I realize that this might seem the ulimate of oxymorons to some,but I wanted to discuss Lewis' use of humor in The Problem of Pain. There were several moments throughout the book, mostly towards the beginning, when I just had to set it down and laugh. Perhaps I just have an odd sense of humor, but we'll see...

The first such case I found may not be humor as much to others as it seems to be to me. It is in the very first chapter when Lewis is discussing the fear of the uncanny. He says, "Most attempts to explain the Numinous presuppose the thing to be explained- as when anthropologists derive it from fear of the dead, without explaining why dead men (assuredly the least dangerous kind of men) should have attracted this particular feeling." Lewis' side note pointing out the ridiculousness of fearing the dead just struck me as funny.

A second example in chapter two when Lewis is talking about divine omnipotence, "If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free-will and at the same time withold free-will from it' you have not suceeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can'."

In the third chapter when Lewis is describing his own morality upon entering university, he compares himself thusly, "...of chastity, truthfulness, and self sacrifice I thought as a baboon thinks of classical music."

Upon looking these citations which I find humorous, I think that what I am trying to bring into focus isn't an outright attempt at humor but something I find humorous in the way it is said. Most of these quotes, when I read them, I was mostly amused because of how ridiculous the comparisons seemed which is probably exactly what Lewis intended. Still who doesn't think a baboon trying to understand classical music conjures a funny picture?

Last night as I was reading Till We Have Faces, I ran across an interesting passage in Chapter 13.

By this time, Orual has returned back to Glome and has described her experience to both Bardia and to the Fox. They both give her different opinions on what she should do concerning Psyche. Orual cannot choose between them and then decides to pray to the gods.

"Then I did a thing which I think few have done. I spoke to the gods myself, alone, in such words as came to me, not in a temple, and without a sacrifice. I stretched myself face downward on the floor and called upon them with my whole heart. I took back every word I had said against them. I promised anything they might ask of me, if only they would send me a sign. They gave me none."

I find it hard to imagine what life would be like if I could not speak to my God whenever I chose to do so. There were so many rules and regulations about religion concerning sacrifices, temple worship, priests mediating and so on that it is no wonder that not many people formed a stronger and more personal bond with their gods.

Another thing that struck me about this passage is immediate gratification. Orual wants the gods to send her a sign immediately and is sorely disappointed that they do not. I remember when I was younger, asking God to 'send a sign' and then being disappointed when nothing would happen. Orual's faith is much like a child's in the way that she wants immediate results.

I think that this could be a problem that some people face when they think about Christ.
The Dialogue is taken from "The Horse and His Boy" page 298 in the Chronicles.

"But when I speak of the Lion, of course I mean Aslan, the great deliverer of Narnia who drove away the Witch and the Winter. All Narnians swear by him"

"But is he a lion?"

"No, no, of course not," said Bree in a rather shocked voice.

"All the stories about him in Tashbaan say he is," replied Aravis. "And if he isn't a lion why do you call him a lion?"

"No doubt," continued Bree, "when they speak of him as a Lion, they only mean he's as strong as a lion or (to our enemies, of course) as fierce as a lion. Or something of that kind. Even a little girl like you, Aravis, must see that it would be quite absurd to suppose he is a real lion. Indeed it would be disrespectful. If he was a lion he'd have to be a beast just like the rest of us. Why!" (and here Bree began to laugh) "If he was a lion he'd have four paws, and a tail, and Whisker!"

I'm curious of what others think of this passage.

The King was so self-conceded that he never really saw who Psyche really was. He finally got a glimpse of who she was when she was about to be sacrificed. It took a lot for the King to actually she her for who she is. Are we like the King? Do we get so absorbed in ourselves that we really don't see the people around us? Why, like the King, does it take something extremely drastic for us to really see one another?

In Till We Have Faces I find an interesting connection between the extent that Lewis' nature and personality comes through in the book. There is just this striking aura of Lewis in the book. In some ways it gives me more insight into who Lewis was than his autobiography did. Lewis' extreme intellectual nature comes through in his characters and in the plot of the book. Driven almost entirely by intellectual suspense and questions, it just feels so 'Lewis'. I would agree completely with Joy's remark that she helped Lewis write more like himself.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

The chapter “Friendship” chapter of C.S. Lewis’ “The Four Loves” offered surprising criteria for a love to be classified as a friendship. Lewis alleges that only love founded on a common interest, rather than a basis of interest in the other person. What struck me as we were discussing this apparent aberration in Lewis’ argument in class was that, perhaps, he thought this sort of third-party friendship to be more spiritual because it denies us the opportunity to be flattered by another’s’ interest, and therefore to be further entangled with the enchantments of self. Perhaps Lewis feels that we aren’t supposed to find “our other self,” as Prof. Jensen said. Lewis states: “Affection and Eros were too obviously shared with brutes, you could feel these tugging at your guts and fluttering in your diaphragm. But in friendship- in that luminous, tranquil, rational world of relationships freely chosen-you got away from all that” (59). Perhaps Lewis is saying that by placing the emphasis of our friendships on a commonality rather than attraction to one another’s personality we are edifying and elevating one another in the spirit. Maybe Lewis’ theory is that if we separate ourselves from this earthy love, this interest in the possibly finite components of our persons, compel us towards a deeper knowledge of God’s love.

When reading "Till We Have Faces," like we were talking in class today, some of us seem to like or dislike certain characters. And I don't remember if the King was ever brought up or not. But i can't stand the guy. Like the main character picks up on, he doesn't care about anyone but himself or his own safety. I was especially annoyed of him when he tried to justify how he was acting and about to just give his daughter up with his talk of "its taking a piece of himself" or whatever. Which characters do you guys like or dislike?

Well i don't know about you guys but i am really happy to be reading a book that has a story again. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the other Lewis books as well but i just get more into a book that has a story because i can get into the story. I care about the characters and what happens next, especially when an author like Lewis makes in interesting. So having said that, what kind of C.S. Lewis books are your favorite? Do you like the books with a story? Or the non-fiction books?

I found it interesting on pages 20 and 21, when Lewis is talking about nature, that he basically says observing nature is good and stuff but we can't let it get in front of God. Otherwise, he says, it could turn into some kind of "nature religion". I just think its a neat thought that we can't really find anything as far as God's knowledge in nature. I mean we can look at it and praise God for it but if we meditate on it then it starts to take the place of God. I think he summarizes what he thinks pretty well at the bottom of 21, "But we need not surrender the love of nature-chastened and limited as I have suggested-to the debunkers. Nature cannot satisfy the desires she arouses nor answer theological questions, nor sanctify us."

I am always surprised by how Lewis words things or by the examples he uses in his books. This passage in the Chapter on Friendship in The Four Loves hit the nail right on the head for me about friendship amongst a group of friends:

"Lamb says somewhere that if, of three friends (A, B, and C) A should die, then B loses not only A but "A's part in C," while C loses not only A but "A's part in B." In each of my friends there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out. By myself I am not large enough to call the whole man into activity; I want other lights than my own to show all his facets."

My friends augment a part of me and I do the same for them. I had often thought about how different my friends and I are from each other, and yet how well we seemed to flow together as a group. This augmenting comes from a deep and long history of friendship. Lewis' wording said it much better than I could ever have conveyed it myself. I like the way my friend Vicki can bring some out in my friend Danette that I can't. I enjoy the fact that there things that Danette brings out in Vicki and in myself that I never would have known was there if not for her. Friendship, while the most "unnatural" of loves, is certainly one of the most complex loves and almost as multi-faceted as we are ourselves.

Does Lewis' wording strike a chord in anyone else? It would be interesting to find out which passages not just in the Four Loves have struck someone.

Something that caught my eye in The Four Loves.....


I find Lewis' idea of need-love very interesting, especially when he relates it to our relationship with God. Our need-love of other people will end when the need is met and then no longer exist, however Lewis states our need-love for God is different.

"Our Need-love for God is in a different position because our need of him can never end either in this world or in any other. (Chapter 1)"

God gives gift-love to our need-love. I had never really thought of it in this light before. Even though most of us have grown up with the usual metaphors or analogies about God's love. But I can't help but think of a passage I read in the Problem of Pain:

"God wants to give us something, but cannot, because our hands are full--there's nowhere for Him to put it. (Chapter 7)"

This seems to lean on the idea that when things are going well and we rely on ourselves we deny God's gift-love relationship and deny our own need-love for him. God continually wishes to give us good things, but when the need-love isn't acknowledged how can he? This goes back more towards the Problem of Pain book but it definitely deals with God's gift-love and how we reconcile it with pain.

I realize that this idea isn't full formed but it was just something that was weighing on my mind. I would love to hear what everyone else thinks on this.

In chapter 6 of "The Probelm of Pain" Lewis brings up Divine humility in what I thought was a new light. However, it raised some questions for me as well. In this passage Lewis' gives an account of what I am refering to:

"I call this a Divine humility because it is a poor thing to strike our colours to God when the ship is going down under us; a poor thing to come to Him as a last resort, to offer up "our own" when it is no longer worth keeping. If God were proud He would hardly have us on such terms: but He is not proud, He stoops to conquer, He will have us even though we have shown we prefer everything else to Him, and come to Him because their is "nothing better" now to be had."

I agree with Lewis in that I believe this is an amazing trait for our God to possess and I feel fortunate as well. But, if the opposite was true and God only accepted us if we were nearly perfect in his eyes, or at a certain level of perfection, "who could be saved?" Lewis asks.

This is my problem: if God gave us free will, then how could He really expect to do anything but accept us as humbly as He does? This probably sounds really terrible, I admit, but could anyone really achieve a "heaven worthy" status here on earth? If God wasn't humble and willing to accept us at any level wouldn't we all just be damned? What would the point be then? I guess it's a good thing God isn't evil...

What if perfecting is just a by-product of God's love for us? His initial focus is His love for us, and the perfecting comes from that love, not the reason for His love. The idea that He loves us so much, that He is continually shaping and molding us into perfection but the perfection is not the initial focus, the love is.
Sorry if this goes in circles, but what do you think?

Wishing for less love?


I was greatly interested in a passage in chapter 3, where Lewis talked about pain as a way to refine us, like an artist refines and polishes a work of art.

"But over the great picture of his life--the work which he loves, though in a different fashion, as intensely as a man loves a woman or a mother a child--he will take endless trouble--and would, doubtless, thereby give endless trouble to the picture if it were sentient. One can imagine a sentient picture, after being rubbed and scraped and recommenced for the tenth time, wishing that it were only a thumbnail sketch whose making was over in a minute. In the same way, it is natural for us to wish that God had designed for us a less glorious and less arduous destiny; but then we are wishing not for more love but for less."

I couldn't help but remember that old phrase 'you only hurt the ones you love.' So God loves us so much that He has to cause us some pain? That by wishing to be just left alone and not bothered so much with pain we are asking God to ignore us and not love us as much?
Nietzsche says that "Adversity breeds character (badly paraphrased, very sorry)."
So is God refining our character through this process of pain? The only way we can be all we are meant to be is by overcoming the daily emotional and physical bruises and wounds. That this is the way God shows us His love by presenting us with the pain and then helping us navigate through it.
I found this a very interesting idea and had never really thought about it like that before. Nor have I seen it put in those words. I'm very interested in everyone else's take on this passage.

In "The Problem of Pain", page 27, Lewis mentions, but does not go into the question of whether it was better for God to have created or not to have created. From a Christian perspective, I believe it depends on your salvific paradigm. If you believe in universalism (that all are saved), then humankind must not worry, "For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweights them all," (2 Corinthians 4:17) then it was better for God to have created. If you believe that most people end up going to Hell, taking passages such as, "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter into it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it" (Mt. 6:13-14), then it would have been better for humankind never to have existed, just as for Judas, "It would be better for him if he had not been born," (Mt. 26:25), since the scriptures speak of him as a man doomed to destruction.

In A Grief Observed, I was intrigued by Lewis' theme of reality never repeating itself. He says "Reality never repeats. The exact same thing is never taken away and given back. How well the spiritualists bait their hook! 'Things on this side are not so different after all.' For that is what we should all like. The happy past restored." He uses this theme again at the end of the book talking about "happy reunions" with our families in heaven. Lewis stresses that we should not make these reunions an End, but to keep God in focus as the true End. I had never really thought of heaven in this way and this passage made for interesting reading.