Category: C.S. Lewis

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 (Also, excuse his outdated reference to Muslims as “Mohommedans.”)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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters Coming to a Theater Near You!

A few months ago I heard about a theater drama performed by Max McLean in New York City that was based on C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters. As a fan of Lewis, and as one who has read this book, I really wanted to see the show. Well, it is coming westward! It will be showing in Los Angeles, San Diego, Portland, Seattle, and Colorado Springs.

Sadly, I have a scheduled engagement the night it is here in Portland, but I may try to go to the Seattle show.

If you want to learn more go to Screwtapeonstage.com.

Wednesdays with Wright: The Virgin Birth

N.T. Wright addresses the “modern” realization that virgin birth cannot happen and the deeper reasons for why so many reject the teaching:

“Let’s get rid of any idea that we now know that virgin births don’t happen because we know about modern genetic science. Actually, people two thousand years ago were not ignorant. As C. S. Lewis once tartly pointed out, the reason Joseph was worried about Mary’s pregnancy was not because he didn’t know where babies came from but because he did.

“It was fascinating, in a classic moment of misreporting a few days ago, that when the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out that Matthew doesn’t say how many Magi there were people thought he was a heretic, but when he said he really did believe in the virginal conception of Jesus nobody noticed.

“Actually, the strange story of Jesus’ being conceived without a human father is so peculiar, particularly within Judaism, and so obviously open to sneering accusations on the one hand and the charge that the Christians were simply aping the pagans on the other, that it would be very unlikely for someone to invent it so early in the Christian movement as Matthew and Luke. But there’s more to it than just that. The virginal conception speaks powerfully of new creation, something fresh happening within the old world, beyond the reach and dreams of the possibilities we currently know. And if we believe that the God we’re talking about is the creator of the world, who longs to rescue the world from its corruption and decay, then an act of real new creation, anticipating in fact the great moment of Easter itself, might just be what we should expect, however tremblingly, if and when this God decides to act to bring this new creation about. The ordinary means of procreation is one of the ways, deep down, in which we laugh in the face of death. Mary’s conception of Jesus has no need of that manoeuver. ‘In him was life, and the life was the light of all people.’ The real objection to the virginal conception is not primarily scientific. It is deeper than that. It is the notion that a new world really might be starting up within the midst of the old, leaving us with the stark choice of birth or death; leaving us, like the Magi, no longer at ease: leaving us, in other words, as Christmas people faced with the Herods of the world.”

From a sermon titled “Power to Become Children: Isaiah 52.7-10; John 1.1-18″. See the full transcript here.

Remembering the Death C.S. Lewis (Forty-Seven Years)

C.S. Lewis: 1898-1963

I almost forgot that today we remember the death of the great Clive Staples Lewis who passed away forty-seven years ago. It is fitting that I share a quote from The Great Divorce:

“But what, you ask, of earth? Earth, I think, will not be found by anyone to be in the end a very distinct place. I think earth, if chosen instead of Heaven, will turn out to have been, all along, only a region in Hell: and earth, if put second to Heaven, to have been from the beginning a part of Heaven itself.” (p. IX)

And that being said let us anticipate reuniting with the departed saints, like the great Lewis, who we will one day share “Heaven” as a place on (the redeemed) earth.

Books That Changed My Life

Over at Patheos.com several people were asked to note books that have changed their faith-lives (not including the Bible) over the last ten years (see here). For those who care I thought I’d list mine as well. Here is my list:

(1) Mere Christianity, The Problem of Pain, The Great Divorce, and The Screw Tape Letters by C.S. Lewis

I know many have been influenced by C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. In the Problem of Pain he provided me with some satisfying intellectual answers to the subject of the book though I would argue you can’t understand Lewis in this book without reading his personal memoir on suffering A Grief Observed. The Great Divorce helped me think more broadly about the doctrine of hell which has always been a difficult pill to swallow. Finally, the Screwtape Letters but a “personal” spin on demonology making it apparent that any interaction with this subject must include the fact that whatever demons do it is not computerized, it can be planned, and it must be logical. As one who has spent much time around Pentecostalism I appreciated the warning against fascination with the demonic; as one who has been studying in an academic setting for years I appreciated the warning against ignoring the demonic.

Life Together by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

If anyone can tell stories about being abused by fellow Christians it is I. For a long time I wanted to be one of those “non-religious” Christians who “followed Jesus” while being critical of the church. This seems a bit impractical in a religion with sacraments like baptism and the Eucharist that are both religious and ecclesiologically centered. In Bonhoeffer’s book I finally found myself comfortable as part of the church realizing that he was right when he said you have to love the church as she is now if you will ever see her become greater. In addition, I have come to realize that I am often as much a shame to Christianity as those I have judged. The beauty of our faith is not our success but the grace of God.

The Jesus I Never Knew by Philip Yancey

This book was recommended to me by my pastor, Jeff Garner. I read it over a Christmas Break from school. It changed the way I viewed Jesus forever. It put a face on what seemed like a ghost. I realized that the complexity of the gospel traditions is what makes the Jesus we have received so glorious.

The New Testament and the People of God, The Challenge of Jesus, The Last Word, Surprised by Hope, and After You Believe by N.T. Wright

The New Testament and the People of God was my introduction to reading N.T. Wright and it shaped my epistemology as well as my interest in how I approach New Testament studies. The Challenge of Jesus was peaked my interest in historical Jesus studies. The Last Word helped me think about the role of Scripture in the life of the church. Surprised by Hope confirmed so many things I was noticing in my own study of Scripture as regards eschatology and it cemented Romans 8 as my favorite chapter in all of Scripture. After You Believe provided me with a framework for Christian morality that I had not firmly established since leaving a very legalistic version of Christianity while in college.

Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton

This books was so witty and brilliant it made me what to convert to Roman Catholicism. I have remained a Protestant for many reasons but this book, like Bonhoeffer’s, reinforced my commitment to the historical church and her teachings. It is one of the few books I have read more than a couple of times.

On the Incarnation by Athanasius of Alexandria

This book introduced me to the beauty of the Nicene Creed as well as the Greek Fathers like Basil, the Gregories, John Chrysostom, and so forth. Often it seems that Athanasius noticed aspects of Scripture, especially Paul, that modern commentators ignore. For all the criticism the Western church has launched against theosis it is obvious to me that Athanasius and others realized the essential need to be united with God by Christ through the Holy Spirit. This book made me see how important Christ is to this aspect of our salvation and the redemption of the cosmos.

Unlocking Romans by J.R. Daniel Kirk

This book reformatted my reading of Romans. It has long been my favorite book of the Bible but there were so many pieces that seems to be disconnected. Kirk helped provide a structure by emphasizing how the doctrine of resurrection functions in the epistle. It has led me to see the importance of the Adam-Christ contrast, the role of the Holy Spirit in the new humanity, and the destiny of the entire creation.

God’s Empowering Presence by G.D. Fee

I read this entire massive exposition on all references or allusions to the Holy Spirit in the letters of Paul. It changed my life. I was raised around Pentecostalism and I knew the Spirit was important but the framework with which I was provided (Spirit =  essentially tongues) seemed a bit limited. This book expanded my Pneumatology like no other.

Personal Church Fathers?

I just noticed that I was tagged by Mark Stevens in a post on his blog where he discusses two major influences on his own thought and ministry which have been his personal church fathers. He chose Eugene Peterson and Karl Barth (see here). I would say that mine are (1) N.T. Wright; (2) Athanasius of Alexandria and (3) C.S. Lewis. I know, I chose one more person but I couldn’t choose between the Nicene defender and the great apologist.

N.T. Wright

N.T. Wright: No one has shaped my reading of the Scriptures and my understanding of subjects like Second Temple Judaism like Wright. While there are times when I disagree with his exegetical findings it is his “big picture” approach that has changed everything for me. He has helped me understand the meta-narrative of Scripture, the role of Israel, the purpose for the Messiah, and even eschatology in ways that moved me beyond many an intellectual impasse. It was while reading his works that I realized the essential place of the resurrection in Christian theology and how once that is understood it reshapes everything from our view of the Second Coming to the future of the earth to the definition of “heaven”. Even as I have spent time studying with fellow students who marvel over Luther, Calvin, and Barth much more than Wright (who some seem to imagine to be a “trendy” theologian to admire) it remains apparent to me that Wright is a theologians of lasting impact who will be considered the greatest since Barth.

Athanasius of Alexandria

Athanasius of Alexandria: While everyone from Bart D. Ehrman to Dan Brown have made an effort to depict the debates of the fourth century church as merely political (not denying that it has that aspect) it became apparent to me while reading the writings of Athanasius of Alexandria that what was of utmost importance was the interpretation of Scripture. Athanasius was a Bishop and therefore “politics” were unavoidable but it is very important to note that he defended the doctrine of the Trinity and the full deity of Christ even when this resulted in exile because of the political elite. He did not change his views with the politics. Rather, if the politics lined up with his views he supported what he believed was the truth.

Athanasius’ commitment to the doctrine of Christ and God as he read it in Scripture has impressed me. It is easy to be swayed this way or that way by the elites of the day. Athanasius was known as the one who stood “against the world”. Often it is this minority that is remembered while the compromisers of history fade into the darkness.

C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis: It was while reading books like Mere Christianity, The Problem of Pain, The Great Divorce, and The Screwtape Letters that I was able to become intellectually at rest with doctrines like the Trinity, the problem of suffering/theodicy, hell, and the supernatural. No, Lewis didn’t answer all the questions nor were all his answers irrefutable. On the contrary, I know many are refutable. What I gained from Lewis is the realization that there is always an answer over time for why the church declares what she does. Even when it seems ridiculous in one era it resurrects in the next. As an example think of the influence of Bultmann before either Barth from one approach or Wright from another. Is Barth or Wright’s responses better? Who knows?! What it does show is there is a response over time.

Lewis made me seek to defend my faith with intellectual answers while realizing I cannot answer everything. In his book on the Nicene Creed. Justo L. Gonzalez wrote something similar worth paraphrasing here (since I don’t have the book available). In gist he said that we don’t recite the Creeds necessarily because I believe or I can defend everything written therein but because it is the constitution of the church. While I personally do affirm everything written therein it is worth noting that I cannot always defend it. I can’t prove a virgin birth. I can’t explain how Christ descended into “hell”. But this church is not my church; the church is the church. I don’t say the Pledge of Allegiance or affirm the Constitution of the United States because I understand everything written therein. I do so because I am an American. It is our identity. Lewis gave me reason to hope that the doctrines of the church will always survive even if it takes a long time to breath new life into them once the current age has trampled them down.

Now I will tag the following: JohnDave Medina, Robert Jimenez, Marc Cortez, T.C. Robinson, and Rodney Thomas. Note: you do not have to choose those designated with the title “church father”, only those who have “Spiritually” fathered you in one way or another.

C.S. Lewis On Why Old Books are Better Than New Books

In his introduction to an English translation of Athanasius’ De Incarnatione (On the Incarnation) C.S. Lewis argues that it is necessary to balance one’s reading list with books old and new lest one become trapped in the world-view of day and therefore unaware of its folly. Although Lewis concedes that we should read both old and new books he writes this:

Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all of its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books….It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones. [1]

In other words, new and novel thoughts are exactly that: new and novel. Old thoughts have been mulled over, challenged, and have stood the test of time. So read new books, but make sure to read old books too!

_______________________

[1] C.S. Lewis, “Introduction”, in Athanasius, On the Incarnation, translated and reprinted by St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. pg. 4.

Rethinking the Authentic Sayings of Jesus

angryjesusOne popular argument for Jesus’ claim to be divine is the scenario presented by C.S. Lewis known as the ‘Lord, Liar, or Lunatic’ argument. For those who may be unfamiliar with Lewis’ argument it gives people three possible responses to Jesus’ claim to divinity. (1) Jesus was a crazy fanatic and therefore his claims are nothing more than a delusion. (2) Jesus was a sinister liar who wanted to gather a following for some deviant purposes other than those he presented. (3) Jesus was actually Lord of all and therefore one’s decision to accept or reject his claim has eternal consequences.

In recent months I have read material from Bart D. Ehrman and John Hick that have destroyed Lewis’ argument with one simple suggestion: maybe Jesus never said those things at all. It may be that this is just the deification of Jesus by his followers over a period of several decades after his death. First, Jesus’ presence was felt in the hearts of believers. Second, the body was missing and this evolved into the rumor that he had resurrected from the dead. Third, people like Paul of Tarsus incorporated Hellenistic elements in this Messianic sect of Judaism and over time it became Christianity.

The historical Jesus accepted by ‘The Jesus Seminar’, Marcus Borg, J.D. Crossan, and others is the Jesus underneath the Christ of Christendom. This Jesus probably said many of the wonderful, ethical things said during the ‘Sermon on the Mount’. He probably proclaimed a form of the ‘golden rule’ found in all the world’s major religions. He probably boiled Torah down to its essence–love God and others. He probably lived a very moral life. He probably talked a lot about the fatherhood of God. He probably told parables like the prodigal son and the good Samaritan. He probably forgave people and he taught his disciples to be pacifist. This is the historical Jesus of scholarship.

This is all fine and dandy but I have always wondered why the historical Jesus turned out to be the nicer Jesus of the gospels. It is usually proposed that the Gospel of Mark is the earliest gospel. Isn’t Jesus a bit creepy and secretive in that gospel? Isn’t it true that the Jesus of the gospels talks a lot more about hell and judgment than most of those topics we like to attribute to him? Isn’t Jesus a bit racist and sexist in the Gospel of John when he treats the woman at the well like someone who owes him something and who ought to know who he really is at his essence?

I guess I am wondering if we use the criteria of historical Jesus scholarship why have we not yet heard any scholars conclude that Jesus may have been Lewis’ madman or lying liar? Maybe the historical Jesus did talk about hell, and his own divinity, and maybe the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ makes him only more dogmatic and hard headed than the Pharisees. Maybe this Jesus who talked about people eating his flesh and drinking his blood said those weird things and his followers who were drawn to him smoothed it over a bit.

Why is it not possible that as the gospel went to the Jews and then to the Greeks it became important to make Jesus more acceptable. Maybe the “golden rule” was taken from common religious ethics and placed in the mouth of Jesus to make him sounder kind. Maybe?

I know it is more likely that if the historical Jesus does not look like the Jesus of the gospels he probably looked like the good Jesus that we all love and adore because how else did he change the lives of so many people? But if we are going to be objective historians we cannot rule out that he may have been an absolute wacko! He may have said many of those unacceptable saying. It could be that his small sect of disciples made him a nicer person as they tried to add members to their dying sect? Maybe they softened Jesus up a bit so he would be more palatable.

Whatever the case may be I think this is why so-called “historical” Jesus scholarship usually ends up at a dead end. We always make the Jesus we want. We have a ‘Jesus buffet’ where we pick and choose what we want to accept about the Jesus of the gospels and reject what taste like onions. But maybe, just maybe, Jesus was more the onion than the apple. I look forward to reading the historical Jesus scholar that depicts this type of Jesus.

Literary Criticism of C.S. Lewis

Gary Tandy, Ph.D., who is my new supervisor for the Writing Center at George Fox University, is a C.S. Lewis scholar. His recent contribution to the field is The Rhetoric of Certitude: C.S. Lewis’s Nonfiction Prose. A partial description of the work says,

While numerous studies on C. S. Lewis’s literary achievements have been published in the past several years, The Rhetoric of Certitude brings much-needed attention to Lewis’s nonfiction prose, identifying his unique style and explaining why his writing has remained popular while that of so many of his contemporaries has not.

Since I have had an interest in textual analysis, I will be picking up a copy. A review will follow in the coming months.

Read the full description here.

Tyler Perry: Today’s C.S. Lewis-Style Theological-Storyteller?


As I have been watching the 2004 PBS documentary The Question of God, which discusses the world-views of C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud, I was intrigued by a discussion on how Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkein, and the Inklings found a way to “smuggle” theology into the minds of their readers via storytelling. As I thought about this I wondered to myself whether or not we have any authors today who do this. I could not think of any.

This was probably because I had limited my search to those of Caucasian ancestry. As I thought further I realized that in many ways this is exactly what Tyler Perry does for African-American culture. I recently watched Madea Goes to Jail. I was surprised by how throughout the story the characters in Perry’s film not only discuss important subjects related to life, but how the gospel is presented as well, although subtly.

I have always thought that U2 does this very thing through their lyrics as well. But I wonder what has happened to the theological-storyteller. Can anyone out there add to my list? Is there someone out there who you would say has not been pigeon-holed into the “Christian” book and/or music market, who has broad appeal, and yet who proclaims the gospel of Jesus Christ through their art?