Appealing to the Temple of Tash

You Have Appealed to Tash, and in the Temple of Tash you shall be healed...

 

The archvillain in "The Horse and His Boy," is Prince Rabadash, the eldest son of the Tisroc of Calormen. As detailed in the story Rabadash attacks Archenland in a dishonorable attempt to capture his lust, Queen Susan. The attempt fails and Rabadash is captured. Despite the (in my mind, misguided) attempts of King Lune at kindness, Rabadash is directly punished by Aslan and transformed into a donkey. Aslan also provides an antidote. Rabadash must appear at the Temple of Tash in Tashbaan at the great Autumn Feast at which time he would then resume his human form in front of all of Tashbaan. Furthermore, should he ever travel more than 10 miles away from the Temple, he would return to his donkey form permanently. 

A priori, this antidote (at least the first part) is the opposite of what we might think. Should the healing come from the Temple of Tash, one might conclude that Tash has the power to heal and that Tash can overpower the curse of Aslan. And, truth be told, many in crowd probably saw that. Despite Aslan's show of power, we do not see any sign of mass abandonment of Tash in favor of conversion to the religion of Aslan. I think the reason is clear. The Calormenes (including Rabadash himself) acknowledged that Aslan has power, but he is the, "enemy of the gods." Sometimes Aslan can win the battle, as he did with Rabadash perhaps due to Rabadash's not living up to Tash's expectation, but he will not win the war. 

The Narnians presumably assumed that Tash was a fake god, some figment of the Calormenes. To them, Aslan's pronouncement was to demonstrate that he is the true God and as punishment for following a false god, Rabadash is now tethered to the false god forever. Furthermore, everyone will see the folly of Rabadash's way in a public demonstration of Aslan's power. Perhaps the Narnian's were expecting Calormenes to see this truth. But it was not to be, because the Calormenes had a different notion of spiritual truths, enabling them to interpret events in the first way, not the second. 

In actuality, Tash is real, but he is evil - he enables and perhaps even powers evil. From a Christian perspective he rebelled against God and has convinced part of humanity to join in his rebellion. Aslan's punishment demonstrates that while Tash can have his localized victories, he is no match for the true God. 

Conventional Jewish thought perceives differently. Tash, or Satan, is also a servant of God. His job is to entice humans to sin, to be the evil inclination - a necessary role should humans have free will. Aslan's punishment is meant to emphasize this point. Even the evil inclination can be mobilized for good. The Talmud tells us that without the evil inclination people would not marry and have children and, in fact, Rabadash started his on his "mad enterprise" out of "love" for a woman. Ahoshta realizes that the Narnians may actually appreciate this. The Narnians understand that the evil inclination can be used for good! The problem wasn't Rabadash's desire to marry Susan, but that he did not deserve to marry Susan. That his view of marriage was barbaric, and that he would not teach his children "gentilesse and courtesy." Rabadash is thus tied to the Temple of Tash so he can learn how to use his passion in the service of the true God.

The Day of Judgement begins tomorrow evening. The words of our Sages, and even our liturgy, speak of confusing or quieting the heavenly prosecutor in his attempts to prove our guilt. But how can we hope to do so? Perhaps the answer is along the above lines: by using the character traits that the prosecutor, the evil inclination, actually wants us to use, unbridled passion, zealotry, even envy, for good. Passion to know God and follow His ways, zealotry for His word, and envy as motivation to improve oneself. 

Wishing everyone a happy, healthy, sweet, New Year!

Shasta and Calormen Society

I'm not quite sure what to make of this, but it dawned on me that while there are parallels between Shasta's origin story to that of Moses, there are also some complete opposites. Of course, both Shasta and Moses are raised, not only in foreign households, but in a country to are the sworn enemy of God's people. However, while Moses is from a presumably common family and is raised by royalty, Shasta is of royalty raised by a commoner. Nevertheless, both become leaders of their people. 

I also think it interesting that neither Aravis nor Shasta when in Archenland portray anything positive of Calormen society. Even Shasta should have something having grown up with the proverbs and apophthegems of Calormen which, as we've discussed seem to have some value, but Aravis is clearly a master storyteller, but we no longer hear that of her either. It's almost as if Lewis wanted all of Calormen society erased. 

But I don't think that's really what we want. Any culture that can survive for any significant period must demonstrate positive character traits, even if it is just bravery in war, or loyalty to their (maybe evil) cause. Converts and escapees can bring those character traits to constructive societies who can use them for good. I'm not quite why Lewis doesn't do that here. 

Letters to Malcom: Letter 6 (Part 2)

Lewis continues his critique of Newman saying that he has substituted religion for God. Religion, asserts Lewis, is a means to an end. The end, the destination, is God, religion is the way to get there.  

Lewis' point is well taken but requires some, not quite caveats, but at least some commentary. For example, one might ask, are there other ways to God? Can one reach God via studying the natural world, or history, or just have an epiphany that there is a God? Well, that raises the question what does it mean that God is the end, or the destination? If the destination is to know there is a God, so, sure, people arrive at the conclusion that God exists in many different ways, and I think it's hard to say any of them are illegitimate. After all, Maimonides explicitly suggests the natural world as a means of coming to love and fear God!

So, there has to be something else. Maybe the end is not simply learning to believe that God exists but getting to know God. If we know God, we will immediately believe in Him and love and fear Him. Now, for finite man getting to know the Infinite Being is not a reachable end. Hence, one can get only so far via other means, and only religion, belief in God and following God's ways, can provide a constant, never-ending path to knowing God. Of course, God wants us to succeed. He loves us and helps us along the way. 

One might ask, how does, for example, loving my neighbor help me learn about God? The answer is that knowing God means understanding His ways and one cannot truly understand the ways of another unless he adopts those ways for himself. God loves your neighbor. So, if want to know God, you must love your neighbor as well. 

And this brings us to a different formulation. The destination may not be to know God, or to love Him, or even to fear Him, but to be godly. Even being godly can be learned from outside of "religion." Our Sages teach us that one can learn godly traits even from the animals: modesty from the can, not to steal from the ant, and forbidden sexual relations from the dove. Nonetheless, the complete directions of how to be godly comes from His word. Hence, when we love our neighbors we are acting in a godly fashion. And even when we're performing the most esoteric of rituals we are acting in a godly fashion because the ritual is from God, and only He knows what it's like to be godly.

Letters to Malcolm: Letter 6 (Part 1)

Lewis starts Letter 6, dealing with the accusation of being, "one of Vidler's young men." For the moment, I'm not particularly interested here about Vidler's philosophy outside of what it means for this Letter, so I'll just point you to the interesting article here. However, Lewis does appear to appreciate Vidler's dislike of the word religion. Let me note that in the greater Jewish context, this question animates Leora Batnitzky work, "How Judaism Became a Religion". Lewis and Vidler's approach is very much in contrast to the assertion by Newman that Heaven is like church in that, "one single sovereign subject - religion - is brought before us." 

Lewis first appears to reject Newman's hypothesis by quoting Revelation (21:22) that there is no temple in the new Jerusalem. This is an interesting statement, and one can imagine several approaches to address why this should be so. Lewis presumably would say that the temple is a manifestation of a religious sanctuary amidst an irreligious (not non-religious) environment. This is not necessary in a world enlightened by knowledge of God.  

However, this does raise the question, according to Lewis, are there churches in the new Jerusalem? Are there places where people gather to worship God? 

Judaism completely rejects this Christian bible approach. We (more than once) face Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, to pray for the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple was not and will not be simply a sanctuary or escape, as was Noah's ark, but a place of spiritual nurturing and growth. Even if the whole world is filled with God's glory, the Temple is God's dwelling place and the holiest site on earth. Thus, it is also the place where humanity will gather as one to worship Him and learn His ways. There is a Chosen Place on earth - the place where the Temple will stand. 

Cover Art: The Last Battle

Today, my wife and some kids went to a used bookstore and found "The Last Battle" (and some of the other Chronicles) with the cover on the left. The true excitement was, of course, that the books they found were in the correct, publication order, as opposed to the horrid "chronological" order of my current set. But I also noticed the difference in the cover art. And I wondered whether the changing of the cover was almost as bad (nothing could ever be as bad) as the changing of the numbering. 

Note above some of the examples of how that art changed over the years (though there are many that are not in the above array). Contrast, for example, the cover on the left and the third from the left. The latter clearly implies that the battle being referenced in the title is a physical one. The unicorn's blood-soaked horn suggests that there is a unicorn at the center of the story and his looking back tells us that the unicorn must look backwards out of concern of enemies approaching him from behind. There is a unicorn in "The Last Battle," and he does, at least once, stab someone with his horn. In addition, we know that the little band of good guys which the unicorn is part of, is effectively in enemy territory and must constantly look backwards. So, the cover is true, but does it get to the main theme of the story?

"The stars from their constellations fought against Sisera,"
sang the great prophetess (Judges 5:20).

The left-most cover suggests a very different theme. No physical battle is pictured. Rather we see through the door the darkness of night punctuated by falling stars. Inside the door it is bright and warm. If a battle is occurring, as the title states, it must be the stars fighting and the words of Deborah ring in our ears. The battle is not a physical one, it is a spiritual one, and the presence of Aslan (who at this point we certainly know) and a cohort of people suggests that Aslan has protected his chosen from the great battles raging outside.  

Why change the picture so starkly?

Well, it could be that people no longer recognize Deborah's song, and so the message would be lost. Or, unfortunately, it could be that the publisher does not believe that spiritual battles will sell. Physical battles are where the action is and the cover is meant to say, don't worry, this is a book about real, bloody, battles, not some spiritually boring theology. 

We see some of this already in the second cover. The picture is very much like the first, except with much more and sharper detail both inside and out of the door. The presence of (so far unknown) Father Time may be in line with the theme of the end of time (he may be blowing the great horn that accompanies the eschaton), but it detracts from the shower of stars. Worse, however, is that inside of the door is very much a continuation of outside. There is no contrast of light versus darkness or warmth versus cold. There is no implication of Aslan as the protector.

The final artwork revives the door and the contrast between inside and out. But now the unicorn is coming out of the door! This implies that the battle must be joined outside and that to win forces must be brought from there. I don't like it. The forces for spiritual battle are within all of us. Of course, we pray to God for His help and His deliverance, but we also cannot count on miraculous beings coming to help. 

 

A Hebraic Inkling: A Rose by Any Other Name

This is an extremely important introductory section for it is here that Brazier sets Jesus into a Jewish context as the Jewish Messiah. Brazier starts this by noting that Jesus had a Hebrew name, Yeshua, as did all Jews of the time, and that Christ means the messiah which is Hebrew for the anointed one. Brazier properly notes that Hebrew Bible kings and even High Priests were anointed and called messiah, and that being a messiah does not imply that the person is God (or, as Christians would say, part of the trinity). 

The care Brazier uses in defining his terms is commendable. He notes that "the son of God" does not a priori mean the Son in a trinitarian fashion, and that the salvation promised by Jesus was that the one assumed by the Jews of the late Second Temple period. Brazier's claim is that in hindsight in can be seen that despite those expectations, Jesus is the messiah promised in the Hebrew Bible, and he is actually THE Messiah as the Son in the trinity. Not surprisingly, Brazier will spend significant time on Lewis attempts to infer Jesus from the Hebrew Bible.

By laying out this argument step-by-step Brazier clarifies two important points. The first, which is not of course the focus of his work, is that it is very easy to see at what points Judaism would disagree with the assertions of Christianity. From the Jewish perspective, Jesus did not fulfill the clear political promises of the messiah and therefore was not the messiah. Furthermore, Jews reject the asserted trinitarium of the early Church and the need or possibility that God took human form and thus reject Jesus as part of the godhead. 

The second point is that, with this, Brazier sets the foundation of what it means to be a Hebraic Christian. A Hebraic Christian must see Jesus in the context of Jewish culture of his time. A Hebraic Christian understands that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah spoken of eschatologically in the Hebrew Bible, and a Hebraic Christian recognizes that the name Jesus Christ is simply a translation of the original Hebrew Yeshua hamashiach. 

Brazier continues his introduction by defining several more phrases which will look at next time. But a main goal of his work is to demonstrate Lewis' agreement with the foundations of Hebraic Christianity introduced in this section.

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... 

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.