Seeing Around the Corner

 

Last time, I wrote about giving thanks in all things.  This was in contrast to giving thanks for all things.  There are, of course, many things that I cannot give thanks for, but I can still give thanks to God in all things.  It is all a matter of perspective – of how we look at the world.  In this regard, there is an approach proposed by author Charles Williams, a contemporary of C. S. Lewis and T.S. Eliot, who proposed that we sometimes see good as evil in our limited perspective.  This seems counter intuitive and raises the question why we would ever see good as evil. 

On reflection, I can think of the ultimate example for Christians when we consider that the followers of Jesus must have viewed Jesus’ crucifixion as the ultimate evil and the defeat of all their hopes and dreams.  We can often, given the perspective of time, look back on events and see the good which came out of some event that seemed very bad at the time.   We can think of people who were not able to be at work in the twin towers on 9-11 or someone who was delayed getting a flight to a vacation in an exotic location only later to be informed the plan crashed and none on board survived.  We don’t see the bigger picture at the time. 

Charles Williams understood "seeing the good as evil" as the human predicament of experiencing good things in a way that makes them seem evil, primarily because of our divided consciousness and our ego centered understanding of things. The solution, for Williams, was not to simply separate good from evil, but to transform evil into an "occasion for love" by understanding it as an opportunity for good and love, thereby integrating both into a higher understanding of God. 

I don’t want to be Pollyannaish about this and be like Dr. Pangloss of the novel Candide, "all is for the best" in "the best of all possible worlds."  There is such a thing as evil and there are many manifestations of evil in the world.  However, with our limited understanding and perspective, there are times when we can’t see what the outcome of an event will be.  I believe that we should keep an open mind about the possibility of a good outcome of a bad event.  After all you we can’t see what is around every corner all the time.  It does put things into perspective.

 

New Year Resolutions 2

Last time I wrote somewhat facetiously about my New Year resolution to be conscientious in shredding all the old financial documents that had been accumulating in the “paperless society” which we had been promised.

Today, I have a more serious resolution which will not be so easy to keep.  It is to live according to the rule to do unto others as I would have them do unto me i.e. the Golden Rule as it is commonly called.  In some ways this makes perfect sense.  After all, who doesn’t have a clear idea of how they want to be treated by others?  The ideas may differ from person to person, but it seems to be a universal truth that all people know when they haven’t been treated as they believe they deserve to be treated.  So, it seems to make perfect sense that we should treat others the same way.  However, in practice it certainly is not that easy. 

Take a simple example.  You are walking along a city street and are approached by someone who has a somewhat disreputable appearance.  You know pretty well what is going to happen next.  They are going to ask you for some spare change or enough money for something to eat.  Your defenses automatically go up and you wonder what you should do.  Perhaps you should ignore them and walk on by quickly.  Or perhaps you wonder if this person is really in need or is it a scam?  Or perhaps you wonder if they will just use the money for something less appropriate than food such as cheap wine or other drugs.  You ask yourself if they are deserving of your help. 

Lorna and I were in a Tim Horton's in London last week in a part of the city that has a strong representation of homeless people.  While in line I was asked by someone nearby for money to buy a muffin.  I did give him a Toonie, but I haven’t delved into the thought process in coming to that decision.  That is just a small example of what should be a relatively straightforward case.  I do not always respond that way to such requests for various reasons as I noted above.  If we want to make the Golden Rule our way of life, it truly will complicate things. 

C.S. Lewis addressed the challenge of a Golden Rule New Year resolution:

I may repeat ‘Do as you would be done by’ till I am black in the face, but I cannot really carry it out till I love my neighbour as myself; and I cannot learn to love my neighbour as myself till I learn to love God: and I cannot learn to love God except by learning to obey him. 

So, I guess the best way is to start with the small things – small steps in keeping my resolution at least some of the time.  Something to consider on your Journey through 2025.

Screwtape You

 I am rereading that great book by C.S. Lewis, that theologian for everyone, The Screwtape Letters.  The book is comprised of letters from an elderly senior devil, Screwtape, to his nephew, Wormwood, an apprentice devil.  He is writing to advise his nephew on the best ways and means of securing his client for the realm of “their Father Below” (Satan).  God is referred to as “The Enemy”.  Lewis uses what might be described as reverse psychology and satire and other tropes to highlight the challenges of being a Christian and the failures of people in their attempts to live a Christian life.

It can be rather humbling to recognize in myself some of the characteristics that Screwtape encourages Wormwood to use of his client (victim) to ensure that he will come under the eternal thrall of Their Father Below.  The impact of the book on the reading audience was and remains quite significant.  This is shown in a quote from the introduction to the edition I am reading which tells of a country clergyman:

Who wrote to the editor of The Guardian, where The Screwtape Letters had appeared serially canceling his subscription on the grounds that ‘much of the advice given in these letters seem to him not only erroneous but positively diabolic.’  Lewis is reported to have roared with delight: he could not have asked for a better proof of the book’s triumphant strategy.

To give you a taste of Lewis’s style and effect I will delve into one ‘Letter’(number 3) in which Screwtape is writing to Wormwood about the relationship of the victim with his mother.  He advises his beloved nephew to take a number of approaches. 

First, Wormwood should keep the victim’s mind on his inner life.  That would keep his mind off the elemental day to day aspects of life i.e., keep it all theoretical and not on the day-to-day messiness of life. 

Second, the victim’s prayers for his mother should also be spiritual.  This keeps them focussed on the state of her soul and not her physical challenges.  This will keep him focussed on what he considers her sins which, with a little guidance will be those things about his mother which he finds annoying or irritating.

Third, Screwtape notes that when two people live together they invariably “have tones of voices and expressions of face which are almost unendurably irritating to the other.”   Screwtape encourages Wormwood to work on and emphasize this as much as possible.

Fourth, Screwtape notes that, “In civilized life, domestic hatred usually expresses itself by saying things, which would appear quite harmless on paper (the words are not offensive) but in such a voice, or at such a moment, that they are not far short of a blow in the face. 

 

Lewis, through the voice of Screwtape, is wonderfully aware of the challenges in relationships.  He is warning of how these can be used to plant seeds that may grow into something destructive.  This, of course, is the work of Our Father Below (Satan), and counter to the work of the Enemy (God).

The Screwtape Letters is a great read and one that would be a wonderful companion on your journey.  Blessings

The Unknown Unknowns

 Recently, a friend brought to my attention the following quote from Henry Thoreau and suggested I might consider reflecting on it in this venue:

 

Henry Thoreau in Walden: “We are sound asleep nearly half our time.” 

“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practise resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience.”

 Thoreau is famous for removing himself form his society and living the ‘idyllic’ simple life in a cabin in the woods by Walden Pond.   It has been a long time since I read anything by or of Thoreau so I come to this quote with a limited context. 

 The thoughts which come to me this morning are from a perspective that I wasn’t anticipating.   I anticipated that I would explore the quiet life and perhaps the opportunities that Thoreau must have had a contemplative life or how we can commune with God by our experience of nature.  However, what came t my mind unsought was the idea of the unknown unknowns.  Some years ago, an official in the 2nd Bush president - not sure who now – spoke of their being three categories of knowledge, the known knowns, the known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns.  In effect we know what we know, we know what we don’t know but there is the third category of not knowing the things we don’t know we don’t know.  Now I hesitate in principle to give credit to anyone in George W Bush’s administration, however, it seems to me there is some wisdom in this realization.  The realization that there a not knowing in life puts us in a position which is uncomfortable for most of us.  If we don’t know what we don’t know how can we ever keep our sense of being in control of our lives?  This, of course, is an illusion but it is one which we try in many ways to maintain to live our daily lives in some comfort until our world gives us a taste of the unknowns, we try our utmost to not consider.

You might well ask how this relates to that quote from Thoreau.  Well, to be honest I am not completely sure.  Perhaps Thoreau was attempting to explore the known unknowns so that he could live the full life as he imagined it – to discover what he had not lived.  But, in my imagination, Thoreau must have discovered some of the unknown unknowns which he could not have expected form the experience. 

 I don’t know Thoreau’s belief in a divine being.  However, he was a Transcendentalist and according to Wikipedia Transcendentalism has:

A core belief is in the inherent goodness of people and nature,[1] and while society and its institutions have corrupted the purity of the individual, people are at their best when truly "self-reliant" and independent. Transcendentalists saw divine experience inherent in the every day, rather than believing in a distant heaven. Transcendentalists saw physical and spiritual phenomena as part of dynamic processes rather than discrete entities.

In my view those of us who believe in a Divine source in this world approach it generally with the first two ways of knowing i.e., the known knowns and the known unknowns.  We want to put God into a box which is manageable and comfortable.  The known known approach is to take holy scripture as the literal inerrant word of God putting God into a contained box with well-defined dimensions which we can strive to live up to or not.  The known unknown approach to God is to expand the parameters of that box to a lesser or greater extent but we still have a firm idea of who and what God is and is not.  However, to approach God with true humility is to realize that God is far beyond any concept we might have of God.  That box we want to put God into has gaps and holes in it and can no longer contain what or who God is.  I don’t know if it is possible to apprehend God fully in this way and not retain at least some of the box in our concept of God.  Perhaps those who are blessed to have a mystical experience are apprehending just that.   However, if we approach God in honest humility, we will perhaps we surprized by joy, to use C.S. Lewis’ phrase.

Perhaps Thoreau and the Transcendentalists were hoping to achieve just this in their approach to the mystery of life – to be surprized by the joy and wonder of creation.  Perhaps we can as well.  For me that is not easy as the unknown unknowns can be rather a scary prospect at least at times. 

I hope that on your journey you are blessed in being are able to leave the door open a crack to get a glimpse of those things we don’t know we don’t know on your journey. 

 

 

 

Who’s in Control part 2

Yesterday St. James Anglican Church in Parkhill was celebrating its 149^th anniversary.  It was a low-key but lovely service which Lorna and I attended.  Rev. Karen Nelles, the rector of the parish was presiding and preaching.  It was rater nice to be able to worship with Lorna and have a break from any liturgical duties.  The sermon was based on the Gospel reading John 15:1-8, with the theme, I am the vine you are the branches. 

In her sermon, Karen referred to drinking the Kool-Aid.  This is a reference to the cult led by Jim Jones who forced his followers to drink Kool-Aid laced with poison.  It has come to refer to someone who goes along with a dangerous idea because of peer pressure. 

It stuck me that Jim Jones had mistakenly tried to be the vine instead of a branch.   In effect, he wanted to be in control rather than acknowledging that God is the one who should be in control and is ultimately in control.  I recall years ago watching a movie based in Jim Jones’ life.  As I recall, he started out in California with a ministry which had very high motives.  It was focussed on racial integration.  However, he lost his way and led his followers astray with deadly consequences.  In effect, he began to believe he was the vine rather than one of the branches. It is very easy to become confused about being a vine or a branch.  Putting it another way we believe that our branch is really the same as the vine and therefore what we desire for ourselves and others is actually what God desires. 

Sin is not just a question of being alone and not being in relationship with other people and the world.  It is a question of what kind of relationship.  A master and a slave are in a relationship but it is a relationship in which one person―the master―is in control and the other―the slave―is controlled i.e. not free.  That is a state of being in sin.  The relationship between others and me must be mutual.  In which one does not control or dominate the other.  Richard Rohr addressed this in today’s Daily Meditation quoting C.S. Lewis:

Sin is a refusal of mutuality and a closing down into separateness. In his classic book, The Great Divorce, C. S. Lewis has a ghostly soul in hell shouting out, “I don’t want help. I want to be left alone.” [1] Whenever we refuse mutuality toward anything, whenever we won’t allow our deep inner-connectedness to guide us, whenever we’re not attuned to both receiving and giving, you could say that the Holy Spirit is existentially (but not essentially) absent from our lives.

The desire to control is a great temptation for us as human beings.  It is natural but it is not the intention God has for us.  We are called to live lives in which we serve and not lives in which we believe we should be served.  We are the branches and Jesus is the vine.

Blessings on your journey.

How can I keep From Praying

I recently received the gift of a book on prayer.  It is entitled Men Pray and is a collection of prayers and reflections by many of the ‘big names’ is theology and spirituality.  I don’t mean this to be disparaging in any way.  The writers include such diverse people as modern writers C.S. Lewis, Nelson Mandala, Wendell Berry as well as ones in the classic canon such as Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Ignatius of Loyola, Francis of Assisi, and Tagore.  There are even some surprizing entries by people not normally considered in the field such as General Douglas MacArthur.  It also introduced me to people I am not familiar with such as Ted Loder and Jay Marshall.  It also has entries by that most prolific of writers, author unknown. It is a treasure that I can delve into for a long time to come and be the source of much contemplation as each entry can be something to meditate on at length. 

However, this morning I want to reflect on the introduction to the book which is written by Brian D. McLaren.  This is something of a synchronistic event as the McLaren was one of the presenters at the Haden Dream and Spirituality Conference I attended at the end of May.  I had not been familiar with this person or his writing previously so it is, I believe, a “significant coincident” that I received this book shortly after.  I was quite impressed by McLaren from his presentations at the Conference and I bought his most recent book, A New Kind of Christianity, which I am currently reading.  I have found the writing  of McLaren to be an excellent expression of many of the issues I have been exploring for many years in my personal theology  (of course I therefore think his theology is right on which needs to be balanced by some counter arguments). 

One part of the introduction by McLaren particularly spoke to me.  He was speaking of his grandfather’s approach to prayer:

My grandfather didn’t  seem  to be bothered by all those theological questions of how prayer functions, of what prayer accomplishes, of how the prayers of one person interacts with the free will of another or with “the sovereign will of God “ or “the law of nature”.  He didn’t seem to type to question why prayer should be necessary, why an all benevolent God would need to be invited or coaxed into doing the right thing. Somehow, he flew above or below the altitude at which those questions buss and bother.

This sums up eloquently in a few words the journey I have been on for many years in regard to prayer and why I should pray.  I have had many debates with myself along those lines about prayer and if and how I should pray. 

I contrast this approach to that of Gretta Vosper, a United Church of Canada minister who is a self-declared atheist.  I wrote about Vosper a while ago and my criticism of her stance.  She expounded in her writings, which are extensive, about her epiphany which brought her to her current understanding (misunderstanding in my view) about God.  The episode involved the death of the much beloved elementary school teacher of her daughter.  Her daughter had prayed fervently that the teacher would be healed of the condition that eventually killed her.  Vosper could not answer her daughter’s questions about how a loving God could allow such a beloved person to die.  In my understanding, this led her to her current belief that there is no God.  Since then Vosper has been on a crusade to convert the United Church to her form of Christianity, or rather, into an organization which is more in line with a secular service club.

My journey has brought me to a point in life in which prayer plays an important part.  It has brought me to the place where I know and believe that prayer is necessary for my salvation and the salvation of the world.  I pray because I know it is necessary for me and for the world regardless of those theological questions which can be voiced by me within or by others such as Vosper on the outside.

Blessings on your journey. 

What is an Apostle Any Way?

A few days ago, I finished reading Miracles, By C.S. Lewis.  I should say re-reading but it was as if I was reading it for the first time (wish I had the kind of memory that would retain more of what I read the first time).  This is the best exploration of the phenomenon and theological implications of miracles that I know of.  It was recommended by a professor when I was studying theology at Huron University College.  I would recommend it to anyone struggling with the concept of miracles, biblical or otherwise.

In the opening sentence of the chapter, Miracles in the New Creation, Lewis declares, “In the earliest days of Christianity an ‘apostle’ was first and foremost a man who claimed to be an eyewitness of the Resurrection.”  This reactivated a memory from some years ago when I was challenged on this definition.  I was at one of the intensives (residential session) for my training as a Dream Group Facilitator with the Haden Institute.  Someone asked me how I would define an apostle.  Apparently, someone in their group had a dream about being an apostle.  I defined it the way that Lewis was speaking of it i.e. someone who had seen the risen Christ.  The person did not like this definition as it did not fit with her understanding.  She referred me to passages in the Gospels which referred to the disciples as Apostles which was prior to the crucifixion.   Unfortunately, I had not thought much about this definition and was not able to support this definition in what I considered a satisfactory way. 

As Lewis notes, when two candidates where proposed to fill the vacancy in the inner circle of disciples created by the betrayal and death of the Judas their qualification was that they had known Jesus before and after his crucifixion and could offer first-hand evidence of the Resurrection in spreading the Good News of Christ resurrected i.e. the Gospel, to the world.  St. Paul claimed to be an apostle on this basis, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen the Lord Jesus?” 

I had been introduced to this concept but, as I note, I was not able to give an apology for that position, at least to my satisfaction.  This bothered me for some time afterwards.  This was actually because my ego was wounded and I felt inadequate.  Here I was a priest (fairly newly minted) but did not have a good grasp on what was a basic concept in Christians theology.  In effect, I did not look on this encounter as the opportunity it was to engage the person more fully and to explore where they were coming from.  My ego got in the way of an opportunity to engage life and people more fully which is what we are called to do as Christian.   What was most important to me was proving myself right and the other person wrong.

I believe that the ego is the one of God’s greatest gift to humanity.  It can be considered part of how we are created in God’s image.   It is a blessing; however, it can also be a curse.  The ego, in its normal state will believe that it is charge; that it is the center of life.  It does not surrender that position of self-deluded primacy easily.  It is usually a long journey for the ego to reached its proper place which is being in service to God rather than believing that God should serve it.  However, that is what we are called to be and do as Christians―in service to God and God’s creation. Perhaps that could be a working definition of apostle, one who is in the service of God in the world.  Thanks be to God. 

Blessing on your journey.

Chained to the Past

A few weeks ago I introduced the idea of sin as those things which chain us to the past.  I want to explore that concept further this week.  I came across this concept or definition of sin quite a few years ago.  However, the source has been lost in the recesses of my memory.  My supplication to the god Google was not answered.  So I have to accept the uncertainty of the genesis of this concept of sin. 

The concept of sin as being chained to the past resonated with me when I first heard it and I still believe that it gets at a, if not the, fundamental aspect of what sin is.  Sin is not morals or ethics; although sin can certainly involve moral and ethical behaviour.  However, if we see sin more as an approach to life and to how we respond to life in all its aspects, I believe we are getting to the heart of sin as being chained to the past.

Humans are created in the image of God.  However, that image does not mean that we are God or gods.  We are imperfect and we will not follow the course of life that God intends for us.  So what is it that chains us to the past?  We all have developed survival mechanisms which we believed, on an unconscious or conscious level, were necessary for us to be successful in life.  Indeed they may have been absolutely necessary given the cards we were dealt in life.  If someone was raised in an abusing environment they developed mechanisms that helped them survive e.g. run and hide from the abuser when certain signs were there that abuse could be about to happen.  If someone was raised in a scarcity of food or shelter, a person would develop ways of doing what was necessary to gain those necessities.  If someone was ignored as a child they may decide that they need to act out to get the attention they crave to have their existence acknowledged.  In my case I found the world I was in to be a puzzling and somewhat scary place outside my home.  So found my small corner which was safe and which I could withdraw to when the world became too much for me to deal with.

These survival mechanisms were necessary and appropriate given the circumstances people find themselves in.  However, when our circumstances change, perhaps knowing that you will have the necessities of life, or that the people in your life now are not abusive, the person may not accept that as the reality and react as if the world is still the old familiar way which is no longer necessary.  This prevents us from living the life as fully as possible.  It chains us to the past and does not enable us to become the people that God intended us to be when God created us; that for me certainly one aspect of sin.

I recently finished reading The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis.  I believe purchased the copy some years ago but had never read it.  It describes wonderfully the concept of sin as being chained to the past.  The book is an allegory along the lines of Pilgrims Progress (although not quite up to that caliber) which describes a scenario where a bus has arrived in heaven with a load of passengers who have come from the village where they have been.  This village is, in reality, hell—although they do not recognize that it is hell not having experienced hellfire and brimstone.  These souls are met by residents of heaven who they have known in their lives and who are their guides to the heaven where they now find themselves.   The souls find heaven to be too real and too substantial.  They are insubstantial so even the grass is too solid and too uncomfortable for them to walk on without some discomfort.  Different souls are presented as stereotypes that reject heaven because of their beliefs and ways of being. 

For example, one resident (angel) of heaven greets a “Fat, Clean-Shaven Man” who he knew in life.  The angel tells him that he is now indeed in heaven and the place he left was indeed hell.  The soul refuses to believe him and engages the angel using semantics to defend his view of reality.  The angel tries to make him understand that his view of reality is wrong.  The soul rejects the angel’s “crude salvationism” and unwilling to abandon his intellectual construct of life smugly goes off to catch the bus for the return trip to what for him is an acceptable existence in the village. 

I do not agree with Lewis’s theology on some points, however, I enjoy his writing immensely and there is much about his faith and belief that I admire.  In The Great Divorce I believe he has caught the essence of the concept of sin as those things that chain us to the past.  One of the callings and challenges we have as Christians is to try and discover and break those chains that keep us from living the life God intends us to live. 

Blessings on you journey.