Choosing Your Own Adventure

Danielle Benedict: Own Topic (1)

    

Growing up, one of my favorite book series was “Choose Your Own Adventure.” It was extremely popular in the 80’s and 90’s. The reader decides what the protagonist does and ultimately takes the plot in the direction they choose. The power to choose was both exciting and terrifying. Half the time you would hold your hand on the last page in case something went wrong on the plot course so you could skip back in time. Mistakes were erased with the mere flipping of pages. Characters were revived and wars avoided because you remembered to return to page thirty-five. What if “real” life could be just as simple? What if the things we cared about were listed in front of us and everything was a matter of flipping to the right page? I believe we are capable of making lists of the things we are dedicated to. What consumes our time and is it worth it? Will it lead to the adventure you truly desire? Once I was extremely overwhelmed with the chaotic state of my life so a friend once challenged me to write out everything I was involved in. Then they told me to numerically rank each activity. I came to the realization I was throwing away precious time on activities that I had no passion for and was sacrificing the things I genuinely cared for. It is all a matter of perspective. As adults, we make choices that lead us in one direction or another. They are not always obvious outcomes. The food we eat, the people we love, and the city we live in all put us on a life path, or adventure, that we had a part in. Are we going to be the ones choosing our own adventures or will we let others make those decisions for us? One of the worst things we can do with our mortal lives is to become a bystander in our own lives. This blog post is just a gentle reminder to think about what is propelling you forward and if that should be the driving force behind your actions.

Ben Pearce: Outside Reading 1 Blog 6

Arguments from Mere Christianity

            Mere Christianity is possibly Lewis’ most famous book written in Christian circles. It is based off radio broadcasts which he did to discuss the Christian faith. Lewis has three parts of this book: Evidence for Christianity, Christian Doctrine, and Christian Behavior. For this blog post, I will be discussing his evidence for Christianity.

            C.S. Lewis seems to mostly go with the evidence given in the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans. This argument is found in verses 19 and 20,

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

This argument has been called Natural Revelation. This is the argument that Man should know that God exists just because of the evidence of creation. In the past, I did not like this argument. I thought that it was tedious at best. Now, I believe that it is good and sufficient to convince a person that, at least, a god exists. It may not be sufficient, however, to convince someone that YHWH of the Christian Scriptures is the supreme creator.

            When one argues with natural revelation, they most commonly say, “Well then, who created God”? This would be a good argument if the very essence of God did not include eternal existence. Because of this, there is no need for a creator to have been created. This argument will, of course, not work on someone so resistant upon believing in a Creator. One could argue, though, that is the same way with any piece of evidence. If someone is not willing to believe the proposed conclusion, then no piece of evidence will be sufficient for that person.

            C.S. Lewis mainly argues from a morality stand-point. This has been one of my favorite arguments too. He argues that there is a standard morality on the earth. Every tribe, tongue, and nation has a similar set of rules that could not have possibly all been similar if Man had just come from different sources. Every person (with a few exceptions) has a standard morality: do not murder, do not steal, do not lie, etc. This standard morality wouldn’t make sense from a random cause worldview. These morals would not necessarily be required for self-preservation (as the non-believer claims they are). There would be no reason for these morals unless they were first written upon the hearts of mankind. The Scriptures say in the book of Hebrews, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds”.

             

Rules and Magic in Narnia

"Remember, however, that to be breakable is not the same as to be perishable. Strike a glass, and it will not endure an instant; simply do not strike it, and it will endure a thousand years. Such, it seemed, was the joy of man, either in elfland or on earth; the happiness depended on NOT DOING SOMETHING which you could at any moment do and which, very often, it was not obvious why you should not do. Now, the point here is that to ME this did not seem unjust...And it seemed to me that existence was itself so very eccentric a legacy that I could not complain of not understanding the limitations of the vision when I did not understand the vision they limited. The frame was no stranger than the picture. The veto might well be as wild as the vision; it might be as startling as the sun, as elusive as the waters, as fantastic and terrible as the towering trees." - G. K. Chesterton, The Ethics of Elfland

This passage reminds me of two things that also relate to one another: the creation story in Genesis, and the creation story in The Magician's Nephew. Lewis obviously intended to convey this principle in TMN to allude to God's creation of the world in Genesis, and the strange ethics that accompany both places are explained in Ethics. They are a guard to remain in life and goodness, and I would wager to add on to Chesterton's hypothesis and say that the reason there is a guard for bad things (rather than bad things simply not existing at all) is because good would not be good without absence of good to compare it to. The ethics of Narnia was simply to not bring any evil into it, as it was a world that could be entered and therefore enter with evil in tow, as Digory did. The ethics of Eden were a little different - to not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge of good and evil was not necessary to enjoy life in the garden, but the opportunity for evil to come, the possibility of an evil and a protection against it, allowed for the inhabitants of the garden to continually choose good over evil, making the choice of goodness and the choice to be with the Lord more intimate.

Ben Pearce: Personal Topic 4 Blog 5

The Mystery of the Christ

            Since Christ’s coming was foretold by the prophets of old, he has been shrouded in a mystery. The Hebrew Tanakh promised to only give a glimpse at who was to come, but the New Testament still leaves much to be wondered. In the book of Isaiah, Isaiah prophecies that one would be stricken, smitten, and afflicted on the behalf of a people. He was compared to the lamb going to slaughter. Throughout the Psalms, David is, perhaps unknowingly, alluding to the future of his King. When Christ’s revelation is increased upon his incarnation, more of the shroud is taken away. Although he emptied himself into the likeness of man, he was still cloaked in mystery. For the length of his life, he would not say any more than he wanted revealed. He did not want his miracles broadcasted until a certain time, and the Father did not reveal that he was the Christ until a time that he deemed right. Still then, after his death and resurrection, there is more mystery. He had only shown his full glory to Peter, John, and James at his transfiguration. We can only wonder at what more there is to be found out, but are these wise questions? Should we seek to know more than he has already revealed to us? Are we becoming more enamored with the mystery than with Christ? Are we becoming more enamored with the myth of the rituals of communion and baptism then we are with Christ? Why should we spend our lives seeking the answers to these mysteries when it is clear God reveals only when he wants to? As he says in Deuteronomy, “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law”. 

Ben Pearce: Personal Topic 3 Blog 4

Do We Submit to God or Ourselves?

            Do we submit ourselves to God, or do we submit to our own selves? So often it seems like we take our perfect vision of morality and paint it upon God without thinking what he has to say. I am guilty of this too, but it has come to mind recently. Are some of my beliefs on morality solely out of tradition, or do they come from the unchanging, inspired, infallible word of God? When God says in 1 John, Do not love the world or anything in it, are we all ready to submit to that command? Are we ready to metaphorically cut off anything that distracts us from God when he says be willing to cut off and pluck out? Of course, none of us are without sin yet, but we should be holy as our Father in Heaven is holy. Are we worshipping God because he checks off enough boxes for us to consider him good, or do we worship him because he is God and therefore, what he says is good is good? This is a question that I think is important for all of us to answer and review. Although C.S. Lewis and I don’t see eye to eye on everything, I think he agrees with me when he says, “I don’t pray to change God, I pray to change me”. 

Judgement On Orual

Judgement On Orual 

Connections with Lewis: Till We Have Faces

November 25, 2016

“Orual of Glome,” the voice bellowed. “Come see me at once.” Mustering every ounce of Queenly courage she held, Orual strode off the podium on which she stood giving her defense. As she exited the courtroom there was a large thick navy curtain on her left. The man who had summoned her was standing next to it, motioning for her to step on the other side of the curtain with him. She did so. The man was tall and lean, much larger than Orual herself. He introduced himself as the poet of the gods. For a moment she wanted to laugh. A poet of the gods? The fact that such a position existed seemed baffling to her. What have the gods to do with poetry, she thought? Then another thought came to her. Perhaps it is another one of their crafty methods to lure in mortal beauty. Perhaps it had been used on Psyche herself! The though infuriated her. “Silence,” the man spoke. Though she had not yet uttered a word in his presence Orual reacted as if she had been speaking. For she perceived the man to be some sort of seer; one who could read her thoughts. “Perhaps your plight with the gods has not been what you think it to be,” the man said. This time, Orual was ready to listen. Something about the man’s slow, methodically fluid diction calmed her, while also engaging her sharpest attention. “You’ve seen all Psyche did but all with the wrong eyes. You see, Orual, it’s not so important what you see but how you see. That makes all the difference. Unless you learn to see straight you will always be worlds away from Psyche; your love nothing more than a greedy grasp. For up to this point, it has all gone this way for you.” Psyche is always in front of you if only you could see her.” “But what must I do to see her?” Orual replied imploringly. Over the next few hours, the poet of the gods told Orual the entire story from Psyche’s vantage point. By the story’s end, Orual was sobbing. “Oh Psyche! Always you were with me. But I was blind. Now I see it was you, always you!” she cried. “Psyche is gone now, dear Orual. You must face this. But from this moment she has arisen, inside of you. You have been called to carry out her story. For the same spirit of Psyche’s story now lives in you. And that the judgement the gods pass on you: to live out her story as she lived out yours. Now you have seen what she has seen. Keep this always before you and you will be free. There will be nothing in which you cannot find glory.” With this the poet of the gods disappeared behind the curtain, leaving Orual alone.

Ben Pearce: Personal Topic 2 Blog 3

The Scriptures on Philosophy

            The Christian Scriptures are the standard for the Christian life. They are filled with history, poetry, letters, and instructions; all pertaining to a life devoted to God and to holiness. They have a central theme about repentance and submission to God by faith in Jesus Christ and his death and bodily resurrection from the grave. Reading these scriptures is a key to continuing in the Christian life, and they guide all beliefs and create the lens through which the world must be viewed.

            Philosophy is the study of knowledge or wisdom (literally the love/φίλος of wisdom/σοφία). In a Christian life, this could be analyzing the text of scripture and using it to speculate truths possibly not directly revealed through the scriptures themselves. Whether it is hated or loved by theologians, it is used by them to understand texts that aren’t quite as clear. In this way it is indirectly related to exegesis of the scriptures and necessary to an extent. Many theological concepts that we hold to today can find their origin from philosophy.

            In Acts 17, Paul goes to the Areopagus to talk with the men of Athens. When he is here, he talks to them and shows them respect, pointing out that they are very devoted. He even quotes one of their own philosophers saying, “For we also are His children”. This shows that, truth can be truth, even if it comes from evil sources. Paul uses this philosopher to preach the Gospel to the Athenian men. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul uses the phrase, “Bad company corrupts good character”. This is a reference to one of their philosophers. Paul references this possibly to show them that even their own teachers give an instruction which they are not obeying. He was possibly using this to shame them for not even obeying what would have seemed natural to them.

            Although Paul uses some philosophers’ quotes, Scripture can also be very harsh to philosophy. Scripture in general doesn’t like the idea of a person being a “lover of wisdom” because it can be an idol before God. Paul talks mainly about the Gnostic knowledge seekers. In his letter to the Pastor Timothy, Paul says, “Avoid the pointless discussions and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge”. He also says to the Colossians, “Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ”. This is a stern rebuke that philosophy can be a dangerous and idolatrous thing.

            In conclusion, we can see that philosophy can be useful to the Christian life, but it can also be a wicked idol. We can study philosophies as long as the goal is to worship Christ and spread his Gospel. When we study philosophy, we need to be sure not to put any ideas above that of scripture which Christ used to back most of his statements up with. As Paul said in his second letter to the Corinthians, “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ”.