C.S. Lewis: His Theology and Philosophy - Lesson 31

The Great Divorce (Part 1)

Heaven and hell are dichotomous. Whether life is heaven or hell depends on your future trajectory. God is true reality, fixed and can’t be altered. In GD, true reality is God. The descriptions are not meant to be literal. Heaven is the Trinitarian life of God. It’s not a place, it’s a state of being in proper relation to the love and joy of the Trinitarian relations. Lewis describes it as a great dance. 

Michael L. Peterson
C.S. Lewis: His Theology and Philosophy
Lesson 31
Watching Now
The Great Divorce (Part 1)

The Great Divorce (part 1)

I. Lewis’s Treatment of Heaven and Hell

A. The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, by William Blake

B. Preface to Paradise Lost

II. Lewis’s Methodology

A. Presented as the report of a dream

B. Definition of heaven

C. Definition of hell

III. Dichotomies

A. Legitimate dualisms

B. Illegitimate dualisms

IV. Characters

A. Ghosts

1. Various persons drop out of the queue early

2. Tousle-Headed Poet

3. The Big Man

4. The Communist / Conscientious Objector

5. Intelligent-Looking Man in a Bowler Hat

6. The Bishop Ghost

7. The Hard-Bitten Ghost

8. The Frightened Ghost

9. The Grumbling Ghost

10. The Painter Ghost

11. Robert’s Wife Ghost

12. Woman Ghost, Pam

13. Ghost with Lizard

14. Dwarf Ghost

15. Lewis / Narrator

16. Others???

B. Driver

C. Bright People / Solid People

V. Themes

  • The purpose of the class is to directly engage Lewis’s philosophy and theology. He brings a Christian worldview to engage intellectual movements of his day. The trinity created us to bring us into the fellowship that has been going on with God forever. 

  • The mind is the organ of reason, imagination is the organ of understanding. To understand what real truth is, the imagination needs to be a part of that. We are created in the image of God and are immortal beings. Ordinary people are extraordinary. The Christian life is most deeply about being transformed resulting in participation in the divine life. It's more than just having one’s legal status changed. There should be transformation in the culture as well as personal. God is in the process of redeeming a wounded universe, including the whole of knowledge and truth in all subjects. 

  • There is a sacred quality to ordinary activities as well as symbolic religious rituals. Whatever is true in any field of study is God’s truth. The world is essentially good, but it’s been damaged. God has taken a great risk in allowing people free choice for good or evil. Evil has become present in many forms in the world and it is anti-creational and anti-human. We are not broken, but we are bent. God’s nature is relational because of the nature of the Trinity, so it makes sense that he would make a universe that is relational. We dwell in God and he dwells in us. As disciples of Christ we all share the single vocation of loving God and others.

  • Lewis wants to parlay theological doctrines into dynamic insights and track out their implications for intellectual engagement. He does is with a background of philosophical skill and theological understanding of historic orthodoxy. Instead of arguing about preferences, we need to focus on articulating the doctrines that are universal. Lewis’s ideas are expressed so they can be understood by people not formally trained in philosophy or theology but they have merit in the marketplace of ideas. 

  • The probability of morality as we know it in the human community, given that theism is true, is more probable than morality given any other worldview. Morality at the human (finite) level is anchored in morality at the infinite level. Morality has its most natural fitting worldview home in theism. In using the analogy of light shining through boards in a tool shed, Lewis says, “I believe in Christianity, not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.” 

  • In Hinduism, Brahman, the hidden inner essence of everything, is beyond human categories of good and evil. Brahman is the only reality. Everything we see is an illusion. The fundamental human problem is ignorance, not sin. Dualism is the idea that there is good and evil at war in the universe. Explaining morality in a dualistic framework is difficult. Dualism assumes good and evil are equal, so you would need a third element to adjudicate which one to choose, and that would be a higher standard. Otherwise you wouldn’t know which one to choose. Naturalism/materialism says there is no ultimate moral nature to the universe. 

  • Lewis begins by discussing our common moral experience as a triggering point to reason toward theism. Then he reasons for a deity that’s interested in morality that’s also a supreme power. With naturalism, we come from a source that is non-rational, non-moral and non-personal, so it’s difficult to understand how you get beings that are rational, moral and personal.

  • Theism is intellectually at least on par, if not superior to, other conceptions of reality like dualism, pantheism and naturalism. If there is a God that theism describes, only one deity of the living theistic religions said that this God invaded our existence. The question is that in comparison to other alternatives, what is emerging as a reasonable explanation of the reality we face?

  • Our rationality being reliable assumes that we can produce a large preponderance of true beliefs over false ones by using rational faculties like memory, abstract reasoning, perception and the testimony of others. The role of philosophy is to analyze and explain the common sense beliefs of the human race about morality and the external world. 

  • The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind. Lewis thinks that we now do not have broad social consensus of Christian truth. He challenges individuals to have a more positive affirming attitude toward intellect and academics. In his view, Christians are ambivalent about the value of the life of the mind and using the gift of our intellect to serve him.

  • Premise one: every natural desire corresponds to one real object. Premise two: There exists in us a desire that nothing in the temporal world can satisfy. Conclusion is that there must be more than time, earth and creatures that can satisfy this desire.

  • The Supreme Being, behind the universe as we know it, is a personal being, eternal and the model for how we are to understand our personhood. We can’t understand our own personhood fully, the way it’s supposed to operate, unless we understand what God is, as a personal being. We are not projecting our understanding on God but learning about ourselves by finding out about God. 

  • This is ultimately a book about a clash of worldviews. A worldview offers an explanation of the important features/phenomena of life and the world. In the West, the atheist worldview is often expressed in naturalism. Lewis argues for theism based on what is true internally of us, rather than argument from design. Discussion is not whether a particular miracle has occurred, but in principle, is it a possibility.

  • There is a supernatural power or being that is ontologically distinct from nature (transcendent). It is self-existent. Every world view must propose what is fundamentally real. For the naturalist, it is the physical world. For the theist, it’s a transcendent deity. Everything that is not God is dependent/contingent on God for its being. The theist says that the deity can bring about events that would not have happened by the regular operation of nature. 

  • What’s important to Lewis is freedom of rational thinking, free from physical causes. Naturalism undercuts the power of reason because everything is determined by physical causes. If evolutionary naturalism is true, then the probability of our cognitive faculties being reliable for truth is low.

  • If you believe in naturalism as a worldview, miracles are impossible. Since a naturalist worldview says everything is determined and thought is only adaptive, the ability to have free rational thought to logically evaluate naturalism undercuts the naturalist position.

  • Rational thought and moral consciousness are points of entry of the supernatural into the realm of the natural. It involves both. It’s not a dichotomy. Naturalists believe that the nature of human persons is limited to material processes. Substance dualists believe that mind and brain are two separate substances that are mixed for now, but at death one will cease to exist and the other will continue to exist. Emergentist sees the animal form taken to another degree of complexity by the natural realm getting increasingly complex and dualist in function as opposed to substance.

  • Scientific law is economical summary of what experience always reports: regular cause and effect. Laws are regularity based on coincidences. Causality is the basis of law. Hume says that laws are regularities based on coincidences. Hume says that you can only know regularity because that’s all the human mind is capable of. Peterson’s view is that a miracle is not changing a law of nature, it’s changing with the “ceteris paribus” clause – preventing all things from being equal and changing the nature of the item. 

  • There is nothing about nature that makes miracles impossible. The naturalist can’t see nature accurately as a creature, not just an independent fact but it can’t stand or explain itself. The cosmological principle is that only concrete beings, not general things, have causal power. Causal laws don’t make things happen, only the beings acting within the laws.

  • If God is in fact a living determinate being, and is outside the natural system, he might insert events into the natural system. The laws that we observe in the natural system may be a subset of higher laws that govern the universe. What criteria do you use to determine if a miracle has taken place? Evidence plus intrinsic probability. Whether or not an event is a miracle is also part of the discussion of the problem of evil. Why would God intervene in some circumstances but not others? 

  • In philosophy, it’s referred to as the problem of evil. Given a certain understanding of God and a certain understanding of evil, there is a tension explaining why evil exists in the world.

  • If God chooses to create a nature, this signifies a physical system which indicates a relatively independent nature independent from himself, it would make a lot of sense to say he is frequently intervening.  The same laws that make nature a stable environment in which rational soulish life can emerge, are also the same laws that make us vulnerable. Pain is God’s megaphone to arouse a deaf world. He might whisper to us in our pleasures, but he shouts to us in our pain. Question about whether God initiates the pain or he set up a system which results in pain because of the way it’s structured.

  • Lewis describes the story of the Fall as a narrative that has symbolic elements that convey significant truth. The truth in the first couple chapters of Genesis is that we were created by God, sovereign and loving creator, and that our only fulfillment as humans is to center our lives on God. Our proper role as a creature is to rely on God, so when we ignore that and rely on ourselves, our relationship with God is broken. 

  • God is his creation set forth the problem of expressing his goodness through the total drama of a world containing free agents in spite of, and even by means of, their rebellion against him. The risk is for the possibility of relationship. 

  • Aristotle would say that as a rational, moral being you build your character based on the hierarchy of good traits.  From a Christian perspective, our natural destiny should be on the same trajectory as our eternal destiny. The spiritual and theological virtues are faith, hope and love.

  • As long as God chooses a stable physical order, that physical order will run by its own laws. Any system with  have the possibility of pain. Created nature with natural laws provide a framework/structure in which souls can meet. Some pain is produced by the natural system without regard to the desires of the beings. That humans can inflict pain on other humans is a reflection of the permission by God that he permits this. The wide range of freedom makes it possible for great good or terrible evil. 

  • Lewis thinks that God needs to pierce the shield of our ego and we are embodied creatures so pain is what does it by getting our attention by highlighting how frail and in need we are. 

  • For Lewis, heaven is the unending joyous life of God, the life of the Trinity. The only way I can be fulfilled is to find its proper purpose and relation with God. Heaven is the restoration of created personhood, what it was always meant to be. When we are on the trajectory, we begin experiencing it now. Hell is the lack of fulfillment for which we were made. 

  • Discussion of the movie Shadowlands. Discussion of the nature of relationships. Pain and happiness are not necessarily mutually exclusive.                                        

  • Lewis expresses anger toward God as part of his process of grief. Orthodox Christianity denies materialism which believes that your physical body is all you are, but it doesn’t require body-soul dualism where the soul is the real person that inhabits a shell. Whatever damage death completes in the reign of sin in this world will be undone and swallowed up by the resurrection. The restoration of human personhood will come after death. 

  • Heaven and hell are dichotomous. Whether life is heaven or hell depends on your future trajectory. God is true reality, fixed and can’t be altered. In GD, true reality is God. The descriptions are not meant to be literal. Heaven is the Trinitarian life of God. It’s not a place, it’s a state of being in proper relation to the love and joy of the Trinitarian relations. Lewis describes it as a great dance. 

  • Final comments about themes in The Great Divorce.

C. S. Lewis is an extremely good theologian who does his work for the thoughtful lay person.  But his writings reflect his erudite understanding of the great classics of literature, historical theology, philosophy, and other disciplines.  Lewis says in Mere Christianity that theology is like a map.  We may get where we’re going without it, but it is much easier to use the map.  The map of Christian theology is drawn over the early centuries of the church as the believing community interprets the Bible and its experience of God.  

Of course, the ultimate goal of theology, according to Lewis, is practical:  to draw us into the life of God, or St. Gregory of Nazianzus ((329-374 AD), called it, “the Great Dance.”  I know no theme deeper or more pervasive in Lewis than our need to get the steps right, to join the dance once again.  

In “Meditations in a Tool Shed,” Lewis says that there is a distinction between looking at a beam of light and looking along the beam of light.  He is speaking of looking at reason or using reason—a passage that forms part of his great case that presence of rationality argues for the truth of theism.  We will be doing a lot of looking in this course, largely, “looking at” Lewis himself.  But let us also try to “look along” the same line of sight as Lewis, to see things—God, humanity, spiritual life, and a host of other things—as Lewis saw them.  This means attempting to step inside Lewis’s worldview and learning to interpret fundamental realities the way he did and to deploy his distinctive strategies for engaging other worldviews.  In effect, we will learn to think Christianly by learning to think along Christianly with Lewis.

In 2020, Dr. Peterson published the book, C. S. Lewis and the Christian WorldviewIt is essentially his course lectures in written book form--covering Lewis on all key worldview issues--reality, knowledge, creation, trinity, christology, as well as issues of evil, religious pluralism, and the impact of science on faith. You will also see it listed in the Recommended Reading section. 

Dr. Michael Peterson

C.S. Lewis: His Theology and Philosophy


The Great Divorce (Part 1)

Lesson Transcript


Okay, So we're back. We're back. Transition now to the great divorce. And we have one more example of a book we cannot discuss in detail. I mean, we're just serving these five great books of Louis best we can, picking out important points. And I think the rest is up to your further research or the reading of my notes, which take things into more detail. But let's pick out a kind of narrative line for the great Divorce and see how much we can accomplish in the couple hours we have left. Probably less than a couple hours, really. So in many ways, the Great Divorce as a book by Lois has some background context in William Blake's work, the great poet William Blake, The Marriage of heaven and Hell. The marriage. Marriage is opposite to divorce, so to speak. So Blake suggests that there could be a mixture of heaven and hell. Maybe not a strict dichotomy. So I think what you have in the titling of this book by Louis is saying, Oh, no, heaven and hell are dichotomous. They're either or. And we need to follow that line of thinking through and not accept the idea that they could maybe be mixed a little. Because, you know, if if it's as different as black and white and you mix black and white, you get gray. And the book starts with these people in the gray town. In the gray town. Very interesting. Which could be viewed as a kind of a mixture and a kind of an ambiguous situation, because later, I think we begin to realize as the book goes along, that whether that was the beginning of heaven or whether it was hell depends on your future trajectory. That's really an interesting point.


So I think another background of additional context of the Great Divorce is Lewis's own published work in 1942, Preface to Paradise Lost, Preface to Paradise Lost. And he notes in that work that Milton, the Mel, Tony and Satan of the great epic poem Paradise Lost, that the mill Tony and Satan rants and raves against God and God doesn't, you know, get angry and offended. What does God do? He laughs. He laughs. And some people think that that's an offensive way to picture God laughing at Satan. But I think it's really, really appropriate. The idea that God is not in a struggle with any creature. Leigh Reality, period. There's nothing that even approximates the power of God. And so for God to laugh is, in a sense, to transcend the situation. He is transcendent, you know, but to transcend and say, I don't I'm not getting down on your level. I'm not getting down on your level. I am true reality. I am true reality. And true reality is unalterable. Fixed cannot be changed by forces assaulting it. What happens, for example, with water, which is a reality. And when water meets fire, there's going to be steam. There's just no other way about it. So when some evil meets God, it will have to be destroyed. It's not like God is exerting effort or in a struggle. I mean, metaphorically, you could say there's a struggle, but it doesn't have to exert effort. And it's just what happens in reality, Will. So I think you see this in the great divorce. What is true reality? Of course it's God. And as the people on the bus go to heaven. Oh. They're pictured as being kind of insubstantial. Remember that? And even the blades of grass in heaven are picketers.


Pictured is more substantial. The blades of grass hurt their feet. They just can't be on the way. There's no there's no good choice. Or God could have designed it differently. When you're not substantial, when you're not connected to what is fully real, to true reality, it just is what it is. You're living in all reality. And when unreality meets reality, they're just consequences that are inexorable, unchangeable, really not even subject to God's will. It's about reality, the way things work. So God is reality. Those things, those people who would like to be more real have to be connected to God if they want enduring happiness, enduring joy, enduring meaning. They just have to be connected to the thing that has them enduring happiness, perfect joy and transcending meaning, the life of God, the reality of God. So for Lewis, there is indeed an irreconcilable bility between heaven and hell. They're divorced. You can't have both. You can't have a little mixture of one and the other. Those who try to do that live in a kind of an ambiguous state of affairs. Shades of gray. But it will ultimately be resolved. You can't live there forever. You've got you've got to set your trajectory. You've got to make your decision what you what your direction is. Speaking a little bit about Lewis's methodology in the book. Of course, the book is offered. It's presented as the report of a dream. If you remember that, there's no effort to be literal. So it's a dream. And they're going to be, you know, pictorial images that are not really, really meant to be literal, like grass in heaven. I mean, if they have to mow the yard as much as I do in the summertime here. You know, that would not be heaven.


I thought that was funny. Obviously, you're still tired. Not a bit. That's right. Yes. Yes. Let's hope that's how. So really, there's a kind of of equation going here. The equation would be reality. God, Joy, all those things contained in the life of God. Heaven, really. Then heaven is, even though it's pictorially presented in the book. If you think deeply about what's really going on, plus connected with other writings by Lewis. Heaven is the Trinitarian life of God. What else could it be? It's not a place with harps and clouds. You know, our streets of gold. How could it be a place primarily? It is a state in a relational universe of being in proper relation to the love and joy contained in the Koranic Trinitarian relations. Lewis says, as much as in mere Christianity in that last fourth of Christianity. So that what is heaven really, if you can take away the pictorial images? It's the life of God. Those who would like the love, joy, peace. That's enduring. There's no other way to have it but to be connected to the life of God in many places. Lewis calls this the great dance. The life of God is not a static thing. It's. It's dynamic. It's. It's like a dance, he says. And of course, we know Saint Gregory of Nazianzus. In reflecting on the pair of Koranic passages in John, 14 to 17 sees that Perry and Croesus PERRY We get words like perimeter choruses. We get words like choreograph. So to move around dynamically with some kind of balance and reciprocity. This is kind of the image that's being conjured up about the life of the Trinity, that the mutual deference and love relations of the Trinity are now available. They're opened up.


We're invited into those relations. It's the only way we can have the things for which we were made. We can't be fulfilled apart from that because we're meant to only be fulfilled by joining with that. People would seek fulfillment in false activities and fraudulent activities that seem like they will fulfill, but they won't. So this equation again of reality. God, Joy, The great dance. Heaven or like an equivalency. On the other hand, the other equivalency is hell. Not reality, but profound unreality. Life apart from God. No joy. Instead of relational reality experienced, it would be self absorption. And. And you do see the self-absorption in some of these personalities in the great divorce. Reminds me also of what Lewis does in the Screwtape Letters, where it's a kind of a study of these different personalities, the things that hold them back, the things that keep them from fully allowing themselves to be transformed through God's grace. Screwtape Letters is a lot about that. So that other that other equivalency is. Hill Unreality, separation from God, no joy, self-absorption, that kind of thing. Broken relations, that kind of thing. So the same question is heaven. Primarily a place can be asked about hell. Is it primarily to be understood as a place? It would seem to me no. Where there's fire. And those are pictorial images. How is life apart from God? Heaven is life and God. So that's why you begin to see, I think, as the great divorce develops, as the book goes along. But you realize once you start life in God, you're experiencing heaven and the great town will have been for you like purgatory, he says. At one point, the early refining process leading you more toward life in God, eventually in its totality.


But if you don't move toward God, the very same condition of of being in a in a in a in a gray state, an ambiguous state of affairs spiritually, you will have been in hell all along. So those right now who are not in Christ, in a sense, are already in hell because they have life apart from God and those in Christ now in temporal life are already experiencing heaven. That's really a clear deduction that you can make from what the book is doing. Questions, Comments so far. Just want to get a frame things. Very divorce. Whole question of heaven and hell does bring up this whole idea of oppositions dichotomies, mutually exclusive things. The question is that I would ask is, are we clear on what things are real dualism, really mutually exclusive and what things are not? And I think even popular religion sometimes makes mistakes along these lines. So I spent some time early in the notes here going through lists of what I think are legitimate dual isms that are related to the book. They play in and through the pages of the book. And illegitimate dual isms is very important to kind of go through those, talk our way through those. Here are some legitimate dual isms. Heaven and hell. Reality. I'll put it this way. You know, reality and unreality. You can see the parallelism. Hell is unreality. Heaven is reality. We talked about that a minute ago. Fact or truth and falsehood. So God is the eternal fact. Spirit. I'm skipping a few here on my on my list. Spirit and Ghost. Happiness and unhappiness. Which in my notes. And you can see it more fully how I've worked this out. The the illegitimate dualism in some ways are more interesting to me because the occasion some explanation.


These are not dual isms that Lewis trying to express his classical Christian orthodoxy in everything he does. These are not dual isms that he is teaching or that orthodoxy involves. They're illegitimate. But popular religion sometimes flirts with these or embraces these. Spirit and matter as though the realm of spirit is more important, more spiritual, the realm of matter devalued. So on. Oh, but, you know, just think what it would be like if you would move this pair spirit matter to this other side and try to make the parallelism. It just isn't right. It is incorrect. Particularly in Advent season, we ought to be huge opponents of this. It's about the incarnation. And matter is, no offense, none to God or soul body. Heaven. Earth. One of our speakers in the documentary depends on how you define things. But she does say heaven and earth are dichotomous, kind of, and she really means if you choose earth and earth bound things, temporal things, you're choosing against heaven. I understand that usage of the language. So you'll hear her say that. I think if we can get that far. But just per say, these are not intrinsically divorced. These are not dual isms. Heaven and earth. How about this one? Supernatural and natural. See, the Catholic in me was to say grace uplifts nature. They're not dichotomous. Grace penetrates. Grace goes before. Nature is not not antithetical to super nature is invited into. God's supernatural life. This was the great invitation of the creature not to just have an accounting problem solved. Like you're dead is no longer counted against you. It's much more than that is to be caught up into something higher and transformed and fulfilled and nature is invited. Or how about this? Perfect love and the natural loves.


This does get us into Lewis's book, which we're not reading of the four loves that we mentioned before, you know, and it does have an echo of Augustine ODOI Morris, the the order of the loves that the key is not that our natural loves or an athletic all too perfect love but they're we ordered and arranged and prioritized and lived out according to a framework of perfect love for whatever kind of love they are. Spousal love, brotherly love, friendship, love. But but earthly things are very important and the earthly loves that are natural and normal. And part of God's image in the human race are totally legit. Totally. No. So it'd be illegitimate to say they're somehow antithetical. Since the last one. Mutually exclusive. The last one, Perfect control. It comes to point. I think you talk about the. Oh, you love your son. And then if it's not from God, is say so. That's right. Yeah. Good. Excellent point. That's one of a couple or three examples I think you can find in great divorce that. Occasion this discussion. What it's really saying is her natural love is warped and it's warped and it's not functioning the way it should. So it's not that the net that our natural loves, which are God's creation, are per say, in conflict with perfect love. But like again, Augustine says in Latin. Adore the moiré that the natural loves had to be transformed and guided in a framework of perfect love so they don't become self-absorbed, manipulative, self-serving, actually damaging, and the relational order of the universe. So she was doing damage and she was damaged. But it's not because the natural lobes per say so in a fallen state, in a damaged world. Our natural loves don't need to be surrendered to be eliminated, but to be healed and made whole.


Another thing that. The thing that saying the only God is love. So therefore, you should let me be with my son. So it's really important to connect with the son and go, even though not in love with him in a way that reminded me of the. Yes, I think it was. Andrew said that. Too. Yeah, the best, but. That's right. So that's what she doesn't want to get into with Don. But he recognizes that. And she doesn't want the true best. She wants her idea of what's best for us. Yeah. Yeah. Or so much we could say about these kinds of things. It's just too much fun to know all that we now know about Lewis and be able to bring it to bear on this discussion. It's really how much we know now. All sort of experts in Lewis. There's quite a burden to bear out among common people, you know what I'm saying? So you know where this burden gracefully. I tried to make a list. You'll see in my notes of all of the different ghosts, all the different personalities in the book. And I came up with about, I don't know, 15 or more. And you can see that in one of the pages of the notes. Then there's the driver of the bus. They're the bright people sometimes called the solid people in heaven, because it's a pictorial language for them being truly real because they're connected to what is ultimately real, the life of God. And then those people who are not so connected, their picture is insubstantial, grass hurts their feet, you know, that kind of thing. Oh, so they read if we pick up now the the storyline. That's a little bit of background discussion, but the storyline sort of begins with a bus ride and people are waiting to get on the bus and they're sort of said to be on the outskirts of heaven and they're going to take a bus ride to heaven and check it out, see what they think.


There is a sort of traditional notion of the holiday of the damned. But Lewis, I think, has in mind that once they make the right choices, they're damned. But the whole idea of a holiday of the damned. Is, I think, playing in the background here, you know, in Narnia, too, we hear language like the foothills of Aslan's country, the foothills not the high mountains. But what we get is the encouragement in Narnia many times through the seven volumes go further in and further up into the life of God. But they're in the great town and they take the bus ride and they go to heaven. And what we see then is they're getting off the bus in heaven. They've done some quibbling before they got on the bus. They're not free of quibbling when they get off the bus. All of those conversations are well worth any discussion we'd like to have. But I'm trying to just pick up the the the basic storyline for a minute here. And as they meet different people who are present in heaven, these people are pictured as bright, shining people, solid people for whom that environment is just totally suitable, but it's not suitable for the people who come to visit, look around while they're in their present condition. They find it unpleasant and strange, and a lot of them in their own way, reflect. I'd like to go back. Let's go back to my comfort zone. So if we sort of pick up on the themes that run through the book, I'd like to show you a documentary. I think we've got time, just 2 to 3 clips from this documentary that was made by Brian Marshall. And Brian is a seminary grad a few years ago who I can't tell you how long he's been the director of the Christian Student Fellowship UK and does a superb job.


And my memory tells me this was like 0405 This documentary was made early in the year and then shown in very large audiences multiple times on UK's campus. On the University of Kentucky's campus drew large crowds in the thousands. And I think when people left, they gave them they gave them these things for free. It used to be that you could you could get a hold of one of these from the Christian Student Fellowship. I don't know if that's true now or not. You probably you probably that stuff. Yeah. They would make them up again, would they? Yeah. Yeah, I wouldn't be too. But anyway, super, super job. And I think it wouldn't hurt for us just to take a moment and look at this. It's a thematic documentary. And the first theme, I can get that going here.