Page 10 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 17
P. 10
it goes: plans with friends are cancelled; up or harmonising the things inside each
a restless child is awake in the night (and individual. Thirdly, with the general pur-
therefore so are you!); a new dinner reci- pose of human life as a whole: what man
pe didn’t work out. Two problems arise for was made for: what course the whole fleet
the average modern Westerner. First, our ought to be on: what tune the conductor
desire for pleasure is thwarted, and the ori- of the band wants it to play” (Lewis, 2015,
entation of our entitled heart is exposed. p. 72). I suggest the modern American the-
Second, we are sad to lose a genuine good, rapeutic and entitlement culture, over in-
and we do suffer a real loss. vests in the second concern—harmonizing
the self. Lewis continues, that to think well
Approaching the Problem of Loss about morality, we must address all three
These two problems of living drive dis- relations; relations within man (internal),
content. To address them we must first between man (relational), and the power
address our standing in the world. Charles that made him (redemptive history). Given
Taylor and C.S. Lewis each provide fertile that Christians believe humans are embo-
inquiry into the human condition that as- died, and operate within relationships and
sists us as we consider our two problems, the structure of wider creation, both Lewis
and subsequently how to support clients. and Taylor’s contentions are formative for
Taylor (1991) has critiqued the current po- the Christian. In combination they provide
pular belief that an authentic self, rests on significant guidance on living well within
self-fulfillment. In short, he disagrees that daily repetitive cycles of good and loss. One
persons define their own purpose, identity, way to think about a Christian orientation
preferences, and joy, and should pursue this to life is to acknowledge and live accor-
self-construal to find happiness. Instead, ding to the meaning and morality structu-
Taylor argues for a different understanding res of: Horizon 1—the embodied self (with
of people, suggesting we can only discover emotions, perceptions, and interpretive
the authentic self, purpose and identity, in ability that allows a dialogue of sorts with
relationship with others as we dialogue, the self), Horizon 2—community (immedi-
oppose, limit, experience, or find proximity ate and broader systems of relationships
to something or someone else. He argues and influence), and Horizon 3—the Bibli-
that objective sources of meaning and mo- cal World (with its grand design, purpose,
rality ultimately exist independent of one’s and redemptive historical arc). Each Hori-
own will or personal satisfaction, and can- zon stakes some claim in organizing what
not be escaped. Taylor calls the sources of it means for any one person to live well
meaning and morality ‘Horizons of Signi- within redemptive history.
ficance’. We might call some of these sour-
ces ‘communities of significance’, because Scripture and Horizons of Significance
the influence of family, friends, and politics The life of the Corinthian Christians in scrip-
cannot be ignored. In this manner, the Re- ture provides an opportunity to observe
demptive Historical narrative believed by the three Horizons in the apostle Paul’s
Christians classifies as an important Hori- thinking. In 1 Corinthians Paul addresses a
zon of Significance. litany of practices associated with worldly
living as these young Christians have prio-
Turning to work of C.S. Lewis, we find his ritized Horizon 1 and 2. Brendsel (2019)
consideration of the question of morality. comments that it was the Corinthians “eve-
Lewis suggested that living well is concer- ryday, culturally conditioned walk that cla-
ned with three things. “Firstly, with fair rifies, crystalizes, and, we can add, cultiva-
play and harmony between individuals. Se- tes their fleshliness, their foolishness, their
condly, with what might be called tidying thrall to the wisdom of the world” (p. 14).
13
