Inspired_by_Lewis's Xanga

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 02:45:05 GMT

Tuesday, January 24th

I must say, I am very glad I saw the movie Shadowlands in class today (Dad, you'd love it). I don't think I've seen such a wonderful movie in a long time. What's more: it's true.

I think after watching this movie I have gained such a deeper level of respect for Lewis than I thought possible. But not only for Lewis: for any person who has suffered the death of a loved one. I, myself, have not had to deal with this...but I will, sooner or later.

Some questions were raised to me while watching this (a few which were asked by Lewis himself):

Why love, if we know we'll lose?

Do we love in order to know we're not alone?

Why do humans have to die unnaturally?

How does God choose who should die in such a way?

I can understand how God can use death to stir the people who are left to deal with it...but what about the ones who go through it? I can understand, even, how it could stir those going through it for a long period of time (like cancer, for example), but what about those who die quickly (in a car accident, let's say). How would that benefit them? Especially if they are not saved? I understand that God can use pain as a tool, but in cases with sudden death, how would that be to the benefit of the dead?

The only thing I could think of was that God sees everything as a whole. I'm not saying He wishes that any should die..but He does wish that as many could come to Him as possible. Perhaps (now don't be offended...this is simply my pondering)...perhaps God sees that through one death, there is the potential for ten people to come to Christ. Though He would mourn the one death, perhaps He uses it for His greater purpose?

Please, I need your thoughts on this.

Noelle

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 02:31:54 GMT

Monday, January 23rd

The presentations were wonderful today! I must say, I thoroughly enjoyed coloring outside the lines . I did not have favorites, but the ones that really impressed on me were the "Childlike Faith" one, and the one on "Death and Hell". Actually, I suppose they all impressed on me (really, they did! I'm not just saying that)...these two just stuck out.

However, I don't really want to talk about individual presentations. I want to post a quote that I found while working on my presentation (on the humor of Lewis) that I rather enjoyed:

Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable.

Lewis, you've done it again: made me appreciate your style of writing, that is.

Read the quote again.

Doesn't it make you chuckle?

But it's so true...

Noelle

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 02:23:02 GMT

Friday, January 20th

"The Inner Ring" was an enjoyable piece by Lewis, though not quite as profound, I thought, as his other works. It's not that he didn't say anything inspiring...more so, it's that what he did say was quite obvious to me already: people will do anything in order to be accepted. I don't really have much to say about the essay, actually.

I guess I will mention one thing that stood out to me in the section from Screwtape Letters:

(Screwtape writing to Wormwood)
"Sooner or later, however, the real nature of his new friends must become clear to him, and then your tactics must depend on the patient's intelligence. If he is a big enough fool you can get him to realise the character of the friends only while they are absent; their presence can be made to sweep away all criticism."

I suppose I've come to this trap many times...and still struggle with: befriending people and telling myself "I'm not sure about them", but then quickly "sweeping away all criticism" when I'm around them...I rationalize, I excuse, I say "I was being too hard on them."

Perhaps I wasn't.

Noelle

Friday, January 20, 2006

Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:55:13 GMT

Thursday, January 19th

To be honest, I wasn't really sure what to think of the plenary yesterday. It's not that I didn't like it- it was probably my favorite. Rather, my issue was with how the stress seemed to be on happiness. I don't believe it's wrong to say that life should not be about happiness. Sure, we all want to be happy, but that's not the point. In fact, I think that if you are living your life full-out for God, you never will be completely happy. That is because we were not meant to be satisfied solely with the world. As Laura Smit said in her speech, God gives us moments of happiness, but we are never made completely happy because then our dependence would be on what this world can give us.

Perhaps I misinterpreted what Prof. Smit was trying to say. I believe, and I hope, that she was using happiness where I would have used joy. When she described how to live a "happy" life she may have been meaning what I would refer to as a "joyful life".

It's important to remember that with God all things are possible, but not all things are easy. (This reminds me of a previous post)

Noelle

Friday, January 20, 2006

Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:54:48 GMT

Wednesday, January 18th

C.S. Lewis strikes again! I loved this essay on "Three Ways of Writing for Children". That may be because I love kids, and anyone that can show plenty of respect for young ones has my respect.

I though it interesting what Adriana said in class about Lewis...how he didn't really have any experience with children. I thought that rather peculiar because of how well Lewis seemed to handle kids. Isn't that funny? It seems that those who have plenty of experience with children don't know how to handle it, and those who don't...do! However, that is only in some cases.

Anyways, I'm diverging from my point. About the essay..

I just loved how Lewis seemed to define the word childish. Why, it almost seemed that he was saying to be "grown-up" (in the terms of our culture) is to be childish. What was it...oh yes:

"When I became a man, I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."

Don't you just love that quote!? I don't know...maybe I'm getting to excited. But just think about how much this defies our culture's idea of "maturity" or "adulthood". In this world, we believe that in order to be grown-up, you have to want it, and you have to strive from it, and put any glimpse of childhood behind you. Not so! says Lewis. In order to be grown up, you must not be afraid to be like a child.

Remember when Christ said this?

Noelle

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Thu, 19 Jan 2006 02:43:19 GMT

Tuesday, January 17th

In Plantinga's chapter on "Redemption", the following sentences caught my attention:

"...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. I know it sounds paradoxical to say that we get freedom by obeying God's commandments, but that's actually the way things go."

This is what I would like to dwell on in my entry for today.

Why is obedience freeing? The restriction of selfishness means liberation, but why? I'm going to suggest something that I believe God would back me up on...

I believe that we were not created for ourselves. Our wiring, our psychological makeup...it all runs smoothest when we live for others. You can't tell me this isn't true. Why is it that when we steal for ourselves, fill our heads with pride, and live to make ourselves happy, we end up discouraged and hopeless? It is because love is what made the universe, and love is centered around others. God Himself is the very evidence of this. The Trinity- God, Father, Holy Spirit- is Love. Three Persons, interwoven in the purest, holiest relationship, into One Being. If we are made in the image of God, we must be patterned similarly.

Obeying is about giving up ourselves in this way. Ever notice, when breaking a rule, how guilty you feel? I think that goes back to the idea that we were not made for ourselves. We were given laws, then, not as punishment, but almost as...a gift. God saw man's inclination to live for himself (though, keep in mind, he was not made for this), and set up the law to adapt to his true wiring. By the law...by living selflessly...God knew the world could run smoothly, because, in fact, selflessness was a large component in the makeup of mankind.

I don't believe either alternative is very easy. Obedience restricts our fallen nature, but it frees our souls. Selfishness, on the other hand, chokes our souls and indulges our fallen nature. (I should wonder, then, if disobedience really profits us anything). I am simply encouraging you to pick what is right..in fact...what is logical, (I'd think that in this case the answer would be fairly obvious, but our world seems to be quite slow on the uptake) not what is easy, because you will not get that.

If you want what is easy, I suppose you should have to find a new reality.

noelle

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:25:37 GMT

Monday, January 16th

I can't even begin to explain how much the movie "The Mission" struck me today. As I asked people about it after class, I heard many responses such as "It was boring," or "That was a waste of my time." What are these people thinking!? Perhaps it was that I really felt God moving in me as I watched it. I couldn't be bored during it even if I tried, because the spiritual impact of the movie was overwhelming.

Imagine a society operated by Christ. Just imagine it! In our world today, it doesn't even seem possible. What would it be like if even a small community in Michigan operated around the Word of God? Yes, we have the Amish. But I'm not speaking in that sense. I mean...imagine a community set up right in the middle of everything else, a part of everything else, that is wholly centered on the person of Christ. What an impact that would make! In my mind, I envision something like a tidal wave, that starts at the center of that community and sweeps out into the rest of the world. I believe that is what would happen if such a Christ-focused community were allowed to exist.

Sadly, this movie shows how in our world, this is not the case. Power, money, prestige...these were evidently more important to the Spanish and Portugese than a world in which love was what made things flow.

I believe that today we are paying the price for that.

Noelle

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Tue, 17 Jan 2006 01:09:37 GMT

Friday, January 13th
Today I was mostly interested in what we discussed at Paulo & Adriana's home. That is..."The Pilgrim's Regress". Knowledge of the flaws of the church is something many people tend to keep to themselves, and only bring to the foreground when someone else mentions it first. But in this book, Lewis boldly makes a move. He bluntly (though symbolically) describes the flaws of the church. He does this by using the example of a boy being taken to a landlord.

So what are the flaws of the church? Lewis' idea is that the church tends to stress punishment for sins rather than redemption through Christ. And this, he seems to suggest, is what scares many people away from the church.

I've experienced this in my own life with friends. "Church is for goody-goodies," people have told me. Sadly, a large part of the reason that people believe such a thing is because the church has given them this impression. I believe that we, as a church...as a community of Christ, need to remember that Christ was not exclusive. He never snubbed anyone for being a sinner, but extended His love toward all peoples. If we, as Christians, are to follow the example of Christ, then we need to make sure we are doing that in every aspect.

Noelle

Monday, January 16, 2006

Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:41:13 GMT

Thursday, January 12th

Today's plenary was entitled "Learning to Lament". To be honest, I'm not really sure that I have much to say about it. Overall, I thought the speaker's points were very good.

It seemed that many people in the class tended to disagree with the idea that all bad things are results of the fall. "What about natural forest fires?" someone asked. I thought that this was a very good question. I don't believe we really have a clear answer.

Last night, as I was reading through Genesis Chapter 4, I began to ask myself similar questions. I poked my hand repeatedly until it became a little tender. The more I continued to do it, the more it would hurt. Eventually, it would probably bruise. "Is this type of pain a result of the fall?" I wondered, "Or is this just a part of being human?"

Many people like to believe that every single type of pain is a result of the fall. But when it comes to poking your hand repeatedly, is this true? How do we classify that type of pain?

Regardless of my "devil's advocate" type questions, I liked how the speaker explains what it means when we call things "results of the fall":

* It's not what God intended.
*We are in this together.
*We cannot get out of this ourselves.

But still, I must wonder: where does that bruise fit in?

~Noelle~

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:55:04 GMT

Wednesday, January 11th

I was excited about our discussion today on "Eros", because I recently bought "The Four Loves", and figured that by studying one of the types of love that Lewis addresses, it would give me an idea of how much I would enjoy the rest of the book. Well lets just say, if this section is a good example of book's entire content, it's going to be a really good read.

Perhaps the greatest thing that struck me today was Lewis' example of what love is. Let me give you the quote:

" Very often what comes first is simply a delighted pre-occupation with the Beloved- a general, unspecified pre-occupation with her in her totality. A man in this state really hasn't the leisure to think of sex. He is too busy thinking of a person. The fact that she is woman is far less important than the fact the she is herself."

Wow. I don't have much to say about that..."Wow" pretty much sums up my response. However, I must say that I believe, as Christians, we have a duty to practice this type of romantic love (when, of course, the time is right), not the type the world would have us believe in. It's not about good feelings and goosebumps and butterflies in your stomach. It's about caring so much about a person because of who they are, not who they can be for you. It is about removing yourself from the purpose, and putting the other at the center.

Noelle