I came across this extended quote in a book I've been purgatorially caused to read. It is an excerpt from a letter C. S. Lewis sent in 1959 to a professor at Wheaton on the question of inerrancy. I really enjoyed "evangelical Anglicans" when I lived in England. They frequently break American stereotypes and so expose aspects of American evangelicalism that are none other than American cultural phenomena.
Then again, I've never understood C.S. Lewis mania either. What is it that causes so many people to fawn over him like he was a rock star? He's just another above average guy who said some interesting things. There are lots of them (gals too...), and many have stretched me far more than he.
_____
"To me the curious thing is that neither in my own Bible-reading nor in my religious life as a whole does the question in fact ever assume that importance which it always gets in theological controversy. The difference between reading the story of Ruth and that of Antigone--both first class as literature--is to me unmistakable and even overwhelming. But the question, "Is Ruth historical? (I've no reason to suppose it is not) doesn't really seem to arise till afterwards. It can still act on me as the Word of God if it weren't, so far as I can see. All Holy Scripture is written for our learning. But learning of what? I should have thought the value of some things (e.g. the Resurrection) depended on whether they really happened, but the value of others (e.g. the fate of Lot's wife) hardly at all. And the ones whose historicity matters are [...] those where it is plain."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"I should have thought the value of some things (e.g. the Resurrection) depended on whether they really happened, but the value of others (e.g. the fate of Lot's wife) hardly at all. And the ones whose historicity matters are [...] those where it is plain."
That's exactly the question. It is NOT plain!
Almost everybody has a different view on these things. For some it matters, for others not.
For some even the historicity of the resurrection doesn't matter.
"Purgatorially caused to read"? That's funny! I think I have several books that fall under that category.
The question is...what did you do that you needed to be purged with C.S. Lewis?
Thanks Wieland, I would've taken longer to say what you say succently...and clearly.
Jared, I caught that "purgatorially" comment, too (it stood out like a sore thumb).
Jared, we have these reading groups on campus with the honors college. I confess; I signed up for it. The book is a delightful collection of interesting essays: David Lyle Jeffrey's Houses of the Interpreter: Reading Scripture, Reading Culture. I just have three papers I'm supposed to be writing and don't really have time to read chapters titled like, "Sir Orfeo's Harp: Music for the End of Time."
Wieland, thanks for the comment. I'm having whiplash with the increasing diversity of conversation here. I count all as my friend, Muslim, fundamentalist, atheist, Hebrew Bible scholar (why are half the bibliobloggers Hebrew Bible specialists?). Most of those who come here are usually very conservative so it's hard to know who I'm talking to!
Yes, I agree that there are many today who think the historicity of the resurrection is not essential to Christian faith...
On C. S. Lewis rock star status: Lewis was so quotable. This perhaps because he was a writer-and because he was not a theologian. He had a great ability to turn a clever phrase, and he could put the cookies down far enough so that an average Joe like me could understand him. The Narnia books helped here (written for children, I could read them:)), as did the Space Trilogy. (I hope they never ever make a film from these, and ruin three interesting books.)
Others may have written "better" stuff, but sentences like "God's will is the only food the universe produces, and we must eat of it or forever starve" seem to stick in your memory right away.
David Bentley Harts "new" book was recommended on a blog I occasionally read, and the blogger later apologized to all the people who bought it and said it was over their heads. Lewis' accessibility was a wonderful thing.
I think that his subject matter, pain, grief, and the question of whether or not Christianity was relevant or credible, written for an English audience who were getting their brains bombed out on a regular basis, is another reason for his popularity.
Then there was his romance in his middle/late years to an interesting and attractive (OK, she was no Debra Winger :)) divorcee...
And on the Resurrection. I was reading I Thess. yesterday. It seemed plain to Paul, but then again I am not very sophisticated and probably missed great truth.
I spent some quality purgatory reading the Narnia books - just to see what the fuss was about - so I share your bewilderment. I found them wanting in terms of theology and literature (childrens or adult). I am so disappointed with Lewis that I couldn't finish more than half of Mere Christianity.
That said, I enjoyed A Grief Observed. It seemed honest. Perhaps there are more good Lewis works out there. On the whole, however, I stand with Ken.
Post a Comment