C.S. Lewis once said,
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
I was thinking about this quote as I was driving home from Liz’s house last night while being stuck in an ungodly line of traffic on 76 East. I decided to think about something else other than my burgeoning desire to play bumper cars and plow every car out of my way. In retrospect, I’m sure my insurance agent and I will tell you it was the right choice.
As I thought about Jack’s great quote, and I can call him Jack because we are close, I had a strange thought that rarely, if ever, crosses my mind: what if Lewis was wrong? Not wrong about the validity of Christianity or that it causes one to see the world in a new light. But simply wrong about the way he phrased his quote?
My thought stemmed from the term”Christianity” in Lewis’s quote. It is “Christianity” by which I see everything else? I’m not quite sure because the term “Christianity” is one that is quite tough to pin down. Not only that, but even if we use the broadest definitions of “Christianity” (i.e. adherence to the Apostle’s Creed), I’m positive that other Christians will “see everything else” quite different from how I “see everything else.”
For instance, Calvinist and Arminians view history quite differently and they both view history differently than Open Theists. Yet, they are all Christians and practice a certain form of “Christianity.” Even when you think about the term “Christianity” people are going to have a different understanding of what, exactly, that means when the rubber meets the road. Some are going to buy into Platonic understandings of reality and stress the “spirituality of the church” in such a way that relegates Christianity to a private religion which should not affect other areas of life, such as politics or social justice. Others are going to take the view that unless your version of Christianity causes you to get involved in politics and social justice then it is a mere fantasy. There are also many who take a place somewhere in between.
Not only that, but all of our ideas of “Christianity” are necessarily limited by our finiteness, our sin, and our context. For example, Christianity in the South before the Civil War looks much different than it does today, and both look different from Christianity in South Africa or Russia. Furthermore, all of these manifestations and expressions of Christianity are marred by sin and limited by the finite human beings who constructed them. They are all provisional. To hold up one manifestation of Christianity as normative for all times and all places is not only at once arrogant and naive, but also unhelpful and, quite frankly, impossible.
That is not to say that someone cannot have confidence in their particular understanding of Christianity. The Spirit can and does illumine one’s heart and mind to understand the truth found in Scripture.
Rather, it is a recognition of our human, finite, fallen state that should guard us from the trimphalism of holding the “one true faith, once delivered to the saints” when, in reality, we have a provisional theological system that was created by fallen, finite human beings.
Because such is the case (and I know some will debate that it is, in fact, the case…but, so be it; my understanding is provisional as well), perhaps we can improve on Lewis’s quote. Instead of “believing” in and viewing the world through a certain form of “Christianity,” why not believe in and view the world through the risen Christ, the Gospel? Not only does this allow Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, Catholics, and the denomination known as Non-denominationalists share this new vision of the world, it also allows this vision to move from the provisional world of theological constructs to the solid realm of history. Not, “Because I believe in the 39 Articles or the Westminster Confession of Faith I now see the world differently,” but, “Because Christ defeated death, I now see the world differently.” This also puts the stress not on human theological constructs, but on Christ himself and his victory over death.
I would propose to rework Lewis’s quote as follows:
I believe in Christ as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see him in Scripture, but because by him I see everything else.
Any thoughts?
12 September 2008 at 12.05 pm
That’s an interesting take on Lewis. Maybe by “Christianity” Lewis was incorporating your more narrow definition.
At any rate, I think your “re-quote” (or paraphrase) is closer to the truth.
Blessings,
Carl
12 September 2008 at 12.20 pm
Art
The problem with your reworking is that it still doesnt cross the divide between the ontic and the epistemic; althought that is what you are getting at.
The issue is that one can just as easily critique the use of the term “Christ” as they can “Christianity”; so that one might ask “which Christ” as much as they might ask “which Christianity?” The Mormon conception of Christ, for instance, just as easily fits this bill; and any Mormon could faithfully repeat Lewis’ statement.
The issue is that it cannot be the epistemic Christ, in any of its variants (Mormon, Open Theist, Calvinist, etc) which can transform lives. Rather only ontic Christianity, and the ontic Christ who ontically inhabits the hearts of men can transform.
This problem is complicated because our only access to the other is through the epistemic. We can ontically experience Christ, but we cannot ontically experience others, and hence we must communicate to them what we have experienced.
Its like the old elephant story. Five men are describing their experience of touching an elephant; one touchs its trunk, and says “elephants are like snakes” another touches its legs and says “elephants are like trees” another touches its side and declares “its a wall” – now usually this is used to promote some universalist ideal; that we all have different gods but the same God. In reality there are two other guys wandering about. One is touching a Ford Focus and says “elephants are like cars” and another is touching a house and says “elephants have aluminium siding.”
Each man is experiencing something ontically (by touching it) but because they may only communicate by speaking they have to cloak the ontic experience of “experiencing the elephant” with epistemic descriptions of what they experienced. And of course some people are groping cars and calling it elephants. Others, more problematically, grope a house, which feels a bit like the side of the elephant. Both might call it a wall, and both think they are describing the same thing; but in reality (onticlly speaking) they are touching two very different things.
I hope that makes sense…
Nick
12 September 2008 at 3.21 pm
Nick: Not only does it make sense, but it’s a valid critique.
I wonder how this could be re-worked so that one does not run into this problem?
I suppose if it was stressed that the re-worked statement says, “Christ in Scripture” as opposed to Christ in the book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants…although, the same problem would likely occur because they would view those books also as Scripture.
Interesting. Any suggestions?
Also, the distinction between ontic and epistemic was very helpful
12 September 2008 at 3.52 pm
All this talk about “ontic” and “espistemic” is interesting, but are we forgetting there is an underlying reality being spoken of here?
The problem is that no matter what term you use in the proposition (“I believe in __________ as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”), you can always argue, “well it depends on what you mean by __________.” It’s an endless loop unless you clearly define the terms being used.
The fact of the matter is that the underlying reality exists (unless we’re relativists); namely, Jesus or Christianity. Something changed your life, my life and C.S. Lewis’ life; and that something was real and objective.
If this problem between the ontic and the epistemic is as complicated as stated, then what does that do to evangelism? It would seem to make it unnecessarily cumbersome because I would have to spend hours trying to define terms, etc.
12 September 2008 at 4.38 pm
Carl –
You Said – All this talk about “ontic” and “espistemic” is interesting, but are we forgetting there is an underlying reality being spoken of here?
I think this is the problem we are discussing, although in perhaps unhelpful philosophical language. How do we get past our subjective (and often flawed) use of language and experience to express the underlying reality we have “really” been through. Furthermore (and more difficultly) how do we know that another person has had the same experience we have had?
The problem is that no matter what term you use in the proposition (“I believe in __________ as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”), you can always argue, “well it depends on what you mean by __________.” It’s an endless loop unless you clearly define the terms being used.
I think this is right, although Im not sure that “clear definition” gets us past the problem. I don’t see this as a problem with semantics, but a problem between epistemology and metaphysics. I can clearly define my terms, and another person can use the same terms in the same way and be an unbeliever (Many will say to me Lord Lord…and I will say depart from me, for I never knew you.)
The fact of the matter is that the underlying reality exists (unless we’re relativists); namely, Jesus or Christianity. Something changed your life, my life and C.S. Lewis’ life; and that something was real and objective.
Mormon’s also claim (and in my opinion often demonstrate) a transformed life. Yet we would not call them Christians. We assume that their underlying experience is different than ours, but based on what criteria? Usually on theological criteria; but this is horribly problematic. People either lean heavily on the transformative aspect or they lean on the theological aspect. If we talk about the transformed life as proof of conversion, I think we might (although not necessarily) begin to slope towards universalism. It we hinge things on theological belief, we can also slope towards legalism (or a term which I like to use – doctrinal regeneration).
Both of these are problematic ways of qualifying true faith. What we are asking is “did the person in question experience the same Christ I did?” Machen, for instance, apparently thought Schleiermacher was a Christian, even though his theology was all over the place (according to Machen). There seems to have been a combination of theological and transformational criteria that Machen used to make this assessment, but without a clear delineation, the ecclesiological waters are terribly muddled.
My suggestion (in response to art) is to say that only a person who has “ontologically” experienced salvation through Christ is a believer, and this may or may not have a noticable affect on her life (transformation) and/or her belief (theology). So I cannot know if another person, regardless of their stated beliefs or their obvious transformations are “true” Christians.
I recognize that there are tremendous problems with this “solution…”
Pax Christi…Nick
12 September 2008 at 4.39 pm
One day I will learn how to use HTML tags…that day is not today
Nick
12 September 2008 at 6.03 pm
Nick,
I hear what you’re saying (even though my philosophy is a bit rusty), and I see the problem inherent in the system. Don’t get me wrong, I am not against exploring the theological and philosophical underpinnings of our mutual faith.
You’re also absolutely correct that only a person who has experienced the “objective” Jesus (there is something about the word “ontological” that I don’t like) is saved; and there are many people who are clinging to a false Jesus.
My thing is that at some point we need to establish a foundation. For me, it is Scripture (i.e., the Christian Bible minus the apocrypha). All experience should be tested against Scripture. Maybe it is not philosophically sophisticated to say this, and I realize that even interpretation of Scripture (so defined) can vary. But for the majority of Christendom, there is a general consensus on what makes up the major points of doctrine. These form our bedrock beliefs that determine our worldview.
All of this “what does the mormon think of Jesus” or “what does the muslim think of Jesus”, etc., becomes academic at some point and it doesn’t further the Great Commission.
Believe me, I mean no disrespect in my comment, but as one who has spent faaaaaar too much time arguing “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin,” it does nothing to further God’s plan. It’s an interesting thought exercise, but serves little practical purpose other than to make sure we are clear when we present the gospel.
Note: Upon further reflection, that is no small point I stated. My comment regarding “practical purpose” was meant to apply to the level of detail this discussion has gone into.
Blessings!
Carl
13 September 2008 at 4.56 am
I think C.S. Lewis would regard himself a follower of Jesus Christ and, when recognizing another believer’s faith, would not consider it very important that such other believer’s would spend too much time analyzing his quotes.
C.S. Lewis wrote with a purpose, That purpose was not, I think, to stimulate debate on the topic of his exact words; his purpose was to witness for Christ.
Also, C. S Lewis lived and worked and breathed in the very secluded surroundings of Oxford Academia many decennia before our present internet-era. His use of the word Christianity in that time should not cause any of the deliberations I have read in this thread. I say this with respect, but with firm conviction nevertheless.
Robert
13 September 2008 at 5.12 am
Final thought. I believe that C S Lewis was well capable of choosing the right words in his sentences. So when he used Christianity, he did not mean Christ, he meant Christianity as in Christian culture and Christian society. Christianity has produced the advances in the Western World. Art, Architecture, Literature, Social Justice, Science. Everything he saw around him, he saw as the product of Christianity, as opposed to nihilism, for instance, or barbarism, or Buddhism.
When I read C.S. Lewis using the word Christianity, I propose that he referred to the outworking of Christians being the salt of the earth, in all aspects of life. And when he uses the word Christ, he referred to the Messiah, the anointed son of the Living God.
13 September 2008 at 10.07 am
Robert:
That’s the point: it wouldn’t have in his time, but it does in our time. Lewis existed in a fairly monolithic world of high church Anglicanism at the time so within his context his quote makes perfect sense. But the point of the post was that we cannot take one expression found in one time and place of “Christianity” and make it normative and prescriptive for all times and places, which this quote seems to imply.
You are correct: I think he did mean Christianity as in not only Christian culture and society, but also Christian beliefs. But, again, that is missing the point of the post. The question becomes, “Which Christian culture or society or system of beliefs?” It can then move into, “What does a Christian culture or society look like?” or “What Christian beliefs can and should be present while still allowing for contextual differences?”
So which one is it? Not only that, but, again, the point of the post is that “the outworking of Christians being the salt of the earth, in all aspects of life” is going to look different in mid-20th century modernistic, high church Anglicanism than it is going to look in 21st century, post-everything urban Philadelphia (or, take your pick). The point, again, is normativity and how it is invalid to say that one expression of Christianity should be, or can be, normative for all Christians for all times.
This is not a lapse into relativity either. It is, rather, affirming our fallen finite nature and being self-reflective on how our culture shapes both our thinking and our practice. Both, I think, are Biblical as we (well, at least most of us) do not go to church and greet one another with a holy kiss or have our women wearing head dresses.
13 September 2008 at 10.12 am
I recognize a couple of things here. First, though I too have a great deal of respect for C.S. Lewis and his writings (read MERE CHRISTIANITY and A GRIEF OBSERVED this past summer), he is not part of the trinity or even one of the original apostles. His words are not scripture. He was just as finite and a person in need of grace as you and I are (I often make this same point to others when discussing the pope, priests, pastors, and TV evangelists). I think his quote is completely appropriate from his perspective and within the context of the intended audience. He was concerned with hashing out the differences between world religions for the purpose of building a case for Christianity and the root word of Christianity is Christ. Anything anybody says, sees, or does is going to be colored by their own experiences and perspective since we are all finite creatures. I think that as long as we recognize this, his quote stands on its own for what it is – an expression of his experience from his perspective…one that has, I’m sure, made its point to thousands of readers over the years.
Great post.
13 September 2008 at 10.50 am
I think your post misses the premise:
Lewis isn’t invoking simply the risen Christ, but an entire worldview that explains the presence of evil, the plight of man, the solution to life’s biggest problems, etc. The entire system of belief and doctrines and ethics– the whole kit n kaboodle– is most easily summarized “Christianity,” that great confession and system of thought that sheds light on what is happening down here.
I don’t think it needs restated, or rethought. Just reread.
13 September 2008 at 12.32 pm
bret –
Could a Mormon say the same quote, and believe that indeed it was true of his faith? If so, how do we arbitrate between our worldview and that of the mormon’s worldview; which for him is…
“an entire worldview, that explains the presence of evil, the plight of man, the solution to life’s biggest problems, etc. The entire system of belief and doctrines and ethics– the whole kit n kaboodle– which is most easily summarized “Christianity,” that great confession and system of thought that sheds light on what is happening down here.”
What (if anything) in your opinion seperates us from the Mormon?
Pax Christi…Nick
13 September 2008 at 5.31 pm
Art, you wrote in your post: ‘I had a strange thought that rarely, if ever, crosses my mind: what if Lewis was wrong?’
I answered and said that Lewis’s use of the word Christianity should not cause us much deliberation, to which you replied that ‘it wouldn’t have in his time, but it does in our time.’
I think you are right in the first part of my quote of your answer, and wrong in the second. Lewis wrote the sentence in his own time. He didn’t write it _in_ our time and neither did he write it _for_ our time. The answer to the original question you posed in your post can only be that, no, Lewis wasn’t wrong.
One may, of course, speculate whether his observations would still be applicable today, but such a question is of an entirely different nature as musing about whether Lewis was wrong to write what he wrote when it was right at the time that he wrote it.
Robert
14 September 2008 at 12.45 am
Robert: I’m enjoying this conversation.
I’m not questioning as to whether this quote from Lewis did accurately reflect the way that he felt. I’m quite sure that it did. I’m also quite sure that many agree with him in that they, also, view the world through their particular version of Christianity and that is a fine and good way to go about things.
But as a normative statement it cannot hold water. This might be, as you phrased it, the ‘application’ of his statement, but I’m not quite sure that encapsulates the entire issue.
I’ll have to think about it some more, especially at an hour where my mind is working better and not chiding me for lack of sleep!
15 September 2008 at 6.45 am
Art, you say: ‘But as a normative statement it cannot hold water.’
To begin with, I do not think you (nor I) are in a position to make all-inclusive statements like this. It would imply that we would know all the normative statements that CS Lewis has made and intended as such or at least would know how all his meant-as-normative statements ought to have been structured in order to dismiss some of his statements as normative while accepting others. The only thing you could say is that Lewis’s quote is not normative for you.
2) I think you are missing the point when you classifiy as normative a personal statement as Lewis’s quote in which he explicitely refers to himself four times (four times ‘I’). It’s like writing that I like Gouda Cheese. Is it reasonable to expect that everyone who likes my writing likes Gouda Cheese as wel? Will people who like my writing, 50 year from now (when Gouda Cheese possibly no longer exists thanks to mad bureaucracy) have a valid point when they claim that I was wrong to like Gouda Cheese?
3) We cannot re-work Lewis. That implies that we cannot re-word him either. Lewis wrote ‘Christianity’.
4) You write: ‘Instead of “believing” in and viewing the world through a certain form of “Christianity,” why not believe in and view the world through the risen Christ, the Gospel?’ Well, you are entirely at liberty to do just that. So we get, as you yourself also formulate:
“Art Boulet believes in the risen Christ as he believes that the sun has risen, not only because he see Him, but because by Him he sees everything else.”
So how does that, this your 2008 statement of belief in the risen Christ, invalidate C.S. Lewis’s 19?? very personal belief in the outworking of Christianity in his own day and age?
5) I, too, consider this thread a joyful debate. And that, my friend, is how I think Lewis would have us discuss his writings, not by re-working or re-wording him, but by letting his words speak as they were written. For me, I have far too much respect for Lewis as a writer to think that I could better him in any respect.
6) Finally, I think that the mere fact that we can have this debate in the first place, I mean, discussing religious issues, is the very proof that Lewis’s quote is exactly right: it is Christianity that is the root cause that you there and me in Europe can have this discussion: free speech, tolerance of other opinons, internet technology. The free world gave birth to the internet, not a totalitarian state or whatever repressive system and the free world is built on the foundations laid down by Christianity.
PS: our minds are never going to work better that while having debates like these.