Medieval Wisdom for Modern Christians - A Review

Theological retrieval has become increasingly popular among evangelicals as young evangelicals, especially, react to some of the narrowly contextual interpretations of many Twentieth Century evangelical and fundamentalist theologians. There has been a great deal of orthodox preaching that has tried to present orthodox theology as if it is the simplest, most obvious reading of texts that any casual interpreter should be able to arrive at. Sometimes, in a rush to conserve the apparent authority of Scripture, well meaning interpreters arrive at heterodox conclusions and claim they are authentically biblical, despite disagreeing with the careful, Bible-saturated arguments of centuries of prior Christians. Theological retrieval is the process of reading historical theology, parsing it against the witness of Scripture, and using the copious resources of our theological ancestors to enrich our theologies.

There has been a great deal more work done on retrieval of the Early Church resources than of Medieval resources. Part of this is due to the acceptance by most Protestant traditions of the product of the seven ecumenical councils, the last of which wat the second council of Nicaea, which concluded in 787 AD. Another reason for the relative concern for retrieving Medieval theology is that the Roman Catholic tradition claims to have direct ties to that tradition.

The Middle Ages was also the time during which the worst abuses of papal authority and incrementally increasing confusions of Christian doctrines were incorporated. The Protestant Reformation was, after all, an attempt to reform some of the deviations from biblical orthodoxy that had evolved during the Middle Ages. Some of Martin Luther’s most severe critiques are of elements of Christian theology invented in the Middle Ages and the Roman Catholic church, which claims continuity with Medieval versions of Christianity, killed many Protestants trying to enforce both political control and adherence to some of those doctrines invented in the Medieval era. There is a reasonable basis for a reduction in concern for that theological age.

Christ Armstrong’s book, Medieval Wisdom for Modern Christians: Finding Authentic Faith in a Forgotten Age with C. S. Lewis, is a project for Protestant theological retrieval from the Middle Ages. The book is written for a predominately Evangelical, but possible broadly Protestant audience. It uses Lewis’ interest as a medievalist to show that retrieving doctrines from the Middle Ages is consistent with mere Christianity and can be fruitful.

 Lewis was deeply influenced by the contemplative and devotional aspects of Medieval theology. His book, The Discarded Image, is basically a call for a retrieval of a medieval perspective on the cosmos—not for the adoption of their astronomy, but for their memory of the enchantment of the created order.

Armstrong offers ten chapters in this volume. He begins with an explanation of his approach to the topic, which is focused on maintaining Christian orthodoxy while retrieving the treasures from oft-ignored saints. In Chapter Two he makes the argument, which is easily defensible, that Lewis had a distinctly Medieval worldview. Helpfully, Armstrong also acknowledges that while Lewis was a man of the Middle Ages, there were times his argumentation and epistemology were distinctly modern. He was a man of his times as well as a man deeply saturated with the time before. In Chapter Three Armstrong caps off the introductory topics by arguing that tradition can be a source for truth. His argument here does not conflict with Sola Scriptura, a fundamental of the Reformation, but shows that we can glean wisdom as we discerningly parse through historical and theological writings of the church.

Chapters Four through Ten focus on retrieval of medieval ideas within various categories. Chapter Four deals with recapturing the delight in theological thought of the Middle Ages. The fifth chapter considers the ethical reasoning of Medieval Christians. Chapter Six builds on the previous chapter discussing the culture shaping influence of Christianity in the Middle Ages, which led to the invention of institutions like hospitals. In the seventh chapter Armstrong pushes back against the over-spiritualizing tendencies of much of modern, orthodox Christianity, which tends to value the spirit to the neglect of the body. Armstrong’s argument is that the Medieval, despite the influence of asceticism, had, on balance, a much better doctrine of the body and the created order. In Chapter Eight the pietistic traditions of the Middle Ages are celebrated, with some of the better elements highlighted for consideration. The ninth chapter argues that the medieval focus on the Incarnation was far superior to that of many modern Evangelicals and should be retrieved. Finally, Chapter Ten ties the pieces together and calls for continued work to discover the helpful elements of Medieval theology that can enrich and inform the Christian faith.

The premise of Armstrong’s book is outstanding. There were a great many gospel-saturated Christians in the centuries of the Middle Ages whose writings can enrich our understanding of Christian doctrine, our worship, and our devotional practices. Armstrong is absolutely correct that Lewis was tied into the ethos of the Middle Ages, which means that by reading Lewis deeply (especially beyond the most popular works) one gets an introduction into a Medieval worldview and that by studying the Middle Ages, one can understand Lewis’ work better. This book is worth buying and reading on those accounts.

Perhaps because a great many books highly critical of errant ideas in medieval theology have already been written, there is very little critique offered in this book. In fact, there are some recommendations for adoption of ideas that are, at best, not biblically supported and are, at worst, unhelpful for gospel Christians. Lewis himself adopted a belief in Purgatory toward the end of his life, claiming that it would function as a hot bath to cleanse the Christian from sin before entering heaven. That, indeed, is a reasonable conception, but it undermines the sufficiency of the work of Christ on the cross. Christ paid the penalty to cleanse us from sin, so that no additional, extra-biblical purgation is needed for the sacrifice of the God of the universe to do its work in us. Additionally, Armstrong seems to affirm the idea of transubstantiation of the elements of the Eucharist. The confusion caused by this doctrine has been analyzed greatly, so that I can add little to it, except to note that it that it is a case of (a) excessive literalism, with (b) a strongly contested tradition even within the early Church and  it (c) leads to potential confusion of the creation/creature distinction, which (d)  leads to “veneration” of the elements and (e) an unbiblical belief of the special spiritual status of those ordained by the Church. Another example includes Armstrong’s apparent preference toward the traditional Roman Catholic representation of Christ on the cross as the center of worship. He claims this reinforced the doctrine of the Incarnation. However, this also undermines the biblical emphasis on Christ’s completed work, which was recognized through the triumphant resurrection. Apart from potentially violating the Second Commandment, as many Protestants would argue, the crucifix contributes to an unhelpful focus on the misery of the cross rather than the triumph of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. We must understand the first to get to the second, but we worship a Christ ascended, not a Christ trapped in the tortures of the cross. There are reasons, after all, that the Protestant Reformers rejected some of the traditions of the Papal tradition that were not supported by or ran directly counter to Scripture.

Despite some disagreements with where Armstrong takes Medieval retrieval, this is an excellent book. As a volume in Lewis studies, Medieval Wisdom for Modern Christians is an example of the best sort: it looks where Lewis was pointing, rather than seeing Lewis as the final stopping point for theological consideration. As a volume encouraging theological retrieval, it shows that Armstrong has carefully studied and lived within the traditions he is attempting to retrieve. He is right to show that there is much good that has too often been ignored and contemporary Protestants would do well to revisit some of the theology from a forgotten age.

Medieval Wisdom for Modern Christians: Finding Authentic Faith in a Forgotten Age with C. S. Lewis

By Armstrong, Chris R.

Buy on Amazon

Holiness and the Culture War

What if we’ve been thinking about the culture war all wrong?

There are multiple ways to be wrong about the culture war, but I’ve come to believe that many of us are thinking about it counterproductively.

Some people deny that there is a culture war. Somehow the changing moral compass of society, which is now attempting to “cancel” people for holding centuries ago positions that were held by the vast majority of people a decade ago. An essay written more than three decades ago, and on which someone’s view has changed, is enough to cost a senior executive a job. There is a culture war and no amount of compromise will ever be enough to stay within safe boundaries.

Other people see the culture war as primarily a political battle. If we can elect the right politicians we can get the right rules and everything will be well with the world. This perception has become a cancer among many believers with orthodox theology, who have sold out their public credibility to lobby and defend the indefensible time and time again.

What if, however, the culture war is primarily spiritual and the stakes are not just our physical prosperity but our spiritual well-being?

This is the argument that Peter Kreeft makes in How to Win the Culture War: A Christian Battle Plan for a Society in Crisis.

Kreeft begins the book by stating nine things we must know:

1. that you are at war
2. who your enemy is
3. what kind of war you are in
4. what the basic principle of this kind of war is
5. what the enemy’s strategy is
6. where the main battlefield is
7. what weapon will defeat the enemy
8. how to acquire this weapon
9. why you will win

In nine very concise chapters, Kreeft helps readers to know these nine things. In 120 pages, Kreeft does more than many other people do in volumes dozens of times longer.

This is an important book for this day, although it was written in 2002. It is far from Kreeft’s best book, but it is one that should be read more widely because it carries a necessary message for many of today’s Christians about the war raging around us.

Kreeft obviously believes that we are in a culture war, otherwise he would not have written a book that purports to be a manual for winning one. It would be an ironic twist, much like the message of the classic movie, War Games, to argue that the only way to win the culture war is not to play. However, that is not Kreeft’s argument.

We are in a culture war. The issues of our day are primarily related to sex. Of course, the distribution of wealth is an issue, but anyone watching the news can see that in the West the controversies are primarily about sex—abortion (which is an attempt to have sex without consequences), normalizing sexual dysphoria, redefining marriage, accepting polyamory—all of these issues are about sex. Kreeft argues that sex is a major focal point because it is a point of contact between the soul and the body. This is why even in peaceful protest about racial injustice, some culture warriors feel it necessary to expand the issue from one of ethnicity to one of sexuality.

The spiritual nature of sex is, of course, hotly debated. But Scripture reminds us that to consummate a marriage is to become one flesh. The emotional damage caused by hookup culture is another reminder, though, that even those that reject the transcendent rationally experience it emotionally.

That sex is the focal point of the culture war is no surprise to anyone paying attention, but explaining the spiritual nature of sex as a driving cause for its centrality helps readers to understand the nature of the culture war. We are in a spiritual war. Few orthodox Christians would deny that. Many people, however, shy away from talking about spiritual warfare in reaction to the cheesy Peretti novels of the 80’s and 90’s, as well as attempting avoiding some of the excesses of charismatic theologies. But Scripture indicates that “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” (Eph 6:12, ESV)

Ephesians 6 often gets interpreted as a passage to individuals, which is encouraged by the armor metaphor that Paul uses. Each individual must put on the armor of God, but one warrior cannot alone take on an entire culture. There is both an individual and a corporate aspect to Ephesians 6; we need to encourage both understandings.

And, though many Christians love their Bibles, believe that we are in a spiritual war as Ephesians 6 tells us, many of us are still fighting the culture war as if it really about bathrooms, student aid, and marriage certificates. Those are just tinsel trophies in a cosmic battle where the well-being of our souls in on the line.

What would change if orthodox Christians acted on their belief that this is primarily a spiritual battle and not a physical turf war?

First, we would accept that our political positions are not the determinant of our spiritual state. There will be Christians who, for various reasons, fall on either side of the bipolar catastrophe that is the American political system.

Second, we would be much less willing to compromise our morality to promote (not to say vote for) and excuse sin in those who claim to be our defenders in this world or promoters of our vision of the good life politically.

Third, we would recognize that the sinner on the other side of the bathroom debate should not be the target of our scorn. Even the white-suburban rioter who throws a brick through an immigrant’s window in the name of “racial justice” is not our enemy. Rather, they are a victim of the culture war having been deceived by the common enemies of all humanity: the world, the flesh, and the devil.

Fourth, we would understand that our part in the culture war is first to be sanctified. Our first priority is not to determine whether masks are a precursor to the mark of the beast or if the so-called 1% are really rigging the economy. Our first priority is not tear down statues of people we do not recognize but don’t think we like or to defend statues of people who fought for the enslavement of human persons. Rather, our first priority as Christians is to “be Holy as [God is] holy.” (1 Peter 1:16; Lev 11:44)

The fourth point is really the critical takeaway of the book. Before we can change the culture as individuals, we must first be holy. Before we can change the culture as a church, we must first embody holiness in our congregation.

This point does not excuse inaction in the political sphere, of course. We still vote, volunteer, give, and try to convince people. But before we can convince them to see what the Bible says about human relations is true, we must first be able to show them signs, at least, that the Bible has changed us. Before we can convince someone that the gospel has the power to save, we have to act like our salvation has somehow changed us into the new creation we are supposed to be. We must be holy as God is holy. That is the most important aspect of the culture war.

Holiness is the primary focus and the main way in which we will change the culture. This is, of course, consistent with what Jesus told his disciples: “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?” (Matthew 16:26) Will we seek to be sanctified or make women’s sports, bathrooms, abortion laws, and the like our primary goal? Will we seek first the Kingdom of God or will we seek to live by bread alone? We need to eat, but first we need to be holy.

This is the main message of Kreeft’s book. It isn’t a message of retreat, but one of advancement along the most important front first

How to Win the Culture War: A Christian Battle Plan for a Society in Crisis

By Kreeft, Peter

Buy on Amazon

Technopoly - A Review

Neil Postman’s most well known book is Amusing Ourselves to Death. There is good reason for that, since he both explains the media ecology of the early ‘80’s, including the election of a movie star presidents, and predicts where culture will head. His predictions have proved to be largely true, which is a stunning feat. He provides no timeline for what he anticipates, but he looks at the trajectory of culture and describes where it is headed—for us, where it has headed—in the decades to come.

His book, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, is less well-known, but in many ways more powerful and prescient. Published in 1992, Postman was standing at the beginning of the internet age, when personal computers were beginning to be more widely available.

The book is not about some dystopian future where Artificial Intelligence has taken over and time traveling robots have been sent back to wipe out the people that started it all. But it is a book that helps explain what technology is, why understanding that definition is important, and what it is doing to society.

From the very beginning, Postman makes it clear that technology is all around us in ways that we no longer detect. Technology fundamentally changes the way society works and how our brains function. (This is part of Jacob Shatzer’s argument in his recent book, Transhumanism and the Image of God, which is also worth your while.) He begins with one of Plato’s dialogues, Phaedrus, which contains a story of Thamus who resists the use of written languages, especially books, because it will change the way people receive information and allow readers to gain info apart from the oral tradition. To modern readers, so many centuries beyond that technological revolution, and also well beyond the revolution enabled by moveable type on printing presses, it may seem incredible to consider what life would be like without written communication. And yet, that was a technology that has fundamentally changed society in a way that we can no longer fully comprehend because it is so ubiquitous.

The central message of Technopoly is simple, but it is important: Every new technology that gets widely adopted changes society. It would, therefore, important that we ask whether those changes are good or not and what we are giving up by adopting new technologies.

According to Postman,

“Technology is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind. It consists in the deification of technology, which means that the culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from technology. This requires the development of a new kind of social order, and of necessity leads to the rapid dissolution of much that is associated with traditional beliefs. Those who feel most comfortable in Technopoly are those who are convinced that technical progress is humanity’s supreme achievement and the instrument by which our most profound dilemmas may be solved. They also believe that information is an unmixed blessing, which through its continued and uncontrolled production and dissemination offers increased freedom, creativity, and peace of mind. The fact that information does none of these things––but quite the opposite––seems to change few opinions, for such unwavering believes are an inevitable product of the structure of Technopoly. In particular, Technopoly flourishes when the defenses against information break down.”

Postman further notes, only a couple of pages later, that social institutions are supposed to function as control mechanisms to help people discern which information is important and which is noise. As he notes,

“Social institutions sometimes do their work simply by denying people access to information, but principally by directing how much weight and, therefore, value one must give information. Social institutions are concerned with the meaning of information and can be quite rigorous in enforcing standards of admission.”

In this information age, even the best of our institutions cannot function fast enough to accomplish this task. And, based on the violation of trust that many institutions have engaged in or been accused of, people tend not to trust some of the institutions that might possibly be able to do a fair job at keeping up with information.

Technopoly helps explain the dis-ease of contemporary culture because we are being perpetually swamped by information and it is difficult to discern what is true. We have few reliable handlers of information that we can count on to present the information in a reasonably unbiased way. Some of the gate keepers of information, including members of the media, abuse their institutional role as information handlers to intentionally mislead through shifting perceptions.

Technopoly predicted our present state and our ongoing trajectory. Postman’s book highlights the epistemic and social nightmare we live in: there is too much information and we don’t know who to trust. Postman has few suggestions for a solution (indeed, he pokes fun at himself in the last chapter for that fact), but simply having the problem exposed is helpful.

Personally, I think that part of the solution needs to be a renewal of the Christian Mind, which I have written about previously and will discuss further in this context in a future post.

Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology

By Neil Postman

Buy on Amazon

Spirits in Bondage - A Review

C. S. Lewis is known in most contemporary circles for his apologetics and for his children’s books. If you were to do a “person on the street” interview about Lewis in a local church, you would probably find people mentioning his Chronicles of Narnia, Mere Christianity, and perhaps the collection of essays titled, God in the Dock. There might be some who know about The Screwtape Letters or, if they have a philosophical bent, The Abolition of Man, or, perhaps, The Great Divorce.

Not only would you find people ignorant of any of the works that focused on Lewis’ primary vocation as a scholar of Medieval and Renaissance literature (one of which is still a text in use), but you would be hard pressed to find someone who has not fallen deep into the well of Lewis studies that would describe Lewis as a poet.

And yet, the first volume Lewis ever published was of poetry, and he published many along the way. In an informal exchange, senior Lewis expert James Como (who contributed an essay to the volume, The Christian Mind of C. S. Lewis) informed me that Lewis may have executed his mythopoeic power more effectively in his poetry than in his narrative writing. Based on some of his later poetry, particularly poems like “As the Ruin Falls,” there is an argument to be made there.

Lexham Press has recently released Lewis’ first published volume, which is a cycle of poetry. Spirits in Bondage: A Cycle of Lyrics was begun during his teenage years (as we know from his correspondence with Arthur Greeves) and completed while Lewis was in the trenches during the Great War and during his recovery after he was wounded. It bears the marks of a broadly read teenager. Engaging, imitative, emotionally powerful at times, and at other times not quite enrapturing.

This small book, originally published under the pseudonym Clive Hamilton, earned a lukewarm reception from reviewers, which contributed to Lewis becoming more invested in other forms of literature. Part of the reason for its meager applause when released was that Lewis largely borrows from existing forms of poetry and, at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, English poetry was trending toward more modernistic form and structure. Lewis’ tendency to imitate the art of others, borrowing their themes and structures to present ideas in a fresh way, did not catch the fancy of readers of poetry as it would in his highly imitative science fiction trilogy or with the Chestertonian moralism of much of his apologetic prose. In many ways we should be thankful, because Lewis the novelist and apologist has been more effective than Lewis the poet may have been.

The new edition of Spirits in Bondage is a well-constructed book. The slender hardback volume is artistically illuminated, with brilliantly colored endsheets. It is well-typeset to invite the reader into a meditative digestion of Lewis’ poetry. This is a lovely volume and a pleasure to experience.

The reprint book has been published with a new introduction by Karen Swallow Prior. Her brief essay helps welcome unfamiliar readers into this book. She reminds people that this “is a work of literary, intellectual, and spiritual immaturity––and promise.” And it is all of those things. The reader of Mere Christianity would be surprised to pick up this book and find a tendency toward supernaturalism, but no real sense of the grandeur of the Divine. Prior’s introduction does what all introductions should do: it puts the work into its context so the uninitiated reader need not puzzle over themes and concepts that seem foreign. It also sets expectations, as Prior notes, “While sometimes weak in both concept and execution, the poems overall exhibit considerable metrical variety and a range of perspectives impressive for such a young writer. They are worthy reading for the poetry lover and the Lewis aficionado alike.”

Readers should understand that Spirits in Bondage is being reprinted because of the man who wrote it, not because it is the best poetry of its age. But for those struggling to understand the complexity of Lewis (there is a great deal more to even his children’s stories than some will acknowledge), these poems are exceedingly helpful.

When Lewis wrote Spirits in Bondage he was not a theist. He was past the most strident phase of his atheism, which was fueled by his tutor. He had found joy in the transcendent beauty of Nordic mythology. He had dabbled in the occult in his late teens, and that supernaturalism can be seen beneath some of Spirits in Bondage. This is, to be clear, not a series of love poems to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But it is not directly antagonistic to the faith, however. We encounter a Lewis who has not been found by Christ, but is searching for something he knows is out there.

This book will have the most appeal for those studying the life and work of C. S. Lewis. But those that enjoy poetry will find it a generally pleasant experience, too. Those who both enjoy poetry and are deeply interested in Lewis will find this a thoroughly intriguing book, because there are echoes of later Lewisian thoughts and motifs even in this very early work.

Spirits in Bondage: A Cycle of Lyrics

By Lewis, C.S.

Buy on Amazon

NOTE: I received a gratis copy of this volume from the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.

The Christian Mind and Christian Worldview Education

“There is no longer a Christian mind,” writes Harry Blamires.

This is a rather bold statement at the beginning of a volume titled, The Christian Mind, but Blamires makes a fairly convincing case over the course of his pages.

He goes on:

“There is no longer a Christian mind. There is still, of course, a Christian ethic, a Christian practice, and a Christian spirituality. As a moral being, the modern Christian subscribes to a code other than that of the non-Christian. As a member of the Church, he undertakes obligations and observations ignored by the non-Christian. As a spiritual being, in prayer and meditation, he strives to cultivate a dimension of life unexplored by the non-Christian. But as a thinking being, the modern Christian has succumbed to secularization. He accepts religion––its morality, its worship, its spiritual culture; but he rejects the religious view of life, the view which sets all earthly issues within the context of the eternal view which relates all human problems––social, political, cultural––to the doctrinal foundations of the Christian Faith, the view which sees all things here below in terms of God’s supremacy and earth’s transitoriness, in terms of Heaven and Hell.“

Perhaps another way to say this is that there is too little contrast between Christians and the remainder of the world.

This is readily apparent in the world of politics in the United States where political affiliation is a pre-determining factor in which political candidates and, more significantly, which policies they will support. A progressive Christian will be robustly anti-GOP and oppose policy that sounds “conservative,” whatever the content. On the other side, there are “conservative” Christians whose definition of conservative has more to do with economic libertarianism and globalization than faithfully adhering to the orthodox teachings of the Church.

There is no Christian mind because Christian has become an adjective that describes our lifestyle brand instead of the noun that encompasses the reality we seek to fulfill.

Catechesis and Christianity

Catechesis has traditionally been a central plank of making robust Christians. It was often a function of both the local congregation, particularly the clergy, in partnership with the family.

However it was accomplished, passing on the doctrines of the faith to the next generation was considered a significant goal. At least, it was considered so on paper. What we have documented are often the idealized instances where it actually occurred (as with John Newton teaching the local urchins, etc.).

But, perhaps more significantly in the Anglo-American tradition, society typically functioned as part of the catechetical system. There was inarguably a general consensus of society that the Judeo-Christian thought-world was normative. Thus, stealing was considered universally wrong and sexual promiscuity, while often tolerated to a significant degree, was seen as below standard. The point is not that people effectively lived out a Christian life, but that there was a tacit assumption of the truthfulness of Christian doctrine and practice.

Catechesis in an environment that assumes the Incarnation was a fact, for example, has a radically different feel than catechesis in a culture where only “truths” that bring immediate comfort to the individuals are deemed worthy of consideration.

Passing on Christian doctrine and teaching children to think as Christians is difficult in our world of constant entertainment and distraction, but that is why it is so very important. The lack of a Christian mind is a failure of discipleship.

Catechesis and Christian Worldview Education

One attempt at catechesis, especially in theologically conservative circles, has been by teaching curricula on a “Christian worldview.”

There is consistently a good intent in most attempts at spiritual formation, but often the product and practice is deficient. There are likely many contributing causes, but three seem to be more significant to me.

First, a great deal of the Christian Worldview curricula significantly over-simplifies various contrary viewpoints. This is necessary at some level because to have a conversation the students and teacher need to have some common definition of what a theological liberal, a Hindu, or a Muslim is. Then, when the individual gets out into the wild, they find significant variations in the actual beliefs and much of the worldview curriculum seems to crumble.

Second, many Christian Worldview curricula reduce acceptable Christian beliefs to a very narrow stream of Christian orthodoxy. It has come to the point where there is a strong overlap between Christian Worldview education and what amounts to a particularly American brand of Fundamentalism. You’ll often find an absolute emphasis on a six-day creation with a young earth, on separation of church and state, and on the rights of the individual. None of these are outside of the streams of orthodox Christianity, but in some circles they are treated as clear boundary markers of the apostolic faith.

Sometimes, it seems our efforts at discipling our children is more concerned with transmitting our second-order opinions than reinforcing the central Christian truths of the faith. We can become more concerned that our child will become a socialist than that they will have the tools to sift through the canons of Christian orthodoxy to embody a lively faith.

Third, some Christian worldview curricula tend to make over-confident prigs out of our children. Then, when they get destroyed in a later debate over their poor assumptions and pat arguments, many reject the faith or raise up a bunker of Fundamentalism to defend their opinions. Both are unhealthy responses, and neither reflects the Christian mind.

Teaching worldview can be helpful, but it needs to be done carefully, with nuance, and often needs local teaching that can be tailored more than canned curricula.

Toward Reinvigorating a Christian Mind

If we are to reinvigorate a Christian mind, I believe it will have to be done on a small scale by careful discipleship. But it will also have to have spaces for healthy conversations and controversy in public, as well.

The Christian Mind of C. S. Lewis: Essays in Honor of Michael Travers

Wipf and Stock

Buy on Amazon

The current knee-jerk mood of our culture is unsuitable to cultivating deep thinking of any stripe. For example, a Christianity Today article advocating against the sitting president on moral grounds was met by a bi-polar response along distinctly political lines, even among people with nearly identical doctrinal beliefs. But many of the supports and rebuttals were phrased as doctrinal rebukes. Politics was the driving force behind what people thought the magazine ought to publish, rather than doctrinal concerns.

To have a Christian mind, we have to be willing to have people disagree with us in public. We have to be willing to be proved wrong. We have to be willing to have our minds changed. This doesn’t mean we need to court every conspiracy theory and spend time debunking the obvious fringe theories, but it does mean that discussions can’t begin as anathemas.

As a population of individuals called to live as salt and light in our communities––as a contrast community within a community––the first step to having a Christian mind is to be able to have a Christian conversation. This is the sort of conversation where Christian orthodoxy is central, and doxology is perpetual, but where peripheral disagreements are possible with good will.

If a robust, white-hot, doctrinally orthodox Christianity is to be the reality of our lives, then we need to explore what that means in our local communities and public. We should be able to have disagreement on implications of Christian faith in public as we ask honest questions about the thought processes that led to those implications. Our Christianity, therefore, needs to be more robust than a lifestyle brand and become the character that defines how we think and live.

Perception, Reality, and Failed Epistemology

Someone shared a post on Facebook. It’s one of those half-thoughtful pieces of writing from a website that make its living getting clicks that lead to them betting paid for the ads that dominate every page.

In this case, the article was more substantive than most, because it dealt with the way photos can manipulate public perception. In this case, they show a series of images in the article (it isn’t actually one of those annoying slide shows) of people apparently too close together in a line, except a different angle shows that the people are really about 6 feet apart. Then there are people that are “obviously” sitting closely together, but another photo shows they are actually a reasonable distance apart.

The purpose of the article is to show that images can mislead. And it does demonstrate that photographic evidence can misrepresent the actual circumstances. Good enough, as far as it goes.

However, the title and the first line of the article reveal a radical failure in epistemology (i.e., how we know things) that I believe is too common and is problematic. The fact that the article got through whatever editing process shows that someone actually thinks that reality—not simply our perception of it—is flexible.

Failure in Epistemology

The title of the article is wordy in that attention-grabbing inconclusive way: “Photographer Takes Pics of People in Public From 2 Perspectives and It Shows How Easily the Media can Manipulate Reality.” Unlike many titles it actually communicates the gist of what the post tries to argue. But the assertion that you can actually “manipulate reality” is the problematic phrase.

The article opens, “Everyone knows that reality is subjective. Our perception may change in an instant depending on how much and exactly what we know.”

The second sentence is exactly correct. Our perceptions will change radically depending on the facts that we are given. But “perceptions” in sentence two functions as a synonym for “reality” in sentence one. That is an epistemically horrifying statement, which is reinforced by the miserable generalization in the first line that “Everyone knows that reality is subjective.”

Given that this is a click-baity website post, I’ll forgive the Valley Girl tone of the piece. In fact, I am thankful for this little piece of unsophisticated folk-epistemology, because it reveals what I believe to be a commonly held perspective.

Reality is Fixed, Perception is Subjective

The authors of the article in question understand the rudimentary fact that reality is fixed, even though they state the opposite. “Everyone knows that reality is subjective” makes no sense as a statement in article whose point is that camera angles and lenses can be used to misrepresent true reality. Reality isn’t subjective, it is objective. The camera angles show how the misunderstanding can evolve.

But the subjectivity of reality, as it were, is a basic tenet of contemporary epistemology. It shapes the way many social sciences present their findings. It is the foundation of so many movements that center around identity.

“My perception is reality,” is the battle cry of social media, which has largely shaped our view of the world.

Early in the Corona Virus pandemic a medium sized Twitter-mob was mobilized by a video claiming that a white woman was racist, because she covered her face and moved away from an African-American man (we presume, based on who posted it and claimed to film it) who was filming her and began coughing in her vicinity. His caption stated that she was a racist and provided the video to prove it.

Knowing nothing about the person who took the video or the woman in the video, I have little to go on. She may, in fact, be a KKK member on weekends. But that video provided no evidence of it. In fact, all that is showed was that an exceptionally nasty individual was attempting to ruin someone else’s life by making accusations without evidence.

The video showed someone covering her face and moving away from someone who was coughing. It isn’t clear where or why that would qualify as a racist act in the middle of a pandemic.

At the point when we understood very little of how the virus spreads, it was wise for someone to cover their face and move away from someone coughing, when the subway was mostly empty and there was plenty of room to spread out.

But the “reality” of the Twitter-mob was shaped by their false perception created by the words over the video. She was a racist because (a) she was white, (b) because the videographer said so, and (c) because she moved away from someone when there is significant concern over life-threatening airborne pathogens. That was the scenario that lead to hundreds of people commenting on the video about the bodily harm they would like to inflict on the woman, how much they hate white people, racists, and anyone who might think to disagree.

Many of these people have been conditioned to believe that perception is reality. Thus, when the national news posts a picture of an activist beating a drum in the face of a teenager in a MAGA hat and tells us that the boy is harassing the elderly activist, there are some people that truly believe that, despite other photos, video evidence, eye witness testimony, and personal statements from the activist that contradict that initial reading. Perception is reality, especially if that perception supports my prior assumptions.

Or, consider the nakedly false assertion by Planned Parenthood and its supporters that the Center for Medical Progress’s undercover videos that exposed them selling dismembered parts of babies is deceptively edited. This narrative is conclusively believed because it has been asserted by a favored group (who is deeply invested in arguing that point), despite the posting of the full, unedited videos online for anyone to verify. For many people, perception, especially if it supports the right conclusions, is reality and nothing can shake that.

This is an epistemic nightmare that has been inflicted on society by people seeking to change society—sometimes for the better–– but has come to be adopted by the majority of the culture regardless of party affiliation or place on the political spectrum. Reality is not subjective. Our perception of reality is, though.

The Fruit of Bad Epistemology

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are reaping the fruit of this bad epistemology.

There is legitimate confusion about a new disease, possible preventative measures, potential treatments, etc. The confusion isn’t necessarily the result of a failure on anyone’s part, it is often driven by people drawing early conclusions from insufficient information. Sometimes its just the best guess from what we know. Leaders are trying to make decisions to protect people with very little information, which may (and does) get contradicted by new information that comes weeks or even days later. It’s an unenviable position.

But as confusing information gets promulgated to a population primed to believe that reality is subjective, it is no wonder that different groups choose their preferred understanding of reality. That is exactly what the culture has conditioned people to do.

If feeling oppressed is the essence of oppression, even apart from any evidence of personal or systemic bias, then protest over a feeling of oppression is just as legitimate as anything else. If there is conflicting information or data from different settings that supports a desired action, then we have been told we can believe that absolutely as long as it is the politically preferred version. If labelling someone as racist or pathologically afraid of a sexual minority is enough to make it true, then excluding expert testimony that is based on the best data available is permissible if it comes from someone that can be labelled as part of the non-preferred group.

A large percentage of the major intellectual institutions have invested the past decade trying to convince people that obvious physical observations about sex and gender can be overridden by the approved intelligentsia with questionable pseudoscientific studies. It’s little wonder that now, when it comes to life and death, people have come to accept that epistemology. This time it’s working against many of those who want control and may, in fact, be working against the common interests of our communities.

Society has invested a generation or more in teaching people that reality is subjective. Now that it matters, we’re reaping the fruit of that position. We are due for an epistemological revolution.

Hope for Recovery

The answer is not to revert to the very modern idea that we can absolutely know objective truth.

The closest we can get to absolute truth is divine revelation, which still requires interpretation and systematization. Absolute truth exists and we should pursue it, but we’re not going to get it this side of glory.

One of the failures of modernity was that it presented an epistemology that ignores the position of the observer. There are roots to this perspective in ancient history, but, in part, they took off because of a shift toward placing humanity at the center of all knowledge during the Enlightenment. The Modern folk-epistemology that developed out of that teaches that reality is objective and that we can know it absolutely and objectively.

Post-modernity brought some blessings in that it reminded us that we are subjective people with biases. We stand in a particular place to observe. There is no way for us to totally step outside of our own viewpoint to see things perfectly as they are. This is helpful, because modernity often steamrolls those who view thing outside the accepted perspective.

But many people take that helpful revelation of post-modernity too far and argue that their viewpoint is reality. That is the folk-epistemology evidenced in the BoredPanda article that inspired this post. Thus, the media can “easily” “manipulate reality.” That leads to an even more unlivable society than the strictures of modernity.

We need a more incredulous people who are willing to question their assumptions before grabbing the pitchforks and torches or undermining millenia-old understandings of the world. We also need more honest curators of the news that make a faithful attempt to present reality as it is, rather than trying to score clicks and political points. Until our world has a better epistemology, we are in for perpetual conflict. We may also be in danger of an enduring pandemic because of deeply faulty epistemology.

Boredom and Heresy

One the central questions at the heart of debates over modern theological liberal Christianity and orthodox Christianity is the definition of the term Christian. The wide variance between the definitions tends to confound dialog because liberals (I will consistently use this term theologically, in a descriptive sense) have a radically different understanding of the word’s meaning than do orthodox believers.

There were, of course, points in the historic Christian faith at which boundary lines were drawn based on ongoing debates. Those early moments resulted in our statements of orthodoxy, such as the Nicene Creed, which contains the kernel (though not the totality) of orthodoxy.

These creedal statements that define Christian orthodoxy were often surrounded by heated debates as leaders and theologians parsed through Scripture with a critical mind. This has led some to conclude that they were arbitrary statements and that some sort of arbitrary (likely political) power was the determining factor in setting the boundaries of orthodoxy. That, of course, fuels much of contemporary theological revisionism, because Christian doctrine shifts from the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) to oppressive imposition of the ideas of a bunch of patriarchal dead guys.

In this case, I tend to agree with Dorothy L. Sayers, the modern mystery writer and a significant mind of the first half of the 20th century. In her essay, “Creed or Chaos?,” she writes,

“Teachers and preachers never, I think, make it sufficiently clear that dogmas are not a set of arbitrary regulations invented a priori by a committee of theologians enjoying a bout of all-in dialectical wrestling. Most of them were hammered out under pressure of urgent practical necessity to provide an answer to heresy.”

Compare Sayers’s perspective with that of the so-called father of the social gospel, Walter Rauschenbusch, who argues in his book, A Theology for the Social Gospel,

“The dogmas and theological ideas of the early Church were those ideas which at that time were needed to hold the Church together, to rally its forces, and to give it victorious energy against antagonist powers. To-day many of those ideas are without present significance. Our reverence for them is a kind of ancestor worship.”

There is certainly some similarity between the two. Both Sayers and Rauschenbusch recognize that there was often drama when the doctrines of orthodoxy were outlined and that resolution was needed for cohesion. The difference comes in that Rauschenbusch has very little respect for the formulations arrived at by the councils, whereas Sayers understands them to have been largely successful at arriving at an expression of the truth. Thus, Sayers regularly called believers back to orthodox Christian belief, while Rauschenbusch associated doctrinal orthodoxy with a form of “ancestor worship.” Rauschenbusch is  spiritual father of John Shelby Spong, who argued that Christianity must change or die.

Beneath this discussion is a radically different perspective on the ability of lay-people to grasp Christian doctrine. Both Rauschenbusch and Sayers recognize that many Christians are relatively uninformed about Christian doctrines, which results in doctrinal deviations.

According to Rauschenbusch, “When people have to be indoctrinated laboriously in order to understand theology at all, it becomes a dead burden.” This is a dubious statement, but it shapes the trajectory of Rauschenbusch’s attack on Christian orthodoxy.

This comes several pages after his assertion that,

“[The business of theology] is to make the essential facts and principles of Christianity so simple and clear, so adequate and mighty, that all who preach or teach the gospel, both ministers and laymen, can draw on its stores and deliver a complete and unclouded Christian message.”

The second statement is actually quite helpful. Theology certainly should be clear and simple as much as possible, but to eliminate teaching doctrine as a function of the church because some doctrines are complicated seems counter intuitive.

There is an implicit assault on the intelligence of laypeople in Rauschenbusch’s theology. He assumes that people are simply too intellectually dull to understand Christian doctrine. As a result, he argues, “If we seek to keep Christian doctrine unchanged, we shall ensure its abandonment.”

Rauschenbusch decided he would like to avoid the abandonment of Christian doctrine by changing it. I suppose that is one way of cutting out the middleman. No need to make the laypeople leave doctrine, when you can simply eliminate all the inconvenient parts that matter. This is a way of dumbing down the faith because you don’t think people are smart enough to understand doctrine.

Sayers, however, has a much more positive view of laypeople. She, too, recognizes that many laypeople are ignorant of Christian doctrines, but that is not entirely their fault.

She writes,

“It is not true at all that dogma is hopelessly irrelevant to the life and thought of the average man. What is true is that ministers of the Christian religion often assert that it is, present it for consideration is though it were, and, in fact, by their faulty exposition of it make it so.”

This is exactly what Rauschenbusch does and he encourages others to do the same.

Again, Sayers rejects the need to modify Christianity to make it relevant,

“If the average man is going to be interested in Christ at all, it is the dogma that will provide the interest. The trouble is that, in nine cases out of ten, he has never been offered the dogma. What he has been offered is a set of technical theological terms that nobody has taken the trouble to translate into language relevant to ordinary life.”

The Christian Mind of C. S. Lewis: Essays in Honor of Michael Travers

Wipf and Stock

Buy on Amazon

The Christian mind is shaped by the wonder of God’s goodness and the nature of the world he has made. One of the central elements of the Christian mind is an interest in those things outside of ourselves. Sayers understands the Christian mind, while Rauschenbusch did not.

Rauschenbusch’s assumption was that his disinterest in orthodox Christian doctrine and inability explain it to others did not subvert the value of it. The wonder and mystery of a wholly other God whose existence and work are unlike our daily experience makes Christianity so much more relevant and exciting.

Sayers gets at the heart of the problem: ignorance and lazy teaching. Laypeople are not stupid; they have often simply never had teachers who took the time to explain Christian doctrine in terms that they understood. Teaching is a bridging strategy to make truth plain.

Instead of creating heresy as we give way to boredom, faithful Christian teachers need to explain the most exciting story that ever was: Christianity. That story is carried by the doctrines that modernists think people too bored, lazy, or stupid to understand.

The role of theologians and pastors is not to reshape Christianity into something that we find interesting, but to uncover the exciting truths within orthodox Christian theology. Once that happens, based on my experience, the doctrine sells itself.

Media Intake, Praiseworthiness, and Fear in a Pandemic

Toward the end of his theologically rich exhortation to the Philippians, Paul penned these important words to the church in Philippi that have been given as a gift to us a couple of millennia later:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. (Phil 4:8)

When Paul wrote these words he was in prison (Phil 1:7), likely in Rome, and certainly feeling the pressure of his captivity and uncertain fate (Phil 4:12–14). He was writing to a church in a culturally hostile situation, facing an unknown future, with their leader facing potential execution.

Paul was writing to a group of people who had every reason to dwell on everything that is wrong with the world and run through a million hypothetical futures as they waited for decisions from others or news from distant parts of the Roman world.

In other words, this is a great example of God inspiring a human author to write a message that would be applicable to humans in every age of this world, and especially in our current time.

“Always On” Information

One of the miracles of our age is that we have all the information in the world available at our fingertips at every moment of the day.

To quote Adrian Monk, “It’s a gift and a curse.”

The news streams in constantly on multiple channels and the talking heads on those channels have to find a way to fill those hours of time in a way that will keep people tuned in and keep the advertisers spending millions of dollars.

This is a recipe for stress, worry, and maybe even panic.

View fullsize

Pillars of Creation. Public Domain. https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/052/01GF423GBQSK6ANC89NTFJW8VM

It also provides opportunity for confusion as networks look for different opinions, the situation changes, and people look at the issue from different angles. When news anchors and talk show hosts—who usually know nothing about the issue they are discussing—riff for an extended period about things they are ignorant of, a lot of unfounded opinion has a way of making its way into people’s homes and can be interpreted as fact.

Non-experts battle experts for airtime. People seek positions that support their biases. Meanwhile we are desperately curious, stuck at home with little diversion, and hopeful for something that shows an end is insight.

It may be that we need to rethink our media absorption strategy.

Look for the Durable and Good

If the COVID-19 shutdown teaches us one lesson, I hope it is that we should spend our time thinking about true, honorable, pure, and excellent things.

Paul’s admonition to the congregations in Philippi is good advice for us all at all times in our media saturated age, but especially so when we our normal occupations are not available.

If you find yourself scrolling through social media and reading your tenth COVID-19 article for the day, then put down your phone, turn off your computer, and pick up a good book. If you recognize that you are watching the fourth hour of your favorite network’s coverage of this issue, with little new information other than different perspectives on the body count, then it’s time to turn the TV off and head toward Scripture.

As Neil Postman astutely noted in his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, information takes the form that it is presented in. Television is, by definition, a transient medium that you have to experience in real time. Websites demand new traffic, which requires updated content with new numbers, slightly different perspectives, and combative arguments. Headlines are pitched with exaggerations, unfair generalizations, and misrepresentations in them to get you to click or stay tuned to bring the numbers up.

Look for something that is durable and good.

When your life is over, there is very little chance you will look back on the hours of cable news you read in these days and think they helped you grow spiritually. There is little chance that one more human-interest story from the crisis will really have made you a better person.

However, memorizing a passage of Scripture, reading another book of the Bible, studying an edifying book, picking up the work of literature you’ve been putting off, or doing something with your family will all be worthwhile.

Find a way to use this time for something that will have a lasting positive effect.

A Range of Options and Need for Discipline

Everything about the internet isn’t bad. It’s great that many knowledge workers can continue to do their jobs remotely. It’s a wonderful thing that we can connect with friends, families, and neighbors through instant communication. There are millions of valuable resources that are available for free (or a minimal charge) right now. We just need to be disciplined enough to put the candy (i.e., infotainment about the pandemic) down to pick up solid things.

We have a range of options, we just need to exercise them.

For example, I previously released a list of resources for the week leading up to Resurrection Sunday that would be helpful as a distraction in this time. Some of them can be ordered quickly. Others can be found online.

There are sermons from sound pastors available online for you to watch or listen to. Be discerning, but there is a lot of good material out there. Pick something that will expand your knowledge.

Conference lectures, academic presentations, and other instructional content has flooded the internet. Now is your chance to learn about Astrophysics, Classical Theism, or a million other topics.

We typically talk about starting a Bible reading plan at the beginning of the year, but now would be a good time to kick off. The most durable thing to think about is the eternal Word of God; consider investing some time into your Bible knowledge.

The challenge for us is not a lack of information, but a lack of discipline in focusing on the things worth learning. It’s important that we make the best use of our time, focus on spiritual disciplines, and avoid media that leads us into sinful worry and despair.

Our interests may differ, but the mandate from Paul is clear to focus on durable things that are excellent, praiseworthy, and commendable.

Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals - A Review

There have been several recent volumes published by Evangelicals on the use of historical theology within the Evangelical tradition. This comes at a time when there is a non-trivial movement of younger Evangelicals toward more “historically rooted” traditions. Examples such as Kenneth Stewart’s volume, In Search of Ancient Roots, and books like Christopher Hall’s, Living Wisely with the Church Fathers, come to mind.

According to some critics, Protestant theology has roots that reach no further back than 1517. They argue that some aspects of Evangelical theology are an even more recent innovation. This perception has been augmented by the prevalence of recency in contemporary Evangelical theologies.

Significantly contributing to the apparent recency of Evangelical theology are standard works in the field, like Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, which makes almost no reference to historical theology and required a companion volume by another author to gain a sense of the historical arc of the doctrines Grudem advocates.

The relationship between contemporary Evangelical theology and church history is the strong dependence among evangelicals and the supreme authority of Scripture over historical doctrinal formulations. Given the variegation of theology across history, arriving at a theological method that takes voices of previous ages seriously without ascribing too much authority to them has been difficult.

Gavin Ortlund’s book, Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals: Why We Need Our Past to Have a Future is a helpful book in carving out a theological method that values Scripture supremely, but also listens to the voices of the Christian past.

Summary

The book is divided into two parts. The first part, a manifesto for theological retrieval, has three chapters that advocate for including careful research into historical theology as a path forward for contemporary Christians. Ortlund first asks whether Evangelicals can use Patristic and Medieval theology. Then he argues that we need to engage in theological retrieval through the use of historical theology. Finally, he outlines some of the pros and cons of theological retrieval. This is a balanced perspective that demonstrates there is certainly a wrong way to study and use the early church, but that we cannot afford not to do so if we are to remain faithful to the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

In part two, Ortlund offers four case studies in theological retrieval. First, he examines the use of theological metaphor in the writings of Boethius, Calvin, and Torrance. This would be an interesting essay in its own right as Ortlund wrestles with the creation/creator distinction, but it makes a solid case study because it reveals how engaging with minds across time can be fruitful. The next case study reaches further back into a discussion of divine simplicity through medieval and patristic theology. In the third case study, Ortlund looks at a balance between models of the atonement. Here he does good work in showing that while substitution is central, necessary, and historically embedded, it does not exclude other ways of understanding Christ’s work on the cross. Here, one of the sharpest debates between theological progressives and orthodox Christians is clarified by reading those who argued about the topic centuries before. The final case study shows some of the practical and devotional benefits of reading theology from deep in Christian history as Ortlund mines wisdom from Gregory the Great on being an effective pastor in a world with many demands.

Analysis and Conclusion

One of the more engaging aspects of this book is the way that Ortlund utilizes the ideas of both C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien to frame some of his discussions. Those familiar with the work of those two Inklings will quickly recognize how deeply embedded in the historic Christian faith they both were. As they exemplified the Christian mind through their writings, they were both drawing extensively on a wide range of patristic and medieval sources. In Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals, Ortlund shows how their imaginative portrayals of deep, historical theological truths can enrich our Christian experience. This is by no means the central thrust of the book, but it is a sub-plot that enriches the volume significantly and gives it a pastoral bent.

For those Evangelicals engaged in theological discourse, this volume provides a solid starting place for faithfully retrieving the doctrinal truths discussed in earlier ages. It does so without losing the unique gospel-focus and bibliocentricity of Evangelical theology.

This book should be included in courses on theological method. It can be a resource for pastors seeking to deepen their faith and help young Evangelicals looking for rootedness to mine the riches of the Christian faith.

This book alone does not answer the challenge of recency that many Roman Catholics and high church Protestants levy against Baptists and other free church Christians, but it does provide a way for a conversation to begin through research, preaching, and teaching that will result in a robust, organic response to those challenges.

Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals: Why We Need Our Past to Have a Future

By Gavin Ortlund

Buy on Amazon

An Invitation to Glory

This post is an excerpt from The Christian Mind of C. S. Lewis: Essays in Honor of Michael Travers (Wipf and Stock, 2019). It was written by Dr. Michael Travers. It was presented to the C. S. Lewis Society of New York in 2013 on the 50th anniversary of Lewis’s Death and again at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary on January 30th, 2014. Today, March 2nd, is the anniversary of Michael’s passing into the glory that he deeply longed for.

---

In his apologetics and fiction, C. S. Lewis invites his readers to hope for heaven and God. His great contribution is his reminder to twentieth-century western culture, which has lost its mooring, of what it means to be humans who were made for God and to long for him all our lives. C. S. Lewis reminds readers that this longing for God, this hope of heaven, is the proper state for all of us in a fallen world. He offers to readers a vision of the Christian mind.

Our culture needs to remember what it means to be human: we are created in the image of God and for the purpose of praising God. At the very outset of his Confessions, St. Augustine gives voice to the essential human need––and desire––to praise God:

Great art Thou, O Lord, and greatly to be praised; great is Thy power, and of Thy wisdom there is no number. And man desires to praise Thee. He is but a tiny part of all that Thou hast created. He bears about him his mortality, the evidence of his sinfulness, and the evidence that Thou dost resist the proud: yet this tiny part of all that Thou hast created desires to praise Thee.

Thou dost so excite him that to praise Thee is his joy. For Thou has made us for Thyself and our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee.[1]

Because we were made for God, we cannot be satisfied apart from Him. Nothing in this world can satisfy the ultimate desire of the human soul to be satisfied in God. Human culture, particularly that inspired by Christianity, incarnates this desire for God in manifold ways, and, what is more, Scripture attests to it as well. The desire for God is a key element of the Christian mind.

The idea that we all desire God and hope for heaven is expressed in both the Old and New Testaments. In Ecclesiastes, the wisdom writer states that God has put “eternity into man’s heart” (Ecc 3:11), and evidences the implications of our desire for God in that nothing in this life ultimately satisfies the soul. The writer speaks of good things––such as work, food, and relationships––that we enjoy in this life, but he teaches that ultimate wisdom is to seek God and rest in him. Everything else is “vanity,” or futility. The Psalmist writes that the ancient Hebrews longed for rest in the Promised Land. But, because of their unbelief and sin, they had to walk the wilderness pathways for forty years before they were allowed to enter that rest, and then it was only the next generation that was allowed to do so (Ps 95:1–11). In the New Testament, the writer of Hebrews applies the temporal rest of the ancient Hebrews in the Promised Land figuratively to the spiritual rest Christians have in Christ and then to the eternal rest we ultimately will enjoy in the new heavens and the new earth (Heb 3:7–4:11).

In this life, we are not yet at rest, and we cannot be at rest until our faith becomes sight in heaven. We hope for future glory. In the New Testament, the apostles often write of a hope that looks forward to eternity. The apostle Peter admonishes us to be “ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet 3:15). Peter speaks this instruction to Christians, admonishing them to give a witness to non-Christians about heaven and eternity with God. For Peter, as for the other New Testament writers, this hope is not wishful thinking; rather, it is settled and certain hope, for it is predicated on the character of God as evidenced by the Word of God––“Christ in you, the hope of glory,” as Paul has it in Col 1:27. Paul speaks elsewhere of our hope in Christ, for Christ has paid the debt of our sins and granted us eternal life (Cf. 2 Cor 1:10; 1 Tim 4:10). In the earthly life of Christ our longing for God is made concrete in the transfiguration, when Peter, James, and John see Christ revealed in all his glory. The transfiguration follows immediately after Jesus tells his disciples that he will come again in great glory, thereby prompting longing for that glorious kingdom; it is then that he is transfigured before the three men, and they are given a glimpse of the future and the one on whom their hope is founded. In Romans 8, Paul writes that the Christian’s whole life is oriented toward this hope when we will be glorified in the presence of our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Michael Travers

The Bible often expresses this hope in narrative form. Almost two-thirds of the Bible is narrative. From Genesis to Exodus, through the history books and prophets in the Old Testament, to the Gospels, the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, and even the book of Revelation in the New Testament, the story of redemption is just that––a narrative. The writer of Hebrews symbolizes this life as a pilgrimage. He writes that we “desire a better country, that is a heavenly [one]” (Heb 11:16), and “for here we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come” (Heb 13:14). A pilgrimage is not just a wandering journey; rather it is a teleological journey with a destination. For Christians, that destination is heaven with Jesus Christ, our ultimate beatitude. It is no accident, then, that the Bible incarnates a grand metanarrative that encompasses the whole of the created order and our place as humans in that story.

Giving voice to the Christian narrative of hope is what Lewis did in his writings at a time when others had lost sight of that hope. He presented a vision of the Christian mind. Austin Farrer writes of the voice Lewis gives to Christianity:

It was this feeling intellect, this intellectual imagination that made the strength of his religious writings. . . . His real power was not proof [as in apologetics]; it was depiction. There lived in his writings a Christian universe that could be both thought and felt, in which he was at home and in which he made his reader at home.[2]

There is the note: Lewis invites his readers to come along home with him––to God and heaven. He knew that we longed for something beyond this world, and he invited us to join him in the search for our eternal home.[3] Lewis’s method for inviting others to put on the Christian mind, through his prose, poetry, and narrative, was to put the metanarrative of the Bible on display.

C. S. Lewis reminds readers in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries of a truth that pre-modern western people knew as part of their culture and we have largely forgotten today: we were created to worship God. Lewis encourages his readers to worship God again––that is, to put on the Christian mind. He invites them to accept that “weight of glory.” Lewis embodies the heart of Christianity in this invitation, for the metanarrative of the Bible tells the same story: creation, fall, redemption, and recreation. Lewis incarnates this metanarrative in his apologetics, his poetry, and his fiction. It is by developing a Christian mind that Lewis fulfills his role as worshipper.

For Lewis, the original creation is the normative mode of existence for human beings, in fellowship with each other and God. In this created condition, there was no need for longing to escape and go to heaven, no need for hope, for all things were as they should be. Lewis invites his readers in all of these books to participate in the glory of things as they were meant to be. In the fall into sin, however, humans were plunged into a pathological condition, producing a sense of exile because we were cut off from God and therefore long to be reunited with him. It is this undesirable state of sin and exile that forms the foundation of Lewis’s apologetics and fiction. Our innate longing for a remedy finds expression in his novels, in the form of a pilgrimage, or quest––a journey that inherently incarnates longing and hope in its form and structure. This longing is for renewal of all that has been tainted by sin; it is a longing for a new life.

Lewis’s fiction provides descriptions of this coming renewal, which begins with a sense of release from sin’s effects. He expresses the sense of beginning a new and glorified life in heaven this way in The Last Battle:

“There was a real railway accident,” said Aslan softly. “Your father and mother and all of you are––as you used to call it in the Shadowlands––dead. The term is over: the holidays have begun. The dream is ended: this is the morning.”   

And as He spoke He no longer looked to them like a lion; but the things that began to happen after that were so great and beautiful that I cannot write them. And for us this is the end of all the stories, and we can most truly say that they all lived happily ever after. But for them it was only the beginning of the real story. All their life in this world and all their adventures in Narnia had only been the cover and the title page; now at last they were beginning Chapter One of the Great Story, which no one on earth has read, which goes on forever, in which every chapter is better than the one before.[4]

All of Lewis’s writings encourage his readers to long for God and to hope for heaven; this is a central characteristic of the Christian mind. And it is fitting that this is so, for the longer we live in communion with Christ, the more we long to see him face to face. Lewis knew that longing well and it shaped everything he wrote. This longing for the transcendent is what makes the Christian mind so beautiful.

The Christian Mind of C. S. Lewis: Essays in Honor of Michael Travers

Wipf and Stock

Buy on Amazon

[1] Augustine, Confessions, 3. Emphasis original.

[2] Farrer, “In His Image,” 384–85. Farrer was Chaplain of Trinity College, Oxford, from 1935 to 1960, and a good friend of Lewis.

[3] Cf. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 143.

[4] Lewis, The Last Battle, 210–11.