Letters to Malcom: Letter 5, Part 2

I would like to expand on our previous consideration of interpretation versus festooning via example. The first words of prayer traditionally said in the morning is, "I thank You, living and eternal King," as translated by the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks. But, as with any translations this is also an interpretation. One could alternately interpret the same phrase as, "I acknowledge/admit before You..." or "I confess to You..." The ambiguity arising based on the multiple possible meanings of the Hebrew word (modeh)  מודה. 

And these different interpretations will affect the way one may approach this prayer. If I am thanking God and look around at all He has given me and I am overcome with gratitude. If I acknowledge before Him, I look around and see God's hand in all I have. I am admitting it is all due to God and is not due to my own strengths or talents. If I confess to God, I look around at all I have almost with concern. I know that I am not deserving of any of it and confess that He has given me way above and beyond any sort of rewards I might think of getting for any meager good I may do. These interpretations are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and I might concentrate on one versus the other, or a synergy of them, depending on my mood or on the specific day. 

But, again, these are interpretations. 

Festooning would be my personal thoughts on my prayer. For example, I can thank God for my beautiful family. There is nothing in, or interpretation of, this particular prayer that suggests that it refers to my (or anyone else's) family, but I can festoon it onto the prayer. Others while reciting that same prayer may festoon it with their family, or with thanking God for their job, or their house. All of these are fine things to concentrate on when thanking God and, again, I do not have to keep the same festoon every day. Similarly, if I interpret the prayer as confess, I can confess to God that I do not deserve my wonderful wife and someone else may confess before Him that they do not deserve their wonderful car. Again, that choice is personal and not motivated by an interpretation and thus a festoon. 

Returning to Lewis's letter and the Lord's prayer, Lewis (correctly in my opinion), does not want to restrict the words, "Give us this day our daily bread," to only spiritual needs, though that seems not a terrible interpretation. Other interpretations might mean, actual bread, the meals I need for the day, my livelihood, and so on. I can also attach my personal festoons such as thinking about my job that I have, or a specific type of food I really like. 

In short, when we pray it is insufficient (or at least very sub-optimal) to mouth the words with no understanding. But once we understand, we must interpret the way we interpret a give prayer is not necessarily the same way someone else does. A layer on top of that are festoons that we all know is not the interpretation of the prayer but a personal application of example of what we are praying for. 

Poetry of Love (Part 1)

Lewis tells us his view of Song of Songs in the 12th chapter of Reflection on Psalms. He first insists that the author of this work was writing love poetry and had no idea that it would be transformed into a parable for the relationship between and individual and God (or Israel and God, or, for Christians, the Church and God). While Lewis appears to maintain this view, he argues that Song of Songs (or something like it) must be the primary parable of this individual-God relationship and the book was therefore canonized. 

Traditional Judaism disagrees and maintains that Song of Songs was written by King Solomon himself. He, as the wisest of men, knew that love poetry was the proper way to concretize into human terms the relationship between man and God. 

Lewis wrote his own love story, Till We Have Faces (TWHF). On its surface, TWHF is the novelized form of his work The Four Loves. All four types of loves discussed in the latter work, speak to Orual's failed loves of family/acquaintance, friend, eros, and the gods. However, as we've discussed, my contention is that the overarching goal of TWHF is to demonstrate how the the gods were made beautiful. Glome, transformed by Orual into a modern, Greek-like society, has a new, more beautiful, vision and understanding of the gods. Lewis' overarching goal in writing TWHF is then to teach readers our need to, and perhaps how, to make our religion beautiful. On the societal level it requires just laws, a working economy, and an open approach to God all of which is engineered by Orual. On the personal level it requires properly understand the natural loves and applying them (transpositioning) to godly love and the love of God (Lewis doesn't explicitly take this last step, that's my thesis here).

Lacking from Lewis' story is God Himself. There are hints and sightings, conversations about and physical descriptions of Ungit/Aphrodite and her son. But very little explicit description of God, His love, and how He relates to His people.  

But what Lewis adapts into a novel, Song of Songs transforms into a poetry of dreams. And what Lewis leaves out is front and center in the Song of Songs. The natural loves are already elevated as expressions of love between God and Israel: 

• Eros: "Give me of the kisses of your mouth..." (1:2)
• Family: "If only it could be as with a brother..." (8:1) 
• Friend: "O you who linger in the gardens, friend who hear my voice..." (8:13) 

This needs further thought but I'm going to post this unfinished since it's been way too long...