Friendship, Erotic Love, and Sex

I love the quote, below, by C. S. Lewis:


“Those who cannot conceive Friendship as a substantive love but only as a disguise or elaboration of Eros betray the fact that they have never had a Friend. The rest of us know that though we can have erotic love and friendship for the same person yet in some ways nothing is less like a Friendship than a love-affair. Lovers are always talking to one another about their love; Friends hardly ever about their Friendship. Lovers are normally face to face, absorbed in each other; Friends, side by side, absorbed in some common interest. Above all, Eros (while it lasts) is necessarily between two only. But two, far from being the necessary number for Friendship, is not even the best. And the reason for this is important.

"... In each of my friends there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out. By myself I am not large enough to call the whole man into activity; I want other lights than my own to show all his facets... Hence true Friendship is the least jealous of loves. Two friends delight to be joined by a third, and three by a fourth, if only the newcomer is qualified to become a real friend. They can then say, as the blessed souls say in Dante, "Here comes one who will augment our loves." For in this love "to divide is not to take away.”

― C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves, see http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/349838-those-who-cannot-conceive-friendship-as-a-substantive-love-but


I've commented that some people talk today in a manner that suggests if a person loves someone, he or she must have sex with that person. My comment may seem to be an exaggeration, but I hear this perspective in a lot of statements made by some individuals in my classes at the university, and by others in the media. Indeed, it has entered into the political mainstream.

Lewis' quote is insightful to me because he shows that such people are really lonely. They are using erotic love, or more often just sex, as an anesthesia to cover up their pain. A person who has a real friend would realize how silly it is to assume that the object of love is a sexual act.

Here, I am suggesting that those who imply that love means sex do not even understand erotic love. Loneliness can lead people to such debasement, that even erotic love escapes their understanding. When this occurs, the idea of Jesus loving His disciples takes on a sexual overtone to the listener.

Then, statements by Jesus such as, "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13 English Standard Version), become meaningless to the listener. This may be the real target of such attitudes: to make us numb to God's love.

Teachers as Priests

Many people assume teaching is primarily imparting information to students. However, good and bad teachers both impart information. Three of the many characteristics that distinguish a good teacher from a bad teacher are: 1) the ability to see gaps in a student's understanding of a complex idea; 2) the ability to help him or her make the necessary connections, that is, build bridges over the gaps between facts, concepts, and ideas; and, 3) the willingness to be this bridge builder.

Often a teacher must identify where a student has not connected a fact to another important fact necessary to understand a complex idea. Other times a teacher must see where a student has not connected one or more complex ideas to each other to help build a larger mental picture of an important concept or view. These connections are mental or even spiritual bridges.

The latin word for priest is "pontifex," which in its root means "bridge maker" or "bridge builder." In this context, all teachers are priests.

Fahrenheit 451

My son, Jackson, is completing a school assignment. He was required to read a book over this past summer that I have read, and then discuss it with me. We discussed several books, but decided on Ray Bradbury's book, Fahrenheit 451. I reread the book and rediscovered why I love it so much. Ray Bradbury is one of my favorite authors.

Part of the assignment requires me to answer ten questions about this work: five of the questions are from the assignment, and five of the questions Jackson developed for me to answer (Jackson also had five questions to answer from the assignment, along with five questions I developed). Below are the ten questions about Fahrenheit 451 I answered for Jackson (citations refer to the 1995 paperback edition by Simon & Schuster):

*********************************************************************************

1. Why did you recommend for me to read this book?
Ray Bradbury is one of my favorite authors, and Fahrenheit 451 is one of his most profound works. A close read of this book shows that he predicted how technology misused can keep us from contemplating important questions about life. In doing this, it can be used to take away our freedoms, such as freedom of the press. Also, although he presents a dystopian view of the future, a "Dark Age" (p.146), he also shows that there is hope without rejecting advances in technology.

He also warned how the media could lead to people voting based on political sound bites rather than by making intelligent decisions (p. 52); how children could be required to attend school at an earlier and earlier age not to learn, but to be occupied so they would not learn to think (p. 57); and he even described a form of ATMs (p. 88).

2. What made this book memorable to you?
Ray Bradbury shows us in this story that we must not fear ideas, even ideas with which we have strong disagreements. Thinking and discussing the merits and drawbacks, the strengths and weaknesses, the good and evil in ideas is the way to reveal truth and expose falsehood. It takes courage to be willing to consider an opposing idea. He notes that, "It's not books you need, it's some of the things that once were in books" (p. 78).

3. What is your favorite part?
Character?
Granger, because he has the courage and patience to rebuild society.
Line?
"It doesn't matter what you do, he said, so long as you change something from the way it was before you touched it into something that's like you after you take your hands away. The difference between the man who just cuts lawns and a real gardener is in the touching, he said. The lawn-cutter might just as well not have been there at all; the gardener will be there a lifetime" (p.157). This passage reminds me of how God created Adam to be a gardener in the Garden of Eden in the Book of Beginnings (i.e. Genesis). This is metaphorically what God created us to do (being a gardener is the metaphor; people actually have different kinds of jobs, but are meant to be gardeners at heart in each of these jobs).
Description?
I love the description of the last society of exiled scholars, and how human society is part Ecclesiastes/rising and declining, and part Revelation/hope (p. 153 & 158). My favorite book in the Bible is the Book of Revelation because it is about certain hope because of God. Yes, there is hope because God has a plan that will not be thwarted.

4. To you, what is this book really about?
It is about really living, not just merely living. Really living means we must be free from tyranny and free to be what God made us to be; and freedom must be earned and respected. Freedom will fade when people cease to exercise their minds in order to pursue constant entertainment and pleasure. The result then is an unhappy life, and eventually death. Notice how people in this story commit suicide because they have nothing to live for, even though they are constantly occupied with work, entertainment, and immediate pleasure. Happiness and pleasure are not the same thing.

What is the author saying to you?
Bradbury reveals to me that people brought about this society in this story, and that it was not imposed on them originally by the government. Therefore, we should not blame the government for what we create (p. 55 & 83). We must take the responsibility to read, learn, and think for ourselves, or else we will surrender our freedom in order to pursue immediate entertainment and pleasure.

5. What did you think I might learn from this book?
I hope you learn about the dangers of suppressing freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and religion. Political correctness is a modern attempt to suppress these freedoms, and it is becoming more prominent in our society. I also hope you learn how important it is to take time to contemplate important things in life so that you do not let other people put you into a state of mental slavery.

6. How do you think the story, as well as the message of the story, would've changed if books weren't illegal? Like maybe they died or were heavily looked down on.
Because more people could read, more people would read. That is why freedom is so important. Many people will not take the time to consider what is really important in life, and even fewer allow themselves to be challenged by opposing ideas. Yet, if we have our freedoms secured (1st Amendment to the US Constitution), the opportunity is there, and some of us will do this.

7. Do you think something like this could happen in the future? Please explain why/why not.
Absolutely. Today, the misuse of the internet, video games, television, can all lead to this type of society. Also, our jobs demand so much of our time with busy-work (i.e. work that adds little value to the product or service being produced), that we can easily become the society Bradbury depicts in this book.

8. How did Montag being a Fireman help make the story more interesting?
Today, Firemen preserve buildings and save lives. They are heroes who risk their lives to save other people (e.g. the firemen who died in the World Trade Center twin towers on 9/11/2001). In the society depicted by Ray Bradbury, Firemen destroy freedom by burning books, and they kill people who keep books. That is ironic, which made the story more interesting to me. “’Those who don’t build must burn’” (p. 85).

9. Who was your favorite supporting character and why?
Granger. He had the courage Faber lacked at first to try to preserve knowledge at the expense of his own comfort. Faber finally got this courage, but Granger understood that the Dark Age would end, and men and women like him would rebuild society. I liked how Faber found his courage, though.

10. What are the benefits of reading and how could books make a comeback over technology, or how could they co-exist?
When we read, we are exposed to ideas that can hit us. As Bradbury says, “If you hide your ignorance, no one will hit you and you’ll never learn” (p. 100).  He also notes that with books, “You can shut them, say, ‘Hold on a moment.’ Yes, they can co-exist with technology as long as we master technology and not let it master us and make us slaves. In fact, modern technology helps us preserve books. It is harder to “burn” books that are saved electronically.

Love,
- Dad

*********************************************************************************

If you want to read a profound book, I highly recommend Fahrenheit 451. It holds up over time!

Eric Metaxas: “So who do we say is not fully human today?”

I just finished reading Eric Metaxas’ ebook, Jesus Hates Dead Religion: Bonhoeffer, Wilberforce, and the Power of Living Faith (2012-05-28: Thomas Nelson, Kindle Edition. Available through iTunes or Amazon.com). I highly recommend purchasing and reading this ebook. It is well written, humorous, and insightful. In this book, Metaxas records his experiences leading up to and giving the keynote speech at the Sixtieth Annual National Prayer Breakfast attended by President Obama and other important dignitaries. I enjoyed his sense of humor, which is found throughout the book, and I especially appreciated the insights he offered in his keynote address.

Some of these insights concern the characteristics of a dead religion. One such insight is:
“When he [Jesus] was tempted in the desert, who was the one throwing Bible verses at him? Satan. That is a perfect picture of dead religion. Using the words of God to do the opposite of what God does. It is grotesque, when you think about it. It is demonic” (Kindle Locations 547-549).

Excellent insight! The Bible is God’s Word of life (John 10:10), because on our own without Christ, we are already condemned (John 3:16-18).

Likewise, Metaxas noted,
“Now, of course, dead religion demonizes others… And apart from God’s intervention, that is what we do. So don’t think you won’t do that. You will do that. We are broken, fallen, human beings. Apart from God, that is what we do”  (Kindle Locations 647-649).
This is so true. Therefore, he continued,
“We need to know that apart from God, we would be on the other side of that divide, fighting for what we believe is right. We cannot demonize our enemies. Today if you believe abortion is wrong, you
must treat those on the other side with the love of Jesus.
“Today, if you have a biblical view of sexuality, you will be demonized by those on the other side, who will call you a bigot. Jesus commands us to love those who call us bigots. To show them the love of Jesus. If you want people to treat you with dignity, treat them with dignity.
“So finally, Jesus tells us that we must love our enemies. That, my friends, is the real difference between dead religion and a living faith in the God of the Scriptures, whether we can love our enemies” (Kindle Locations 657-663).

God help me to love those who demonize me. It is not natural to love this way (Romans 5: 7-8). I fail at this all the time. This is why I am encouraged by Metaxas’ words.

He went on to ask a critical question for our day,
“So who do we say is not fully human today? Who is expendable to us?” (Kindle Locations 615-616).

The answer one gives to this question often depends upon one’s political views and personal experiences. However, Metaxas did not retreat into a subjective understanding of truth. Indeed, he talked about William Wilberforce and his allies who fought the culture of their day, characterized by dead Christian religion, to end the slave trade and slavery throughout the British Empire. He said,
“Now how did they see what they saw? There is just one word that will answer that. It is Jesus. He opens our eyes to his ideas, which are different from our own, which are radical. Now personally I would say the same thing about the unborn, that apart from God, we cannot see that they are persons as well.” (Kindle Locations 653-656).

Are the unborn only a mass of cells? Empirically, human life is defined biologically, and the unborn do not initially qualify in a pregnancy. Are humans more than their physical bodies? How we answer this question depends on our views of existence.

Naturalism is one such view that limits all of life and existence to the physical realm. Such view sees the story of a Creator-Redeemer as magic and myth. Yet, for those of us who believe in the Prodigal God (see Timothy Keller’s book, The Prodigal God), there is so much more to existence than the physical realm, and yet, the physical realm is not rejected.

Indeed, human life cannot be understood fully without understanding Jesus as He is: God, the Creator-Redeemer (John 1:1-4). Without Jesus, we find ourselves defining human life through the eyes of our own limited understanding. This is why the radical Christians of Wilberforce’s days could not stand idly by while Africans were physically tortured and treated as sub-human. Metaxas notes that adherents to dead religion opposed them. He notes,
“Wilberforce took these ideas—these foreign ideas from the Bible—and brought them into culture... Because he believed what the Bible said and because he obeyed what God told him to do, Wilberforce changed the world” (Kindle Locations 606-609).

I find it ironic that ideas from the Bible can be foreign to those who called themselves “Christian.”

Jesus Hates Dead Religion is a book that speaks to me so much because I am not a religious person naturally. I cannot stand religion for its own sake, such as religion for an emotional feeling or about obligation, all of which is dead religion. God speaks to this in Isaiah 44:13-17:

“The carpenter stretches a line; he marks it out with a pencil. He shapes it with planes and marks it with a compass. He shapes it into the figure of a man, with the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house. He cuts down cedars, or he chooses a cypress tree or an oak and lets it grow strong among the trees of the forest. He plants a cedar and the rain nourishes it. Then it becomes fuel for a man. He takes a part of it and warms himself; he kindles a fire and bakes bread. Also he makes a god and worships it; he makes it an idol and falls down before it. Half of it he burns in the fire. Over the half he eats meat; he roasts it and is satisfied. Also he warms himself and says, ‘Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire!’ And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol, and falls down to it and worships it. He prays to it and says, ‘Deliver me, for you are my god!’“
• The Holy Bible English Standard Version (ESV) (Kindle Locations 28809-28816). Crossway Bibles (2011-02-09). Kindle Edition.

We take the physical world and mold it to our use, often abusing it, and then claim it is the origin of our existence. This view is too limited, too subjective, and too indulgent. Such a god is too small! Only the eternal God can explain what it means to really live. All other ideas are idols of our own making to which we say, “Deliver me, for you are my god!”

Through the eyes of Jesus we can see the forms slavery takes on in the 21st century. It doesn’t look like African slavery of Wilberforce’s day, or like Nazi slavery that Dietrich Bonhoeffer faced. Yet, modern slavery has respectability like it did in those days.

So, I highly recommend reading this excellent ebook by Eric Metaxas!

A great quote about eternity...

This is a great and insightful quote:

"No human impulse is more fundamental than our desire to transcend time, and none argues better that time is not the medium for which we are finally meant."

• Eric Metaxas, Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery, p. 280.

The Real RINOS!

Where Are the Romney Republicans? - NYTimes.com

The above link takes you to an excellent article by Nicholas D. Kristof (The New York Times, Februrary 1, 2012) about the real history of the Republican Party. Today, people such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh often claim the Republican party has always been a conservative party. "Conservative" in this context means 21st century conservatism, which is primarily an anti-government ideology. Indeed, Glenn Beck often claims much of modern progressive liberalism goes back to Republican Theodore Roosevelt. Such men and women often call modern Republicans in the mold of Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower "RINOs," or "Republicans In Name Only." Their stated goals is to get rid of so-called moderates in the party.

There are several problems with this view. The article, linked above, notes that traditionally, the Republican Party was not restricted to conservatives.  I'll go further: the Republican Party was the liberal party for most of its history. Civil Rights and Women's Rights were Republican causes, for example.

Furthermore, when pressed, many conservative commentators proudly state that they are conservatives first, and that the Republican Party is only a container for their activism. So, by their own words, they are "Republican In Name Only," the real RINOS.

Again, conservatives in the Republican party today are not ideologically compatible with Republican conservatives historically. Traditionally, Republican conservatives supported civil rights, women's rights, environmental conservation, policies which contemporary conservatives call extremist. Likewise, older conservatives like Robert Taft were more like contemporary Ron Paul Republicans in foreign policy: keep our troops here at home.

In reality, the traditional Republican Party was the national party, while the Democratic Party was the party of states rights. Both Lincoln and Roosevelt were accused of expanded the powers of the presidency beyond that called for in the US Constitution. Republicans were often criticized for expanding the role of the Federal government. Beck and Limbaugh dare not criticize Abraham Lincoln due to the reverence Americans give him, even though he was not a conservative by today's standards.

President Reagan, an ideological conservative, is often quoted by contemporary conservatives as saying "Government is not the solution to our problems. It is the problem." What he actually said is, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Reagan put the problem of big government in context of that time. Also, President Reagan supported and implemented amnesty for illegal aliens. This is something contemporary conservatives willingly ignore.

Conservatives used to stress the need for good government, believing it should be mainly at the local and state levels, with the Federal government having roles in national security, civil rights, and conservation. Today, too many conservatives just want less government indiscriminately. Liberals, also, used to stress the need for good government believing the national government should have a larger role in implementing public policy. Today, many liberals want more government as the solution to address more problems.

For many of us, it depends. Government is good at doing some things, and not so good at doing other things. Less government makes sense in some public policy areas, and a different government approach makes sense in other areas. The US Constitution must be followed in both cases, and character and competency must accompany ideology in politics.

By re-writing the history of the Republican Party, these real RINOs have more in common with George Orwell's "Big Brother" in 1984 , and thus, alienate many voters whose values are those of Lincoln, T Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and yes, even Reagan.

Newt Gingrich: Immoral or Amoral?

Newt Gingrich has won the Republican South Carolina Primary. Several weeks ago I was trying to summarize in my mind why I do not like the former Speaker of the House of Representatives as a political candidate. It then came to me: Newt Gingrich holds the political ideology of President Ronald Reagan, and the moral character of President Richard Nixon.

Ideologically, Newt is a conservative, but a forward thinking conservative. That is, he is not trying to stop progress. Rather, he is an idea man, and he wants to see these ideas become realities in the future. I can listen to Newt speak for hours because he has fascinating ideas with an interesting world-view. Like him, I love history, and value the works of authors such as Isaac Asimov. These are aspects of his ideology I find attractive, even though I am more moderate ideologically than the former Speaker.

My problem with candidate Newt Gingrich regards his character and credibility. Morally, he strikes me not so much as an immoral man as an amoral man, at least in his private life. He comes across to me as a man whose values are on the table and negotiable.

Nixon was like this. He was a proponent of civil rights and campaigned supporting such policies early in his political career. However, he later pursued a campaign strategy minimizing these values to appease White racists in the South, even though he implemented desegregationist policies in practice while president. Still, Nixon was faithful to his wife and family throughout his life. So, when I say Nixon’s character was amoral, this pertains to his political life, not his family life.

Nixon’s political life seems to correspond to Gingrich’s private life: amoral. Gingrich’s willingness to be unfaithful in his marriage is well known. He claims he knows he has “made mistakes” and has asked God for forgiveness. However, a “mistake” is something one does on an occasion. Gingrich’s infidelity is consistent: he is willing to compromise his values for personal gain when it is expedient.

What really bothers me, though, is Gingrich runs for office supporting “family values” and has even co-authored a book with his current wife called Rediscovering God in America (2009: Thomas Nelson). Yet, Christianity is not about actions alone. It is about God changing a person’s heart towards Him through Jesus, and as a result changing our heart towards our fellow human beings. As a result, repentance results in changing one’s character over time. I don’t see character change in Newt Gingrich. I do see a man who talks about repentance in legalistic terms rather than heart changing terms. Likewise, he talks about repentance in an almost dismissive way.

Likewise, what is not discussed in the press so much is his willingness to change religious affiliations as often as he changes wives, especially when it is politically beneficial (he was raised Lutheran, but converted to the Baptist faith when he ran for office in Georgia, and is now a convert to Roman Catholicism). Changing religious affiliations is not necessarily bad. Personally, I became a Presbyterian recently. What I find of interest is the motivation behind one's conversion. In Gingrich’s case, it comes across to me as being self-serving for his political career. It was beneficial to convert to the Baptist faith in Georgia, and now to convert to Roman Catholicism when running for president. I may be wrong about this, but this is the impression I get about him.

Ultimately, God is our judge because only He know the intentions of the human heart. He is merciful and forgives a multitude of sins. God especially loves a humble heart (see Micah ch. 6 vs. 8). We are all sinful, make mistakes, and have character problems (see Romans ch. 3 vs. 23-24). So, as a voter, I look for credibility rather than perfection in a candidate. My dislike for Newt Gingrich as a candidate is because he lacks credibility and humility regarding his "mistakes."

I am also bothered about his ability to be a competent executive. He was a legislator, not an executive, and has been criticized about his leadership of the House of Representatives by those who should be supporting him in his run for the Republican nomination.

So, I still predict President Obama will be re-elected this year, not because of his record, but because Republicans will likely nominate a poor candidate. President Obama is beatable, but only by a candidate who has ideals and credibility, and is competent to be president. Newt Gingrich has ideas, but lacks both credibility and competency.