Category: Philosophy

Posted on

Ayn Rand’s Philosophy…

As a self-professing advocate of the free market, I often come across Ayn Rand. Rand–who is committed to objectivism and Aristotelian logic–defines her philosophy thusly:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. (Appendix to Atlas Shrugged)

It does not take long to see Rand’s worldview. She is overtaken by the idea of man as the all in all of human existence, and thus, he–man–is to achieve the highest and noblest activity in this life; live within the greatest amount of happiness for tomorrow we die. Unlike many atheists who deny the need for absolutes, Ayn scolds such approach. Rather, she held that reason is the only objective tool available to know anything.

Though she refused to label herself a Libertarian, immoral and anarchistic libertarians exalt Rand as a model of laissez-faire capitalism. Indeed Rand was an arch defender of the free market and a formidable opponent of Marxism and Socialism, but her philosophical foundation exalted man above all else and made man a god unto himself. She urged a pursuit of gain outside of any religious commitment; she desired autonomous reason in a God-ordered world. Rand’s contributions to political and economic theory is helpful in many ways, but her contribution is marred by her suppression of truth.

Posted on

The Enlightenment and its Effect on the Church

The philosophie des lumieres, commonly known as the Enlightenment, continues to have a destructive effect on our church’s liturgy and life. Hans Kung ably summarizes what was lost with the emergence of the Enlightenment:

Order, hierarchy, authority, discipline, Church, dogma, faith, still highly esteemed in the seventeenth century, came to be detested in the eighteenth.[1]

A high view of Order, a high ecclesiology, a robust view of church discipline,[2] and a commitment to the Great Creeds of the faith and much more have been abolished from Protestant and Evangelical churches. The Enlightenment succeeded in that it continually brings autonomy from the academia to the church. Where there once was a Creed confessed by all, now there are pithy sayings meant to spur others to action; where once was discipline, now there is immediate leniency. This despicable alliance the church has made with the heirs of the Enlightenment will eventually lead to a cultish disassociation from her historical roots. If man can invent their own methods, sell their own strategies, and de-ecclesiasticize the church, then we can expect a diminishment of Orthodoxy.

Much of this refers back to the orderliness of the Garden. The Garden was created so that order would prevail. Perfect beauty was to invade the Garden and replenish all the earth. Since the Fall of man, disorder has reigned supreme. The Christian Church has through the Ages attempted to restore this Edenic Order. To a certain extent it has succeeded, though the church has seen the good, the bad, and the disorderly. In order to once again continue the path laid by our forefathers, we need to abolish any Enlightenment element from our churches and our worship, and return to that sacred space and sacred order. Where there is order, there is clarity. We have lost that clarity in this day and to capitulate to the Enlightenment is to lose all clarity.

 

[1]Kung, Hans, Does God Exist? Pg. 37.

[2] Considered by Calvin to be one of the marks of a true church.

Posted on

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part IV

cslsmoking_thumb.jpgThe second book entitled What Christians Believe deals with alternatives to the Christian faith. Lewis first establishes that though other religions are inherently wrong as a whole, yet Christians cannot categorically affirm that they have nothing to offer that is good and wholesome. This is a valid point as far as it goes. If by affirming some good in other religions, Lewis refers to their commitment (as in Islam), their good behavior in public (Mormons; though they would be a “cult” in my perspective), or good moral teachings (like Judaism), then I think it is a fair assessment. Nevertheless, Christians reject any alternative to Christianity, because God says, “You shall have no other gods before me.”[1] By allowing any other religion opposed to the God of the Bible, the right to instruct us on how we ought to live is to break the first commandment. God Himself has the authority to instruct us and all that we need is found in His Revelation. In the end of the day, all truth is God’s truth, but when any other truth, besides the Scriptures becomes authoritative in our daily instruction, we have deceived ourselves.

Before delving into a few specifics of this section of the book, there is a humorous section where Lewis discusses one reader’s complaint about his constant usage of the word “damned.” Lewis writes:

One listener complained of the word “damned” as frivolous swearing. But I mean exactly what I say-nonsense that is damned is under God’s curse, and will (apart from God’s grace) lead those who believe it to eternal death.[2]

This is somewhat humorous in light of the contemporary evangelical fear of using language that would be considered cursing. This is in my estimation a hangover from fundamentalism. Lewis is right, but does not go far enough. Lewis is correct that the use of the word “damned” is reserved and can be used for all things and people that are worthy of curses and damnation. (for my article on cursing click here)

Among the great rivals for the conception of God, is the concept of No-god. This is atheism (a-No; Theism-God). Lewis develops his critique of atheism by saying that atheism is too simple. Atheism leads to meaninglessness. But if it is meaningless, then how do we know that statement to be a meaningful expression of what atheism signifies? But also, Christianity can fall into that same category. It can also be too simple and fall short of a proper alternative to atheism. This is what Lewis calls Christianity and water. He writes:

Christianity-and-water, (is) the view which simply says there is a good God in Heaven and everything is all right-leaving out all the difficult and terrible doctrines about sin and hell and the devil, and the redemption.[3]

This, of course, is convenient Christianity. “Just tell me when I must come to church and how much I have to give, and then leave me alone.” As Lewis argues later in the book, you cannot have a religion with no ethical demands. God plus no duty equals no Christianity. Unfortunately, millions prefer to serve this God that is only good. It is natural to assume why the natural man does not want to pursue God at any depth. If he does so, then he must be confronted with his many responsibilities before the government of the family and the civil government as well. Further, he will come to grasp with the horrible consequences of not submitting to Christ as Lord. To put it simply, doctrinal depth can lead to a God that is not so convenient to the modern mind.

It is here also that the atheist “inquisitor”[4] wants to have it both ways. The intellectual atheist sees the gospel message and says, “This is too simple.” It does not match their criteria of what a respectable religion should be. On the other hand, when they are presented with the great knowledge of the church throughout the ages, they say, ” This is too hard.” At this point the atheist reveals what is truly in his heart. As Romans 3 says: “There is none who seek after God, no not one.”

The apologetic of C.S. Lewis would be considered to be evidential in nature.[5] Though, he may also be influenced by classical apologetics.[6] Lewis seems to use the latter in proving the existence of God. He begins by proving the God of theism and then perhaps the resurrected Christ.[7] Lewis asserts that the atheist cannot deny the existence of God. Everything that he assumes proves God. Lewis uses the example of a robber. He is considered by society to be bad, but where does badness come from? According to Lewis:

To be bad, he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the Good Power: even to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent.[8]

He continues:

All the things, which enable a bad man to be effectively bad, are in themselves good things-resolution, cleverness, good looks, existence itself.[9]

The bad does not exist apart from the good, there can be no real dichotomy in this world.[10]

Briefly, I shall speak to an area of Lewis’ writings that I despise, his treatment of free will. But before doing so, I want to relish on his idea of the great king’s purpose for the Advent (His Coming). Lewis sees the present world as “Enemy-occupied territory.” Surely since the fall we have lost the innocence of the garden and have allowed the enemies of God, the seed of the serpent (Genesis 3:15), to have dominion over what rightly belongs to God. Nevertheless, those who have seen the end of the story are fully aware that God’s secret plan will crush Satan’s armies. Lewis beautifully summarizes the story of the Great King:

Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you may say landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage.[11]

A great sabotage; this is a great plan to take over the planet that rightly belongs to the King of Kings. This calls for activism in every sense of the word. We cannot remain silent in this world pretending that what will be will be; this is fatalism, not Calvinism. Having dominion requires a plan; and only God’s plan can nullify the enemies’ tactics.[12]

Allow me to speak to Lewis’ view of free will. Lewis writes:

God created things, which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that worked like machines-would hardly be worth creating.[13]

This form of argumentation you see ad infinitum. In fact, it may have been this exact argument from Lewis that has influenced notable Arminian scholars throughout the last 30 years. I can see the validity of it, if one looks merely at the existential level. All of us want to be free, autonomous, not bound by anything outside ourselves, the captain of our ship and masters of our own souls. Nevertheless, the Bible presents an entirely different picture. When Lewis speaks of free will being the ability to go either wrong or right, he is misleading the reader (certainly not on purpose). If by freedom, Lewis simply meant the physical ability to do one thing over another, to have pizza instead of spaghetti, then there would be no dispute. But Lewis uses freedom in a spiritual level. How can man choose good or evil, if he is dead (Ephesians 2:1)? Or how can he choose the good when he does not seek the good (Romans 3:10-21)? The fall brought humanity to a perplexing stage. He can no longer desire the things of God, unless they are given to him by the Father (John 6:44). For Lewis free will is necessary because without it, we are mere robots. But would that not be a glorious thing? Imagine doing God’s will at every breath and at every stage of life. To be a robot is only drudgery to those who do not know the wonder of being led by God at every moment. Nevertheless, the Biblical picture is that we are not robots, but responsible beings. God is sovereign and we are responsible, but lest we find some sense of pleasure in that fact, Paul tells us that even our deeds (our good works) is a gift from God. He works in and through us. Apart from God we are nothing. Only the regenerate mind can do good and even then we cannot claim it for ourselves, for God receives all the glory. This I believe is the right perspective on the matter, though incomplete in its treatment.

Finally, in this final section, Lewis speaks rightly about the inability of man to speak without divine consent. That is, man speaks because God grants Him the ability to do so. In Lewis’ words:

When you are arguing against Him (God) you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on.[14]

How is it like to breathe because God gives you breath? How is it to speak against your Creator? And how is it to make a “case” against the existence of God while being upheld by His power to do so? Indeed, what is man that God is mindful of him.

[1] Exodus 20:2.[2] Mere Christianity, pg. 45.[3] Ibid. 47.

[4] I am very careful with this idea of an atheist inquiring about the faith. Calvinism teaches that unless the Spirit of God changes the heart no one can truly seek the things of God. Generally, when the atheist “seeks” God, they are seeking what they can gain for themselves.

[5] John Warwick Montgomery and Gary Habermas hold to this position.

[6] Held by R.C. Sproul and others.

[7] I am not aware of Lewis using arguments from the resurrection in his apologetic. I am willing to be corrected.

[8] Mere Christianity, pg. 50.

[9] Ibid., pg. 50.

[10] In the world to come, all bad is abolished and all things will be perfectly good.

[11] Lewis, pg. 51.

[12] Only an optimistic eschatology is capable of accomplishing this. I doubt Lewis dealt at all with the issue of eschatology, but if I had to guess he would probably be some sort of Amillenialist like most Anglicans

[13] Ibid. 52.

[14] Mere Christianity, pg. 55.

Posted on

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part III

csl20reading.jpg C.S.Lewis ends the first book, dealing with two separate topics, namely, “What Lies Behind the Law,” and “We Have Cause to be Uneasy.” For Lewis (and it has been mentioned before), for a law to be worthy of obedience, it has to transcend humanity. Since it is obvious that if man creates laws, then it is perfectly legitimate to betray those laws a day after. They are not fixed; they do not call all people in all places to obedience. According to Lewis,

The Law of Human Nature, or of Right and Wrong, must be something above and beyond the actual facts of human behaviour. In this case, besides the actual facts, you have something else—a real law which we did not invent and which we know we ought to obey.[1]

Lewis considers this matter significant to expatiate, since it is the root and foundation of Christian Ethics.

But what exactly lies behind the law? The Oxford professor takes the reader back to self; but not the self of Descartes, since Descartes used himself as an epistemic source. There may be some minor similarities, but Lewis uses the human being, particularly himself, as a door to seeing the need for an absolute law, a self-disclosure, if you will. He writes:

The only packet I am allowed to open is Man. When I do, especially when I open that particular man called Myself, I find that I do not exist on my own, that I am under a law; that somebody or something wants me to behave in a certain way.[2]

What Lewis is saying is that existence demands a guide for behavior. It is somewhat similar to St. Paul’s conclusion in Romans concerning the law. For Paul, the law was an essential tool in dictating his knowledge of self[3] and his own corruption before that Holy Law.

There is cause to be uneasy. The Law is not just a device, whereby man can choose to follow and decide not to if he is not compelled. Rather, the law is as fatherly discipline. It teaches us, but it punishes us as well. Accordingly Lewis summarizes thus,

The moral law does not give us any grounds for thinking that God is “good” in the sense of being indulgent, or soft, or sympathetic. There is nothing indulgent about the moral law. It is as hard as nails.[4]

The application is even more powerful today when so much of what Lewis describes is the unfortunate view of Christians. God is good to all, they say, and He is tolerant of all, they say. Certainly, no one explains the holiness of God and His mighty justice over the nations. His Sovereign laughter when He destroys His enemies (Psalm 2). The law of God is not sympathetic to nominal religion, but demands obedience and faithfulness. He is both good and sovereign.[5] Or as Lewis puts it, “God is the only comfort, He is also the Supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from.”[6]

What the reader is confronted with in this perennial question of the Law is that only truth can liberate him. Pilate’s question: “ What is truth?” finds no answer in a meaningless universe, brought about by meaningless random choices. Truth is only found in God’s righteous Law. To pursue truth is to live and it is a hard thing, but not to pursue it at all leads to nothingness:

If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth—only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair.[7]

[1] Mere Christianity, pg. 31.

[2] Lewis, pg. 34.

[3] I refer to Romans 7 where Paul autobiographically (this may be one of several interpretations; see N.T. Wright’s commentary on Romans) speaks of the law as a guide that taught him his sins and misery and served as a necessary instrument in his sanctification.

[4] Lewis, pg. 37.

[5] This idea comes from author Jerry Bridges, who stresses that in God’s sovereignty there is always a good purpose.

[6] Mere Christianity, pg. 38.

[7] Ibid. p. 39.

Posted on

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part II

csl2.jpg 

C.S. Lewis begins his discussion by applying the argument from morality. The general idea is that man in whatever circumstance he finds himself, is fully aware of a standard. For the atheist, that standard is circumstantial (or so he thinks). For the Christian, that inherent Law of Right and Wrong has been written on the hearts of man, because the Creator has established fixed laws of morality, by which man must comport.

Indeed, if there are no fixed set of laws (of morality) then we enter into the realm of the absurd. As Lewis writes:

Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find that same man going back on this a moment later.[1]

No one can live consistently within a worldview that does not operate within the laws of morality. These laws guide man, so that when he does wrong, he senses and knows that he has broken some law. Of course, the unregenerate continues throughout his life to suppress this reality to the point of death (ultimate death; Romans 1).

C.S. Lewis summarizes the inescapability of man before this Cosmic Law:

First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.[2]

The Law of Nature for Lewis is a law derived from the Creator. This concept of the Law of Nature has two general meanings, a) that, it is the revealed Law of God to all people and is clear in Nature and by our experiences and b) It is the revealed Word of God found in Scriptures and witnessed in Creation. There ought not to be some unnecessary dichotomy here. Both explanations answer the problem, but one is incomplete without the other. Many during the Scholastic period claimed that the Laws of Nature were clear and therefore, we were in no need of some special, divine revelation. This is foolish, since Natural Revelation is never as clear as Special Revelation.[3]

This was the climax of the Enlightenment that autonomous man is not in need of divine assistance. Descartes, himself, sought to see the starting point of all things in the Self. Truth is found everywhere. It is not confined to the Biblical Revelation. But when the Self of Descartes replaces those two revelations,[4] then autonomy has once again replaced the authority of God’s unique revelation in Scripture and Nature. Hans Kung summarizes Descartes’ journey:

The two books in which medieval man had sought truth—the book of nature and that of the Bible—appear to be replaced here by those of modern man: the book of the world and that of his own self.[5]

This is at its inception the decline of a proper view of Morality that Lewis sought to follow.[6] How is man able to know right and wrong if he is the standard of right and wrong? A true standard must be greater than self, if it is to judge other “selves.” Continue reading “C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part II”

Posted on

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity – Analysis and Application Part I

180px-merechristianity.jpg Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. A Touchstone Book, Published by Simon & Schuster. New York, NY. 1952.

This classic is drawn from three separate parts. The first is The Case for Christianity, then Christian Behaviour, and finally Beyond Personality. All three were given on the air as introductory lectures on the Christian religion. To the glorious benefit of the readers Lewis has taken his talks and with a few additions, put together this marvelous work that has served to lead many to consider the claims of the Christian God.

In this series of 15-20 articles, I would like to discuss some of the crucial aspects of Lewis’ writings and make some observations, which, I deem to be important in this day and age. I would like to begin where all good books begin–the preface.

Here we are, removed from C.S. Lewis thirty-three years since God called him. Yet, we are still moved by the brilliance of his works and are amazed by the enormous wealth his famous works[1] still bring to publishers and the movie industry alike. It is crucial to realize that Lewis’ intention in this volume is not to put Christian against Christian, but rather to make a case for the Christian faith. But before doing so, there are several observations in his preface that are worth mentioning.

The relevance of C.S. Lewis is seen in his efforts to unite the body of Christ. Granted, in modern theological language, Lewis would be considered an ecumenicist. That is, one who seeks unity at all cost. As such Lewis avoided dealing with certain issues. It is not that despised them, but that they were not important enough as he sought to defend the faith. To some, to be ecumenical is to flirt with the devil. Nevertheless, Lewis’ ecumenicism is healthy and needed. Lewis is not someone who would compromise the Creedal statements of the church, nor would He compromise other significant elements. However, it is important to see Lewis as someone who was very aware of the non-believing world. He was indeed, an apologist for the Christian faith to the un-Christian masses.[2]

C.S. Lewis was conscious of how the world perceived Christians and he wanted to train believers to be not just intelligent and sophisticated thinkers, but kind and gentle as well.[3] One example of this occurs in Lewis’ preface, in which he writes how we ought to behave if unbelievers are present. He writes:

Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His Only Son.[4]

This is a lesson in what I call “Christian prevention.” If the reader will keep in mind that the unbeliever is at most times completely naïve about the most basic element of the Christian faith, then why would he debate another Christian in areas of the faith that are beyond foreign to the unbelieving ear? The sad state of the church is due to unnecessary fights and inflammatory language that divide and tear asunder the unity of the church. Lewis, in this instance gives us an initial caution mark of what to do in a particular situation. It is better in my estimation to deal with general issues of worldview thinking, unless an unbeliever is curious about something he has heard.[5]

One common critique of C.S. Lewis is that he rarely dealt with controversial Christian issues. He speaks briefly about this when he says:

Some people draw unwarranted conclusions from the fact that I never say more about the Blessed Virgin Mary than is involved in asserting the Virgin Birth of Christ…to say more would take me at once into highly controversial regions.[6]

This is crucial to understand about the nature of Lewis’ writings, and that is, that he was called to be an apologist.[7] As an apologist his audience was not primarily Christian. Lewis wrote in insightful and provocative ways to call the atheist (which, he was before embracing Christ) to see the claims of Christianity. C.S. Lewis made the Christian message appealing to the Oxford philosopher as well as to the children. Of course, Lewis was an Anglican; he never denied it, but he was a reserved Anglican. He never cared too much about presenting the claims of the Church of England versus Methodism or Presbyterianism.

There is a short illustration used by Lewis, which has been used elsewhere, that may shed some light into his thinking about decisions concerning religions.[8] Lewis’ desire is to get an unbeliever into the hall. He writes that if he can “bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted.”[9] Here, once again, Lewis reiterates his passion to draw unbelievers to the Christian message. But once you get into the hall, then the individual is confronted with several doors from which to choose. But which religion, or perhaps which communion should they enter? C.S. Lewis answers: “And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling. In plain language, the question should never be: “ Do I like that kind of service?” but “Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?”[10] The language Lewis uses seems to indicate that he is referring to what communion of saints one must enter once he sees the light of the Christian faith. Whether this is the case or not, one needs to analyze internally the reasons to enter into a particular door. Certain doors may seem attractive, but they may be deadly. C.S. Lewis calls for caution and wisdom in these decisions.[11] Continue reading “C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity – Analysis and Application Part I”

Posted on

Ronald Nash Dies…

ronnash.jpgRonald H. Nash, a great evangelical philosopher and apologist, died early this morning in Florida. Nash was a longtime professor at Western Kentucky University, Reformed Theological Seminary, and, until a stroke last year, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He was an heir of the theological tradition of Carl F.H. Henry, and was an lifelong admirer and student of Augustine of Hippo, his favorite philosopher.

Read on: A Great man dies but his voice lives on…

Posted on

Albert Camus and Judgment

The existentialists enthusiastically concur that the “now” is more significant than the 30 seconds from “now.” The present decision, environment, and being defines in a sense a person. In fact, Albert Camus said: “Do not wait for the last judgment. It takes place every day.”

The Christian worldview emphasizes the now in a slightly different way: “There is a last judgment therefore live as if it will be today.” Nothing befuddles the human heart more than the day of Judgment. Justice is inescapable and the inescapability thereof is dreadful for the unbeliever. Camus’ comments highlights that the unbelieving heart desperately seeks a way to escape the inescapable. It is a profound reality and a profound destiny for all human beings. The atheist seeks to materialize justice by minimizing it to the status of every day decision, but God’s justice is supremely different for it actually accentuates the atheist’s guilt.

Posted on

Peter Leithart on Matter and Spirit

Leithart

Discussing the question of the corporeality of angels, Herman Bavinck argues that angels cannot have bodies because that would imply they are material and “matter and spirit are mutually exclusive.” He charges that “it is a form of pantheistic identity philosophy to mix the two and to erase the distinction between them. And Scripture always maintains the distinction between heaven and earth, angels and humans, the spiritual and the material, invisible and visible things.”

This approach, however, gives far too much aid and comfort to materialism, which would seem to be premised on the assumption that matter is a self-enclosed reality, not open to transcendence or to spirit. Milbank makes a good case for saying that the distinction of matter and spirit is relativized in Christian thought because they are both created by a transcendent God.