S1E1 "Membership"

The point just simply being is that this principle of being rightly ordered within a body, but it's the same thing for any musical instrument as well. The analogy that came to mind a guitar string trying to find its identity that refuses to be pulled thought on a guitar is never going to play the right note, just will not work. And then how much better than when rather than struck individually are as strummed as a chord? I feel like he's just so utterly right here and that it is the antidote. As he says and as he intends it to be against that individualism that can kind of afflict the person who is just looking to be their authentic self. It's good for you to be your authentic self. That's something that actually pleases God, but the way that the authentic self is defined is, as you said, in the body. It is in the role that's created for you. Welcome to Lessearnone Lewis, where two friends and CS Lewis fans explore his lesser known works. Join us this season as we are exploring essays from Lewis that we think speak to our world today. All right, so Jordan, how are you doing? I am doing okay, Sean. But no, not better than okay. I'm doing well. Yeah, how are you? That's well, I'm glad that you're doing well. I'm doing pretty good too because it's spring outside. It feels like that here too. Oh, which is good. But you get where you're at, you get much more beautiful spring than I get here, I think. Yeah, so it's more of a miracle for you. Yes, I'm enjoying America and you're just enjoying Wednesday. That's exactly right. But Wednesday can be a miracle too. It's apt that you're doing well because did you know that when one member of the body suffers, that we all suffer? Whoa, I did know that. However, I wasn't thinking about it until you said, well, you should be thinking about it because membership is what we're talking about today. I'm excited because I've been, I've been stewing in this, in this essay now for about a week. CS Lewis's essay, it was an address originally to the Society of St. Albin and St. Sergius. And it is all about belonging to the body of Christ. And Jordan, you were the one who pointed me in the direction of this essay to start. Would you mind just kind of giving us a run through of what membership looks like? And not the idea, but the essay and what CS Lewis said in it. Yeah, I'm going to give it a shot. I am going to be honest. When we had this idea, we thought, let's pick a couple of Lewis's most relevant essays to what's going on in our world today. And this one came to the forefront for both of us, particularly because of COVID. And the fact that that's out on the church and people stopped going to church because they had to. Most places in the world, I think, had restrictions that kept people away from church for at least some time. Sean, when COVID started, were you in Turkey? Yeah, I was still in Turkey. And you know, actually, Turkey was, it shut down places of worship pretty early on. You know, you can imagine most of those would be mosques and you've seen maybe the Muslim form of gathering to pray of worship is really tight. So they made a big change to that right away. And you're right. And where we were living quite honestly, we were quite far away from other Christian churches. There was some in the city we were living in. There was about four or five. But it was a 45 minute drive. And so we didn't get to that very often. And I have to say then that our kind of primary discipleship group was able to stay together pretty easily through the beginning of the pandemic. It only got hard for me, really, in that sense, once we got back to Canada, just about a year in to the pandemic. And that's where it really felt like, oh, we're not going to church. We're not able to do the things that we wanted to do. Well, yeah, that was a similar to my experience. I was living in the states when COVID started. And then flew back to Canada within that first week of everything shutting down. And then just kind of hunkered down in Canada and went through various forms and waves of restrictions. But saw people having to do church online for a long time. And even when churches open back up, there was restrictions. And some people just didn't feel safe coming back to church yet. And that's understandable. But I have a fear that is, I guess the fear is that after COVID, more and more people will start questioning, why did we go to church in the first place? Is it really that valuable to gather together on a Sunday morning if we can just do church online or church at home? And that's not really a new question, because it's something that's grown increasingly over the last, hmm, a couple decades. But certainly since Lewis's time, I think reading this, you see, I mean, he's writing right after the Second World War, or maybe we don't know the exact date, but the same year that that victory day happened. Wow. And so since that time, and I wonder if it was partly influenced by the war, his desire, I don't know, his feeling like he needed to write this, but he decided to write this thing on membership and talk about the importance of belonging to, it's not just about going to church, it is that at very least, but it's about belonging to church and participating in church, being a member of the body. So here's why I'm a little uncertain. My grand idea was we could just go through and explain all the points that he makes in the essay. But as I started going through it a little slower than the first time I had listened to it and the time I read it, before that, I realized there's a lot in it that's kind of confusing to me, and I wasn't really sure what to do with it. But I think I understand his big point. And the big point is he wants, like I said, he wants people to go to church and do more than that to actually participate in church and be a part of a membership somehow to the body of Christ. Yeah, and I think that's really, really valid. Like early on, really the first line, he says, he says, no Christian, and indeed, no historian could accept the epigram, which defines religion as, quote, what a man does with his solitude. And, quote, and so he, he unpacks that, like you said, about this idea that religion just belongs to our private life and says it's just false. Which I think, like you said, is so timely because we've had almost nothing but a private life over different seasons of the last two years. And so, you know, it's just a natural extension now. And we've been able to bring what used to have to be public into our private life by virtue of streamed services and podcasts and Zoom meetings and all that kind of thing. So yeah, I think you're absolutely right. What are other versions of that that you've seen, maybe even before COVID, like the idea that religion is a private matter? Because for me, it made me think of why go to church if you can have a relationship with Jesus on your own. Like if Christianity is about relationship, not religion, well, I can have a relationship with Jesus wherever I am. So why would I go to church on a Sunday morning? You know? Absolutely. Absolutely. When I think it really depends what kind of, what kind of background you come from, kind of denomination or tradition you belong to. Because in some cases, you know, to be a Christian requires you to be at church and receive things that clergy are sharing with you. Yeah, that's right. But when we make, when we make like the primary point of gathering to be hearing good teaching, and then we move into the 20th and the 21st century where good teaching is easily available at the, at our fingertips through books. And sometimes more available. Yeah. Like, oh yeah. The teaching that I can find myself online in podcasts, YouTube in books is going to be better than whatever pastor I have in my local church. Absolutely. Absolutely. So I think that there's something to be said for, you know, like, yeah, maybe we can find better teaching. But I love, I don't know who said this quote, but recently I came across a quote of somebody just speaking and said, you can't make old friends. And just this idea that, yeah, you're right at our local church. And now we're getting away from Lewis already. We need to get back to him just a sec. But, but I think this is a part of even the point that we're going to discover as we go back into membership is that, right, there is something really beautiful about the relationship with the person in front of us that transcends just the idea that we can be a spectator in a service through a laptop and have the same kind of benefit that we would get. And again, that comes back down to just thinking, oh, well, the point we gather together is for teaching, right? I got to be better educated to be a better Christian. And that's just not the case. Yeah, I feel like with this whole, this whole essay, as I was trying to figure out, what's he going against? I feel like he's going against things that are half true. And that maybe is one of those half truths is that Christianity or or going to churches of benefit to me because of the teaching that's there that's half true It is true that you benefit from the teaching. That's not the whole reason you go. Absolutely Two of the other half truths that he brings up which are maybe the stickier points of the essay for me that I'm like I'm still trying to get my My head around exactly what he means by them The names are collective Collectivism and individualism and these are kind of two opposing World views That are present in his day But even more present in our day actually like they've only gotten stronger since then absolutely and Lewis writes that the collectivism maybe we should define these first. This is a part I had trouble with was really trying to nail down a definition for each Do you have do you have a good definition for collectivism or can describe it at least? Well, I will say this Without getting overly political. I know that you know again just based on the period of time that Lewis was writing The Soviet Union was on the rise, you know It was a recent ally that has now become an enemy and so they're just like facing down the barrel of the Cold War So when he's thinking about collectivism I and correct me if I'm wrong, but as I read this essay Jordan I really felt like he was referring to more like far leftist thought And that would that would talk about like us as as a people and I even think that that's that's reflected in some ways Where he talks about membership as we and we'll circle background to this we don't need to rest here but membership as we think about it in Affirmative versus plurality, you know like are you a member of something because you're the same as all the other members Or you a member of something even because of diversity, but yeah, he's thinking I think he's thinking of that collective mindset that is You know hyper socialist or kind of like communist in a way because of how that would be affecting the academy In you know, he's in Oxford and in Cambridge at these in these times especially but just the British Academy So so that's what I'm thinking and I would say under that heading we can include things like like nationalism thinking of yourself predominantly as a body as as as a member of a country over and opposed to You know individualism and or like whatever group you want to belong to is it is it race is it class is it? Yeah, et cetera. Would you think about that? Yeah, I think that's pretty good description I think we like you're just getting into we still see it today in the identity politics Yeah, that are being played out, but The way he talks he says not all collectivism is wrong or bad He says some of it is actually it's necessary, but it's necessary as a means to an end so for example politics or economics these things are I Guess they're part of institutions or they're part of the collective idea that actually sometimes the whole of A group is more important than the individuals and so governments have to come together to make decisions about what's what's best for the whole And so he says actually that's that's necessary to a degree But only only necessary Towards the end that the individuals flourish. Yeah, and so he's he's afraid that if you are a collectivist You go you've gone too far mistaking the means for the end so you take collectivism The values of the group of a whole as a whole and you exalt that over the needs of the individual or the values of the individual Right, which which he places in contrast with the hyper individualism Well, I was just gonna say so he's he's saying church shouldn't be it's not a collective institution I Guess in a collective the the people included are less important than the whole Would that yeah, that be fair? So a church is not like that. Have you listened recently to that? It's pretty popular right now that podcast about Mars Hill in Mark Driscoll the rise and fall of Mars Hill. I have it downloaded by haven't started it yet Okay, no, it's it's just one of it's you know, it's one of those popular things or it's listened to right now whatever I think what we see when when you have a like a really unhealthy leadership culture like that You know when I think that actually would be ironically because I'm about to you know as we talk about individualism That typically and you know people who are more right or far right on the on the political spectrum and Tend to emphasize individualism more and individual rights and freedoms etc And you know there's all kinds of exceptions to that, but we'll just say generally and you know Mark Driscoll was was known as a very conservative, you know reformed preacher and by standing on those things against The kind of the popular you know what was going on in his community in Seattle like he was he was a very different voice from those who are around him He built the church. I think of like 15 or 16,000 people right and then it all fell apart But there's so many stories the whole podcast really is about stories of Individuals just getting bulldozed like you know he had a famous thing where he said you know get on the bus or get run over by the bus Wow, yeah, and so ironically I think you know in that more conservative Context that would have probably really emphasized individualism The kind of collectivism that you're describing right there Jordan happened where it was like more about The thriving of the movement and the church regardless of what happened to the individuals who got hurt in it That's that's really interesting because it Lewis points out that These things are We live in a paradoxical culture where collectivism and individualism are opposed to each other But people seem to hold both of them And in a way that makes each one worse So it's not like people are holding them in in balance or intention But in a way that actually makes both of them worse or brings out the worse sides of these To opposing ideas. Yeah Yeah, and and where and where you started off was saying like neither one of them is just like inherently evil right Both both both being both having some redemptive qualities to them and both both being potential You know you referred to the half trudes Yeah, half trudes that will that will get us off kilter. No, that's exactly it is is um I think he's reacting against collectivism as a half truce like it is necessary to a degree But he says it's a means to an end and and we can't mistake it for the end in itself And then he says that actually the church which shouldn't be seen as a collective It's not just the whole Which is valued over the individuals So the The church isn't that it's not a collective um, but the response That most people then take is is acknowledging that the church isn't a collective So let's fight against that and and Lewis says the church actually might be the only safeguard Society has against Collectiveism which is just an interesting kind of throw a like throw away line. He puts in there But the problem he says is that then people swing um kind of like a pendulum They swing away from collectivism and say Christians um should be individualists Uh-huh, and they take again they take um truths from the bible That talk about the value of an individual And they take these truths, but then they don't take the whole truth of scripture And what's happened in the past Well really since the time of the New Testament Cultures and societies that have been affected and influenced by scripture Have been influenced. This has been one of the major ways that Christian Christianity has Influenced the west is that it has demanded That culture sees individuals with value Yeah, yeah And so even you end up with the founding fathers of the states They write the declaration of independence and they say we um I'm not American so I Forget exactly how it goes, but something about we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal That's like the that's like the motto of individualists Uh-huh, and the way they got there was from scripture essentially right and so Lewis is Lewis is a fan of that as far as it goes for politics he says like you you need equality in In the political realm and in society on earth in the natural realm Well, what I what I thought was so interesting about that just to kind of riff off that for a minute is that he was You know, he talked about the the value of of democracy Being for the group and whatnot, but just recognizing its limits um, I think uh and and and opens up this whole conversation which I think is probably the most controversial part of the of the essay if I can swing us in that direction And that is this discussion of what what it means to be egalitarian and what it means to be made equal. And I'm gonna go there because, he says that all of these. - Well, no, okay, we'll get there in the process. Let me just read from Lewis. I think that's the place to start. Because. - I think we should. - Yeah, we should probably go to Lewis. - We've been rambling enough. - Well, yeah, rambling enough. But not only that, but because, like you said, you use your analogy about the states and all that kind of thing, Lewis says this quote, I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a Democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government to the Commonwealth. And so why is that the Commonwealth needs their advice? That is, in my opinion, false. A romantic doctrine of democracy. On the other hand, you may believe fallen men to be so wicked that not one of them could be trusted with any irresponsible power over his fellows. I believe that to be the true ground of democracy. And then, so he starts there and just kind of, he talks about the idea of equality. And this is just so offensive, even as I say it, it is like hard for me to say out loud. But the idea of equality being a necessary fiction that we create. I'm gonna tie that in here and quote him one more time. Lewis says quote, "I am going to venture to say that artificial equality is necessary in the life of the state, but that in the church we strip off this disguise, we recover our real inequalities and are there by refreshed and quickened." Oh my gosh. So I can't, like I'm reading this and I'm like nodding along, you know, clapping, amen, and whatever. And then I kind of stumble, a few paragraphs before that. I'm like, oh, I'm like, okay, so he's like, he really talks about diversity and it's clear that there's like a strong hierarchy in his mind. I'm like, okay, well, yeah, I think hierarchy is a biblical idea and depending on how it's applied, blah, blah, you know, we're going through this. And then he drops that line. And then he continues to unpack it. So Jordan, this essay talks a lot about equality being a necessary artificial kind of fiction in the life of the state, which you already mentioned, but that he suggests that in the church, we strip that off. What does Lewis mean by equity, equality, et cetera, in this essay? And what stood out to you about that? I've got red marks all over my page from that. (laughs) You know, leave me with that difficult question. Oh. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) Okay, so you asked about what he means by equality or egalitarianism. And I just don't have a very clear answer for that. But I do know that he writes about it in another essay called equality. I don't know if we'll ever get to that essay. But he says almost some of the exact same things as he does in this essay, like word-for-word in some cases. And he wrote equality two years before membership. So it was on his mind before that. And then he also wrote a lot of the same types of things at least in his follow-up to the screw tape letters in screw tape poses a toast. So I just mentioned that to say, if anyone's listening to this and you're confused about what we're saying or what Lewis meant or your red membership, then you don't know, go look in there in either equality the essay or screw tape proposes a toast. And maybe you'll be able to figure out a little bit better. - Well, and yeah, just to reiterate that, I think like his own usage of it is just going to be different than ours. This actually feels like language shifting over such a short period of time. 'Cause I don't, I wonder, my question it, and you don't have to answer this, it's totally rhetorical, you can't answer it. But I don't even know if Lewis would have used the word equality in this context because of all the other baggage and connotation that it has now. - Sure, yeah, I think in the last 80 years it's picked up a lot of other connotations that maybe he did not intend or wasn't meaning to address when he used the word. But I think you're right to, Sean, you had mentioned that it seems he's combating at first kind of an ultra, not ultra, what's the word, super left? What's the word for very left? - Uber left, I think that's the-- - Uber left. - That's the learned way to say it. - Okay, good, thank you. - Yeah. - Yeah, I think that's what he's combating when he says that equality is, I don't know if he says that he's a member ship or in the equality essay, but that equality isn't an ideal that people should strive for. It's not something like goodness or beauty or these other like transcendental properties that are bigger than the world, that actually the thing that's bigger than the world, the thing, maybe, I mean, that's the way to say it philosophically more or less, but the way to say it more philosophically would be what God has baked into creation is not equality but order. And that order automatically means there's hierarchy involved. Well, actually before he even means that, I just think he means when he's opposed, when Lewis is opposed to equality, he's opposed to sameness. - Yes. - He's saying humans are not all alike. We're not all exactly the same. That's the fiction that he says that he's against. - Which again, when we consider the arguments that he's making, sort of the groups that he's arguing against, the individualist and the communalist, is that in that collectiveist, in that both of those groups, as I think we maybe even mentioned before, sameness or being in the section where he talks about again, how an organ is different than a soldier, like a unit, so to speak. That sameness is not a virtue. - Yeah. - Like, sameness is not a virtue and it would be preposterous to say that we are all the same, so why are we treating each other as if we are all identical, that sameness. Again, we just wouldn't use the word equality there maybe, but I think you're right about the order thing, 'cause down the page he talks about authority is not in and of itself bad, it's good, divine, even says. But people who can hold authority and he uses the examples of fathers and husbands can be bad and therefore misuse authority. So it's not that the hierarchy doesn't exist. People get conflicted about the idea of hierarchy because we're so used to saying all like privileges automatically wrong, positions of power, authority, are automatically wrong and corrupted, you know? That we don't recognize to say, like actually when this goes good, it goes really well. The right person with power and authority empowers others to be what they were created to be. - Yeah, I think that's exactly it. The right person in the right role. And then assuming that they aren't misusing, 'cause anyone can misuse their role. Whether your role is one of power authority or you're a slave, you can misuse your role. - Right. - You can sin in your job, whether you have power or not. So it's not the power that's the problem. He does point out that saying that all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is that that you can sin to a greater extent or more powerfully when you have power, obviously. - Well, and if I can riff off that actually, I would say that I very recently just happened to read something right now in another, I'm in a course about the theology of work and they talk about this quote from Lord Acton. He said, he attributes it to that all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And kind of confront that and say, actually power exposes. Power exposes. Because if somebody has a narcissistic heart or a greedy heart or a jealous heart, their power will expose that because they'll use their power to facilitate that vice. And so you have a Hitler who before he wrote, rose to power and took control of Germany on the third Reich. He was just as filled with vitriol hatred as he was once he became the chancellor of Germany and ultimately the führer. But the power exposed it and it just enabled his evil to go so much farther. Yeah, that's a really good point. It just, yeah, it shows you, I guess, what's in your heart in a way or what's in someone's heart when they come into power. Maybe as an explanation, we can read this quote that Lewis talks about the structure of a family as a good example of what he means the church should be like as opposed to, as opposed to just a collective of equals. He says that actually it should be a unity of unlike people. So he brings up Paul in 1 Corinthians using the word members, members of a body, which I think is really if you go read 1 Corinthians chapter 12, you get the idea pretty, pretty well there. Yeah, where St. Paul says members, Lewis says what he meant was what we should call organs, things essentially different from and complementary to one another. And so, yeah, he doesn't just mean, or I guess what he wants us to see there is that things are supposed to be different in the body of Christ. No, absolutely, absolutely, that people are supposed to be different in the same way that my liver is different from my heart, but I can't live without either one. Yeah, it's, they have separate functions. And in some ways, one is more, you might even say more valuable than the other, or that there's even a hierarchy among them. And yet you need both of them. Yeah. And they complement one another. Yeah. Well, and I think that's totally right. And I have you ever played the game like the would you rather lose a foot or a hand conversation? I haven't played that specific game. Well, when we get it's not really a game. I just want to see a magic trick. It's not that kind of game. But it's more like, more like, you're sitting around it and it's just kind of a way of, I guess, talking about what faculty, whether it be a sensor or a part of your body thing, you would rather keep or lose. And so, like, different but equal is different. It's distinct from different but unequal. And I, here's the thing that I would say that I think Lewis is probably making an argument for different and unequal. Okay. If that makes sense, like I would say, because again, we're talking about members, members of a body. I can lose my hand, I can lose my foot. The effects on me are going to be very different. The way that I cope with that are going to be very different. My hand does a different task than my foot. For sure. But I'm going to be severely handicapped by the loss of either one. Or if I, again, lost a lung or say, let's say, both lungs, I lost the capacity to breathe and I just die right away. There's no way that I can go through therapy and just learn a new way of life without it. So different but not equal is saying, there's a value, there's a value statement attached to these different members, these different organs as you were describing as well. I think the thing he says about values is interesting too. But I want to wrap up this little part about the family and members and what he means by members. But then we need to talk about what he says about value because that's the stickier part for me. But here's what he's saying about, here's his picture of the church. He writes, "How true membership in a body differs from inclusion in a collective may be seen in the structure of a family. The grandfather, the parents, the grown-up son, the child, the dog and the cat are true members, precisely because they are not members or units of a homogenous class. They are not interchangeable. So each person is almost a species in himself. The mother is not simply a different person from the daughter. She is a different kind of person." And he goes on to say that the father and the grandfather are almost as different as the cat and the dog. If you subtract any one member, you have not simply reduced the family in number. You have inflicted an injury on its structure. It's a unity or it's unity is a unity of unlikes. And so that's what the church is supposed to be. He's pointing out is that the church is a unity of people who aren't the same. They aren't equal. They're all doing different things and meant to do different things. And for that reason, should not be seen as the same. Yeah. Yeah. Which I think again, like you said, does this help? Yeah, it absolutely does because no one would argue. You know, again, okay, so again, we're talking about how power is typically looked at as a negative thing in culture. And we would have things like critical theory that would say that the less power that you have or the more victimized you are, the more marginalized you are, the more they wouldn't use the word righteousness, but almost it's like it almost in parts righteousness, right? And then the opposite of that, the more power you have, the more privilege you have, then the more suspect you are and maybe the more unrighteous you are in its own sense. But this is saying nobody, even with that worldview, nobody would say that the person with power and the person without it, whether it be different kinds of races or different economic classes or different levels of education, you know, Lewis talks about education as a form of power and whatever. No one would say that those two different people are the same. Like I feel like this is a self-evident argument. Yeah, it should be. And this is what makes it so strong. What he said, yeah, it should be. That's right. That's right. And that's what makes his argument so strong. Yeah. And yet, I guess I see his point, like I see it's something worth, worth saying because we think it's self-evident, but you see it a lot of places that people, you see it right now with people talking about medical science, that they think that their opinions on medical science are just as valuable as medical scientists, right? You go, yeah, yes. You go, well, everyone's equal. And this is, I think a point he makes more clearly in the equality essay is that actually maybe it was screw tape, proposes a toast that it's fine to say that everyone, when it comes to democracy or political equality, everyone is equal. And he agrees that that should be the case in politics. But it's a problem when we take everyone is equal in that sense and then say everyone is of equal value in every way. Yeah, your opinion, your opinion is as valid as mine. Your contribution is as valuable as the next person. Like I heard Donald Miller, I don't know if you remember Donald Miller, he's into, he's kind of like a, I don't know if you'd call him a theologian, he's a writer, but he lately has gotten into marketing and sales, just kind of a shift. And he, I heard him talking recently and he said, you know, everybody's got a floating value above their head, a floating number. And that number is how much you're worth per hour to a company. And he says, it's not, you know, it's not that God loves you according to the number that's above your head, or that you, you deserve to be treated better if you have a higher number above your head. Those are the mistakes that we make when we think about inequality. But he says instead though, this is talking about how much you, how much revenue or value you bring to a company or an organization. And that's just, I would say self evident, again, self evidently true. It's only in communism that we would say that everybody's contribution, no matter how small or how big or how skilled or how unskilled is equal. I am not valuable to a journeyman electrician. Yeah, exactly. I would, I would get in the way. I would, I would make him lose money or her. They would lose money by hiring me. Whereas if they hire my friend Brent, who's, you know, he's a apprentice and he's done all this, whatever, he can rewire a house on his own. And Brent is bringing, I have no idea when electrician gets paid, but he's bringing full professional skill to the table. So he deserves a full professional wage. And I, so again, I think there we see it work out clearly. It's just that when we talk about the value of people, we're just so sensitive, maybe because of how badly that's been abused in the past. Yeah, probably it makes sense how we got here, but that doesn't mean that the pendulum needs to keep swinging in the opposite direction. That's right. Probably Lewis's point. That's right. You know, Sean, what do you have more thoughts on the line that Lewis writes about the infinite value of each human soul, not being a Christian doctrine. Oh yeah, I was so challenged by that. Yeah, I have two thoughts that I'm going to just share real quick because you know, we've already discussed quite a bit from this essay, but what I really love that he does here, I'm going to get to what I don't love in a sec, but what I do love that Lewis does here is that he re-roots it in the character of God. And that I think is really important that human beings' values derive by God, and that might be something you want to comment on in a minute. But what I would say, where I would object to him, just a little bit, and even going back to the number floating above the head analogy that I quoted there, is that I have heard it taught that John 3/16 where it talks about the value, essentially, that God put on humanity, for God so loved the world, so His love for humanity compels him to give us only begotten Son, so that whosoever believes in Him would not perish but have eternal life, that to me is a, again, rooted in God, but it is talking about the value that God gives to humanity as a whole, that it was worth it. Maybe it's worth, maybe can we make a distinction between those two things, that it was worth it to God to redeem and reconcile humanity, because He was willing to pay the blood of His Son to do it. However, if I can just argue against myself, then I want to hear your thoughts about what I just said, those two things. However, I think that we make an error when we say, "Wow, Jordan, God was willing to pay God's own blood for you, so you are inherently worth God's blood," is different than saying, "Wow, you are so valuable in the eyes of God that even though you weren't worth it, His love is so big that He spent Himself on you." And I think the latter is more true to the Bible, to the biblical message of saying, "Jesus loves you, even though you've made yourself unlovable." Yeah, I think that is exactly the point that Lewis wants to make. He says in there that God did not die for man because of some value He perceived in Him. The value of each human soul considered simply in itself out of relation to God that is like not in relationship with God is zero. Yeah, that's a tough pill to swallow. But it is, I mean, He then quotes Paul saying that it's kind of a paraphrase of Paul from Romans, I think chapter 5, "To have died for valuable men would have been not divine but merely heroic, but God died for sinners. He loved us not because we were lovable, but because He is love." And like, yeah, I don't think Lewis is wanting to say anything other than what Paul says in a couple of places, like in, I think it's 2 Corinthians 11 where he talks about boasting in Christ alone. Definitely Philippians 3 that basically any gain I had is I now consider loss because of Christ. Yeah. Like those ideas that I have nothing without Christ and I guess just philosophically it would not make sense for human beings to have infinite value because only God is infinite. Right. Interesting. Right. So to say we have infinite value means that our value has no end or beginning, but our value had a beginning in God. In the fact that God created us is what I'm saying. But because of original sin, we are, we've fallen short of the glory of God for which we were intended. Right. Does that make sense? Yes. And so because of sin, we've fallen short of the value God intended us to have. And yet that value is always a gift. It's not inherent. It's not our own. It's something that was given to us. So I think you were exactly correct in the word you used, which is derived. Our value is derived from Christ. And so we have value as we are in Christ. Yeah. And so, and yeah, and like what you said, we are worth the blood of his son, but that's a value that's given to us, not inherent to us. We don't have it automatically. So let me dig into that then just a little bit, Jordan. Because I think yes, I say yes to all those things, but I want to bring it out of the realm of kind of the esoteric and the philosophical and into the maybe practical applied theological realm. Two things come up in my mind. One is that then, you know, you were talking about the infinite or value, you know, versus versus the derivative value that we received from the Lord. And so I would say then, you know, where does the image of God fit into this? You know, as we are created in the image of God, is there is there value imparted in that it's still derivative, I think. Yeah. But as creatures, do we receive that from him? And then secondly, I would kind of tack on to that then. You know, if outside of Christ, we don't receive that same derivative value. Does that have implications to be twisted by unscrupulous people to say, well, I'm in Christ, but my neighbor Joe is outside of Christ. So Joe's broken value means that he can be treated in this unfortunate way. Which again, it's something I know you're not saying, but I think that that's probably practically and pragmatically why we talk about the individual value of a human soul is to guard against the idea that the things that distinguish us as people will give us the right to abuse one another. Yeah, there is definitely that danger there. And it, I mean, it's, I think it's good. You bring it up because I don't want to just leave that hanging out there without shutting that door. I guess what we would say to those people that go, well, I'm in Christ and therefore I'm living out my value, which actually I would, I would say being in Christ means you're, you're being renewed in you know, you're moving from glory to glory. You're being sanctified. You're, um, you're becoming who you were meant to be. And as you become who you were meant to be, which is like Jesus, you are, you are stepping further and further into the value and you're receiving the value from him. So even you are a work in progress. But then just to say, definitely you can't look at anyone else who's outside of Christ and go, well, they're so far from the value they were meant to have. Therefore, they don't have value. And I should treat them, um, like lesser members of society or lesser members of God's creation. Absolutely not. Like that's missing the whole point of scripture. That would be, I mean, I think that's close to maybe something like what the Israelites did. And then God exiled for. Right. Is that they thought, Oh, God has chosen us as his people forgetting that they were supposed to show the world what it was like to walk out the fullness of the calling of God, um, as they became image bearers and invite other people into that. And the said they went, well, right. This makes me better than them. And so I'm going to look down on them for not being where I am. And God was like, I think you forgot that this whole thing was a gift. So we all have value. All humans have value. But that value is found in God. And that because that value comes from God because he created you and he gives you value. And if you believe that humans have infinite or inherent value apart from God, you miss where your value is found and where it comes from. And it also forgets the Christian doctrine of sin that your value has been affected by sin. Maybe you could say decreased or marred or held back or broken, but that still doesn't mean that as Christians, we treat those who are not in Christ as though their value is totally gone. It's broken and it's it's whatever decreased. It's less than because the Christian doctrine of redemption is there that Christ wants to redeem all humans from sin. And he wants to give them back their value. Or maybe it's better to say to restore their value. And as Christians, we are supposed to join Christ in that mission of redeeming people from sin so that their value, which was given to them by God in their creation, would be restored to them. Right. Yeah. So does that have I said it strong enough? I know. Yeah. No. And the thing is is that it is strong. It's obviously so strong in scripture. And I don't think anybody even listening to our conversation would walk away thinking, wow, those guys, they obviously hate a whole bunch of, you know, society. But you know, it's it's a subtle thing that I have seen in evangelical churches, especially toward Muslims or leftists. Yeah. Right. So yeah. probably, you know, probably an attitude that was forged during the Cold War and then at the fall of the Soviet Union, then just got transferred, you know, in the age of radical Islam to Muslims. And so that's the only reason I say that is because there needs to be an ability to affirm the inherent even if derived value of all people as people, except I think I think we should hear Lewis because it sounds like he's on point where he says, yes, everybody's valuable, but not everybody's equal and that value even maybe isn't equal, especially when we look at different kinds of value, like value of what you contribute and what you, etc. We've talked through all that, how you relate to the world. And there is no such thing as a person that is so bereft of derived value from God that they can be treated as subhuman or sub creatures. Yeah, totally. It's God is always there wanting to give value to humans and and affirm just how much he loves them. And so our job, if we are truly receiving this love from God, then our job as we walk out, that calling of the image of God, is to go find those people who don't know about that yet and bring them into it and welcome them into God's love. Amen. Okay, so our current culture has been called the age of authenticity. And that's because it seems that our whole culture just chases, it's like our ultimate value in the world right now is to be your authentic self. And the ultimate way of living is just express who you are, find who you are, you have every right to express and find out your authentic self. And who am I to stop you from doing that? Whatever you decide your authentic self is, you have every right to chase that, find it, pursue it, and then express it. And no one should be able to stop you from doing that. I think that's a lot of what Lewis has in mind when he talks about individualism. And saying that the church is not a group of individualists trying to find their true authentic self. That's not why the church exists. I guess Lewis's point then is that you can talk about the unique value of people and individuals. And there's, you know, he says there's some degree of biblical truth to that statement, right? However, his point is that you will never find your true value or your true self apart from Christ. Right. Yeah. So he's saying you can't have value apart from Christ. But then, and this is maybe more the Anglican side of him. It's definitely part of Anglican theology. And I'm curious what you think being Anglican friendly yourself, but maybe not an Anglican. You can't have value apart from Christ. But then the Anglican part is you can't have, you can't be in Christ if you're not in the body of Christ. Uh huh. And I think maybe that's that's the whole summary of this membership thing. That's why it's called membership is he's encouraging membership in the body of Christ. Um, specifically for people who are out there looking for their true purpose, their true calling or their true authentic self, they're, he calls it their personality. Right. I'm going to read the last little bit of the essay and then I want to know what you think about that. He says that our true personality will only come to us when we occupy those places in the structure of the eternal cosmos for which we were designed or invented. So God's created you for purpose. You only find your true personality and individual authentic self when you put yourself in the place that God designed you to be. And then he says this and it's really beautiful. As a color first reveals its true quality when placed by an excellent artist in its pre-elected spot between certain others. As a spice reveals its true flavor when inserted just where and when a good cook wishes among the other ingredients. And then my favorite line, as the dog becomes really doggy only when he has taken his place in the household of man. So we shall then first be true persons when we have suffered ourselves to be fitted into our places. And by that he means in the body of Christ the church. Well, I just want to know what it means to become really doggy. And what a dog that's not very doggy is like. I've met some. They're usually smaller. Yeah, cat dogs. Yeah. Well, and that's just that's so good. The analogy that came to mind as if anything needs to be added to that. Like I think his his his little parables there are so vivid of painting and of culinary art and that kind of thing. But it's the same thing for any musical instrument as well. It's the same thing for a well-planted garden. You know, companion planting the whole discipline of permaculture. The whole idea of food forestry. These things that you know, whether or not listeners are familiar with that or you are a kind of immaterial. But the point just simply being is that this principle of being rightly ordered within a body is yes, it's ecclesial. It's about the body of Christ, but it's actually about so much more than that. It's all over the place. You know, a right or wrongly ordered laptop will not function. A guitar string trying to find its identity that refuses to be pulled taught on a guitar is never going to play the right note. Yeah, just will not work. And then how much better than when when rather than struck as struck individually are as strummed as a chord. Yeah. I feel like he's just so utterly right here and that it is it is the antidote. As he says and as he intends it to be against that individualism that can kind of afflict, I think, you know, the prepper or the the libertarian or the person who says, you know, it's it's me against the world. And even to cycle back maybe into a larger segment of society that you mentioned at the top of this this part of the conversation, the person who is just looking to be their authentic self. Yeah. That's something that actually pleases God. But the way that the authentic self is defined is as you said in the body. It is in the role that's created for you, which feels a little deterministic. But I know that if if it were left up to me to create who I was at any time in my life, I would have been 15 different wrong people by this point. Yes. That is so true of myself anyway. And I know that you know, you've known me long enough to know that that's that's true of myself. That's a trueism. So yeah, I think I think you're absolutely right. And I don't even think that that's you know, you said this is an Anglican thing. There was an early church father who said unless you're willing to have the church as your mother, you cannot have God as your father. Yeah. Which is a tough pill for us to swallow when we're comfortable with just streaming services and in calling that participating in the body of Christ. Yeah, we'll see. But I think one of the one of the main motivations that we had in choosing this particular essay to be one of the batch of the first ones that we read and discuss is about how we started where we said, you know, COVID has made it so that membership in the body has become somewhat trivialized recently. And some estimates saying as high as 40% of Christians walking away from any formal membership in a church and regular attendance of a church over the last two years. So I guess Jordan, you know, again, you were the one who initiated this with me. Why? Why should I go to church? After I read membership, I hear the voice of Lewis and I'm living in, you know, post COVID world. Well, he would answer that question in two ways. And of course, the whole essay he's going, the church isn't a collective, but individualism isn't the right answer either. It's neither of those things. Christians shouldn't be thinking completely individualist or completely as a collectivist. And so he would answer that question to say that the church is something greater than either of those two things. It shares some similarities to either of those things which is why people get confused and think it should be one or the other. But ultimately so yeah why should we go to church? One because if you're not going to church you're losing out. It's kind of the thing where we're at in our culture right now where everyone wants to find their authentic self or express their authentic self or be their own person. And Lewis says look if God made you he made you to be a part of a body. That's your purpose and role in function. Yeah. So you're not going to find your true authentic self if you're not a part of the body. Right. Right. The other thing is if you're not going to church the body is dying because of it. The body is injured. I think he's how he puts it. Because he says that the church is actually more like a family. And so every person there, a grandpa adult son, a child son, daughter and dog cat. They're not just the same thing in a collective group. They're not all like you know just just they're not like soldiers in a unit. You know every soldier is the exact same in the unit. No family members they have the roles that they play. Yeah. And if you take one of those members out one of those family members, you can't just replace it with another like if you take one soldier out of a unit, you can just replace them with another soldier. It's fine. If you take one of the family members out, you can't just replace it with another person. Yeah. And so you're inflicting injury. Hold on, let me read the quote. He says if you subtract any one member, you have not simply reduced the family in number, you have inflicted an injury on its structure. Yeah. Yeah. Like losing a finger. Yeah, exactly. It comes back to 1 Corinthians 12 where the church is a body. All parts, all parts are valuable in their own way. Yeah. Yeah. And so if you, if you aren't going to church, if you're not a member of a church, you're withholding yourself from the body. And the body is suffering because you're not there and you're not playing your role or your function. So if you are really motivated as an individualist, and you're like, well, I'm going to do church on my own or I can pray on my own or I can have my relationship with Jesus on my own. Lewis is saying like, well, not really. No, because Jesus created you to be in relationship with him as a body. And you're not going to go find yourself or find your authentic self or your personality outside of the role he created for you. If he, if God created you, he created you with a purpose. And that purpose is not separable from the body of Christ. Well, and I think just before we transition to, I have kind of one final question for you. Again, to take it back to scripture that that Lewis refers to when he's talking about the body and every person, every member of it being more like an organ, et cetera. He talks about how we don't only different structure and function, but also in dignity. Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 12, verses 21 to 24, he talks about the dignity of those people as well. And he says, it's actually the most undignified parts of the body that we show the most honor to by clothing. And so I think he, you know, a lot of the conversation that later comes, we didn't even get to my favorite quote in this whole thing, which is about the Nazi and the nudist make the same the same mistake. And I'm not going to explain that. I'm just going to put that out there and say that if you want to know more, you need to read this. Yeah. The Nazi and the nudist make the same mistake. But, but he, he talks about this clothing and you know, this, this kind of political state facade of equality. And it all goes through there. And he recognizes that we afford honor to people actually because if we looked at them with eyes outside of Christ, they would probably be dishonorable people. Right. That there is, you know, and which goes to what you were saying, where where there's some weaker members into the stronger ones serve the weaker. That's the whole point, rather than the other way around in some kind of tyrannical anti-kingdom. Before you head to the rapist's up part, let me just agree with what you're saying there. I think 1 Corinthians 12 is behind this whole essay. I didn't think it until one second ago. Actually, while we were talking about it, and then I just kind of clicked to me. Yeah. I agree with you. Because he says in there, he says something like, are, is this what you just said, are unpercentible parts we treat with honor? Yeah. Right. So even so let's say that Lewis is right and different people have different levels of dignity. It's the low, it's the upside down kingdom. It's the first will be last and the last will be first. And so that's why Lewis in this essay then says that we are taller when we bow. Yes. And we are more lowly when we teach. Right. And so he says there's some parts as an Anglican. There's some parts of our church services where the priest alone stands and the rest of us kneel. But is that because he's of more value or dignity? Because who's of more who's the highest in the kingdom? And who's the lowest? Yeah. Yeah. I loved all of that. And again, I would say I would highly recommend that listeners would check out membership for themselves because it's just so good. There's two ways that I did it this week. I just went on to YouTube and most of CS Lewis's essays are available in audio format. Of course, there's lots of audio books. You can buy two collections of essays, but most of them are free on YouTube. It's about 26 minutes long of a listen, well worth it though. And then I, most of them are also free online. So if you don't have a collection of Lewis's essays, you can you can check that out online just by a simple search engine search and you'll be able to find it in PDF form is what I did. And I would I recommend it because I literally went to church this Sunday and had a better experience of church when I walked in the room and saw that family thing that you were just talking about as opposed to the soldier structure that was kind of in my mind. It was better. It was better. And so I would I am I'm someone who has trivialized going to church lots in the past. I've complained about going to church and and I've also gone to lots of different kinds of churches and and I would say that this is this is great. If you are not if you are not going to a church right now or you know what not even that I would say this belong to a church is more important. Yeah, you should belong to a church and go that part of part of belonging is going if you're able. Yeah, I mean it's definitely the first step showing up. Yeah, 100%. It's the first step and it's a it's necessary continuing step because yeah, I think if you tied a string around my toe for long enough and it was cut off from the life blood of the rest of the of the rest of the body, it would actually die. Mm-hmm. Yeah, which is which is what he says immediately. He says we've believed that like you can do your religion on your own. Like society tells you actually keep your religion private. Yeah. And then and then society never lets you be alone. Oh, I know there was so much good there. I think that's so relevant for our social media age now. Yeah, absolutely. For our streaming age like he didn't even see for see phones in pockets. He was just talking about the radio, you know, the wireless and how intrusive that is. Yeah. So I think his head would be spinning if he saw what we're doing right now. And so if you're alone right now, turn us off. Go have some solitude, some true solitude or go and be with your church and enjoy true membership while you check out CS Lewis's thoughts. Thanks Jordan. It was awesome. Looking forward to the next one. We hope you enjoyed our discussion on this text. If you want to join us in making these works of CS Lewis more well-known, please subscribe to the show wherever you listen to your podcasts. And don't forget to leave us a comment and a rating to help get the word out to other listeners. If you have your own thoughts or questions from this episode, we'd love to hear from you. Please send us a message at lesser known Lewis at gmail.com and we'll get back to you. Membership is such a good essay to just provoke thought. Like I think because you actually have to wrestle it out. There's so much. It's deep. This was a great one to start with. Once we started doing it, I was like, this is way harder than I thought it was. I thought this was just an easy one. It's like, yeah, go to church, obviously.