 We owe gratitude to |
C.S. Lewis on "Biblical Authority, |
 |
|
It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the true word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit and with the guidance of good teachers, will bring us to Him. We must not use the Bible as a sort of encyclopedia out of which texts can be taken for use as weapons. Click [ HERE ] to read an essay entitled, "Inerrancy and the Patron Saint of Evangelicalism: C.S. Lewis on Holy Scripture" from the Plenary 2 2013 National Conference Please NOTE - The "Schaeffer" referenced in the following article is Francis Schaeffer, founder of the "L'Abri Fellowship" in Switzerland. The book (which this aticle is an excerpt from) examines and discusses the differences and similarities in the Christian beliefs and practices of these two renowned Christian Apologists. Lewis: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing? Now that we have identified Schaeffer's position on biblical authority and inspiration, we turn our attention to Lewis. It is not clear which would have troubled Schaeffer more, Lewis's provocative reflections on the subject of biblical authority and inspiration or the relegation of the issue of inerrancy to the periphery. While Schaeffer builds his entire epistemology around an inerrant Bible, Lewis rarely probed the matter. When he did discuss the subject, his thoughts were often partially developed and qualified. This was a typical pattern for Lewis. He forcefully defended the essentials of orthodoxy while offering only tentative opinions on matters he considered marginal in nature. Undoubtedly, one of the most striking contrasts between Schaeffer and Lewis is the differing weight they assign this issue. Since Lewis did not offer a detailed, systematic treatment of biblical authority and inspiration, we must rely on an inductive sweep through a variety of material, ranging from his thoughts on literary and biblical criticism to some of his personal correspondence. Though his exact position is not easily identified, one thing is clear: He resists the extremes. This should come as no surprise. Lewis has a love-hate relationship with the fringes of Christendom. He has a knack for captivating readers one moment and confounding them the next. His musings on mythology, purgatory and world religions trouble many conservatives, while his dogged defense of objective truth, the divinity of Christ and the miraculous exasperate many self-avowed liberals. He charms and alienates the extreme opposite elements of his audience with equal ease. An essay entitled "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism" is a case in point. Speaking to clergy-in-training, Lewis presents himself as a learned lamb "telling shepherds what only a sheep can tell them?" The bulk of his bleating is riddled with affronts to modern theologians and biblical scholars cut from Bultmannian cloth. However, just when the conservative is about to offer his final "Amen", Lewis rotates his guns 180 degrees: "You must not, however, paint the picture too black. We are not Fundamentalists. We think that different elements in this sort of theology have different degrees of strength. The nearer it sticks to mere textual criticism of the old sort, Lachmann's sort, the more we are disposed to believe in it". Lewis expresses similar sentiments in Reflections on the Psalms: "I have been suspected of being what is called a Fundamentalist. That is, because I never regard any narrative as unhistorical simply on the ground that it includes the miraculous. . . . I have to decide on quite other grounds (if I decide at all) whether a given narrative is historical or not?" Unfortunately, conservative evangelicals have too often used carefully selected sections of Lewis's thought to buttress their own cause, while ignoring that which would appear to undercut it. This type of Lewisian proof-texting is illustrated in the writing of Harold Lindsell, a key popularizer of the inerrancy debate during the seventies. In his influential book, "The Bible in the Balance", Lindsell eagerly cites a barrage of anti-Bultmannian attacks from "Modem Theology and Biblical Criticism", but ignores Lewis's critique of fundamentalism, the very position Lindsell seeks to advance. Uninformed readers are naturally left with the impression that this patron saint of evangelicalism is firmly positioned in Lindsell's camp. Yet, in writing the foreword to a volume entitled, "The Best of C. S. Lewis", published prior to, "The Bible in the Balance", Lindsell is clearly aware of Lewis's provocative views on biblical inspiration. His discomfort prompts a word of caution: "Lewis is not infallible. I do not agree with him at every point, but I respect his opinions and humility. If he were alive today he would probably admit to having changed some of his ideas, for he was willing to learn -- a fitting attribute for one whose works make it clear that he was an able scholar and a true Christian gentleman." Lindsell has since confirmed that he had inerrancy in view when writing this paragraph. These examples illustrate exactly what we must not do with Lewis. First, we must not extract sections of Lewis's thoughts for partisan purposes while ignoring clear statements to the contrary. Second, we must be careful when speculating about what Lewis might have done if he were still alive. After all, Lewis is "dead and can't blow the gaff". When speculation becomes necessary, it must be supported by good and sufficient evidence. All the evidence in this case points to Lewis's rejecting not only liberalism, but fundamentalism as well. Lindsell offers no warrant for making Lewis an "honorary inerrantist". He attributes teachability, academic integrity and Christian commitment to Lewis, and seems to believe the additional component of time would naturally have led the Cambridge scholar to the truth of inerrancy. Lindsell appears to join Schaeffer in the confident assertion that sooner or later, Lewis "would have come around." In our investigation, we must continually resist the impulse to stuff Lewis into a prepackaged system -- liberal, conservative or otherwise. He defies this type of uncritical, superficial categorization. Lewis believes an honest, forthright, inductive approach to the textual data is the only way to uncover the meaning of a given passage. Unearthing Lewis's views on Scripture will require the same type of open inquiry. The Holistic Reception In the next few pages we will consider Lewis's thoughts on biblical authority, revelation and inspiration. After determining his views on each of these matters, we will attempt to locate Lewis on Schaeffer's Alpine Ridge. I. - Biblical authority In the eighth chapter of "The Problem of Pain", Lewis deals with possibly the thorniest of all Christian claims -- the doctrine of eternal damnation. This is the one doctrine Lewis would love to scratch from his list of beliefs. But to do so would be to ignore the weight of the evidence: "It has the full support of Scripture and, specially, of Our Lord's own words; it has always been held by Christendom; and it has the support of reason." This sentence is revealing, for it shows Lewis, a self-confessed nonfundamentalist, sitting at the table of scriptural authority, even when the chair is uncomfortable and the cuisine unappealing. Lewis swallows hard and digests a doctrine that clearly causes a great deal of heartburn. This immediately separates him from many contemporary biblical scholars who simply fashion a hermeneutic that ensures a reading yielding precisely what they had hoped and expected. This reference also offers a glimpse inside Lewis's epistemology. This list, though far from exhaustive, clearly shows a commitment to reason and tradition. Though taking a backseat to Scripture, both play an indispensable role in the exegetical and hermeneutical process. Lewis found the doctrine of hell buttressed by reason and tradition, yet not all scriptural data can claim such support. In such cases, when tradition is split and reason lags, Lewis tenaciously sides with Scripture. His take on the freedom-predestination issue, as we noted in the previous chapter, illustrates this well. Lewis was incurably logical. He did not revel in mystery. Yet he preferred to live with some measure of tension rather than offer easy answers in the face of the facts. He would have preferred resolution to the freedom-predestination issue, but was unable to find such. He felt bound by Scripture to hold apparently contradictory passages in tension until enlightenment arrives. Lewis was firmly committed to the concept of biblical tenacity.
The question on the table at the moment is not whether the freedom-predestination debate can be resolved, but whether Lewis was willing to sit under the Authority of Scripture, even at the expense of intellectual resolution. This he certainly was willing to do. He had full confidence in the internal consistency of Scripture, believing that all apparent difficulties would eventually evaporate if we continue to seek the truth with patient tenacity. It should be clear that Lewis honored biblical authority. He sacrifices emotional comfort in the case of the doctrine of hell, and intellectual comfort in the case freedom and predestination. On both counts, he subordinates his own natural longings to the authority of Scripture. But how did he ground the Bible's authority? How do we recognize the Bible's claim on our life when there are so many competing claims? Lewis realizes everyone accepts authority on a regular basis, often without realizing it. In fact, we could not survive without accepting the assertions of others. We hardly have the time, expertise, nor requisite power to verify every proposition that comes our way. Therefore, we must place faith in a wide variety of authorities. The question is not whether we will accept authority but which authority we will accept. While it appears Lewis simply assumes the authority of Scripture, a closer look reveals three undergirding pillars of support: (1) the Bible's self-attestation, (2) the tradition of the church and, (3) possibly the most important consideration for Lewis, the Bible's marks of authenticity. Lewis recognizes as highly significant the phrase "Thus saith the Lord" woven throughout the fabric of the canonical writings. He calls the Bible a "remorselessly and continuously sacred book". Likewise, church history reveals a consistent commitment to the authority of Scripture. However, mere claims can be hollow without corroborating support. The support in this case is surprising. Lewis takes some of the most troubling charges against biblical reliability and turns them on their head. Skeptics claim the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies and self-refuting statements. But for Lewis, anomalies are not necessarily incriminating, they might merely be a clear sign of authorial integrity. In Mark 13:30, Jesus apparently predicts his eschatological return will take place during the generation of his listeners. The failure to make good on this assertion appears to refute his own claim to divinity. Lewis undoubtedly feels stumped by these words, calling it the most embarrassing passage in all of Scripture. Yet, instead of losing faith, Lewis finds surprising consolation: "This passage (Mark 13:30-32) and the cry 'Why hast thou forsaken me?' (Mark 15:34) together make up the strongest proof that the New Testament is historically reliable. The evangelists have the first great characteristic of honest witnesses, they mention facts which are, at first sight, damaging to their main contention." Why would the biblical authors, and subsequent scribes, leave these passages in the text? According to Lewis, there is only one answer: they are the words of Jesus. This, of course, undermines the contention of many modern biblical scholars who accuse the early church of inserting their own theology into the mouth of Jesus. Such apparently embarrassing statements would never have been fabricated. It is here, nestled within an enigma, that Lewis hears the ring of truth most clearly. As with the freedom-predestination issue, Lewis chooses to hold these difficult passages in tension with Christ's claim to divinity until proper illumination comes. II. - Revelation If creatures are going to communicate with the Creator, one thing is clear: the Creator must take the first step. Lewis writes, "If Shakespeare and Hamlet could ever meet, it must be Shakespeare's doing. Hamlet could initiate nothing." Lewis has a generous view of revelation. Intimations of the truth exist in all religions, cultures and historical periods. God's providential care and self-revelation are expressed through a wide variety of mutually supporting means, including the idea of the holy, the natural law, the nation of Israel, good dreams, natural desires, intuition, experience, the Incarnation, the miracles and teachings of Christ, edifying literature and the Holy Scriptures. Lewis sees a strong continuity between each type of revelation. Since ultimate reality is self-consistent, revelation must exhibit a basic unifying quality as well. Everyone has access to some form of revelation, but the amount and degree of clarity vary from religion to religion, culture to culture, age to age. Lewis accounts for this phenomenon, in part, by viewing divine disclosure as a graded and progressive process. Lewis suggests a pattern of revelation that (1) begins with a feeling of awe or dread, an awareness of the Numinous. (2) The next stage of spiritual development is the recognition of the natural law, the moral code that is built into the universe. (3) The third stage is the ability to connect the Numinous with the natural law, to recognize one's obligation to more than a mysterious law -- to a lawgiver. (4) Spiritual enlightenment culminates when one recognizes that the "aweful haunter of nature and the giver of the moral law" has broken into human history. In other words, the Incarnation represents God's fullest, clearest form of revelation." This notion of progressive revelation is also seen in the "good dreams" or mythology that God has given to all humanity. Lewis is not surprised by similar mythological stories in different cultures and time periods. It ought to be so. The near east creation stories anticipate the Genesis account. The monotheistic writings of Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten anticipate the poetry of the Psalter. The rising and dying corn kings anticipate the actual death and resurrection of Christ. Like a seed that grows as it is watered and nourished over time, mythology blossoms and develops into maturity as it passes from one generation and culture to the next. Lewis believes this is all done under the guidance and providential care of the Creator. This principle of progressive revelation extends to the pages of Scripture. Just as pagan revelation is a partial foretaste of Judaism, so the Old Testament is an inchoate preview of the Christian faith. Lewis believes some of the Old Testament accounts are mythology chosen by God as vehicles of the earliest sacred truths. Likewise, God has progressively revealed himself in space-time history. Fully developed myth, and fully developed history, and their perfect marriage in the Incarnation. It is here that revelation finally crystallizes. The lens of the Incarnation brings all mythology and history into proper focus. God reveals himself not only through a variety of mutually reinforcing means, but in a progressive manner. Instead of concentrating on the differences between religions, cultures and historical periods, Lewis identifies essential continuity between them. Overlap testifies to God's generous, albeit disproportionate, distribution of truth throughout the world. Revelation comes to people in varying degrees of opacity, condensing and focusing over time until the clearest, fullest presentation of divine revelation breaks forth in the Incarnation. III. - Inspiration In 1959 Lewis penned a letter to Wheaton College professor Clyde Kilby, expressing tentative thoughts concerning the subject of inspiration. In this letter, Lewis identifies six factors that ought to be considered in developing a sound theory of inspiration: (1) Paul's distinction between his own words and the words of the Lord, (2) the apparent inconsistencies between Matthew's and Luke's genealogies and the accounts of Judas's demise, (3) Luke's rather normal method of research, (4) the universally admitted unhistoricity (I do not say, of course, falsity) of portions of Scripture, including the parables and possibly Jonah and Job, (5) the suggestion that all true and edifying writing is in some sense inspired and (6) the paradoxical nature of John 11:49-52, in which inspiration operates "in a wicked man without his knowing it, and he can then utter the untruth he intends . . . as well as the truth he does not intend."' Lewis believes points two and four rule out the view that all scriptural passages must be historical to be true. The remainder of the statements reveal the multifaceted nature of inspiration, which apparently varies in mode and degree. The statistical accounts of many Old Testament armies, which lack modern precision, should not be considered exact just because the resurrection record is historically accurate. Consequently, Lewis rules out the view that the Bible is uniformly inerrant throughout. It is important to understand Lewis correctly at this point. He is not challenging the doctrine of inerrancy here. Interpreting these Old Testament accounts as in some sense inerrant remains a viable option. Rather, Lewis is debunking the notion that inerrancy can be flattened out into a one-dimensional, homogenous phenomenon that operates with mechanical predictability throughout the canon.
This paragraph offers a number of hints to Lewis's position. First - Lewis suggests the purpose of Scripture. It is to carry God's Word. Lewis does not see Scripture as God's Word proper, but rather as a vehicle that has been chosen and elevated above itself for this calling. Its purpose is to guide us to the reality behind the printed page. In an apparent effort to guard against bibliolatry Lewis writes, "It is Christ Himself, not the Bible, who is the true word of God. The Bible, read in the right spirit and with the guidance of good teachers, will bring us to Him." Second - Lewis believes that the process of inspiration is too often limited to just the author of the communique. He takes a more holistic position, insisting on inspiration for not only the sender of the message but also the receiver. Inspiration is the process whereby God superintends the totality of his message, from conception to reception. Lewis's view of varied degrees of inspiration parallels his understanding of graded revelation. Since revelation is progressively unveiled, it stands to reason that the clarity of inspiration will correspond to God's progressive plan. In other words, the degree of inspiration imparted to the psalmist in 1000 B.C. would correspond directly to the amount and clarity of revelation God chose to disclose during that time period, not necessarily to the degree of inspiration a Gospel writer might receive. It would be misleading to suggest Lewis saw inspiration as a unilateral activity. Humans have a legitimate role to play in the process too. Though God may sometimes appear to override individual freedom, inspiration generally requires cooperation. Lewis wants us to see the need for heart purity in the inspiration process, a clear channel through which God's message can be sent and received. Dissonance and ambiguity can often be attributed to the frailty of the human condition or outright sin. "The human qualities of the raw materials show through," Lewis explains. "Naivety, error, contradiction, even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness are not removed." In order to get to the pure Word of God, we must approach the text holistically. It requires "a response from the whole man -- a discerning mind, a baptized imagination, a pliable will and a pure heart". As we have already seen, Lewis notices the ambiguities in Scripture and refuses to offer superficial harmonization. He believes such unresolved tension forces us to search the text and ourselves. It forces us to pull from all our God-given resources and maximize our God-inspired faculties in a quest to mine the deep and rich mysteries of the universe. Knowledge apart from the proper degree of sanctification can be dangerous. Lewis suggests God may have chosen to reveal himself in this manner to keep us from approaching the Bible in a rationalistic, one-dimensional fashion. Revelation is not given to satisfy our curiosity, but to help us become the kind of creatures God desires. The polarized responses to the parables of Jesus illustrate this well. Insight is largely dependent on one's heart and desire for the truth. Third - Lewis does not believe the Bible should be judged by our modern standards, but according to the intents and purposes of the original authors. He was all too familiar with contemporary literary critics bringing their own modern assumptions to the text. In "An Experiment in Criticism", Lewis draws an important distinction between "using" and "receiving" the text. If we are to understand an ancient text, or any text for that matter, we must get out of the way. We must toss all our culturally and historically conditioned biases aside and "receive" the text in the manner in which the author intended. When we approach the biblical text, we must read it in light of its own cultural, historical and literary context. Since modern scientific and historical precision were foreign to the ancient writers, we must not hold them to such standards.
Lewis says we might have expected a systematic, unambiguous presentation of doctrine, "something we could have tabulated and memorized and relied on like the multiplication table", but an honest inquiry reveals something quite different". Our expectations must conform to the data an honest exegetical analysis yields. A brief summary at this point should crystallize Lewis's overall view. We have seen a staunch, tenacious commitment to the authority of the Bible, even at the expense of emotional and intellectual comfort. Lewis recognizes the claim of Scripture upon his life and grounds its reliability in its marks of authenticity. God reveals himself progressively through a wide variety of means. All revelation points toward the Incarnational event, the fullest expression of divine disclosure. This notion of progressive revelation explains both the continuity and differences that exist between not only Christianity and Judaism, but Christianity and all religions. Like revelation, inspiration is multifaceted and graded. God superintends not only how much revelation will be disseminated, but also the degree of inspiration that is imparted. In most instances, a human response on the part of the sender and receiver of the message is required. This process requires a holistic response -- a pure heart, a baptized imagination, a pliable will and a keen intellect. Varying degrees of opacity spur us on to deeper commitment and inquiry. Lewis believes apparent contradictions serve an important purpose, forcing us to seek the divine with our whole being. The sanctification process reveals a direct correlation between obedience and insight. Finally - Lewis insists that the only way to avoid eisegesis is to receive the text in its proper historical, cultural and literary context. Imposing modern scientific standards on antiquity clouds and distorts the intended message. Reading the text in its native literary genre is an indispensable hermeneutical principle. Evaluating the Ridge _ _ We now turn to the task of locating Lewis on Schaeffer's ridge. This comes rather easily. Though Schaeffer and Lewis share much in common -- the primacy of Scripture in matters of faith and doctrine, the Bible's internal coherence and supernatural presupposition -- the points of contention are significant. Lewis takes a mythological interpretation of the creation account and many Old Testament miracles - questions the historical, cosmological and scientific precision of some of the biblical data - and does not view Scripture as the Word of God per se, but rather as the vehicle that carries the Word. From Schaffer's vantage point, these cardinal sins undoubtedly would have sent Lewis sliding down the slippery northern slope and into the frigid waters of neo-orthodoxy. Read a number of articles by C.S.Lewis [ Here ] and [ Here ].
|
