Letter to Malcom: Letter 2 (Part 2)

The second form of prayer that Lewis relates to in this Letter, is the behavior of the congregation during prayer. Lewis speaks highly of a Greek Orthodox mass he once attended in which, "some stood, some knelt, some sat, one crawled about the floor like a caterpillar," and no one cared what anyone else was doing. 

What Lewis does not address in his liberalism of behavior is are there any limits? Certainly, Lewis is assuming that the particular behavior is chosen in order to maximize concentration on the prayer or some other aspect of prayer. If not, what would be the point? So any behavior that would work against this goal would be rejected. Even beyond that I would assume that Lewis would limit any sort of obscene or irreverant behavior during prayer, even though he doesn't say so. An example, would Lewis be accepting of someone coming to pray in a bathing suit? I would assume not. God of course, knows what a person looks like so in that sense it doesn't matter. The person, however, is demonstrating irreverance - one would not appear in front of an important personage in that dress, so how can a person appear in church that way? 

Traditional Jewish prayer allows for a range of behaviors through most of the prayers assuming they are honorable and fitting (I don't think crawling around like a caterpillar would qualify). An exception is when the Holy Ark is open and/or the Torah scrolls are being carried. The only prayer exception is during the amidah in which we stand with feet together in the stance of the straight-one-legged angels who stand before God. 

The idea of copying the angels, or indeed, looking towards others for guidance rather then choosing ones own form of prayer, will be the central question when weighing formalized liturgy against spontaneous supplication. 

Letter to Malcom: Letter 2 (Part 1)

I have to admit, this Letter really threw me. Maybe someone can enlighten me as to Lewis' initial thought process was -  but let's see if we can break it down. 

The question at hand is the form of prayer and there are several modalities of form. First, there is standardized liturgy versus personal liturgy. Second, there is one's pose during prayer, and third, there is communication to God via speech versus thought as the means of prayer. In conclusion, Lewis seems pretty liberal and willing to let people decide what forms 'speak' best to them, but he still makes certain statements which I feel the need to bring up.

The first is Lewis assertion that the highest form of prayer is prayer without words. Now, in some respect I agree that there is a place for prayer without words. In fact, as we've discussed, such prayer may be the function of the shofar (rams horn) blown on Rosh HaShana (the Jewish New Year) or Susan's Horn - the realization that as a finite human I don't even understand my own needs, and so I am going to simply turn to go with a call or a cry and let Him fill in the rest. 

But that is not what Lewis is referring to. Lewis means prayer without any physicality whatsoever. In fact, he says that his first attempts was that even when praying for someone else he strive not to name the individual but to simply have a mental picture of the person. My guess is that via this sort of 'prayer' Lewis is hoping to shed as much physicality as possible and, by using on mentality, come as close to God as possible? 

It goes without saying that traditional Jewish prayer, which requires not only the words to be mouthed but also to be heard by the person praying, rejects such a notion. The Talmud is clear that God Himself comes to the synagogue. He is close by even in exile. There is no need to shed our bodies in order to reach out to Him. 

It's not my place to say, but I don't see why a Christian would feel any differently. Does not Aslan assert to Bree (in a way that is foreign to Judaism) that he can be touched and smelled? 

So, that is my first thought on this Letter. I would suggest the opposite of Lewis. Better that prayers should be spoken and names should be named. This enables people to better internalize, better concentrate, and better recognize that, even though they are physcial beings, they are beloved by God who 'lowers' Himself to hear our prayers. 

From a practical standpoint Lewis comes to this conclusion as well. I would argue that part of prayer is recognizing who we are, embracing it, and understanding that we can still approach Him. Thus, on Rosh HaShana we pray, whether we are sons or whether we are servants our eyes look towards You, until You have mercy upon us.  

Why Doesn't Susan Keep the Horn?

This is probably repetitive but nevertheless let's take a look at the question of Susan's horn from another perspective. 

Why does Susan not take back the horn when offered by Caspian? An easy answer would be that it doesn't work outside of Narnia. There seems to be some wisdom in that given that The White Witch's magic doesn't work in our world either (though it does work in Narnia - begging the question why magic seems to work in other worlds but not ours).   

But perhaps the real reason is that Susan realizes she doesn't need it. The horn brought Susan and her siblings to Narnia. They were the help that Aslan sent to the war-torn, beleaguered Narnians at their moment of desperation. If Susan were to blow the horn in our world - wouldn't it just call Susan? Obviously, that would be worthless. But it also suggests that Susan should be able to solve her own problems. She should be the one to bring her own salvation.

Now that's quite a statement - one should always pray to God and plead with Him for salvation. And God gets to choose His method of helping us. I trust everyone knows the joke of the person standing on a rooftop with rising floodwaters and refusing the assistance of a boat and helicopter because he's sure that God will save him. OK, so we need a balance - on the one hand we have to take responsibility for ourselves, on the other we cannot insist that "My power and the strength of my hand" (Deuteronomy 8:17) will bring about salvation. 

So, what should Susan do? The horn symbolizes God's help, but God's help is her. Keeping it may cause her to haughty and think that she is the source of salvation. So, she gives it away - enabling her to concentrate of God's salvation, but still with the realization that she can be God's messenger is bringing help to others. 

We know what happened to Susan. She is overcome with the vanity of the world and gives up her status in Narnia. But perhaps this is part of her salvation and that of others. Peter, Edmund, Lucy and the rest, never tell their story to anyone. No one is inspired by them, no one seeks to follow their path. One day the horn will blow calling Susan to return to God, to once again be His messenger. She will hear the call, and she will come - but when she does, she will bring crowds with her. 

All sorts of people will hear her story of youthful passion in God, the teenage cooling off as she substituted the spiritual for a physical focus, and finally enlightenment that only God is worth the time and effort.  They will resonate with HER story in a way they never could with the story of Lucy and Peter. 

Once and Queen of Narnia always a Queen of Narnia. Queen Susan of the Horn will always be the source of 'magical' help and salvation for others. 

Letters to Malcom: Letter 1

The family and I were up in the Berkshires this past week where we stopped off at Shaker Mill Books, which I heartily recommend to all those who love used books. One of my finds was a 1964 edition of Letters to Malcom: Chiefly on Prayer and I thought it would be interesting to kind of live blog my thoughts as I read through.

Two caveats: (1) I realize, that I'm way behind on so many other things so hopefully I'll follow through on this and get to everything else soon as well. (2) I have mixed feelings about live blogging (or podcasting) through a book because I think any part of a book is better understood after reading through the whole thing. So, we'll see how this goes... 

Letter 1: 
This Letter surprised and confused me, and leads me to think that perhaps I have misunderstood church service. In traditional Judaism the need to pray with a quorum in a place dedicated for prayer (like a synagogue) is a given. And both matter - one should preferably pray in a synagogue even without a quorum and preferably pray at the same time as the rest of the congregation even if not at the synagogue. Hence, Lewis' almost immediate dismissal of congregational prayer as not a subject for discussion (outside of this first letter) was quite a shock. 

Where I find more room for agreement is in Lewis' emphasis on familiarity of the service. Tradiational Judaism certainly takes this to an extreme. While every (I can only speak for Orthodox Judaism) synagogue has its own flavor, the base service is very standardized, so that any Orthodox Jew can go to any Orthodox synagogue and have a good idea of what prayers are being recited (while in the Berkshires I prayed at a synagogue with a decidedly Hasidic influence. I am certainly not an adherent of Hasidism, but still followed along without a problem). Furthermore, the standardization of prayers exists even when not praying with a quorum, though certain parts of the service cannot be recited without said quorum. New prayers have been added to the standard service over the centuries, but a fundamental change of that sort takes decades to win acceptance. So, with respect to the habitual and familiar I am entirely onboard. 

Where I may find disagreement with Lewis is in his desire for the habitual in order to not have to fix attention on the service, but fix attention on God Himself. To some extent I understand this. If someone is not familiar with the tune or has a hard time reading the words that person may concentrate on the recitation of the prayer at the expense of its meaning. Still, this does not mean that the words of the prayer are besides the point, or should be recited in a habitual manner. Our goal is to fix attention on the meaning of the prayer, understand it, internalize it, for it is through the prayer that one speaks with God. So, what is it that Lewis wants people to concentrate on? I'm afraid I have not understood exactly what he wants. 

Finally, I have to comment on the question of language. From an early age we teach our children to read and understand biblical and rabbinic Hebrew. This does not mean that everyone successfully understands every word of every prayer (which is why many prayerbooks have translations). Nonetheless, the recitation remains the same. The Pslams and later prayers that make up the daily and holiday routines are recited in their original language and it is expected that people will strive to learn and understand the original language, even if modern Hebrew (and certainly English) is different than the language of the prayers. It is not my place to criticize, but I must admit, I am at a loss as to why the general Christian population does not learn the Greek and Hebrew necessary to understand their texts in the original.  

Perhaps I've misunderstood something in all this, and perhaps Lewis will clarify in later Letters. 

We'll see...  

The 9th of Av

My apologies for lack of recent posts as I've been writing thoughts for the 9th of Av which ended this evening. Given the trials and tribulations of Jews throughout the world, the tragedies recalled on the 9th of Av (the destruction of the Temples, the Crusades, the Holocaust, etc.) are more relevant and meaningful as we put our current troubles into historical perspective.

I've noted in the past of Narnia's lack of holidays (besides Christmas). I should also note a lack of fast days. Nonetheless, Lewis understands what happens when we have none. Moving to the beginning, we know that the curse of the White Witch not only kept Christmas away but also disrupted the ebb and flow of the calendar. Of course, people (and presumably talking animals) are naturally drawn to the days of happiness and joy, but they are rendered less meaningful without the sorrow of days of fasting and mourning. The curse of the White Witch was to remove both, causing unending repetitive days taking away the highs and lows, forcing all of life to conform to her time. 

So too on the historical level. The White Witch's freezing of time, while felt immediately on the yearly cycle aimed to steady all of history. No longer should there be victories or defeats. No longer should there be years of blessing or years of cursing. All should remain bland and constant under her rule. 

The victory of Aslan opens the door for a return to history. And while the past year and half have been painful ones for the Jewish people, we already know that the end of the story is one of victory and celebration. The only mystery is how we will get there. But even the tragedies are a step in the path of redemption rendered all the more meaningful by the pain of the journey. 

C.S. Lewis and the Jews: A Marriage Made in Heaven or a Great Divorce?

I'm really happy to see R' Mark Gottlieb's review essay on P.H. Brazier's "A Hebraic Inkling" and "Freud's Last Session." Obviously, we are very behind on my own comments on Brazier's excellent work so hopefully this will motivate me to move forward on that effort. In addition, R' Gottlieb's review raises a number of questions with regard to supersessionism and Lewis' "Reflection on Psalms," both of which require further comment. 

Stay tuned!

Before Till We Have Faces

Pints with Jack has released a great episode called a primer for Till We Have Faces (TWHF), Lewis' most complex work of fiction and, according to Lewis, his greatest work. I wanted to add some notes that may help a Jewish reader approach this work (please note that R' Mark Gottlieb has already written an introduction to TWHF here, and I've already shared a lot of my thoughts on TWHF here). If you haven't read TWHF, please check out those other resources because what I write here is just some notes. 

TWHF is, as Lewis says, the myth of Psyche and Cupid retold. In many printings of TWHF a recounting of the myth is included at the end. But to weigh in on the debate, I definitely think you should read the myth first - Lewis assumed that any educated adult would be familiar with it.

OK, some things to know: 

1) Lewis was generally a fan of paganism and the willingness of pagans to sacrifice for their gods. The straight line he draws between paganism and Christianity contrasts sharply with the Jewish view of Judaism as being a complete break from paganism (or paganism being a corruption which must be fixed). 

2) TWHF works on two levels, the personal and the societal. On the personal level Queen Orual embodies the warnings of the Four Loves. She spurns each of the loves before eventually learning that the Gods love her and, perhaps, she could have loved them. 

On the societal level, TWHF is the story of the beginning of the evolution from paganism to Christianity and from barbarism to Western Civilization. The goal is to make the gods beautiful so that Glome will be able to accept Christianity. This can only be done thanks to Orual's transformation of Glome into a prosperous society. Lewis' concentration is much more on the first level than on the second. Orual attains grace only because she eventually learns the gods love her, not because of the prosperity and happiness she brought to her people. I think Judaism, with its concentration on works would celebrate Orual and the good she does for society despite her faults. The bible has a number of heroes who play this role. 

3) Correctly, Psyche is the only one that can bring beauty to the gods. For only one who loves God can enable others to love Him as well. To do this, Psyche must become a goddess herself, which she does. In Judaism it is people who bring about love of God, redemption, and forgiveness. Not so in Lewis' view.

I hope this helps! Happy reading...