Saturn Under God

So I actually think the class went pretty well on Thursday. But I think at its core, what was making me a bit uncomfortable can be boiled down to this quote of Lewis from the Four Loves: 

Emerson has said, "When half-gods go, the gods arrive." That is a very doubtful maxim. Better say, "When God arrives (and only then) the half-gods can remain." Left to themselves they either vanish or become demons.

Let's not worry about whether Emerson meant to say what Lewis suggests he implies (I'm not quite sure he does). When speaking of the natural loves this statement of Lewis makes sense. We sacrifice for love, adore love, fight for love, all the things we might do for God. But without the true God the love will self-corrupt. My question arises not in the context of loves, but in the context of mythology and astrology. Lewis (as evidenced in Planet Narnia) is comfortable using the Greek/Roman gods as reflections of the true God. Hence, their qualities, strengths, even personalities, can be invoked and appreciated as reflections of God Himself. 

One of the ideas that emerged from the class is that the Sages, without mentioning the mythology, use the personalities and qualities to characterize astrologically the planets named after the gods. The worship of those planets would clearly be idolatrous but even the suggestion that these can be half-gods makes me uncomfortable.  

Saturn, Shabbos, and the Light of Eternity

It's been a while since I've been able to give a class on Christmas Day. A lot of the Jewish high-schools arrange for father-son learning that day, but with both of my sons out of high school I'm back to giving my usual American Holiday class. 

So, tomorrow's class will be on, "Saturn, Shabbos, and the Light of Eternity." It's somewhat different from my usual fair in that we'll get into Jewish astrology (though we discussed a little bit of Jewish astrology in our Jewish Narnia series) and tomorrow we'll concentrate of Saturn. If it turns out well maybe I'll expand in a different post. But in the meantime my source text will be from the Occident and American Jewish Advocate, Vol. 22, March 1865. You can find it here: ⁨⁨The Occident and American Jewish Advocate⁩⁩ | Newspapers | The National Library of Israel

And while I'm not really going to quote Lewis much I do think this source text is in line somewhat with the idea of the minor powers taking their place under God. I need to expand on that at some point and actually fit the astronomy in. I think this article in the Occident actually does that pretty well.   

Prometheus's Flood

For anyone who might be interested - 

My reading of the story of Noah: Prometheus’s Flood | The Lehrhaus

Letter to Malcom: Letter 3 (Part 2)

In the second part of this letter, Lewis brings up the question of praying to or with saints. While there is certainly a discussion of such topics in Jewish prayer I'm not going to rehash it. I'm simply going share my thoughts. So, if you don't like what I write below - blame it on me, there are other opinions out there... 

A fundamental belief in Judeo-Christian thought is that man is created in God's image. This can and does mean a number of things. But, chief among them, is that any individual human can have a direct relationship with God. No intermediary is necessary. And while it might feel like a good idea to have an mutual friend between you and God, it seems to me that it's a bit of a trap. God already told us you can have a direct relationship. He's not lying, so trust him! So, no, I don't like the idea of praying to saints (or righteous individuals, or rabbis, or angels, etc.). 

Still, there are several points to note. First, the above does not mean that one should not have others pray for them. Of course you should. That's why synagogues (and I assume churches) have special prayers for the those who may be sick or in danger, as we did for the hostages and continue to for the members of the U.S. Military and Israeli Defense Force. When someone prays for you, they declare before God that they care and that they themselves would be harmed should something happen to you. They throw in their peace of mind and well-being and say, "God, I am unworthy, but know that harming them hurts me too." This empathy is of great importance before God and may tip the scale in favor of safety and salvation for the person being prayed for. 

Second, though there is a lot of discussion as to how much angels should be invoked in prayer, it's almost impossible to cancel them completely from the Jewish liturgy. Angels, as in the typical type that are pictured with wings, and the astronomical bodies such as the sun and stars, have no free will. They follow the will of God. Copying their songs of paise to God or mimicking aspects of their being in physical terms (such as standing with ones feet together since angels are described as having one leg, or wearing white) demonstrates that we heed, or at least stive to heed, God's will like the angels, despite both our capability to to not follow and our sometimes unfortunately choices to not not follow His commands. 

Third, the place of prayer matters. Certain places are holy because of what happened there or what is to be found there. For example, Jerusalem is holy because it is where Abraham did not end up sacrificing Isaac, or because it is the place God chose to build the Temple (one could argue that God commanded to build the Temple is Jerusalem because it was already holy - perhaps due to the just mentioned binding of Isaac. But I don't think you have to say that. There are other rationales given for why the Temple is, for example, on the border between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin). Other places, such as a typical synagogue outside of Israel, can become holy, and appropriate for prayer, simply because Jews have prayed there for so long. And, perhaps a place can become holy, or let us say consecrated, because it is the final resting place of great people or a place where great people did their holy work. Abraham Lincoln put it succinctly, "The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract." Praying in a place of holiness (beyond perhaps that God is 'attracted' to such places) shows that we recognize the holiness. That we too, strive to be holy and walk in the footsteps of the great ones before us.  

In summary, I certainly don't like the idea of praying to saints and I'm not a big fan of praying with saints but I'm willing to entertain some glimmers of the idea as with my caveats above. 

Next time we'll discuss time of prayers... 

Peter's Shield

In speaking of Peter's shield, I neglected to mention that Peter's shield comes up somewhere else: the single combat between Peter and Miraz. Before going into that story a quick introduction.

The shield that has an insignia. The insignia on the shield of Peter the High King over all kings of Narnia is the red lion. The red lion does not appear on Peter's sword, but on his shield. Now, of course, the shield has space for an insignia while the sword doesn't. But I find it interesting that the insignia is on the defensive tool, not the offensive one. Peter's defensive tool is marked by Aslan while his offensive tool is not. However, in the combat against Miraz, the shield becomes an offensive tool. 

You'll remember that during the battle with Miraz Peter's shield goes limp - he cannot use his shield properly, he is open to attack. That is the view on the battlefield. But there's another perspective, not any less true: the red lion, Aslan, is lying limp no longer defending Peter. He has left him open, naked, and without protection. But there's a backstory, why is Peter's shield limp? Peter explains to Edmund and Dr. Conelius - the rim of his shield drove into his wrist causing (at least) a pretty severe sprain. In ther words, Peter's shield has been the cause of its going limp. Or, from our alternate perspective, Aslan has not merely left Peter open to harm, he has turned against him. Aslan caused the harm that left Peter without protection. 

Aslan went from defending Peter to attacking him. 

This is quite the lesson for Peter. But what has Peter done wrong? I think the answer is pretty clear. For most of 'Prince Caspian' Peter has been attempting to lead on his own, rather than paying heed to Aslan. He has, perhaps, quite forgotten that Alsan is the King and it is not Peter who will bring victory through single combat, but Aslan who may decide to use Peter's hand to achieve that victory. 

Nevertheless, Peter has a solution - to have wrist tied very tight. In other words to limit its utility, make it unable to bend or rotate. Disable himself to rely on Aslan.     

C. S. Lewis Reading Day: On Affection without Familiarity

 But Affection has it's own criteria. It's objects have to be familiar. 

(The Four Loves)

Welcome to my slightly early post for C.S. Lewis Reading Day. As I explained in my last post, C.S. Lewis Reading Day (November 29) this year comes out on Saturday. And since the Sabbath doesn't end until nightfall, I'll miss the festivities over at Pints with Jack. I could wait until Saturday evening to post, but I'd rather be a day early than wait until late on the Reading Day itself. 

This year's theme is storge, which is, in Lewis' analysis in The Four Loves, called Affection. Affection includes includes familial love and all others with whom we are a part of our usual day-to-day lives. With that in mind, I start my post.

Of the four types, or genres, of Love defined by the Greeks, Lewis considers Affection to be the most humble and least showy. It lacks the sparkle of romance and the excitement of friendship. Yet, in some way, it underies them all. When the passion has subsided or the adventure has passed, the lovers or friends bound by affection can pause, and enjoy the comfort of each other's company. 

That is why Affection is the love used to describe the relationship between members of a family (and here I concentrate on the nuclear family). It's the love that allows siblings to drive each other crazy but immediately stand up for each other against an outsider. It's the missing dynamic when one member is not at home. It is what comes into question when (Genesis 2:24), "a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife..." 

However, the challenge opposite 'leaving' arises as well, because Affection requires familliarity. It is the comfort, the feeling that everything is as it should be, that makes Affection tick. So what happens when someone new is added to the family and (correctly) expects affection?

I've been thinking about this, because last week my daughter got engaged!

Now, of course, we are very happy about this. And her finace is a wonderful young man from a fine, upstanding family. So, the question or challenge that I raise is not to look for some sort of excuse. It's more to explore Lewis' point - does Affection require familiarity?

Naturally, when it comes to such relations we explore the biblical corpus and see what we find. Unfortunately, we don't find much, and that which we do find is more a warning than a model. Jacob and Laban whose story we read in this week's Torah portion clearly didn't get along. But even they did better than David and Saul. Despite Isaac's love for Esau, Esau's wive caused him and Rebecca much pain, and let's not even talk about Tamar and Judah. Now, we do find Moses and Jethro and that one seems to work out well. And perhaps we see echoes of that story in Lewis corpus and the relationship between Aravis and King Lune. 

To review, Moses escapes the Pharoah's wrath by fleeing Egypt for Midian. There he sees Jethro's daughters (now there is some questions on exactly who is Jethro versus Re'uel, but we'll keep it simple) are being abused by the other (presumably male) shepherds at the well. Moses saves them, and waters their sheep himself. Apparently this abuse was a regular occurrence because when his daughters returned home, Jethro could not believe how quickly they were able to water the sheep. The daughters explained that they were saved by a stranger and Jethro (who, based on this question, was clearly meant to join Judaism) replied, and you didn't invite him to eat!? So, they invite Moses in, he stays, and eventually marries one of the daughters. 

To summarize there was a conflict, the protagonist emerges victorious thanks to the help of a stranger, the protagonist tells the story of victory to his/her father, the stranger is invited in by the protagonist's father, and eventually the stranger marries the protagonist. 

That same structure is found in The Horse and His Boy. The protagonist (Shasta/Cor) is in a conflict (attempting to escape Calormen), and his helped by a stranger (Aravis). Upon emerging victorious, Aravis is invited to live in the palace by Shasta's father King Lune and eventually Shasta and Aravis marry.    

And perhaps is that outline is the key for having a relationship of Affection without the immediate familiarty. I don't need the familiarity with my future son-in-law because I have been told it by my duaghter. The relationship she has built with my son-in-law can be shared by increasing familiarity through story, if not through direct interaction. I can invite him into the family with Affection because I am used to him through my daughter. Affection is familiarity and as my daughter transitions to fulfill the demands of Genesis, her Affectionate connection with her nuclear family enables us to grow our familiarity and Affection for him.

Welcome to the family! 

Further updates will be shared as warranted.  

C.S. Lewis Reading Day 2025

This Saturday the folks at Pints with Jack are spearheading the third annual C.S. Lewis Reading Day in commemoration of Lewis' birthday. This year's theme is familial love and everyone is again asked to take a moment to read and reflect on lessons they've learned from C.S. Lewis.

Again, this year there will be Reading Day livestream. Unfortunately, Nov 29 is on a Saturday so the planned livestreams won't work for Sabbath observers like me.  

I'm hoping to again have a dedicated post which I will put up Friday before sundown. 

Looking forward!