Let’s Be On Our Way – John 14:25-31

“For it is not right that a worshipper of God should be injured by another worshipper of God.”

–Lactantius[1]

            Historically, it is no secret that diverse Christianities have had difficulties dwelling together peacefully. Strife among God’s people can be traced almost anywhere, anytime to anything imaginable under heaven.

C. S. Lewis famously remarked that the quickest way to a desired destination – if a wrong turn has been taken – is to get back to the right road. The individual making an about-turn first, though seemingly counter-productive, is the most progressive.[2]

Doctrinal dissension has arguably proven to be divisive and destructive throughout the history of the Church.[3] This text is a prime example of such a battleground. It is a theological lithosphere of christological, pneumatological and ultimately Trinitarian layers which shifted[4] early and shook Christianity to its core for centuries.[5] Not only is there what some see as a proto-Trinitarian formation,[6] there is also an unavoidable subordinationist Christology present.[7]

As it happened, to argue that Jesus was equal in divine majesty to God the Father required “considerable literary ingenuity”[8] to explain these texts. The result was a widened rift between the subordinationists and those in favor of the Nicene Creed. Gregory of Nyssa described, 

“If in this city you ask anyone for change, he will discuss with you whether the Son is begotten or unbegotten. If you ask about the quality of bread, you will receive the answer that, ‘the Father is greater, the Son is less.’ If you suggest that a bath is desirable, you will be told that ‘there was nothing before the Son was created.’”[9]

Having personally been involved in unavoidable, chaotic feuds merely for being open-minded theologically, I am more convinced than ever that relating to our brothers and sisters in Christ with peaceful and humane dialogue is the only way forward. One’s conviction on any given text is never grounds to degrade or deride a perceived theological opponent or, in consideration of Church history, use violence. “Loving one another,”[10] as so frequently and plainly taught within the Johannine corpus, should never be annexed for that which is speculative, and the subject of constant debate.

Regardless of one’s Christology, Jesus – as God’s executive agent and revealer[11] – has given a supreme example of perfect peace.[12]  Though conflict came to him, 

“Christ did not become what men were; he became what they were meant to be, and what they too, through accepting him, actually became.”[13]

Before actually leaving, Jesus prayed: “[that] they may be one, as we are one” (John 17:22 NRS). Believers in Jesus have the hope that he will indeed return, 

“He is the promise, but the Father is the fulfillment. What Jesus says here about his own death applies also to the death of individual Christians.”[14] 

Until that time, we have the responsibility of emulating his example to love each other, even if our theological, doctrinal or political views don’t always mesh. By grasping onto the theme of the Prince of Peace we can bring the shalom[15] of the age to come into our present, one selfless action at a time. Let’s make an about-turn and get-on. “Let us go from here.” Let’s keep conversing, but be of the same mind and in the same love through humility while we do.[16]

---

[1] A Treatise on the Anger of God, 13.99 (ANF 7.271).

[2] C. S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity,” The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York, NY.: Harper One, 1952, 2002) 33.

[3] Swartley seems to imply that some are not as prone toward provocations of this nature: “Even among Mennonites, historically considered sectarian, one finds both high christology adhered to be some and a considerably lower christology adhered to by others.” Willard M. Swartley, Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 296 (fn. 48).

[4] Hans Küng, Christianity : Essence, History, and Future (New York, NY.: Continuum Publishing Co, 1996), 170-71.

[5] See Professor of Conflict Resolution Richard Rubenstein’s excellent book, When Jesus Became God: The Epic Fight over Christ’s Divinity in the Last Days of Rome (Orlando, FL.: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1999), 7-8.

[6] George R. Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary: John, vol. 36 (Dallas, TX.: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 261; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, 2003), 2:976.

[7] C. K. Barrett, “The Father is Great Than I,” Essays on John (London, SPCK, 1982), 19-36; Karl-Josef Kuschel, Born Before All Time? : The Dispute Over Christ’s Origin, trans. John Bowden (New York, NY.: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1992), 388.

[8] Charles Freeman, A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, of the Monotheistic State (New York, NY.: Overlook Press, 2009), 60.

[9] Joseph H. Lynch, Early Christianity: A Brief History (New York, NY.: Oxford University Press, 2010), 166.

[10] John 13:34-35; 15:12, 17; 17:26; 21:15-17. Even the Johannine Epistles carry this theme: cf. 1 Joh 3:10-11, 14, 16, 18, 23; 4:7-8, 11-12, 16-21; 5:2; 2 Jo 1:5.

[11] Barrett 1982, 23.

[12] F. F. Bruce points out, “the world can only wish peace; Jesus gives it.” F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1983), 307 (Fn. 14).

[13] John A.T. Robinson, The Priority of John, ed. J. F. Coakley (Oak Park, IL.: Meyer-Stone Books, 1985), 378.

[14] Ernst  Haenchen, Robert W. Funk, and Ulrich Busse, John 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapters 7-21 (Philadelphia, PA.: Fortress Press, 1984), 128. See (Keener 2003, 982).

[15]  “Peace was believed to be a feature of righteous royal rule and of the messianic age.” Marianne Meye Thompson, John: A Commentary (Louisville, KY.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015), 316

[16] Phil 2:1-3.

Inquiry for Truth

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'"  

In one of his classic works, The Great Divorce, C.S. Lewis wrote of two men engaged in a theological discussion where this statement was made:

"Once you were a child. Once you knew what inquiry was for.
There was a time when you asked questions because you wanted answers, and were glad when you had found them. Become that child again: even now. . . . Thirst was made for water; inquiry for truth. What you now call the free play of inquiry has neither more nor less to do with the ends for which intelligence was given you than masturbation has to do with marriage."1

I don't adhere to much of Lewis's theology, but his point is well made and the story well told. When love of being right eclipses a love for truth, great tragedy can occur resulting in cognitive corruption. It's not wrong to be right, but right as its own end seems wrong. Because, ultimately it's not about us. We are stewards, even of truth and intelligence.

1. C.S. Lewis, The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics, The Great Divorce (HarperOne, 2002), 487.

C.S. Lewis on the "Word of God"

How the “Word of God” became a synonymous term for the Bible, I am not sure. The Bible never calls itself this, and it has caused confusion among many as to what it actually means. Here is an excerpt of C.S. Lewis from his book, “Reflections on the Psalms” dealing with this subject:


"…Holy Scripture is in some sense though not all parts of it in the same sense-the word of God…I take it that the whole Old Testament consists of the same sort of material as any other literature-chronicle (some of it obviously pretty accurate), poems, moral and political diatribes, romances, and what not; but all taken into the service of God’s word. Not all, I suppose, in the same way. There are prophets who write with the clearest awareness that Divine compulsion is upon them. There are chroniclers whose intention may have been merely to record. There are poets like those in the Song of Songs who probably never dreamed of any but a secular and natural purpose in what they composed. There is (and it is no less important) the work first of the Jewish and then of the Christian Church in preserving and canonising just these books. There is the work of redactors and editors in modifying them. On all of these I suppose a Divine pressure; of which not by any means all need have been conscious. The human qualities of the raw materials show through. Naivety, error, contradiction, even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness are not removed. The total result is not “the Word of God” in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries the Word of God; and we (under grace, with attention to tradition and to interpreters wiser than ourselves, and with the use of such intelligence and learning as we may have) receive that word from it not by using it as an encyclopedia or an encyclical but by steeping ourselves in its tone or temper and so learning its overall message. To a human mind this working-up (in a sense imperfectly), this sublimation (incomplete) of human material, seems, no doubt, an untidy and leaky vehicle. We might have expected, we may think we should have preferred, an unrefracted light giving us ultimate truth in systematic form-something we could have tabulated and memorised and relied on like the multiplication table. One can respect, and at moments envy, both the Fundamentalist’s view of the Bible and the Roman Catholic’s view of the Church. But there is one argument which we should beware of using for either position: God must have done what is best, this is best, therefore God has done this. For we are mortals and do not know what is best for us, and it is dangerous to prescribe what God must have done-especially when we cannot, for the life of us, see that He has after all done it. We may observe that the teaching of Our Lord Himself, in which there is no imperfection, is not given us in that cut-and-dried, fool-proof, systematic fashion we might have expected or desired. He wrote no book. We have only reported sayings, most of them uttered in answer to questions, shaped in some degree by their context. And when we have collected them all we cannot reduce them to a system…He will not be, in the way we want, “pinned down”. The attempt is (again, I mean no irreverence) like trying to bottle a sunbeam.”

C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (London: Wyman & Sons, Ltd, 1958), 19, 111, 112, 113.

C.S. Lewis on the KJV

I have in the past expressed my disdain for KJV onlyism (click here). For all who are interested in such things, here is a post citing C.S. Lewis making some great points regarding language, translation and the "authorized version".

C.S. Lewis on the KJV

C.S. Lewis's Forced Trilemma

(to read or download this as a PDF, click here) 

        I have utmost respect for C.S. Lewis and his writings; I want that to be known. Anyone who has read much of my writing would surely be able to vouch for that. I find myself in a similar quandary Lewis himself once expressed in reference to a thesis he believed to be a “disastrous error”; he said, “this is not because I think myself a fit antagonist for so great a genius”. [1]

I do however, have certain difficulties with a couple elements in his logic and philosophy as not being entirely accurate. The difficultly that I am speaking of at the moment is Lewis’s argument in his prominent BBC broadcasts which evolved into Mere Christianity. There he puts forth a trilemma as to Jesus' identity: liar, lunatic, or Lord (mad, bad or God). In this device Lewis’s assertion is that Jesus could not merely be a “nice” or good and moral teacher”. He makes his proposal as if these are the only suitable descriptions offered to us by the scriptures. While certain elements to the proposal I agree with wholeheartedly, there are several thematic elements left unresolved, or negated altogether in his examination. Lewis (and more recently Josh MacDowell) famously put forth this argument for the masses when considering Jesus’ identity. This argument claims that these are our only options when trying to understand Jesus: He was either Lord (God),[2] a liar who claimed he was Lord (God) when he didn’t even know it, or a lunatic who thought he was Lord (God) when he wasn’t anything more than a “mere man”.[3] However, this is an extremely shallow and fallacious argument. This argument excludes other possibilities regarding Jesus’ identity to the extent of silencing Jesus’ own claims and that of his Apostles!

To the least experienced student of scripture it is obvious that Jesus is not mad (lunatic) or bad (liar). The only logical and coherent conclusion Lewis leaves us is one alternative, Lord or God-ship. Basically, if you don’t believe Jesus is God, you must be ignorant and stupid, is this actually correct? Is a false trichotomy really the best way to persuade people to “be Christian”?

If the three choices stated above are the only ones offered by the scriptures, (or if that summary encapsulates the entirety of who-what the messianic figure entails) why then when asked, “who do people say that I am”, did Peter reply to Jesus’ inquiry that he was the Mashiach (messiah, christ, anointed, chosen one, of whom the prophets spoke), “the son of the living God” (Matt. 16, Mark 8)? A close examination does not allow for this category of “lordship” or God-ship, as proposed. “Lord-ship” nor God-ship were necessarily inherited by, nor synonymous to “sonship”[4], as the Messiah was later stated as being “made both lord and messiah” (Acts 2). There is not another writer in the NT that reflects on Jesus' Lord-ship as much as Paul. In his ten letters, he uses the word “lord” in relation to Jesus about 230 times and contrastingly uses “son (of God)” merely 17 times. There is no doubt that in Pauline Christology Jesus as Lord is a dominant theme. Being a son of God in the literal sense of not having an earthly father was not somehow intrinsically linked to his being the “messiah”. It would require redefining what “messiah” actually means. This was certainly not the case for Solomon (2 Sam. 7, 1 Chron. 17 and 28), as well as other examples found in the scriptures. For Paul, God is the Father, and Jesus is “the lord”, “there is absolutely only one God. Indeed, there are many so-called gods—whether in the sky or on the earth. Even as there are many gods and many lords around, but for us there is only one God. He is the father from whom everything originated…there is one lord, Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 8:4-6).

 Declaration of Jesus’ “sonship” is the reason the rabbinic “string of pearls” is used by the Father Himself when quoting from all three sections (Torah, Writings, and Prophets) of the Tanakh (Old Testament), in a pronouncement of the Messiah, “This is my Son, whom I love; I am well pleased with him, Listen to [hear] him” (Matt. 17, Mk. 9, Luke 9, 2 Pet. 1,  from Ps 2:7, Gen 22:2, Deut 18:15 and Is 42:1). If you accept his God-appointed position of “messiah”, then naturally his “lordship” (not God-ship) is automatic.[5] He is Lord because he is chosen (anointed), not chosen (anointed) because he is Lord. Lordship is a byproduct of being the “chosen one” (anointed one, the christ, messiah), not the other way around. There is no aspect of “divine” quality on these premises alone. For this specific reason, “kingdom” language is used, for it belongs with “lordship”. Lewis himself knew very well that the title, or word “god” (theos Gr.) was a very broad and generic one, as is “lord” (kurios Gr.).

“Sirs[6], what must I do to be saved,” asked the Philippian jailer to Paul and Silas. The response, “believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:30f). James Dunn writes, “[Paul] uses the formula, ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’. The striking feature is that Paul speaks of God not simply as the God of Christ, but as ‘the God…of our Lord Jesus Christ’. Even as Lord, Jesus acknowledges God not only as his Father but also as his God. Here it becomes plain that the kyrios title is not so much a way of identifying Jesus with God, as a way of distinguishing Jesus from God.”[7] I bring this up due to the perpetuation of the false notion that the surrogation of the Divine Name when writing kurios proves that its use applied to Jesus identifies him with the tetragrammaton.[8] Paul said in Romans (10:9), “If you confess with your mouth, Lord [kurios] Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

The New Testament writers quote from Psalm 8, which is reminiscent of Genesis when God gives Adam (mankind) the care of His handiwork: “...you had him rule what your hands made, you put everything under his feet.” This passage (when quoted) must be read in context to what the writer of Psalms is saying. The NT writers quote this as a Messianic tie to Jesus (second Adam) in 1 Cor. 15, Eph. 1, Phil 2 and Heb. 2.[9] Also in 1 Cor. 15, Paul says, “Now when everything has been subjected to the son, then he will subject himself to God, who subjected everything to him; so that God may be everything in everyone.” This flows in uniformity with the prophecy concerning the “coming kingdom” of Zech. 14, and the unity (oneness of objectives, purpose and of spirit) of God, Messiah and disciples (followers) found in John chapters 14-18.

The sad reality is that the majority of Christendom has been taught they must believe Jesus is God[10] in order to be “saved”. This dictum has absolutely no scriptural authority behind it, but rather hundreds of years of Orthodox debate. It wasn’t until the formation of the Athanasian Creed[11] that Christianity as a whole began to profess the belief in Jesus as God to be a soteriological prerequisite.[12] So strong is this influence within Christianity that to reject it as authoritative bequeaths a subsequent banner of anathema upon all who do.

There are various Christian apologists that have continued using this trilemma throughout the years as perhaps “the most important argument in Christian apologetics”[13] in an ahistorical attempt to portray it as the only viable argument by which to view Jesus’ words. There are other reasons some have denied the philosophy behind Lewis’s claim. For instance, the device only works if one accepts the authority and authenticity of the original documents in relation to Jesus. With the rise of Textual Criticism and questioning of sources, this has led to a much needed reevaluation of Jesus, his words and their origin. More reasons could be given for which theologians and scholars have expressed similar qualms with this unsound and illogical argument.

When first introduced to the trilemma in Art Lindsley’s Case for Christ[14], I hadn’t at the time considered all the implications of what was being communicated until I examined Mere Christianity. It was not until after I had written of my disagreement with Lewis’s proposition that I started encountering numerous theologians and authors who were also finding and had found difficulty with this argument. Of course, most had disagreed with him long before I was born. Here are some examples:

The Anglican bishop of Woolwich J.A.T. Robinson wrote, “Here was more than just a man: here was a window into God at work. For ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself’.[15] The essential difference comes out in the matter of Jesus’ claims. We are often asked to accept Christ as divine because he claimed to be so -  and the familiar argument is pressed: ‘A man who goes around claiming to be God must either be God – or else he is a madman or a charlatan (aut deus aut maus homo)’. [16] And, of course, it is not easy to read the Gospel story and to dismiss Jesus as either mad or bad. Therefore, the conclusion runs, he must be God. But I am not happy about this argument. None of the disciples acknowledged Jesus because he claimed to be God, and the Apostles never went out saying, ‘This man claimed to be God, therefore you must believe in him’. In fact, Jesus himself said in so many words, ‘If I claim anything for myself, do not believe me’. It is, indeed, an open question whether Jesus ever claimed to be the Son of God, let alone God.[17] He may have acknowledged it from the lips of others – but on his own he preferred ‘the Son of Man’.”[18]

NT scholar N.T. Wright stated, “The stock answer from within the conservative Christianity which had nurtured me through my teens came from C.S. Lewis: Jesus was either mad, or bad, or he was ‘who he claimed to be.’ Yes, we said, for anyone else to say such things would be either certifiably insane or at least wicked; but, since it was true in Jesus’ case, it was neither. There is a sense in which I still believe this, but it is a heavily revised sense and must be struggled for, not lightly won. There are no short-circuited arguments in the kingdom of God.”[19] Wright also said in an article for Touchstone Magazine, “Famously, as in his well-known slogan, ‘Liar, Lunatic or Lord,’ he argued that Jesus must have been bad or mad or God. This argument has worn well in some circles and extremely badly in others… Lewis, at best, drastically short-circuits the argument…Lewis’s overconfident argument…doesn’t work as history, and it backfires dangerously when historical critics question his reading of the Gospels.”[20]

James Dunn stated in relation to the trilemma, “…scholars have almost always found themselves pushed to the conclusion that John's Gospel reflects much more the early churches' understanding of Jesus than of Jesus own self-understanding...Again evangelical or apologetic assertions regarding the claims of Christ will often quote the claims made by Jesus himself (in the Gospel of John) with the alternatives posed 'Mad, bad or God,' without allowing that there may be a further alternative (viz. Christian claims about Jesus rather than Jesus' claims about himself).”[21] 
John Hick writes, “A further point of broad agreement among New Testament scholars...is that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him: he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate...such evidence as there is has led the historians of the period to conclude, with an impressive degree of unanimity, that Jesus did not claim to be God incarnate…the once popular form of apologetic which argues that someone claiming to be God must be either mad, or bad, or God; and since Jesus was evidently not mad or bad he must have been God (e.g. Lewis 1955. 51-2). With the recognition that Jesus did not think of himself in this way Christological discussion has moved from the once supposedly firm rock of Jesus’ own claim to the much less certain ground of the church’s subsequent attempts to formulate the meaning of his life. It is worth pausing to reflect on the magnitude of this change. From at least the fifth to the late nineteenth century Christians generally believed that Jesus had proclaimed himself to be God the Son, second person of a divine Trinity, living a human life; and their discipleship accordingly included this as a central article of faith. But that supposed dominical authority has dissolved under historical scrutiny.”[22] 

Lastly, in the same book (or talks) in which Lewis presents his argument, he also gives another somewhat famous paragraph: “Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him, but in the meantime, if you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is to remain outside yourself.”[23] If indeed the trilemma is the best argument in which to persuade people, and if “Lord” is synonymous with the declarative “God” (lunatic/mad, liar/bad/ Lord/God), how then can his statement be reconciled? Could there possibly be those “saved by him” who do not know him as “lord”? If they do not know he is “lord” does that then mean he is a liar or lunatic to them? Of course not, because knowledge “about” Jesus, is not a prerequisite for salvation. If that were the case, then only those who understood the proper tenants of Orthodox Christianity could be declared “saved”, rendering all who came before the Councils (that got Orthodoxy “straightened out”)[24], lost and without hope. It is not about knowledge of “correct” developed dogma, or Jesus’ right place in the cosmological order of God’s universe[25] that saves, rather it is believing God alone saves, forgives, and judges. The way He has chosen to do so is through the one anointed/appointed for the task, and that is Jesus. 
This is just one small illustration regarding the problems aroused on the basis from which Lewis built this specific ideology. There are many other passages that create equally challenging scenarios for his theory. My desire is not to point fingers or cast stones at Lewis, but on the other hand I believe his conclusions in this area can cause tremendous difficulties if followed all the way through.

---

[1] Lewis, C.S. (1946) The Great Divorce, HarperCollins Edition 2001 pg. VIIf [2] In this proposal, Lord becomes synonymous to God, which is not at all true to the language.
[3] Generally speaking, anything less than a high Christological “self awareness” on Jesus part or of his identity is quickly met with the “nothing more than mere man” challenge. This in and of itself is somewhat of a delusional statement, made without regard to the scriptures treatment of many individuals.
[4] Interpretation can depend on whether “son” would be defined in terms of Adoptionism or rather literal terms of Jesus having no earthly father in the same sense used of Adam (Lk. 3:38). To interpret this through the lens of Trinitarianism’s “eternally begotten Son or Word” is to corroborate something the scriptures do not.
[5] When surveying the Greek word theos, many are unaware of what is being communicated because of the eradication of true scriptural monotheism. In linguistics, it is not wrong to use the word theos (god) in relation to Jesus, but when this is done, it is not seen by Christianity as it was intended, because in general a separation of God and god cannot be made, as theos is used of men and angel alike; it is a title not a name.
[6] This word is kurios, i.e. lord. “lords, what must I do to be saved?” He referred to Paul and Silas as 'kurios'. Lord is a title, not a name, used for men and God.
[7] Dunn, James D. G. (2010) Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence, Westminister John Knox Press, pg. 110
[8] YHVH - meaning the “four letters”, the Divine personal name of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is even found in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (Septuagint, LXX) sometimes instead of the Greek kurios.
[9] There is also relationship to Psalm 110:1 implied, which is the most frequently quoted OT passage in the NT, “The LORD [YHVH] says to my Lord [adoni]: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”
[10] Claiming/confessing Jesus is/as lord is quite different than proclaiming him to be (the) God (of Israel).
[11] Circa 500 C.E. following the Council of Chalcedon.
[12] For some in Christianity, this is no trouble if your worldview is progressive revelation coupled with the understanding that the early councils were commissioned by God, governed by Godly men and thus a conduit of God’s directives pertaining to the Scriptures for producing Christian “orthodoxy”. To take the conclusions of the post-apostolic councils as authoritative is to step outside of the “scripture alone”.
[13] Kreeft, Peter (1988). Fundamentals of the Faith: Essays in Christian Apologetics, pg. 59. San Francisco, Ignatius Press
[14] Lindsley, Art (2005), C.S. Lewis’s Case For Christ, Insights from reason, imagination and faith, IVP, 

[15] He footnotes II Cor. 5.19 

[16] Either God or a bad man 

[17] He footnotes here, “Indeed, by implication he denied being God: ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone’ (Mark 10.18).” 

[18] Robinson, John A. T. 1963, Honest to God, Westminster John Knox Press pg. 71f. 

[19] Wright, N.T. (1998) Jesus and the Identity of God, Ex Auditu 1998, 14, 42–56 

[20] Wright, N. T. (March 2007). Simply Lewis: Reflections on a Master Apologist After 60 Years, Touchstone Magazine 

[21] Dunn, James D.G. (1985) The Evidence for Jesus, The Westminister Press, pg. 31f 

[22] Hick, John, (2006) The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Second Edition: Christology in a Pluralistic Age, Westminster John Knox Press, pp. 27, 29

[23] Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity: A Revised and Amplified Edition, pg. 64 

[24] I say this satirically.

[25] Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man, God incarnate, second member of the Trinity etc., etc. 

The Four Loves

Reading "The Four Loves" by C.S. Lewis. I came across this great statement regarding friendship. Friends with whom you can share, trust and find companionship are truly a gift from God. 

“In friendship...we think we have chosen our peers. In reality a few years' difference in the dates of our births, a few more miles between certain houses, the choice of one university instead of another...the accident of a topic being raised or not raised at a first meeting--any of these chances might have kept us apart. But, for a Christian, there are, strictly speaking no chances. A secret master of ceremonies has been at work. Christ, who said to the disciples, 'Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,' can truly say to every group of Christian friends, 'Ye have not chosen one another but I have chosen you for one another.' The friendship is not a reward for our discriminating and good taste in finding one another out. It is the instrument by which God reveals to each of us the beauties of others.”  pg 126

Tolkien's Kingdom Talk - A Deep Yearning

I am reading a book to my wife and children titled "Finding God in the Lord of the Rings". The authors make a connection that has long permeated through me as well, and is the very reason I find the trilogy such an amazing picture of the Kingdom of God (not that Tolkien was writing an allegorical tale). The chapters are very short. I wanted to post this as it draws on something that is inside all who wait for the revealing of the Messiah in order to "set things right".

"The world was fair, the mountains tall
In Elder Days before the fall"
(Gimli’s song—Book II, Chapter 4).

"There is a deep yearning among the Fellowship of the Ring, an unspoken longing for something long lost. None have known it in their lifetimes. Few can recite the tales of its splendor. But all desire its discovery and hope to play a part in its restoration. 

Throughout their adventure, characters from Bilbo to Treebeard recite verses of what they sense is an epic tale being told, a tale in which their lives somehow play a part. Each song seems to be merely a fragment of a majestic symphony being written and conducted by an all-knowing composer. But, as the chorus of Gimli reveals, something is wrong. Part of the harmony isn’t right, like a dissonant chord invading the sweet melody of life, refusing resolution. Middle-earth is in its third age as the adventures of the Fellowship begin. There is considerable history to this world, as revealed in the legends of Elder Days. Elves, dwarves, men, and hobbits alike know that theirs is a story that predates the present scene, preserved and passed in tales of ancient lore. Gimli’s chorus tells of life “before the fall” when the beloved homeland of his dwarf ancestors was full of splendor and light, not dark and foreboding as they find it now. Gimli’s heart pines for glories long past when his people knew better days, before the fall of their blessed domain.

A yearning heart is fitting. The wise know that before time was counted a rebellion occurred that brought evil into their world and introduced discord to the music of life. This rebellion was the driving force behind the song of the Dark Lord now heard in the march of orcs and the movements of the Black Riders. Awakened by the diminished sounds of beauty, honor, and goodness stubbornly pushing their way through the noisy clatter of evil, the inhabitants of Middle-earth hope for the day when all will again be set right.

You and I, like Gimli and others of Tolkien’s world, long for better days. We somehow know that our world is less than it was made to be. And we hope that it will one day be set right again. In short, we yearn for the goodness that was “before the fall.”
Why do we find it so difficult to accept the world as it is? Are we merely discontent, or is something more profound at work in our hearts? C. S. Lewis believed that our desire for something better is a gift, a way of reminding us of what it is we lost and what it is we hope to regain.
'Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those

desires exists,' Lewis explains. 'A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world' Mere Christianity, pg 121.

What is the real thing our yearnings suggest? Put simply, it is goodness. We desire the kind of all-consuming goodness that we’ve never known but that once existed and will someday
be restored.
We live in a broken world. Death, pain, sickness, and suffering were not part of life’s original melody. These dissonant chords were first introduced when our race took the bait of temptation and fell from its former glory. Once upon a time, mankind was offered a choice. We could sing the good song of the great composer or follow the opposing melody of his enemy. We chose the latter. And when we rejected the good that God is, we embraced the bad that he isn’t. Evil entered Tolkien’s world before the dawn of time.
That story, told in the opening pages of The Silmarillion, sets the stage for choices later made by those who would inhabit Middle-earth. It starts with Ilúvatar, maker of all that would be. His first creations were Ainur, angelic beings described as 'the offspring of his thought.' To each Ainur, Ilúvatar assigned themes of music that would be sung for his honor and pleasure.

Then Ilúvatar said to them: 'Of the theme that I have
declared to you, I will now that ye make in harmony
together a Great Music . . . ye shall show forth your
powers in adorning this theme, each with his own thoughts
and devices, if he will. But I will sit and hearken, and
be glad that through you great beauty has been wakened
into song' - J. R. R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion 

(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1977), 15.

The beauty of their music is that for which all creation yearns. It is the original chorus which “the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy” as revealed to a suffering Job (Job 38:7). It is the true melody, the 'good' that once was. It is the world as it was intended before the birth of evil. The story continues:

'But now Ilúvatar sat and hearkened, and for a great
while it seemed good to him, for in the music there were
no flaws. But as the theme progressed, it came into the
heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining
that were not in accord with the theme of Ilúvatar;
for he sought therein to increase the power 

and glory of the part assigned to himself'  

 J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring 

(New York: Quality Paperback Book Club, 1995), 58.

Sadly, the sound of Melkor’s evil theme increased as some 'began to attune their music to his rather than to the thought which they had at first.' Seldom have more graceful words been penned to reflect a Christian understanding of Satan’s revolt and its eventual impact upon God’s creation. Tolkien’s world, like ours, knows the dissonance of an opposing melody. It knows the insatiable appetite of a rebellion that seeks to destroy the good that should rightfully rule.
Tolkien saw our world as neither completely right nor completely wrong, but rather as a good that has been violated, a beauty marred. He realized that the only way we can understand that which occurs within time is to view it within the context of that which occurred before and beyond time. Though our world is broken, there is good news. It will not always be so. The story of history, like that of Middleearth, is progressing toward eventual redemption. Even that which seeks to undermine good will one day play a part in its restoration. As Ilúvatar foretold,

'And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played
that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter
the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall
prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more
wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined'  

Ibid., 17-18.

And so Ilúvatar, after the pattern of the biblical Jehovah, produces a drama performed in the theater of time. Its story will become the visible expression of the Ainur’s chorus, including the song of a simple hobbit and the discord of an evil rebel. And somehow, the former will resolve the latter."

"Our hearts yearn for the good that God is."

Review of The Pilgrim's Regress

I finished reading “The Pilgrim’s Regress” yesterday, and found myself much too tired to blog about it. This is not an in-depth review of all the incredible nuances, but rather more a reflection of some parts I found intriguing. It was an enjoyable read for the most part. There were some dialogues that became long and drawn-out (of which I could say about Bunyan’s book as well). This work was slightly more philosophical in nature than to my greatest liking, but still good. There are a few places in particular that I will highlight for you. Because of the nature of the book, it is difficult to fully appreciate the statements below out of their proper overall contextual place, but hopefully you will see into Lewis’s perspective and perhaps get a hankering to read the book. Lewis has a way of putting priceless gems amidst a heap of rubble. It is finding the gems and rubies that becomes so much fun when reading Lewis. Remember, this is an apologetic work for Christianity. The beautiful thing about allegory is that so many pictures are able to be seen if your imagination is in proper functioning order. There are possibilities of glimpses that perhaps even the author never himself envisioned or intended.

Here is an excellent example of Elitism that has always haunted the planet. It is as much true in “church” politics as it is in secular politics.

“But this is how business is managed," said Mother Kirk [this character represents Christianity]. "The little people do not know the big people to whom they belong. The big people do not intend that they should. No important transference of property could be carried out if all the small people at bottom knew what was really happening.”

“The great art of life is to moderate our passions. Objects of affection are like other belongings. We must love them enough to enrich our lives while we have them - not enough to impoverish our lives when they are gone.”

“I give up!" broke out Mr. Sensible. "Spare us the rest, young man. We are not at a lecture, and I readily admit that your scholarship is more recent than mine. Philosophy should be our mistress, no our master: and the pursuit of a pedantic accuracy amidst the freedom of our social pleasures is very unwelcome.”

This dialogue is exceptionally interesting. I think Lewis’s intention here was overly and abundantly clear of the “need” for most would be seekers (or even those who ask questions) to go through the necessary and qualified or more learned. There is always someone more learned than ourselves. People are conditioned to believe (not in word, but in actuality) that God does not communicate to the common man. The common man “will not nor cannot” understand the “deep” things of God without a pastor, priest, minister, preacher, bishop or whatever title is given. There is a big difference when we speak about knowing God on an intimate level or knowing about Him. Holding my M.Div or any other title in the scholastic world of Christendom does not equate being in an intimate relationship with God of Heaven. It means I know a lot about God and His book. Hence, he who studies most does not necessarily win. Messiah, Son of God is the only mediator between God and man; there are no others. How often Christianity forgets this. We (like Israel) long to have a king over us or for someone else to talk to God and relay to us what He wants. This is not that far off and you know it.

“‘So you have met Mother Kirk’? No wonder that you are confused. You had no business to talk to her except through a qualified Steward. Depend upon it, you have misunderstood every word she said.’”

Ah, yes, good old orthodoxy, our mother who loves us so, but would gladly turn and eat her own children should they turn aside from her “straight” ways. Yes, her barren formula.

“‘Poor Sensible, he is aging fast…I should have thought his views differed from yours a good deal.’‘Ah, to be sure, to be sure! He is not very orthodox, perhaps, but as I grow older I am inclined to set less and less store by mere orthodoxy. So often the orthodox view means the lifeless view, the barren formula. I am coming to look more and more at the language of the heart. Logic and definition divide us: it is those things which draw us together that I now value most--our common affections, our common delight in this slow pageant of the countryside, our common struggle towards the light. Sensible's heart is in the right place.’"

This excerpt about the “Shepherd People” (clearly the Hebrews) was fascinating in light of “Histories” proper analysis which helped John’s (the main character speaking) clear anti-Semitic attitude (which is common in view of Israel by the Church by years of misunderstanding) that seemed to have been carried by him from his youth, fostered and perpetuated by the Stewards (religious leaders).

“‘You have heard of the Shepherd People? I had been hoping you would not come to that, Father. I have heard the Stewards talk of them and I think it is that more than anything else that sickened me of the whole story. It is so clear that the Shepherd People are just one of these Pagan peoples-and a peculiarly unattractive one. If the whole thing is hobbled by one leg to that special people…’ ‘This is merely a blunder,’ said History. ‘You, and those whom you trust, have not travelled. You have never been in Pagus, nor among the Shepherds. If you had lived on the roads as I have, you would never say that they were the same. The Shepherds could read: that is the thing to remember about them. And because they could read, they had from the Landlord [God], not pictures, but Rules.’ ‘But who wants Rules instead of Islands?’ ‘That is like asking who wants cooking instead of dinner, do you not see that the Pagans, because they were under the enemy, were beginning at the wrong end? They were like lazy schoolboys attempting to eloquence before they learn grammar. They had pictures for their eyes instead of roads for their feet, and that is why most of them could do nothing but desire and then, through starved desire and then, through starved desire, become corrupt in their imaginations, and so awake and despair, and so desire again. Now the Shepherds, because they were under the Landlord, were made to begin at the right end. Their feet were set on a road: and as the Landlord’s Son once said, if the feet have been put right the hands and the head will come right sooner or later. It won’t work the other way.’”

This saying resonated familiar with me.

“Do not laugh at me, Father – or laugh if you will – I am indeed very ignorant and I have listened to people more ignorant still.”

“Do you not know how it is with love? First comes delight: then pain: then fruit. And then there is joy of the fruit, but that is different again from the first delight. And mortal lovers must not try to remain at the first step: for lasting passion is the dream of a harlot and from it we wake in despair. You must not try to keep the raptures: they have done their work. Manna kept, is worms.”

This too is an interesting statement.

“Fighting one vice with another is about the most dangerous strategy there is. You know what happens to kingdoms that use alien mercenaries.”

“‘There must be a good side somewhere to this revolution,’ said Vertue. ‘It is too solid – it looks to lasting – to be a mere evil…’ The Guide laughed. ‘You are falling into their own error,’ he said. ‘The change is not radical, nor will it be permanent. That idea depends on a curious disease which they have all caught – an inability to disbelieve advertisements. To be sure, if the machines did what they promised, the change would be very deep indeed. There next war, for example, would change the state of their country from disease to death. They are afraid of this themselves – though most of them are old enough to know by experience that a gun is no more likely than a toothpaste or a cosmetic to do the things its makers say it will do. ‘It is the same with all their machines. Their labor-saving devices multiply drudgery; their aphrodisiacs make them impotent: their amusements bore them: their rapid production of food leaves half of them starving, and their devices for saving them have banished leisure from their country. There will be no radical change. ‘And as for permanence – consider how quickly all machines are broken and obliterated. The black solitudes will someday be green again, and of all cities that I have seen these iron cities will break most suddenly.’

And the Guide sang;
Iron will eat the old world's beauty up.
Girder and grid and gantry will arise,
Iron forest of engines will arise,
Criss-cross of iron crotchet. For your eyes
No green or growth. Over all the skies
Scribbled from end to end with boasts and lies
(When Adam ate the irrevocable apple, Thou
Saw'st beyond death the resurrection of the dead.”

The Pilgrim's Regress

I have started reading C.S. Lewis's "Pilgrim's Regress". This is an apologetic work. The story thus far has been a very interestingly good read and loaded with allegory. It also has been enjoyable to hear Lewis's perspectives so near his "conversion". The back cover states that this was “the first book written by C.S. Lewis after his conversion, The Pilgrim’s Regress is, in a sense, a record of Lewis’s own search for meaning and spiritual satisfaction that eventually led him to Christianity.” As far as I have gotten, John (the main character) has run into numerous individuals that have (as in Pilgrim's Progress) either added or retracted from his journey (his desire is finding an unnamed Island that he viewed only briefly). There have even been times that individuals have made him question about what he saw, and what his true desire was for it. Because this is an allegorical work, I have found many instances true in my own journey as well. One character named Reason (and her interaction with John) has particularly stuck out to me. John was locked away by a giant (who was called the Spirit of the Age). Reason has just aided John in an escape. She had asked the giant three riddles, and had made a deal that the giant would be destroyed if he could not answer her. The second riddle went like this:

“There was a certain man who was going to his own house and his enemy went with him. And his house was beyond a river too swift to swim and too deep to wade. And he could go no faster than his enemy. While he was on his journey his wife sent to him and said, ‘you know that there is only one bridge across the river: tell me, shall I destroy it that the enemy may not cross; or shall I leave it standing that you may cross?’ What should this man do?”

Of course the giant could not answer such good reason (being only the Spirit of the Age). After leaving the prison, they went on their way, having a discussion about John, his desires and what he knows:

"In the warmth of the afternoon they went on again, and it came into Johns mind to ask the lady [Reason] of the meaning of her second riddle. ‘It has two meanings,’ said she, ‘and in the first the bridge signifies Reasoning. The Spirit of the Age wishes to allow argument and not to allow argument. ‘How is that?’ ‘You heard what they said. If anyone argues with them they say that he is rationalizing his own desires and therefore need not be answered. But if anyone listens to them they will then argue themselves to show that their own doctrines are true.’‘I see. And what is the cure for this?’‘You must ask them whether any reasoning is valid or not. If they say no, then their own doctrines, being reached by reasoning, fall to the ground. If they say yes, then they will have to examine your arguments and refute them on their merits: for if some reasoning is valid, for all they know, your bit of reasoning may be one of the valid bits.’ ‘I see,’ said John. ‘But what was the second interpretation?’ ‘In the second,’ said Reason, ‘the bridge signifies the giant’s own favourite doctrine of the wish-fulfillment dream. For this also he wishes to use and not to use.’"

Last of the Reflections

I finished C.S. Lewis' Reflections on the Psalms yesterday. Overall I would say it was pretty good, but I would also say there are some monstrous assumptions made. I see error in trying to interpret a passage like Psalms, from a latter developed doctrinal position. Not that I feel I could be a rightful antagonist of Lewis, but in his explanation to Jesus' reference to Psalm 110:1, he states that Jesus' identification with the "lord" in this passage means that he was

"in fact hinting at the mystery of the Incarnation by pointing out a difficulty which only it could solve." 

I believe this to be a major misunderstanding on multiple levels (which I will not go into at this time). To assert the idea of the incarnation being expressed by Messiah in relation to Psalm 110:1 even goes against the general outline of what Lewis was presenting about the role of the Psalms themselves. It does not fit with the scope of the Psalms, the Messianic/Davidic King (or any King of Israel for that matter), the suffering servant (as cited by Lewis from Psalm 22). This is later dogma pushing its way into eisegetical fraudulence. Here are a few other pieces I thought where interesting.


On Synagogue and Temple

“When I read the Bible as a boy I got the idea that the Temple of Jerusalem was related to the local synagogues very much as a great cathedral is related to the parish churches in a Christian country. In reality there is no such parallel. What happened in the synagogues was quite unlike what happened in the Temple. The synagogues were meetinghouses where the Law was read and where an address might be given-often by some distinguished visitor (as in Luke 4, 20 or Acts 13, 15). The Temple was the place of sacrifice, the place where the essential worship of Jahweh was enacted.”

The Old Testament Validity, Jesus, Psalm 110 and the Davidic, suffering, Messianic King

"We are committed to it [the Old Testament] in principle by Our Lord Himself. On that famous journey to Emmaus He found fault with the two disciples for not believing what the prophets had said. They ought to have known from their Bibles that the Anointed One, when He came, would enter his glory through suffering. He then explained, from "Moses" (i.e. the Pentateuch) down, all the places in the Old Testament "concerning Himself" (Luke 24, 25-27). He clearly identified Himself with a figure often mentioned in the Scriptures; appropriated to Himself many passages where a modern scholar might see no such reference. In the predictions of His Own Passion which He had previously made to the disciples. He was obviously doing the same thing. He accepted-indeed He claimed to be-the second meaning of Scripture. We do not know-or anyway I do not know what all these passages were. We can be pretty sure about one of them. The Ethiopian eunuch who met Philip (Acts 8, 27-38) was reading Isaiah 53. He did not know whether in that passage the prophet was talking about himself or about someone else. Philip, in answering his question, "preached unto him Jesus". The answer, in fact, was "Isaiah is speaking of Jesus". We need have no doubt that Philip's authority for this interpretation was Our Lord…We can, again, be pretty sure, from the words on the cross (Mark 15, 34), that Our Lord identified Himself with the sufferer in Psalm 22. Or when He asked (Mark 12, 35, 36) how Christ could be both David's son and David's lord, He clearly identified Christ, and therefore Himself, with the "my Lord" of Psalm 110…how David can call Christ "my Lord" (Mark I2, 35-37), would lose its point unless it were addressed to those who took it for granted that the "my Lord" referred to in Psalm 110 was the Messiah, the regal and anointed deliverer who would subject the world to Israel. This method was accepted by all. The "scriptures" all had a "spiritual" or second sense. Even a gentile "Godfearer"' like the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8, 27-38) knew that the sacred books of Israel could not be understood without a guide, trained in the Judaic tradition, who could open the hidden meanings. Probably all instructed Jews in the first century saw references to the Messiah in most of those passages where Our Lord saw them; what was controversial was His identification of the Messianic King with another Old Testament figure and of both with Himself. Two figures meet us in the Psalms, that of the sufferer and that of the conquering and liberating one…The King was the successor of David, the coming Messiah. Our Lord identified Himself with both these characters. In principle, then, the allegorical way of reading the Psalms can claim the highest possible authority. But of course this does not mean that all the countless applications of it are fruitful, legitimate, or even rational. What we see when we think we are looking into the depths of Scripture may sometimes be only the reflection of our own silly faces. Many allegorical interpretations which were once popular seem to me, as perhaps to most moderns, to be strained, arbitrary and ridiculous. I think we may be sure that some of them really are; we ought to be much less sure that we know which. What seems strained-a mere triumph of perverse ingenuity-to one age, seems plain and obvious to another, so that our ancestors would often wonder how we could possibly miss what we wonder how they could have been silly-clever enough to find. And between different ages there is no impartial judge on earth, for no one stands outside the historical process; and of course no one is so completely enslaved to it as those who take our own age to be, not one more period, but a final and permanent platform from which we can see all other ages objectively."

More Reflections

On the Social order

“We hear it said again and again that the editor of some newspaper is a rascal, that some politician is a liar, that some official person is a tyrannical Jack-in-office and even dishonest, that someone has treated his wife abominably, that some celebrity (film-star, author, or what not) leads a most vile and mischievous life. And the general rule in modern society is that no one refuses to meet any of these people and to behave towards them in the friendliest and most cordial manner. People will even go out of their way to meet them. They will not even stop buying the rascally newspaper, thus paying the owner for the lies, the detestable intrusions upon private life and private tragedy, the blasphemies and the pornography, which they profess to condemn. I have said there is a problem here, but there are really two. One is social and almost political. It may be asked whether that state of society in which rascality undergoes no social penalty is a healthy one;”

On the “System” becoming commercialized

“…the sacrificial rites become distinguishable from the meeting with God. This does not unfortunately mean that they will cease or become less important. They may, in various evil modes, become even more important than before. They may be valued as a sort of commercial transaction with a greedy God who somehow really wants or needs large quantities of carcasses and whose favours cannot be secured on any other terms. Worse still, they may be regarded as the only thing He wants, so that their punctual performance will satisfy Him without obedience to His demands for mercy, "judgement", and truth. To the priests themselves the whole system will seem important simply because it is both their art and their livelihood; all their pedantry, all their pride, all their economic position, is bound up with it. They will elaborate their art more and more. And of course the corrective to these views of sacrifice can be found within Judaism itself.”

On the “One God” of the Jews; the Creator

"The Jews, as we all know, believed in one God, maker of heaven and earth. Nature and God were distinct; the One had made the other; the One ruled and the other obeyed. This, I say, we all know. But for various reasons its real significance can easily escape a modern reader if his studies happen not to have led him in certain directions."