Is it alright to pursuit learning even when brave soldiers are dying in war? Is it alright to pursue knowledge and beauty when humanity is in danger of going to hell?
Some people claim that when in war, one’s life ought to be only national, and in all circumstances it only ought to be religious. There is sense in these words. I mean, one is supposed to love one’s country and love God at all times, right? However, even if it ought to be such way, it’s just “not going to happen.” It’s simply impossible for a human being to concentrate in one thing and live its life based on it until it dies. If one thinks about it, one cannot ever be perfect in any sense. When a soldier gets to nearer to the front lines, the soldier’s thoughts about his country diminishes and he thinks about his life: his family, his past and his present. His head would be most probably filled with thoughts of returning alive rather than saving the nation.
War therefore is like most duties, maybe something “worth dying for but not living for.” The only One whom one is to live for is for God. All living will be accepted if it’s a living that glorifies Him. As I see it, food, work, knowledge, beauty, and more, are all gifts from God. If one uses these gifts in a way that pleases God and to His Glory, then one is not doing any wrong. Like Lewis writes, “All…. Merely natural activities will be accepted, if they are offered to God, even the humblest: all of them, even the noblest, will be sinful if they are not.”
One does not have to forget though that the gifts are not good for themselves, but that the One who gave the gifts is good and therefore they are good. Thus, some gifts are never more valuable than others in front of God’s eyes. Sweeping the church can please God just as much as composing a rhapsody. I believe it’s the heart that matters; a heart that wants glory, a heart that wants to please God (from The weight of Glory”) is what’s appreciated. Everyone has different talents and vocations, but all of them can be used to praise the Lord.
Because the world has been tainted with sin, sometimes knowledge has become more of a necessity than something to pursue for the sake of it. It would be almost impossible to survive without any knowledge at all. All kinds of knowledge are used in all areas of life, thus to survive one has to learn.
However, there are certain things that interfere with a learning that’s “pure” and “humble.” One of them is excitement. I suppose Lewis means by excitement, something like sudden caring, when one was to care all along. For example, Lewis writes that war has not brought a “new situation” but has “aggravated an old one.” Humanity has always been on danger of heading the wrong path, but war has merely brought awareness of it. So one must always do the best one can; one must carpe diem all the days of one’s life.
The second problem is frustration. For example, sometimes I get frustrated because twenty four hours a day doesn’t seem enough for all the activities I want to finish. How much so then for the people who frustrate over the fact that there is a limited time for learning and will never be able to finish knowing all knowledge? This is an inevitable fate, though, and dwelling on misery is not going to make it fade away. One should simply, rejoice in the present, and leave the future in God’s compassionate hand.
The last disturber is fear, fear of death and pain. Fear is in a sense, good. It reminds humans of their mortality, but that does not mean that humans are to succumb to fear of death and pain. Jesus has triumphed over those. It’s natural to fear, but not to fear all the time to the point of not doing anything but hide.
My own conclusion then is this: Pursuing knowledge and some other activities can be a necessity, but above all, they are gifts of grace and love. Just like Solomon says in the Bible, "Then I realized that it is good and proper for a man to eat and drink, and to find satisfaction in his toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given him—for this is his lot. Moreover, when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his work—this is a gift of God." (Eclesiastes 5:18-19) It's alright to enjoy the gifts of life, but one must do so properly. This is a hard task, but if it is done so, then one will be able to glorify God.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
The Poison of Subjectivism
Just like the title reads, Subjectivism is poison to humanity.
One can ask: What’s so bad about subjectivism? Well, subjectivism is a “doctrine that all knowledge is limited to experiences by the self, and that transcendent knowledge is impossible”(dictionary.reference.com). Lewis writes that denying the real existence of all things affects the judgment of good and evil, because it believes that judgment is merely something created, conditioned by the community one lives in and not something that exists separately.
This is impossible not only because one cannot be totally subjective anyways since one would have to assume the truthfulness of one’s logic to support the idea that everything is subjective, but because there is always a standard for what’s good. I agree with this statement because it makes total sense. Judging on base of an original criteria is something that comes naturally and no one can help but submit to it.
There are two undeniable facts: one, a human hasn’t got the ability to create a new ‘morality.’ New ethics yes, but not morality. Thus two is that though one cannot come up with a new ‘morality’ one can come up with different ‘ethics’ depending of the culture and time. Ethics can be called a branch out of the morality tree. Depending on the location and the season it sprouts in, it grows differently. It’s the same with cultures. Because each culture values different things over another, they have different ethics. But once one opens the encyclopedia (as Lewis recommends), one is bound to realize that the basic morality is all the same. All cultures despise selfishness, and all hail honor and courage.
Now some say “to tie ourselves to an immutable moral code is to cut off all progress and acquiesce in stagnation.” However, this is not true. “The square on the hypotenuse has not gone moldy by continuing to equal the sum of the squares on the other two sides.” On the contrary, because this rule has remained true for years, it's possible to do more complicated and advanced math. However this doesn't mean that math itself has changed; math has been on the same place the whole time.What has changed, is the amount of one's knowledge of it; this is what one is to call "progress".
Here is the last question, was ‘good’ made by God or God commands us to do ‘good’ because it’s good? This question is bound to not make sense to us. A human being is only able to gather a limited amount of experience and thus this is not a matter one can explain with what one knows. Just like in the book “Flatland” (I have read this funny, logical book), flatlanders who live in a two dimensional space can never imagine from where they are how does a third dimension work or exists. It’s something beyond their comprehension. Thus Lewis gives the only conclusion he was able to make which I too cannot contradict: God is Good and Good is God.
While reading this article and going through it, I noticed that this writing touches many of the same points as “Mere Christianity.” It supports the same idea that there exists an objective moral law, but it adds to that that subjectivism is turning Moral law into nothing more than an idea that was created by humans when it was truly created by God. In the end, Lewis concludes that we must “return to the crude and nursery-like belief in objective values,” or humanity (or civilization) will "perish", since progress would be denied and chaos would reign.
One can ask: What’s so bad about subjectivism? Well, subjectivism is a “doctrine that all knowledge is limited to experiences by the self, and that transcendent knowledge is impossible”(dictionary.reference.com). Lewis writes that denying the real existence of all things affects the judgment of good and evil, because it believes that judgment is merely something created, conditioned by the community one lives in and not something that exists separately.
This is impossible not only because one cannot be totally subjective anyways since one would have to assume the truthfulness of one’s logic to support the idea that everything is subjective, but because there is always a standard for what’s good. I agree with this statement because it makes total sense. Judging on base of an original criteria is something that comes naturally and no one can help but submit to it.
There are two undeniable facts: one, a human hasn’t got the ability to create a new ‘morality.’ New ethics yes, but not morality. Thus two is that though one cannot come up with a new ‘morality’ one can come up with different ‘ethics’ depending of the culture and time. Ethics can be called a branch out of the morality tree. Depending on the location and the season it sprouts in, it grows differently. It’s the same with cultures. Because each culture values different things over another, they have different ethics. But once one opens the encyclopedia (as Lewis recommends), one is bound to realize that the basic morality is all the same. All cultures despise selfishness, and all hail honor and courage.
Now some say “to tie ourselves to an immutable moral code is to cut off all progress and acquiesce in stagnation.” However, this is not true. “The square on the hypotenuse has not gone moldy by continuing to equal the sum of the squares on the other two sides.” On the contrary, because this rule has remained true for years, it's possible to do more complicated and advanced math. However this doesn't mean that math itself has changed; math has been on the same place the whole time.What has changed, is the amount of one's knowledge of it; this is what one is to call "progress".
Here is the last question, was ‘good’ made by God or God commands us to do ‘good’ because it’s good? This question is bound to not make sense to us. A human being is only able to gather a limited amount of experience and thus this is not a matter one can explain with what one knows. Just like in the book “Flatland” (I have read this funny, logical book), flatlanders who live in a two dimensional space can never imagine from where they are how does a third dimension work or exists. It’s something beyond their comprehension. Thus Lewis gives the only conclusion he was able to make which I too cannot contradict: God is Good and Good is God.
While reading this article and going through it, I noticed that this writing touches many of the same points as “Mere Christianity.” It supports the same idea that there exists an objective moral law, but it adds to that that subjectivism is turning Moral law into nothing more than an idea that was created by humans when it was truly created by God. In the end, Lewis concludes that we must “return to the crude and nursery-like belief in objective values,” or humanity (or civilization) will "perish", since progress would be denied and chaos would reign.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
BBC Program: C.S Lewis
I was always intimidated by the name of “C.S Lewis.” I had read the Chronicles of Narnia, but never really had the chance of reading his essays. From what I had heard they were definitely not children’s stories, but something that required a deep meditating mind. Thus I entered this DCM class (still a little bit scared) with the full intention of learning more about C.S Lewis. And I did; his works and, today, his life.
After reflecting upon some of his works and finally listening to the BBC, I learned that Lewis was not as intimidating as I thought. As we approached him as a human being, my intimidation was replaced by admiration. If he had been merely a genius, without flaws, successful in everything, then it would have been no wonder for me that he could have written such wonderful masterpieces of writings. However, l came to know that he was actually head strong, amazingly stubborn, sloppy in dressing , quite an enjoyer of joking, yet serious in reflecting every little thing he could think of and actually human (I cannot stop admiring God for designing such an interesting human).
When I was hearing all the comments about him from the BBC program, I had the sudden urge to know, what did he see? What was the world he saw?
Maybe it was a world full of detail, philosophy, joy, or anything I can’t imagine or something really not that special. But how can it not be special when his writings say it all?
Thus I simply thought, “It must have been a wonderful world.”
However I did not merely admire him because of his interesting combination of characteristics. I admired him because he, together with his dying wife, had been strong in the Lord even when facing sorrowful pain. So strong, in fact, that it made an everlasting impression on one of his friends. Indeed, the real reason I admired C.S Lewis as a person is because though he had felt much pain like any human being, he had clung to God in the end.
He is known as an extraordinary writer, yes, but before that, he was a human. A man who had flaws, a man that refused to know God, a man that met God, a man that felt suffering, and a man that felt joy and inspiration. Just as Professor Ribeiro said, it is important to see his life, not only his works. That’s where the essence of Lewis is. To know his philosophy completely, one must know both.
After reflecting upon some of his works and finally listening to the BBC, I learned that Lewis was not as intimidating as I thought. As we approached him as a human being, my intimidation was replaced by admiration. If he had been merely a genius, without flaws, successful in everything, then it would have been no wonder for me that he could have written such wonderful masterpieces of writings. However, l came to know that he was actually head strong, amazingly stubborn, sloppy in dressing , quite an enjoyer of joking, yet serious in reflecting every little thing he could think of and actually human (I cannot stop admiring God for designing such an interesting human).
When I was hearing all the comments about him from the BBC program, I had the sudden urge to know, what did he see? What was the world he saw?
Maybe it was a world full of detail, philosophy, joy, or anything I can’t imagine or something really not that special. But how can it not be special when his writings say it all?
Thus I simply thought, “It must have been a wonderful world.”
However I did not merely admire him because of his interesting combination of characteristics. I admired him because he, together with his dying wife, had been strong in the Lord even when facing sorrowful pain. So strong, in fact, that it made an everlasting impression on one of his friends. Indeed, the real reason I admired C.S Lewis as a person is because though he had felt much pain like any human being, he had clung to God in the end.
He is known as an extraordinary writer, yes, but before that, he was a human. A man who had flaws, a man that refused to know God, a man that met God, a man that felt suffering, and a man that felt joy and inspiration. Just as Professor Ribeiro said, it is important to see his life, not only his works. That’s where the essence of Lewis is. To know his philosophy completely, one must know both.
Plantinga: Fall
If through creation one can see the original goodness, through creation one can also see the consequences of fall. Decay, depravity, sin, and corruption can be seen in all creation as well as human lives. And though good has not been completely annihilated, it has been clearly “shadowed by fall”.
Plantinga writes that evil is “any spoiling of shalom.” And one of the elements of evil is sin. Being sin part of evil, sin also breaks shalom. Now, the first act of sin was committed by our ancestors in the Bible, Adam and Eve. Because of their attempt to be like God, all human being’s nature was tainted and thus became unable to remain with God anymore. As sin became part of human nature, human nature became corrupted.
The definition Plantinga gives for corruption is perversion of the good gifts given by God from their real purpose. One of the major acts of corruption is idolatry. Not only it is awfully disloyal in the moral sense, but also ungrateful towards the creator. It interferes in the relationship between human and God and separates them even more. Though Corruption begins with the wrong choice, it ends up becoming an awful habit, a habit which is very difficult to get out of.
Fall, is indeed a tragedy, but not a tragedy without hope.
Even when corruption is accumulated into a big black ball of depravity, the Holy Spirit still offers “common grace” which “preserves and enhances human life.” God also keeps corruption in line through a sense of divinity, morality, conscience, shame and even fear, in people. I realized that no matter how dreadful and unpleasant some of these feelings might seem (specially the last too), they exist for a purpose.
Lastly, the chapter debates where does corruption actually comes from. I have wondered about that question too a lot of times, and have discarded every idea I came up with. God is holy, and hates sin, thus corruption cannot come from him. On the other hand, satan can tempt but cannot force people into corruption because he is weaker than God. However God has is creator of all, so maybe he created Evil to balance Good? Maybe He meant evil only for that purpose, but sin was formed the moment human heart knew evil (the fruit they took was from the tree of knowledge of good and evil after all) since he was not able to cope with it because he was not ‘good’ enough…? The more I ask, the more questions surface on my mind instead of the sought answers and sense becomes blurred.
However one must take into account that sin extends itself even to one’s way of thinking. Just as one’s soul has been dirtied with sin, one’s mind and subsequently actions have also been affected by it. Thus I think that instead of walking around in circles and getting lost, one should just give oneself into the Lord's care, who is pure and holy, free of sin, our only hope, to give answers and guide one towards “redemption”.
Plantinga writes that evil is “any spoiling of shalom.” And one of the elements of evil is sin. Being sin part of evil, sin also breaks shalom. Now, the first act of sin was committed by our ancestors in the Bible, Adam and Eve. Because of their attempt to be like God, all human being’s nature was tainted and thus became unable to remain with God anymore. As sin became part of human nature, human nature became corrupted.
The definition Plantinga gives for corruption is perversion of the good gifts given by God from their real purpose. One of the major acts of corruption is idolatry. Not only it is awfully disloyal in the moral sense, but also ungrateful towards the creator. It interferes in the relationship between human and God and separates them even more. Though Corruption begins with the wrong choice, it ends up becoming an awful habit, a habit which is very difficult to get out of.
Fall, is indeed a tragedy, but not a tragedy without hope.
Even when corruption is accumulated into a big black ball of depravity, the Holy Spirit still offers “common grace” which “preserves and enhances human life.” God also keeps corruption in line through a sense of divinity, morality, conscience, shame and even fear, in people. I realized that no matter how dreadful and unpleasant some of these feelings might seem (specially the last too), they exist for a purpose.
Lastly, the chapter debates where does corruption actually comes from. I have wondered about that question too a lot of times, and have discarded every idea I came up with. God is holy, and hates sin, thus corruption cannot come from him. On the other hand, satan can tempt but cannot force people into corruption because he is weaker than God. However God has is creator of all, so maybe he created Evil to balance Good? Maybe He meant evil only for that purpose, but sin was formed the moment human heart knew evil (the fruit they took was from the tree of knowledge of good and evil after all) since he was not able to cope with it because he was not ‘good’ enough…? The more I ask, the more questions surface on my mind instead of the sought answers and sense becomes blurred.
However one must take into account that sin extends itself even to one’s way of thinking. Just as one’s soul has been dirtied with sin, one’s mind and subsequently actions have also been affected by it. Thus I think that instead of walking around in circles and getting lost, one should just give oneself into the Lord's care, who is pure and holy, free of sin, our only hope, to give answers and guide one towards “redemption”.
Mere Christianity
What Lewis tries to achieve with “Mere Christianity” is to bring non-believers into the “hall” of Christianity. He specifies that that is his only intention; choosing which door to enter(the denomination) is up to the person himself while he is waiting in the hall.
Thus the first chapter of this book tries to convince people about the existence of a Law, or more specifically, the presence of the Law of Human nature. This is a standard behavior which everyone agrees on being morally correct, a rule that a person can choose either to obey or disobey. Lewis lays proof of its existence using extraordinary logic. One of my favorite examples he uses is when he writes that even if “you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining ‘It’s not fair’ before you can say Jack Robinson.” Just like it was mentioned in one of the lectures in our class where a flow chart was shown, if someone claims to not believe in the existence of a moral right, one can do anything to them, and they would have no right to complain (However, this in turn would be morally incorrect).
Unfortunately, no one is really keeping this law totally. People offer excuses, a special reason for not being to meet up the ‘how it ought to be’ behavior. But this is just another evidence for the existence of the Law of human nature. The guilt one feels when one breaks the rules, shows that there is a law imprinted on us. Thus I think that just as no one is able to obey it fully, no one can truly escape it.
In chapter two, Lewis brilliantly refutes certain opposing statements. One of them objects to the Law’s existence by saying it might be a “herd instinct.” Lewis pin points that an instinct would merely be a strong desire to act in a certain way and that if there were two instincts to choose from, there would still be a measuring stick (the law) that decides which one is to be acted out. “There are no such things as good and bad impulses…” he writes, and complements that every single one “ ..is right at one time and wrong at another. The Moral Law is not any one instinct or a set of instincts: it is something which makes a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing the instincts.” To all this I add, if morality were to be an "herd instinct" it would be something done by the majority as the word "herd" indicates, however, keeping morality is the exact opposite of what everyone is actually doing (since everyone sins); thus morality cannot be an "herd instinct" anyways.
The second objection proposes for the moral law to be something invented by education. However, this too is proved wrong by the acceptance that moral law can be taught however, it is not simply a “human convention,” but a “real truth” (just like logic). This can be seen in different cultures and different times. One can notice that each moral ideal is not much different from each other. For example in any of them, “selfishness has never been admired”.
Chapter three goes on, in general, about how decent behavior is simply decent behavior. It is not something created to be necessarily useful or convenient (in fact, if one thinks about it, doing the right thing is sometimes much more inconvenient than doing something wrong) but because it is the way it ought to be and ought to be followed.
This takes us to the fourth chapter: What lies behind the law. Lewis firmly states that Science cannot decide if ‘Something behind’ is or is not. It is unable to do so because science consists on experimenting, and finding out whether there exists ‘something behind’ is an issue beyond facts we are able to observe and experiment.
Overall, the whole reading points at and argues there is a Moral Law that serves as a standard for ‘good’ behavior, and that therefore there must be something, or someone, directing the universe. With easy examples, and very reasonable deductions, Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” is a book that exists to convince, and which has convinced me twice of my own faith.
Thus the first chapter of this book tries to convince people about the existence of a Law, or more specifically, the presence of the Law of Human nature. This is a standard behavior which everyone agrees on being morally correct, a rule that a person can choose either to obey or disobey. Lewis lays proof of its existence using extraordinary logic. One of my favorite examples he uses is when he writes that even if “you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining ‘It’s not fair’ before you can say Jack Robinson.” Just like it was mentioned in one of the lectures in our class where a flow chart was shown, if someone claims to not believe in the existence of a moral right, one can do anything to them, and they would have no right to complain (However, this in turn would be morally incorrect).
Unfortunately, no one is really keeping this law totally. People offer excuses, a special reason for not being to meet up the ‘how it ought to be’ behavior. But this is just another evidence for the existence of the Law of human nature. The guilt one feels when one breaks the rules, shows that there is a law imprinted on us. Thus I think that just as no one is able to obey it fully, no one can truly escape it.
In chapter two, Lewis brilliantly refutes certain opposing statements. One of them objects to the Law’s existence by saying it might be a “herd instinct.” Lewis pin points that an instinct would merely be a strong desire to act in a certain way and that if there were two instincts to choose from, there would still be a measuring stick (the law) that decides which one is to be acted out. “There are no such things as good and bad impulses…” he writes, and complements that every single one “ ..is right at one time and wrong at another. The Moral Law is not any one instinct or a set of instincts: it is something which makes a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing the instincts.” To all this I add, if morality were to be an "herd instinct" it would be something done by the majority as the word "herd" indicates, however, keeping morality is the exact opposite of what everyone is actually doing (since everyone sins); thus morality cannot be an "herd instinct" anyways.
The second objection proposes for the moral law to be something invented by education. However, this too is proved wrong by the acceptance that moral law can be taught however, it is not simply a “human convention,” but a “real truth” (just like logic). This can be seen in different cultures and different times. One can notice that each moral ideal is not much different from each other. For example in any of them, “selfishness has never been admired”.
Chapter three goes on, in general, about how decent behavior is simply decent behavior. It is not something created to be necessarily useful or convenient (in fact, if one thinks about it, doing the right thing is sometimes much more inconvenient than doing something wrong) but because it is the way it ought to be and ought to be followed.
This takes us to the fourth chapter: What lies behind the law. Lewis firmly states that Science cannot decide if ‘Something behind’ is or is not. It is unable to do so because science consists on experimenting, and finding out whether there exists ‘something behind’ is an issue beyond facts we are able to observe and experiment.
Overall, the whole reading points at and argues there is a Moral Law that serves as a standard for ‘good’ behavior, and that therefore there must be something, or someone, directing the universe. With easy examples, and very reasonable deductions, Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” is a book that exists to convince, and which has convinced me twice of my own faith.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Shattered Glass
Writer of the political magazine The New Republic, Rolling Stone Magazine, Haper’s Bazaar and George, the film “Shattered Glass“ presented a very interesting character: Stephen Glass, a man of talent whom's story is one of misused talent.
In the film, he is portrayed as a very popular writer, known for his imaginative and captivating stories of drunken republicans, a boy hacker that managed to break the security system of a famous company, and etc; among other stories which brought him much fame and favor. However, his moments of grandeur do not last forever. All starts crumbling down when his kind editor whom he was easily manipulating gets fired and is replaced with another (his colleague Charles Lane) who begins to suspect the truth behind his stories. With fake phone connections and falsified facts, Glass manages to scurry through safe for a good while until further problems arise for him. An online magazine journalist discovers the lies behind the articles and Stephen Glass, is fired. In the end, it is revealed that twenty seven out of his forty one articles were partially or totally, artificially weaved. Amazingly, he had managed to hide their falseness for three years straight without being caught. However what’s truly amazing is the fact that this was a story that happened in real-life.
The movie is edited in a way so the present and the past, reality and illusion are mingled. It actually starts with Glass sitting on a classroom full of young students of his former high school, and advising them on how to become a star journalist like him. But then every time he mentions something he has written, the scene switches to his work place and the shows the real story. When his fabulous lies are finally uncovered, the last scene presented is one of an empty classroom. There had been no kids listening from the beginning. What Glass had been staring at the whole time had been the illusion of a glory that never came to be.
The ending left me feeling only disappointment and pity for the character. From the very start, throughout the whole movie, through the suspicions and accusations, I had hoped that miraculously it would reveal that Stephen Glass had been telling the truth all along. However, this was never so. And this was reality, literally. This feeling made me look back and think of what I had read on “The weight of Glory” and Platinga’s second chapter. No matter how much one hope for someone or something in this world to be perfect and good, this can never be. The only one who can truly fill this hope is God. If one puts one’s hope on something else, then one does it in vain, for it will merely end up in disappointment and pity. Just like glass, everything is bound to someday shatter.
In the film, he is portrayed as a very popular writer, known for his imaginative and captivating stories of drunken republicans, a boy hacker that managed to break the security system of a famous company, and etc; among other stories which brought him much fame and favor. However, his moments of grandeur do not last forever. All starts crumbling down when his kind editor whom he was easily manipulating gets fired and is replaced with another (his colleague Charles Lane) who begins to suspect the truth behind his stories. With fake phone connections and falsified facts, Glass manages to scurry through safe for a good while until further problems arise for him. An online magazine journalist discovers the lies behind the articles and Stephen Glass, is fired. In the end, it is revealed that twenty seven out of his forty one articles were partially or totally, artificially weaved. Amazingly, he had managed to hide their falseness for three years straight without being caught. However what’s truly amazing is the fact that this was a story that happened in real-life.
The movie is edited in a way so the present and the past, reality and illusion are mingled. It actually starts with Glass sitting on a classroom full of young students of his former high school, and advising them on how to become a star journalist like him. But then every time he mentions something he has written, the scene switches to his work place and the shows the real story. When his fabulous lies are finally uncovered, the last scene presented is one of an empty classroom. There had been no kids listening from the beginning. What Glass had been staring at the whole time had been the illusion of a glory that never came to be.
The ending left me feeling only disappointment and pity for the character. From the very start, throughout the whole movie, through the suspicions and accusations, I had hoped that miraculously it would reveal that Stephen Glass had been telling the truth all along. However, this was never so. And this was reality, literally. This feeling made me look back and think of what I had read on “The weight of Glory” and Platinga’s second chapter. No matter how much one hope for someone or something in this world to be perfect and good, this can never be. The only one who can truly fill this hope is God. If one puts one’s hope on something else, then one does it in vain, for it will merely end up in disappointment and pity. Just like glass, everything is bound to someday shatter.
Screwtape Letters
“Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one- the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without turnings, without milestones, without signposts,”
There was one a time when I felt I was drifting away. I was going to church, I was praying, I was reading the Bible every day, but at some point I realized it was becoming an empty habit. In that instant, I became extremely afraid. I felt like my heart had gone numb, that the joy had left me without me noticing it, and since I had not realized that I had lost it, I had not search for it immediately. When I became conscious of this fact, a dreadful feeling of terror washed over me. I asked myself, where am I?! The emptiness of the place I found myself in, scared me.
Perhaps it was Wormwood all so gently, sweetly leading me to a fake sense of peace doing what his dear uncle Screwtape had suggested. And indeed, a demon's goal is not to scare one away using "strong" turnings, it is to draw one towards his jaws with a seemingly pleasant and harmless road. I was succumbing into a life of routine; taking everything for granted and was slowly forgetting the joy of gratitude.
Though fortunately Wormwood’s intentions were revealed to me halfway, his strategy was and still is a fearful one. His plan consists in a subtle attack of sin which works as a snowball effect, and is disguised as an external Christian habit which is only superficial. This starts with a feeling of "dim uneasiness," then it turns into a small guilt, this guilt transforms into a bigger shame, shame into cowardice and reluctance to face truth, and ultimately, it ends up on separation from God.
All this happens so slowly that almost no change is noticed, or if noticed, it is viewed as trivial. It lets one’s guard down and rusts one’s sword. Then it becomes too late. All sin that seemed trifle, which seemed to not need repentance piles up together and turns too heavy to bear, dragging one down. With one’s own strength, nothing can be done. Thus it is necessary to, just like Lewis says, die before one dies. Leave the old life and be reborn into a new and repented one before passing the point of no return.
But there is no need to wait until one ends up in the worst possible situation before turning away. The more one procrastinates, the more difficult it becomes to escape the place of nothingness. One can avoid, reveal, fight against the cleverly formulated plan by Screwtape from the beginning by being aware of one’s position at all times. To walk on the right path, one needs to pray for strength and courage to keep faith alive (“always pray and not give up” – Luke 18:1), to find joy every time one goes to church and thinks about God’s love instead of taking it for granted and forgetting its true meaning and preciousness, to repent all times, to cast away pride and to simply stop being stubborn and return to where are supposed to be: with God.
There are only two paths for everything ones does, for every choice one makes: One that leads to heaven and one to hell. Being uncertain of what path to take is way too dangerous; the devil takes advantage of that. Lewis describes our desires for Glory (acceptance in God) as too “weak” and “easily-pleased.” One should prevent being indecisive and lukewarm (Rev. 3:15-16). One has to be colder than the fiercest storm of Grand Rapids’ winter to be able to freeze all temptation in battle; one has to burn with passion and love for Christ everyday and glow brighter with joy. Only by being a wholehearted christian, one will wake up, stump Screwtape’s plans and head towards heaven.
There was one a time when I felt I was drifting away. I was going to church, I was praying, I was reading the Bible every day, but at some point I realized it was becoming an empty habit. In that instant, I became extremely afraid. I felt like my heart had gone numb, that the joy had left me without me noticing it, and since I had not realized that I had lost it, I had not search for it immediately. When I became conscious of this fact, a dreadful feeling of terror washed over me. I asked myself, where am I?! The emptiness of the place I found myself in, scared me.
Perhaps it was Wormwood all so gently, sweetly leading me to a fake sense of peace doing what his dear uncle Screwtape had suggested. And indeed, a demon's goal is not to scare one away using "strong" turnings, it is to draw one towards his jaws with a seemingly pleasant and harmless road. I was succumbing into a life of routine; taking everything for granted and was slowly forgetting the joy of gratitude.
Though fortunately Wormwood’s intentions were revealed to me halfway, his strategy was and still is a fearful one. His plan consists in a subtle attack of sin which works as a snowball effect, and is disguised as an external Christian habit which is only superficial. This starts with a feeling of "dim uneasiness," then it turns into a small guilt, this guilt transforms into a bigger shame, shame into cowardice and reluctance to face truth, and ultimately, it ends up on separation from God.
All this happens so slowly that almost no change is noticed, or if noticed, it is viewed as trivial. It lets one’s guard down and rusts one’s sword. Then it becomes too late. All sin that seemed trifle, which seemed to not need repentance piles up together and turns too heavy to bear, dragging one down. With one’s own strength, nothing can be done. Thus it is necessary to, just like Lewis says, die before one dies. Leave the old life and be reborn into a new and repented one before passing the point of no return.
But there is no need to wait until one ends up in the worst possible situation before turning away. The more one procrastinates, the more difficult it becomes to escape the place of nothingness. One can avoid, reveal, fight against the cleverly formulated plan by Screwtape from the beginning by being aware of one’s position at all times. To walk on the right path, one needs to pray for strength and courage to keep faith alive (“always pray and not give up” – Luke 18:1), to find joy every time one goes to church and thinks about God’s love instead of taking it for granted and forgetting its true meaning and preciousness, to repent all times, to cast away pride and to simply stop being stubborn and return to where are supposed to be: with God.
There are only two paths for everything ones does, for every choice one makes: One that leads to heaven and one to hell. Being uncertain of what path to take is way too dangerous; the devil takes advantage of that. Lewis describes our desires for Glory (acceptance in God) as too “weak” and “easily-pleased.” One should prevent being indecisive and lukewarm (Rev. 3:15-16). One has to be colder than the fiercest storm of Grand Rapids’ winter to be able to freeze all temptation in battle; one has to burn with passion and love for Christ everyday and glow brighter with joy. Only by being a wholehearted christian, one will wake up, stump Screwtape’s plans and head towards heaven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)