The Great Divorce

The Great Divorce is an awesome book. You should read it.

Rather than writing a long blog post about it that wouldn't do it justice, I thought I'd just go through some of my favorite excerpts. Don't let these fool you into not reading it! What matters aren't the quotations as much as the characters.

Exchange between a sinner in Hell and a murderer in Heaven who (of course) repented:

"Aren't you ashamed of yourself?"
"No. Not as you mean. I do not look at myself. I have given up myself."

Later on:

"But I got to have my rights same as you, see?"
"Oh no. It's not so bad as that. I haven't got my rights, or I should not be here. You will not get yours either. You'll get something far better."

Once we understand grace, we will stop insisting on our rights.

"I'm not asking for anybody's bleeding charity."
"Then do. At once. Ask for the Bleeding Charity. Everything is here for asking and nothing can be bought."

After the sinner describes himself as a "decent man":

"You weren't a decent man and you didn't do your best. We none of us were and we none of us did."

The repentant murderer confesses some sin:

"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."

More:

"You mind your own business, young man.... Because I'm not taking any impudence from you about my private affairs."
"There are no private affairs."

And then the ultimate expression of pride:

"I'd rather be damned than go along with you."

Next is a discussion with a liberal theologian which you'll just have to read in its entirety.

One Ghost (people in Hell are Ghosts) says, "If they wanted to rescue us they could do it." But all that must happen for us to be rescued - and the only thing that can rescue us - is our willingness to be rescued: our willingness to repent.

Another great exchange:

"I wish I'd never been born. What are we born for?"
"For infinite happiness. You can step out into it at any moment...."

On shame:

"Don't you remember on earth - there were things too hot to touch with your finger but you could drink them all right? Shame is like that. If you will accept it - if you will drink the cup to the bottom - you will find it very nourishing: but try to do anything else with it and it scalds."

This latest Ghost is unwilling to repent:

"You've no right to ask me to do a thing like that. [...] And now - please, please go away!"
"Friend. Could you, only for a moment, fix your mind on something not yourself?"

A bunch of pearls of wisdom from Lewis' spiritual mentor (and guide through the afterlife) George MacDonald:

"[Y]e cannot in your present state understand eternity.... But ye can get some likeness of it if ye say that both good and evil, when they are full grown, become retrospective."

"They say of some temporal suffering, 'No future bliss can make up for it,' not knowing that Heaven, once attained, will work backwards and turn even that agony into a glory. [...] The good man's past begins to change so that his forgiven sins and remembered sorrows take on the quality of Heaven."

An interesting take on Heaven and Hell:

Hell is a state of mind.... And every state of mind, left to itself, every shutting up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind - is, in the end, Hell. But Heaven is not a state of mind. Heaven is reality itself. All that is fully real is Heavenly. For all that can be shaken will be shaken and only the unshakable remains."

Some metaphysics:

"Ye cannot fully understand the relations of choice and Time till you are beyond both."

Why do people go to Hell?

"The choice of every lost soul can be expressed in the words 'Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.' There is always something they insist on keeping, even at the price of misery. There is always something they prefer to joy - that is, to reality."

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened."

"The whole difficulty of understanding Hell is that the thing to be understood is so nearly Nothing."

"[A] damned soul is nearly nothing: it is shrunk, shut up in itself. Good beats upon the damned incessantly as sound waves beat on the ears of the deaf, but they cannot receive it. [...] First they will not, in the end they cannot, open their hands for gifts, or their mouths for food, or their eyes to see."

How sinful pleasures lead us astray:

"[T]he time comes on when, though the pleasure becomes less and less and the craving fiercer and fiercer, and though he knows that joy can never come that way, yet he prefers to joy the mere fondling of unappeasable lust and would not have it taken from him. [...] He'd like well to be able to scratch: but even when he can scratch no more he'd rather itch than not."

On bad emphases:

"There have been men before now who got so interested in proving the existence of God that they came to care nothing for God Himself...as if the good Lord had nothing to do but exist! There have been some who were so occuped in spreading Christianity that they never gave a thought to Christ."

On conversion:

"Those that hate goodness are sometimes nearer than those that know nothing at all about it and think they have it already."

"It's only the little germ of a desire for God that we need to start the process."

"[T]he whole thickening treatment consists in learning to want God for His own sake."

"Nothing, not even the best and noblest, can go on as it now is. Nothing, not even what is lowest and most bestial, will not be raised again if it submits to death."

On the danger of art:

"Every poet and musician and artist, but for Grace, is drawn away from love of the thing he tells, to love of the telling till, down in Deep Hell, they cannot be interested in God at all but only in what they say about Him."

One Ghost is offered to drink from a special fountain:

"When you have drunk of it, you forget forever all proprietorship in your own works. You enjoy them just as if they were someone else's: without pride and without modesty."

A Fountain of Humility! Would I drink of it?

On loving God first (a lot to think about here):

"Human beings can't make on another really happy for long. [...] You cannot love a fellow-creature fully till you love God."

On fulfillment in Heaven:

"Lust is a poor, weak, whimpering whispering thing compared with that richness and energy of desire which will arise when lust has been killed."

On feelings:

"[N]o natural feelings are high or low, holy or unholy, in themselves. They are all holy when God's hand is on the rein. They all go bad when they set up on their own and themselves into false gods."

Repentance is freeing:

"That's what we all find when we reach this country. We've all been wrong! That's the great joke. There's no need to go on pretending one was right! After that we begin living."

On Heaven:

"Don't you know that you can't hurt anyone in this country?"

"Here is all joy. Everything bids you stay."

"Everything becomes more and more itself. Here is joy that cannot be shaken. Our light can swallow up your darkness: but your darkness cannot now infect our light."

"If it would help you and if it were possible I would go down with you into Hell: but you cannot bring Hell into me."

"The Happy Trinity is her home: nothing can trouble her joy. [...] He fills her brim full with immensity of life: he leads her to see the world's desire."

"[A]ll loneliness, angers, hatreds, envies and itchings that it contains, if rolled into one single experience and put into the scale against the least moment of the joy that is felt by the least in Heaven, would have no weight that could be registered at all."

As sinners, we misunderstand love:

"When your own heart's been broken it will be time for you to think of talking. But someone must say in general what's been unsaid among you this many a year: that love, as mortals understand the word, isn't enough. Every natural love will rise again and live forever in this country: but none will rise again until it has been buried. [...] There is but one good; that is God. Everything else is good when it looks to Him and bad when it turns from Him."

"[W]hat we called love down there was mostly the craving to be loved. [...] We shall have no need for one another now: we can begin to love truly."

It is amazing how we have confusing love with this craving.

False religion is dangerous and deceptive:

"The false religion of lust is baser than the false religion of mother-love or patriotism or art: but lust is less likely to be made into a religion."

On pity:

"Pity was meant to be a spur that drives joy to help misery. But it can be used the wrong way round. It can be used for a kind of blackmailing. Those who choose misery can hold joy up to ransom, by pity."

"Either the day must come when joy prevails and all the makers of misery are no longer able to infect it: or else for ever and ever the makers of misery can destroy in others the happiness they reject for themselves."

"[True pity] leaps quicker than light from the highest place to the lowest to bring healing and joy, whatever the cost to itself. [...] Every disease that submits to a cure shall be cured: but we will not call blue yellow to please those who insist on still having jaundice...."

And finally, on Freedom:

"That thing is Freedom: the gift whereby ye most resemble your Maker and are yourselves parts of eternal reality. But ye can see it only through the lens of Time, in a little clear picture, through the inverted telescope. It is a picture of moments following one another and yourself in each moment making some choice that might have been otherwise. Neither the temporal succession nor the phantom of what ye might have chosen and didn't is itself Freedom. They are a lens."

Casuistry and Culpability: Raskolnikov and Utilitarianism

(An English essay I wrote, but I think the critique of utilitarianism is useful. All the page numbers are from Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. If you haven't read the book, you should, but you probably won't understand this essay.)

Casuistry and Culpability: Raskolnikov and Utilitarianism

Simple arithmetic. Thus a student in a bar explains his rationalization of murdering Alyona Ivanovna – “simple arithmetic” (68). He says, “Kill her, take her money and with the help of it devote oneself to the service of humanity and the good of all. What do you think, would not one tiny crime be wiped out by thousands of good deeds?” (68) Raskolnikov himself states “an extraordinary man has the right…to decide in his own conscience to overstep…certain obstacles” (260). These moral justifications are formulated upon the ethical doctrine of utilitarianism, whose major premise is that morality depends solely upon the consequences of an action (summarized colloquially as “the ends justify the means”). Superficially, this argument appears tantalizingly seductive, yet as Dostoevsky eloquently illustrates in Crime and Punishment, the “simple arithmetic” of Raskolnikov’s theories is egregiously flawed. No tortuous ethical legerdemain can justify the brutal murder of two women.

The initial and fatal flaw in Raskolnikov’s proto-Nietzschean ethic is the artificial and arbitrary distinction between ordinary and (allegedly) extraordinary men. Although Raskolnikov claims that extraordinary men are “extremely few in number” – going so far as to say that “the man of genius is one of millions” – and that there is a “definite law” which separates them from the ordinary (263), he seems perfectly content to categorize himself as an extraordinary man. Nevertheless, throughout the novel, Raskolnikov displays no extraordinary qualities besides depression, nightmares, paranoia, pride, rage, hypochondria, indolence, and delirium. He conjectures that crimes fail because “almost every criminal is subject to a failure of will and reasoning power by a childish and phenomenal heedlessness” (74), and then commits incredibly asinine blunders during the murders, culminating in his unplanned execution of Lizaveta. For the majority of the novel, then, Raskolnikov is no ordinary individual, but an extraordinarily perturbed one; to grant him the authority to arbitrate morality unilaterally is patently insane.

Perhaps the more subjective and debatable issue is whether or not Raskolnikov’s intentions validated his legal transgressions. Indeed, even after he is convicted, Raskolnikov finds “no particularly terrible fault in his past, except a simple blunder which might happen to anyone” (535). When he confesses the murders to his sister, he is even more adamant; after his sister protests that he shed blood, Raskolnikov cries, “Which all men shed…which flows, and has always flowed in streams, which is spilt like champagne, and for which mean are crowned in the Capitol and are called afterwards benefactors of mankind….I too wanted to do good to men…” (513) Nevertheless, Raskolnikov’s impassioned words belie his stolid and senseless actions following the murder. In fact, during his trial, the judges note that he makes no use of the trinkets he steals either for himself or for others (527). Indeed, the most obvious result of Raskolnikov’s scheme to murder Alyona is the second murder of the (supposedly) more innocent Lizaveta, highlighting the pitfalls of his utilitarian barbarism. Either Raskolnikov suffers from amnesia, or he was not truly motivated by altruism. Raskolnikov himself admits his true impetus to his sister: “…I only wanted to put myself into an independent position, to take the first step, to obtain means, and then everything would have been smoothed over by benefits immeasurable in comparison…” (513) No matter how he attempts to couch his theory in philanthropic language, Raskolnikov cannot perpetually conceal from himself his true desire to authenticate his theory and thus establish himself as an extraordinary man.

In the end, however, Raskolnikov’s own conscience convicts him. Raskolnikov is tormented constantly by his guilt, though he refuses to acknowledge it as such. When Sonia looks at him, she knows only that he is “terribly, infinitely unhappy” (328). He even dreams of a dystopia of (in essence) extraordinary men who “each thought that he alone had the truth….Men killed each other in a sort of senseless spite” (539). Dostoevsky clearly intends to portray his protagonist as a man not merely physically, but spiritually and emotionally ill.

Finally, Dostoevsky indicates Raskolnikov’s guilt by his repentance and regeneration at the conclusion of the novel. After months of nonsensical agony, Raskolnikov finally collapses before Sonia and cries; Dostoevsky writes that he has “risen again” (541). Only the truly guilty are capable of such marked rebirth.

Smerdyakov's Question

"God created light on the first day, and the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day. Where did the light come from on the first day?"

- Smerdyakov, The Brothers Karamazov

Convenient that Moses predicted the Big Bang, isn't it?

"Fiat lux." (Genesis 1:3, Vul.)

Church History in Plain Language

I just finished reading Bruce L. Shelley's Church History in Plain Language. This is a great book for anyone considering introducing himself to the fascinating and controversial field of Christianity's history. Church history is an incredibly important subject, because it explores the relationship between the Church and the world over time. Needless to say, how the Church should interact with the world is one of the most pressing issues facing any congregation. Studying church history more in-depth will allow us to understand the differences between denominations and their theologies and the (vast) cultural influences acting upon Christianity.

Anyway, Dr. Shelley divides Christianity into eight eras:

1. The Age of Jesus and the Apostles (6 BC-70 AD)
   
2. The Age of Catholic Christianity (70-312)
   
3. The Age of the Christian Roman Empire (312-590)
   
4. The Christian Middle Ages (590-1517)
   
5. The Age of the Reformation (1517-1648)
   
6. The Age of Reason and Revival (1648-1789)
   
7. The Age of Progress (1789-1914)
   
8. The Age of Ideologies (1914-1996)

(Yes, I know the historical divisions are different in Wikipedia. Get over it.)

Dr. Shelley does a great job of writing how the title says he will - in plain language. History flows very organically from his pen (or maybe it's a quill). Now, Dr. Shelley seems to be a conservative Protestant (He never says so explicitly, but his opinion of the Roman Catholic church isn't very Roman Catholic. This is the doctrinal statement he is apparently required to sign.), and so the book does focus on Western Protestant Christianity more so than Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christianity, but he does a great job of finding balance. There are also hundreds of suggestions for further reading, so you can find even more excuses for not getting off your butt. I want to read a history book by a Roman Catholic historian next, though.

By the way, church history is especially important to those of us who are members of non-traditional, non-denominational, or young churches. And yes, that includes me and my church family. It is vital that we understand our place in time instead of assuming we are the Restorers of True Apostolic Christianity or whatever.

And no, Bruce didn't recruit me to write this spot for his book....but Bruce, if you're reading this, you know what to do.

Star Wars and the KGB: The Ultimate Conspiracy

So you known the Lusankya, Ysanne Isard's Super Star Destroyer (what a great name) in the (allegedly fictional) Star Wars universe? Well, turns out the place where the KGB did their dirty work is called Lubyanka. Dyslexic coincidence? I think not. More updates will be forthcoming.

Clive Staples Lewis

C.S. Lewis might be my favorite Christian thinker of all time. A former atheist, he converted to Christianity and wrote some phenomenal books, including The Chronicles of Narnia series (Should it be "the The Chronicles of Narnia" series?), Mere Christianity, God in the Dock (which I want to read), The Screwtape Letters, and more. Mere Christianity is one of the best books I have ever read.

There's just something special about his writing. Maybe it's that he was an Englishman born in the 1800's, but he's very quotable. He also is exceptionally intelligent and (unlike many Christian writers) willing (and able) to confront atheism. Most of his writing discusses Christianity from a more philosophical standpoint, rather than scientific or historical. His two most famous ideas (according to Wikipedia, anyway, but they are the two I associate with him) are the common morality of man and the inability to classify Jesus as a great teacher:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.