Near Emmaus


Leave a comment

Barclay discusses Paul, McGrath discusses Lewis, and more

You may have seen other blogs sharing the video of John Barclay (Durham University) giving the inaugural lecture for the St. Mary’s Centre for the Social-Scientific Study of the Bible, but if you have not, let me recommend this lecture titled, “Paul and the Gift: Gift-Theory, Grace and Critical Issues in the Interpretation of Paul”:

I’ve seen a few interesting posts on Paul in the last few days that may intrigue some of you:

- Michael Bird, Phoebe the Letter Carrier?

- Michael Bird, Rom 1:18-3:20: A Summary

- James McGrath, Retelling Romans: Introduction

Also, Alister McGrath’s lecture at the Lanier Theological Library based on his new book about C.S. Lewis is available for viewing:

Finally, some miscellaneous things to bring to your attention:

- Lawrence Shiffman finished his series on “rationals for Torah commandments” with a look at the Dead Sea Scrolls and a concluding post.

- Jason M. Schlude wrote an interesting article titled “Herod the Great: Friend of Rome and Parthians?”

- The Marginalia Review of Books has posted several tributes to the late Geza Vermes.

About these ads


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.

 

 


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.


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.


3 Comments

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.


Leave a comment

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.