Friday, January 9, 2009

C.S. Lewis Re: God's Love

"There is a kindness in Love: but Love and kindness are not coterminous, and when kindness (in the sense given above) is separated from the other elements of Love, it involves a certain fundamental indifference to its object, and even something like contempt of it. . . Kindness, merely as such, cares not whether its object becomes good or bad, provided only that it escapes suffering. . . It is for people whom we care nothing about that we demand happiness on any terms: with our friends, our lovers, our children, we are exacting and would rather see them suffer much than be happy in contemptible and estranging modes. If God is Love, He is, by definition, something more than mere kindness. And it appears, from all the records, that though He has often rebuked us and condemned us, He has never regarded us with contempt. He has paid us the intolerable compliment of loving us, in the deepest, most tragic, most inexorable sense."

-C.S. Lewis, from The Problem of Pain

6 comments:

CyberKitten said...

Lewis said: with our friends, our lovers, our children, we are exacting and would rather see them suffer much than be happy in contemptible and estranging modes.

Personally I'd prefer to see them happy hopefully for the right reasons. I certainly wouldn't like to see anyone suffer for any reason - or at least without a *very* good one indeed.

Karla said...

He means that we would rather them learn from suffering than to have them happy at the expense of their own well being. For instance, punishing a child for rebellion versus allowing them to continue in it for the sake of their temporary happiness.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: He means that we would rather them learn from suffering than to have them happy at the expense of their own well being.

I think that would depend on the particular circumstances.

karla said: For instance, punishing a child for rebellion versus allowing them to continue in it for the sake of their temporary happiness.

*Rebellion*......? Kids rebell - it's what they do. If I thought my childs actions were harmful I'd certainly try to reason with them (if they're old enough to understand) or if it wasn't a life & death thing let them 'rebell' and learn their own lessons. Again it would very much depend on the circumstances.

Karla said...

Yes it would depend on the circumstances. But I have seen situations where parents enable all kinds of things. I know a mother who lets her daughter eat anything she wants whenever she wants and it is becoming a health problem. The girl is temporarily happy eating whatever she wants, but she is only 5 years old. If this continues unrestrained it will not be good for her. It's not good for her now. So it would be better to not allow her to eat excessive food even if she isn't happy by the crack down of proper parental authority.

Hopefully that illustration will help communicate the idea I think Lewis is communicating. That often happiness for happiness sake is not good.

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Hopefully that illustration will help communicate the idea I think Lewis is communicating. That often happiness for happiness sake is not good.

Children should definitely be encouraged (and taught) to eat properly for their own present & future health. I think most people would agree on that. In that situation parents know more than the child involved and are responsible for the childs well being so should be expected to control the childs bad habits.

But what if the girl was 18 rather than 5? You could certainly try to *reason* with her that eating a diet of junk food will be bad for her but you couldn't *punish* her for her 'rebellion'.

Alternatively what if the girl was 10 years old & decided to become a vegetarian? As long as the adults involved knew what the implications of this choice was - and responded accordingly that would be OK wouldn't it?

You see how lots of things need to be taken into account. Each case will need to be taken on its merits (or otherwise). I don't think that any general rules could be applied without there always being exceptions.

Karla said...

Agreed. Certainly there would be different set of parameters when we are talking about an adult child. Or a more mature child.

It was simply an example to illustrate that sometimes the best thing for us isn't the thing that makes us the most happy in the moment. Not purchasing drugs for an addicts next fix may cause them physical suffering but it is the best for them. Things like that.

We often think that the right way of doing things is the way that is always pleasing in the moment and that's not always the case. The right way may not be the most pleasant of ways, but will in the end be the best way. But all the way through it is right and pure even if it is unpleasant for a while.