I'm reading a very interesting book right now--Perelandra, by C. S. Lewis. It's almost a retelling of the story of Eve and the Serpent, but with one significant change--it allows our perspective to become part of the story. The Green Lady (Eve) is still tempted by the Un-Man (the Serpent), but Lewis introduces a new character--a Christian named Ransom who knows what the Un-Man intends, and is allowed to try and thwart it.

Lewis uses the dialogues between Ransom, the Green Lady, and the Un-Man to bring out some valuable insights into the nature of Truth, Lies, and the relationship between God and Man. First of all, Lewis suggest that lies are never so dangerous as when they contain a large helping of truth. The Un-Man slyly suggests to the Green Lady that God intends for us to disobey His command because it is through this exertion of our own will that we become more distinct persons with unique minds who can therefore please Him better. Now we know that part of this is true--God does want us to become more mature Christians; also, it is in one sense through the exertion of our will that we can please Him. But it is through the decision to obey Him when there seems no reason, even when it appears unreasonable, that we can take this forward step into maturity--not through the easier path of exerting our will to disobey. The Un-Man skirts perilously close to the truth, but he is still lying.

Another interesting point I drew from these dialogues came from a conversation where the Un-Man suggests to the Green Lady that, because God causes Good to come from Evil, therefore the Evil is what God intended from the very beginning. To me, this has some of the flavor of Calvinism, in that Calvinists, too, sees Evil proceeding (they suppose) from God's will, and thus believe that God wills Evil. Not so. God allows us to disobey Him, but as Ransom points out, the result "is not the good He had prepared for [us] if [we] had obeyed Him [first]. That is lost forever. The first King and the first Mother of our world did the forbidden thing; and He brought good of it in the end. But what they did was not good; and what they lost we have not seen." I think Calvinism believes that there is only one Good--and that that Good entailed of necessity that we sin. That God planned from before Time all parts of history--both the perfect sinless Eden, and the sin that destroyed that perfection.

Lewis does not.

To Lewis, God's original plan for humankind was lost forever in the Fall--but God, in His mercy and grace was able to bring good, but a different good, from even Evil itself. One problem I see with this idea of Calvinism is that it has no need for the Devil--does not even account for his existence at all. And an equation that leaves out one of the factors cannot come to the correct answer, however right the rest of the calculation may be.

Lewis also demonstrates something in Perelandra that he demonstrated in the Narnia Chronicles--that Truth can seem weak, and Goodness futile; even silly. For some reason it's easier for me to cling stubbornly to the idea that Good and Right are always grand, and unmistakably so. Not at all! Ransom's arguments seem weak and pitiable in comparison with the Un-Man's--but it is Ransom (or rather, God) who will carry the day. It is truly said that God uses the weak things and the foolish things of this world to confound even the wise. In our topsy-turvy world, Wrong may seem stronger than Right, and even more grand. But that's just one more reason why we can't judge by appearances. Reading Perelandra, I'm hungry to be and do something totally foreign to my nature--to be someone who trusts God when He seems wrong, and even irrational. I have to remind myself that Reason, after all, is not God's master--it is God who is the Master of Right and Reason, and therefore, He is Right and Reason personified. I'd rather follow an unreasonable God than a reasonable devil. Sometimes we're called indeed to be fools for...and possibly with...Christ.