Near Emmaus


7 Comments

Alister McGrath’s forthcoming biography of C.S. Lewis

Alister McGrath has written a biography of C.S. Lewis. I want to read it. I imagine many of you do too.

Alister_McGrath-picture-II-e1352314390683Well, you can begin with a lengthy excerpt provided at the Englewood Review of Books. If you’d prefer to watch McGrath tell you about the book then you can watch the video I imbedded below instead. Finally, if you live in Texas near Houston then you may want to mark this date on your calendar: March 23rd, 2013. McGrath will be giving a lecture at the Lanier Theological Library (LTL) titled, “C.S. Lewis and the Post Modern Generation: His Message Fifty Years Later.” I have a family event scheduled that weekend, so it is unlikely that I will be able to attend. Thankfully, the LTL has uploaded past lectures onto Vimeo. This is good news for all those who do not live near Houston.

 

 

About these ads


11 Comments

Interpreting Similarities between Christian Doctrine and Pagan Mythology

justin_martyr_iconThis week I have been reading Justin Martyr’s First Apology. At one juncture he defends the legality of Christian doctrine by appealing to similar ideas espoused by pagans. He writes (XX-XXII):

“And the Sibyland Hystaspes said that there should be the dissolution by God of things corruptible. And the philosophers called Stoics teach that even God Himself shall be resolved into fire, and they say that the world is to be formed anew by this revolution; but we understand that God, the Creator of all things, is superior to the things that are to be changed. If, therefore, on some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honor, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching, and if we alone afford proof of what we assert, why are we unjustly hated more than all others? For while we say that all things have been produced and arranged into a world by God, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of Plato; and while we say that there will be a burning up of all, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of the Stoics: and while we affirm that the souls of the wicked, being endowed with sensation even after death, are punished, and that those of the good being delivered from punishment spend a blessed existence, we shall seem to say the same things as the poets and philosophers; and while we maintain that men ought not to worship the works of their hands, we say the very things which have been said by the comic poet Menander, and other similar writers, for they have declared that the workman is greater than the work.

“And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Æsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honorable thing to imitate the gods. But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions. But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things. And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire.

“Moreover, the Son of God called Jesus, even if only a man by ordinary generation, yet, on account of His wisdom, is worthy to be called the Son of God; for all writers call God the Father of men and gods. And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated. For their sufferings at death are recorded to have been not all alike, but diverse; so that not even by the peculiarity of His sufferings does He seem to be inferior to them; but, on the contrary, as we promised in the preceding part of this discourse, we will now prove Him superior— or rather have already proved Him to be so—for the superior is revealed by His actions. And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.”

In our modern world apologist are quick to argue in the opposite direction, emphasizing the uniqueness of Christian doctrine over against pagan mythology. Some Christians seek to return to a purer, Jewish form of Christianity (as if Judaism was not influenced by Hellenism and Roman culture, or the early Israelites by the mythologies of Egypt, Canaan, Assyria, Babylon, or Persia), denouncing Christmas and Easter because of its “pagan roots”. I have family who participate in a Pentecostal sect that deny the doctrine of the Trinity for the same reasons.

Once the similarities between Christianity and pagan mythology, or Greek philosophy, or other world views was used to build a bridge. Some interpreted it as evidence that God had been working in the world. In Israel he worked through Moses, the Law, the prophets. In Greece he worked through Plato, Socrates, Aristotle. Today most Christians aim to connect their culture to the message of the Gospel at some point, while denouncing how past generations did the same thing.

6a00d834890c3553ef016760ccb1c4970b-320wiC.S. Lewis had an interesting interpretation of the similarities between Christian doctrine and pagan mythology. In his book The Weight of Glory (83-84) he wrote:

“What light is really thrown on the truth of falsehood of Christian Theology by the occurrence of similar ideas in Pagan religion? . . . Supposing, for purposes of argument, that Christianity is true; then it could avoid all coincidence with other religions only on the supposition that all other religions are one hundred percent erroneous . . . The truth is that the resemblances tell nothing either for or against the truth of Christian Theology. If you start from the assumption that the Theology is false, the resemblances are quite consistent with that assumption. One would expect creatures of the same sort, faced with the same universe, to make the same false guess more than once. But if you start with the assumption that the Theology is true, the resemblances fit in equally well. Theology, while saying that a special illumination has been vouchsafed to Christians and (earlier) to Jews, also says that there is some divine illumination vouchsafed to all men . . . We should, therefore, expect to find in the imagination of great Pagan teachers and myth makers some glimpse of that theme which we believe to be the very plot of the whole cosmic story — the theme of the incarnation, death, and re-birth. And the difference between the Pagan Christs (Balder, Osiris, etc.) and the Christ Himself is much what we should expect to find. The Pagan stories are all about someone dying and rising, either every year, or else nobody knows where and nobody knows when. The Christian story is about a historical personage, whose execution can be dated pretty accurately, under a named Roman magistrate, and with whom the society that He founded is in a continuous relation down to the present day. It is not the difference between falsehood and truth. It is the difference between a real event on the one hand and dim dreams or premonitions of that same event on the other.”

Alongside Justin Martyr and C.S. Lewis (and even the Apostle Paul as presented in Acts 17) the similarities between Christianity and pagan ideas doesn’t bother me all that much. Similarities do not prove or disprove the truthfulness of a claim. Other deities being born of virgins or resurrecting does not prove or disprove Christianity. I’m quite comfortable with the idea that the mythologies of our world include truth, truth that can be used by the Spirit to point people to Christ.


25 Comments

C.S. Lewis on marriage governed by the State and marriage governed by the Church.

C.S. Lewis and his wife, Joy Davidman.

Yesterday I proposed that we should make a distinction between civil unions recognized by the State (for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike) and marriage, something to be offered by churches, synagogues, mosques, and other visible religious institutions in  ”A commonsense solution on same-sex marriage.” It appears that C.S. Lewis held to a similar paradigm. In a comment Ellen Cressman provided a quotation from Lewis’ Mere Christianity (p. 112 in the 2001 Harper San Francisco printing):

“Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question-how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.”

Now, let me be clear, I don’t agree with everything Lewis says in this chapter on “Christian Marriage,” especially his words immediately following on “headship” in the home. (Also, excuse his outdated reference to Muslims as “Mohommedans.”) Yet here I think he was on to something way back in 1952. Christians must be very, very careful about equating morality as governed by the Church with morality as governed by the State. We know this already, for as I mentioned yesterday we do not legislate divorce, even divorce save porneia, so we must be aware of the dangers of trying to use the State to do what even the Holy Spirit seems unable to do sometimes–hold together our marriages.

Now I know one reaction (and it was exhibited in the comments) is that if we move marriage away from the hands of the State, allowing them to provide a religious-less “civil union,” then we risk opening the floodgates to polygamy and all other sorts of “unions.” Fair enough, but at that we must ask what the State has to do with marriage/civil unions in the first place. I am not a historian of world culture, nor of marriage, but I assume that it has not always been so that the State dictated how marriage worked or determined who could or could not join together in a union. Christian marriage has existed with or without the approval and support of the State, so it was not the State that birthed Christian marriage.

We must ask what interest does the State have in governing the affairs of unions. Does the State care if you are married to one spouse but have sex with twenty? No, you cannot go to jail for adultery. Does the State prevent this form of polygamy? No, it does not. The State’s interest has to do with organization. There must be something about the particularity of small partnerships (whether or not sex is involved) that interest the governing powers.  So if Reverend, Pastor So-and-So cannot sign on behalf of the government does that mean suddenly the government will want to provide civil unions of one man and twelve women? I don’t know, but I think that complicates things for the State and moves away from the reason the State likes having its voice in our marriage rituals.

That said, do I care if nine people share assets or if their partnerships result in tax breaks? I’m not sure that I do. Again, the State’s actions are not concerned with morality or the imagery that Christian marriage attempts to present. The State is concerned with organization and control.

Now I am not saying that Christians shouldn’t vote with their religious convictions as motivation. I think our convictions should motivate us to participate in our “democracy” in ways that makes life a little better for the poor, the immigrant, the widow, and a little harder on the oppressor, the murderer, the abuser, and so forth. But as I said above, we realize that at times some things should not or cannot be legislated–maybe unions resulting in hospital visitation rights, tax bracketing, asset sharing, and child custody is not one of those things? Maybe Lewis is right that Christians must live out a very particular vision of marriage, not asking the State to control it. Maybe we should focus on our own marriages and actually doing marriage the Christian way before we spend time demanding that the perks of the State be given only to those who are “married” in the eyes of the State.


21 Comments

C.S. Lewis on anthropomorphic language.

C.S. Lewis featured in Time Magazine.

In an 1947 Time Magazine interview C.S. Lewis is quoted as saying the following about using anthropomorphic language when speaking of God (source):

“. . . When [people] try to get rid of manlike, or, as they are called, ‘anthropomorphic,’ images, they merely succeed in substituting images of some other kinds. ‘I don’t believe in a personal God,’ says one, ‘but I do believe in a great spiritual force.’ What he has not noticed is that the word ‘force’ has let in all sorts of images about winds and tides and electricity and gravitation. ‘I don’t believe in a personal God,’ says another, ‘but I do believe we are all parts of one great Being which moves and works through us all’—not noticing that he has merely exchanged the image of a fatherly and royal-looking man for the image of some widely extended gas or fluid.

“A girl I knew was brought up by ‘higher thinking’ parents to regard God as perfect ‘substance.’ In later life she realized that this had actually led her to think of Him as something like a vast tapioca pudding. (To make matters worse, she disliked tapioca.) We may feel ourselves quite safe from this degree of absurdity, but we are mistaken. If a man watches his own mind, I believe he will find that what profess to be specially advanced or philosophic conceptions of God are, in his thinking, always accompanied by vague images which, if inspected, would turn out to be even more absurd than the manlike images aroused by Christian theology. For man, after all, is the highest of the things we meet in sensuous experience.”

Lewis is correct. While anthropomorphic language may fall short of explaining a God that is far beyond us it is the best language we can find for humans are the most “god-like” figures in creation. When we attempt to venture away from anthropomorphic language toward something that sounds “deeper” and more philosophical we may find that we are speaking of a depersonalized deity that is more of an oblong glob than a god.


9 Comments

Why is C.S. Lewis a patron-saint of (conservative) evangelicals?

If Lewis were alive would he be a saint or a heretic?

A few days ago I read Mason Slater’s excellent short article in Heretic Press titled “Clive: Real Thoughts on a Real Apologist” (starts on p. 10) where he asks why (conservative?) evangelicals have made a saint of a man who did not see Scripture as inerrant, who affirmed theistic evolution, and whose “hell is locked from the inside” eschatology seems closer to Rob Bell than Al Mohler. This has been something that has baffled me for some time. I am a fan of Lewis. He was influential on my thinking when I was wrestling with the claims of Christianity and even where I find his solutions unsatisfactory (e.g. his “Lord, Liar, or Lunatic” argument ignores the possibility that Jesus was misquoted or that his words morphed to mean more than he intended) they are still better than many of the answers I heard from my elders. Lewis provides intellectually satisfying solutions to many of my doubts.

That being said, I’m not comfortable with the word “inerrant”, I don’t have a problem with theistic evolution, and while I don’t see universalism as an option I confess that I am prone toward inclusivist soteriologies. So while I am an evangelical I don’t think I am the type that is at odds with a great deal of Lewis’ more controversial beliefs.

Now there are areas of Lewis’ thought with which I sympathetically disagree like his views on war, so I’m not saying one must agree with everything Lewis affirmed to honor him, but it is the particular elements of his thought wherein he departs from conservative evangelical orthodoxy that make me wonder why Lewis is a saint while Rob Bell or Brian McLaren are heretics.

If you consider yourself to be on the conservative side of evangelicalism (e.g. you affirm inerrancy, deny evolution, and think any form of universalism or even inclusivism is heresy or at least dangerous heterodoxy), yet you think highly of Lewis, why? What is it about Lewis that you can accept even if he disagrees with doctrines you hold near and dear? Also, do you find yourself being able to accept Lewis even though you disagree with areas of his thought yet unable to fellowship with your contemporaries that disagree with you over similar issues? Or do you dislike Lewis’ overall agenda because of these things? If you consider yourself more of a progressive evangelical or something else, and a fan of Lewis, do you have conservative friends who like Lewis but not you? What reasons do they give if any?

In other words, the “big question” that I’m asking is why Lewis is beloved when he affirmed so many ideas considered very taboo in the same segments of evangelicalism that honor him?


2 Comments

Listen to C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia

Aslan invites you to listen.

I have always wanted to read through The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis but there never seems to be time. Well, I found compromise: Ancient Faith Radio has the series being read by Chrissi Hart for free! I am listening right now.

If you want to listen to Lewis’ classical series go here.


35 Comments

Why I (Personally) Read C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis

Yesterday Rodney Thomas shared a couple of blog posts critiquing C.S. Lewis (here and here). One challenged his view of warfare; the other the idea that if you are a thinking Christian you must read Lewis. I happen to agree with both of these criticisms. Anyone who has read this blog knows I hate war and I really, really do not think Christians should join the military. Likewise, I can’t stand the thought of some evangelicals who seem to think C.S. Lewis has the apologetical answer to every challenge against Christianity. No one is this awesome!

But I have great respect and admiration for C.S. Lewis and I have gained greatly from reading him. Why? Let me give five summary reasons:

(1) Simplicity: There is good reason for the sustaining readership of Mere Christianity.

I began reading C.S. Lewis because I could understand him. I know for some this equates to Lewis oversimplifying hard questions. Maybe. But we must remember Lewis’ primary audience was every day Christians.

When I was in college and I asked why God would allow pain and evil in the world, the first step was not Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga may have better answers, but we must answer questions at the level of a person’s understanding. I have seen Christians go to college only to scoff the simplicity of the answers their youth pastors gave to hard questions. What is often forgotten is that if they didn’t have simple answers there would have been no benefit.

Similarly, Lewis gives hope to those of us who are not trained in the history of philosophy. Those that are educated this way have the responsibility to move beyond Lewis. But the Christian who works in construction whose wife loses a child in the womb a year ago should not have to take a course in logic to read something that may provide hope.

(2) Historical Context: When Lewis wrote in defense of Christianity it was in a context where enlightenment intellectualism had won. The motto “God is dead” was beyond Nitzsche. It was a reality amongst the educated of this world.

It was a bold move to be an apologist in those days. I don’t spend a lot of time reading apologist, but I am thankful for some of them (e.g. Ravi Zacharias) and I think most have good motives (to show the truthfulness of the gospel in places where this is very difficult). I have read that Tolkien was not supportive of Lewis’ desire to write apologetics. Many would agree with Tolkien that he wasn’t the most qualified. I am glad he wrote.

Also, while his acceptance of Christian just war theory irks me it is easy for me to sit in 2011, in the United States, with retrospect. One thing I have learned form historical theology and philosophy classes with Marc Cortez is that we do not have to say someone was right because of their historical context, but we should seek to understand them in that context. If I were a Christian in WWII Britain with German fighter planes were dropping bombs on my country it would be hard to avoid seeking some justification for fighting Hitler.

Lewis was willing to be that voice in a dark time. Did he say and believe all the right things? No. But he is an inspiration in that he willingly put himself forward as someone who would do his best to let the gospel shine through him as tainted and unworthy as he knew himself to be (as we all are).

(3) Willingness to address certain questions: Anyone who has asked their pastor hard questions know not everyone is willing to address them. Lewis was willing. In his book A Grief Observed he went a step further by exposing himself in the very pain and suffering which he addresses from a more removed position in The Problem of Pain. Lewis came with his mind; he came with his heart.

Again, as I noted above, we don’t always need the best answer. Sometimes we just need a thoughtful answer.

(4) Imagination: I have not read the Chronicles of Narnia series. I want to do so someday. I have seen all the films.

One of the best things about Lewis, in my opinion, is imagination. He gives theological answers using the part of our mind that we often forget when doing Christian theology, yet the one part that is essential. If we cannot imagine, we cannot make sense of the Christian religion.

The Screwtape Letters impacted my thinking about the world we cannot see. Lewis reminds us that to ignore the demonic is to give way to the demonic. To obsess about the demonic is to give way to the demonic. We must find a healthy balance.

Without a theological imagination this is all childish gibberish. I am thankful for Lewis who was willing as an Oxford (and Cambridge) intellectual to let that part of his mind work for the benefit of us all. Again, we cannot do Christian theology without imagination.

(5) Democratization of Christian theology: Lewis was not a professional theologian. He was not a biblical scholar. He was a medievalist and a literary critic. He was a lay man in the Church of England. Yet more Christians read Lewis today that most of his theological contemporaries (I know this doesn’t prove much since more Christian read Joel Olsteen than they do good books).

What Lewis did was show Christian thinking is not limited to those of us with degrees. You can have a mind, be a Christian, and not have the title “doctor”. I think Lewis would have been a blogger. Yes, we have scholars in the biblioblogosphere, but for the most part it is we lay folk. Lewis would have liked blogging because it embodies the democratization of Christian theology. If anyone did this, Lewis did.

All this being said, no, you do not have to read Lewis to be a thinking Christian. No, Lewis does not answer every question. No, Lewis is not the greatest theologian of the twentieth century. But I personally have found Lewis to be a worthy dialogue partner and someone who anyone can access, great or small, theologian or lay person. You don’t have to read Lewis, but you won’t go wrong in doing so either.