The Weight of Glory

I've just finished reading C. S. Lewis' essay "The Weight of Glory", and all I can say is... Wow. God really gifted him with insight and with writing ability.

I've included the link above, so while you click on it and open up the PDF, I leave you with some winning quotes :)

If you asked twenty good men to-day what they thought the highest of
the virtues, nineteen of them would reply, Unselfishness. But if you asked almost any of the great Christians of old he would have replied, Love.
You see what has happened? A negative term has been substituted for a positive, and this is of more than philological importance. The negative ideal of Unselfishness carries with it the suggestion not primarily of securing good things for others, but of going without them ourselves, as if our abstinence and not their happiness was the important point

we remain conscious of a desire which no natural happiness will satisfy. But is there any reason to suppose that reality offers any satisfaction to it? “Nor does the being hungry prove that we have bread.” But I think it may be urged that this misses the point. A man’s physical hunger does not prove that that man will get any bread; he may die of starvation on a raft in the Atlantic. But surely a man’s hunger does prove that he comes of a race which repairs its body by eating and inhabits a world where eatable substances exist. In the same way, though I do not believe (I wish I did)that my desire for Paradise proves that I shall enjoy it, I think it a pretty good indication that such a thing exists and that some men will.

It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to
may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted
to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all,
only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one
or other of these destinations.

[Thanks to JP for the link to the PDF :)]

Self-control and grace

I'm re-reading Tim Chester's book You Can Change, and I've been struck again by his insistence that only Jesus can ultimately change us.

It's been my experience, however, that I quite often end up forgetting this, like Tim Chester points out:

It seems that our first instinct when we want to change is to do something. We think activity will change us. We want a list of do's and dont's. (p.47)

Whenever I want to get something done, my first instinct is to do something RIGHTNOW. If I can't do something about it RIGHTNOW, I get antsy and start drawing up lists and plans, preparing for that moment of RIGHTNOW when I can do something. [Anal, much? Yes.]

Yet, if a recent study in TIME is anything to go by, it appears that there's evidence suggesting that self-control will never get us anywhere:

The prevailing theory is that because self-control is a finite resource, when you deplete it — say by consistently choosing carrots over cupcakes or by refraining from splurging at the shoe store — you're less likely to be able to control urges toward anger or aggression when they arise at inappropriate times.

Then why do we keep on persisting with our little rituals and rules? This, Tim Chester suggests is due to an error in cause and effect. Behaviour doesn't correct behaviour. Heart corrects behaviour:

Our rituals might change our behaviour for a while, but they can't change our hearts. (p.48)

So what now, hey, Tim Chester, what now??

The answer is simple: Stop relying on rules and legalism to change your heart, when you should be loving Jesus more and more so that your heart's desires change focus. He puts it far more eloquently than me, though:

In Greek mythology, the Sirens would sing enchanting songs, drawing sailors irresistibly towards the rocks and certain shipreck. Odysseus filled his crew's ears with wax and had him tie him to the mast. This is like the approach of legalism. We bind ourselves up with laws and disciplines in vain attempt to resist temptation. Orpheus, on the other hand, played such beautiful music on his harp that his sailors ignored the seductions of the Siren song. This is the way of faith. The grace of the gospel sings a far more glorious song than the enticements of sin, if only we have the faith to hear its music. (p.64/65)

--
See previous posts from here onward.

Talking about Sleepy Time

I just read the most interesting post on Why we need sleep and yet don't want it.

The crux of the matter is:

We don’t like sleep because sleep is an admission that we aren’t in control. It’s a physical expression of our spiritual need to lay down and rest in the arms of One who is sovereign and never sleeps.

I think it's time for me to go rest now, so you read the complete post here at Life2getherblog.com

Good ol' Richard Dawkins, Mr Public Science himself...

Wowee! I finally got a chance to read a review of Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion today, and man oh man, the author is scathing at times.

Terry Eagleton, the eminent literary critic, has written an article for the London Review of Book, in which he not only tackles holes in Dawkins' argument, but also presents many of the doctrines of Christianity concisely and clearly. I'm tempted to haul out all the bits that I enjoyed, but I think that mean that I have to copy and paste the whole article, so I'm just going to cut a few snippets out, that are particularly thought provoking and insightful.

For anyone else who wants to read the rest of the article, here you go:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

"Dawkins considers that all faith is blind faith, and that Christian and Muslim children are brought up to believe unquestioningly. Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar school thought that. For mainstream Christianity, reason, argument and honest doubt have always played an integral role in belief. (Where, given that he invites us at one point to question everything, is Dawkins's own critique of science, objectivity, liberalism, atheism and the like?) Reason, to be sure, doesn't go all the way down for believers, but it doesn't for most sensitive, civilised non-religious types either. Even Richard Dawkins lives more by faith than by reason. "

"Dawkins rejects the surely reasonable case that science and religion are not in competition on the grounds that this insulates religion from rational inquiry. But this is a mistake: to claim that science and religion pose different questions to the world is not to suggest that if the bones of Jesus were discovered in Palestine, the pope should get himself down to the dole queue as fast as possible. It is rather to claim that while faith, rather like love, must involve factual knowledge, it is not reducible to it. For my claim to love you to be coherent, I must be able to explain what it is about you that justifies it; but my bank manager might agree with my dewy-eyed description of you without being in love with you himself. "

"Dawkins thinks it odd that Christians don't look eagerly forward to death, given that they will thereby be ushered into paradise. He does not see that Christianity, like most religious faiths, values human life deeply "

"On the horrors that science and technology have wreaked on humanity, [Dawkins] is predictably silent. Yet the Apocalypse is far more likely to be the product of them than the work of religion. Swap you the Inquisition for chemical warfare."

"Nor does [Dawkins] understand that because God is transcendent of us (which is another way of saying that he did not have to bring us about), he is free of any neurotic need for us and wants simply to be allowed to love us. Dawkins's God, by contrast, is Satanic. Satan ('accuser' in Hebrew) is the misrecognition of God as Big Daddy and punitive judge, and Dawkins's God is precisely such a repulsive superego. This false consciousness is overthrown in the person of Jesus, who reveals the Father as friend and lover rather than judge."

"Because the universe is God's, it shares in his life, which is the life of freedom. This is why it works all by itself, and why science and Richard Dawkins are therefore both possible."

Last but not least: food for thought. "Dawkins quite rightly detests fundamentalists; but as far as I know his anti-religious diatribes have never been matched in his work by a critique of the global capitalism that generates the hatred, anxiety, insecurity and sense of humiliation that breed fundamentalism. Instead, as the obtuse media chatter has it, it's all down to religion."

A N Wilson - return to faith?

Here's an article written by an "ex-atheist", a friend of mine passed along. It makes for an interesting read "from the other side" and he presents some intriguing insights and points. Very well-written and humourous as well :). I don't think the reasons he presents would convince every atheist, but I'm including this here, cause it's another prime example of God working to melt our stubborn, hard hearts:

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/04/conversion-experience-atheism

A response to the issue of homosexuality

From homosexuality to the Gospel
- Ian Carmichael
Have you noticed how often non-Christians raise the issue of homosexuality with us these days? "Why is the church so anti-gay?" "What do you think about gay marriage?" "How can you be against two people being in a long-tern, loving and supportive relationship? Why should it matter what gender they are?" Next time a non-Christian raises this topic, instead of fumbling around, try responding with "Why are you non-Christians so obsessed with sex ad sexuality?" Expect your non-Christians to respond like this: "What do you mean? It's Christians who have always been obsessed with sex!" Then you can say, "Hey no, that's not true. I don't want to talk about sexuality at all. I'd much rather talk about how God has shown his love for us in sending his Son, Jesus, to rescue us. That's a far more important topic to talk about. Can we talk about that together?"

- From BRIEFING 368

"As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God"

Interesting title, even more interesting read.

Matthew Parris, writing for the Times Online, writes that "missionaries, not aid money, are the solution to Africa's biggest problem". It's really amazing to read his article and read how he acknowledges the positive changes Christians have brought about in Africa. It's even more exciting to have this written about in such a respectful manner!

I've found it a more common occurrence to have Christians scorned as hypocrites who don't do anything and Christianity attacked for various historical events, so this is definitely an encouraging read, especially considering its source!

Have a look here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece