filmov
tv
Charity, I. Forgiveness by C.S. Lewis Doodle (BBC Talk 15, Mere Christianity, Bk 3, Chapter 7)
Показать описание
Is there anything more painful than forgiveness, when you feel like they don’t deserve one scrap of it? Even if you do forgive, does forgiveness mean stopping their due proportional punishment from an authority? Here Lewis continues to look at those parts of Christian morality which are the most unpopular. Notes below...
Lewis wrote a broadcast on Charity for 15 minutes, but the BBC cut his segment to ten minutes, so he could only cover that part of Charity which deals with ‘forgiveness’. Nevertheless, the radio talks ended up being printed and expanded to include his original notes, and the subject of Charity became two separate chapters in the book ‘Mere Christianity’ – ‘Forgiveness’ and ‘Charity’.
(1:43) You can find the quick links to the scripture references in the comments section below.
(4:08) Many people seem to think forgiving means excusing: “They think that if you ask them to forgive someone who has cheated or bullied them, you are trying to make out that there was really no cheating or no bullying. But if that were so, there would be nothing to forgive. They keep on replying 'But I tell you the man broke a most solemn promise.' Exactly: that is precisely what you have to forgive. (This doesn't mean you must necessarily believe his next promise. It does mean that you must make every effort to kill every trace of resentment in your own heart - every wish to humiliate or hurt him or to pay him out)” ('On Forgiveness').
(7:24) "In so far as you are simply an angry man who has been hurt, mortify your anger and do not hit back", but “in so far as you are a magistrate struck by a private person, a parent struck by a child, a teacher by a scholar, a sane man by a lunatic, or a soldier by the public enemy, your duties may be very different, different because there may be then other motives than egoistic retaliation for hitting back...” ('Why I Am Not a Pacifist').
(1:50) A Christian's forgiveness of others, because of God’s forgiveness of our own sins, differs from the worldly variety that forgives: 'for Me'; or 'for my own health and well-being'; or because it 'reduces ones own stress'; or 'for one's own benefit'; or 'because I have a generous nature'; or 'because it creates unity' (no doubt it does, but that is not why we forgive). The world at times seems to revel in forgiving the unrepentant and condemning the innocent. Lewis talks about this "humanistic forgiveness" here:
“…If we judge the 19th century from the books it wrote, the outlook of our grandfathers (with a very few exceptions) was quite as secular as our own...most striking of all is the 33rd chapter of ‘The Antiquary’ [i.e. The Amateur Historian], where Lord Glenallan forgives old Elspeth for her ìntolerable wrong. Glenallan has been painted by [Walter] Scott as a life-long penitent and ascetic, a man whose every thought has been for years fixed on the supernatural. But when he has to forgive, no motive of a Christian kind is brought into play: the battle is won by "the generosity of his nature". It does not occur to [the author Walter] Scott that his fasts, his solitudes, his beads and his confessor, however useful as romantic "properties", could be effectively connected with a serious action which concerns the plot of the book. I am anxious here not to be misunderstood. I do not mean that Scott was not a brave, generous, honourable man and a glorious writer. I mean that in his work, as in that of most of his contemporaries, only secular and natural values are taken seriously. Plato and Virgil are, in that sense, nearer to Christianity than they…” ('The Decline Of Religion').
(8:53) “Those who would reject patriotism entirely do not seem to have considered what will certainly step—has already begun to step—into its place. For a long time yet, or perhaps forever, nations will live in danger. Rulers must somehow nerve their subjects to defend them or at least to prepare for their defence. Where the sentiment of patriotism has been destroyed this can be done only by presenting every international conflict in a purely ethical light. If people will spend neither sweat nor blood for “their country” they must be made to feel that they are spending them for justice, or civilisation, or humanity. This is a step down, not up. Patriotic sentiment did not of course need to disregard ethics. Good men needed to be convinced that their country’s cause was just; but it was still their country’s cause, not the cause of justice as such.”
The original broadcast had the following words emphasised (italicised in the book) which add to understanding: (shown in CAPS): “But all depends on REALLY WANTING”; "So loving my enemies doesn’t apparently mean thinking THEM nice either”; “the ordinary word to KILL and the word to MURDER”; and “Christ used the MURDER one in all three gospel accounts”.
Lewis wrote a broadcast on Charity for 15 minutes, but the BBC cut his segment to ten minutes, so he could only cover that part of Charity which deals with ‘forgiveness’. Nevertheless, the radio talks ended up being printed and expanded to include his original notes, and the subject of Charity became two separate chapters in the book ‘Mere Christianity’ – ‘Forgiveness’ and ‘Charity’.
(1:43) You can find the quick links to the scripture references in the comments section below.
(4:08) Many people seem to think forgiving means excusing: “They think that if you ask them to forgive someone who has cheated or bullied them, you are trying to make out that there was really no cheating or no bullying. But if that were so, there would be nothing to forgive. They keep on replying 'But I tell you the man broke a most solemn promise.' Exactly: that is precisely what you have to forgive. (This doesn't mean you must necessarily believe his next promise. It does mean that you must make every effort to kill every trace of resentment in your own heart - every wish to humiliate or hurt him or to pay him out)” ('On Forgiveness').
(7:24) "In so far as you are simply an angry man who has been hurt, mortify your anger and do not hit back", but “in so far as you are a magistrate struck by a private person, a parent struck by a child, a teacher by a scholar, a sane man by a lunatic, or a soldier by the public enemy, your duties may be very different, different because there may be then other motives than egoistic retaliation for hitting back...” ('Why I Am Not a Pacifist').
(1:50) A Christian's forgiveness of others, because of God’s forgiveness of our own sins, differs from the worldly variety that forgives: 'for Me'; or 'for my own health and well-being'; or because it 'reduces ones own stress'; or 'for one's own benefit'; or 'because I have a generous nature'; or 'because it creates unity' (no doubt it does, but that is not why we forgive). The world at times seems to revel in forgiving the unrepentant and condemning the innocent. Lewis talks about this "humanistic forgiveness" here:
“…If we judge the 19th century from the books it wrote, the outlook of our grandfathers (with a very few exceptions) was quite as secular as our own...most striking of all is the 33rd chapter of ‘The Antiquary’ [i.e. The Amateur Historian], where Lord Glenallan forgives old Elspeth for her ìntolerable wrong. Glenallan has been painted by [Walter] Scott as a life-long penitent and ascetic, a man whose every thought has been for years fixed on the supernatural. But when he has to forgive, no motive of a Christian kind is brought into play: the battle is won by "the generosity of his nature". It does not occur to [the author Walter] Scott that his fasts, his solitudes, his beads and his confessor, however useful as romantic "properties", could be effectively connected with a serious action which concerns the plot of the book. I am anxious here not to be misunderstood. I do not mean that Scott was not a brave, generous, honourable man and a glorious writer. I mean that in his work, as in that of most of his contemporaries, only secular and natural values are taken seriously. Plato and Virgil are, in that sense, nearer to Christianity than they…” ('The Decline Of Religion').
(8:53) “Those who would reject patriotism entirely do not seem to have considered what will certainly step—has already begun to step—into its place. For a long time yet, or perhaps forever, nations will live in danger. Rulers must somehow nerve their subjects to defend them or at least to prepare for their defence. Where the sentiment of patriotism has been destroyed this can be done only by presenting every international conflict in a purely ethical light. If people will spend neither sweat nor blood for “their country” they must be made to feel that they are spending them for justice, or civilisation, or humanity. This is a step down, not up. Patriotic sentiment did not of course need to disregard ethics. Good men needed to be convinced that their country’s cause was just; but it was still their country’s cause, not the cause of justice as such.”
The original broadcast had the following words emphasised (italicised in the book) which add to understanding: (shown in CAPS): “But all depends on REALLY WANTING”; "So loving my enemies doesn’t apparently mean thinking THEM nice either”; “the ordinary word to KILL and the word to MURDER”; and “Christ used the MURDER one in all three gospel accounts”.
Комментарии