Surprised by Laughter: The Comic World of C.S. Lewis by Terry Lindvall

This book is a study into C.S. Lewis’ approach to humour. The author acknowledges that in reality dissecting a joke stops it from being funny, so attempts instead to simply present Lewis’ ideas in their purest form, quoting from him liberally and attempting to communicate to the reader what he really meant without losing the wit originally present.

The book’s split into six parts: an introduction, a deeper look into C.S. Lewis’ four ‘types’ of humour (satire and flippancy, the joke proper, fun, and joy), and a conclusion.

Let’s start with the good bits. Lindvall accurately captures C.S. Lewis’ character throughout – he goes into a lot of depth for each aspect of Lewis’ approach to comedy, and as I say he quotes from him left, right and centre. I found myself challenged at times and chuckling at times, and sometimes experiencing both simultaneously. C.S. Lewis would be proud!

But for me there are some glaring not-so-good bits which don’t necessarily make the book a bad one, but are certainly worth noting.

Firstly, the book assumes a certain level of background knowledge about C.S. Lewis such as his nickname ‘Jack’ and his portfolio of books, both of which are referenced with little or no context, leaving the reader confused without that knowledge. If you’re completely unfamiliar with C.S. Lewis I wouldn’t use this book as your introduction!

Secondly, the book is very long! This is less a light-hearted joke book, more a weighty biography. Even the nature of the footnotes section (a very detailed bibliography rather than an explanation of context) is far more intellectual than the title might suggest.

Thirdly, saying this is about C.S. Lewis is not quite right – Lindvall probably quotes from G.K. Chesterton just as much as Lewis, and for good reason, but I feel it does take away from the focus of the book being C.S. Lewis.

Finally I’m not sure that the book has the right title. It’s subtitled ‘the comic world of C.S. Lewis’, but in reality it’s about general attitudes to life, Christianity and eternity, including dealing with suffering, sin, and other things which it would be difficult to describe as ‘comic’.

In summary then, I genuinely enjoyed this book; I do think it’s a fair reflection of Lewis’ attitude towards laughter and a deep sense of joy. I suppose, however, it wasn’t quite what I was expecting, which just goes to show that you can’t judge a book by its cover (much like Lewis himself).

I got this book for free from BookSneeze.com. I’m not required to give a positive review.

Biggest dreams coming true

Image via Wikipedia

There have been a couple of examples recently in which people have won record amounts in Euromillions or whatever, and the journalists’ reports almost always refer to the winners buying their ‘dream house’, and/or their ‘dream car’, or going on their ‘dream holiday’. Whatever it is that they’re going to spend their newfound wealth on, it’s always something they’ve apparently dreamt of. Probably the most overused phrase by lottery winners would be, ‘it’s a dream come true!’

Not wanting to be proud but these people have way less ambitious dreams than I do. When I wake up in the morning I don’t remember taking a sports car for a test drive or looking round country houses and imagining where my bed could go, I remember myself flying, or being immensely strong, or being able to move things using my mind! Mostly flying.

The thing is that actually if I invest enough time and effort into most of the dreams lottery winners talk about, I can achieve them to a certain extent. If I make enough sacrifices, I could probably go out one day in a few years’ time and buy my ‘dream car’. But then it would probably break down one day, or get stolen, or whatever. Randy Alcorn wrote about this:

Who would want to divert kingdom funds to build a dream house on earth if they understood that either it will leave them or they will leave it? Instead, why not use our resources to send building materials ahead to the Carpenter [who] is building our dream house in heaven?

C.S. Lewis summed this up well, as he so often does:

Christianity proposes not to extinguish our natural desires. It promises to bring the desires under just control and direct them to their true object.

So our true dreams can be fulfilled, it’s just that they probably won’t be fulfilled while on earth. But we have a unique opportunity as Christians to store up for ourselves these treasures in heaven, through abstaining from sin, performing good works, and radically using our money, possessions, time, and skills for the glory of God right now. And, by the way, this isn’t a selfish thing (only doing good now because we’ll get a reward later). The treasure we have stored in heaven will increase our ability to glorify Jesus in eternity, so doing good works now actually enables us to do more good works forever!

Shall we all become a bit more radical for our eternal good and God’s eternal glory?

How people find me

Image via Wikipedia

Here’s a bit of fun. WordPress is lovely in that it allows me to see what people who find my blog were originally searching for. So here are the top ten search terms people use to get here (I’ve excluded people specifically searching for ‘Sam Isaacson’ or anything with that in it because that just wouldn’t be funny enough).

So, at number ten…

10. Inconsistencies in the Bible

For the people who searched for this, I’m sorry. You probably clicked onto my blog to find some inconsistencies in the Bible and discovered that there weren’t any. Oh well.

9. A bad workman blames his tools story

Well, those of you looking for an analogy will have been served very well. I assume you found this post. I hope you were blessed by it.

8. Margarine illegal

Perfect example of how the internet proves itself – I assume you were looking for evidence that margarine is illegal. I said something about it without any background information or evidence whatsoever. I apologise.

7. Brian Cox

Ok, well, I hope you found what you were looking for! I’m not even sure who Brian Cox is any more so if anyone wants to help me out, you’re more than welcome. Maybe I should Google it and click on my own blog.

[Edit. Ok, found him, he probably landed you up here. Stuck a photo of him above to make up for it. Sorry Brian.]

6. Christian porn

Ok, I can guess how you ended up at either of these posts about porn addiction, but seriously? Just stop it, ok?

5. Justin Beever

Love it. I mentioned this guy in  passing once, and he’s number five all-time. Jolly good. Well done all. I hope you found my little drawing funny.

4. Angela Kemm

Now I know this lady, what a legend. I literally told one little story about her, I hope it helped you all out.

3. Oxo laughing stock

Ok, now all of you who actually clicked on the blog through this search, you already know the joke – that’s the punchline. I hope whatever you ended up finding improved your life.

2. Takkiya

Yep, I know what you all found, again see numbers 2 and 8 above.

1. Irony

Well, actually no-one found here by searching for ‘irony’ but the number one search term was apparently: <!search_terms> – for the 1,234 (no way!) people who searched for this and found me I hope you found what you were looking for.

Punished according to their works

A bit of back story – please forgive me if I waffle, I have a tendency of doing that.

I while ago I posted something about hell, and included some throwaway statement like ‘people receive punishment in hell according to their bad works on earth.’ Helpfully, I now can’t find that post anywhere. Anyway, someone commented saying they didn’t believe me and asked me to justify what I said. Absolutely fair enough, people don’t do that enough! The problem was that I couldn’t find the particular verse that had led me to that conclusion in the first place.

The good news is that after probably about a year I’ve found a good quote about it, and (more importantly) the Bible passages! Here’s the quote, from Randy Alcorn:

Because God is fair, hell won’t be the same for everyone. The severity of punishment will vary with the degree of truth known and the nature and number of sins committed.

And here are the Bible passages:

Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.” (Matthew 11:20-24)

And in the hearing of all the people he said to his disciples, “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love greetings in the marketplaces and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.” (Luke 20:45-47)

Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. (Romans 2:3-5)

Fair enough? I’m glad we had this little talk.

How to spot a false gospel

The Bible is pretty keen that we get the message of Christianity right. The apostle Paul writes to the Galatians and says, ‘even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.’ Even if an angel came down from heaven and preached a different message? This is clearly important.

But it’s sometimes very difficult to spot a false gospel – when several significant leaders all claim to be Christian but all preach a different gospel, which one should we respond to?

Well, if you work in a bank then you might be trained on how to spot counterfeit money. Makes sense. But how would you be trained? I can tell you what you wouldn’t do: you wouldn’t spend ages looking at every different counterfeit anyone can think of, because how would you know if a new counterfeit appeared? What you’d do is study the real thing in such detail that you’d simply know how to identify the real thing, and therefore what to reject as false.

Surely the same’s true with Christianity. I remember finding a website a few years ago which literally specialised in as many different heresies as it could find. I’m sure the owners of that site had great intentions but surely they’d be doing a better job for themselves and the global church if instead they simply aimed to familiarise everyone with the genuine gospel?

So here’s how to be an expert on spotting false gospels: completely immerse yourself in the Bible. Read it, re-read it, and read it again. Learn how God thinks. Then, when someone preaches some false gospel: ‘God wants everyone to be healthy by faith!’ we can instantly respond with: ‘That just smells funny; Timothy was sick but Paul’s instruction was for him to drink some wine.’

The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.

Want to be skeptical?

So a few weeks ago I suggested that the foundation of everything anyone believes is based on circular reasoning.

I stand by that post.

I found it interesting, therefore, when I saw this article the other day about God’s purposes in suffering – if you find yourself believing that suffering is bad, do you believe that simply because you already believe that? Here’s a little quote to whet your appetite:

…seeing the blind man on the temple steps triggered their curiosity: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

God the Son…gave an answer that would turn their theology on its head and affect the futures of millions…God made this man blind in order to demonstrate his power in him.

…

After his world-shaking statement, Jesus made the man see! In that moment everything changed. See the power of the Word! Light shown into dark eyes. A brain that had never processed optical stimuli was given immediate ability to interpret a visual world.

But even more revolutionary in its repercussions, the man went from being perceived as the object of God’s wrath to being the object of God’s kindness!…

So was it worth it — all the suffering? It all depends on what God gave him in return.

God so loved him that he gave his only Son so that by believing in him, this man would not perish but have eternal life. What this man received beyond his miraculous physical healing was the far more miraculous forgiveness of all his sins and eternal life in God’s presence where full joy and pleasures never end.Such a gift would be worth a thousand blind lifetimes.

The article itself isn’t much longer than what I’ve quoted here; have a read.

Thoughts from Oliver Twist

Just like the rest of the UK I got caught up in Dickens Mania around Christmastime, and started reading Oliver Twist for the first time, using a Kindle app on my phone. As I read it, I highlighted sections which I found interesting, and I thought I’d share them here. Some are funny, some more poignant…enjoy:

If he were really not in the habit of drinking rather more than was exactly good for him, he might have brought action against his countenance for libel, and have recovered heavy damages.

The poor people were so neat and clean, and knelt so reverently in prayer, that it seemed a pleasure, not a tedious duty, their assembling there together; and though the singing might be rude, it was real, and sounded more musical (to Oliver’s ears at least) than he had ever heard in church before.

We need be careful how we deal with those about us, when every death carries to some small circle of survivors, thoughts of so much omitted, and so little done – of so many things forgotten, and so many more which might have been repaired!

Strip the bishop of his apron, or the beadle of his hat and lace; what are they? Men. Mere men. Dignity, and even holiness too, sometimes, are more questions of coat and waistcoat than some people imagine.

‘When ladies as young, and good, and beautiful as you are,’ replied the girl steadily, ‘give away your hearts, love will carry you all lengths – even such as you, who have home, friends, other admirers, everything, to fill them. When such as I, who have no certain roof but the coffinlid, and no friend in sickness or death but the hospital nurse, set our rotten hearts on any man, and let him fill the place that has been a blank through all our wretched lives, who can hope to cure us? Pity us, lady – pity us for having only one feeling of the woman left, and for having that turned, by a heavy judgment, from a comfort and a pride, into a new means of violence and suffering.’

When a man’s his own enemy, it’s only because he’s too much his own friend; not because he’s careful for everybody but himself.

Without strong affection and humanity of heart, and gratitude to that Being whose code is Mercy, and whose great attribute is Benevolence to all things that breathe, happiness can never be attained.

Foetal humans, or human foetuses?

I read a blog post over here which made me physically nod my head in agreement.

I’ve been reading a book recently about being a parent to a newborn baby (because once you’ve read a book on that you’re fully prepared, surely), and it constantly refers to the child in the womb as a foetus. This particular book then continues to call the child a foetus even after birth, which clearly draws out the question: Where do you draw the line? When a child can talk/walk/vote?

The solution proposed here, I think, is far better. Perhaps it’s just semantics, or perhaps it’s deeper than that. The whole thing’s worth reading so I’m just going to quote it all:

I’ve been thinking of how unhelpful the term “human fetus” is. It reverses our usual grammatical way of speaking about a stage of development, so it perpetuates fuzzy ideas about the identity of the unborn.

We say “adult human,” not “human adult,” because that is the clearest way to speak. Saying “human adult,” “dog adult,” “horse adult,” etc. would make it sound as if an “adult” is a type of creature in and of itself, with the qualifier telling us if it happens to have human qualities, or dog qualities, etc. No, the type of being is “human,” and the qualifier is “adult.”

We ought to also say “fetal human.” It puts the emphasis in the right place and makes it clear to the listener that “fetal” is a stage of development, not a kind of being.

The word “fetus” has been used to obfuscate the identity of the unborn for too long, and even we pro-lifers can’t help but be affected by it. Just think of both terms and you’ll see what I mean. Don’t you feel more of an immediate kinship with a “fetal human” than a “human fetus”? Don’t you feel more protective of a fetal human? This is not a language trick, it’s a more consistent use of grammar and a long-overdue clarification.

Stuck in the Matrix

Image via Wikipedia

Monday blessings. A quote from Saint Richard Dawkins:

Basil Fawlty, British television’s hotelier from hell created by the immortal John Cleese, was at the end of his tether when his car broke down and wouldn’t start. He gave it fair warning, counted to three, gave it one more chance, and then acted. “Right! I warned you. You’ve had this coming to you!” He got out of the car, seized a tree branch and set about thrashing the car within an inch of its life. Of course we laugh at his irrationality. Instead of beating the car, we would investigate the problem. Is the carburetor flooded? Are the sparking plugs or distributor points damp? Has it simply run out of gas? Why do we not react in the same way to a defective man: a murderer, say, or a rapist? Why don’t we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily as we laugh at Basil Fawlty?… Isn’t the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component?… [D]oesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility…?

Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions?…  Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution…. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he beats his car. But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment.

Yep, I know you know it’s ridiculous, but he is really claiming that rationally speaking, when it comes to belief in evolution, we should treat evil the same way we treat Basil’s response to his car breaking down; admit there’s a problem and try to fix it, but certainly not punish it! As Dawkins says elsewhere, people doing evil is just them ‘dancing to their DNA’; morality is a social construct, as if we’re actually living in the Matrix and simply don’t know that this is all a lie.

According to Dawkins we should be laughing at 9/11 where terrorists attempt to punish America. We should laugh at how silly the concept of prison is.

And, funny as it seems, and as much as I think that Richard Dawkins is as guilty of having ‘a defective component’ as the rapist example he uses, I actually agree with him on this one.

If humanity has come about essentially as a genetic mistake then morality is our own construct and we should look forward to the day that we lose it through the process of evolution.

But…

Of course, I can tell you with 100% certainty that I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that morality is true. And if that’s the case, then clearly Dawkins’ theory must be incorrect; in other words, logic dictates that we need God.

And the irony of it all is that Dawkins actually doesn’t believe what he’s written himself. Dawkins has a daughter and if she were raped I don’t think for a second that he would ever simply say: ‘Don’t worry, you have a defective component. Let’s get that looked at.’ I fully expect that he would want that rapist tortured for eternity for what he did.

I wish I’d spent more time at the office

Image via Wikipedia

The Puritans had a theory that the closer you got to death, the closer you got to Jesus, and therefore the wiser and more profound your words would be; people would crowd around the deathbed of a relative to hear the final whispers spoken by a person seconds away from meeting Jesus face-to-face.

I’m not sure the ‘close to Jesus’ thing is quite right but those close to death are certainly worth listening to – they’ve often lived longer so have accumulated that wisdom, but also being in the shadow of death brings a genuine perspective to life that I think we’d benefit from.

So I was excited the other day when I read this article. A nurse has captured a list of regrets that dying people have – I think that knowing these upfront could help us to truly live our lives worthy of the calling to which we’ve been called! Here are the top five:

1. ‘I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me’: Health brings a freedom very few realise, until they no longer have it.
2. ‘I wish I hadn’t worked so hard’: This came from every male patient that I nursed.
3. ‘I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings’: Many developed illnesses relating to the bitterness and resentment they carried as a result [of attempting to keep peace with others].
4. ‘I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends’: Many had become so caught up in their own lives that they had let golden friendships slip by over the years.
5. ‘I wish that I had let myself be happier’: …deep within, they longed to laugh properly and have silliness in their life again

Erm…wow, anyone?