Penal Substitution: A Twisted Truth

This essay is about atonement—which means reconciliation, which means forgiveness—and how all of these function in the theology of what happened on the cross.

Firstly, the Bible says a lot of different things and uses different metaphors to talk about forgiveness and reconciliation, like it does other topics. This is why we have theological debates like Arminianism vs Calvinism. I admire the fact that the Bible isn’t clear on things, it humbles our ego and protects us from the dangerous legalism that leads to religious violence. All that being said, I am not claiming to know the answers. I am just opening the door to a conversation that has long been shut, without us even realizing it. Many fundamentalist Christians have been taught that penal substitution theory is the only atonement theory that exists. I’m simply sharing about how my learning about other atonement theories that have existed throughout Christian history changed my life.

Secondly, Before talking about forgiveness, I want to be sensitive to the fact that forgiveness can be used as a weapon, especially in religious contexts. It can be used as a tool for abusers to groom, gaslight, and manipulate their victims. For this reason I would like to clarify: Forgiveness, in terms of human relationships, does not mean the absence of boundaries to protect people from abusive behaviour. Also, no one is entitled to or owed forgiveness. That belief is toxic theology and a twist of the truth. Forgiveness is always a free gift which can bring a lot of healing to those who have been abused. Forgiveness also opens a door to those who have been forgiven to repent and do better.

Thirdly, I am not trying to convince people to throw out the penal substitution theory. Penal substitution theory is the most popular theory today and there is lots of Bible verses to support it. When it comes to the penal substitution theory, I have always been met with confusion in my body and that feeling that something isn’t quite right. The thing is about toxic theology is that it twists the truth just a little bit, and there is a lot of toxic theology that stems from penal substitution theory. Growing up, I would try so hard to make it make sense, and the simplest way I could understand penal substitution and atonement was: Jesus bought us all tickets to heaven, and the price of the ticket was his death. The thing is, I don’t necessarily disagree with that. I just redefined the terms, and its not just me, its a lot of people throughout history. What I’m saying isn’t new. Instead of saying “Jesus bought us tickets to heaven”, I would say he demonstrated how to manifest and access heaven on earth, or as Jesus liked to say, the kingdom of God, and the cost of achieving the collective liberation of all people, the oppressors and the oppressed, is unconditional love and forgiveness which stems from the belief that all people are worthy of redemption.

In this essay, I am going to be focusing on penal substitution theory, Christus Victor, and the scapegoat theory. 

There’s two arguments on atonement/forgiveness:

1. Forgiveness requires payment, retribution, or punishment. This is punitive justice and this is how a penal justice system works. Where I live, in Canada, we have a penal justice system.

2. Forgiveness is completely free, and the holy response to being forgiven is repentance, making amends, and trying to reconcile, if possible. This is restorative justice and many Canadian indigenous nations have restorative justice systems.

Penal substitution theory argues that forgiveness requires payment, retribution or punishment because that is the Law of “Pure Justice”. It is restoring the scales by placing a “payment” on the opposite scale from the “sin”.

Meanwhile, Christus Victor and Scapegoat theory argues that forgiveness is a free gift and to “balance the scales”, or achieve reconciliation, the sin is just forgiven and taken off the scale.

So what did Jesus teach?

The sacrificial system that functioned in Jewish, Roman, and many other ancient societies around the world, rested on the belief that forgiveness required payment, retribution, punishment, an eye for an eye. So in order to be forgiven by God, you had to make sacrifices to God in order to make amends. Humanity’s relationship with God has historically been transactional. In Second Temple Judaism (when Jesus lived), to be forgiven by God, people went to the temple and purchased sacrifices and gifts—at a premium, with tax—and this filled the pockets of the religious and political elite. The temple authorities had actually ruled it so people couldn’t bring their own sacrifices, it had to be purchased in the temple market (where Jesus flipped the tables). The religious elite had basically monopolized God’s forgiveness (which has continued to happen; for one example, see “Indulgences”). To achieve the full forgiveness of sins, there were multiple rituals. One was that they had to lay their hands on a goat, confess their sins to the goat, and thereby “transfer” their sins out of them and into the animal. They would then flog and torture the goat and sent it out into the wilderness. The other one is the lamb atonement sacrifice, where they would transfer their sins to the lamb (the high priest would do this on behalf of all Israel), and then they would sacrifice it on the alter, and that is how people were appeased of their guilt. These types of scapegoat rituals were very common across cultures.

I don’t want to be disrespectful or anti-Semitic when talking about this, so please hear. Yom Kippur is the Jewish holiday that translates to “The Day of Atonement” in Hebrew. During this celebration Jewish people would perform these sacrifices. It is and was a beautiful celebration because it forced people to reflect on what they had done wrong and needed to make amends for every year; it is an unavoidable, restorative confrontation with yourself. Forgiving ourselves of our mistakes is just as important in our stories of redemption. 

So Jesus entered the scene where the largest temples were corrupted by the empire and religious hypocrites. He immediately and repeatedly, through dozens of parables and teachings (the unforgiving brother/prodigal son, the unforgiving servant, the Lords Prayer, etc), taught that forgiveness is free, that God gives it freely, and that we should give it to each other, freely. 

He would sandwich this teaching in with a defence that he is not destroying the law, but fulfilling it. He says this because he is literally changing the laws on forgiveness and making the sacrificial system redundant. One of his favourite things to do was go to people and tell them their sins are forgiven. This is what got him killed. Not because he was running through the streets claiming to be God; no one would have cared. They would have just said he was a mad man. He was targeted because he was disrupting the system. Telling people that God forgives them threatened the religious and political elite in two ways: It bypassed their power and authority, and it made their exploitive business redundant. They told him “You can’t forgive sins, only we—I mean, God—can do that. Are you saying you’re better than us? Are you claiming to be God?” And his response was just like, “I do what I want,” [paraphrased] (Matt. 9:1-8, Mk. 2:1-12, Lk. 5:17-26).

This is the most encompassing theme of not only Jesus’ ministry, but the whole Biblical narrative. Even in the Hebrew Scriptures, Israel broke their covenant with God, valued greed and power over justice and integrity, and then God would forgive them, because he loved them, and they’d try again. 

Before moving on, I would like to clarify the relationship between forgiveness and repentance, because its not clarified enough in the church and it needs to be because its important and it gets messed up a lot. Did you know that it is proven that forgiving alcoholics is one of the only things that helps them stop drinking. People aren’t forgiven because they repent, people repent because they are forgiven. This is human nature; this is researched, studied, and proven. This is why Jesus said, “You are forgiven, now go and sin no more,” (Jn. 8:11). It speaks again to the fact that forgiveness is free, it does not require an apology or repentance. That would suck if I couldn’t forgive my abusers unless they apologized, when forgiving them is how I find healing. Thats silly, but thats arminianism. 

Now the reason we get confused about forgiveness requiring a payment is because of the metaphors used to talk about what sin is. The word sin doesn’t actually exist in the Bible. It’s a simplified English word translated from different words used in the Bible to describe, honestly, different things. Theres three main words translated into sin. ‘Debt’ is called sin, though some translations leave it as debt. This is great because I think all these words should be left as they are. Debt is called a sin for when we harm or abuse someone, one could say we “owe them an apology”. Making amends usually requires that someone restores what they broke, when possible, though often this is impossible. ‘Weakness’ is translated into sin because when we make mistakes, it is a form of moral weakness. In Greek the word for weakness, ‘αμαρτία, is often synonymous with pride. ‘Weight’ is also called sin, because our own corruption can be a heavy burden on us and those around us. So forgiveness of ‘sin’, depending on what metaphor we are using for sin, is either a nulled debt (very popular metaphor in Jesus’ parables and teachings), a strengthened or healed weakness, or a lifted burden. 

Two of those three definitions of forgiveness don’t translate to any sort of penal substitution. The only metaphor for sin that makes any room for penal substitution theory is sin as debt. 

Debt can be forgiven in two ways: 

1. A debt can be paid back, (but really thats not a forgiven debt, thats just a settled debt).

2. Or a debt can be forgiven, nulled, thereby settled by the person who is owed.

For example, I can either ask a judge to wave my parking tickets when I can’t afford to pay them, or a debt can be paid by someone else, like when my mom pays for my parking tickets. Penal substitution argues that Jesus stepped in and offered to pay the ticket.

But thats not really forgiveness, forgiveness is saying you don’t have to pay me back. I love you. We’re good. 

This is why penal substitution theory, on its own, doesn’t make sense!

Many people believe that: “This is the Law, the only way to balance the scales is by making up for what you’ve done.” However, Jesus says that another way to restore the scales is just by forgiving the wrong done. Jesus advocated for restorative Justice, not penal Justice. He didn’t tell Christians to go pay off their neighbours debts, he told those in charge (which would be God in the scenario of the cross) to just forgive the debts! This is more revolutionary than penal justice and it still can coexist with all the verses around atonement and propitiation and debt. 

Penal substitutionists talk about God needing to satisfy the Law. But what law are we talking about. Human law? Scapegoating law? The only law Jesus commanded was the law of loving God and loving your neighbour! (Lk. 10:26-28, Matt. 22:35-38). Unconditional forgiveness is the same thing as unconditional love. 

Many people upon hearing the penal substitution theology of the cross are triggered by an image of God as an abusive father, and Jesus paid the cost of sin—God’s wrath—in our stead. Within this image if an abusive father, a mother stands in for her children to take the beating, or an older sibling stands in for the younger sibling. Penal substitution posits that Jesus is the mother or older sibling, and Father God is the abusive father, but he is rightfully acting out of “just intentions”. However, in reality, an abusive father and abusive people, use violence against others as a scapegoat for their own shame and trauma. The abusive father is not God, but the sin of violence and scapegoating. Not God. There’s no explanation beyond that. Violence is never deserved or “just has to happen to satisfy Justice”, whether that violence comes from an abusive father or God or a Judge or anyone. It’s a tale as old as time that vengeance never satisfies.

There’s this thing called “the cycle of violence”. The cycle of violence insists that only way to truly end violence is to be more violent. That is what the idea of God’s wrath is all about. Thats what wars are about. Thats what many superheroes are typically about. We hope that the good guys are more violent than the bad guys. However Jesus came on the scene and radically insisted that the only way to truly end violence is not to retaliate and perpetuate the cycle, but by ending the cycle: taking and absorbing and healing the violence, so it ends with you. “It is finished” (Jn 19:30). Thats what many people are doing when they are healing from generational trauma; they’re cycle breakers. I heard people like this once symbolically called sin eaters. Jesus was a sin eater. Lambs were symbolically sin eaters. To be a sin eater, one must forgive and love unconditionally the human souls who have been co-opted by the cycle of violence. Jesus said, “Forgive them for they know not what they do,” (Lk 23:34).

Seeing the cross in this way doesn’t take away any meaning. For me it gives it deeper meaning, and it changed my whole life and how I view Christ and the gospel. I have peace and freedom and finally, for the first time in hearing the gospel like this, I was actually able to believe what I believe. Before, it was me just trying to convince myself, trying to make it make sense, because I believed in God; but I believed in God not because of the way the cross was described to me, but in spite of the way the cross was described to me. 

Anyone who feels or felt like I did, this is who I’m talking to. The cross can be a beautiful story, and not necessarily some weird-blood-magic-transaction that we needed because we are all depraved. That’s just a twist of the truth. The transaction is actually the gift of forgiveness, and we are not forgiven because we are depraved, but because we are loved and worthy of redemption and liberation.

Some may still wonder, as I did, about the belief that death is the price of having sinned. I believe that truth is still very much timeless. Sin, abuse, hate, unforgiveness, violence, all lead to death and destruction and a life that is hell and full of wrath, for you and everyone around you. Not in a transactional sense, but in a cause-and-effect sense. And how are we saved from this “death”? The cross: Sacrificial love and unconditional forgiveness for ourselves and others.

Sympathy for Satan: Milton's Paradise Lost

For the purposes of this essay it is important to clarify that I am approaching Milton’s epic, Paradise Lost, with a literary lens, not a religious lens. Many have argued over Milton’s character of Satan and I find that a major cause for this conflict lies in the conflation of the religious Satan and Milton’s literary character in Paradise Lost; one is seen as literal, the other as figurative. When Milton writes of Satan, he writes not of a sociopathic evil force or irreligious philosophy, but a humanized and damned soul. Throughout my research I have found it more suitable and charitable to Milton to view his Satan as a literary character serving as an allegory for fallen humanity as opposed to a true depiction of a literal, spiritual, soulless being nor an absurd literary villain to Christ. Therefore, for the purpose of this essay I will begin with the literary lens examining the Satan character whom Milton anthropomorphizes and only then move onto the Satan whom Milton viewed as a real and immediate enemy.

There are many types of literary characters: three of which are 1. the Classic Hero, 2. the Tragic Hero, and 3. the Antihero. To help define ‘antihero’ for this essay, it is important to clarify the distinction between antihero and tragic hero. In my definitions, the classic hero (in the general sense) is a protagonist (leading character) overcoming what would have been their hamartia (a cognitive or moral error made by the protagonist in a dramatic plot or “perfect tragedy” [Aristotle 32, 93]) and/or trying to save the world (the Son, Superman, Frodo, Odysseus etc); A tragic hero is a character who succumbs to their hamartia, but eventually overcomes it with a redemptive humility before they die, effectually being "too late”, already suffering the tragic consequences of their error (Adam, King Lear, Oedipus Rex, Samson Agonistes etc); The antihero is a villain-protagonist who is also consumed by their hamartia, experiences the impulse to yield to redemptive humility, but after much inner conflict obstinately rejects it for reasons usually rooted in stubborn pride and/or passion for suffering (Satan, Macbeth, Raskolnikov, etc). In view of this comparative definition of ‘antihero’ and how we see Milton express Satan’s inner conflicts through his soliloquy’s, as well as being the protagonist in the first narrative arc, I am confident in saying that Milton created one of the earliest antiheroes in literature through Satan of Paradise Lost.

Milton’s depiction of Satan as an antihero inspires the reader to become simultaneously sympathetic of and repulsed by Satan’s story. In this essay I will argue that this sympathetic/repulsed reader response may guide readers to better understand their own corruption and how their response to their sin determines their destiny. In my first section I will outline exactly how readers of Paradise Lost become sympathetic towards the antihero while simultaneously repulsed. Here I will also address criticisms against this sympathetic reader response. In the latter part of this essay I will outline how one can gleam inner truth and self-revelation through Satan’s tragically deserved self-damnation.

1. THE SYMPATHETIC ANTIHERO:

Shawcross says that an anti hero “does not accept life as it is [or] things as they are … An antihero is not simply a nonhero or one opposed to the hero; [they] are a specific personality, explainable in psychological terms,” (35, 36). The psychological makeup of an antihero, Shawcross continues, is that of Dostoevsky’s Raskolnikov: “Like Satan, [Raskolnikov] reasons in extreme alternatives only: "Either to be a hero or to grovel in the mud—there was nothing between. That was my ruin’,” (36; Dostoevesky 39). Shawcross goes on to remark that as one defiles themself in the mud, one can falsely redeem their story as a martyr; a self-sacrificial hero. This is where the antihero psychology comes into play; suffering becomes a passion, a means to a false redemption. This definition perfectly fits with Satan of Paradise Lost while he admits his own sacrificial duty to his followers in Book 4, line 388. Yes, this psychology can be said to be absurd, and yet still not without sympathetic worth.

An antihero, in my elaboration of Shawcross’s definition, must be a villain whom the reader can see themselves in. It is a character with motives and perceptions which the reader can understand while simultaneously see through and reject. One can acknowledge the virtue of Satan’s motives, but still recognize how these virtues have been corrupted: Satan’s bravery, fight for freedom/against tyranny, self-awareness of limitations, loyalty to followers, etc. The major vice, in which no virtue is found that Satan embodies is still one which all are familiar with. This pure vice is the conscious sin, undisguised and laid bare: The crime of overwhelming passion, anger, and bitterness.

The compelling power of the antihero lies in how he/she causes the reader to root for the redemption of the villain without forsaking the justice which is compassionately due to said villain. Satan says in Book IV, “By conquering this new world compels me now/To do what else, though damned, I should abhor" (4.391-392). This line shows us Satan’s own hatred of who he is and what he is about to do, inspiring sympathy in the reader and hope for his own transformative redemption. He says again in Book IX, “To basest things. Revenge at first though sweet/Bitter ere long back on it self recoils" (9.171-72). Satan understands his own dilemma of bitter suffering with or without revenge on his Creator. The absurdity of his actions is apparent to him yet he feels he has no other choice for he cannot imagine being free of said suffering.

Milton’s most poignant way to inspire sympathy for Satan is in his soliloquy’s, confessing his feeling of being trapped in his destiny to be God’s adversary. Satan serves as a mirror the reader can look into and subsequently find themselves rooting for his deliverance, yelling at the page, “There is still hope and grace! Repent!”. Not only does the reader hope for Satan’s reconciliation with God for the good of Adam and Eve, or even for the good of humanity, but for the good of the salvation of the Devil and his fallen angels. And yet the reason Satan is not a hero, but one whom the reader must repulse, is because of the infernal stubbornness and hopeless hardness of his mind and heart, “not to be changed by place or time …” (1.249-255).

1.1 CRITICISMS

Stanley Fish argues that Milton’s interjections amid Satan’s soliloquy’s are to protect the reader from feeling anything except vigilance and skepticism towards the devil’s heartless words. (Fish 9-13; Milton 1.125-6). As the reader and Milton recognize the duplicity of his motives, any sympathy for Satan accordingly dissipates. Alternatively, Stein approaches this duplicity with a deeper understanding of the mystery of Satan’s pride: “He cannot repent, he says, because of his ‘dread of shame’ before his followers,” (5). As Satan recognizes his own ulterior motive in Book 4, lines 79-84, dreading his own shame and disappointment to his followers if he were to repent, the criticism of Satan’s stubbornness still stands without stripping him of all sympathetic worth; for all are capable of understanding the fear of disappointing those who trust us. Yes, from the beginning Satan tends to shift responsibility to God or duty, but he himself recognizes this as a way of avoiding his own shame (1.641, 4.388).

The trouble with limiting Milton’s Satan to a mockable figure, which C.S. Lewis among many other notable figures have erroneously done, is that it pigeon-holds Milton’s multi-dimensional character of Satan. Milton was not writing a textbook on Genesis, but recreating a dramatic portrayal of what it means to self-sabotage through the characters of both Satan and Adam/Eve.

The belief that Milton did not wish us to sympathize with Satan is only half true: In my opinion, Milton did not want us to sympathize with Satan and stop there; that is only half the process. Milton’s cautious interjections actually support my theory because Milton’s warnings are the voice of reason and justice to harmonize with the voice of compassion and sympathy which he plainly inspires in Satan’s soliloquy’s. Stein brilliantly observes that, “one need not choose between Satan being a tragic hero or an absurd villain. Either extreme stamps us as a more restricted moralist than Milton the poet. For then we are less able than Milton to admit the test of contradiction into the moral universe of our art,” (3). In my view, the tension between the sympathy and rejection one feels for Satan was an intentional device Milton (or his Muse) used for a specific purpose.

2. THE FATHER OF LIES

Milton alluded to Virgil and Homer’s epics repeatedly throughout Paradise Lost, especially in Book 1. Another major epic which Milton was intimately acquainted with is Dante’s Divine Comedy. Some speculate that Milton was actually re-reading Dante's Commedia while he wrote Paradise Lost (Samuel 33, 44-45). Just as Dante’s hell was an allegory for the hell on Earth which humanity creates for themselves through their sin, I argue that Milton’s character of Satan is also an allegory for the hardened nature of fallen and damned human souls. Reading Paradise Lost in light of this, one can delve into the psychology and self-made obstacles of fallen humans and, in effect, our very own fallen selves.

What is curious about Milton’s depiction of the Fall is that he does not write Eve as the first to sin, but makes clear that it was Satan who was the first victim of his own deception (illustrated in Raphael’s account in Book V). This here is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit: forsaking our conscience and deceiving ourselves, thereby corrupting our own hearts against our Creator. This is what Satan is truly the father of: Self-Deception (John 8:44).

There are two Christian approaches to confronting Satan: the military approach and the approach of the cross. The military approach is when one speaks of crushing the head of the serpent beneath our feet, best illustrated by Michael’s battle against Satan in Book V. The cross approach is when one pities the devil, scrambling in his failed revenge and inevitable defeat. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. famously said, “Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that,” (37). Perhaps when we are taught to love our enemies (Matt. 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-36), one of the most powerful expressions of this is our victorious and all-defeating love and compassion for The Enemy. Pity and compassion for the devil does not condone his actions, but is founded in the knowledge that he is defeated, powerless, and eternally damned in his own self-infliction, alongside every other human soul suffering the same tragic fate. Loving the devil does not arm him with adoration, but disarms him in our undying, sympathetic, Christ-like pity. Could this have been Milton’s hidden purpose in creating such a complex Satan?

I am reminded of the Jewish tradition of yetzer hara: the devil as a metaphor for our own evil inclinations (116, Ben-Chaim). Milton’s own description of the role of our evil inclinations in his Areapagitica supports his understanding of this yetzer hara (whether he did so consciously or unaware of the pre-existing Jewish tradition, scholars differ on the subject) (2:527-8). If Satan is the Adversary, as we live we testify to how the greatest adversary against our own good nature is, in actuality, ourselves. If we can be compassionate towards the devil of Paradise Lost, we can love ourselves at our own worst and root for our own hope of redemption in Christ. What is often our trouble in accepting God’s forgiveness is our inability to forgive ourselves; just as Satan’s own inability to forgive himself, “So farewell hope, and with hope farewell fear,/Farewell remorse : all good to me is lost,” (4.108-9).

Milton has given Satan a soul, a damned soul, but a soul. And for what purpose did Milton direct his energies into accomplishing this? I have found that Milton was actively building upon Augustine’s Deprivation of Goodness. Satan is not the Evil Force in the universe combatting Goodness, but instead, and in a return to the more traditional understanding of yetzer hara, Satan is the embodiment of goodness corrupted, and therefore the true firstborn of fallen humanity. 

Just as Milton did not end his epic with the Fall, but with Paradise Regained, so I must follow suit and conclude this essay properly by pointing to the revelation of Jesus Christ as the firstborn of the new humanity; the embodiment of goodness redeemed. This is the fourth part of the story which has yet to be masterfully dramatized in modern epic fashion: the Recreation. I must admit, I avidly await it.

Works Cited

Aristotle. Poetics. Translated by Anthony Kenny. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Ben-Chaim, Moshe. Judaism: Religion of Reason. Mesora of NY Inc, 2011.

Dostoevesky, Fyodor. Notes from the Underground. Mineola, NY, Dover Publications Inc, 2012.

Fish, Stanley Eugene. Surprised by Sin: The Reader in Paradise Lost. Harvard University Press, 1998.

King Jr., Martin Luther. Strength to Love. Pocket Books, 1963.

Lewis, C.S. A Preface to Paradise Lost. New Delhi, Atlantic Publishers & Dist, 2005.

“Paradise Lost”, “Areapagitica”. Luxon, Thomas H., ed. The Milton Reading Room, http:// www.dartmouth.edu/~milton, March, 2015.

Samuel, Irene. Dante and Milton: The Commedia and Paradise Lost. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1966.

Shawcross, John T. With Mortal Voice : The Creation of Paradise Lost. The University Press of Kentucky, 1982.

Stein, Arnold. Answerable Style : Essays on Paradise Lost. University of Minnesota Press, 1953.

Good Zombies vs. Bad Zombies

    It is dismissed that in non-Christian religions, any practice, language, or experience with the afterlife, or those who have died, is demonic. However, we do in fact see interaction with those in the afterlife and spiritual realm throughout the Bible (1 Sam 28; 1 Kings 17:17-22; 2 Kings 13:21, 4:32-35; Matt 17, 27:51-53; Mark 5:35-43; Luke 7:11-17, 16:19-21; John 11; Acts 9:36-31, 20:7-12; Jude 1:9), and for many, in our personal experience as well. So what makes Christian experiences with the spiritual realm different or better than the experiences of others who do not identify as Christians? If there is a line of difference, where is it? Can we know the sanctity of these experiences through speculation, or is it something we must discern first hand? There is one who did experience voodoo practices first hand in Haiti and Jamaica: Author and anthropologist, Zora Neale Hurston. She recorded many experiences in her anthropological work, Tell My Horse, including one experience in particular which took place by a waterfall. She takes record of the annual Voodoo ritual where the people would visit a beautiful waterfall, “turn from sordid things” and be washed anew in the water. This is her reflection: 

“I fail to see where it would have been more uplifting for them to have been inside a church listening to a man urging them to ‘contemplate the sufferings of our Lord,’ which is just another way of punishing one’s self for nothing. It is very much better for them to climb the rocks in their bare clean feet and meet Him face to face in their search for the eternal in beauty.”

— Hurston, 234

In this essay, I will argue for the perennial tradition which advocates for the possibility of God revealing himself and sending her Spirit to those who are practicing other religions, such as Voodoo, by doing a close reading of Hurston’s quote above.

Firstly, I want to note that Hurston’s sentences are matter-of-fact. Her strong tone shows that she already has an opinion that is fully developed throughout her extensive experience with both the Christian and Voodoo religion. She has taken a stance in defence of those at the waterfall, in defence of those individuals in whose searching eyes she looked, in whose smiles she found purity, and in whose bodies she witnessed surrender. 

http://www.jordicohen.com/finishing-the-edition-of-saut-de-mort/#.WzAHBS8ZNsM

In her first line she says, “I fail to see,” making what she is about to say personal and admittedly biassed. There is also a hint of sarcastic rhetoric in which she insinuates that what she fails to see is, in fact, blatantly obvious.

What she fails to see is how “uplifting” being in a church is compared to being in this Voodoo ceremony at the waterfall. When she says “uplifting”, she does not refer to a shallow attempt to be happy but a genuine condition of ones spirit. ‘Uplifting’ also points to another word, anastasis, meaning resurrection in Greek. ‘Resurrection’ is not “a mere awakening of the sleeping dead”, it is an “uplifting out of sin and death” (Russell, John 5:29). Her use of this word is reflective of Eastern Anastasi Art. Instead of a depiction of Jesus Risen in white outside of the tomb, Anastasi Art shows Jesus physically lifting people up out of hell. Therefore, I don’t believe she is suggesting that dancing in a waterfall is more fun than sitting in hard, wooden pews in a stuffy building for an hour; though a case can be made for this. She is observing which experience is more likely to truly ‘uplift’ the individual. This said, she is not only comparing the waterfall to just any church experience.

She introduced the idea of a church by situating one ‘inside the church’, which can imply being boxed in, closed off from the world, and an insider rather than outsider. Once in church, one is “listening to a man,” not just hearing, but absorbing the words of a man, a mortal. She goes on to say this man is ‘urging’ the people. In this one verb she is painting the picture of an angry preacher; an image not hard to imagine, neither in the 1930’s (when this book was written) or now. This man is urging the people to “contemplate the sufferings of our Lord,” to which she remarks, “is just another way of punishing one’s self for nothing.” Here she is saying that many church leaders teach that Christ’s ‘sufferings’ are our fault, so therefore we should feel guilty. She then follows to say we should not punish ourselves for ‘nothing’. ‘Nothing’ could insinuate we are guiltless, or it could more likely mean that we would be punishing ourselves to no avail. A key Biblical teaching is that humanity did not put Jesus Christ on a cross, He put Himself on a cross for us (Phil 2:6-7) 1 . Additionally, He did not put himself on a cross to make us feel guilty, but to demonstrate His perfect, revolutionary Love, with every expectation that those who experience this Love would be compelled to be like Him and repent of those ‘sordid things’ which this Love has overcome (Rom 2:4). Repentance is not a demand, but a natural response to Christ’s display of Love on the cross (2 Cor 7:9). Therefore, her criticism of this Christian approach to the Cross has merit in Biblical teaching. In other words: She’s not wrong. Christians are taught to punish themselves for nothing.

Now let’s turn to Hurston’s description of the Saut d’Eau ritual. She says it is better for them to “climb the rocks”, which can be contrasted with “sit in church”. This contrast suggests that action and engagement with the world is better than listening to a man in a fragile, limited, church bubble. In climbing the rocks, she said they had, “bare clean feet”. ‘Bare’ can mean unclothed, honest and humble. ‘Clean feet” can remind us of how Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, which means Hurston may have been intimating that those climbing the waterfall were having their feet washed by the Voodoo religion’s ‘Master of the Waters’; a similar to the Christian name of the Divine, ‘the Living Water’. She then continued on how much better it is for them to “meet Him face to face in their search for the eternal in the beauty.” While capitalizing ‘Him’, she is pointing to the Christian tradition in capitalizing the pronouns for God. In explicitly saying ‘face to face’, she may be playing off the Haitian Catholic tradition of having to use a priest as a mediator, instead of facing God oneself.

Finally, in summarizing how the people are searching for ‘the eternal in the beauty’, Hurston offers a humble and inclusive witness to how humans have an innate desire to seek out the divine. We’re all just searching for the eternal in the beauty. It is important to note as well, ‘Eternel’ is the French translation of YHWH, the name of the Hebrew God, as opposed to the English translation to ‘Lord’. I don’t believe Hurston used the phrasing ‘the eternal’ as a coincidence for, in fact, French is one of the two official languages in Haiti and she would have heard this French name for the Hebrew God during her time there.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2695110/Haitians-trek-waterfall-venerate-saint.html

The German writer, Novalis, called this human longing for beauty—or the eternal—‘sehnsucht’. C.S. Lewis extrapolated on this concept and wrote about how what we find beautiful—so beautiful that we sense traces of the divine within them—are not to be mistaken as the Divine itself; “they are only the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune we have not heard, news from a country we have never yet visited,” (Weight of Glory, 30-31). This concept of sensing the Divine in art and creation is recorded in the Bible as well (Rom 1:20, Job 12:7-10, Psalm 19:1). So what should we expect of and how shall we understand those people who uniquely experience the wonders of God within their own cultures. Shall we continue to assume all expressions of worship devoid of Christian tradition is demonic or blasphemy? Or shall we humble ourselves in our perspectives and ask God for his eyes to see these people as they truly are; and see ourselves, inside our churches, as we truly are.

How does Hurston’s unique experience speak to the Perennial Tradition? Fr. Richard Rohr gives a simple explanation of how the Perennial Tradition “encompasses the recurring themes in all of the world’s religions and philosophies that continue to say: (1) There is a Divine Reality underneath and inherent in the world of things, (2) There is in the human soul a natural capacity, similarity, and longing for this Divine Reality, and (3) The final goal of existence is union with this Divine Reality,” (Rohr). These three themes outlined by Rohr each apply to Hurston’s account of the waterfall ceremony on pages 233-234 of her book. What is ironic in her description of the Saut d’Eau is how she records the Catholic Church restlessly fighting against this ceremony. Twenty seven years after publishing Tell My Horse, it so happens that the Catholic Church affirmed the Perennial Tradition in 1965 at the Second Vatican Council saying, “All peoples comprise a single community and have a single origin . . . And one also is their final goal: God. . . . The Catholic Church rejects nothing which is true and holy in these religions,” (Second Vatican Council). While recognizing that the Nostra Aetate may not have been immediately recognized by all Catholic Churches, the irony remains that this non-Christian, African-American anthropologist from the Harlem Renaissance was a forerunner in that which many Christian leaders would come to later learn for themselves: God is all over the place.

So in light of the truth that all of creation is drawn to God, in their spirit and in nature, and also recognizing the honour with which we should give whatever is holy and pure (Phil 4:8), how then shall we approach religions which seem particularly demonic?

You may be wondering why the title of this essay is Good Zombies vs Bad Zombies. A major argument against the integrity of Haitian religion is the existence of zombies. Hurston meets and photographs one in a hospital and shares the opinions of the doctors that there is a drug administered to one who is cursed by their neighbour. This drug is meant to simulate death and destroy the capability of thinking and speaking, essentially turning them into a ‘zombie’ (Hurston, 204). Since the publishing of Hurston’s book in 1938, there has been more research into the existence and application of a “zombie powder” which has been further evidenced by biologist, Wade Davis (Davis, 4).

The title of this essay is not to argue how there are ‘good zombies’ recorded of in the Bible (Matt 27:51-53), and how there are ‘bad zombies’ recorded of throughout other cultures and histories—though I can verify that that is an entertaining discussion. The point of the title is that if we have ever encountered the love and beauty of the cosmic Christ, through which all things were made, we are all dead come alive in a way (Col 1:12-20). Zombified? Maybe not the best illustration. In the wake of “l’Eternel parmi la beauté”, we see that deadly part of us pass away in the light of the new. We also witness to this same resurrection power of YHWH in the Christian ceremony of baptism (Col 2:12). Despite the stigma around other cultures, there is no good or bad version of this. It is simply being brought to life.

“Then He who sat on the throne said, ‘Behold, I make all things new.’ And He said to me, ‘Write, for these words are true and faithful.’ And He said to me, ‘It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. . .” ^{2 ”}

— NKJV, Rev 21:5-6

https://www.flickr.com/photos/49354133@N00/4723573302

1.  However there are some verses which put the blame on the Pharisees, however that is in efforts to discredit their bias teachings which speak against the deity of Christ (1 Thes 2:14-16).

2. The following verses speak of a “deuteros thanatos” which means “second death” for those who are still “bdelyssō” which means stinky. Many can interpret this to mean those who are still living in foulness will receive a “final” death. However, in the context of baptism, many can also interpret this second death to be a second baptism with fire instead of water.

References

Davis, Wade. Passage of Darkness: The Ethnobiology of the Haitian Zombie. University of North Carolina, 1988.

Hurston, Zora Neale. Tell My Horse: Voodoo and Life in Haiti and Jamaica. Harper Collins E-Books,1999.

Lewis, C.S. The Weight of Glory. William Collins, 2013.

Rohr, Richard. “The Perennial Tradition.” Centre of Action and Contemplation. https://cac.org/living-school/program-details/the-perennial-tradition/. Accessed 23 June. 2018.

Russell, Charles Taze. Expanded Biblical Comments - Commentary of the Old and New Testament. Chicago Bible Students, 2004.

Second Vatican Council, “Nostra Aetate: Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions,” 1, 2.

The Bible, New King James Version. Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.

A White Girl on White Privilege

    I am a white girl in a white world, and to be normal is to be white. This is what white culture is; this is what white privilege is. In my personal experience, the privilege of being white was not obvious to me, for why would I notice that which I did not lack? No matter how much I may lack, I will always have something others don’t because of my white experience; I have that which I expect to have, and what others have learned not to expect to have. I came to the full revelation of my privilege (thus far) while I was reading an autobiography, The Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass. In the first paragraph on the first page of his autobiography, Douglass introduces himself, unable to say his age. He reflected, “The white children could tell their own ages. I could not tell why I ought to be deprived of the same privilege,” (Douglass, 27). The deprivation of this knowledge caused Douglass unhappiness, and this was only the start of his unhappiness for he had grown to be deprived of much as a slave. What struck me is this: When Douglass was accused of being an impertinent slave for asking about his age, I could not help but think about how his white brothers and sisters not only knew their age but could ask the same sort of question and simply be met with an answer—even a kind answer—all the while, oblivious to their fortune in comparison to their black half-brother.

    Douglass’ testimony was written over 150 years ago, and many believe that white privilege no longer exists. However, Reni Eddo-Lodge writes in her book, Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race, that this is a false illusion: “White privilege is the fact that if you’re white, your race will almost certainly positively impact your life’s trajectory in some way. And you probably won’t even notice it,” (Eddo-Lodge, 87). So why don’t white people notice their privilege, and how should we respond?

   There are two points I would like to make. The first is that Douglass’ reference to privilege in Chapters 1 and 11—specifically in regards to the lack of lack and unmerited positive treatment white people experience—affirm Eddo-Lodge’s claim that white people have retained an ignorance to their privilege. I will then address how, as Christians, we should respond to said ignorance in white culture by looking to James 2:1-5, Zechariah 7:11, and Ecclesiastes 1:18. So how does white privilege look today compared to 150 years ago?

    First I will demonstrate that white privilege existed and continues to exist before addressing how there is an inherent naivety in our white experience. One does not typically notice what they aren’t missing. When you’re driving your car, you don’t notice how you are not missing your wheels. When you're walking, you don't notice how you are not missing your feet. What the white children in Douglass’ narrative did not notice was how they did not lack the knowledge of their age and birthday—it was a natural and unquestionable part of life, just how we would see it today in Western Culture.

Douglass continues from this story of his age unto the story of his parents. He barely knew his mother, for the natural affection between mother and child was not a privilege the slaves were granted (Douglass, 29). His father was assumed to be his white master, but he could never know for certain (30). Therefore, Douglass did not know or have a proper relationship with his parents. On page 32, Douglass states how the established law under which “the children of slave women shall in all cases follow the condition of their mothers” undeniably benefits the slaveholder in both lust and profit. Knowing your parents and being born free are things many white children and adults took for granted. Is this a privilege still taken for granted today?

    My father was adopted, so half my biological family heritage is lost. That is a small lack I personally experience. However, for a large portion of Black Americans and Canadians, even when not adopted, struggle to know their heritage past the time of the Civil War—let alone which country in the vast continent of Africa they are derived from. This is all as a consequence of slaves not having records in the census. I have the privilege of knowing I have a French and Scottish heritage—among other things—and not just European ancestors. 

If I may be so bold, I think part of why Black Culture is so valued in present-day North America is due to the fact that their heritage was stripped from them and they continue to feel the struggle of it. White people are born free from this generational struggle, a freedom which in effect is a privilege. Therefore, what white people assume as a natural and unquestionable part of life, such as knowing one’s heritage and family history, is one of many examples of how we have a lack of lack without realizing it much of the time. Another example of an experience white people can take for granted is the feeling of safety in the presence of police/authorities. Why people of colour do not feel safe when confronted by authorities may become more clear in my next point.

     When reflecting on the conditions of slavery, it is easy to accept that the maltreatment of persons of colour was a reality in that time and place. However, in Chapter 11 of Douglass’ narrative, we see how there was a subversive trait in why white and black people were unequally treated; a trait which persists today. In Chapter 11, we read how Fredrick applied for the privilege of hiring his time; he wanted to spend his free time outside his slave duties to get a job. In recounting his experience in applying for the privilege it was not easy, but the masters, “in their generosity”, allowed it. After four months of hard work, toil, and dedication he came upon a situation. He was detained by his employer and needed to stay an extra day at the campground where he was hired. Upon returning to his master a day later than planned, Douglass was punished and his privilege revoked (157-158).  What is important to note about this story is how much time and energy was required of Douglass in order to prove himself trustworthy to his master (his entire life of servitude with impeccable behaviour)—all in an efforts to gain what was rightfully his in the first place: the right to paid work. In contrast, white people in that time did not necessarily have to earn trust or prove themselves and depend on the mercy of others: the testimony of their character and worthiness was imprinted in their skin. The question we again return to is: Does this still apply today and do we notice it?

    I must return to my personal experience in this matter. I have a habit of forgetting my passport when travelling across the border from Canada to the United States. The reason this habit grew and still remains is because it has never deterred me from getting across. After years of experiencing this and dozens of instances of being let through to the states, I gradually came to realize this was not normal.  For years I remained ignorant of the inherent trust I was afforded by some of the strictest border officers in the world. It was not until I started hearing from people of colour and hearing their stories of how they had been pulled aside for further investigation or questioning multiple times—with their proper identification—that I slowly realised my privilege, and the extensiveness of it. I did not have to earn or prove my worthiness to enter America, it was assumed in my physical appearance that I was harmless. Meanwhile, others have spent their lives taking the extra time to earn something that was given me without question—something that they had more of a right to, in fact, as they would have the passport which I would irresponsibly forget. This is one small example which reflects a larger pattern in yesterday's culture and today's; the pattern being how one’s skin colour predetermines one’s trustworthiness, thereby giving white people an advantage in, at the very least, the time it takes to earn another’s confidence. To return to my comment earlier in regards to our safety among authorities, such as police—people of colour have been painfully more aware of this bias and that which they lack: the benefit of doubt; not just by being pulled over at the border for further investigation, but by the severe, lethal brutality they are met with in too many police encounters.

    To conclude this brief essay on the subtle characteristics of white privilege that goes unnoticed by so many, I will reflect on some biblical insights regarding our human nature in regards to the vice of partiality and virtue of awareness. James 2:1-4 is a detailed explanation of how "evil" it is to make distinctions among people and make ourselves judges based on outward appearance. This passage begins and finishes the argument that unequal treatment between individuals is not acceptable in any shape or form, intentional or unintentional. In regards to the main claim of this essay—that white people are unaware of their advantages in society—the Bible responds with how willful ignorance and denial of painful truths, though are natural, should be averted. Ecclesiastes 1:18 reads: “For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow,” (KJV). This quote rings true for every white person who chooses to open their eyes and ears to the inequality which surges through culture in their favour. It is a hard truth to accept that we benefit from our skin colour while others are hindered by theirs. Zechariah 7:11 expounds on this tendency which humans have to close themselves off from information which forces them to change: "But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears from hearing,” (ESV). This verse not only warns against being willfully ignorant, but also stubborn in our ignorance. Finally we address the current stubbornness in white culture to vehemently deny any such existence of privilege. We must stop denying the reality of our privilege, for we do not first acknowledge it, how will we be able to keep ourselves from perpetuating it in favouring a white employee, a white tenant, a white defendant, a white casting, the list goes on.

    No matter how difficult or painful it may be to come to this awareness as white people, we have a personal responsibility, as outlined in Romans 6:13, to not serve as an instrument of injustice. In being complicit in sustaining the disadvantages of others, we hinder those who are mistreated (Romans 14:13). And finally, in denying the suffering of others, we deny the suffering of Christ (Matthew 25). Therefore, as white Christians, we have a biblical and social responsibility to speak of these things and do our part to prorate our advantages in life. Shall we remain slaves to the white supremacy within ourselves and our culture, or shall we break off the chains and run, eyes focused on a better tomorrow?

Bibliography

The Holy Bible: King James Version. Dallas, TX: Brown Books Publishing, 2004.

The Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan House, 1984. Print.

Douglass, Fredrick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. iBooks. https://itunes.apple.com/ca/book/narrative-of-the-life-of-frederick-douglass/id415325265?mt=11    

Eddo-Lodge, Reni. Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race. Bloomsbury 

    Publishing, 2017.

Mere Christianity: A Brief Summary

    C.S. Lewis summarized Christianity on BBC Radio during WWII. His segments were the most listened to in the UK, second only to Sir Winston Churchill. These segments were split into parts, and then published in parts. Lewis later compiled these talks into one book with four parts, Mere Christianity. In this essay, I will summarize the three most important aspects of Christianity articulated by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity: Belief, Behaviour, and Transformation.

The Law of Human Nature

    C.S. Lewis goes through these three aspects in a way that assumes the occurrences of belief, behaviour and transformation typically happen in this order. Before reaching the point of Christian belief in Book II, he first expounds, in Book I, on the belief in a universal God. The main point in his argument for believing in God is the existence of the ‘Law of Human Nature’, or the ‘Rule of Right and Wrong’. The understanding of the Law of Human Nature is essential to all three aspects of Christianity; that is Belief, Behaviour, and Transformation (31). Therefore, before moving onto these aspects, I will first summarize Lewis’ points on his idea of universal morality.

    Lewis has two points to make in regard to Human Nature: “First, that these human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave that way,” (18). The first point that the human race, across cultures and generations, shares this common moral ground is not, and cannot be, confused with, what Lewis calls, the ‘Rule of Decent Behaviour’: behaviour which is taught, such as manners. By comparing all cultures, he finds a striking and inexplicable pattern of morality which is rooted in the virtue of selflessness. He says, “Think of a country where people are admired for running away in a battle, or where man felt proud for double crossing all the people who had been kindest to him,” (6). 

    Lewis then argues against the idea that this innate sense of morality shared throughout mankind is caused by evolutionary instinct, for “it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker” of our conflicting impulses: the selfless impulse (10). This Law isn’t one of our instincts, but is the power which helps us choose between two or more instincts. He shows that one instinct isn’t always right in every situation and is opposed by an instinct which isn’t always wrong. Mother-love can become obsessive and possessive. Aggression can be good when defending an innocent person from being attacked. “Strictly speaking, there are no such things as good and bad impulses… The Moral Law… is something which makes a kind of tune by directing the instincts,” (11). As opposed to many modern Christian beliefs today, morality is not simple and basic human actions are not inherently evil. He concludes that this discerning power must be outside the universe, for it does not show itself as a part of the universe, but as that which influences all the parts of the universe (24). And this is what we call God.

Belief

    I will now move on to Book II of Mere Christianity, which centres on Christian belief. First, there is the Gospel. C.S. Lewis states, “the central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start,” (54). There are theories as to how this logically worked, but that is not central to this essay (nor, I believe, fully in our power to understand). The doctrine that Jesus Christ was God incarnated is also central to the gospel. Lewis uses the three-fold argument which claims Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or the true Son of God. By disproving the first two possibilities and using the process of elimination, he concludes that it is only logical to assume Jesus was telling the truth (52).

    The last point of Christian belief is salvation. Lewis doesn’t limit this mysterious reconciliation with God to a physical prayer or action, but he parallels it to a broader experience. He says, “This willing submission to… a kind of death is not something God demands of you before He will take you back… it is simply a description of what going back to him is like,” (57). Salvation is letting God make you good out of the Love that he shares (63).

Behaviour

    This leads to the second most important aspect of Christianity, the transformation of behaviour; or what Christians call sanctification. Traditionally, this is necessary evidence of the saving work of Christ. However, Lewis may go so far as to say sanctification and salvation are one of the same. But how exactly do we see this? Lewis sums it up in three parts; “fair play and harmony between individuals… harmonizing the things inside each individual… and the general purpose of human life as a whole,” (72). 

    Lewis spends a lot of time in the book outlining the specifics of these three ways which we must be put right in. There’s the Cardinal Virtues (76), the Virtue of “Loving thy Neighbour” (82), Sexual Morality (94), and Christian Marriage (104). These all correspond to our correction in how we should treat others. Then he touches on Pride (121), Forgiveness (115), and the Theological Virtues of Charity (129), Hope (134), and Faith (138, 144), which correspond with correcting that which is inside our souls. And of course, all of the above helps us in fulfilling our unified role in the universe; “Not hoping to get Heaven as a reward for your actions, but inevitably wanting to act in a certain way because a first gleam of heaven is already inside you,” (148). Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven, through our active and continually transforming lives.

Transformation

    The third aspect of Christianity is actually a reflection on what we have discussed. Through the very experience of being transformed in mind, body, and spirit, we are enabled to believe and understand the loving nature of God, the power of the cross, and the renewal of who we are in light of these things. We are to be transformed into “little Christs,” (199). By giving oneself up to “His Personality [we] first begin to have a real [individual] personality of [our] own,” (226). Jesus promises to make us perfect throughout eternity, even if he has to open the gates of heaven to death and suffering and evil, he will make us perfect so that we may know the full joy and fullness of life, and he will do nothing less (paraphrased, 202). 

    Lewis ends the book by closing the circle: “The very first step is to try to forget about the self altogether,” (226). Selflessness: That which unites mankind is the gateway and foundation for finding God and our true purpose in him: to be consummated into that which is greater, more beautiful, and more life-giving then anything we can imagine. 

    Whoever loses their life will find it.

What is Culture?

    “Culture” is a word, made up of letters, which represent sound. This particular mixture of sounds is as aloof as language itself. To uncover the original meaning and use of the word “culture” we must travel back to Ancient Greece. “Culture” is derived from the latin root word “cultus.” “Cultus” meant, in its primary sense, “divine worship” (Pieper, 15). This explains the derivative association we make of the word “cult”. This practice of cultus, which embodied the spirit of divine worship and self-sacrifice, was the “quintessence of all natural goods which lie beyond the immediate sphere of [people’s] needs and wants,” [paraphrased] (16). So how do we attain that which is good, yet not useful, but essentially honourable and divine? Plato’s school of philosophy, the birth of liberal arts, was indeed a society made for the celebration of cultus.

    Philosophy is not the only thing that embodies the original spirit of the word “culture”, but liberal arts as a whole (21, 40). Yet that which may not seem inherently “useful”—can’t eat The Odyssey, music can’t keep you warm—the arts and culture is, according to Aquinas, “necessary for the perfection of human society,” (41).

    One may ask, what does God and worship have to do with art and contemplation? I would simply respond: Those who understood and continue to understand the spirit of art and contemplation is centred in the idea that there is something bigger than you and I. Cultus means that it is through God that we are drawn to the love of things unseen (paraphrased, 74). In essence, it is the devotion of that which is sacred. This original understanding of culture actually dates back to before Plato and Aristotle, for in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, he says, “to us who come afterward, it has been handed down by our fore fathers and the ancients, that the whole of nature is surrounded by the divine,” (128). 

    So is this how we think of culture today? What with how we define and analyze cultures by their music, religions, fashion, laws, literature, etc. Ken Myers sums it up in a few words: “Culture is what we make of the world,” (Crouch, 23). It is how we value, protect, and express what we consider to be divine. “Meaning and making go together,” (24). Therefore when we look at the expressions in these expressions of culture, we can begin to decipher what these cultures value and protect—what these cultures consider divine. So then, we are not far off from the original meaning of the term at all.

    We can admire how Chinese culture values the virtue of balance and harmony in its decor, fashion, Buddhism, and exercises. We can contemplate the beauty in Black culture which protects the sacred virtues of resilience and unshakable joy and spirit in it’s music, literature, religion, and art.

    However, the divine that a culture values and protects is not always divine in nature. For example, rape culture considers that which is divine (what should be preserved, protected and valued) to be the freedom and respect of man; the freedom of men to do whatever they want to women.

    I once had an encounter with a rapist, where he sexually harassed me. I decided to gently address the matter with him and was disappointed to find that he did not believe he did anything wrong. It was my fault that I was offended and therefore there was no need to apologize. I genuinely wanted him to understand, not for my sake but for his—so that he could be a better person from it. However, his pride and invincibility, reinforced by rape culture, would not be challenged or swayed. My words fell on deaf ears, along with those of many women who dared to speak out against him in the years to come.

(And he had a small penis.)

#smallpenisrulenyt

    So what is virtuous? What is truly divine? I believe we cannot fully know, for any good virtue can become imbalanced, freedom of speech for instance. However, there is something that guides us and calls us deeper into an understanding of life. The ancients called this 'something', Logos: that which unifies the world. The Christians understood that the Logos became flesh in Jesus Christ. We must trust our hearts and be guided by tradition. 

    And yet still we are left with the question: What do we do in a culture that is corrupt? Julia Kristeva, a pioneering French feminist, said,

“[Forgiveness] is a limitation that knows the crime and does not forget it but, without being blinded to its horror, banks on a new departure, on a renewal.”

— Julia Kristeva, 203

    This statement is one response to evil that propels culture forward into the divine. What is sacred must be protected, and what threatens that which is sacred, must eventually be forgiven.

   Culture is what we make of it.

Biography:

Andy Crouch, Culture Making (2013)

Julia Kristeva, Black Sun: Depression and Melancholia (1989)

John Pieper, Leisure: The Basis of Culture (2009)

The Irrefutable Claim that Homosexuality is Wrong

VIDEO INTRODUCTION TO THIS ESSAY

     Throughout the history of Christianity there has been an evolution of consciousness that any amateur historian can map out: From the treatment of menstruating women in Mosaic Times, to the legalistic law of Sabbath in Second Temple Judaism, to the murder and torture of elderly women and the mentally ill during the Spanish Inquisition, to the Southern Baptist Convention who fought to keep slavery alive. This list only touches the surface of the many points in history where large Christian groups strongly held to immoral ideologies. The terror of these outdated beliefs were not to be underestimated, for all of the above had strong roots in authoritative Biblical doctrine. The moral evolution that was required to surpass these lethally executed laws, in fact, always required a revolution: The Christian Revolution, the Protestant Revolution, and the Civil Rights Movement; just to name a few. The question being posed in this essay is: Has the Church evolved, revolted and sharpened enough of itself, that it is now free from change or correction? If not, what immoral practice or corrupt ideology of the Church persists today, despite the moral evolution of consciousness that has surpassed most sects of Christianity? One ideology comes to mind that fits this pattern that we have witnessed throughout history: Homosexuality. 

    Using the strongest Biblical arguments used against homosexuality, I will determine the significance and impact that these have on Christianity as a whole. First I will analyze the historical and cultural context of homosexuality throughout circa. 1400 BCE to Present day. Then I will address some linguistic observations within the original Koine Greek that referred to the topic of sexual immorality in the New Testament. Lastly I will cross reference the theme of homosexuality in the Bible and modern Christianity with the evolution of slavery abolition and feminism. 

    The purpose of analyzing the historical and cultural context of homosexuality within Jewish laws and Christian doctrine is to see the difference in the Christian and LGBTQ+ community today. After analyzing the differences between these societies over the millennia, we can see where else cultural groups and the view of them have evolved and in the context of morality and doctrine in Scripture.

    There is much speculation as to when the Mosaic law was written. Depending on the theory of who wrote it, the date could range from 1400 BCE to 700 BCE. Nonetheless, the original Jewish law against homosexual acts was written sometime in this period, 2600 to 3400 years ago. This law is found in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 where it states that homosexuality is an abomination and the punishment is death. Reading this alone, it seems clear that the Torah/Bible states it is wrong. Exploring the context however, we quickly see that one cannot simply say this is a timeless truth. In the scriptural context of other laws in the Torah found alongside this one, we see many which have been widely dismissed today. The following list are some Mosaic laws with harsh penalties, which may include death, that no longer are recognized in Christianity today: Being a stubborn son (Deut 21:18-21), being uncircumcised (Gen 17:14), having sex with a woman who is menstruating (Lev 20:18), eating rare meat (Lev 17:10), doing work on the Sabbath (Ex 20:10), cutting your hair for style (Lev 19:27), wearing clothing with more than one material (Lev 19:19). The reason these are no longer taken seriously today is because most people have adopted a mature reading of ancient Scripture and decided these laws and the original reasoning behind them aren't relevant anymore. 

    Modern Christians have also recognized that these laws no longer apply because Romans 10:4 and Hebrews 8:13 dismiss the authority of Mosaic law. Yet some Christians still use these passages to condemn homosexuality. The argument against homosexuality using these passages should therefore be dismissed along with all other Mosaic laws that have been dismissed over time. Of course, there are other reasons this law wasn’t dismissed with the rest, as there are other places in the Bible that seem to condemn homosexuality.

    The other Old Testament reference to homosexuality is found in Genesis 19 during the story of Sodom and Gommorah. God’s response to homosexuality in this story is widely exaggerated for the Scriptures have no such reference to it [see note]. There is a reference in Sodom when a group of men attempted to gang rape some visiting angels. This incident, of course, does not correspond to love between two men or two women. This instance is an attempted rape of angels. Otherwise, the only other times the Bible talks about “the sin of Sodom and Gommorah”, it says that is was great and the people cried out to the Lord. The place was unsafe; therefore the people were lawless. When we look at other times God destroyed large numbers of people, it was because they were violent (Gen 6:11), or they were oppressors who were worshipping false Gods through violent religious practices (Ex 11-12, Num 21:2-3, Deut 20:17, Josh 6:17, 21, 1 Sam 15). When Ezekiel reflects on Israel’s great sin in Ezekiel 16, the Lord speaks of Sodom and describes her iniquities, none of which pertained to anything sexual (Ez 16:49). Instead the Lord named her sins as greediness, gluttony, selfishness, pride, and idleness. He recalls their abomination, which many interpret as homosexuality, but in fact in the context of the entire chapter of this passage, including the following verse 17, the very same "abomination" of Israel which is being addressed clearly refers to the worship of false gods (Ez 8, 20:7). This is the theme found countless times throughout the prophets while they recall the entire story of Israel: From the first two commandments, “You shall have no other gods before me” and “you shall not make idols” (Ex 20:3-6), to the sin of Jeroboam and the rise of idols in Israel which led to Israel’s exile (1 Ki-2 Chron.). It’s all about idolatry. Which leads me to my next point.

    The New Testament references to homosexuality can also be seen through this lens of idolatry. During the time it was written, in the 1st and 2nd century, the culture was overtaken by the Roman superpower. The main expression of same-sex relations in Roman culture was not as we know it today. Paul recognizes the specific situation in Rome and speaks to it. The New Testament was written in Greek, and some words couldn’t be directly translated into English because they simply don’t exist in the English language (a main example is the translation of various words into "hell"). When we see the word “homosexuality” in the Bible, a direct translation for the original word, arsenokoetai, does not exist. In fact, the word does not exist in the Greek language either. After researching this word and the historical context, I personally believe the most direct translation is "male prostitution", with a cultural and phonetic relation to god or temple worship. Therefore, homosexuality as we know it today should not be compared to temple prostitution in ancient Roman culture. Those who are gay are not synonymous with men involved in the sex trade nor are they engaging in pagan idol worship. This supports my claim that the translation of this ancient teaching to present times is not simple.

Jane Abbott Lighty, left, and Pete-e Petersen embrace after receiving the first same-sex marriage license in Washington state in 2012.

    I will not go into the deep hermeneutics that are involved in discussing the linguistic arguments of Paul’s claims about homosexuality, as it is a circular process. The Greek words Paul used in reference to homosexuality are hard to translate and their true meaning is, I admit along with any honest theologian, uncertain. The word Paul used, arsenokoetai, cannot be fully confirmed or denied in whether it refers to male and male sexual relations, or pederasty or male prostitution. Certainty, here, does not exist. Serious Biblical Scholars have not given up on finding clarification surrounding this word, however, and therefore have looked to Paul’s contemporaries to find the true meaning of Paul’s teaching on this subject. Both liberals and conservatives find adequate support to their claims. To measure the credibility of the sources of their support, liberals have the higher credibility in the writings of Philo. Philo is a respected and appointed ‘Church Father’ who interprets Paul’s teaching clearly and strictly in reference to the historical context of male prostitution (Philo, 37). Philo also believed that the verse where this word is argued to be coined from, Leviticus 20:13, was also referring to male temple prostitution in Persia (Philo, 40-42). Conservatives use Josephus as their source into the true meaning of Paul’s teaching; however Josephus was not a teacher in the church, but a military general and first century historian. He also believed that any sexual relation, including heterosexual, should be against the law except for procreational purposes. Josephus is a great source for information on ancient military campaigns, however he has no credit in church history as an honoured moral teacher (thankfully). Another source of support in Paul’s conservative meaning is from Eusebius, a third century historian, who taught homosexuality is worse than murder (Malick, 479-492)—an extreme and theologically incorrect statement as sins are not comparable (… also wtf). For Eusebius and Josephus, their stance on homosexuality is solely under these problematic contexts. Therefore, Josephus and Eusebius are controversial and weak sources in divining the true interpretation of Paul. 

    I would be remiss if I did not address the main argument that religious people have historically and traditionally held as to why exactly homosexuality is wrong. The main argument is not to do with the idea that men and women are made to be together and homosexuality is a deviation from that (for all religions accept that both men and women can deviate from this purpose and lead honourable, celibate, lives). The main argument which Philo, Josephus, Eusebius, and a thousand other sources hold as to why homosexuality is unnatural, for men specifically, is because it strips the man of his manliness, his humanity (Philo, 39). In a patriarchal society, this would be the ultimate shame, as women were sub-human. The sin of being in the male position was that you were destroying the masculinity of another man, hence why Eusebius considered it worse than murder. The sin of being in the feminine position was in that it would create an abomination, a sub-human man. As a feminist in 2018, this reasoning is irrelevant. In this view, a woman who brings home the bread while the husband rears the children would be just as shameful for the same reasons. Femininity is, fortunately, no longer considered a shameful, weaker attribute in neither men nor women (at least, we're getting there). Many modern Christians have unwittingly held onto the idea that homosexuality is wrong but have let go of its original, misogynistic reasoning. Just something to be aware of.

    I’m glad to address Romans 1:21-32: at face value. Paul is talking about lust, the idolatry of the body, and the ways these are being manifested in Rome. Lust is wrong for whichever orientation you have and sexual idolatry can escalate in many ways: gay or straight. People are not objects and it’s harmful for oneself and others to view people primarily as sexual objects. Mature Christians would agree that romantic love and attraction does not imply lust and uncontrollable passion. Being brought up in an environment where ‘lust and uncontrollable impulses’ were synonymous with ‘homosexuality’, I understand why I may need to repeat that statement: Love and attraction can be separate from lust and uncontrollable impulses. We understand this for heterosexuality easy enough, but for the well-trained Western Christian, this might be a hard pill to swallow when applied to homosexuality. The best way to swallow it is to make friends with a gay married couple or self-identified "quiet queer". Just because two people of the same sex can love each other, doesn't mean all sense of sexual morality is thrown out the window. 

    I will briefly touch on the argument of “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” The main argument here is that God’s design was for the feminine and masculine to complete each other. However, to make that idea literal and irrefutable, you run into some issues. God’s design is contradicted by Jesus when he said [paraphrased], “If you can forsake marriage for the kingdom of heaven, do it,” (Matt 19:12). Before saying this, he also honours intersex people  and eunuchs who naturally adopt feminine qualities. Many people in the Bible did not take wives or husbands, including Jesus. So is that not in contradiction with God’s perfect design where man belongs with woman and vice versa? Also, it is my belief that the feminine and masculine are abstract. The Holy Spirit is traditionally feminine, the Father is masculine; many men have traditionally feminine qualities such as tenderness and many women have traditionally masculine qualities such as assertiveness. There is beauty in this, yet, the toxic ways in which religion has coerced society into a gender binary is another essay. I could say more about the power and richness in the Creation Poem, but I will only add one last thing that is compelling for me regarding this argument. Countless have used (and continue to use) this exact same literal, legalistic interpretation to argue that women being made second means that it is  “unnatural” and "against God’s design” for a woman to lead or teach a man in any way. To that I say this: What’s unnatural is taking a poem meant to communicate the truth of God's beautiful relationship with humanity and creation and making it into something it's not. What's unnatural is a human using Biblical conjecture to assert God's support of inequality. 

    Next we will look at the relationship between slavery and homosexuality. I will not attempt to compare the sufferings of these two demographics; merely the evolution these groups have had throughout history. The Bible explicitly approves of slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46 and Ephesians 6:5. Other passages in the Bible assume the approval as well. The opposition of authority which was required for the Abolition movement to eradicate slavery was strictly against Biblical teaching (Rom 13:1, 1 Pe 2:13). Martin Luther King Jr's 'Letter from Birmingham Jail' explains in detail the Christian justification to oppose authority when the authority is infringing upon human rights. When measuring Biblical clarity and interpretations, the acceptance of slavery and prohibition to oppose authority are much clearer and inarguable teachings than the shaky verses that are used against homosexuality. In other words, Dr. King had his work cut out for him. I still meet Christians today who believe slavery is not necessarily wrong if the slaves are treated well.

    To compare the modern plights of these communities is another striking conviction. The struggle of Black Americans over the past 400 years in their efforts to legalize and normalize their place in society has been met with fierce opposition due to cultural norms being dismantled and Christine doctrines being put to question (sound familiar?). The correlation between the moral evolution of slavery and of homosexuality is undeniable, as with other modern issues of Biblical morality. Slavery is not the only Biblical doctrine to be dismissed over time; Paul’s call for women to be silent in church (1 Cor. 14:34), mental illness being demonic (Mt 4:24, 8:16; Mk 1:32, 4:41), God’s disapproval of birth control (Gen. 38:10), and much more have seen their moment in church history (mind you, these things are still debated today). To those who take the whole Bible literally and at face value, I have slightly more respect for because at least they are not picking and choosing what to read with humility and what to read with blind certainty.

    There are things marked as sinful in the New Testament that are widely agreed as acceptable to God today, and vice versa; things that were acceptable to God are now agreed upon as unacceptable. So how does one determine, without bias, what should be read as irrelevant in today’s culture and context and what should remain as timeless truths?

    This is the kicker. There is no equation given to us to help us select what is still right and what is still wrong, or to discern whether Paul was referring to all women being unsuitable to speak in church or just a certain group of women in Corinth, or whether we should make a distinction between those in Ancient Rome and Persia that were involved in the sex trade within a hedonistic pagan culture and modern people who identify as LGBTQ+ and are searching for a loving partner to spend their lives with. I mean… there is James 1:26 which teaches that if we don't follow our heart, our religion is worthless. And there is 1 Corinthians 2:12-14 which says about the same thing but calls it foolishness. And there is that Biblical teaching found in Genesis 1: What humanity has been forbidden from since creation, the very thing that causes the most divisions in God’s family: The attempt or perceived acquisition to know fully what is good and what is evil. Also theres that thing Jesus gave us as an ultimate tool to measure the law against: To love God and love your neighbour (Mt 22:36-40). There's also those verses that teach all things can be compared to the character of Jesus (1 Jn 2:6, 1 Pe 2:21). So how does this apply to Christians who retain that homosexuality is a sin? Jesus defended the sexually immoral in the face of condemnation (Jn 8:1-11). He was only rash against the religious leaders who drew a line between the holy and unholy, the chosen and the unchosen, the clean and unclean (Mt 23:33). Therefore the priority for Christians, now and always, is to preserve the message of a welcoming love, and rashly address the prejudice and hypocritical spirit among other Christians and within our own hearts (1 Cor 5:11-13). 

    These arguments may not disprove all countering interpretations of this Biblical topic, but it certainly weakens them. I believe this analysis weakens the claim that homosexuality is wrong to a degree that must cause all God-fearing Christians to think twice before declaring, with certainty, God’s thoughts on the subject; and consider the consequences that this possible error can evoke. Every Christian should ask him/herself if they are the Pharisee holding the stone, or the Saviour stooped down with the oppressed; if they are the one craving the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, or are content with their state of humility in the face of God’s complex and marvellous truth which no man can fully understand.

Bibliography

Philo, “The Special Laws.” III. VII. http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book29.html

Malick, David E., “The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 600 (1993): 479-492.

Williams, Craig A, “Romans Homosexuality”, Oxford University Press. New York: 1999.

Note: There are many contributing factors as to why the belief that homosexuality is wrong has been so prevalent throughout history. I've heard many use this symptom of culture as proof that homosexuality is inherently wrong. However, there are other more acclaimed theories for the cause of this pattern.  With sociological, psychological, and historical evidence we can understand the influence of the affluent and powerful on Biblical interpretation. We can map how the powerful who immeasurably profit from preserving societal norms have left their mark on widespread "Christian" beliefs. We have studied how the natural human condition can react adversely to that which contradicts how we believe the world works. Many use this adverse reaction to seeing a man kissing a man as proof that it’s inherently wrong. However this is only proof that it contradicts your mental schemas, your preconceptions of how the world works. This reaction is similar to how many people have felt seeing a person use their left hand, or a black person kiss a white person, or a woman wearing a lab coat, or a disabled person missing a limb, or a clown being evil, and so on and so forth. The power of societal norms and our mental schemas are strong, and they inform more about ourselves than about God.

Arminianism, Calvinism, and C.S. Lewis

    C.S. Lewis described the process of salvation and sanctification throughout his works as something that is both wholly dependant on the Christian and wholly dependant on God. The constant argument among Christians, specifically regarding Arminianism and Calvinism, is how contingent one’s salvation—-or sanctification— is on God, and how contingent it is on humans. The extreme Calvinist would argue it is only and completely dependant on God, humans do not have the power to perfect themselves or the goodness to make the choice to live for God willingly. Calvinism commonly coincides with the theory of Predestination. The extreme Armenian would argue that it is wholly dependant on the free choice of the individual to accept God’s gift of grace (ticket to heaven), and to willingly follow through with what is required to be a good Christian, namely a good person. C.S. Lewis presents a third way— a medium between these two views of salvation and sanctification regarding the role humans play and the role God plays.

    It is tempting to say both human choice and God’s power are essential to our salvation and leave it at that. C.S. Lewis, however, takes careful time in his works unpacking how exactly each person is responsible for their free will and how exactly God uses his power when our will is not enough. I will outline three key instances of this in his works Mere Christianity, Screwtape Letters, and The Great Divorce. His aim is not necessarily to establish a clear doctrine, but to widen the lens of our practical understanding of salvation— and the transformation that follows. (Mere Christianity, 15, 60).

    First, it is important to clarify that Lewis’ understanding of salvation and sanctification are interwoven. Part of how Lewis’ views differ from popular ideas of salvation is that he does not draw a clear line of when someone is “saved”. In his works, there is no prayer that is said, statement to be believed, or goodness to be achieved that allows someone entrance into paradise after they die. To be saved is to be sanctified, and to be sanctified is to be saved. That said, being sanctified, or “transformed” is an ongoing process. He describes in Mere Christianity that the incentive of the Christian is to simply reach, and by the grace of God your reach will extend to otherwise impossible lengths; only once you “throw up the sponge”. This is where he clarifies the human initiative in sanctification:

“In a sense, you may say that no temptation is ever overcome until we stop trying to overcome it— throw up the sponge. But then you could not “stop trying” in the right way and for the right reason until you had tried your very hardest. And, in yet another sense, handing everything over to Christ does not, of course, mean that you stop trying. To trust Him means, of course, trying to do all that He says. There would be no sense in saying you trusted a person if you would not take his advice. Thus if you have really handed yourself over to Him, it must follow that you are trying to obey Him. But trying in a new way, a less worried way.

Not doing these things in order to be saved, but because He has begun to save you already. Not hoping to get to Heaven as a reward for your actions, but inevitably wanting to act in a certain way because a first faint gleam of Heaven is already inside you.”

— Mere Christianity, 147-148

    Lewis describes what it looks like to “try” to obey God and be transformed. To become more practical in how we “try”, Lewis outlines three areas in which we must be transformed. The metaphor he gives regarding a fleet of ships outlines three important aspects of ourselves that must be made new: Our relation to each other, Human Nature(1), and our purpose (Mere Christianity, 71).
    Lewis spends most of Book III in Mere Christianity intricately detailing how we are to try to obey God by improving our treatment of others, our relation to Human Nature, and lastly how we set our eyes on the grand purpose of it all. He describes how we are called to attempt each endeavour, ultimately fail our attempts, rely on Christ’s power to help us, and continue our attempts. At the end of Chapter 5 of Book III, The Obstinate Toy Soldiers, he comes to a conclusion which may seem to nullify everything he had thus stated in terms of human responsibility. Moving on to God’s ultimate role, he states: 

“Humanity is already “saved” in principle… We have not got to try to climb up into spiritual life by our own efforts; it has already come down into the human race… Remember what I said about “good infection.” One of our own race has this new life: if we get close to Him we shall catch it from Him.

Of course, you can express this in all sorts of different ways. You can say that Christ died for our sins. You may say that the Father has forgiven us because Christ has done for us what we ought to have done. You may say that we are washed in the blood of the Lamb. You may say that Christ has defeated death.”

— Mere Christianity, 181-182

    Thus far we have established the human responsibility to try to obey God’s commands, or get close to the “Good Infection”, and the Divine role in bringing the unreachable reachable and bringing the infection to Earth. After such lengths in describing both roles of God and Man in “working out our salvation”, Lewis succeeds in making clear exactly how these roles function and how each role is essential to our individual and collective transformation. But one can still beg the question by the end, is free will really necessary after all? At least to “get to heaven”? C.S. Lewis makes clear in that we can guess God wants us to join him freely in order to remain distinct (Mere Christianity, 65) (Screwtape Letters, 38). And he finishes Mere Christianity with how life, joy and purpose can be experienced when you surrender everything to God (Mere Christianity, 227). Therefore, there is certainly immeasurable benefits to fulfilling our human responsibility in our salvation... but are they necessities? Based on my reading of Mere Christianity, The Great Divorce, Screwtape Letters, and others of Lewis’ works, C.S. Lewis did believe free will is essential in experiencing salvation (both as transformation and an ultimate destination); though he believes we already have salvation, we have only to choose to realize it and surrender. This is a special picture C.S. Lewis paints for us: our purpose is not necessarily to surrender to God and submit, but to surrender to Love and be “made Real” (The Great Divorce, 70; Mere Christianity, 226).

    In the end of Screwtape Letters, this view of the human role is reiterated. We are revealed the truth from Screwtape himself that Hell’s powers are very limited. They can incite negative feelings or doubts, but ultimately how the Patient chooses to respond to these feelings or doubts is what determines his salvation and character— further valuing the human role (Screwtape Letters, 62-63). However, the Patient is immeasurably aided in choosing the correct response through prayer and the Holy Spirit. When Screwtape is instructing Wormwood to distract the Patient in prayer, he describes how the Patient is being influenced by God in three ways: being compelled to pray, being enabled to pray, and the conscious interaction with God (Screwtape Letters, 21-22). With all this in mind, God is intricately interwoven in who we are, how we act, and how we think. He influences our free will to such a degree that as Christians, we can hardly take credit for the goodness that seems to take over our very being. The essential freedom we have is that we let the infection spread— and continue to let it. 

    Before I conclude, it must be said that C.S. Lewis directly addresses these questions at the end of The Great Divorce. He describes in a picture of humans moving on a chessboard that our understanding of Freedom (free will) can only be understood through the lens of Time— in contrast to our desire to see “the final state of all things as it will be… when there are no more possibilities left but only the Real.” He continues to criticize the “definitions” of Predestination and Universalism in that both remove the deeper truth of Freedom; in that God’s will supersedes human will. Expertly articulating the gravity of free will and the humility of our perspective, he writes off in the fictional words of George MacDonald, “How long could ye bear to look … on the greatness of your own soul and the reality of her choice?” (The Great Divorce, 140-141)

    C.S. Lewis dances between the two necessities of ‘God’s will’ and ‘the human will’ in a stunning exploration through prose and fiction, never landing at any point. In terms of Calvinism and Arminianism, we find he is intentionally neither and specifically both.

1. It is important to note that when Lewis refers to Human Nature, or Moral Law, he means our innate sense of what is right and wrong that is edified throughout humanity, but most importantly through our personal experience. We can grow to be more “in tune” with our God-given Human Nature or out of tune with it. This is where he first expounds on the role of Man and God. God has given us this Moral Law, but Man can choose to follow it, and therefore strengthen it, or rebel against it.

Works Cited

Lewis, C.S. Screwtape Letters: Revised Edition. Macmillan Publishing Company, 1982.

Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. Harper Collins Publishers, 2001.

Lewis, C.S. The Great Divorce. Harper Collins Publishers, 2001.