Why Doesn't Susan Keep the Horn?

This is probably repetitive but nevertheless let's take a look at the question of Susan's horn from another perspective. 

Why does Susan not take back the horn when offered by Caspian? An easy answer would be that it doesn't work outside of Narnia. There seems to be some wisdom in that given that The White Witch's magic doesn't work in our world either (though it does work in Narnia - begging the question why magic seems to work in other worlds but not ours).   

But perhaps the real reason is that Susan realizes she doesn't need it. The horn brought Susan and her siblings to Narnia. They were the help that Aslan sent to the war-torn, beleaguered Narnians at their moment of desperation. If Susan were to blow the horn in our world - wouldn't it just call Susan? Obviously, that would be worthless. But it also suggests that Susan should be able to solve her own problems. She should be the one to bring her own salvation.

Now that's quite a statement - one should always pray to God and plead with Him for salvation. And God gets to choose His method of helping us. I trust everyone knows the joke of the person standing on a rooftop with rising floodwaters and refusing the assistance of a boat and helicopter because he's sure that God will save him. OK, so we need a balance - on the one hand we have to take responsibility for ourselves, on the other we cannot insist that "My power and the strength of my hand" (Deuteronomy 8:17) will bring about salvation. 

So, what should Susan do? The horn symbolizes God's help, but God's help is her. Keeping it may cause her to haughty and think that she is the source of salvation. So, she gives it away - enabling her to concentrate of God's salvation, but still with the realization that she can be God's messenger is bringing help to others. 

We know what happened to Susan. She is overcome with the vanity of the world and gives up her status in Narnia. But perhaps this is part of her salvation and that of others. Peter, Edmund, Lucy and the rest, never tell their story to anyone. No one is inspired by them, no one seeks to follow their path. One day the horn will blow calling Susan to return to God, to once again be His messenger. She will hear the call, and she will come - but when she does, she will bring crowds with her. 

All sorts of people will hear her story of youthful passion in God, the teenage cooling off as she substituted the spiritual for a physical focus, and finally enlightenment that only God is worth the time and effort.  They will resonate with HER story in a way they never could with the story of Lucy and Peter. 

Once and Queen of Narnia always a Queen of Narnia. Queen Susan of the Horn will always be the source of 'magical' help and salvation for others. 

Letters to Malcom (Letter 1)

The family and I were up in the Berkshires this past week where we stopped off at Shaker Mill Books, which I heartily recommend to all those who loved used books. One of my finds was a 1964 edition of Letters to Malcom: Chiefly on Prayer and I thought it would be interesting to kind of live blog my thoughts as I read through.

Two caveats: (1) I realize, that I'm way behind on so many other things so hopefully I'll follow through on this and get to everything else soon as well. (2) I have mixed feelings about live blogging (or podcasting) through a book because I think any part of a book is better understood after reading through the whole thing. So, we'll see how this goes... 

Letter 1: 
This Letter surprised and confused me, and leads me to think that perhaps I have misunderstood church service. In traditional Judaism the need to pray with a quorum in a place dedicated for prayer (like a synagogue) is a given. And both matter - one should preferably pray in a synagogue even without a quorum and preferably pray at the same time as the rest of the congregation even if not at the synagogue. Hence, Lewis' almost immediate dismissal of congregational prayer as not a subject for discussion (outside of this first letter) was quite a shock. 

Where I find more room for agreement is in Lewis' emphasis on familiarity of the service. Tradiational Judaism certainly takes this to an extreme. While every (I can only speak for Orthodox Judaism) synagogue has its own flavor, the base service is very standardized, so that any Orthodox Jew can go to any Orthodox synagogue and have a good idea of what prayers are being recited (while in the Berkshires I prayed at a synagogue with a decidedly Hasidic influence. I am certainly not an adherent of Hasidism, but still followed along without a problem). Furthermore, the standardization of prayers exists even when not praying with a quorum, though certain parts of the service cannot be recited without said quorum. New prayers have been added to the standard service over the centuries, but a fundamental change of that sort takes decades to win acceptance. So, with respect to the habitual and familiar I am entirely onboard. 

Where I may find disagreement with Lewis is in his desire for the habitual in order to not have to fix attention on the service, but fix attention on God Himself. To some extent I understand this. If someone is not familiar with the tune or has a hard time reading the words that person may concentrate on the recitation of the prayer at the expense of its meaning. Still, this does not mean that the words of the prayer are besides the point, or should be recited in a habitual manner. Our goal is to fix attention on the meaning of the prayer, understand it, internalize it, for it is through the prayer that one speaks with God. So, what is it that Lewis wants people to concentrate on? I'm afraid I have not understood exactly what he wants. 

Finally, I have to comment on the question of language. From an early age we teach our children to read and understand biblical and rabbinic Hebrew. This does not mean that everyone successfully understands every word of every prayer (which is why many prayerbooks have translations). Nonetheless, the recitation remains the same. The Pslams and later prayers that make up the daily and holiday routines are recited in their original language and it is expected that people will strive to learn and understand the original language, even if modern Hebrew (and certainly English) is different than the language of the prayers. It is not my place to critiize, but I must admit, I am at a loss as to why the general Christian population does not learn the Greek and Hebrew necessary to understand their texts in the original.  

Perhaps I've misunderstood something in all this, and perhaps Lewis will clarify in later Letters. 

We'll see...  

The 9th of Av

My apologies for lack of recent posts as I've been writing thoughts for the 9th of Av which ended this evening. Given the trials and tribulations of Jews throughout the world, the tragedies recalled on the 9th of Av (the destruction of the Temples, the Crusades, the Holocaust, etc.) are more relevant and meaningful as we put our current troubles into historical perspective.

I've noted in the past of Narnia's lack of holidays (besides Christmas). I should also note a lack of fast days. Nonetheless, Lewis understands what happens when we have none. Moving to the beginning, we know that the curse of the White Witch not only kept Christmas away but also disrupted the ebb and flow of the calendar. Of course, people (and presumably talking animals) are naturally drawn to the days of happiness and joy, but they are rendered less meaningful without the sorrow of days of fasting and mourning. The curse of the White Witch was to remove both, causing unending repetitive days taking away the highs and lows, forcing all of life to conform to her time. 

So too on the historical level. The White Witch's freezing of time, while felt immediately on the yearly cycle aimed to steady all of history. No longer should there be victories or defeats. No longer should there be years of blessing or years of cursing. All should remain bland and constant under her rule. 

The victory of Aslan opens the door for a return to history. And while the past year and half have been painful ones for the Jewish people, we already know that end of the story is one of victory and celebration. The only mystery is how we will get there, but even the tragedies are a step in the path of redemption rendered all the more meaningful by the pain of the journey. 

C.S. Lewis and the Jews: A Marriage Made in Heaven or a Great Divorce?

I'm really happy to see R' Mark Gottlieb's review essay on P.H. Brazier's "A Hebraic Inkling" and "Freud's Last Session." Obviously, we are very behind on my own comments on Brazier's excellent work so hopefully this will motivate me to move forward on that effort. In addition, R' Gottlieb's review raises a number of questions with regard to supersessionism and Lewis' "Reflection on Psalms," both of which require further comment. 

Stay tuned!

Before Till We Have Faces

Pints with Jack has released a great episode called a primer for Till We Have Faces (TWHF), Lewis' most complex work of fiction and, according to Lewis, his greatest work. I wanted to add some notes that may help a Jewish reader approach this work (please note that R' Mark Gottlieb has already written an introduction to TWHF here, and I've already shared a lot of my thoughts on TWHF here). If you haven't read TWHF, please check out those other resources because what I write here is just some notes. 

TWHF is, as Lewis says, the myth of Psyche and Cupid retold. In many printings of TWHF a recounting of the myth is included at the end. But to weigh in on the debate, I definitely think you should read the myth first - Lewis assumed that any educated adult would be familiar with it.

OK, some things to know: 

1) Lewis was generally a fan of paganism and the willingness of pagans to sacrifice for their gods. The straight line he draws between paganism and Christianity contrasts sharply with the Jewish view of Judaism as being a complete break from paganism (or paganism being a corruption which must be fixed). 

2) TWHF works on two levels, the personal and the societal. On the personal level Queen Orual embodies the warnings of the Four Loves. She spurns each of the loves before eventually learning that the Gods love her and, perhaps, she could have loved them. 

On the societal level, TWHF is the story of the beginning of the evolution from paganism to Christianity and from barbarism to Western Civilization. The goal is to make the gods beautiful so that Glome will be able to accept Christianity. This can only be done thanks to Orual's transformation of Glome into a prosperous society. Lewis' concentration is much more on the first level than on the second. Orual attains grace only because she eventually learns the gods love her, not because of the prosperity and happiness she brought to her people. I think Judaism, with its concentration on works would celebrate Orual and the good she does for society despite her faults. The bible has a number of heroes who play this role. 

3) Correctly, Psyche is the only one that can bring beauty to the gods. For only one who loves God can enable others to love Him as well. To do this, Psyche must become a goddess herself, which she does. In Judaism it is people who bring about love of God, redemption, and forgiveness. Not so in Lewis' view.

I hope this helps! Happy reading... 

Prophecy Lost

If anyone is interested in some (non-Narnia) things that I'm interested, you're welcome to look at the article just posted at the Lehrhaus on the life and prophecy of Bilaam. 

It was fun writing it and I hope you enjoy!  

The Bow and the Horn

The verse states: “Moreover I (Jacob) have given to you (Joseph) one portion above your brothers, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow” (Genesis 48:22) ... What is the meaning of “with my sword”? This refers to prayer. What is the meaning of “with my bow”? This is referring to requests. (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 123a)

Jacob assures Joseph that he will be given as an extra inheritance land that Jacob conquered with instruments of war. The Talmud, however, reinterprets these words from weapons to prayer. Presumably, Jacob used both. Similarly, when preparing for a confrontation with his brother Esau, Jacob prepares for war, by dividing his camp into two, and prays to God. The lesson is obvious. Humans must do whatever they can to prepare for and fight incoming danger. However, they must also realize that all is in God's hands and turn to Him in prayer. 

Two of the Pevensie children receive opposing gifts from Father Christmas - but they oppose in different contexts. Peter receives a sword and shield. The sword is an offensive weapon while the shield is a tool of defense. They are opposites in the context of war. Lucy receives a dagger and a healing cordial. The dagger is to cause harm while the cordial is to remove harm. Again, the gifts are opposite but now in the greater context of human welfare. 

Then there is Susan. She receives a bow (and arrows) and a horn. The bow is to actively fight, as is Peter's sword and Lucy's dagger. What is the purpose of the horn? Well, a priori a horn could be used to arouse the troops to war. But that's explicitly not the purpose of Susan's horn. Father Christmas says, that blowing the horn will bring assistance. But presumably it is not just some regular help one would receive from a typical call. No, it must be divine help. In other words, Susan's horn is an instrument of prayer. And, like the other two, her gifts are opposites, but now the context is how to contend with the physical world. Does one work, try, and persevere, or lay back and let God take care of it? 

Susan's horn also reminds us of the ram's horn (shofar) blown every Jewish New Year (Rosh HaShana). The function of the shofar is multifaceted. Rambam states that the shofar arouses people, not to war, but to repentance. But the shofar may also function as prayer - a prayer with no words, a prayer in which we ask God to fill in what we need, because we do not actually no. 

And perhaps that is the function of Susan's horn - a vehicle of prayer without words. Therefore, Father Christmas cannot know what type of help will be received. No one can know - not even the petitioner (the one who blows the horn) can know because that is exactly the point. God Himself will fill in the blanks and send the assistance He knows is appropriate. 

This may also explain why the horn should not be blown without forethought. Of course, prayer can and should be recited every day, not only in our darkest hour. But that doesn't mean the shofar should be blown every day. Both are powerful tools but retain their power over us due to their uniqueness. 

As we have seen, the context of Susan's gifts is more global, perhaps even more theologically fundamental then the other gifts. Presumably this was not arbitrarily done, for it is Susan who grapples most with the natural versus the spiritual. 

I think we need to look at Susan's fate one more time...