The Jealousy of Venus (Part 1)

I don't usually like writing my ideas when they are only half-baked, but with Purim and Pesach I haven't written in a while so here goes...  

This is about Till We Have Faces (TWHF). Elsewhere, I've explained my general contention about this work that Lewis calls his best work, but now I'm attempting to come to terms with the following challenge which I think may help demonstrate the purpose of this work. Let me quickly note that I am in no way an expert on Greek and Roman mythology so I may be way off here anyway... 

Venus is the goddess of love and beauty. No doubt this is very important to Lewis who, as we've spoken about, enables the half-gods to take their place when the true God is ascendent. If, as Lewis believes, God is Love (as explained, for example, in Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain) then of all the half-gods Venus must be the most important and that's why it makes sense that it is Venus/Aphrodite/Ungit who is the god of Glome. 

However, the story of Psyche presents the following question, how can Psyche be worshipped at the expense of Venus? Can't Venus just ramp up the beauty leaving Psyche's beauty in the dust? Can't Venus just make everyone love her? How can it be that people turn to Psyche's beauty and ignore the source of all beauty? And how does getting beauty from the Underworld help at all? 

I think the questions are in some way, self-answering. Of course, Venus could do all of that, but the problem isn't Psyche, it's the people. Just like the problem isn't God, but that people don't recognize God. So, Venus strikes out with vengeance against the object of people's worship, just like God struck out against the idols of the Egyptians (as we read about in the Passover Haggadah). Psyche must work for Venus to make Venus lovable. 

In truth, God is love, even if He is not always beloved. It is the task of His Nation to demonstrate His love and beauty to humanity.

OK, that's a start... not great, but we'll continue and see where this takes us...   

Letters to Malcom, Letter 4 Part 2

Now that we've determined that prayer effects and transforms us, the one who prays, we can turn to the Letter's second question, "how important must a need or desire be before we can properly make it the subject of a petition?" Perhaps we should just ask God for big things, like that you should always be healthy and that your kids should be well behaved, or global things, like world peace and to remove hunger. 

Lewis pushes back on this. First, he notes that this is inauthentic. If you don't speak your mind, you're not standing before God in a true and vulnerable fashion. It's like you're trying to hide something from Him. Second, laying it all out in prayer is transformative, and will help you understand what is most and least important. 

As it happens, I am currently reading R' Yehuda Amital's "L'Olam yehai adam, - Always one should be man," and in his section on prayer he says as follows. If you were sitting right next to R' Aharon Lichtenstein (R' Amital's co-head of Yeshivat Har Etzion), and needed a pencil, you would never ask him to borrow one. Not because R' Lichtenstein wouldn't let you (of course he would!) but because you would think it's too trivial a request for someone of such great stature. God, however, should be approached with any request no matter how small. 

I might push even further and say that it's especially important to put the little things before God. It's obvious that no one has complete control over their health, and few people are brazen enough to think they have complete control over their wealth, or that they will never sin. It's obvious to everyone that those looming issues are in God's hands and must be put before Him. However, sometimes we might trick ourselves into thinking we can control the smaller thing: the test we've really studied for, the work presentation we know we've mastered. Perhaps, God forbid, we might think we can do those without His help. By formulating them into our prayers, we force ourselves to recognize that we have no agency whatsoever without Him. Even things we think we have in control are completely in His control. 

So I would suggest that especially the small things, the things we don't consider much of a need, should be put into prayer to enable us to realize Who is really the one who determines and fulfills our needs. 

Hannah and the Voice of Prayer

Every year I tell myself I'm going to start preparing for Passover early... it never works. I thought this year was the year, and then I was started learning something and I was sure I could finish it... Anyway, apologies for not posting, I'm probably not going to have time to post too much since I have a lot to do, but I'll try.

In the meantime, I wanted to share with you what I spoke about this past Shabbos. It's about prayer and while it doesn't explicitly address the questions raised in Letter 4 of Letters to Malcom I think it does have some bearing on it. I'll let you decide and tell me your thoughts. Here goes... 

Now Hannah was praying in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice could not be heard. So Eli thought she was drunk. (1 Samuel 1:13)  

The beginning of the book of Samuel tells the story of Hannah the beloved, but childless wife of Elkana (Elkana has another wife, Penina, who does have children, but that is not immediately relevant). One year, as she and the rest of the family are at the Tabernacle in Shiloh, Hannah cries out bitterly to God, and promises that, should she have a son, she would dedicate him to God. This cry, however and apparently not according to custom, was silent, and Eli the High Priest thus mistakes her for a drunk (there are some commentaries who suggest other reasons why Eli suspected her drunkeness, but the silence of her prayer is most prominent and the rationale that fits best with the verse). 

History has vindicated Hannah, and the Talmud (Brachos 31a) learns from Hannah that one should not raise their voice in prayer. The question is, why? What is so important about reciting the central amidah prayer silently? 

I believe most people suspect such that the one praying doesn't disturn their neighbor, and this is partly true. Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayyim 101:2) for example, states: One should not only pray in one's heart, but one must actually enunciate the words with one lips and let them be heard in a whisper tone by one's own ears, [however] one should not let one's voice be heard [fully during the Amidah]. [However,] if one is unable to concentrate while in a whisper tone, one is allowed to raise one's voice. And this is [only] when one is praying privately, but [if one is praying] with the congregation, it is forbidden, as this is a nuisance for the congregation.

Clearly, the above suggests that the excuse to pray out loud when alone, does not apply if one is praying with a congregation because it would disturb other worshippers. However, it is clear that it is optimal to whisper even when praying alone (this is also obvious from Eli's anger at Hannah. Why would he be angry if Hannah was obviously praying silently so as not to disturn others?). 

To answer why it is important to whisper one's prayers we should ask why do people whisper. One reason people whisper is not to disturb others. Such as parents (and hopefully siblings) who whisper so as not to wake a sleeping baby. However, we've just demonstrated that distrubing others is not the motivating factor for whispering during prayer. 

Another scenario is people (say, two pre-teen girls) whispering secrets to each other. Of course, when telling secrets there is an aspect of not having others hear. But there is something else too, the whispering to each other demonstrates a personal, intimate, friendship. I share a secret with you, because I trust you, and because I rely on you. 

A third scenario of whispering is the whispering of lovers to each other. Lovers whisper, not so others shouldn't hear, and not even that others shouldn't know, but because of the unique, singular intimacy that exists between them. Whispering words of love or verses of compliments fit the relationship that exists between two people looking steadily into each other's eyes. 

Jewish liturgy stresses two relationships between God and man: the King-subject relationship and the Father-son relationship. Those are proper relationships in which a petitioner can ask, plead, beg, praise and thank. When we cry out for mercy or for help, it cannot be a lover or even a friend, to whom we cry. We plead for a Savior, a Leader, a Shepherd. 

Hannah's whispering in prayer is inconsistent and almost irreverent. She is crying to God, in a whisper, in a way befitting a lover. How can that be? How could she use such an intimate median to convey bitterness and pleading? This is what raised Eli's rancor. Hannah's prayer to a King was expressed as to a Lover. 

OK, there's more to get to, but I'll stop here for now since it's getting quite late...  

Letters to Malcom, Letter 4, Part 1

In our last post on Letters to Malcom we noted the questions asked of Lewis and then tooked into the Hebrew root of the word 'pray'. We saw that the reflexive conjugation of the verb means that whatever is done via prayer is done to oneself, and that the thing that is done is judgment or belief. This helps us address the first question. Lewis is asked how come so much of prayer seems to be telling things to God. But God is omniscient, he doesn't need to be told? 

The answer, of course, is that by explicity stating these things while standing in God's presence (though He is everywhere, during prayer we are aware that we are standing in His presence), changes us. Us, not God. In prayer we see ourselves as we truly are, powerless, weak, controlled by outside forces, and perhaps, not trusing in Him. We lay that weakness in front to God and say, we've judged ourselves and now understand Who is really running to world, Who guides our lives, and Whose will we must follow. And we believe in Him, and perhaps that enables us to believe in ourselves. We have changed and, therefore, our lot in life can change as well. 

Lewis says somewhat similarly, prayer enables us to be aware that we are known by God, and that we assent to be knonw by Him. Lewis needs the assenting because Lewis wants man to be on a personal footing with God with "God revealing Himself as Person." Judaism will reject the latter formulation. There is an infinite barrier between man and God. Prayer overcomes this barrier because God lets it through, but seeing God's face is a logical impossibility. 

On Spring Between Blizzards

After several weeks of snow cover, yesterday I was able to see the grass in our yard. I wouldn't say it was warm, but you could almost believe that Spring was on its way. Today we have a blizzard. 

OK, reality check, thank God, I live in a modern country and a wonderful community. While we always pray to Him for our sustenance and safety, another 18 inches of snow, even with high winds, is unlikely to do much damage. And as long as there's power I can even work (thanks to modern technology). So, the last thing I should do is complain about the weather.   

Nonetheless, I was motivated to write as I was thinking about Narnia. As we know, in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the Witch's winter transforms to Spring in a matter of hours, bringing hope and even confidence to the beleagured Narnians. But what if turned around? What if the transformation had started, but then the Winter returned?  

Actually, that seems to be what happened to the Children of Israel while slaves in Egypt. Moses and Aaron came promising freedom and dazzling the people with God's signs. They marched into Pharoah's palace to the cheering crowds, but when they came out, Pharoah made things harder and Moses and Aaron's credibility tanked.

Is this dampening of hopes part of every redemption? The Children of Israel, after a stunning victory in Jericho, lost the first battle in Ai. The Maccabees, even after recapturing the Temple, continued to lose battles to the Romans (in one of which Judah himself was killed) before gaining independence. Even Esther seemed to have partied with Haman rather then being immediately activated by Mordechai to block Haman's decree. 

Anyway, a bit of a rant but please do keep in your prayers all those who have already lost power and may need help. 

A Hebraic Inkling: Aims and Objectives

Having explained his motivation in writing on C.S. Lewis and his attitude towards Jews and Judaism, Brazier identifies his Aims and Objectives. A priori, given the last sentence of his previous section this should have been straigthforward. Recall that Brazier had stated, "But what did Lewis have to say about Judaism and the Jews, the ancient Hebrews and the Jewish Bible (the church's "Old Testament"), supersessionism, replacement theology, identity politics, and Israel, and therefore the status before humanity of God's chosen people?" While the inclusion of identity politics on this list may be a bit odd, this seems like a fine thesis statement for a book. Hence, one would expect Brazier's Aims and Objectives section to simply be an expansion of this sentence.

Of course, it's not so simple. And why it's not simple is what makes Brazier's book not just a study of Lewis, but a theological treatise on the proper attitude of Christianity towards Jews and Judaism. On the expected side Brazier's Aims and Objectives start with basically restating the last sentence of his Motivation though putting identity politics into a separte sentence. He then contrasts Lewis' view of Jews and Judaism with that of his academic contemporarites who are much more negative in their attitude. Brazier then makes an interesting sojourn into the importance of humor which Jews and Lewis readily see and appreciate within Scripture and in their religious outlook, while hell, Lewis' Oxford contemporaries, and the modern world of identity politics do not. Brazier ends the section noting that the current Christian West needs to be further balanced by the Hebraic witness and scriptures and therefore it is valuable to uncover and analyze such a seam in Lewis. 

So far so good. Except for the humor bit (which is never returned to in the book), it's not that different then we would expect. 

Except that I left out half of it. 

Brazier's Aims and Objectives are not a dispassionate outline of what he's trying to accomplish in writing this book. Brazier clearly takes a strong stance: he quotes Rev Giles Fraser asserting that Jesus was not a Christian but a Jew, he insists that Lewis (and certainly his detractors) did not understand what is meant that the Jews are "chosen" and a "created people", and he clearly states that in our times a balance is needed "between the Christian West (or what is left of it) and the Jews..." 

So, yes, we expect Brazier to analyze Lewis' views of Jews and Judaism, but we should not expect him to always agree. 

The Storm Before the Light?

I've been wondering about why the Dawn Treader hits a storm, especially so early in its journey. Perhaps it's so Eustace can hit rock bottom which is necessary before salvation. This would be similar to the Children of Israel in Egypt who are Sages say reached the 49th level of impurity and redemption became necesarry before they were to be assimilated forever. 

But I need to think this one out a little better. Feel free to comment if you have any thoughts on this.