I started reading Mere Christianity over the break back in Wisconsin. Nine pages in, still the preface, Lewis is talking about why he's chosen not to touch on certain subjects and says that he won't comment on issues that he hasn't had personal experience with. "Ever since I served as an infantryman in the first world war I have had a great dislike of people who, themselves in ease and safety, issue exhortations to men in the front line. As a result I have a reluctance to say much about temptations to which I myself am not exposed.”
He then goes on to tell us that he’s never experienced the temptation to gamble. What struck me was that he then said that he probably also lacks the good impulse that gambling is an excess or perversion of as well.
That got me thinking about what could possibly be the inherently good, God-given desire that has been twisted into something so evil that its Mecca goes by the moniker of Sin City. I remembered something Lewis had said in the Four Loves about his personality, how he is a safety oriented creature, reluctant to put himself in vulnerable positions. I quoted it in my Shakespeare paper, and I’ll quote it again here because the simplicity and weight of these words is so good; “Of all arguments against love, none makes so strong an appeal to my nature as ‘Careful! This might lead you to suffering.’” Is the missing good desire here something like risk-taking? Stepping out on a limb that you aren’t sure will support you? It seems to fill the role of an innocent desire that can be the platform and fuel for gambling like a man possessed.
Putting it in terms of stepping out begs the question; Is there a connection between this missing desire and a lack of faith? If faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things unseen, that without it it’s impossible to please God, and if the lacking mystery-gambling desire is related to this, I have cause for concern. Thoughts?
6 comments:
you have hit the nail squarely on the head, I think. The question is, what, outside of broaching an interesting discussion, will you do with this bit of theory?
It always makes me think of the quote "Walk by Faith and not by Sight". If we only ever choose those things which are obvious and clearly supportive branches then you will never walk by faith. The Israelites when preparing to cross the Jordan river were told that the men carrying the ark had to step into ther river at floodstage before the waters would back up and they could cross on dry land. Some of life is like that: take the steps while it is still dangerous.
anonymous, that's where you the reader comes in. I'm not quite sure what to do, and would like advice.
How to act? In relation to what? What you seem to be opaquely asking: 1. is a lack of trust or love potentially sinful? 2. is desirelessness a lack of trust or love? 3. How much consideration should be given to a random comment on a blog on either of these subjects? The answer is yes, not necessarily, and that depends. My take is that you may make too much of your apathy. If in mentioning love you are attempting to de-code the weighty recesses of human attraction and the response you should have to it, good luck. I suspect you know, if this is the case, that you should act as a man: with consideration, humility, and honesty. If you are merely speaking in abstracts, good luck as well, and may the safety of the cloister protect the vast lengths of your beard.
well anonymous, if that is your real name, I don't think I'm talking about this in abstracts. It would seem silly to ask for advice if I were...
How do you see me making too much of my apathy if you think that a lack of "risk-taking" is related to faith? A problem with faith should demand quite a bit of my attention.
Lacking desire seems to me a different kind of sin than something like murder, or even gambling. Those two fall into the "don't do x" category of sin evasion, whereas a lack of desire isn't something one just does or doesn't do. Petitioning God to have the desire given looks like the only way to go about it, there's not a lot of action on my end.
You have a good point. Still not sure what you're asking exactly, or if I meant that a lack of risk-taking equates sin. It could just be personality. But don't let that stop you (This may fall more into the do not eat, do not drink category. If you feel the need for a steak, and know it won't cause someone to stumble, have at it, please, with some hefty condiments to boot).
Anonymity has its advantages, including at least the pretence of objectivity.
Post a Comment