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... 

Letters to Malcom: Letter 5, Part 1

In this letter Lewis shares the festoons that drapes over the words of "The Lord's Prayer". "Festooning" prayers is introduced in Letter 3. There Lewis discussed the concept of praying "with angels and archangels and all the company of heaven" (a concept that has its place in Jewish liturgy as well) and shared that his festoons this concept around the phrase "hollowed by thy name" from the Lord's Prayer.   

I've been thinking about whether I want to discuss The Lord's Prayer from my perspective and how it meshes (or not) with Jewish liturgy, as it's not really my place to say how another religion should regard its prayer service. 

But for now, I want to discuss the idea of what Lewis calls festooning. Lewis uses the term because they do not "obliterate" the plain sense of the text. Perhaps his festoon around "hallowed be thy name" actually meets that criterion. But I'm not sure I agree that festooning actually characterizes what Lewis does in at least some of this letter. For example, Lewis rewords the phrase, "Thy kingdom come" as meaning, "may your reign be realized here, as it is there." I think most people would agree that this rewording is the plain, straightforward meaning of the text. But then Lewis gives three options for "there" and three options for "here". This is not festooning, this is interpreting. The plain meaning of the text does not provide precise enough information to be understood except in a phenomenological sense, God's kingdom will grow. Questions of "where is God's kingdom now" and "where will it grow to" remain unanswered until Lewis gives an interpretation. 

The beauty of a carefully worded text or prayer is that it can sustain multiple interpretations throughout time and space all of which may be true. Lewis, for example, in one interpretation reads "here" as England. While no doubt a Christian living in the United States would interpret "here" as the United States.    

Similarly, with the phrase "Thy will be done," Lewis first interprets it as acceptance of God's judgment it is an acknowledgement that God is just even if I happen not to understand. Then Lewis interprets the phrase as a prayer, may I patiently suffer God's will, or may I fulfill God's will. 

The point for the moment is that these are hardly festoons that hang around the plain meaning of the text. They are interpretations in an attempt to determine a meaning of the text that speaks to you. 

The Jealousy of Venus: Renewal (Part 2)

He cannot ravish; He can only woo

(The Screwtape Letters, Letter 8)

By God's own rules He cannot reveal His true self to His humanity. Doing so would immediately thwart their free will forcing them to be robots and automatons, not the sons He wants us to become. Hence, Venus, goddess of love and beauty, and stand-in for God in Till We Have Faces, cannot ramp up her own beauty to outshine Psyche. She must woo Glome into loving her.

Accomplishing this task is the punishment of Psyche as well as Orual. But for Glome to truly recognize Ungit/Venus more beautifully than in their pagan ways, more than Venus has to change. Glome has to change as well. That change we've discussed earlier. Glome's governance, economy, and mode of worship are enlightened by Orual so that Glome can now accept a God more beautiful than that of the pagans. 

But that final step, ushering God into an enlightened world, needs to be done by someone who loves God. Someone who does not love God would simply enjoy the economic prosperity and order and reject that its purpose is to comprehend God more fully, not less. This is Psyche's final test. Bringing beauty from the underworld. However, the question remains why beauty from the underworld would make Venus more beautiful in the eyes of the people?

Persephone, the daughter of Zeus and Demeter (the goddess of agriculture), was kidnapped by Hades and made queen of the underworld. In her distress over her daughter, Demeter causes a draught until Zeus is forced to allow Persephone to return home. However, because Persephone ate of the good of the underworld she must return there every year. When she does, during the winter, Demeter neglects to cultivate the earth until Spring when Persephone, the goddess of Spring, once again emerges from the underworld.   

In Till We Have Faces, Psyche becomes Persephone, as Orual hears the details from the old priest:

But, Stranger, the sacred story is about the sacred things — the things we do in the temple. In spring, and all summer, she is a goddess. Then when harvest comes, we bring a lamp into the temple in the night and the god flies away. Then we veil her. And all winter she is wandering and suffering; weeping, always weeping...

All winter Psyche suffers from having been abandoned by husband, but she emerges every Spring as the goddess of renewal.  

With this we can understand why Psyche must retrieve beauty from the queen of the underworld. It is there where Persephone is found and it is she that enables the renewal. Of course, Venus does not need renewal, but she needs the people to experience renewal, the reconnection with and rededication to the gods that is possible and present. 

Psyche, as an ardent follower of the gods herself becomes the tool for the renewal for Glome to return to Venus. 

With this we have seen two levels of the story. The Greek story of Psyche in which the jealousy of Venus is paramount, and Lewis' story of Psyche in which the people must renew their love for Venus. In our next post we must address the true story, the love between God and Israel as told in Song of Songs. 

On Affection without Familiarity (continued)

For C.S. Lewis Reading Day I posted that my daughter had gotten engaged and addressed the question of whether or how, using the language of The Four Loves, one can have affection without the usual cause of familiarity. Well, the wedding took place a little more than a month ago, and I am happy to report that the young couple is doing well, and that my wife and I grow in our affection towards my son-in-law. 

Unfortunately, with everything surrounding the wedding, I have fallen behind of this blog (and lots of other responsibilities). But things are settling down so hopefully I'll have the chance to do a couple of posts this week. We have a lot still to do, and I just finished reading The Weight of Glory (which includes an essay of the same name, Transposition, and some other great essays) which requires extensive commentary.

So, please come back soon!

A Hebraic Inkling: Election

I've been procrastinating on commenting on the next definition of Brazier as it clearly requires someone far more eloquent to properly outline a Jewish approach. Nevertheless, for the sake of finally moving onwards I'll write something.

In the next section of the Introduction, Brazier discusses several terms that he feels must be defined an qualified. The first such term is "Election". Brazier properly proposes the following three questions. Who elects? Who is elected? And to what is the elected, elected? 

God does the electing.

The Jews were elected by God through Abraham. 

The Jews were elected as a Chosen People to guide humanity.

Brazier then adds, the elected are elected to salvation, atonement, forgiveness, reconciliation with God after humanity's fall. Those not of the Chosen People can be enfolded into the elected through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Traditional Judaism will object to Brazier's addition in a number of ways:  

(1) Jewish theology of course rejects the importance of Jesus in the process of forgiveness and/or salvation. 

(2) While it is true that the mishna states, "All of the Jewish people have a share in the World-to-Come..." This seemingly universal statement is immediately followed by, "And these have no share in the World-to-Come..." Being a member of the Chosen People does not guarantee atonement or forgiveness. In fact, given the increased number of commands on the Chosen People, it might even be harder. 

(3) The Chosen People are chosen to guide humanity as a (Exodus 19:6), "Kingdom of priests and a holy nation." Just like not all priests deserve the ultimate reward, so too not all members of the Chosen People deserve such a reward. Furthermore, just as a goal of a priest is to guide his flock so that they can attain salvation, so too a goal of the Chosen People is to guide humanity so they can attain salvation. Finally, just like it is unnecessary to become a priest to achieve reward in the World to Come, so too it is unnecessary to join or be enfolded into the Chosen People to achieve reward in the World to Come. 

(4) With few exceptions, anyone can convert to become a full member of the Chosen People. But it's not necessary to achieve divine reward and it's not encouraged. 

So, already at this point we have an interesting twist that will follow us through Brazier's entire book. For Brazier, Lewis can be Hebraic if he sees gentiles enfolded into the election of the Jews. But for Jews, there is no need to enfold gentiles into Jews. Gentiles can stand on their own two feet and have a relationship with God without need for an intermediary. 

Letters to Malcom: Letter 4 Part 3

In the last part of this letter Lewis addresses the question of whether there is a threshold on the importance of a request in prayer, below which should not be included in one's prayers. I generally resonate with Lewis' approach to this, but a permanent liturgy of rabbinic Judaism does change the parameters. In the amidah prayer, the central prayer in all three daily services, the requests are already there.

The amidah prayer includes 13 blessings of requests, six are personal, six are communal, and one is a catchall. It is safe to assume that when our Sages established these blessings, they chose needs that were universally important for all people across time and space. Hence the six personal blessings are for wisdom, return (to God), forgiveness, redemption, healing, and prosperity. The order of the blessings is discussed in the Talmud (Megillah 17b) but the themes are presumably broad enough that they cover all important aspects of human need. In fact, specific requests can be made within each blessing for specific relevant requests. 

Nonetheless, I think our Sages are teaching us a lesson: there's not that much that we really need. 

Puddleglum and The Last Battle

I have previously made known my disappointment in Tirian the last King of Narnia, despite Alsan's tacit approval: (1) Tirian waited way too long to discover the truth of the arrival of Aslan. Immediately upon hearing of Aslan's arrival, he should have (minimally) sent reliable officers to verify the truth.  (2) Tirian rashly (as Lewis describes it) seeks to avenge the murdered dryad without a comprehensive (or any) plan. (3) This leads Tirian and Jewel to kill two unarmed Calormens (rightfully in my mind). (4) At that point Tirian effectively gives up, completely ignoring the possibility of repentance) and hands himself over the Shift and the Calormens. This is nothing short of a complete abdication of his duty as King of Narnia. 

However, there is a more fundamental question regarding the actions of Tirian and all of the Talking Beasts living in the north of Narnia. Why are they willing, without checking (!) to believe that Shift is Aslan's interpreter (even beyond the question of Shift's obvious character flaws)? Can they believe that Aslan would be willing to have such terrible deeds performed in his name? 

Ignored by Tirian is the theological charge of Puddleglum in the Silver Chair, "I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia." Could a Narnian, based on everything known of Aslan, call Shift's command living like a Narnian? Is not the imaginary Narnia in which Narnians are free from human subjugation (as the old Bear argues for) so much more so much better than the Shift's version of Narnia? 

There are some challenges to this. God does indeed send His people into slavery, but to atone for their sins. And even in exile there is a need to 'Live like a Narnian,' to refuse to accept the world as is but to strive to create the world that Puddleglum perceives. God's chosen people may be slaves, exiled, discriminated against, but it's irrelevant if the people themselves refuse to believe it. 

This is lesson of the just observed holiday of Passover. Our Sages insist that the Children of Israel were redeemed early as they were in danger of complete assimilation...

This probably needs some further thought as well, but hopefully it's coherent enough... 

The Jealousy of Venus: The Task (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 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 mistakes Hannah for a drunkard (there are some commentaries who suggest other reasons why Eli suspected that she was drunk, 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? 

One may suspect that the rationale for silence is not to disturb others, 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 disturbing others cannot be the only 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. 

Letters to Malcom, Letter 4, Introduction

In Letter 4, Lewis addresses two questions concerning prayer. The first, which he characterizes as the question of an unbeliever but would not bother a believer, is why are we telling God things (such as what we want or need). God is omniscient, why do we need to tell Him? The second, which is practical for believers, is when is something important enough to offer it as a prayer before God. 

However, before looking at the answers to these questions, I would like to take a quick detour to look at what prayer means. The Hebrew word to pray comes from the root p.l.l. which is found in various forms throughout the bible. Even Shoshan gives three explanations of the root. (1) believe, foresee, or consider, for example Jacob after his reunion with Joseph says (Genesis 48:11) , "I had not thought to see thy face.." (2) beg, request, or stand in prayer, (3) judge. 

Sometime the midrashim will merge these translations. So for example, when the Psalmist (106:30) records, "Then stood up Pinehas, and p.l.l.: and so the plague was stayed." The Talmud (Berachos 26b) translates, "the verb 'standing' means prayer, 'And Pinehas stood up and prayed and the plague ended.' ” However, Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer (47) reads the same verse as follows, "He arose as a great spiritual leader and he judged Israel, as it says, "Then stood up Pinehas, and he executed judgment." This seems to be the more straightforward reading of the verse, because in the Torah we do not see that Pinehas prayed, but we do see that he killed the sinner. 

OK, so to this point we see that pray, has infused meanings of belief and judgement. But there's another piece we need to pay attention to. Despite the biblical verses, in almost all Jewish literature the verb 'to pray' is conjugated using the reflexive - doing something to yourself. Meaning when one prays, they are effecting themselves. To pray then means, to make oneself believe or to judge oneself. 

If all that is true, it would obviously incorrect to say that prayer does something to God. Rather, we must say prayer effects the person praying.

And I think this very much mirrors Lewis' answer to the first question. We'll look at that more closely next time. 

A Hebraic Inkling: Motivation

In Chapter 7 of, "The Great Divorce," Lewis meets the Hard-Bitten Ghost. A (now dead) man who beleived that the world was run by a cadre of Management, the World Combine. In his ravings to Lewis, he mentions, "or the same Firm, which is behind the Jews and the Vatican..." A friend of Brazier had apparently read this particular passage and assumed that this demonstrated Lewis was an anti-semite and (presumably) believed the canard of the Jews running the world. 

Of course, as Brazier quickly notes, such an association is the complete opposite of Lewis' intention. This man was in hell, and will always stay there, due to his beliefs that everything is just a set up. Everything is out of your control, you are powerless and since there is nothing you can do to build up, you are left with simply debunking everything else. Lewis addresses these people head on in Abolition of Man. These are people for whom truth is there own feelings, and one's feelings can never be wrong. Truth, wonder, and beauty are exactly the opposite. They demand the stirring of awe and reverence. They motivate man to do better, and they call on man to overcome his present problems because there is a bright future for those who walk in God's path. 

Brazier identifies the Hard-Bitten Ghost in the British Labor party of the early 2020s and, unfortunately, too many people today. People who, enamored with their own feelings, would rather find a scapegoat than address the very real problems facing them.    

Brazier contrasts this character with Sarah Smith of Golders Green in the same book who he identifies as Jewish (more on that later). She is a saintly figure who has achieved paradise but journeys down to continue helping others. Certainly Lewis, were he an anti-semite, would not suggest such a character could be a Jew! However, this mistaken characterization of Lewis is what motivated Brazier to explore further Lewis' views on "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..."

I would like to add, that throughout Brazier's treatment he demonstrates that Judaism directly repudiates the Hard-Bitten Ghost. Judaism forces the confrontation with the transcendent and divine and calls upon you to work to raise the level of the world. Judaism insists that you have the choice to be as righteous as Moses or as evil as Pharaoh. Most importantly, Judaism insists on truths in beliefs, in actions, and in an ultimate vision. God demands reverence, His Creation reflects His glory and call on you to feel awe and come to fear and love Him, and His seal is truth. 

With this motivation, Brazier goes on to Aims and Goals. We'll take a look at that next time. 

Letters to Malcom (Letter 3, Part 4)

Lewis returns to a few things towards the end of this letter that we have already discussed. So, the issue I would like to concentrate on here is the question of position during prayer. Lewis, rightfully in my opinion, places value on the position of the body during prayer since the body must pray as well. This the Jewish Sagesthroughout the ages (codified by Rama, Orach Chayyim 48:1) who invoke the psalmist (35:10), "All my bones shall say, God, who is like You?" to suggest that one should wave or shake one's body during the readong of the Torah and during prayer.

However, Lewis notes that there are more important aspects of prayer then kneeling such as concentration and that make sense. After all, the center of prayer is the heart and mind and while the body has a role it is clearly secondary. 

Not surprisingly, Judaism has a much more formalized approach to position during prayer which may take the form of sitting, standing, or leaning. Some prayers can be free form, others have preferneces or requirements (subject to capability). The need to stand might be due to honor or (as with the amidah service) an attempt to mimic angelic prayer. 

In summary, Lewis favors personal preference in time, position, liturgy, place and other aspects of prayer. The main goal is to have concentration on the prayers themselves. This leads to a very personal and (assuming the best of the person praying) meaningful prayer service. Judaism, though much of prayer was originally free-form, has formalized all of these aspects of prayer this has its own positive aspects as we've discussed in the past. Formalization also lends itself to being more apropos for communal prayer. I'll wait for a discussion of this to see if Lewis brings it up any point soon (I haven't read any further than I've written about so let's see where Lewis takes us next).   

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.