"I’m reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, and I came across a fascinating idea I’ve never heard presented before. Lewis doesn’t state it directly—only its implication—but for his conclusion to hold, it must be inferred. It appears in the chapter “The Cardinal Virtues,” on the final two pages. Lewis distinguishes between performing a just or temperate act and actually being a just or temperate person. A poor tennis player might hit a great shot occasionally, but that doesn’t make him a good player. We all agree on that. Therefore, isolated acts of obedience don’t make one virtuous, character is revealed in consistency. From there, Lewis argues that God wants more than mere obedience. Obedience matters, but God cares far more about our character. He wants us to become people who naturally produce obedient behavior. Then comes the part I've been contemplating for the last few days. Lewis notes that we might assume virtues are needed only for this life, because in heaven there will be nothing to quarrel about (so no need for justice) and no danger (so no need for courage). But he adds that while God won’t refuse entry to heaven for lacking certain qualities, heaven offers no further opportunity to develop them. As a result, we will never attain the “deep, strong, unshakable kind of happiness” God intends. The inference that struck me is this: we may have only our time on earth to become the people God intends us to be. This life forms our capacity for joy, virtue, and glory. Heaven fulfills it but does not expand it through suffering. In heaven there are no trials to forge bravery, self-control, patience, humility, resilience, integrity, gratitude, or joy in the midst of hardship. Those qualities are shaped here, not there. So here's the unsettling question: once we die and enter eternity, is our development finished? Is this life our only chance to become the best version of ourselves? If so, it’s sobering. All the time wasted scrolling Instagram reels or behaving poorly without seeking growth would carry eternal consequences. I should live each day with urgency, taking massive strides toward becoming the man God intends. The day I die, the work ends. My capacity for joy and virtue can no longer grow. I’m not sure if this idea is theologically sound. Maybe it's not. I’d love some insight from theologians who could explain why it might not hold. But if this life truly is our only training ground, delay is far more dangerous than I ever realized. That thought alone makes me want to live with far greater urgency than yesterday."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm not a theologian...though I play one in summer dinner theater productions in the Catskills...I would say that what you say is a good idea for us now, particularly if compelled by our faith in God and thus we strive to live as He decrees, we are nonetheless made perfect if we are indeed saved. After the struggle of existence, as a true Christian who puts Christ above all, we are made perfect later. Just my opinion, in case anyone wants to say I'm pushing opinion as fact.
Craig:
I’d love some insight from theologians who could explain why it might not hold.
I think you'll find that responsible, rational theologians will tell you that we can not speak of ANY specifics of an afterlife with any certainty. That is not found within the Bible or within the known data we have available.
Do you think that's a fair assessment?
we may have only our time on earth to become the people God intends us to be.
Rationally, observably and biblically, I think it's safe to say that we can only KNOW what will happen in the here and now... in this known life. God's kingdom come, on earth, as in heaven. THIS is what we can know. THIS is where the need is, as far as we know.
And we further can read, in the words of Jesus and other biblically cited people, that we are to be about the business of bringing good news to the poor and marginalized, comfort and support to the oppressed, the immigrants, the ill, the abused. And likewise, if we are guessing that heaven/the hereafter is a place with no sorrows or troubles, then it follows that IF we are to be siding with the poor and oppressed, that can ONLY happen here and now.
Are these not all extremely rational and biblical conclusions? (Even if I'm not a theologian by trade).
I'm also not a theologian, but Lewis is one of the smarter Christians of the last hundred years or so. While he wasn't right on everything, I think he makes an excellent point.
Again I'm faced with a dilemma. Do a accept Dan's hunch about how doing some unknown number of "good works" magically makes you a "good person", or do I go with Lewis?
One thing Dan leaves unaddressed in his "good person" hunch in the permanence of the designation. If being designated as a "good person" is reliant on the number of "good works" Dan observes, then what happens when someone stops doing "good works" for Dan to observe? Do they lose their status as a "good person"?
"Do you think that's a fair assessment?"
No.
"Are these not all extremely rational and biblical conclusions?"
No. That you consider all of your hunches to be "extremely rational and biblical", your self assessment doesn't mean a thing outside of your self.
There's nothing new here, and nothing that I haven't addressed multiple times. So, I'll move on. Your subjective hunches based in your biases and prejudices mean nothing, absent even an attempt at objective proof.
Post a Comment