Lost Years of Feedback, Part I; C.S. Lewis and Homosexuality
By
Last night I improved the look of the Badi Blog, <http://badiblog.blogspot.com> so check it out. Also, to my surprise, I accidentally discovered how you can conveniently look over the comments that other bloggers have been making over the past few years. Here I thought I was in a vacuum and all this time I was being read and written to. I had no idea. I feel like the lead penguin in the kid's film (which I nonetheless recommend highly to adults) called "Happy Feet." This penguin has a message for humanity but is put into a zoo enclosure where he is separated by reflective glass. He has no idea anybody is even there until he looks closely and discerns vague images of human beings. So it has been with me and the blogosphere.
Much of the commentary on the Badi Blog essays was spam. The machine spews out something complementary to be sure it has your attention, then casually, as if in passing, mentions some slimeball sponsor's website. After the fiftieth mechanical compliment you become jaded and suspicious of flattery, until you really do get something nice from a flesh and blood human being. Like this brief comment: "Thanks be to God for directing me to this blog--bless you!" No pitch, just that. This person must be real, she even left a name. Bless you back! Still, it seems that every time I mentioned finances in an essay, a spew of financial advice websites spammed me vigorously. The same happened with the word "migraine." Migraine seems to be an exception in that mixed in with the spam some real readers appear to have answered back, though I am still not entirely sure that it was not just an unusually clever spammer. If you are real, let me tell you this. Even if your drug of choice helps you for a while, you need to get to the cause of the problem. A chronic condition cannot be treated by the symptoms alone, your entire lifestyle has to be reformed, one atom at a time.
I went through the preferences and found that you can in fact block off most spammers by erecting a specially designed visual barrier. You will see this when you go on the blog and hit the comment button at the end of the daily essay. The default setting is to only allow other members of blogspot to comment, but I changed that so anybody can leave feedback. Give it a try and let me know if it works for you.
Going over the comments that were left, and desiring to respond to the writers directly, I noticed that most responders had set up empty blogs. Evidently they joined with the sole purpose of leaving comments on the millions of Blogspot blogs, rather than making their own blog. Fair enough, but none of them, as far as I can see, left a return email address. That means that the only way I can respond to their commentary is here, publicly, in this space. So, let us get to it.
Last year I made some critical comments about CS Lewis, a writer that I have never liked. This did not sit well with one reader, Alison Marshall, who wrote:
"You appear to have set up a straw man. You have not told us what Lewis says about monasticism. And you have not given any examples of what he says that leads to your conclusion that his faith has no social benefit."
I did not write what I did about Lewis in order to prove him a bad writer -- you do not get as prominent as he was without being very gifted -- but only to get my finger on why I get this clammy feeling all over whenever I come in contact with him. Often one is prejudiced by a popular caricature of a thinker, but with Lewis I have made a real effort to get beyond the shibboleths and confront his full fledged thinking. I did not like my first impression, nor what I saw upon close examination. I forced myself to read his books to the bitter end but afterwards I always want to take a long, hot bath.
Why do I get this strong reaction to a good man and a brilliant mind?
The answer was what I wrote back then; I re-warmed an old observation (it is made in the Qu'ran, to name but one source) that monasticism killed Christianity early on, and is still having a nefarious, insidious and often unnoticed influence on its theology. But you are right; I did not try to prove this rigorously.
As for CS Lewis's faith "having no social benefit," that is not what I was trying to say. His theology may be of benefit or it may not, but the point is that it has no reference to anything outside the individual's convictions, nor any deep concern for social reform. That is the negation of the very purpose of faith. Coincidentally, yesterday I came across what Martin Luther King (a Christian pastor himself) said on this: "Religion that ends in the individual, ends." Exactly. Faith's goal is social action. Take the Hidden Words, a very mystical book, it still begins and ends in very practical advice. And, as the Master pointed out, they contain many new principles not in religion before. A mysticism that isolates itself from context isolates itself from truth and ends in words ending in words, wasting readers’ time. That is why generally speaking the old, traditionalist creeds of which Lewis is the chief apologist are every bit as spiritually moribund as the fundamentalist lickspittles.
Going over the essays that attracted the most comments, I was a little surprised at how truculent I can be. Certainly, the angry essays are going to be the ones that arouse comment in the first place. Balance and nuance are the editorial writer's enemies. But still, I have a cutting tongue and should be careful. Several times last fall I mentioned certain malcontents and bitter fringe dwellers, and tried to refute their arguments. To my surprise they were answering me all the time in long, excruciating detail. In retrospect, I am relieved that I did not see what they were saying at the time, as the controversy would have been tedious and pointless. That glass wall protects the penguin as well as isolating him.
It is less surprising to see that my comments about homosexuality aroused comment. John Barnabas wrote, "Baha'is may remove the moral blame on homosexuals, but Baha'u'llah strongly condemns the act. This quotation is pretty strong stuff." He then cites a passage from the words of Baha'u'llah that are, as he says, very strong indeed. I will deal with that in detail presently. He goes on to say, "The big challenges for Baha'is are to adhere to this unequivocal ethic and to state it clearly in a world which is traveling rapidly in the opposite direction." Another reader, David Douglas, wrote:
"I am a member of the Baha'i Faith in
"I would like to share the following observations. First that the Faith emphasizes unity: We are one human family, children of a common Creator. To me this means that it is a mistake (to) regard people who have a different sexual orientation as "other". People who identify themselves as gay should automatically without the slightest hesitation, be treated with the same unconditional love as our other family members. Second, we are admonished not to judge others, as you have pointed out. This means that we should never think of condemning people who identify themselves as homosexual.
"Baha'is who are flagrantly violating the laws against homosexual behavior may be subject to sanctions from the Local Spiritual Assembly -- but as individuals our attitude needs to be loving and supportive. Third, it is clear that Baha'is should not expect people who are not members of the Baha'i faith to follow the laws of the faith. It is not our business to try to force or compel others to follow the Baha'i teachings. Ours is the duty to share our Faith with those who are open to it. If people inquire about the Baha'i views on homosexual behavior, I think that is important to tell them the teachings in context of the above three principles."
Both of these writers state the standard Baha'i position clearly and well. I only would add that we should not forget that homosexuality has become politicized and is now the spearhead of a secularist attack on God, religion and religious values. Consider what Baha'u'llah says in the strong statement mentioned earlier:
"Ye are forbidden to commit adultery, sodomy and lechery. Avoid them, O concourse of the faithful. By the righteousness of God! Ye have been called into being to purge the world from the defilement of evil passions. This is what the Lord of all mankind hath enjoined upon you, could ye but perceive it. He who relateth himself to the All-Merciful and committeth satanic deeds, verily he is not of
Let me repeat: God says we were called into being for the express purpose of purifying the world from "the defilement of evil passions." We were designed for it. Mind, soul, body, all were built for higher desire to rule over the lower, be it deviant or legitimate, straight or gay, kinky or ascetic. No matter what, the animal's urge to purge must be controlled and made into a positive force for good.
We are challenged by this, not only by non-Baha'is asking about the Faith but as part of our own search for truth. We need somehow to be very clear in our own minds why debauchery is such a bad thing. Can you say quickly why it threatens the very survival of the human race? Are you clear on exactly why the Guardian says it is "against nature"? Most of the time I cannot, which is why I write about this topic so often and at length. My goal is, like the Rabbi, to sum it up while standing on one foot. I cannot do it now but hope to one day.
Next time we will go over more comments that came in over the three or four years of the Badi' Blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment