 |
| Say hi to Appa! |
 |
| Time to give Appa kisses! |
 | ||
| I'm also thankful for the radtastic fiancee who made my ownership of a giant six-legged flying bison possible. |
I'm also thankful for Ian McKellen, photoshopped or not.
Now to the actual nub and thrust of this blog. For my Philosophy of C. S. Lewis class I recently had to write a paper about one of his arguments. Needless to say, Lewis is the man, so I went about this with gusto. You can read the essay in full, well, right here.
“I am not yet within a hundred miles of the God of Christian theology” (Lewis, 25). This quote from Lewis’ evangelical gem Mere Christianity has implications in the novel and the author’s life. Deemed “arguably the most influential Christian writer of his day,” Lewis wrote books for children and adults that described the love and power of the Christian God. An evangelist, teacher and scholar, he understood that the doctrine of his religion had been watered down and exchanged for sweet-sounding falsehoods and that something should be done to remedy it. Lewis wrote philosophical papers as well as compelling literature in plain language to further the cause of Christ and make bold claims about His power where others would not. To that end, it seems out of the man’s character to say that Mere Christianity was not written to make a case for the Christian God. However, Lewis himself was a converted atheist. He never made any claims to be a better human being, let alone better Christian, than anyone else. But Lewis did know from personal experience what issues had to be addressed in order to show an unbeliever the light and most importantly, how to do it in an honest and understandable way. Mere Christianity starts with the very basics of human nature and uses logic, science, accessible language and simple examples to prove the existence of a God, some kind of supreme, benevolent being that organized the universe and is still active in the lives of those it created.
Book One of Mere Christianity sounds more like a Psychology 101 textbook than the material used for a Christian apologist’s radio series. The opening paragraphs are about human interaction. Lewis uses the example of people quarreling over the “fairness” of their actions, something that every single one of his readers can identify with. With the deft expertise only the most skilled writer can wield, he uses the concept of children arguing about sharing to build his case for the Law of Human Nature. Unlike most Christians, Lewis does not shy away from science. In fact, he embraces it as he uses the Natural Laws to further his argument for human morality. His first point in Mere Christianity is that human lives are governed by Natural Laws, such as gravity and the biological laws that dictate how the body works. He then contrasts the Natural Law with the Law of Human Nature, or the Law of Decent Behaviour, which deals with the morality, or sense of right and wrong, inherent in all humans. Lewis already made the existence of this Law inarguable by laying the groundwork examples of people arguing or betraying each other that everyone has experienced.
Once the concept of right and wrong has been established, Lewis makes his first bold statement. In order to feel a sense of right and wrong, there must be something outside of these moral areas with which to distinguish them. Furthermore, this “decider” does not always follow the herd instinct. Lewis says “Feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not” (9). When one decides to help a drowning man when it would be safer to stay on the shore, he is exemplifying “a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing which judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them” (10).
Now that the case for this Third Thing has been made, Lewis details why and how there “must be something above and beyond the actual facts of human behaviour...a real law which we did not invent and which we know we ought to obey” (20). If one considers Hitler’s Third Reich immoral, they are admitting that an absolute moral standard does exist outside of what man has created, and that it is wrong not to follow it. Because humans tend to think one person or group’s concept of Morality is less right than another indicates that there is some Ultimate Standard that everyone has some concept of. So, there is a Moral Standard that exists apart from humanity. Lewis then states the claim that all of these steps have gradually led up to: there is some consciousness or mind behind the universe. He has not yet mentioned any kind of deity, much less the Christian God, but he has successfully proven that humans are not completely alone in the universe.
Lewis then deals with the scientific arguments that one often comes across when explaining any kind of deism. There is no physical proof of this Mind, protestors would have scientists say. Lewis responds: “The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them” (23). He uses the example that if an architect builds a house, he cannot be a beam in the house. A Creator cannot have originated from its creation. Since science only deals with the creation, it cannot realistically say whether or not some Other Consciousness exists.
He still he does not make the conclusion that this is the Christian God, although a Christian reader may have by now recognized that this is his ultimate goal. He constantly mentions that it is important not to go too fast. He does not want to appear to be pulling the wool over anyone’s eyes. This book starts off logical and methodical, and it remains that way until the very end of Lewis’ argument. He is constantly reassuring and encouraging his readers, never stepping over the boundaries of his current argument. Even after he has established his benevolent deity, he says: “We have not yet got as far as the God of any actual religion, still less the God of that particular religion called Christianity. We have only got as far as a Somebody or Something behind the Moral Law” (29). However, this Being must be good, because it has established the Ultimate Moral Standard. This is still not God, though, only “Something which is directing the universe, and which appears in me as a law urging me to right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when I do wrong” (25).
The summation of Lewis’ argument is that there is a God of some sort that exists outside of what man knows, and that it is a good God, because it encourages the actions that we know are right, even if our impulses or “herd instincts” are to do exactly the opposite. A Moral Standard exists, because every human feels it viscerally when they have to make a difficult decision or when they are stabbed in the back by a close friend. This Moral Standard comes from outside human jurisdiction or creation, because everyone has at least a basic sense of what is right and wrong, and they must have something to hold their impulses up against to determine whether they are “good” or “bad.”
It is not until the very end of Book One that Lewis mentions Christianity as a truthful religion because “Christianity simply does not make sense until you have the sort of facts I have been describing” (31). It is important to illuminate a non-believer’s mind to the concept of God, but Lewis knew what many modern evangelists seem to have forgotten: “It is after you have realized that there is a Moral Law, and a Power behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power-it is after all this, and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk” (31).
Mere Christianity is an evangelical necessity. How is that possible when the first thirty pages don’t even seem to endorse the possibility of the Christian God existing? Just because a book is written in plain language with words no larger than three syllables does not mean it can only deal with simple concepts. C. S. Lewis taught at Oxford, and he wrote philosophical papers that would make The Chronicles of Narnia look like children’s book designed for actual children. Perhaps the most brilliant man in his field during his lifetime, Lewis was not concerned with demonstrating his intellect so much as making the truth of Jesus Christ available to everyone who would take it. In Mere Christianity he uses examples like the way children (and adults) fight and how a piano works to get his points across in a way that anybody can understand. Lewis understood that simply and accurately explaining God is more important than demonstrating intellect or fancy vocabulary.
Lewis mirrors the same attitude towards evangelism that Paul used when he first wrote to Corinth: "When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power" (1 Cor. 2:1-5).
What both of these great preachers knew is that to know “Jesus Christ and him crucified” takes precedence over “eloquence or superior wisdom.” C. S. Lewis was an intelligent man who knew how to use his knowledge in an accessible way. This is infinitely more effective and demonstrates a far greater intellect than using flowery language and theological jargon.
Lewis understood better than anyone the difference between child-like faith and childish faith. To enter the Kingdom of God like a child does not mean to behave in a childish or immature way. To enter the Kingdom of God like a child means to enter with trust and faith. In Book One of Mere Christianity, the Kingdom of God is not mentioned, but that is because Lewis knew that he had to build up the trust and understanding of his readers in order for his argument for any God at all, much less the Christian God, to bear any merit.
It is a Christian’s job to reflect God’s light and glory, but it is not the Christian’s job to attempt to rule as He does. It is our job to be effective, not preen our doctrinal feathers. Lewis, though not without his own flaws, provides an excellent example of how to do this with simple methods that will strike a chord with every person, no matter what kind of religious background they have. Though Lewis is dated, and some science of his day is now irrelevant, he is still useful in our evangelistic task, because his methods are still effective regardless of the time period.
I mean I won't be offended if you don't read it all, I just like it and I wrote it and that's what blogs are for, right?
Have a bangin' holiday season, kids. Check back in soon for more on how this college kid does Christmas.
xo,
MAnDers
0 comments:
Post a Comment