I had the pleasure of visiting a local church for Sunday service this morning, and as we were getting ready to pray, we were directed to prepare our hearts for prayer. In the process, the leader said this and I quote, "as you get ready to pray, prepare yourself however you do to go to your God." Now how I took this was to say that however I view God in my own mind, I was to prepare myself to go to Him, whatever that might look like. I am hoping that isn't how it was intended, but it got me to thinking.
How many times do we tend to look at God in a way that makes us feel better about our position or our condition? In times of distress, do we look at God as a tender loving God that will certainly not allow us to go through trials and tribulations? In times of great prosperity, do we tend to see God as Ok with us because life is so good and I'll bet even often times, we forget about Him, because there hasn't been a "need" to go to Him.
We need to be careful about doing this, because God is who He says He is. We cannot make God into something He is not. We must not assume Him to be anything other than what He says in His word that He is. If we do, we break the first and second commandment:
"ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
There are literally hundreds of references in the Bible where God says "I AM..." He tells us who He is, we just need to pay attention and stop assuming who He is. When we assume or try to make God something that He is not, we form in our mind an idol, a false God. This is why it is important we come to know the character and nature of God, who He says He is.
We should not be under any allusion that we each have access to our own God, or that we even have a deal with God that allows us to live our lives as we choose. There is but ONE God, He is the same yesterday, today and forever. We either choose to serve Him as HE is or not at all. It is not God that changes, we do.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Boys will be boys
This is a response paper I had to write to an column that showed up in our local paper back in 2000.
Jonah Goldberg in his column “War on boys is war on manhood” brings some very interesting information to light concerning the current philosophy of raising children, specifically boys, in such a way as to curb their “barbaric” behaviors and level the playing field for children in general. He addresses the issue of self-esteem and egos in children being harmed due to competitive environments.
Goldberg’s visit to the Upper West Side Manhattan school, brings up some disturbing and sad images of children not having a reason to try to do their best. Where is the reward in telling a child that no matter how hard he or she tries, they will do no better than a child who doesn’t? How then is the child’s ego or self-esteem boosted, which in turn brings about a desire to do better the next time. By removing the affirmation of hard work and individual growth, you essentially remove the desire or the drive to do anything at all. Being competitive is a natural instinct of a boy. Instead of squelching it and driving it out of him, we would do better to teach them how to harness it to work for them, to better them, and to eventually better society through it.
Society today would have us believe that by taking away the natural instincts of boys and regulating them in their ability to act as boys, we can effectively enhance not only their adolescence but that of the female gender as well. According to academic feminists, “…girls are an endangered species, falling further behind academically and socially.” (Goldberg, 2000) They go on to claim that, “Boys create a competitive, nasty, environment.” Gloria Steinem says the solution to this issue is to, “…raise boys like we raise girls.” Goldberg does not agree with this position nor that of the school, that being of an “everybody wins” mindset, which says, no matter how bad or good you do, as long as you had fun, that’s all that matters. He sites several statistics in response to the claims that girls are falling behind academically and socially. Some of them concerning education being that, “Girls read more books, get better grades,” and “take more Advanced Placement Classes.” Goldberg also cites that in 1997, “56 percent of college freshman were girls… boys 44 percent.”
Some of the main assumptions that come from Goldberg’s arguments are that “all children are essentially barbarians, but boys especially so. Thus it requires more work to make them into human beings.” This argument assumes that children are inherently bad or naturally mean and aggressive. I would content that children are a product of their environment at home. Children are sponges and will learn from what they experience and see. I think Goldberg goes a bit far in terming all children as barbarians; maybe a more suited term or phrase would be to say that all children are ignorant to acceptable behavior and need to be instructed and taught toward that end. That responsibility falls on the shoulders of the parents, not the school system.
Another assumption of Goldberg is that allowing boys to be boys will eventually lead them to being well adjusted men. I would again contend that allowing boys to act, as they will, will most likely not produce a well adjusted man but will produce a man that thinks he can act any way he wants and get away with it. Well-adjusted men are men that understand their ability and nature to act in certain ways, but demonstrate control over that ability. When faced with a problem or issue, men certainly act differently than women do, and in most cases for specific reasons. For example; In times of war, it is easier for a male to fight with an aggressive nature than for a female. And when your child comes to you crying because they skinned their knee, they often times will want mommy because a female can provide that tender loving support needed at the time.
For the most part, I agree with what Goldberg states in his column. I disagree with the stance these particular schools have taken with teaching children that hard work, perseverance and a competitive spirit are bad traits. I think in the log run, they are setting those particular children up for failure as adults, especially in their careers and in their relationships. I agree that we should allow boys to act like boys, to demonstrate, in a healthy way, their competitiveness and aggressiveness. I believe that by doing so, we will bring up men that will be able to understand who they are, what they are capable of, and endow them with a spirit of perseverance that will bring them through the difficult things life can throw at them. For myself, my three sons will be allowed to play hard, challenge each other, discover what they can and can’t do and all with the intent of training them to become a man that can be respected, trusted and dependable.
References
Goldberg, J. (2000, July 17). War on boys is war on manhood. Fort Wayne Journal-
Gazette, p. A11.
Jonah Goldberg in his column “War on boys is war on manhood” brings some very interesting information to light concerning the current philosophy of raising children, specifically boys, in such a way as to curb their “barbaric” behaviors and level the playing field for children in general. He addresses the issue of self-esteem and egos in children being harmed due to competitive environments.
Goldberg’s visit to the Upper West Side Manhattan school, brings up some disturbing and sad images of children not having a reason to try to do their best. Where is the reward in telling a child that no matter how hard he or she tries, they will do no better than a child who doesn’t? How then is the child’s ego or self-esteem boosted, which in turn brings about a desire to do better the next time. By removing the affirmation of hard work and individual growth, you essentially remove the desire or the drive to do anything at all. Being competitive is a natural instinct of a boy. Instead of squelching it and driving it out of him, we would do better to teach them how to harness it to work for them, to better them, and to eventually better society through it.
Society today would have us believe that by taking away the natural instincts of boys and regulating them in their ability to act as boys, we can effectively enhance not only their adolescence but that of the female gender as well. According to academic feminists, “…girls are an endangered species, falling further behind academically and socially.” (Goldberg, 2000) They go on to claim that, “Boys create a competitive, nasty, environment.” Gloria Steinem says the solution to this issue is to, “…raise boys like we raise girls.” Goldberg does not agree with this position nor that of the school, that being of an “everybody wins” mindset, which says, no matter how bad or good you do, as long as you had fun, that’s all that matters. He sites several statistics in response to the claims that girls are falling behind academically and socially. Some of them concerning education being that, “Girls read more books, get better grades,” and “take more Advanced Placement Classes.” Goldberg also cites that in 1997, “56 percent of college freshman were girls… boys 44 percent.”
Some of the main assumptions that come from Goldberg’s arguments are that “all children are essentially barbarians, but boys especially so. Thus it requires more work to make them into human beings.” This argument assumes that children are inherently bad or naturally mean and aggressive. I would content that children are a product of their environment at home. Children are sponges and will learn from what they experience and see. I think Goldberg goes a bit far in terming all children as barbarians; maybe a more suited term or phrase would be to say that all children are ignorant to acceptable behavior and need to be instructed and taught toward that end. That responsibility falls on the shoulders of the parents, not the school system.
Another assumption of Goldberg is that allowing boys to be boys will eventually lead them to being well adjusted men. I would again contend that allowing boys to act, as they will, will most likely not produce a well adjusted man but will produce a man that thinks he can act any way he wants and get away with it. Well-adjusted men are men that understand their ability and nature to act in certain ways, but demonstrate control over that ability. When faced with a problem or issue, men certainly act differently than women do, and in most cases for specific reasons. For example; In times of war, it is easier for a male to fight with an aggressive nature than for a female. And when your child comes to you crying because they skinned their knee, they often times will want mommy because a female can provide that tender loving support needed at the time.
For the most part, I agree with what Goldberg states in his column. I disagree with the stance these particular schools have taken with teaching children that hard work, perseverance and a competitive spirit are bad traits. I think in the log run, they are setting those particular children up for failure as adults, especially in their careers and in their relationships. I agree that we should allow boys to act like boys, to demonstrate, in a healthy way, their competitiveness and aggressiveness. I believe that by doing so, we will bring up men that will be able to understand who they are, what they are capable of, and endow them with a spirit of perseverance that will bring them through the difficult things life can throw at them. For myself, my three sons will be allowed to play hard, challenge each other, discover what they can and can’t do and all with the intent of training them to become a man that can be respected, trusted and dependable.
References
Goldberg, J. (2000, July 17). War on boys is war on manhood. Fort Wayne Journal-
Gazette, p. A11.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Paper #6 - Christian Behavior
Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him?
Loving our enemies has to be one of the hardest things we can do as Christians. I do not understand, outside of being God, how Christ hurl curses at the guards that beat him to within an inch of his life. I do not understand how he could stand in front of the crowd that was calling out, “crucify him!” and not argue back in his own defense. Quietly, and with love he looked on them with a heart of compassion and anguish for their actions. The question above takes this one step further and asks about punishment. How can we punish someone we are suppose to love, it sounds contrary to itself, however; using the argument that Lewis uses it can be understood. If we are to love others as we love ourselves, then we are also to treat others as we would treat ourselves. As Lewis says, “…loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment- even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. It is therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian solider to kill an enemy.” (Lewis, 1952, p.118)
Lewis states that Christ did not preach anything new in regards to morality. What is the real job of every moral teacher?
I believe the real job of every moral teacher is to teach morality not as something that is new, but morality as it has always existed. New morality is adjusted morality to fit the culture of that time, and more often than not a skewed morality that has been tweaked to fit that people group or culture to make them feel better about themselves. I also think that a good moral teacher should help people understand that morals not only exist for the protection and betterment of others, but they also pertain to the wellbeing of the individual and the relationship between that individual and their creator. The metaphor of the sea worthy ship was useful in helping me understand that I may look good on the outside and may be going the right direction in the convoy of life, but If I cannot steer or control this vessel, what good am I to the convoy, better yet how much damage can I do to the other ships (people) around me if I don’t make sure the inside of me is taken care of as well.
Lewis states that charity (giving to the poor) is an essential part of Christianity. How can we gauge our level of charity according to Lewis?
I really appreciate what Lewis had to say about giving to the poor and to those in need, specifically when he said, “I do not believe that one can settle how much we ought to give. I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words if our expenditures on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc., is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away to little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small.” This is a great way of looking at it. I remember the story in the bible about Jesus sitting in the temple watching people. The Pharisees came in and gave an offering out of their overflow or out of their excess, but a woman came in and gave 2 small coins, all she had. Christ noticing her told his disciples that she had given much more than they because she had given everything she had and the Pharisees had given that which did not hurt them. This is a wonderful thing to consider the next time we give to the poor.
What are the two things we can do to make loving our enemies easier?
I think the first thing we can do is to understand that before we accepted Christ, we to were enemies to God. Yet He loved us not because of what we were or what we could do, but because of what we could become through Him. Not that our enemies will be come something through us, rather they will become something useful through God. The second thing that can make it easier for us to love our enemies is that we are commanded to love others as we love ourselves. We do not walk around hating ourselves. We may hate our situation or the things that have happened to us, but that is not self hate, that is a whole other matter. I believe there is a third issue we must consider that being the love of God for our enemies. We may feel that sense of hate or distain toward those who would harm us or have harmed us, but God still desires that person to be broken and surrender to Him and his will for their life. Because of our love for our father, we to ought to love those He loves.
In Lewis' mind, why is the command 'Though shalt not Kill' not a moratorium against fighting in war or the death penalty?
I found this a very interesting thought process. I did not realize, although I should have, that the Greek usage of the word “kill” is different from that of “murder”. The Greek word for “kill” is apokteinO and the Greek for murder is phoneuO. Christ used two different words in his teachings about killing. To murder with intent, with hatred, with disgust for the other person is wrong. Killing for reasons of war, or judgment carry with them different motives. We must not kill for the enjoyment of it or for the retribution of it. Some of us will find ourselves in situations where we must make that chilling and difficult choice, whether it be war or self defense, the underlying factor is that we recognize that, “Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves – to wish that he were not bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good.” (Lewis, 1952, p.120) Certainly this is difficult to contemplate, and I pray that I may never be faced with the situation where I have to choose.
References
Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere christianity. New York: HarperCollins
Loving our enemies has to be one of the hardest things we can do as Christians. I do not understand, outside of being God, how Christ hurl curses at the guards that beat him to within an inch of his life. I do not understand how he could stand in front of the crowd that was calling out, “crucify him!” and not argue back in his own defense. Quietly, and with love he looked on them with a heart of compassion and anguish for their actions. The question above takes this one step further and asks about punishment. How can we punish someone we are suppose to love, it sounds contrary to itself, however; using the argument that Lewis uses it can be understood. If we are to love others as we love ourselves, then we are also to treat others as we would treat ourselves. As Lewis says, “…loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment- even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. It is therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian solider to kill an enemy.” (Lewis, 1952, p.118)
Lewis states that Christ did not preach anything new in regards to morality. What is the real job of every moral teacher?
I believe the real job of every moral teacher is to teach morality not as something that is new, but morality as it has always existed. New morality is adjusted morality to fit the culture of that time, and more often than not a skewed morality that has been tweaked to fit that people group or culture to make them feel better about themselves. I also think that a good moral teacher should help people understand that morals not only exist for the protection and betterment of others, but they also pertain to the wellbeing of the individual and the relationship between that individual and their creator. The metaphor of the sea worthy ship was useful in helping me understand that I may look good on the outside and may be going the right direction in the convoy of life, but If I cannot steer or control this vessel, what good am I to the convoy, better yet how much damage can I do to the other ships (people) around me if I don’t make sure the inside of me is taken care of as well.
Lewis states that charity (giving to the poor) is an essential part of Christianity. How can we gauge our level of charity according to Lewis?
I really appreciate what Lewis had to say about giving to the poor and to those in need, specifically when he said, “I do not believe that one can settle how much we ought to give. I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words if our expenditures on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc., is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away to little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small.” This is a great way of looking at it. I remember the story in the bible about Jesus sitting in the temple watching people. The Pharisees came in and gave an offering out of their overflow or out of their excess, but a woman came in and gave 2 small coins, all she had. Christ noticing her told his disciples that she had given much more than they because she had given everything she had and the Pharisees had given that which did not hurt them. This is a wonderful thing to consider the next time we give to the poor.
What are the two things we can do to make loving our enemies easier?
I think the first thing we can do is to understand that before we accepted Christ, we to were enemies to God. Yet He loved us not because of what we were or what we could do, but because of what we could become through Him. Not that our enemies will be come something through us, rather they will become something useful through God. The second thing that can make it easier for us to love our enemies is that we are commanded to love others as we love ourselves. We do not walk around hating ourselves. We may hate our situation or the things that have happened to us, but that is not self hate, that is a whole other matter. I believe there is a third issue we must consider that being the love of God for our enemies. We may feel that sense of hate or distain toward those who would harm us or have harmed us, but God still desires that person to be broken and surrender to Him and his will for their life. Because of our love for our father, we to ought to love those He loves.
In Lewis' mind, why is the command 'Though shalt not Kill' not a moratorium against fighting in war or the death penalty?
I found this a very interesting thought process. I did not realize, although I should have, that the Greek usage of the word “kill” is different from that of “murder”. The Greek word for “kill” is apokteinO and the Greek for murder is phoneuO. Christ used two different words in his teachings about killing. To murder with intent, with hatred, with disgust for the other person is wrong. Killing for reasons of war, or judgment carry with them different motives. We must not kill for the enjoyment of it or for the retribution of it. Some of us will find ourselves in situations where we must make that chilling and difficult choice, whether it be war or self defense, the underlying factor is that we recognize that, “Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves – to wish that he were not bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good.” (Lewis, 1952, p.120) Certainly this is difficult to contemplate, and I pray that I may never be faced with the situation where I have to choose.
References
Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere christianity. New York: HarperCollins
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Paper #5 - Sin, does it mean anything anymore?
The website article where I retrieved this information was from USA Today.com The basic premise of this article was to explore the topic of sin and whether or not it still hold any specific meaning in today’s culture. The article was given in a fair manner by not only supplying survey information against the validity of the existence of “sin”, but also providing interview and speech quotes for its existence and the dire need to understand that it has real consequences if not addressed in the proper manor.
Of the surveys submitted, it was clear that the concept of “sin” and its effects and ramifications on society has become a backburner issue. “David Kinnaman, president of Barna Research, a company in Ventura, Calif., that tracks Christian trends, draws a similar conclusion: "People are quick to toe the line on traditional thinking" that there is sin "but interpret that reality in a very personal and self-congratulatory manner" — I have to do what's best for me; I am not as sinful as most.” (Grossman, 2008,) by taking such a view we underestimate the power sin has in our lives and what that kind of mindset can actually cost us in the long run.
The article also examined how ministers in today’s society speak about sin. The comment was made that sin is taboo and it is not something that most people like to discuss, but today’s ministers also understand that it must be talked about in order for the rest of the story to make sense. One popular preacher has decided to not talk about sin, but rather to talk about change. Joel Olsteen was quoted as saying, "Most people already know what they're doing wrong. When I get them to church, I want to tell them that you can change." (Grossman, 2008,) For all practical purposes I agree that we should tell people they can change, however; I would say that most people understand that they can change; but what they need to understand is why they must change.
Mark Driscoll was also interviewed and his take on the taboo word of sin was this, “…a little talk of hellfire, so out of fashion these days, would do the world good.” He defines sin as "anything contrary to God's will. People assume the way they are is normal, not that something has gone terribly wrong, and this world is abnormal…without an idea of sin, Easter is meaningless." (Grossman, 2008,)
Sin must be recognized as the poison that it is. If it is not dealt with according to the plan laid out in the word of God, then it is truly not dealt with, only forgotten or ignored. That kind of mindset will only last for so long.
References
Grossman, C. L., (2008). Usatoday: Has the “notion of sin” been lost? Retrieved August
29, 2009, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-03-19-sin_N.htm
Of the surveys submitted, it was clear that the concept of “sin” and its effects and ramifications on society has become a backburner issue. “David Kinnaman, president of Barna Research, a company in Ventura, Calif., that tracks Christian trends, draws a similar conclusion: "People are quick to toe the line on traditional thinking" that there is sin "but interpret that reality in a very personal and self-congratulatory manner" — I have to do what's best for me; I am not as sinful as most.” (Grossman, 2008,) by taking such a view we underestimate the power sin has in our lives and what that kind of mindset can actually cost us in the long run.
The article also examined how ministers in today’s society speak about sin. The comment was made that sin is taboo and it is not something that most people like to discuss, but today’s ministers also understand that it must be talked about in order for the rest of the story to make sense. One popular preacher has decided to not talk about sin, but rather to talk about change. Joel Olsteen was quoted as saying, "Most people already know what they're doing wrong. When I get them to church, I want to tell them that you can change." (Grossman, 2008,) For all practical purposes I agree that we should tell people they can change, however; I would say that most people understand that they can change; but what they need to understand is why they must change.
Mark Driscoll was also interviewed and his take on the taboo word of sin was this, “…a little talk of hellfire, so out of fashion these days, would do the world good.” He defines sin as "anything contrary to God's will. People assume the way they are is normal, not that something has gone terribly wrong, and this world is abnormal…without an idea of sin, Easter is meaningless." (Grossman, 2008,)
Sin must be recognized as the poison that it is. If it is not dealt with according to the plan laid out in the word of God, then it is truly not dealt with, only forgotten or ignored. That kind of mindset will only last for so long.
References
Grossman, C. L., (2008). Usatoday: Has the “notion of sin” been lost? Retrieved August
29, 2009, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-03-19-sin_N.htm
Paper #4 - What Christians Believe
In book one, Lewis makes the statement that his, “…argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how ad I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called in unjust?” (Lewis, 1943, p.38) This argument alone is a great concept for one to investigate.
Romans 5:12-13 says, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned; for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.” (NIV) Because the law was brought into the world to expose our sin, begs the question or argument that our sin is in contention with something. The notion that our sin needs to be pointed out and exposed, suggests that our sin goes against a presupposed condition, that condition being goodness or right standing with a higher power (God). If the Law was given by God or determined by God to hold us accountable of our sin, and to bring us back to our previous position with Him, it stands to reason that God is good, sin is bad and the law helps us determine between the two. Without the law how would one know that they are in sin?
Chapter two speaks about good verses evil and how people view the two. Lewis states that the moment we say one is wrong and the other is right, we insert a third qualitative element that determines the difference between them. “But since the two powers are judged by this standard, then this standard, or the Being who made this standard, is further back and higher up than either of them, and He will be the real God. In fact, what we meant by calling them good and bad turns out to be that one of them is in a right relation to the real ultimate God and the other in a wrong relation to Him.” (Lewis, 1943, p.43) How could we know good to be right unless there is something to match it up against? Without light, one would not know what darkness is.
In chapter three, Lewis speaks about some people that say things like, “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” Lewis so wittingly points out how absurd and shallow this statement is. Understanding the context of this statement and the ramifications of such a claim do much to back up the claim. A “great” moral teacher would never be so foolish as to claim to be something he is not let alone God. It would go against his morality to do so.
Lewis goes on in chapter four about how we need God to help us walk the road of redemption back to him because the very “badness” that took us away or separated us from God, keeps us from walking that road on our own. But because that road of surrender, repentance, and dying to our sinful nature go against God’s character and nature, he could not walk that road. It then became necessary for God to become man thus the birth of Jesus Christ. Although fully God, He lived as man in the flesh, subjected to the same temptations and suffering that we are. Through Christ in the flesh, God was and is able to walk us down that road of redemption. Christ acts as the tour guide to show us the way, and walk with us as we go.
Finally in chapter five, Lewis makes the fundamental distinction between salvation by works verses salvation by grace through faith. It is important for us to understand this because it is a bedrock teaching of Christianity. “…the Christian is in a different position from other people who are trying to be good. They hope, by being good, to please God if there is one; or, if they think there is not, at least they hope to deserve approval from good men. But the Christian thinks any good he does comes from the Christ-life inside him. He does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us; just as the roof of a greenhouse does not attract the sun because it is bright, but becomes bright because the sun shines on it.” Lewis, 1943, p.63) It is through the life of Christ that lives in us that God would be willing to grant us salvation and remove our deserved punishment of death and eternal separation from Him.
Resources
Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere christianity. New York: HarperCollins
Romans 5:12-13 says, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned; for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.” (NIV) Because the law was brought into the world to expose our sin, begs the question or argument that our sin is in contention with something. The notion that our sin needs to be pointed out and exposed, suggests that our sin goes against a presupposed condition, that condition being goodness or right standing with a higher power (God). If the Law was given by God or determined by God to hold us accountable of our sin, and to bring us back to our previous position with Him, it stands to reason that God is good, sin is bad and the law helps us determine between the two. Without the law how would one know that they are in sin?
Chapter two speaks about good verses evil and how people view the two. Lewis states that the moment we say one is wrong and the other is right, we insert a third qualitative element that determines the difference between them. “But since the two powers are judged by this standard, then this standard, or the Being who made this standard, is further back and higher up than either of them, and He will be the real God. In fact, what we meant by calling them good and bad turns out to be that one of them is in a right relation to the real ultimate God and the other in a wrong relation to Him.” (Lewis, 1943, p.43) How could we know good to be right unless there is something to match it up against? Without light, one would not know what darkness is.
In chapter three, Lewis speaks about some people that say things like, “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” Lewis so wittingly points out how absurd and shallow this statement is. Understanding the context of this statement and the ramifications of such a claim do much to back up the claim. A “great” moral teacher would never be so foolish as to claim to be something he is not let alone God. It would go against his morality to do so.
Lewis goes on in chapter four about how we need God to help us walk the road of redemption back to him because the very “badness” that took us away or separated us from God, keeps us from walking that road on our own. But because that road of surrender, repentance, and dying to our sinful nature go against God’s character and nature, he could not walk that road. It then became necessary for God to become man thus the birth of Jesus Christ. Although fully God, He lived as man in the flesh, subjected to the same temptations and suffering that we are. Through Christ in the flesh, God was and is able to walk us down that road of redemption. Christ acts as the tour guide to show us the way, and walk with us as we go.
Finally in chapter five, Lewis makes the fundamental distinction between salvation by works verses salvation by grace through faith. It is important for us to understand this because it is a bedrock teaching of Christianity. “…the Christian is in a different position from other people who are trying to be good. They hope, by being good, to please God if there is one; or, if they think there is not, at least they hope to deserve approval from good men. But the Christian thinks any good he does comes from the Christ-life inside him. He does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us; just as the roof of a greenhouse does not attract the sun because it is bright, but becomes bright because the sun shines on it.” Lewis, 1943, p.63) It is through the life of Christ that lives in us that God would be willing to grant us salvation and remove our deserved punishment of death and eternal separation from Him.
Resources
Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere christianity. New York: HarperCollins
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)