Reading the essentials of the Lewis cannon over the last semester has not only given me a more wholist view of what Jack was trying to tell us, but it also shed a little light on his attitude towards celebrity. He was undoubtedly a great thinker, but what do you think he thought of himself? Was he the "everyman" his nick-name alluded to, the man that answered all his correspondences with personal and thoughtful letters, or was he something else entirely?

What do you think the modern secular reader's opinion of Lewis is today? Undoubtedly the renewed hype over his works (which his publishers have taken full advantage of) as the result of the recent cineamatic blockbusters such as the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy has also created a backlash of scepticism in the secular mind? Do you think we're pushing him too forcefully into the limelight?

In writing my final project paper on the rhetoric of loss in Lewis' writings, I did alot of re-reading Surprised by Joy..especially the passages he wrote about his time in the army. His prose doesn't display the broken and bitter vibe that we modern readers are so used to in accounts of war (perhaps because of the Vietnam and Iraq Wars...). I don't believe it was a steely factual itinerary about his time in the war either, put did seem surprisingly stoic for Lewis. Perhaps this was part of the traditional "stiff upper lip" attitude taken by the British in times of national trial.
The Second Workld War, however, plays a large role in many of his other works....seen as both the result of a great evil in The Screwtape Letters, and the reason for the childrens flight to the country in the Chronicles of Narnia...What do you think Lewis true thoughts on war were?

In the works we have read over this past semester, Lewis has presented us with several different depictions of Hell. The Limbo-like grey world of The Great Divorce seems a plush vacation resort in comparison to the traditional rather hot and firey place alluded to in The Srewtape Letters. Though the intents of each book are vastly different, I do wonder why Lewis didn't stand by one particular interpretation of the Scriptures........I'm sure he knew that the "Lake O' Fire" concept of Hell in the Western mind grew primarily out of medieval church paintings...so why didn't he deconstruct this idea in The Screwtape Letters? Though, I do suppose it is alright to have a fixed idea of what exactly Hell is in order to have the desire to stay out of it....perhaps he was trying to explain that the reason for excepting grace shouldn't be simply to stay out of Hell, but for the love of Christ.

In the fifth chapter of The Screwtape Letters, Lewis retouches on the theme that pain and suffering alone are not exactly evil. It is easy for pain and suffering to distract us from God but it can also point towards Him. The goal for Screwtape is not to to have "their attention diverted from themselves to values and causes which they believe to be higher than the self. (23)." War is not the glorious breeding ground for evil that Wormwood sees it as. In fact Screwtape mentions that it is much better for humans to die in their old age. This again emphasizes the concept of the subtle slope that Screwtape continuously urges Wormwood to take. Lewis feels that war is a very monumental thing, which it most certainly is. He does not however see it as the overwhelming evil that some people see it as. It is interesting to think that Lewis, as a veteran, holds this point of view. I would have expected Lewis to hold more of a prejudice against war than he does.

A common theme I found while reading through The Screwtape Letters is Lewis's belief in both mystical and spiritual as well as very practical and present parts of Christianity. You cannot accept one but neglect the other. In the third letter Screwtape addresses how to twist the patient's prayer so it is rendered innocuous. He proposes that by keeping the patient's prayer life much too heavily focused on the spiritual side of life, they lose the meaning because he is not addressing the everyday, here-and-now problems that he and those he loves are facing. This idea is along the same string of though as his definition of prayer in his Letters to Malcolm. There he talks of prayer as being an unveiling of ourselves to God (not that God's sight is hindered in any way). By focusing too much on the spiritual side of a person's existence you lose much of what is actually on your mind and therefor your prayer life suffers.

Lewis has this idea of a journey beyond death. It comes up again and again from The Problem of Pain to The Great Divorce and so on. In the eighth chapter of TGD Lewis adds this idea that you cannot exist in heaven for long without undergoing this change. There is a time line for change and when you refuse time and again to change, it becomes harder for you to remain in heaven. At this point in time the narrator has not yet realized that change is possible and starts to think that it is entirely possible that this place could be evil. It is interesting that Lewis mentions this because it combines his thoughts on our unworthiness of coming before the throne (even after death) and his idea that free will exists in heaven. It also goes to show that heaven cannot be embraced if we still hold onto any portion of this world, including ourselves. It is only when we stop worrying about ourselves that heaven becomes a reality.

As we end out the year, what are some of your overall opinions of C.S. Lewis. Are they the same as when you came in? Are they different? And, if in fact they are different what made you change your idea about Lewis? As for me I know my view of C.S. Lewis has changed rather remarkably, almost in a circular pattern. For I started out seeing Lewis as one of the great Christian writers of the 2oth Century and like anyone else once you start seeing past the infatuation you realize their faults, this caused me to be quite cynical about Lewis, but gladly I got passed that as well and realized his human faults are refreshing! Has anyone had a similar experience? Or am I just practicing the law of undulation?

Later in The Great Divorce the narrator meets the well traveled man. The man finds it impossible to be content with anything in life and so is headed back toward hell. Even hell for him is a disappointment. Lewis also subtly suggests here that anywhere in the world is worthy of being visited. The traveler talks of a Wold Combine where they take an Atlas and choose where to have a sight. The man thinks this is a scam, but it begs the question of why that this is wrong. Is any place one earth really not worth seeing? True appreciation, as is praised in this selection, could find admirable things anywhere in anything. It is also essential to salvation because this shows that your conception of reality can be skewed not by insuperior intellect but by an incapacity to appreciate.

One scene I found interesting from The Great Divorce is when the ghost is trying to pick up the golden fruit in the forest. At first it tried to pick up many but finally is reduced to choosing a single piece. I was pretty astonished when it actually succeeded in picking up the apple. Then the waterfall angel speaks to the spirit saying that it needs to put the fuit down and calls it a fool. The angel also mentoins that there is no room in hell for the apple. This was a very interesting thought because the hell presented earlier was one of infinate space. In the end the ghost resumes its struggle to carry off the apple and refuses the offer to stay and learn to eat it. What is it about hell that makes it incapable of holding this apple whithin it? Hell is big enough to hold other creations of God (human soul); why not this apple?

In the Screwtape letters, the gentle slope heads to hell, we have all heard about being neutral is one of the worst things to do because Christ can spit us out of his mouth, and the right path is the road less traveled. Looking at our options, sometimes it's hard to figure out why we choose the hard and difficult path. However, Christ's mercy and grace gives those on the narrow path hope. So have a good summer!

The quote Ella shared with us from Prince Caspian made me wonder as to Lewis true position on gender eqality. Though that quote was, I'm sure, meant to do nothing more than illustrate the eternal good-hearted animosity that exists between all boys and girls, especailly if they are siblings. However, it does seem to me that Lewis' later works, especailly Till We Have Faces, display a distinct trend of if not agreement, at least sympathy towards women's cramped situation in society. Perhaps his friendship with and marraige to Joy Davidman played a part in this. What do you guys think?

I was recently thinking about the changes made in the film adaption of "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," especially the inclusion of the fox character, and the waterfall scene that was added.
Though I'm usually a stickler for accuracy, I can sort of see why the screen writer wanted to create sort of an animal parallel to Edmond-- perhaps a craving for symetry prompted the change, or perhaps simply because they wanted to add another big name like Rupert Everett to the playbill. But I do feel that the film, for all its beauty and charm, has a strain of Hallmark-quality-supper-sappy-corn syrup-sweet sentamentalism that Lewis woould be repulsed by. Granted any film based on a text will only ever be an interpretation of the original, but I do feel that this addition was unwarrented. Lewis' prose style is warm and often playful, but it never stoops to Disney-happy low. What do you think?

And a final thought on the Screwtape Letters,
"Desiring their freedom He therefore refuses to carry them, by their mere affections and habits, to any of the goals which He sets before them: He leaves them to "do it on their own"
Letter II

I am not sure that I agree with this statement. I do not think that God completely leaves us to go through life on our own, patiently waiting to see how we do. God is evident to me in my life all of the time, consistently showing me that he is there with his arm around my shoulders. But perhaps we are not meant to take Screwtape seriously on this subject, he is a demon. Maybe this is one of those places where the reader is meant to realize that demons are never completely truthful, even with eachother

Another excerpt from the Screwtape Letters,
"All virtues are less formidable to us once the man is aware that he has them."
Letter XIV

For the past several months I have been praying for different spiritual virtues, a new one each month. For example, so far I have prayed for patience, self-discipline, a listening heart, and gentleness. After reading this passage it occurred to me that I should never stop praying for a specific virtue once I have started. It seems true that as soon as we think we have a virtue, any benefit that virtue might have brought to the world disappears because we think we no longer have to try or we become conceited saying, "Look what a good person I am!" which negates the virtue anyway. So I wonder, if in ceasing to pray for a virtue, I no longer try so hard to display that virtue. And if so, I should just continue to pray for every virtue I have prayed for in the past and just add to my list as months pass.

"You must bring him to a condition in which he can practice self-examination for an hour without discovering any of those facts about himself which are perfectly clear to anyone who has ever lived in the same house with him or worked in the same office."
The Screwtape Letters, Letter III

I have found that it is easy to deceive ourselves. I have often questioned my own motives and had trouble figuring out why I want something. A friend of mine said, "Sometimes I think that I make myself think that what I think is good is what I want, but I'm not sure if it actually is." Often, I believe that we make what we want what we feel we should want. I should want to have a good job, or I should want to spend time talking about hair with other girls, but this may not be what I would actually prefer. Perhaps I don't really care about hair, but our culture says that as a girl I should be concerned with my appearance. So, to fit in and develop relationships, I convince myself that I really do care (because who wants to spend time talking about something they care nothing about?). Is there really such a thing as the "real" you? If you can't even admit to yourself your true desires or motives how can you ever show anyone else these things? And, to be even more complicated, how do you ever know if you truly are being real, maybe you're just deceiving yourself.

And again from the same paper, on the value of art:

In The Four Loves, C.S. Lewis involuntarily philosophizes on the value of Art. In order to better illustrate the “arbitrariness and irresponsibility” of friendship, he writes, “Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art, like the universe itself (for God did not need to create). It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things which give value to survival.”[1] Art may not be necessary to sustain life, but it is necessary in order to enrich it sensually or aesthetically.[2] Art’s value is found in the value that it adds to living.
The author adds that the value of art is not found in the form or in principles, but in the moods and spirits they express. He feels this is why an enthusiastic botanist, or “worse” a landscape painter, is dreadful companion on a hike.[3] The artist has a tendency to compare scenes in “novelties of colour and proportion” and completely lose what really matters—“the ‘moods of time and season’ and the ‘spirit’ of the place.”[4] Thus, an artist should not preoccupy his/her mind with the endless calculations that determine the aesthetic value of a work. They should simply allow the mood and spirit of the work to work in or through them.
I agree with Lewis, but only to an extent. There must be a balance. Artists are intellectuals. Landscape Artists must study their craft, and therefore it is almost essential for them to compare scenes in “novelties of colour and proportion,” for how else would they learn to reflect the Beauty of God Himself and His creation in their artwork?
I believe no artist is truly creative; we cannot create out of nothing, in either resources or ideas. We must be inspired and influenced. We must study our environment, but we must find balance in also remembering to enjoy the mood and spirit of our surroundings. I cannot help but to wonder if Lewis’ irritation towards “enthusiastic botanist” and landscape artists (in regards to hiking) stems from a personal disinterest in detail (specific types of plants or color or proportion), interrupted walks (investigating that detail), or science.
[1] The Four Loves, pg 71.
[2] The Four Loves, pg 15-16.
[3] The Four Loves, pg 17-18.
[4] The Four Loves, pg 18.

Here are some of my thoughts on the definition of art from my paper on "The Philosophy of Art: According to the Works of C.S. Lewis" in case you are interested:

There are obvious theological and philosophical themes in the works of C.S. Lewis, which were integrated consciously, such as his thoughts on free will, the afterlife, creation, evil, and suffering. In contrast, C.S. Lewis’ views on the definition and value of art, and appropriate motives of its creation, are more apt to be unconscious, and may exist only as a vehicle to better illustrate these and other more predominate themes. Regardless of the author’s intentions, an artist may consider his inadvertent advice. Due to restraints on time and length, in addition with a personal bias, I will focus on the studio arts, most specifically painting.

In his biography, Surprised by Joy, C.S. Lewis writes that he and his brother were always “incessantly drawing” as children. Upon examining these drawings at a later age, Lewis admits that although he had the better talent, “…nowhere, either in my brother’s work or my own, is there a single line drawn in obedience to an idea, however crude, of beauty.”[1] To Lewis, there must be some correlation between art and beauty. Art should be “obedient to an idea…of beauty.” There is a need for Art to be aesthetic and beautiful. Art is beauty?

In his Oxford years, Lewis makes the mistake of labeling Joy as an “aesthetic experience.”[2] He defines an “aesthetic experience” as a gratifying, pleasure-filled encounter with Beauty. For Lewis, such an experience was a natural response to either Nature or Art, such as well written verse or his acquired taste for Titian’s paintings.[3] Lewis stresses the significance of the error in his thinking. He writes:

"All that such watching and waiting ever could find would be either an image (Asgard, the Western Garden, or what not) or a quiver in the diaphragm. I should never have to bother again about these images or sensations. I knew now that they were merely the mental track left by the passage of Joy—not the wave but the wave’s imprint on the sand. The inherent dialectic of desire itself had in a way already shown me this; for all images and sensations, if idolatrously mistaken for Joy itself, soon honestly confessed themselves inadequate. All said, in the last resort, “It is not I. I am only a reminder. Look! Look! What do I remind you of?”[4]

According to Lewis, art (“images” if you will), like Joy, runs a similar risk of being mistaken for Beauty itself. To Lewis, art is merely a reflection, a reminder, or “the wave’s imprint on the sand,” of what is Beauty, or more accurately Who is beauty. Joy Himself. Or in this case, Beauty Himself.

I fear Lewis’ definition of art can be misleading if taken to an extreme. However, before I begin I will kindly admit that all definitions of art are relative, limiting, and nearly impossible to formulate. That being said, if we agree with Lewis that art is a reflection or reminder of Beauty Himself, we must be wary of the frightening possibility of limiting beauty to what is flawless, holy, lovely, ideal, or heavenly. These are just a few among many adjectives used to describe God.

We cannot exclude the non-conventional beauty found in (or resulting from) weakness or brokenness (commonalities of the human race), especially for reason of Beauty Himself not being weak or broken. Artwork which illustrates human suffering, weakness, and/or deprivation has the possibility of indirectly (and often more effectively) reflecting overtones of God’s grace, unconditional love, and provision. Art does not have to be perfect, idealistic, or happy, to be beautiful…or Christian.

I feel this misconception often contributes to the stream of “bad art” often associated with Christianity. Bad art is just as powerful as good art and can leave a sour residue. C.S. Lewis writes: “It was also perhaps not unimportant that the externals of Christianity made no appeal to my sense of beauty. Oriental imagery and style largely repelled me; and for the rest, Christianity was mainly associated for me with ugly architecture, ugly music, and bad poetry.” [5] Artwork does not need to reflect or remind us of the Beauty that is God directly, for it is very difficult (and slightly cheesy) to paint holiness, or perfect love, or selflessness. I feel this is because we cannot understand such Beauty. On the other hand, every human being understands pain, brokenness, helplessness, and suffering, and it is these aspects of human nature that best (and indirectly) reflect, by contrast, the aspects of God.
[1] Surprised by Joy, pg 6.
[2] Surprised by Joy, pg 205.
[3] Surprised by Joy, pg 198.
[4] Surprised by Joy, pg 219-220.
[5] Surprised By Joy, 171-172.

Being college students, how should we interpret (and possibly apply) this passage from The Great Divorce? This selection comes from a conversation between a spirit named Dick and an intellectual (perhaps a theologian) in chapter 5. Dicks says:

"Friend, I am not suggesting at all. You see, I know now. Let us be frank. Our opinions were not honestly come by. We simply found ourselves in contact with a certain current of ideas and plunged into it beacause it seemed modern and successful. At College, you know, we started automatically writing the kind of essays that got good marks and saying the kind of things that won applause. When, in our whole lives, did we honestly face, in solitude, the one question on which all tuned: whether after all the Supernatural might in fact occur? When did we put up one moment's real resistance to the loss of our faith...(skip a ways)...We were afraid of crude salvationism, afraid of a breach with the spirit of the age, afraid of ridicule, afraid (above all) of real spiritual fears and hopes" (36-37).

I feel Lewis' views have a tendency to be "current," "modern," and "successful" at times, let us not be sponges, and wrestle with his ideas before we absorb them. I say this mostly as a reminder to myself, because I have a tendency to do so. This passage surprised me because I often get the impression that he (Lewis) is afraid of crude salvationism...but aren't we all? In our college years and beyond, I hope we are more like prophets (which often got stoned in the OT for saying the truth) than popular authors. For some odd reason, I often wonder if truth is truth if someone isn't getting pissed off. I am being rediculous, I know, but still I feel this is something to consider.

You might want to hear me out completely before responding (if you so choose to do so)...

A few lines in the conversation between the “Big Ghost” and a spirit (the redeemed murderer) in The Great Divorce caught my attention:

"I will tell you one thing to begin with. Murdering old Jack wasn’t the worst thing I did. That was the work of a moment and I was half mad when I did it. But I murdered you in my heart, deliberately, for years. I used to lie awake at night thinking what I’d do to you if I ever got the chance. That is why I have been sent to you now: to ask your forgiveness and to be your servant as long as you need one, and longer if it pleases you.[1]"

I am wrestling with the idea of asking forgiveness and offering servant hood to another human being in order to justify our sin against them in Heaven. I am not questioning whether forgiveness and servant hood have a place in Heaven. I don’t believe Heaven would be Heaven without forgiveness or service. Nor do I feel that all that is said and done here on earth will be totally forgotten in Heaven.

My only fear is that this idea (of Heavenly service justifying sin) has the potential of downplaying Christ’s redemptive work on the cross. Or does it? If Christ’s salvation is sufficient for us, why must we be “sent” to offer ourselves in service as a means of retribution or redemption? And why does this sound a bit like slavery? Does an eternity of service justify (or over-justify) a finite amount of sin? Perhaps, the words “I have been sent to you now” bother me most. If the spirit “sent” himself, or volunteered, or better yet if it were his own original idea, this would be an entirely different situation.

Why would God “send” one human being to another with this agenda? That is, assuming that God has done the sending. But who else could? When we sin, are we sinning against God or man? Or is it both? Is Christ’s sacrifice only meant to reconcile our relationship with God, not our relationships with other humans? Christ has done what we cannot (make a relationship with a Holy God possible); is the rest (our broken relationships with each other) left for us to redeem? Are we even capable of truly reconciling our relationships with each other in Heaven or on earth? I have never entertained this idea before.

The spirit continues in saying, “I was the worst. But all the men who worked under you felt the same. You made it hard for us, you know. And you made it hard for your wife too and for your children” [2] I feel it is crucial to understand that The Big Ghost and the spirit have both sinned against each other. There is a mutual need for each one to ask forgiveness from and to serve the other. Perhaps this idea becomes more fluid when one remembers that sin is often mutually exchanged in human relationships. Mutual service is not slavery. It is community.
[1] Lewis, C.S., The Great Divorce. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001 (pg 29-30).
[2] Lewis, The Great Divorce (pg. 30).

4 posts from Tim Wheatly:

#1:

It is interesting what C.S. Lewis writes in the Screwtape Letters when he Wormwood is told: "There is no need to despair; hundreds of these adult converts have been reclaimed after a brief sojourn in the Enemy's camp and are now with us."

It seems as if Lewis is going against the idea of "once saved always saved." It would not surprise me that he would believe in this doctrine, because of his great emphasis on man's freewill. If man has a choice in whether he is saved or not, than why does he not have a choice in forfeiting his salvation?
Nonetheless, the one main thing I see wrong here is that to me if man chooses God, that seems to be a work on his part of achieving salvation, because it is something that he has done to obtain salvation. Thus, I believe in predestination and the perseverance of the saints, that is that God chooses you and will never let you go.

#2:

I find it intesting how the Screwtape wants his patient to pray like he did when he was a child, where he sort of forgets what it means to be praying. Certainly, not praying with your whole being is something that the devil would want, but does the devil really want us to look back on, as is implied in Lewis' writings, our child-like prayers. In a way, that would not be a good-thing for the devil, since when I was a child and prayed, I will remember that I came to God with that child-like faith with which we must come to Him, because "anyone who comes to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him" (Hebrews 11).

#3:

C.S. Lewis continues the pattern of being able to relate to his readers by writing of current events that had happened in the recent past at the time of his writings. In Screwtape writing about the wars and how it can have negative effects for the demonic side, the reader's attention is grabbed, since many British had just gotten done with World War II at the time of them reading this book.
Also, it's interesting how C.S. Lewis cleverly reminds the reader, without them really notocing he is going so, about the inevitability of death. Whether it is in war or some place else, everyone will die and have to face God. Thus, C.S. Lewis prompts the reader to remember "his creater in the days of his youth" (Ecclesiastes).

#4:

Also, Lewis does a nice job of sneaking into the book how we as Christians tend to be concerned about what man thinks of us many times, instead of what God thinks of us. In chapter 10, Screwtape encourages Wormwood to have the patient laugh at his non-Christian's bad jokes, and to be silent when he ought to be spekaing up. This is definitely something that the Devil likes to work on. God has given us the Spirit without limits is what the scriptures say but Lewis implies in the book how we intend to suppress that Spirit. For we were not given "a spirit of timidity", but rather, as St. Paul says, "a spirit of power." Thus, to be shy in how we speak up, is to be lukewarm, something that is condemned in the Book of Revelation.

The opening line of letter 30 in the Screwtape Letters was quite funny (ok, at least to me).

"I sometimes wonder whether you think you have been sent into the world for your own amusement."

After I read this, my first thought was funny, my second thought was people who like to talk just to hear their own voice.

In Prince Caspian I found a laugh out loud line. I know the quote is a little long, but the stuff at the beginning is to put the quote into context. Enjoy!

"I know," said Peter. "The one that joins the big river at the Fords of Beruna, or Beruna's Bridge, as the DLF calls it."

"That's right. Cross it and strike uphill, and we'll be at the Stone Table (Aslan's How, I mean) by eight or nine o'clock. I hope King Caspian will give us a good breakfast!"

"I hope you're right," said Susan, "I can't remember all that at all."

"That's the worst of girls," said Edmund to Peter and the Dwarf. "They never carry a map in their heads."

"That's because our heads have something inside them," said Lucy.

"The trouble with argument is that it moves the whole struggle onto the enemy's ground." This is a passage taken from C.S. Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters." In light of this, Wormwood ought not to awaken the person's reasoning. This makes sense to an extent. Certainly, ignorance of God is worse than one wrestling with who God is. Ignorance leads to damnation while wrestling with God leads to eternal life, just as Jacob wrestled with God and had his questions answered. On the other hand, human reasoning can be dangerous in a way. Many times when humans try to reason too much, they are in disobedience against God, because they begin to think they know better than God. Does not St. Paul say that, "It was not by man's reason that he came to know God, but it was by God's wisdom that man came to know Him."? Certainly, human reasoning must have its limits.

"The demand of the loveless and the self-imprisoned that they should be allowed to blackmail the universe: that till they consent to be happy (on their own terms) no one else shall taste joy: that theirs should be the final power; that Hell should be able to veto Heaven."
-The Great Divorce, chapter 13, p. 135

This statement struck a resounding chord with me. It made perfect sense. How many times have you been having a great day, and are feeling happy and enthusiastic, and then someone just comes and pulls you down? As they say, misery loves company.
This also helps to clarify some of Lewis' ideas from earlier in the book. He seemed to be saying that people choose to be in heaven or hell of their own volition. People can either choose to take what life gives them and be content or decide that what God has given them isn't enough or is not what they want, and sulk about it. But sometimes I wonder if they could ever be content. Would they ever decide that they have gotten what they want, or would they always want something more or different? I think perhaps that it is a choice, whether or not to be happy.

Lewis was a man ahead of his times in his culture. He is still underappreciated by the English scholarly elite but has reached super star status in the United States. His legacy will only continue to grow as many people continue to engage, start discussions, and divulge in his literary works. I am a fan of C.S. Lewis. One thing that disheartened me as I took the C.S. Lewis and the Inklings class was I found credible critiques on his character. With his mysterious relationship with a friend’s mom, to his view on hell and the damned, to his constant smoking habit, and his admitted wild ways during his rebellious youth, we see that Lewis life was much more than exemplary it was truly human. Lewis rediscovered his faith in the midst of critique. He found his faith and was able to reconstruct if with his intellectual ability. He not only did this but lived out his faith with fervency and a love for others. He made mistakes, this is truly human, but instead of dwelling on his sins he lived a life of love, laughter, and contentment. With me discovering his humanness and not seeing the bright halo around his head that I pictured only a few years ago I am able to relate to him better. Even the great C.S. Lewis makes mistakes! His life is worthy of acclamation maybe not deification!

Sometimes when I pray I have images in my head. A tool C.S. Lewis suggests of the demons in the The Screwtape Letters letter four is to use pictures and icons as things that distract us from the very nature of the true God. We start to worship these icons because our focus is off the true God. This seems to be a big debate in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions which are full of icons. Are they praying to God through the icon or are they praying directly to the icon. There is a fine distinction to be made, but like Lewis cleverly points out, demons will use these fine lines to blur and take our minds off the real God. A critique of this is this, can we ever know the real God. In my opinion we can never know God in his fullness. We can know parts of God but never in full. So even though images are incomplete and can be used as ends in themselves to represent God overall, I feel icons and images are good because they, instead of distracting us can focus us more on God, the mysterious one we do not know in full. Has anyone ever had problems with iconic prayer?

Letter nine from The Screwtape Letters poses some interesting thoughts about being content with our faith. Screwtape tells Wormwood:

"If he is of the more hopeful type, your job is to make him acquiesce in the present low temperature of his spirit and gradually become content with it, persuading himself that it is not so low after all. In a week or two you will be making him doubt whether the first days of his Christianity were not, perhaps, a little excessive. Talk to him about 'moderation in all things.' If you can once get him to the point of thinking that 'religion is all very well up to a point,' you can feel quite happy about his soul. A moderated religion is as good for us as no religion at all - and more amusing."

Lewis hits the mark with this letter, because I think it is very true of new Christians to become like this. We are elated at first, but then the newness wears off. It also happens to people who have been Christians for awhile. Some of us may have experienced a "camp high" where we have all of these religious and emotional experiences that bring us closer to God. After camp is over and it has been a few weeks, the high wears off and we once again get stuck into what is comfortable.

I ran across a C.S. Lewis quote in one of my Psych. books. The chapter was called "Nice People and Evildoers". The author used the quote where Screwtape tells Wormwood that "The safest road to hell is the gradual one." The author states that by "succumbing to just a little temptation begins to erode the conscience, making the next evil act possible." This may help us to understand why people can do truly horrible things.
One classic experiment that we learned about was the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. A person (the learner) was hooked up to a machine in a separate room while the "teacher" was pushing the buttons in an adjacent room. The teacher was instructed to ask the learner questions and if they got them wrong, they were to press a button to give them a shock. The more questions they got wrong, the higher the voltage of the shocks. Even though the learners were screaming (they were not actually getting shocked) in the next room, Milgram found that 65% of the adult male subjects fully obeyed instructions and went as high as the machine would go. They did not like the task, but obedience prevailed over their moral conscience.
This is just one way of showing how our temptations can come about by a step-by-step process. If we succumb to one sin, we think that it is okay to do another.

A funny passage from The Screwtape Letters in letter 16:

Screwtape is chastising Wormwood for not reporting to him about the man's involvement in a church. He says:

"Why have I no report on the causes of his fidelity to the parish church? Do you realise that unless it is due to indifference it is a very bad thing? Surely you know that if a man can't be cured of churchgoing, the next best thing is to send him all over the neighborhood looking for the church that 'suits' him until he becomes a taster or connoisseur of churches."

I thought that this was kind of humorous because it is so true. There are many people who do not have home churches and bounce around to many different churches because they are not satisfied with any particular one. I think that every church has its flaws and none of them are perfect. New Christians probably get disappointed because they cannot find the perfect church. Maybe that is why the man is not satisfied with the church he is going to. Eventually, most people find a church that is close to what they are looking for and settle down at one. This could also be not very healthy either. We may fall into complacency at our churches and maybe by attending different ones once in awhile we can challenge our faith and grow in our walks with Christ.

Also, still on the same subject of grace in The Great Divorce, at the bottom of page 28 the Big Ghost is quoted as saying, "That may do very well for you, I daresay. If they choose to let in a bloody murderer all because he makes a poor mouth at the last moment, that's their look out" (p.28). Can people be saved like this? I sympathize with the Big Ghost a little bit on this even though I know my standards of fairness are not the same as God's! What to people think?

On page 28 and 29 in The Great Divorce the Big Ghost is talking with Len, the murderer in heaven. In this dialogue their is interesting statements made about grace and pride. On the bottom of the page we see how the Big Ghost is stuck in pride unable to see past the thing that is decieving him. "I only want my rights. I'm not asking for anybody's bleeding charity" (p.28). Len responds very matter of factly in the next sentence, "Then do. At once. Ask for the Bleeding Charity" (p.28). All to often people try to earn and buy their way into heaven. They refuse to ask for anyones help and see Christ's atonement as nothing more than bleeding charity. Is their some way we can present people Christ's atonement as more than just bleeding charity? How do we get past this pride in todays world?