The Good, the Bad and the Beautiful

Author's note: sorry for the recent absence--out of state travels led to forgetfulness.

Pensee 192
Knowing God without knowing our own wretchedness makes for pride.
Knowing our own wretchedness without knowing God makes for despair.
Knowing Jesus Christ strikes that balance because he shows us both God and our own wretchedness.

This week's readings included chapter 24, some of Pascal's thoughts on how Christianity deals with what Kreeft calls "the essential human paradox, the greatness and wretchedness of man."

I've been thinking about this lately since reading this article about evangelism. It is an interview with James Choung, a former campus pastor, about his method of sharing the gospel with college students.

Essentially he points out that the way Christians used to do it, telling people that they are sinners and presenting Jesus as the solution to their problem, while true, is only part of the story.

Instead he presents it this way:
1) we are designed for good
2) we are damaged by evil
3) Christ restores us for the better
4) we are sent together to heal the world

Though 'all of sinned', 'Jesus forgives our sin', 'we have to confess our sin' are all truths, confining the gospel to those truths limits the scope of the story. Choung's 4 circles, as he calls them, present instead both the greatness and wretchedness of man. They also point us toward a solution to our wretchedness and give an invitation back to greatness.

Food for thought as you consider using the truths we're reading this summer to help communicate Christ to your friends.

Next week: Pascals' most famous idea -- The Wager. Don't miss it.

Restless

Zing.

That's the sound of Pascal sharply zapping me where it hurts.

The 2 chapters on deck this week were on Diversion and Indifference. If you didn't get a chance to read or are a little behind and have just decided to scrap the project all together, I beg you, read Pascal's sermon on diversion. Open up to page 172 and read #136. But only if you're willing to be bothered a little bit.

I'll give you a litte nugget from the opening paragraph:

I have often said that the sole cause of a man's unhappiness is that he does not know how to stay quietly in his room.

Read the rest, it's worth it! I found Pascal painting a picture that looks a little too much like me for my comfort.

And be warned, both chapters force you to think about death--not sick, twisted, you-can-barely-watch-it-but-are-fascinated-at-the-same-time Dark Knight Joker death--but the reality of human frailty and our efforts to avoid considering the truth.

Bottom line: to truly live well, man must consider his wretchedness, God's goodness, and the fleeting nature of this life. And there's nothing we seem to want to do less. My prayer as I'm writing this is that again God would teach me to see with an eye to his kingdom and that I would be meek and ready to respond. As Augustine noted "...thou hast made us for thyself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee."

Questions for consideration this week:

1) How is the summer going? Are you doing well? Can we pray for you? Have you found "it is not good to be too free?"

2) What have you been learning lately? Maybe in Pascal, reading the Bible, or in your experience where you're at, share something that will encourage or challenge your fellow Chi Alphans.

Kreeft Trumps Pascal?

This summer we're reading through Christianity for Modern Pagans, an annotated edition of Blaise Pascal's Pensees. Today we were to have read chapters 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (pages 105 -164).

I have to be honest, I didn't like the readings that much this week. I don't know why, but they didn't grip me like they usually do. I was digging Kreeft's comments more than Pascal's insights. To wit:

page 111: Indeed, how could reason itself be validated? There are only three possibilities: (1) by something subrational, like animal instinct (which is obviously absurd: How can the inferior validate the superior?); or (2) by something rational, by a piece of reasoning (which is also absurd: How can the part justify the whole? All reason is on trial; how dare the one piece of reasoning you use to justify all reasoning be exempt from trial?); or (3) by something superrational, by faith in God (which is the only possibility left).

page 120: Science no more proves nature is not a mother but only matter than an X-ray proves that a woman is not a mother but only a bag of bones.

page 135: Our civilization has the fidgets.

page 144: Voltaire joked that medieval French peasants knew more about the geography of Heaven than about the geography of France. Pascal would not see this as a joke but as a privilege, and eminently reasonable.

But one of Pascal's comments brought me up short:

164: I agree the Copernicus' opinion need not be more closely examined. But this: It affects our whole life to know whether the soul is mortal or immortal.

How many useless facts have you mastered at Stanford?

Compare that with how many class sessions have been devoted to discussing whether or not this life is all that there is.

Also, was I the only one not digging Blaise this week?