C.S.Lewis / "The Four Loves" 3 / Friendship

A  C.S. Lewis post from the other day, has suddenly had very many hits, I believe from people who are dealing with abusive relationships and are coming from a particular website. (Maybe.)  C.S. Lewis, for reasons one can glean from his autobiographical writing,  had good insight into abusive relationships. This is motivating me to open the new year by quoting C.S. Lewis and "The Four Loves", again.  For myself, for the new year, I hope that I will engage less with abusive people.  It does not seem to do any good.  Jesus didn't do it either.  He kept silent or was very brief.

Let's move into chapter 4, on "Friendship".  I read this chapter to my husband on the beach in Hawaii.  Somehow, it did not motivate him to pick up the book, but he said some homosexuals a towel over were listening intently. -- I did not see them.  He would notice this.

"When either Affection or Eros is one's theme, one finds a prepared audience.  The importance and beauty of both have been stressed and almost exaggerated again and again.  Even those who would debunk them are in conscious reaction against this laudatory tradition and, to that extent, influenced by it.  But very few modern people think Friendship a love of comparable value or even a love at all.  I cannot remember that any poem since In Memoriam, or any novel, has celebrated it. ...  To the Ancients, Friendship seemed the happiest and most fully human of all loves;  the crown of life and the school of virtue.  The modern world, in comparison, ignores it.  We admit of course that besides a wife and family a man needs a few 'friends'.  But the very tone of the admission, and the sort of acquaintanceship which those who make it would describe as 'friendship', how clearly that what they are talking about has very little to do with that Philia which Aristotle classified among the virtues or that Amicitia on which Cicero wrote a book.  It is something quite marginal;  not a main course in life's banquet; a diversion; something that fills up the chinks of one's time.  How has this come about?

The first and most obvious answer is that few value it because few experience it.  And the possibility of going through life without the experience is rooted in that fact which separates Friendship so sharply from both the other loves.  Friendship is--in a sense not at all derogatory to it--the least natural of loves;  the least instinctive, organic, biological, gregarious and necessary.  It has least commerce with our nerves;  there is nothing throaty about it;  nothing that quickens the pulse or turns you red and pale.  It is essentially between individuals;  the moment two men are friends they have in some degree drawn apart together from the herd.  Without Eros none of us would have been begotten and without Affection none of us would have been reared;  but we can live and breed without Friendship.  The species, biologically considered, has no need of it.  The pack or herd--the community--may even dislike and distrust it.  Its leaders very often do.  ...

But in Friendship--in that luminous, tranquil, rational world of relationships freely chosen--you got away from all that.  This alone, of all the loves, seemed to raise you to the level of gods or angels.

But then came Romanticism and 'tearful comedy' and the 'return to nature' and the exaltation of Sentiment;  and in their train all that great wallow of emotion which, though often criticized, has lasted ever since.  Finally, the exaltation of instinct, the dark gods in the blood;  whose hierophants may be incapable of male friendship.  ... There was not blood and guts enough about it to attract the primitivists.  It looked thin and etiolated;  a sort of vegetarian substitute for the more organic loves.  

... For all these reasons if a man believes (as I do) that the old estimate of Friendship was the correct one, he can hardly write a chapter on it except as a rehabilitation.

This imposes on me at the outset a very tiresome bit of demolition.  It has actually become necessary in our time to rebut the theory that every firm and serious friendship is really homosexual.  

... 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.  Lamb says somewhere that if, of three friends (A,B, and C), A should die, the B loses not only A but A's part in B.  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.  Now that Charles is dead, I shall never again see Ronald's reaction to a specifically Caroline joke.  Far from having more of Ronald, having him 'to myself' now that Charles is away, I have less of Ronald.  Hence true Friendship is the least jealous of loves."  (pp.69-74)


--Let this suffice as an introduction to "Friendship".  Lewis develops this last thought more fully, after this, in a very moving way.  Just the idea that three friends together are better than two friends together is an important insight.

When I get together with my girl-friends, it tends to be with one or with two more or sometimes with four more.  When there are five of us, we have developed a system of taking turns in talking, so everyone gets to have an equal chance.  This is also a way of bringing each other out, being silent so the quieter one will talk.  We find these get-together`s extremely satisfying.  We have them scheduled at regular intervals, and though they may be difficult to schedule, with a laborious process in place to get everyone on the same page, none of us would miss the event.  They have become an absolute priority when it comes time to plan them.

Why is this?  Certainly, there is noting erotic or homoerotic about it, but often only other women can understand a woman, and often only other women will be interested in something that a woman has to say.

What about male-female "friendships"? --  It is different.  You cannot sink yourself into them the same way you can with your same-sex friendship.

So much for New Year's Day, 2014.

What do we mean when we say that through Christ we have Friendship with God?  "I call you Friends", Jesus said.  He said the evidence is his willingness to die.  A true friend is willing to die for you.  He died for us, and, at least theoretically and emotionally, we are willing to die for him.  Our prayer is for a steadfast faith, which is also his gift to us, through all the means through which he sustains it.

Such as the meal.  Just like we get together with our friends to commune and share.

Doctrine, life, witness, confession...

It is a law of intellectual life which applies also in the church, that only that doctrine can be passed on and planted in hearts which the teacher is absolutely convinced is true. A doctrine such as that of the Lutheran Church regarding the Sacrament of the Altar has to be borne witness to. If it is no longer attested but only presented as an historical antiquity, even though it be presented with great care and correctness, it dies.

Hermann Sasse


It is true that something can only be planted in hearts when the teaching is believed by the teacher.  You can see it in the face, in the mannerism, in the tone, in the eyes, and so on.  

Doctrine is considered by some to be dead.  But it is only dead if it is not believed.  It is only "calcified" if it does not live in the heart. 

The Supper as historical antiquity, just remembrance, does not have the power of proclamation. 

Sasse on reformed on baptism from Pr. H. blog

http://mercyjourney.blogspot.com/2011/07/sasse-on-reformed-teaching-on-baptism.html

Back to the conflict over the Lord's Supper and "Pantheism"

Brecht:  Luther:  Shaping and Refining the Reformation. pp. 311-312

This time Luther wanted to concentrate on the words of institution.  His opponents appeared to him to be quite uncertain of their interpretation.  Once more he pointed out their disagreements, although he knew that there were no substantial differences of opinion between Zwingli and Oecolampadius.  He could easily illustrate how arbitrary the allegorical interpretation was, and he did so with great ridicule.  Several times he demonstrated to the opposing side what sort of absurdities could result from consistently following this "fanaticism."  Luther's strength lay in the text of the words of institution.  The necessity of a symbolic interpretation could not be proved convincingly.  The rational corollary that Christ's body could not be in heaven and in the sacrament at the same time was unacceptable to Luther.  It proved only his opponents' unbelief, which they would not admit publicly, but instead cloaked with rational arguments.
Nevertheless, Luther did discuss the christological problem.  "Sitting at the right hand of God"  was not to be understood in such a way that Christ was bound to a specific place in heaven, but it meant participating in God's omnipotence and omnipresence, which permeated all of creation, down to the tiniest leaf or seed.  Here emerged the realism of Luther's experience of God, derived from the Bible and in no way to be thought of in a pantheistic or metaphysical way.  It was precisely the omnipotent and omnipresent God who had fully entered the Christ who had become man, suffered, and died, and yet who was simultaneously the Son of God with the Father.  Unlike God's creatures, not only was God in this man, but this man himself was God.  Based on this concept of the divine omnipresence, the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper was not a problem for Luther.  What was new and offensive, however, was his view that Christ's human nature also participated in the attributes of God.  He proved this by the nature of the resurrected Christ's being, which was no longer bound to a particular place or time.  The erroneous conclusion that one could therefore eat the omnipresent Christ everywhere was emphatically refuted.  Only in the Lord's Supper, where he gave himself for the believers, was he tangible to the believer. There he had condescended to come to sinners.  This, however, did not lessen his majesty.  The objections raised by the opposing side only revealed their lack of understanding and unbelief.  

The Body of Christ

Saved this picture from a tract once.  So much could be said about it.  But today I am also thinking about it in relation to the last post.

The cross is Christ's place of glory

This helped me sort something out. 

The Small Catechism bids us to begin each day and to end each day with the sign of the holy cross.  Thus each day is set to be lived in our Baptism, which incorporated us with the death and resurrection of Jesus.  At Baptism the cross, the abbreviated name of God, was done on us.  Where His name is, there is the Lord.  Where His doxa is, there is the Lord.  His doxa, His chavod, locates Him. 

The Lord is, of course, everywhere.  But is He there for you?  Is He anywhere for you?  Today's Gospel says yes.  Jesus says there is a place where I am there for you.  The cross is the doxa point, and it has time/location--"under Pontius Pilate,"  we say.  Jesus said, "The hour is come, that the son of man should be glorified.... but for this cause came I unto this hour"  (John 12:23-27).  This is an enthronement word, and His throne is the cross.  That is the doxa point.  "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth, for I am God and there is no other."  There is God.  There for you, and not only for you but also for everyone.  Or, better still, for everyone and also for you.  No "just me and Jesus."  Yet "for all men" can fly past us, as can the "for you"--the delivery--done by the means of grace.

As Doctor Luther says, "the Gospel is not Christ."  The Gospel is the proclamation of Christ.  The proclamation of Christ is the proclamation of the cross, the proclamation of the cross for you.  Thus the delivery of the cross and with it all that was there achieved for you that day long ago.  We are not back there.  Nor need we attempt to get back there with some sort of getting contemporary with it.

Our Lord is not back there today, but here, where He is having His words spoken, the words that deliver Him.  Doctor Luther said if you want your sins forgiven, don't go to Calvary.  There forgiveness was won for you, but there it is not given out.  You go to the Lord's Supper.  There forgiveness is not won for you, but there it is given out.  The Lord's Supper has always a specific place and time.  For there to be a delivery to us, it cannot be otherwise.  We go on only as we are located at a particular place and time.  The Lord has appointed the place and time for the delivery of His gifts, means of grace, externum verbum.  And so gifts, that is, from Him to you by way of located words, water, wine, and bread.

For me but also I thought Larry would like it (who I don't think reads this blog.)  From Selected Sermons of Norman Nagel, p. 291.  Also for my friend John M.

Now we just need to know what doxa means, exactly.

OK, doxa means "glory.  The cross is Christ's glory. The Gospel is the proclamation of Christ's cross/glory.  The proclamation/delivery is located here and now--in the means of grace--words, water, wine and bread.

the Words of Institution are a Promise

I'm still trying to get through the entire Lull's Anthology of Luther's Theological Writings. Presently, I'm on p. 357, which is about half way through (the document there is titled: "Concerning Rebaptism".) I like it, but it takes time.

In the "Babylonian Captivity of the Church", Luther decries a few abuses, but nothing as much as that faith is not taken as important or necessary in the Lord's Supper.

First of all, even the very words of promise of the words of institution seem to have been removed from the laity.

But how many are there today who know that the mass is the promise of Christ? I will say nothing of those godless preachers of fables, who teach human ordinances instead of this great promise. And even if they teach these words of Christ, they do not teach them as a promise or testament, neither therefore as a means of obtaining faith.

What we deplore in this captivity is that nowadays they take every precaution that no layman should hear these words of Christ, as if they were too sacred to be delivered to the common people. So mad are we priests that we arrogate to ourselves alone the so-called words of consecration, to be said secretly, yet in such way that they do not profit even us, for we too fail to regard them as promises or as a testament for the strengthening of the faith.

Then he goes on to stress how the words of promise ought to call forth faith.

For God does not deal, nor has he ever dealt, with man otherwise than through a word of promise, as I have said. We in turn cannot deal with God otherwise than through faith in the Word of his promise. He does not desire works, nor has he need of them; rather we deal with men and with ourselves on the basis of works. But God has need of this: that we consider him faithful in his promises (Heb. 10: 23), and patiently persist in this belief, and thus worship him with faith, hope, and love. It is in this way that he obtains his glory among us, since it is not of ourselves who run, but of him who shows mercy (Rom 9:16), promises, and gives, that we have and hold all good things. Behold, this is that true worship and service of God which we ought to perform in the mass. But if the words of promise are not delivered, what exercise of faith can there be? And without faith, who can have hope or love?

... For anyone can easily see that these two, promise and faith, must necessarily go together. For without the promise there is nothing to be believed; while without faith the promise is useless, since it is established and fulfilled through faith. From this everyone will readily gather that the mass, since it is nothing but promise, can be approached and observed only in faith.

Bach for this Sunday

Yesterday and today it has been quite cold and blustery again. I had to go for my walk all by myself, even the dog is too sick, but took the St. Matthew's Passion along.

The part I really liked yesterday was number 11, which features the words of institution of the Lord's supper. The bass singing Jesus word's on my disc sang it so invitingly and warmly (Dietrich Henschel), more so than the bass in this Youtube excerpt, I'd say. It is such a broad and sweeping piece of music. I love it. (It was harder to find because it is not one of the big famous arias.)

The words of institution part does not come til the very end of this particular 10 min. selection.

I'll print all the words and translation for this section (numbers 8, 9, 10, and 11).

Aria: (we are talking about Judas having gone making arrangements for the betrayal.)
Blute nur, du liebes Herz! Ach, ein Kind, das du erzogen, das an deiner Brust gesogen, droht den Pfleger zu ermorden, denn es ist zur Schlange worden. (Bleed on, dear heart. Ah, a child that you raised, that sucked at your breast, threatens to murder its guardian, for it has become a serpent.)
Evangelist: Er sprach. (And he said.)
Jesus: Gehet hin in die Stadt zu einem, und sprechet zu ihm: Der Meister laesst dir sagen: Meine Zeit ist hier, ich will bei dir die Ostern halten mit meinen Juengern. (Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master says, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at your house with my disciples.)
Evangelist: Und die Juenger taten, wie ihnen Jesus befohlen hatte, und bereiteten das Osterlamm. Und am Abend setzte er sich zu Tische mit den Zwoelfen. Und da sie assen, sprach er: (And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover. Now when the evening was come he sat down with the twelve. And as they did eat, he said,)
Jesus: Wahrlich ich sage euch: einer unter euch wird mich verraten. (Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.)
Evangelist: Und sie wurden sehr betruebt, und huben an, ein jeglicher unter ihnen, und sagten zu ihm: (And they were exceedingly sorrowful, and began everyone of them to say unto him)
Chorus: Herr, bin ich's? (Lord, is it I?)
Choral: Ich bin's, ich sollte buessen, and Haenden und an Fuessen, gebunden in der Hoell! Die Geisseln und die Banden, und was du ausgestanden, das hat verdienet meine Seel. (It is I. I should atone, on my hands and feet, bound, in hell. The scourges and the fetters, and all that thou dist endure, that has my soul earned.)
Evangelist: Da antwortete Judas, der ihn verriet, und sprach: (Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said,)
Judas: Bin ich's Rabbi? (Master, is it I?)
Evangelist: Er sprach zu ihm: (He said unto him)
Jesus: Du sagest's (Thou hast said it.)
Evangelist: Da sie aber assen, nahm Jesus das Brot, dankete und brach's und gab's den Juengern und sprach: (And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said,)
Jesus: Nehmet, esset, das ist mein Leib. (Take, eat; this is my body.)
Evangelist: Und er nahm den Kelch und dankete, gab ihnen den, und sprach: (And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying,
Jesus: Trinket alle daraus, das ist mein Blut des neuen Testaments, welches vergossen wird fuer Viele, zur Vergebung der Suenden. Ich sage euch: Ich werde von nun an nicht mehr von diesem Gewaechs des Weinstocks trinkern, bis an den Tag, da ich's neu trinken werde mit euch in meines Vaters Reich. (Drink ye all o fit; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you: I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.)

Cindy writes

There is a young woman, Cindy, with whom I work, who had this true story (the one below, not the one in the picture) published in a "Chicken Soup for the Soul" book. The foster mom written about is well known to me, too, and lives a mile from our house.

Having raised adopted children, I have often wondered what it has been like for them, at different times. But the story resonates with me also on a theological level, which I mention after the quote.

A SECOND CHANCE

I grew up as a foster child from the age of eight. Unlike most children I know, I never really had a biological mother. I never got to experience the unconditional love and wonderment a mother gives her child. So growing up was a bit harder on me that on most other children. A drastic change came suddenly when I was in the eleventh grade. I was now in my second foster home and had been there for the past five years. I was surrounded by a warm and caring family. But still something pained me deeply. I felt "out of place." I wasn't her birth child, so I remained distant, not allowing myself to love her as much as I could.

In one night, things changed for the better and forever. I was doing homework while waiting for the rest of the family to return home from their events. It was a daily routine. I spent most of my nights by myself finding things to keep me busy. As I was reading a paragraph for English I heard the closing of the back door and my foster mom calling for me. I walked into the kitchen where she was holding a hardcover children's book that she had borrowed from work. "I want you to read this," she said excitedly. "It's absolutely wonderful." She handed me the book, and I glanced at it with curiosity. "The Kissing Hand by Audrey Penn. I was just about to question her when she smiled at me. "Trust me. You'll love it!"

Reluctantly I grabbed a stool and made myself comfortable at the counter and began to read the book. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was a touching story of a raccoon mom who places a kiss in the palm of her child's hand to remind him that if ever he should get scared he just has to press his Kissing Hand to his cheek. That way he can always remember that his mommy loves him. I wondered why my foster mom asked me to read it. But I shrugged off the unknown answer and headed back to my room to complete my unfinished homework.

Later that night, I was sitting at the same spot where I had read the book and talking with Mom when suddenly she did something totally unexpected. She ever so gently took my hand and put a warm loving kiss in the center of my palm. She then quietly closed my hand and held it between hers and spoke words that I had dreamt of hearing for so long. "Whenever you get scared or sad, remember that your mommy loves you."

As the tears began to form in my eyes, I began to understand, and so I smiled a smile that touched the very depth of my once-wounded heart. I truly do have a mother. No she wasn't biological, but she was mine just the same.

CINDY

The story touches me also in this way: when one becomes a member of a family other than by a natural birth, another event may be extremely helpful to make the new member know that they belong and are completely accepted, such as this little ceremony of the kiss on the palm.

It makes me think of how we Lutherans see sacraments, how we know that we belong and are completely accepted. In both stories, the adoptive parent takes the initiative to make a promise and seals it with a physical event. I don't know, it seems kind of analogous to me. If I'm not entirely sure about my relationship with God, I have his promises and sacraments to make me sure.