Speakers

I distinctly remember 2 speakers coming to our class this semester. The first was Professor Ribeiro's father in law. Originally, he lived in the Netherlands. But he raised his family serving the Lord in Brazil. He spoke about vocation and finding God's calling. This is a topic we talk about alot at Calvin. We do not want to waste our lives, we want to serve God in whatever we do. I also remember Luke coming to talk to our class. He spoke about life at Calvin. He spoke about taking professors out to dinner, prayer groups, balancing school, work, and a social life. Honestly, I did not get much out of this talk. Luke didn't talk much about struggles, it seemed as if he has it all together. I guess its hard to share with alot of strangers, nonetheless. When people seem to "have it all together" I find it intimidating, cause I don't. And I know that I will never know everything. I appreciate it alot more when speakers show their humanity more, that they are not beyond my struggles. I guess I just did not relate to his talk.

Mere Christianity Ch 1-4

In the first few chapters of Mere Christianity, CS Lewis talks about the universal moral standard that all men seem to know about, but hardly follow. This law is proof of God's existence, or at least the existence of a greater being. We do not exist on our own, we exist because He created us.
Lewis brought up another interesting point. Most natural laws are simply just what occurs in nature. Rocks fall, hence the law of gravity. But this moral law is not what happens in nature. And this seems normal to us. But something is wrong. We are imperfect, inconsistent. We can only long for and work toward the consistency that we will never achieve. And somehow through this striving, although we will fail continually, Jesus will renew, revive, and reconcile us to himself. After each failing he'll pick us up again, and teach us the same thing over again. And we'll be just a little closer to what we're longing for.

De Descriptione Temporum

In this essay C.S. Lewis expounds on his approach while accepting the position as the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University. First, he talks about history- and how we divide it. In order to understand history, we divide it into periods. Dramatic changes did not happen overnight; however. History is really just everyday life. Small changes happen continually. Thus man and society have evolved. Lewis points out that even though his focus is going to be "Medieval and Renaissance Literature," who can really define that period? It cannot be discussed without some reference to it's own past and future.
Lewis also talks about the difference between the Renaissance and modern culture- even recent modern culture. The secularization of society, increase in skepticism, and emphasis of progress are wholly different from the ideologies that tie every other period of history together. We are not returning to paganism, we are rejecting religion altogether. We do not seek to conserve and preserve the goods we have already acquired- we want newer, better things. Modernization has brought about the biggest change thus far in history, Lewis argues.
Finally, Lewis claims that he is a student of this era of literature. He may not have the best understanding of it, but he reads Medieval/Renaissance literature as if he lived then. So, what he lacks in understanding hopefully he'll make up in character. You learn more about dinosaurs by seeing one, not by reading about them for years. In the same, Lewis hopes to teach the rest more about Medieval literature, because he is, in a sense, a dinosaur.
I really enjoyed this essay. I find history somewhat fascinating- how movements and ideas have gradually developed, then how they affect us today. I also found it interesting that Lewis does not like to separate different chunks of history. I've rarely thought about that before. Thoughts, movements did not develop overnight. Like everything else in life, like the history we are creating today, it's a process. Life is relational and complex- these truths are easy to forget- in search of quick solutions. I've been really learning this in my faith. I used to think "Ok God taught me this, I've got it down now- what next?" And then, a few months later I'd have the same questions, the same struggles. And I'd ask God..."why am I struggling with this again? aren't there other things for me to learn? why don't i get it? can't i just be done?" But...it's a process. My relationship with God is a process. He loves me when I question him. He loves me when I don't. My relationships with peoples- they're processes too. Am I going to choose to love them today? Am I going to even think about choosing to love them, or will I be so caught up in myself that they're needs won't even come to mind? Will I be looking at the clock, thinking of the work I need to get done tonight while listening to a friend? These are things I'm learning. Love people. Love God. These are things I've been learning. These are things I will always be learning. I will never have them down. . .

The Abolition of Man Chapter Three

In this chapter, Lewis argues that we disregard the Tao as we seek to conquer Nature. Once we finally "conquer Nature" by redefining morality, Nature has really conquered us. Without a universal standard, we are subject to our whims, our emotions, our momentary desires. Thus, our natures have gotten the best of us.
Lewis does not argue against modern science, instead he calls for a new approach to science. Instead of looking at everything objectively apart from the Tao, we should look at like, at the world- as a whole. We cannot separate science from the rest of our lives. And, if we do approach science from a moral standpoint, we cannot go wrong.

I found Lewis' arguements very interesting. To some extent, we have fulfilled them. The Tao is old fashioned, science is sure. Yet when the two are apart, we are left with a sense of meaninglessness. Thus, we fulfill our desires-in search for meaning, to conquer nature. Instead Nature gets a greater hold on us. We can longer control ourselves and are thus dehumanized.

The Abolition of Man Chapter Two

In this chapter, Lewis further argues against a new movement focusing on reason and science- devoid of values and emotion. He argues that without following universal moral law, we are left to our instincts. We have many different instincts, and how can we discern which instincts should be followed and which should be curbed? Thus the mind cannot be divorced from the heart.
Lewis also criticizes that practice of throwing out traditional values in search of newer truer ones. New values stem from old ones. Lewis claims that the only way we can throw out traditional values is if we completely remake man's moral/mental compass. After all, we've remade and conquered everything else. . .
I agree- the soul and body should not be separated. Recently we have been realizing this. We are beginning to look at life from a more holistic point of view. We need to look out for the physical along with the emotional/spiritual. If one area is hurting, so will the other.

The Abolition of Man

I found this chapter confusing. I wasn't familiar with many of his references- so the email with notes was very helpful. In "The Abolition of Man" Lewis critiques the new educational method for high schoolers. In a new textbook, two authors dismiss emotion in learning. They basically claim that we don't mean what we say. If I say, "You are calm," I'm not really talking about you, I'm really talking about my own feelings- "I am calm." Then they try to separate emotion from learning. Mind over feelings. The two must be divorced. This philosophy can lead to dangerous places- if what we say has no meaning, if we employ reason only and deny emotion- why do we have morals? Lewis cites moral law from many ancient religions. Reason and feeling cannot be separated from each other. A man may know everything in his mind, but if he doesn't know it in his mind- what good is it?
I see this trend in schooling. We don't talk much about how we react mentally and emotionally to what we read, see, and learn in the classroom. We learn the facts. We try to learn objectively- but can learning ever really be objective? Since education has taken this extreme- pop culture and entertainment seem to have taken the other extreme. The emphasis is on feelings. If feelings are completely irrational- then we can follow them fully without thinking. It's the only option. Mind or body. Neither extreme is healthy.
Lewis argues that we need a balance of reason and emotion, that the two are intertwined. When talking about our denial of heart, of emotion, Lewis states, "In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. "
Really our separation of heart and mind, of feeling and reason is completely irrational.

Show and Tell

“No one ever told me that grief felt so like fear.”-C.S. Lewis

I never related grief to fear before. The more I think about it, the more I see the comparison. I’m sad when I lose something that was close and important to me. When I lose a good friend, or a plan that I had been looking forward to for a long time doesn’t work out- I get upset.
This grief comes from fear- MY plans are ruined. I don’t know where to go next. MY friend isn’t there anymore- I don’t know who to turn to. I feel uncertain and alone. Then I remember God. And he shows me His reasons- he makes me rely on Him, not myself or others. These truths that “I know” are cemented into my being through such experiences- through grief.