RESPONSE: How Hebraic an Inkling?

Hi Everyone! Sorry that I've disappeared for so long - lots of travel over this past month, including a vacation in Israel to see our sons. Thank God, they are both doing well! Now I'm back and, as usual, we have lots to catch up with. 

Let me start by recalling that several months ago R'  Mark Gottlieb published a review article on P. H. Brazier's book A Hebraic Inkling: C.S. Lewis on Judaism and the Jews. At the time I mentioned that I thought a number of issues he raised required further comment. Well, those comments, my response to R' Gottlieb's article, have now been published on Tradition Online. 

I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts, not necessarily on Brazier's book (though I would love to hear those as well), but on what it does, or should, mean to be a Hebraic Christian or how far a Jew can push Chritian beliefs towards his own. 

In first noting R' Gottlieb's article, I said that perhaps it would motivate me to return to my comments on Brazier's book. Unfortunately, I have yet to do so, but hopefully I will soon (though I think I'll need to start again). Of course we are very slowly also trying to review Letters to Malcom so there's plenty to be done.

Finally, I wanted to make clear that I am a big fan of R' Gottlieb and already five years ago we had a discussion about C.S. Lewis which you can find here. Nothing written in my comments should in any way be taken as a lack of respect for him and the intellectual clarity he brings to all of his writings. 

Letter to Malcom: Letter 3 (Part 3)

Lewis goes on in Letter 3 to advocate against setting (or being stuck) one's chief prayer right before going to sleep. Of course, Lewis' argument is appropriate. One should pray when best able to concentrate. 

Of course, traditional Jewish prayer occurs thrice daily, as done by Daniel, morning, afternoon and evening. The Talmud forwards two ancient parallels to this: the daily sacrifices (morning, afternoon, and then finishing up all the sacrifices at night), and the prayer of our forefathers each of whom instituted one service. But even if one were not to follow this regiment, I'm at a loss as to why people in genearl, Lewis included, would not simply pray first thing in the morning. This would enable them to pray for their 'daily bread' right away before starting, and it would be the time where one is most refreshed. 

I really don't have much else to add here because to me this seems kind of obvious. Wake up a bit earlier and build prayer into your schedule right away.

Anyway, there's a bit more to this letter that relates to the position one adopts during prayer (and further discuss of the place of prayer). We'll talk about this, but I think underlying all of these issues (time, place, and position) there exists the question of communal prayer. We touched on this before, but it probably soon needs to be brough to bear on all of these issues.   

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.