Sin and God

[Polycarp_fan]

Referring to theologians other than Lewis - preferring them, even - is hardly indicative of "agenda-laden plans". FWIW, I tend to agree with Cantata on this one; Lewis is okay for populist Christian apologetics - and definitely a darned sight better than Josh McDowell, for instance - but I wouldn't really describe him as a theologian per se.



When exactly has Cantata been flippant about Lewis? She just said she doesn't rate him highly as a theologian and gave her reasons for not doing so. What motives do you read into that?

Frankly, one of the best theologians I've read is Tom Wright. His Simply Christian is an excellent work on Christianity. And if you've not read Bonhoeffer's The Cost of Discipleship, you really should. Both, IMO, are miles better than anything I've read by Lewis.

David.

Let's just forget about what other theologians say about Lewis. Mere Christianity stands alone in its dissection and description of what is Christian belief. It is as effective as anything written by Paul of Tarsus.

Bonhoeffer and his teachings on "cheap grace" may be a very telling condemnation to the liberal theology I oppose so vehemently.

No, I stand on my assertion that non and anti Christians learn about Christianity what furthers their agenda against it on far more occasions that just the converting skeptic.

On that I am not joking.

And remember I have been in many discussions with cantata.

Right Cantata?

 

[wanderingone]

What part of "I'm out" didn't you understand.

The part where you say you're out but you keep responding?

 

[sidhe]

Mere Christianity, IIRC, hinged largely on the "lord, liar, lunatic" argument.

In opposition to which I advance Susanna Kaysen, James Taylor, Syd Barrett, and Sylvia Plath - all lunatics with very profound insights into the human condition. By Lewis' argument, that would mean that they're clearly not actually making profound statements (alright, maybe in the case of early Pink Floyd, that'd be true...), or they're not truly insane, and Kaysen would quickly clarify that she was utterly out of her mind.

On topic: I'd recommend a dose of Hans Kung for fun and profit. One of his quotes is being Talked Rationally elsewhere, and I like the crazy German a lot.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Mere Christianity, IIRC, hinged largely on the "lord, liar, lunatic" argument.

In opposition to which I advance Susanna Kaysen, James Taylor, Syd Barrett, and Sylvia Plath - all lunatics with very profound insights into the human condition. By Lewis' argument, that would mean that they're clearly not actually making profound statements (alright, maybe in the case of early Pink Floyd, that'd be true...), or they're not truly insane, and Kaysen would quickly clarify that she was utterly out of her mind.

Ahh, but did any of them calim to be the Son of the uncreated God?
And at the same time being "one" with the Father (John 10:30)?

It's worthwhile considering the cultural context of His claim also. This was 1st century Palestine. It was blasphemy to even utter the name of God.
Think about the following "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8).
Interesting use of tense there. If His meaning seems obscure to us, it certainly didn't to the people who heard Him. They tried to stone Him to death.

Now I have met one or two people in acute psychiatric wards who have claimed to be God. We are talking about a whole different degree of mental illness. Quite often on questioning you get the impression that such people (unlike Jesus) have no concept really of what God might be. The other impression is one of a detachment from reality so profound that you realise the person is completely unable to function in society until such time as their psychosis passes.

 

[sidhe]

Ahh, but did any of them calim to be the Son of the uncreated God?
And at the same time being "one" with the Father (John 10:30)?

It's worthwhile considering the cultural context of His claim also. This was 1st century Palestine. It was blasphemy to even utter the name of God.
Think about the following "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8).
Interesting use of tense there. If His meaning seems obscure to us, it certainly didn't to the people who heard Him. They tried to stone Him to death.

Now I have met one or two people in acute psychiatric wards who have claimed to be God. We are talking about a whole different degree of mental illness. Quite often on questioning you get the impression that such people (unlike Jesus) have no concept really of what God might be. The other impression is one of a detachment from reality so profound that you realise the person is completely unable to function in society until such time as their psychosis passes.

* <-- The Point.










@ <-- You.

Lewis' argument isn't that someone profoundly detached from reality is incapable of accurate observations about human nature (which I would argue against, even if that were his argument), but merely that those who are mentally ill cannot make the arguments Jesus did. Given that mental illness is not a continuum but a variety of symptoms, someone with - say - schizotypal personality disorder could believe, fully, that they're God, and still be fully rational, be able to construct arguments concerning this, and make keen observations and otherwise be a functional member of society.

Looking at the Palestine of the time, there was a great deal of revolutionary religious fervor, which when combined with a preexisting notion of a suffering savior, could easily lead someone of mild delusion and considerable intellect to embrace their delusion, particularly under the influence of a charismatic preacher such as John the Baptist.

Mind you, I'm not arguing that any of that is reality. All I'm saying is that Mere Christianity is not that impressive because the fundamental argument does not stand up to modern analysis. Kung, Tillich, Bonhoeffer, Borg, et al are way more interesting and challenging.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

* <-- The Point.










@ <-- You.
Given that mental illness is not a continuum but a variety of symptoms, someone with - say - schizotypal personality disorder could believe, fully, that they're God

I know I missed the point, but your post was so interesting and thought-provoking that I couldn't help myself.
It really is incredibly interesting to speak to people with eg. schizotypal personality disorder and then the full-blown psychotic. The weight with which each holds their delusions is different. The whole feel of it is different. I'm not saying your statement is incorrect but in the personality disorders the delusions tend to be less firmly held and transitory and amenable to reason. It's much more subtle. Obviously, because if it weren't the diagnosis would be different.

BTW, do you know of any people with schizotypal PD who have been great charismatic leaders? As well as being fairly reclusive, they often tend to have a degree of thought disorder.

It's also interesting to note that no Old Testament Messianic prophecy claimed the messiah would be divine. Looking at it from a secular point of view, Jesus' claims re His identity were completely unecessary even if He thought He was the messiah.
They were also fatal.

Mike.

 

[sidhe]

I know I missed the point, but your post was so interesting and thought-provoking that I couldn't help myself.
It really is incredibly interesting to speak to people with eg. schizotypal personality disorder and then the full-blown psychotic. The weight with which each holds their delusions is different. The whole feel of it is different. I'm not saying your statement is incorrect but in the personality disorders the delusions tend to be less firmly held and transitory and amenable to reason. It's much more subtle. Obviously, because if it weren't the diagnosis would be different.

BTW, do you know of any people with schizotypal PD who have been great charismatic leaders? As well as being fairly reclusive, they often tend to have a degree of thought disorder.

It's also interesting to note that no Old Testament Messianic prophecy claimed the messiah would be divine. Looking at it from a secular point of view, Jesus' claims re His identity were completely unecessary even if He thought He was the messiah.
They were also fatal.

Mike.

No OT prophecy does, but there was a circulating bit of apocalyptic scripture (clearly heretical by the standards of the day) discussing a divine messiah back at the time. Unfortunately, I don't have my link to the announcement concerning it currently...it's somewhere back in 7 months of chat logs.

My main concern is that Lewis isn't presenting a very strong argument, and citing him as a great apologist is inaccurate. He was a phenomenal writer, was very personable, and had a gift for persuasion...but he wasn't making a strong argument.

 

[Beanieboy]

Can you give us a preview of what your thesis is, since we have weighed in?

 

[wanderingone]

Hmm.. who said both? I'm with them

Sin is in itself estrangement from God, it is the desire to be out from under God's authority, that leads to sin which leads one further away from God. I think the Presbyterians (USA) have something pretty basic about this on their Presbyterians 101 site... sin being an expression of our estrangement from God ....as a result of our estrangement we fail to trust God, and sin, and grow more estranged... an ever growing circle further away from God

 

[Beanieboy]

I think I would have to agree. If we sin, then we separate ourselves from God/love/others. Then, separated, it becomes easier to continue sinning, even though we may be unhappy.

However, I think "estranged" is a better word, because I question if it is possible to be separated from God. When Adam was created, God breathed into Adam's mouth, and he came alive. I often imagine my breath being God, and how if you separate me from God, with no breath, I die. I leave my body.

However, the God voice in all of us can be drowned out - not completely, because it is very quiet, but very bothersome. It creates guilt to let us know that we are off our path. It nudges us gently, knowing exactly what needs to come into our thoughts to make us turn away from the transgression. The more we listen, the stronger it gets, the more it almost controls our lives, rules with ease, and the less we sin naturally.

I think it is we who estrange ourselves from God. What is often taught is that we disobey, God sends us away, as he did with Adam, and we beg for God to forgive us. I think that is a flawed way of thinking. I believe that God never leaves us, is always there with us, but his voice remains small, so that we must nurture it to make it louder, and clearer. Our actions create our reality, create who we are, and we choose to take a step closer to God, or farther away. It is us who moves, but I believe the God is always tethered, trying to help guide us closer to him.

 

[wanderingone]

I think it is we who estrange ourselves from God. What is often taught is that we disobey, God sends us away, as he did with Adam, and we beg for God to forgive us. I think that is a flawed way of thinking. I believe that God never leaves us, is always there with us, but his voice remains small, so that we must nurture it to make it louder, and clearer. Our actions create our reality, create who we are, and we choose to take a step closer to God, or farther away. It is us who moves, but I believe the God is always tethered, trying to help guide us closer to him.

I agree, I believe that we allow ourselves to suffer .. and to believe we have been cast out, there's no "garden of eden" while we are estranged from God - God allows us to wander but is still present.

There's a simple little hymn I am fond of.. "I Was There to Hear Your Borning Cry" that reflects mostly on the pleasant sacraments and life of a cradle Christian (baptism, learning the word, perhaps finding a marriage partner, quietly going to be with God at the end of life) but in one line says

"I was there when you were but a child, with a faith to suit you well, in a blaze of light you wandered off to find where demons dwell"

That pretty much points to what I understand about God, and sinning.. God is there, even as we choose to go off in search of something else. We choose to be estranged, and we choose to end that estrangement.

(I'm vaguely embarrassed to admit that at each of my children's confirmations I cried when this song was sung, it's such a corny song.. but as soon as we hit that line about wandering off I'm crying...)

 

[cantata]

Substance does though. Lewis is a great theologian. Do your research. You can't be serious about "Christians" theology without this man's works being used. All you're doing is shwoing your agenda-laden plans.

So because I don't like one writer, you have drawn ridiculously far-reaching conclusions about me? Okay then...

Intelligence and a well-reasoned position. Lewis excells on both.

But sadly, very little originality. He is charismatic, yes, and has a gift for clear exposition, but his contributions are interesting for critical theology, to my mind, only in style rather than content.

Yes. Your flippancy about Lewis is a perfect indication of your motives. It's stageringly obvious. Judging someone is not unethical and neither is it uncivilized. It is quite respectable when done correctly.

Which I have implemented accordingly here.

My motive is to write a thoughtful, critical, and incisive essay.

I trust my tutor's ability to set a reading list. It does not include Lewis. I have read some Lewis, and I think I know why my tutor doesn't include him on his reading lists: Lewis doesn't approach the topic in a particularly interesting, influential, or original way.

Which is why he appears on none of my reading lists, in fact. And, by the way, all of my theology tutors are Christians.

In the meantime, the last chapter of "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis addresses your question quite well IIRC. (Could be the second to last).

Thank you.

I'm with Polycarp on this one. The man was a genius (not a word I use lightly). Not a theological genius (as he would have been the first to admit). Rather his genius was in clarity of exposition. Hence his popularity. The fact that he is popular does not render what he has to say as lightweight.

But that's precisely my point - he was not a great theologian, although I wouldn't knock his ability to write stuff that's useful and enlightening for Christians.

I have to say I don't like Lewis very much, personally - I had my little heart broken by my beloved Narnia books when I was about 10 or 11, when I realised how manipulative they were, and I find his approach somewhat disingenuous in his more serious works as well. Meanwhile, on many issues, I simply disagree with him (from within the framework of Christian scholarship rather than in a personal capacity). But my main reason for refusing to count him among the great theologians is that his contributions were notable mainly for their clarity rather than their originality.

It was in fact by avidly reading his apologetics and wanting to know more that I looked into the works of some of the other theologians you mentioned.

Now you're obviously very intelligent and I would guess your reading of theology is way ahead of mine, but I'd like to recommend a Lewis book to you called "The Abolition of Man". It's very short and would take an afternoon to read.

If you have read it, I would love to know your views on it and discuss it with you.

I think I read it a couple of years ago but I will refresh my memory before I discuss it with you, if that's okay. I've found the full text online.

BTW, do you know of any people with schizotypal PD who have been great charismatic leaders?

Jesus may have been charismatic, but he was not a particularly popular leader during his life. John the Baptist had more followers than he did (which is why there's a considerable amount of anti-JtB polemic in John's gospel, for example).

It's also interesting to note that no Old Testament Messianic prophecy claimed the messiah would be divine. Looking at it from a secular point of view, Jesus' claims re His identity were completely unecessary even if He thought He was the messiah.

From a historical point of view I would argue that Jesus probably never claimed to be divine.

He may have claimed to be chosen by God, but I find it difficult to believe that he walked around saying "I am the bread from heaven" and all that other stuff in John's gospel.

They were also fatal.

Personally I'm of the opinion that Jesus died because the Romans thought he might start a Jewish revolution, not because he thought he was God. It's possible that some powerful Jews egged on the Romans a bit, but the main motive for his execution was probably political. Remember that the Romans couldn't give a fig about whether or not Jesus was blaspheming, because the Romans weren't Jewish.

My main concern is that Lewis isn't presenting a very strong argument, and citing him as a great apologist is inaccurate. He was a phenomenal writer, was very personable, and had a gift for persuasion...but he wasn't making a strong argument.

My feelings exactly.

Can you give us a preview of what your thesis is, since we have weighed in?

Ooh, well hopefully I'll have finished it by this evening.

My basic contention is that the notion of sin is still appropriate for contemporary Christian theology, but it needs to be approached in a way which takes into account what it is to be a human being living in a scientific age. The notion of sin has been tied up with a view of human beings as children who must defer to a higher authority in every field; I think it needs to be seen in a way which affirms and does not condemn a measure of human independence and free thought.

Thank you to everyone who's contributed, by the way. I'm grateful for your help.

 

[sidhe]

I have to say I don't like Lewis very much, personally - I had my little heart broken by my beloved Narnia books when I was about 10 or 11, when I realised how manipulative they were, and I find his approach somewhat disingenuous in his more serious works as well. Meanwhile, on many issues, I simply disagree with him (from within the framework of Christian scholarship rather than in a personal capacity). But my main reason for refusing to count him among the great theologians is that his contributions were notable mainly for their clarity rather than their originality.

^ The bolded, yes. Narnia is a fine series...but it's sickeningly manipulative. There's a stage musical version of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe that plays around here that we were taken to see on a field trip back in primary school. I knew the books were heavy-handed, but when I saw it on stage, I got rather offended by the whole thing.

Lewis gives me the impression that he's either writing for an audience that's half-convinced to begin with, or he thinks his audience is kind of slow and won't notice his literary sleight-of-hand. "Let me argue for the existence of deity...and now since deity, therefore Jesus! Pay no attention to the elastic gimmick!"

As an aside, I remember little of the musical now, but periodically when I see anything Narnia related, I get a choir in my head singing "Turkish Delight!" over and over again.

 

[cantata]

^ The bolded, yes. Narnia is a fine series...but it's sickeningly manipulative. There's a stage musical version of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe that plays around here that we were taken to see on a field trip back in primary school. I knew the books were heavy-handed, but when I saw it on stage, I got rather offended by the whole thing.

It upset me because, like most children, I fell in love with Aslan - the bit where Lucy is allowed to ride on his back was always my favourite part. I thought he was wonderful. It annoyed me intensely to discover how I had been manipulated. It was like someone had said, "Sorry, these books whose stories you enjoy so much are not for you."

Lewis gives me the impression that he's either writing for an audience that's half-convinced to begin with, or he thinks his audience is kind of slow and won't notice his literary sleight-of-hand. "Let me argue for the existence of deity...and now since deity, therefore Jesus! Pay no attention to the elastic gimmick!"

Indeed. I think it's probably the former, to be fair, as, realistically speaking, his work is mostly in the field of preaching to the choir. But with the Narnia books, of course, it's much more insidious.

As an aside, I remember little of the musical now, but periodically when I see anything Narnia related, I get a choir in my head singing "Turkish Delight!" over and over again.

Sounds terrifying!

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

But that's precisely my point - he was not a great theologian, although I wouldn't knock his ability to write stuff that's useful and enlightening for Christians.

I know that was your point. We agree. I think Lewis would agree with you also. Out of interest, which of his books have you read. I'd enjoy discussing some with you.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To cantata,

Thanks for the question

Is sin a result of human beings' estrangement from God?

Or is human beings' estrangement from God the result of sin?

If you are going to make the decisions you don’t need others help. If however you want to know what the Biblical testimony is then you need to refer to the Bible.
I suggest as God created all things and saw they were good so you need to look to Genesis 3 and see that evil must be the opposite of what God has created; disobediently seeking the knowledge of that evil being the first and ultimate act of sin. If God didn’t want us to know sin which leads to death he must always have had our best interests at heart.

What do you think?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

From a historical point of view I would argue that Jesus probably never claimed to be divine.

He may have claimed to be chosen by God, but I find it difficult to believe that he walked around saying "I am the bread from heaven" and all that other stuff in John's gospel.



Personally I'm of the opinion that Jesus died because the Romans thought he might start a Jewish revolution, not because he thought he was God. It's possible that some powerful Jews egged on the Romans a bit, but the main motive for his execution was probably political. Remember that the Romans couldn't give a fig about whether or not Jesus was blaspheming, because the Romans weren't Jewish.

Which historical texts are you using to back up your argument that Jesus never calimed to be divine?

Of course the Romans would not care about Jesus' alleged blasphemy.
But this was Passover; emotions were running high, it was not that long ago that Passover had been the catalyst that led to an uprising. Even by Roman standards, what they had to do in the aftermath of that previous uprising was disgustingly violent.

Now the Jewish leaders are annoying Pilate with the case of a man who they claim has broken their sacred laws. Pilate doesn't want a riot. That would be an unecessary headache for him. He doesn't care about the man or his alleged "crimes" but it wouldn't do his career much good or his reputation back in Rome if it appeared he couldn't keep control.
I think Pilate was genuinely worried at this stage. He was hearing things he did not want to hear about the man, Jesus. It looked like the people might riot if he killed and they might riot if he didn't.

The account by John of what happened next is one of my favourite pieces of writing. The interaction between Pilate and Jesus is heavy with understated drama. The dissonance is tragic but never reaches incomprehension, and Pilate's "Truth? What is that?" marks the tragic highpoint of one of the strangest conversations recorded in literature.

It's a conversation that I have heard re-enacted every Spring since my infancy and it only ever increases in emotion and tragedy.

 

[cantata]

I know that was your point. We agree. I think Lewis would agree with you also. Out of interest, which of his books have you read. I'd enjoy discussing some with you.

As well as The Abolition of Man (which I read for an essay in 6th form, I think), I've read Mere Christianity, bits of Surprised by Joy, and God in the Dock - but please bear in mind that I read all of this about five years ago! I had a friend at secondary school who was diligently trying to convert me to her own form of rather terrifying Baptist Christianity, and I obediently read all the C S Lewis she piled on me. It didn't work, I'm afraid

Which historical texts are you using to back up your argument that Jesus never calimed to be divine?

Well, mostly it's the fact that he barely does make those claims anywhere except for in John, where he's an utterly different Jesus from the one we know from the Synoptics.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Cantata,

He may have claimed to be chosen by God, but I find it difficult to believe that he walked around saying "I am the bread from heaven" and all that other stuff in John's gospel.

Personally I'm of the opinion that Jesus died because the Romans thought he might start a Jewish revolution, not because he thought he was God. It's possible that some powerful Jews egged on the Romans a bit, but the main motive for his execution was probably political. Remember that the Romans couldn't give a fig about whether or not Jesus was blaspheming, because the Romans weren't Jewish.

Why do you think He was written about at all then, afterall according to the New Testament Barabbas was already locked up because he was a threat to the Romans?

At the moment you seem to be saying you believe the bits of the Bible you can accept, but you don&#8217;t believe the bits of the Bible you don&#8217;t accept.

 

[cantata]

Why do you think He was written about at all then, afterall according to the New Testament Barabbas was already locked up because he was a threat to the Romans?

He was written about because some people believed he was the Messiah, of course.

At the moment you seem to be saying you believe the bits of the Bible you can accept, but you don’t believe the bits of the Bible you don’t accept.

Er, yes? Isn't that what most people do when they read things? They believe the things that make sense and disbelieve the things that don't...