. His resurrected body would have been able to pass through a sealed tomb just like He passed through a locked door in the upper room later on. This is a body wholly subject to the soul, to which the matter of our world was no longer a hindrance. The glorified body was not even at the mercy of men’s eyes, since many did not recognize Him unless He willed it.

Ø  When is the first and only time we hear Jesus addressed as God? When doubting Thomas believes and says, “My lord and my God”.

There are many other such reflections in the book not mentioned here, but I’d like to end with a direct quote that relates to the very blueprint of the Church and The Great Commission. “Catholicity is in it, for catholic means universal, a word which brings together the two ideas of “all” and “one”. Here is the threefold “all” – all nations, all teaching, all days – brought into “one” – in Him”.

Amen.