I can only suppose that neither is a universal rule, that each has its place, and that when-and-if God demands faith of the B type, He also gives it, & we shall know that we have to pray in the b manner, and that this is what happens to miracle workers.
If your Rector is such a person then he is right in praying that way himself, tho’ presumably wrong in demanding that everyone shd. do the same. If he is a presumptuous person who thinks he is in the A [B?] class and isn’t–well, that is not for us to judge.
As to whether God ever wills suffering, I think he is confused. We must distinguish in God, and even in ourselves, absolute will from relative will. No one absolutely wills to have a tooth out, but many will to have a tooth out rather than to go on with toothache. Surely in the same way God never absolutely wills the least suffering for any creature, but may will it rather than some alternative: e.g. He willed the crucifixion rather than that Man shd. go unredeemed (and so it was not, in all senses, His will that the cup shd. pass from His Son).
That’s how I see the theoretical side of the thing. As for the practical-oh dear, oh dear! I certainly can’t conceive any less suitable preparation for Holy Communion than a Discussion or any grosser abuse of language than to call a Discussion a ‘meditation’. I think you and you only can decide whether it’s your job to ‘lead’ a study group or not.
As for the ‘blasting’ sermon no doubt the type blasted is an evil one. Is there good evidence that the preacher meant you to be included in that type? It does sometimes happen that utterances intended to be general are given particular application by the hearers. If it really was addressed to you, then no doubt you must just try to forgive it (as you have done) and otherwise do nothing about it.
The Bishop sounds a good one and I don’t see how you can go wrong in following his orders. He will know much better than I cd. at what point the frustrations and the risk of loss of charity (in oneself or others) occasioned by your parochial activities begin to outweigh the probabilities of usefulness. What a coil it all is: so much so that (as in graver matters) only by putting the will of God first & other considerations nowhere can one have peace. So glad to hear that all goes well with the young people. Love to all.
Yours
C. S. Lewis
TO MRS D. JESSUP (W):
Magdalen College,
Oxford. Dec 1st 1953
Dear Mrs. Jessup
I am so glad to hear that certain mountains have shrunk to molehills. As to the problem of Thomas Merton versus C.W, E.U., G.M.,222 and C.S.L.:–
A. There are two meanings of World in N.T. (i) In ‘God so loved the World’223 it means the Creation–stars, trees, beasts, men, and angels, (ii) In ‘Love not the World’224 it means the ‘worldly’ life, i.e. the life built up by men in disregard of God, the life of money-making, ambition, snobbery, social success and ‘greatness’.
B. Most spiritual writers distinguish two vocations for Christians (i.) The monastic or contemplative life, (ii) The secular or active life. All Christians are called to abandon the ‘World’ (sense ii) in spirit, i.e. to reject as strongly as they possibly can its standards, motives, and prizes. But some are called to ‘come out of it’225 as far as possible by renouncing private property, marriage, their professions etc: others have to remain ‘in it’ but not ‘of it’.
I of course am in the second class and write for those who are also in it. This isn’t to say that I may not be (you may be sure I am) far too much ‘of it’. You, and your friend, must help me against that with your prayers. In so far as she accuses me of ‘worldliness’ she is right: but if by ‘earthiness’ she means my tendency to ‘come down to brass tacks’ and try to deal with the ordinary petty sins & virtues of secular & domestic life, she is wrong. That is a thing that ought to be done and has not yet been done enough.
About avoiding amusements & noise, it depends a bit who one is. Is the temptation to be absorbed by them? Then avoid. Is the temptation to avoid them thro’ distaste when charity bids one to participate? Then participate. At least that’s how I see it.
Yours
C. S. Lewis
TO VERA GEBBERT (W): TS 192/53.
Magdalen College,
Oxford. 1st December 1953.
Dear Mrs. Gebbert,
Many thanks for your kind letter of the 20th. November, which should have been answered sooner, but I am very behindhand, owing to the illness of my brother (nothing serious, and now happily over); but of course his absence always delays matters. He sends you all good wishes, and promises you a letter as soon as he has got himself ‘sorted out’. We both look forward with that schoolboy greediness which distinguishes the post-war Englishman, to the arrival of the little parcel, which we are sure will be of the standard which we have learnt to associate with the House of Gebbert. You shall indeed have a copy of the CHAIR, suitably autographed,226 and I only wish I could make you some better return for all your kindness to us.
I look forward to seeing the snapshot of the son and heir. So ignorant am I of all these matters, that I had always understood that all children were born with hair on their heads; apparently this is not the case? And that CM. beat fourteen other arrivals?
Life here flows on much as usual, with one important exception; we are having the most extraordinary ‘fall’ within living memory; believe it or not, last Sunday, 29th. November, down at Brighton, they had to dig the deck chairs out of winter storage to meet the demands of the crowds which wanted to sit and bask on the beach. Tell that to your millionaires who go to Florida at this time of the year! Your (I mean American) stock is high here at the moment, over your behaviour about the Bermuda conference; some journalist of genius sent over an excerpt from the American Press which said, that whilst entirely disbelieving in the utility of the performance, it must be held ‘because we must’nt run out on old Winnie’.227 We don’t think, any more than you, that the circus will accomplish anything, but this is the sort of small touch that counts in international relations.
Apropos of which, it seems a pity that our Queen could’nt have dropped in on America in the course of her tour; but I suppose international etiquette demands that, if she went there at all, it must be a full-dress state visit to Washington. Anyway I suppose a visit to the Republic of Panama is to all intents and purposes a visit to U.S.A.228
I am in the final agonies of producing a learned work for the Oxford Press, and very, very busy: so I hope you will excuse such a scanty letter.
With all best wishes to all three of you from us two,
yours ever,229
TO SIR STANLEY UNWIN (BOD):
230