Tuesday, November 22, 2005
in memory of CS Lewis
Forty-two years ago today, CS Lewis, one of the foremost Christian authors/apologists/theologians of our time passed away at age 65. His influence on the Christian faith is inestimable and his writings touched millions. His books still sell thousands upon thousands of copies a year and his popularity shows no sign of diminishing. Here's to you, Clive Staples...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
in memoriam yes, but i, personally, would nix 'theologian' (i think he would as well). i might make a concession for 'lay theologian'...
br
As concerns the previous comment...
I'm not meaning to offend, but simply to think. I'm not even aware of who you are 'br' so please don't take this personally. I feel as though the term 'theologian' simply is (or should be) one who thinks upon the things of God. One who considers God. Who who churns with thoughts of God. I would consider myself, all of my friends, and most I come into contact with as theologians. When it comes to living in this beautiful creation, how can one manage to not have thoughts of God and His likeliness. I'm not sure whether Clive Staples thought of himself as a theologian or not, but I definitely consider him one in my books.
For the ways you've stretched my consciousness and my imagination, I too tilt my hat to Master Lewis
This is nice. Finally a little healthy discussion at the home of the bing. I - with respect of course - completely disagree (well, with regard to what theology is, what it has historically meant in the Christian tradition, and its immense - and I cannot overstate this - import to our faith communities). My starting point is obviously different. I adopt a more traditional view of theology as basically the science of God (theos: God; logos: science/word). Through this study, we seek (through various branches: systematic, historical, doctrinal, biblical etc) to arrive at an overarching understanding of who God is and how He can be understood. Here, thoughts of God don't really cut it. They are extremely important and necessary, but simply not theology. Theology allows us to have thoughts of God in the first place. Theology (and theological systems) give coherence, shape and strength to meditations on God, and allow us to make sense (better sense) of God's revealed word. But, to keep things relevant, I should stick to Lewis. In a great passage in Mere Christianity, he describes an old RAF officer who objected to his use of technical theological discussion becauese it was so divorced from the "real" experiences that he had with God in the desert. Lewis proceeds to liken theology to a map, and basically says you can only go so far without it..."Consequently, if you do not listen to Theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones - bad, muddled, out of date ideas."
I think Lewis would admit that he engaged in theological discussion and was very concerned with theology. But, that is very different from being a theologian, which I think he would shy away from (interestingly, he only wrote one "theological" book: Miracles, and this - sections anyway - got thoroughly demolished in a debate with Catholic philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe. According to his biographer and friend George Sayer (who just died a couple weeks ago) this crushed him and led him to believe he could never write a book like this again). Anyway, ramble, ramble. I guess I'm just skeptical that a vibrant, engaging and relevant faith can rest properly on the foundations of my (my friends', fellow parishoners etc.) 'thoughts on God.' - br
Wow!
Tilt my hat to you too br! Thanks for your wonderful retort. You are clearly much more informed than I on the issue of C.S. Lewis. I loved your argument concerning theology being the 'formal' study of God which guides us 'thinkers' along a clearer path. I did already know of the traditional/historic definition of theology and knew that C.S. would have lived under that definition. I was simply suggesting maybe we should be challenging the traditional.
I completely agree that our 'thoughts' should be directed by firmly established and well-studied doctrinal theology, but whose to say what is the 'right' doctrine? Now I know what I believe, and I know it to be truth (as in, Jesus is truth, and I am constantly searching after Him and His truth -- not that I know all truth at this point and have the book written on it), but can the definition of 'theology' be limited to our Christian tradition? I believe that when C.S. Lewis was writing in Mere Christianity, he was speaking specifically of 'traditional Christian theology.'
What I mean to say is, should we as Christians be so pompous to believe and to say that unless you engage in the study of 'our' God, you don't engage in theology. I believe all the other religions out there are engaging in the study/science of God. They may be just further from the truth that we know in Jesus. I believe by including their searches/studies/thoughts in the grander scheme of 'theology,' we can be inclusive of them in our own 'faith journey.' I'm not trying to be relativistic here, but simply inclusive. I love to consider my unreligious or irreligious friends in a faith journey of their own rather than writing them off as wrong or worthless. We are all searching, regardless of if we know it or not, and God has given us as Christians the responsibility to help others along their faith journey toward Him. By expanding the concept of theology, we can include those unwilling to enter a formal science of God.
Now I understand that we don't have to bring the actual word 'theology' into the debate, and simply use faith journey or some other word, but I have thought of that specific word differently over the last couple years, and thought I'd share. I don't expect you to agree, rather I'd say I already agree with your argument. I believe what you already said is true, and I especially like your concluding statement. I am a youth worker and often deal with youth who have no interest in 'studying' the Bible or God. So, with all my understanding of truth and Christian doctrine (which is no doubt limited), I engage them in a world and thought process they already know. I help them to realize they have been thinking about God and engaging Him throughout their life. Thinking directly about Him becomes less weird and scary if they realize they've already had thoughts that concern Him. I then can direct them along a path of 'true-theology' from there. The world is trying to hijack the word 'Truth' (truth is relative), and frankly I'm not willing to give that one up. Truth is NOT relative, otherwise it isn't truth. Truth is Jesus, or rather, Jesus is truth (John 14:6). Theology is a word that I am willing to give up and expand in order to be inclusive. It allows me to see the brotherhood of all of God's children, all on the same journey.
Anyways, rambling is a gift of mine as well (one I am currently trying to get a handle on -- didn't do too well here), so sorry about that. Thanks so much for the discussion and God bless.
AJR <><
Webmeister - thanks for expanding/explaining and thought provoking! I promise this will be the last blabbering post, as I must spend my time more wisely. I tend to agree, but am getting more and more conservative in my old age. I agree that there is a distinction between formal/traditional theology, and the way in which you were/are using the term. Lewis would agree. He takes this further, and in the preface to Mere Christianity (I buffed up before bed last night), notes that he is not dealing with traditional theology, largely because it is not of much value in general, practical apologetics (well, the kind he is writing). Moreover, he writes that much denomination-specific theology is "high theology" that should only be dealt with by experts - it is often divisive and is not of much use in bringing people to Christ. Enough of Lewis.
You raise a great issue: theology, knowledge of God, and those "outside" the Christian tradition. What follows is my instinctive response - this is a response that is very much informed by my reformed, calvinist leanings, so beware;)
First, traditional christian theology has strugged tremendously with this issue. Most often under the guise of "natural theology." In one of the most interesting and vociferous theological debates of the 20th century, Emil Brunner and Karl Barth vigorously debated this:
Barth: Knowledge of God is only ever revealed (not found) by God, the highest form of which was through the person of Jesus Christ (the Living Word). God - and only God - reveals himself to us, and in that we can know nothing of God apart from God's gracious act of self-revealing. The possibility of knowledge of God lies in God's word and nowhere else. I guess Barth would say this is therefore nothing pompous, because our knowledge of God is not OUR knowledge in the first place, neither is the journey OUR journey.
Brunner: Barth's emphasis upon Christ and the Word denied the reality of God's "general relevation" of himself in creation and especially human creatures, his image-bearers. God reveals himself - as highlighted in the old and new testaments - in ways other than his word. I guess Brunner would agree that traditional theology's obsession with boundaries and categories would serve to limit the experiences and walks of unbelievers.
Now that I have totally butchered and misrepresented their positions and the significance of the debate...I must confess that I have Barthian leanings (again, the Calvinism...with a pinch of Augustinianism). But I do think that my tradition - the Reformed tradition - has come up with a good doctrinal concept that attempts to cover this issue: common grace (different spin on the above debate, although it was probably included by both, because they both came out of the reformed tradition). It seeks to deal with how the "unregenerate" could speak truth and lead outwardly virtuous lives in this sinful world. It is too complex to touch here. If interested: http://www.mbrem.com/calvinism/commongrace.htm
What of all this? Traditional Christian theology seeks to deal with all these things. BUT, in agreement with what you mentioned, we have to be mindful of the distinction between traditional theology and your concept of "theology." Yes, pedantic and semantic, but I think you're right and that it comes back to Lewis' preface comments. Traditional theology is valuable at helping solve these issues within the body of believers. BUT, when dealing with those "outside" the faith on a practical level, as you say, it may be of little use.
Anyway, enough of that babbling. I admire your post and writing because of the way it speaks from the heart about real issues that matter to real people. The above thoughts are much more - and much too - abstract; in the long run, they won't change lives (as yours will) or necessarily further God's kingdom (as yours will). Isn't it a joy, though, and a privilege, to think these things through?? God Bless...
br
Completely unrelated...
hey Bing, you heard the new Sarah Harmer?
fanny: What happened to the joy and the privilege?
br and webmaser: I've found the discussion very interesting, and as a an "unregenerate" myself, I consider it a privilege to gain insights into the faiths of others. For my part, I know that virtue exists in all of us, and spiritual peace /delight comes, in part, from being able to flip the coin and find as much Truth in your own doctrine as in its contradiction.
Post a Comment