Pt 4: Response to C.S. Lewis’s “The Problem of Pain”

Guest post by theologian Dr Rob Knowles on The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis:

Part 4:  Chapter 8 – Hell

In his chapter on hell, Lewis takes the three notions of “destruction”, “eternal torment”, and “privation” and then works them into a systematic unity. This leads to two difficulties. First, Thiselton points out: (a) that the Bible has three traditions in it about hell that seem to contradict one-another: (i) hell is eternal torment; (ii) hell is eternal destruction, or annihilation; (iii) all are saved; (b) that all three traditions have been considered to be “orthodox” in the history of the church, even though “eternal torment” has been the dominant view in orthodoxy; (c) that it would be hermeneutically-premature, given where scholarship has reached, to press these three contradictory traditions into a unity in favour of any one of the traditions, which seems to militate against Lewis’s conclusions.

Second, if Thiselton is correct, then Lewis entirely dismisses one biblical tradition – that of universal salvation. Even if it were right to press all the traditions into a unity then Lewis would still have to press (i) “hell is eternal torment”; (ii) “hell is eternal destruction, or annihilation”; and (iii) “all are saved”, into a unity – along with his emphasis on “privation”.

Some, for example D.A. Carson, are adamant that eternal torment is the nature of hell, and that all who do not believe in Christ go there. Lewis, on balance, seems to favour a kind of qualified annihilationism whilst still holding onto a perspective-dependent notion of eternal torment. Others, such as G. MacDonald (alias R. Parry), reconcile the biblical traditions in favour of “all are saved, but in some cases only after prolonged periods of punishment in hell”.

11613659

Continue reading

Pt 3: Response to C.S. Lewis’s “The Problem of Pain”

Guest post by theologian Dr Rob Knowles on The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis:

Part 3:  Response to Chapter 6 & 7 – Human Pain/Appendix by R. Havard (a Doctor)

 

I agree with most of what Lewis says in Chapter 6. Lewis rightly stresses three forms of remedial pain: (a) retributive punishment that is justly deserved; (b) spell-breaking and the redirection of misdirected fallen nature; and (c) proving our God-wrought faith and righteousness genuine to us. In particular, Lewis rightly distinguishes divine retribution and vengeance from evil vindictive passionate revenge – a kind of tabloid Lamech-style brutalism that is evil, self-centred, over-harsh or disproportionate, and seeks only to destroy.

Lewis is also correct to argue that remedial pain is universal, life-long, and unevenly distributed (i.e. complexly, and not simply, related to “just deserts”); and Lewis is correct to argue that remedial pain faces us with a choice: whether in response to it we choose patience, humility and repentance or whether we choose instead to run with the crowd and adopt attitudes of culturally-normal anger and cynicism. Finally, Lewis adds an interesting Appendix at the back of his book which basically shows that most medium term pain has a positive effect on character.

11613659

Continue reading

Pt 2: Response to C.S. Lewis’s “The Problem of Pain”

Guest post by theologian Dr Rob Knowles on The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis:

Part 2:

Chapter 4 – Human Wickedness

Chapter 5 – The Fall of Man(kind)

 

Response to Chapter 4. Human Wickedness

Lewis is entirely correct to emphasize the unhappy truth that we habitually deny our sin, or at least its seriousness, and that we deploy self-deceiving means to do so. Lewis is right to emphasize: (a) evil (anti-Trinitarian “Lord of the Flies”-type localist tribal) clique-dynamics that only look evil from the world of the broader public realm; (b) the role of certain sin-denying popular trends in (pretentiously boastful pseudo-intellectual pseudo-wise) psychoanalysis; (c) a reductionist approach to virtue (which stresses a chav-ethics of outwardly-brutal ego-centric drama-triangle sentimentality and victim-aping self-pity); (d) the finger-pointing self-evading blame-projecting strategies deployed within the superficial outward comparisons used by sin-deniers who binary-categorize only others as evil (using terms like “offenders” and “scum”); (e) the evil things said about “nature” and “finitude” as though God (the very paradigm of innocence, more innocent than a baby) were at fault; and, (f), the view that time alone (rather than Christ’s high-priestly work of (re-)consecrating the defiled and unclean) brings about cleansing from sin and guilt. All these emphases – (with my views added in brackets) – are true.

Two points come to mind, however, in response to what Lewis says: (a) Lewis’s use of the notion of “virtue” has more of a classical feel than a biblical feel. One can speak in terms of “the seven virtues” and of the “seven deadly sins”, but in my view there are more biblical ways to speak of “right and wrong”. To speak only classically about “sin and virtue” is itself a liberal sin-denying strategy. (b) There are also more biblical ways of speaking about the ways in which we disguise sin and hide it from ourselves. Lewis is correct to point out some of the contemporary manifestations of sin-denial, but there are strategies of sin-denial that pervade all cultures and that are manifest in the contemporary manifestations of sin-denial that Lewis notes.

11613659

Continue reading

Response to C.S. Lewis’s “The Problem of Pain”

Guest post by theologian Dr Rob Knowles on The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis:

Part 1:  Chapter 1 – Introductory

Chapter 2 – Divine Omnipotence

Chapter 3 – Divine Goodness

 

Response to Chapter 1: Introductory

I agree with Lewis’s basic argument that the problem of pain emerges historically, and not philosophically. Suffering is a historical fact, and yet belief in a good all-powerful God is also a historical fact. The problem of pain, as an intellectual problem, simply emerges as the problem of how to understand the co-existence of these two historical realities intellectually.

My main query with respect to Lewis’s argument in his first chapter is that there are many intellectual reasons for holding to the truth of Jesus’ claims, whereas there seems to be more than a little liberal British Bultmannian School Neo-Kantian existentialism in Lewis’s appeals to the supposedly undergirding roles of universal experiences of the numinous and of the moral impulse. Whilst the Bible affirms the experiential, existential, moral, or practical side of revelation and of human existence, the Bible also affirms the cognitive, propositional, conceptual side of revelation and of human life – as part of a broader formative overall revelation in which Christ’s Spirit uses biblical texts relationally to form or build individual Christians and the corporate Church.

That is, Lewis seems to make the veracity of biblical content and formative function too dependent upon the universality of mystical and moral experience. In fact, though, revelatory content and formative function should be held together with, and should constitute criteria of authenticity in relation to, revelatory experience.

One of the big problems in the church today is an experience-centredness that refuses to allow itself to be tested against biblical criteria with content, and against the formative results or fruitfulness of a right relational engagement with the Scriptures – an engagement that is everywhere marginalised in such churches. But Jesus says, “by their fruit you shall know them”, John commands us to “test the spirits” and Paul, following Jesus, makes it quite clear that whilst “love sums up the law and the prophets”, transformation unto love or right-relating comes through a biblical “transformation of the mind”. As Jesus prays, “sanctify them by the truth – your word is truth”.

11613659

Continue reading

Reduced Laughter: A Review

Reduced Laughter by Revd Dr Helen Paynter.

A Review by Richard Matcham

91223

 

Chapter 1 – Introduction

My title:  In Defense of the Comedic

Using Private Eye as a great introductory example, one thing is sure – humanity loves humour, and we love humour that subverts the way things are, the high-and-mighty, etc.  The Bible hasn’t had good fare in recent millennia regarding all things funny.  The Bible is a serious book, and is found to be read (when it is read at all), to be read by serious people.

 

Our Western rationalism in general, and 19th century German scholarship (p.5) in particular, riding on the back of Plato’s suspicion that humour is malicious; and Aristotle’s warning that while humour is necessary, it should be ‘kept in check’, is missing the point that humour can be ‘a route to truth’ (p.3).

 

On the contrary, humour is not the opposite of sadness or seriousness, a useful observation of what de Sousa calls a ‘category error’ (p.4).  Thank God!  I have come to realise that my own use of humour is directly related to my serious side.  They are two sides of the same coin.

 

All this is carried over into our Bible reading.  Our culture may ‘Think Bike – Think Safety’ but we certainly do not train ourselves or our churches to ‘Think Bible – Think Humour,’ and I for one would love to try.   Admittedly, this is not easy – the Bible is a very serious book(s), with lots of weighty, eternal, salvific images, multi-genre & theological categories, stories and truth claims.  Thus, as a default setting, we ‘are more likely to under diagnose humour than over-diagnose it’ (p.6), and this means we will likely miss it altogether.

 

A taster-example is offered via the Naboth narrative (1 Kings 21), and how the Hebrew word describing the sulky and vexed Ahab is related to the Deuteronomic stubborn and rebellious son (21:18-19).  Here, the son is the one killed, whilst in Kings, it is Ahab who kills.  ‘This subtle, darkly humorous, allusion will only be apparent to the attentive reader or listener’ (p.8).  I wish I’d been more attentive in my reading!

Helen then offers some ‘ground rules’ for textual interpretation.  The text itself assumes a ‘literary or aural competence’ (p.8), and this requires competent hard work.  Highlighting wordplays and ‘hidden polemics’, the careful reader is able to see the ‘subversive, and deliberate partial concealment’ (p.10) of the narrative, using the ‘useful guidelines’ for the ‘methodological criteria’ outlined by Yairah Amit on page 9.

 

Finally, Helen’s hermeneutical approach leans heavily on the Russian literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin, someone who refers to seriocomic literature as ‘playful, irreverent, multi-voiced, subversive and outrageous’ (p.11).  I have already guessed in my own reading that the Bible is all of these things, but what I hadn’t reckoned with, is that it is more deliberately so, and far deeper than I gave credit.

Continue reading

Importance of Reading

BOOKSI really love books!  In fact, I have had to fight the difference between loving books and actually reading them!  Even writing this on my blog is a kind of confession in the hope that I can love books for the right reason.

As a pastor of a church, an aspiring theologian and a preacher-in-training, I have come to the conclusion that books are the oxygen of Christian ministry.

Even as I write that it feels strange!  Some may reply, “But isn’t Jesus the ‘oxygen’ of Christian ministry?”  To which I would obviously agree, but when those who have loved Jesus over 2000 years of church history are ignored or marginalised “because ‘Jesus’ (?) is always the right answer,” allows us to collapse Christian history and thought into the here, and the me and now, then I have a problem!

Christianity is always a relationship with God the Father through Jesus the Son, by the Holy Spirit.  The reason why reading what others have said about this matters, is because I am simply inadequate and unqualified and altogether too temporal on the world-stage (1971 – ?) to possibly offer anything of value or substance….(and this is key)…..without the help of those who have gone before!

Enter Charles Spurgeon.

He was a man who bought books; read books; loved books.  All with the aim of helping him to live in the book – the Bible, the Word of God.

There are not many sermons on the text of 2 Timothy 4:13 – but there should be!

And the reason why Spurgeon loved books was because he understood what the Apostle Paul understood; that if you are going to think Christianly (or ‘God’s thoughts’), you will need to realise that you yourself are not the only or final authority, but that you, we, I, rely on all those who have attempted to do just that.

“When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments”

bad man spurgeonCharles Spurgeon was a voracious reader!  His genius was not merely in himself as one who trusted the Lord, but one who read from others that he may trust the Lord more faithfully, more joyously, and proclaim more powerfully (he wasn’t called the Prince of Preachers for nothing)!

He wrote,

“Even an apostle must read (i.e 2 Timothy 4:13). . . . [Paul] is inspired, and yet he wants books!  He has been preaching at least for thirty years, and yet he wants books!  He has seen the Lord, and yet he wants books!  He had a wider experience than most men, and yet he wants books!  He had been caught up into the third heaven, and yet he wants books!  He had written the major part of the New Testament, and yet he wants books!  The apostle says to Timothy and so he says to every preacher, ‘Give thyself unto reading.'”                                                                                           Sermon 542 ‘Paul – his cloak and his books.’

But let’s not make reading an idol.  A sad man or woman in a lonely and cold study, pressing on to ‘know the Lord’ in pious isolation.  Never!  Reading is an act of communion, devotion, feeding, growth and worship.  It can seem to me that often, my reading of others overflows into my ministry, not as a plagiarist, but as one living and breathing what one reads.

lit-book-reviewA couple of years ago, I read an excellent book on ‘how to read books’. Lit!: A Christian Guide to reading Books by Tony Reinke.  Despite his gargantuan appetite for reading books (and comprehending them), even within a fully functioning, working and normal family life, it was a read to behold!  I marvelled at his ability to read unto-death and then some, and once I got over that, I saw his heart and it affected my heart.  Reading matters!  And reading the right thing matters even more.  It was a read unto-life, and that is a powerful and attractive thing.  Tim Chester of Sheffield ‘The Crowded House’ fame wrote of Lit! “…should you include this book in your list? Yes. Because Lit! will help you read the right books in the right way“, and doing that will fan into flame the gifts of God in you.

Obviously the one who reads theology but despises the people, the church, the world is not reading rightly, nor doing church rightly, nor ministering rightly!  Shame on that person.  Isolationist theology isn’t theology, but a mutation (un)worthy of the X-Men.

Reading is the aid, the bridge, the link with thought and future, ministry and present, that helps us to ‘gird our loins’ or to put on the armour of God.  It helps us to have something to offer when the chips are down and the time is up!  The preacher who does not read even a little here and there will probably bore the congregation to death.  He/she may get away with it for a year or two, but in the end, the recycled content will become a chore to listen to, and that is a tragedy.

Give thyself unto reading.

 

Don’t Despise Old Books

Image

Of course not all old books are worth reading, but to never read a quality old book is to miss something of incalculable worth.  C. S. Lewis put it like this:

“There is a strange idea aboard that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. . . . . This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology.

Now this seems to me topsy-turvy.  Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books.  But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. . . . It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between.

If that is too much for you, you should read at least one old one to every three new ones. . . . We all. . . . need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period.

And that means old books. . . . We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century. . . . lies where we have never suspected it. . . . None of us can fully escape this blindness. . . . The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can only be done by reading old books.”

C. S. Lewis Introduction to St. Athanasius, The Incarnation of the Word of God.