Mere Lewis

I started re-reading Mere Christianity yesterday, numerous years after my first pass through it. I had forgotten what a joy that book is. C.S. Lewis had such a gift for stating things clearly and precisely, not to mention interestingly. I started highlighting parts that stuck out to me, and I had to hold back so that I wouldn't highlight the whole thing. I was talking to someone today about how much more I was getting out of the book this time, and I got a lot out of it the first time around.

Now if only people accepted Lewis' push for “mere Christianity” — focusing on the essentials and not the minutia that divide the Church for very little reason…

Tim in the Hands of an Angry God?

When I run into Jonathan Edward's Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God once in a week, I stop and think about his masterful sermon. When I run into it twice in the same amount of time, I start to really ponder it. When I run into it three times in a week, I start to wonder if someone is trying to tell me something.

On Sunday, our pastor preached a sermon that was based in part on Edward's sermon. On Tuesday morning, my American Lit class studied Edward's sermon by chance, since the professor had been sick the week before and therefore was behind schedule. On Tuesday afternoon, my Religion in America class took an unscheduled detour to hear part of the sermon preached by the professor. I don't know but I'm starting to get a bit paranoid!

Quote du Jour

“Many times persons under great awakenings were concerned, because they thought they were not awakened, but miserable, hard-hearted, senseless, sottish creatures still, and sleeping upon the brink of hell. The sense of the need they nave to be awakened, and of their comparative hardness, grows upon them with their awakenings; so that they seem to themselves to be very senseless, when indeed most sensible. There have been some instances of persons who have had as great a sense of their danger and misery, as their natures could well subsist under, so that a little more would probably have destroyed them; and yet they have expressed themselves much amazed at their own insensibility and sottishness, at such an extraordinary time.”

— Jonathan Edwards, Narrative of Surprising Conversions

Intelligent Design Prevails Again

Well, he may not be Christian (yet), but a famous atheist has succumbed to the evidence that there is a God, perhaps in a fashion not all that alien from C.S. Lewis's slow conversion. Anthony Flew, whose most famous statements had to do with the fact that asserting the existence and/or love of God was meaningless since “nothing could disprove it” to the believer, now believes in a deist-like God. That science can convince an avowed atheist (for 66 years, since he was 15, no less!) of the existence of God should worry people in the “Bright” movement.

It just shows that we as Christians should not fear things like science. On the contrary, we ought to spend our time appreciating how all ways of looking at God's creation can give pointers to the Creator. “Seek truth knowing that there can be no conflict between God and truth.”

The Question of God Revisited

Well, I finished the four hour PBS special The Question of God with Dr. Armand Nicholi, which follows the lives of two very bright, but very different men: Dr. Sigmund Freud and Clive Staples (C.S.) Lewis. The biographical sections and the debates between Freud and Lewis are well done, complete with photos, interviews and reenactments with actors who bear an uncanny resemblance to the two historical figures.

The panel of “smart people” that was assembled to discuss the segments was wanting, however. Dr. Frederick Lee did a pretty good job of representing the orthodox believer, although he was stumped on a few issues that I thought he probably should have been able to answer. One other gentleman representing the believing side seems to be a bit too into seeing faith as adjusting “power dynamics,” and the two women on the theist's side both seemed to be mystics, albeit of a Christian flavor (despite the one rejecting miracles and the other rejecting the existence of the devil as a component of dualism). The skeptics were represented by only three men, but they seemed to be more on Dr. Lee's level than the other believers were.

They could have, and probably should have, left the panel out. On the other hand, it strikes me that one could make an excellent small group or Sunday School class out of the Freud/Lewis segments. They make great conversation starters, and obviously, given the panel, they were divided up in a way meant to encourage discussion. Dr. Armand Nicholi's lead in questions were good starting points as well.

On a merely aesthetic point, the two part series was done in a very slick fashion. It “felt” well done, rather than the cheap, cheesy feel that goes with many religion-focused documentaries. I just saw one with Houston Smith the other day, and I think the video technicians must have taken the day off when they produced it. Good production might not save a doomed piece, but it does allow a good piece to thrive by avoiding distracting the viewer with annoying camera angles, bad sound and so on.

As a whole, I liked the series, and I think I'll recommend that my church library purchase a new copy (we are presently working on getting some DVDs as we phase out VHS tapes). The series could have been vastly improved had the panelists been better, but as it stands it was still probably the most thoughtful discussion of the “Question of God” to hit the airwaves in a long time. Lewis would probably be quite pleased.

Rating: ***+

The Question of God

I started watching PBS's special the Question of God tonight. It aired here in St. Louis at 2:00 A.M. on two Fridays in September since KETC was running a pledge drive. I obviously didn't watch it live, so now I'm watching a recording of it. So far, its pretty good, although mostly biographical information on the two key people of the special — Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis.

I'll post more on it when I get farther along in it.

Predestined Not to Comment?

Well, after reading Christopher's interesting post on election (as he guest blogged on another blog through BlogSwap), I wrote up a post on my thoughts on the subject, including some concerns about what the doctrine of election means to other parts of the Bible. Unfortunately, the post disappeared. I guess I must have closed the web browser window it was in (I had several tabs opened, maybe I switched tabs and then closed the whole thing) or something, because it is gone now.

Oh well. Maybe I'll write something up again another day.

Wow

I knew the National Council of Churches was an extremely liberal group that has been promoting ecumenism with non-Christian religions to the point of minimizing the necessity of Christ, but I still was surprised to see just who one of their member groups is. I thought all of their members were the (fading) mainline denominations like the UCC (my old denomination, ABC and PCUSA… but they have the Amercian Swedenborgians in there too! Mary Baker Eddy would probably be hurt that they didn't want a few scientists to go along with the mystics.

Nothing like adding a weird sect/cult to your group to help in the credibility department! Yes sir! That's sort of like the other thing the NCC seems to be up to: spamming my e-mail box. They subscribed my webadmin address from my church to their daily newsletter without my requesting it.

Is the Christian Right Christian?

There are some good points made by Carter, but a lot of it borders on seriously misguided at best, I think. Carter suggests prejudice permeates the “Christian right,” for example, a sweeping — and, in my opinion, unchristian — generalization. Is their prejudice in the “Christian right”? You better believe it. Here's the big but: there is also prejudice in the “Christian left” and just about everywhere else.

Carter also notes that the Christian right has abandoned some basic Christian principles. I agree — but I also think pretty much EVERY Christian has. The question is, does that make the Christian right not very Christian? No.

Do you see the theme of my response? For every attack Carter makes on the right, it can also be applied to the left. And, for the most part, Carter attacks the Christian right on political issues, ignoring its strong points on theology (whereas, unfortunately, much of the mainline Christian left has been jetisoning away from Biblical theology — a bigger issue from the standpoint of salvation). The Apostle Paul faught modifications to the Gospel in his day:

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.” — Galatians 1:6-7 (NIV)

What is actually worrying is Carter's apparent hints at relativism. He talks about a person's “concept” of God and refers to his “concept of Christ.” Now, that might be harmless, but I almost get the impression in his abortion comment that he actually feels that while he opposes abortion it is only based on “his concept of Christ” and not the Christ. There is only one Christ and one Gospel — remember again Galatians 1:6-7.

Carter also talks about moderately accepting certain forms of abortion, which is disturbing — if he believes it is wrong, how can it be “acceptable”? I suppose it depends on if he thinks it is wrong or WRONG — but if he agrees that it is the killing of an innocent God created person, how can it ever be acceptable? Is murder acceptable so long as it is done within certain guidelines? I'm sure you'd agree it isn't. But if murder is murder is murder is murder, than where does it leave these “acceptable forms” of abortion in a Biblical worldview?

Also, a note on helping the poor. Carter overlooks that many on the right (myself included) don't have something against helping the poor at all, rather we feel that it isn't something done best by the government. That's what a lot of it boils down to: can the government do a better job than the Church at helping the poor (part of the Church's job)? Let's face it, government welfare has a dismal record — it seems to encourage people not to work. That's not what we want! If every dollar that is presently devoted to welfare was kept by taxpayers and was instead distributed by them to churches and charities to help the poor, I would be almost postive more good would come out of it and it would allow the Church to fulfill its job to help the poor rather than having a secular government do that job for it.

Every Christian is going to have some theological problems, but does that mean they aren't Christian? There are some theological issues I would argue are absolutely necessary to be Christian — Christ was fully both God and Man, He literally died for our sins on the cross, rose again physically, Christ alone provides for atonement and salvation, there is no God but the God of the Bible Jesus alone provides access to the Father, and other points — basically the points of the great creeds such as the Nicene Creed. If you deny the exclusivity of Christ as savior of the world, yes, I think it might be time to say you aren't Christian. If you worship Gaia and support “reimaging”-related theology, ditto that last statement. But is being against larger government programs for the poor because one doesn't believe that the government should do that kind of stuff in the same league? Is it even the same universe?

Short of the essentials — none of which Carter seems concerned about — I find such suggestions of an entire group of Christians not being Christian seriously problematic. Unchristian, in fact.

“Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” —Ephesians 4:3 (NIV)

Easter Meditation

He is RISEN! What a joyous day it is — I hope everyone reading this had a wonderful and blessed Easter!

{1} Early on Sunday morning, as the new day was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went out to see the tomb. {2} Suddenly there was a great earthquake, because an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and rolled aside the stone and sat on it. {3} His face shone like lightning, and his clothing was as white as snow. {4} The guards shook with fear when they saw him, and they fell into a dead faint. {5} Then the angel spoke to the women. “Don't be afraid!” he said. “I know you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. {6} He isn't here! He has been raised from the dead, just as he said would happen. Come, see where his body was lying. {7} And now, go quickly and tell his disciples he has been raised from the dead, and he is going ahead of you to Galilee. You will see him there. Remember, I have told you.”