I paused in the section on pg. 96-97 that discussed sexual starvation and gluttony. I believe it’s possible that these two ends stem from the same central seed. Is it possible that, somewhere along the line, chastity was violated? I cannot speak from experience, but it seems possible that one wouldn’t have a feeling of sexual starvation or a desire to overindulge if they had simply never sampled sex in the first place.
I think it similar to any other kind of dependence (dare I say addiction?). The prominent example in my mind is TikTok. I refused to engage with the platform for years. I listened to friends talk about it and received lots of encouragement to make an account, but I always refused. The refusal wasn’t difficult because I didn’t know what I was missing. Then, one day, I figured “Why not?” and downloaded the app. That app monopolized my free time for years afterwards. It’s only been now, in the last 7 days, that I have deleted TikTok after being “hooked” on the app for ~4 years. It was easy to abstain when I didn’t know what I was missing, but felt impossible to look away once I’d had a peek.
————————————
Pg. 100-102 made me think about the concept of sexual transmutation. Sexual transmutation is something we talk about every once in a while at home. My husband taught me about it, so I might not have the idea quite perfect. But, in my understanding, sexual transmutation involves recognizing/acknowledging your sexual or lustful desires, choosing not to act on them (or being unable to act on them), and then channeling that energy into something else, such as work. I’ll have to ask him again where he learned it from…
————————————
Pg. 105, where Lewis discusses divorce, was especially interesting to me because I feel that commitment issues and “planned obsolescence” have permeated American culture and society. Nothing is made to last, instant gratification and quick hits of dopamine have destroyed our attention spans, and, in a lot of cases, it can seem like there’s no consequences attached to being “here today, gone tomorrow” with anything — school, work, a relationship, etc. Lewis covers similar ideas on pg. 110 as well.
Lewis goes on on pg. 106 to talk about deception and formalities. This made me think of the Relationship Escalator, which lines out the natural progression of a relationship: dating, exclusivity, engagement, marriage, children, etc. I think it’s not uncommon for folks to find themselves on this escalator, which transports them from phase to phase because it’s what “should” be done. I think it’s not uncommon to just move through the steps without much thought for the gravity of the decisions being made. Through this process, we see situations like Lewis is describing on this page.
————————————
Pg. 112-114 would’ve ruffled my feathers 2+ years ago, but not anymore. I tried the “boss babe” thing and attempted to oversee a household, including having the final say in all decisions, while working a full-time job. It was exhausting! By the time I met my husband, I was ready to hand off the baton LOL Maybe it’s convenient that this falls within the dynamic Lewis described here, but I’ve experienced first-hand that I’m not cut out for the “head of household” life and do better when provided with direction.
So... I'd like to ask an honest question regarding Lewis' stance at the end of chapter 6.
He talks on how some Christians think we should make divorce difficult for everyone. Lewis disagrees and shares how he'd be quite angry if Mohammedans tried to make drinking wine difficult for everyone. Frankly, I have to agree with him on that point 😉🍷
And I fully agree with his concluding statement on the topic when he says "the distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."
Here is my question.
(Understanding that we may not all have the same answers. And I argue we shouldn't have the same answers. Unity does not mean we are all the same. In fact, we can only have unity if we are different.)
When it comes to voting for, let's say the legalization of gay marriage, do you vote against because it's not how God set up marriage or do you vote for it because not everyone is a Christian or do you not vote and let whatever happens happen?
(I use gay marriage as an example. We can swap it out for "allowing divorce" if we want to stick to the same topic.) Though, I also wonder, does our answer differ if the topic was abortion or legalizing a certain drug or not allowing prayer in school, etc.
This is a sticky one. I'd say that voting for or against legislation is different from producing legislation ourselves. I'd also say that legislation regarding marriage and abortion are different in the sense that Christians have a definition and design for marriage but do not have a design for abortion, so voting against abortion wouldn't simply be voting to enforce our Christian ideals, but rather voting for justice of the vulnerable.
The political-religious line is tough to toe, and I often find that my wisdom runs out when trying to navigate these types of questions. What are your thoughts, Shalisa?
If we were to not impose our Christian ideals on, let's say, marriage. Would we then not vote on those subjects when they appear on the ballot? Or would we vote against our ideals to allow others to have their choice?
Haha I feel like that's a silly question, but if I shouldn't impose my Christian ideals on others (which makes sense, like Lewis said, I wouldn't want others to impose their ideals on me) then inevitably I either become less patriotic and stop voting on particular things or I vote against my ideals which feels ... wrong. Lol
Politics and religion often cause divides within Christian circles. So sad 😔 I am someone who would much rather ignore this topic with a Christian friend than risk saying something I can't come back from 🙊
I wish CS Lewis could pop in and let us know his thoughts 😉
I imagine Lewis would plead the fifth on this one haha. He is pretty selective on what issues he is willing to commit a public response to, and this one seems to have gone as far as he would like already. These are hard questions I think we have to approach humbly, leaning on that exhortation in James 1: "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting"
This is a tough one for sure! I tried to turn this around in my mind to come at it from the opposite angle. I'll try to walk through my thought process...
There are countries, societies, and cultures in the world where it's common, acceptable, legal, etc. for men to have multiple wives, which doesn't fit the Christian design for marriage. The next argument would be that these societies aren't Christian. However, the rebuttal is that the USA isn't a Christian society either -- we don't have an established national religion (hence Lewis’s idea of a government marriage vs a Christian marriage). Since our country is not ruled/governed by a religion, I think people should have the freedom (since they've already been given the free will) to choose. If we're viewing Christianity and the Bible through C.S. Lewis's lens of an instruction manual for how to run the human machine, it doesn't matter if the USA legalizes something as extreme as human/AI robot marriages -- our playbook stays the same and we can pursue our ideals as we always have.
In terms of how this fits into a voting strategy, I feel like this calls us to vote for something like gay marriage. Lewis closes Chapter 7 saying that we should wish good for our neighbors (even if we aren't fond of them), and I think wishing for their good includes making space for them to live and love how they like (as long as they aren't hurting anyone).
I'm going to be honest, I don't even necessarily agree with "love the sinner, hate the sin." My motto when it comes to Christianity and how I love my neighbor is "It's my job to love him, not to judge him." What he gets up to (again, as long as nobody is being hurt), isn't my responsibility to be concerned with. We already know that God loves all of us unconditionally. I'm definitely in no place to condemn someone or to damn them -- none of us are anywhere near saintly. What IS my concern is loving my neighbor as myself and wanting the best for him and his family. Sometimes that "best" is far away from me and my family (depending on the person hahahaha), but I don't have space in my heart or time in my day to wish ill, harbor resentment, or begrudge them!
Just my two cents, feel free to take what resonates and leave the rest :)
I paused in the section on pg. 96-97 that discussed sexual starvation and gluttony. I believe it’s possible that these two ends stem from the same central seed. Is it possible that, somewhere along the line, chastity was violated? I cannot speak from experience, but it seems possible that one wouldn’t have a feeling of sexual starvation or a desire to overindulge if they had simply never sampled sex in the first place.
I think it similar to any other kind of dependence (dare I say addiction?). The prominent example in my mind is TikTok. I refused to engage with the platform for years. I listened to friends talk about it and received lots of encouragement to make an account, but I always refused. The refusal wasn’t difficult because I didn’t know what I was missing. Then, one day, I figured “Why not?” and downloaded the app. That app monopolized my free time for years afterwards. It’s only been now, in the last 7 days, that I have deleted TikTok after being “hooked” on the app for ~4 years. It was easy to abstain when I didn’t know what I was missing, but felt impossible to look away once I’d had a peek.
————————————
Pg. 100-102 made me think about the concept of sexual transmutation. Sexual transmutation is something we talk about every once in a while at home. My husband taught me about it, so I might not have the idea quite perfect. But, in my understanding, sexual transmutation involves recognizing/acknowledging your sexual or lustful desires, choosing not to act on them (or being unable to act on them), and then channeling that energy into something else, such as work. I’ll have to ask him again where he learned it from…
————————————
Pg. 105, where Lewis discusses divorce, was especially interesting to me because I feel that commitment issues and “planned obsolescence” have permeated American culture and society. Nothing is made to last, instant gratification and quick hits of dopamine have destroyed our attention spans, and, in a lot of cases, it can seem like there’s no consequences attached to being “here today, gone tomorrow” with anything — school, work, a relationship, etc. Lewis covers similar ideas on pg. 110 as well.
Lewis goes on on pg. 106 to talk about deception and formalities. This made me think of the Relationship Escalator, which lines out the natural progression of a relationship: dating, exclusivity, engagement, marriage, children, etc. I think it’s not uncommon for folks to find themselves on this escalator, which transports them from phase to phase because it’s what “should” be done. I think it’s not uncommon to just move through the steps without much thought for the gravity of the decisions being made. Through this process, we see situations like Lewis is describing on this page.
————————————
Pg. 112-114 would’ve ruffled my feathers 2+ years ago, but not anymore. I tried the “boss babe” thing and attempted to oversee a household, including having the final say in all decisions, while working a full-time job. It was exhausting! By the time I met my husband, I was ready to hand off the baton LOL Maybe it’s convenient that this falls within the dynamic Lewis described here, but I’ve experienced first-hand that I’m not cut out for the “head of household” life and do better when provided with direction.
Hello, Everyone 👋
So... I'd like to ask an honest question regarding Lewis' stance at the end of chapter 6.
He talks on how some Christians think we should make divorce difficult for everyone. Lewis disagrees and shares how he'd be quite angry if Mohammedans tried to make drinking wine difficult for everyone. Frankly, I have to agree with him on that point 😉🍷
And I fully agree with his concluding statement on the topic when he says "the distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not."
Here is my question.
(Understanding that we may not all have the same answers. And I argue we shouldn't have the same answers. Unity does not mean we are all the same. In fact, we can only have unity if we are different.)
When it comes to voting for, let's say the legalization of gay marriage, do you vote against because it's not how God set up marriage or do you vote for it because not everyone is a Christian or do you not vote and let whatever happens happen?
(I use gay marriage as an example. We can swap it out for "allowing divorce" if we want to stick to the same topic.) Though, I also wonder, does our answer differ if the topic was abortion or legalizing a certain drug or not allowing prayer in school, etc.
This is a sticky one. I'd say that voting for or against legislation is different from producing legislation ourselves. I'd also say that legislation regarding marriage and abortion are different in the sense that Christians have a definition and design for marriage but do not have a design for abortion, so voting against abortion wouldn't simply be voting to enforce our Christian ideals, but rather voting for justice of the vulnerable.
The political-religious line is tough to toe, and I often find that my wisdom runs out when trying to navigate these types of questions. What are your thoughts, Shalisa?
If we were to not impose our Christian ideals on, let's say, marriage. Would we then not vote on those subjects when they appear on the ballot? Or would we vote against our ideals to allow others to have their choice?
Haha I feel like that's a silly question, but if I shouldn't impose my Christian ideals on others (which makes sense, like Lewis said, I wouldn't want others to impose their ideals on me) then inevitably I either become less patriotic and stop voting on particular things or I vote against my ideals which feels ... wrong. Lol
Politics and religion often cause divides within Christian circles. So sad 😔 I am someone who would much rather ignore this topic with a Christian friend than risk saying something I can't come back from 🙊
I wish CS Lewis could pop in and let us know his thoughts 😉
I imagine Lewis would plead the fifth on this one haha. He is pretty selective on what issues he is willing to commit a public response to, and this one seems to have gone as far as he would like already. These are hard questions I think we have to approach humbly, leaning on that exhortation in James 1: "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting"
I have to lean into that passage a lot in life.
This is a tough one for sure! I tried to turn this around in my mind to come at it from the opposite angle. I'll try to walk through my thought process...
There are countries, societies, and cultures in the world where it's common, acceptable, legal, etc. for men to have multiple wives, which doesn't fit the Christian design for marriage. The next argument would be that these societies aren't Christian. However, the rebuttal is that the USA isn't a Christian society either -- we don't have an established national religion (hence Lewis’s idea of a government marriage vs a Christian marriage). Since our country is not ruled/governed by a religion, I think people should have the freedom (since they've already been given the free will) to choose. If we're viewing Christianity and the Bible through C.S. Lewis's lens of an instruction manual for how to run the human machine, it doesn't matter if the USA legalizes something as extreme as human/AI robot marriages -- our playbook stays the same and we can pursue our ideals as we always have.
In terms of how this fits into a voting strategy, I feel like this calls us to vote for something like gay marriage. Lewis closes Chapter 7 saying that we should wish good for our neighbors (even if we aren't fond of them), and I think wishing for their good includes making space for them to live and love how they like (as long as they aren't hurting anyone).
I'm going to be honest, I don't even necessarily agree with "love the sinner, hate the sin." My motto when it comes to Christianity and how I love my neighbor is "It's my job to love him, not to judge him." What he gets up to (again, as long as nobody is being hurt), isn't my responsibility to be concerned with. We already know that God loves all of us unconditionally. I'm definitely in no place to condemn someone or to damn them -- none of us are anywhere near saintly. What IS my concern is loving my neighbor as myself and wanting the best for him and his family. Sometimes that "best" is far away from me and my family (depending on the person hahahaha), but I don't have space in my heart or time in my day to wish ill, harbor resentment, or begrudge them!
Just my two cents, feel free to take what resonates and leave the rest :)