Miracles by C.S. Lewis – Book Review

The Book

Miracles
C. S. Lewis

Intro

As part of my ongoing quest to read every word penned by C. S. Lewis, I recently picked up Miracles. It’s part of the boxed set I purchased with birthday money/gift card. Here’s the obligatory run down:

A few observations:

  1. Buy this boxed set for someone. It will entertain their brains for years to come. (This boxed set & I go way back to 2012)
  2. For being such a Lewis Lover, I only read one of his books per year. That deflates my ego.
  3. There’s something about late summer (July-August) that gives me a hankering for some C. S. Lewis. Anybody else get that?
  4. Mere Christianity & The Screwtape Letters are the only two left in the set. I read & reviewed MC before getting the set (in April!) & I’ve read TSL a few years ago. TSL deserves it’s own review. Hey, the month of August is young!

Review

I have decided to do away with the technical merit section of this particular review. Lewis gets excellent marks for his structure & organization as always. It is important to note that while Miracles is in many ways comparable to Mere Christianity in it’s approach, it is actually much more technical, theoretical & abstract than MC. However, there are moments where Lewis’ arguments rise from the drudgery of theorem & snaps into sharp focus. Those moments are pure gold.

Naturalism – Is it anti-miracle?

Lewis spends most of his time on this subject. In fact, the title of this book could have been “Nature Versus Supernature” though that title is not very interesting. Lewis deconstructs Naturalism (the idea that Nature is all there is) and leaves the reader with the conclusion that something beyond nature must exist. One poignant argument revolves around the so-called Laws of Nature & the fact that Laws of Nature do nothing without being first thrown into action by a force outside of itself. For instance, nobody ever says they tripped on gravity. People trip on an untied shoelace which causes their body to be in a position where the Law of Gravity takes over. Hence, every Law of Nature must be set in motion by a preceding cause going back to an Original Cause that had to set Nature herself in motion. Christians believe that God is this Uncaused Cause.

Having established that there must be an entity behind Nature—our Supernatural God—Lewis asks about the nature of the miraculous. Many assume the miraculous to be a violation of the Laws of Nature. Lewis argues that this is a wrong perception. If there is a God. If that God can perform the miraculous. If that God created Nature. Why would we suppose miracles to be a violation of nature?

If events ever come from beyond Nature altogether, she will be no more incommoded by them. Be sure she will rush to the point where she is invaded, as the defensive forces rush to a cut in our finger, and there hasten to accommodate the newcomer. The moment it enters her realm it obeys all her laws… The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern to which events conform but of feeding new events into that pattern.

Hence, the moment Jesus multiplies bread, it becomes regular digestible bread. When he creates wine in Cana, it becomes real wine with intoxicating properties. When God’s Seed is implanted in Mary’s womb, it undergoes the process of gestation, birth, childhood, etc. No Law is suspended. A new event is fed into Nature & Nature rolls with it without a hitch.

Lewis also gets into a discussion on literalism in this book. He detests the idea of people who try to improve on the ancient pictures with something they believe to be more literal. So instead of viewing God as Father, they try to describe Him as Energy. Clearly, the Bible uses specific imagery to get at certain aspects of the divine which our modern imagery does not. Further, when we try to be more precise, we end up creating a ridiculous picture that’s harder to believe than the ancient metaphor.

C. S. Lewis does eventually start talking about the Miracles themselves. He tackles the question of the Grand Miracle (The Resurrection) & it’s implications for Christians. He argues that the Resurrection is not a new life, but a continuation of the current life only glorified. He argues that this Grand Miracle is the pinnacle of history. Other miracles performed by Jesus affirm his identity as the ultimate Corn King (myth of death and rebirth) which has been rumored since ancient times.

Conclusion

If you have read Mere Christianity a couple times, I urge you to pick up Miracles & give it a shot. I know that I have learned a lot from a single reading and am excited to pick it up again in the near future to see what else can be gleaned from it’s pages. If you’ve never read C. S. Lewis before, this is not the one to start with. While you will doubtless learn a lot, it helps to have a background in MC to understand where Lewis is coming from.

TIP: As you read Miracles, look for lists. Lewis loves his lists and they’re really helpful!

Check out a few of my favorite quotes from Miracles. If you need to, you can pause the show on the lower right-hand corner to actually, you know, read them. 🙂

var cpo = []; cpo[“_object”] =”cp_widget_aa28d6b7-5d62-4b3a-b515-4e1df330b038″; cpo[“_fid”] = “AsAA6z8N5mA7”;
var _cpmp = _cpmp || []; _cpmp.push(cpo);
(function() { var cp = document.createElement(“script”); cp.type = “text/javascript”;
cp.async = true; cp.src = “//www.cincopa.com/media-platform/runtime/libasync.js”;
var c = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0];
c.parentNode.insertBefore(cp, c); })(); Powered by Cincopa Video Hosting for Business solution.

via http://jmnz.us/1gfuXMH

Conversion and Literature

“Lewis fits into a broader pattern at (his) time—the conversion of literary scholars and writers through and because of their literary interests. Lewis’ love of literature is not a backdrop to his conversion; it is integral to his discovery of the rational and imaginative appeal of Christianity.”

—Alister McGrath, C. S. Lewis: A Life, Page 132

via http://jmnz.us/1ft2YXM

An Advocate for the Straw-Boogie-Man

Anyone who has read this blog for any amount of time knows that my goal is to think. My goal is not to promote a particular agenda or one side of an argument. I strive to be balanced and present nuance that others may overlook for whatever reason. In fact, some of the greatest compliments I have received are from people who tell me that my posts cause them to think differently about X, Y, or Z. Not that I have convinced them to change their perspective, but they see thinks a little bit differently. Or perhaps they no longer blindly reject a straw-boogie-man from a different Christian tradition before really hearing out their arguments.

Those are the successes. They are, admittedly, few and far between. I am driven by this disturbing trend in Christendom (and secular-humanism, let’s not pretend that Christians have a monopoly on this market) to refuse to entertain any reasonable argument that is different from their own. A wall comes up, they return to a familiar argument that they (think they) know how to defend, and they never learn to think differently. It is a genuinely sad sight to behold.

The Straw-Boogie-Man

I know that I made this term up. It’s a mash-up between a Straw-Man (lying about someone else’s argument so you can attack it easier) and the Boogie-man (made up monster that will really mess you up). By viewing different opinions this way, it escalates the stakes while making it seem like your own opinion is the only one of value. In addition, by viewing new ideas as dangerous it effectively closes any possibility for growth and personal development. Think about it, have you ever learned anything that wasn’t new or made you slightly uncomfortable? Here’s a hint, if it wasn’t new, you probably didn’t do any learning. If you don’t take the time to really understand a different viewpoint, you just come off as ignorant when you blindly reject it.

Artistic rendering of the elusive Straw-Boogie-Man by Skylarkk

I tend to like playing The Devil’s Advocate to illustrate my point. Sometimes, I will take a side that I don’t necessarily believe in myself in order to see how others will respond. Usually, I am disappointed. After some reflection (like I said, it’s something that has become a passion for me) I have come up with several answers to the question: Why do people create this Straw-Boogie-Man?

  1. Failure to Listen
  2. Abuse of Sola Scriptura
  3. Improper Rhetorical Training

Failure to Listen

I am tackling this one first because it is the most common culprit. I don’t know how many times I have had my little Devil’s Advocate game thwarted by people who simply failed to listen to my objection. They default back into an argument that is comfortable, which is the exact thing I am trying to avoid. I want you to think differently, not to rehash the musty, old arguments you had before.

When responding to an objection, it is customary to, you know, address the objection with a rebuttal. Convince me that what I said was wrong. When you offer an argument that does not even come close to addressing my original statement, it shows that you didn’t care enough about me to read/listen to what I said. All you cared about was winning an argument. That’s not what I’m after. I just want to learn and teach.

Abuse of Sola Scriptura

This is the worst of all of these infractions because it equates to an improper handling of the Word of God. I appreciate that people want scripture to be the end of every discussion, the only problem is that people assume a simple reference without interpretation will make up for their logical lapse. When people abuse or distort a passage in order to win their argument is the only time I will get angry during a discussion—only then will it become an argument. There are at least 2 reasons this is a problem:

  1. It is used to close the discussion.
  2. It assumes that there is only one valid interpretation.

Case Closed

Since when did God’s word close discussions? If that was the case, then we would have no Sermons, Homilies, Bible Studies, or Devotions. All we would do is stand up, read a chapter, and then close in prayer. The Bible needs to be interpreted. Clearly, we do so within reason—our God-given ability to make judgments based on logical connections. It is expected that we would apply reason to scripture in order to understand what it means. When we carelessly throw out a verse to end a discussion with no context, rationale, or application, it amounts to abuse.

One Track Mind

Scripture, at it’s heart, is literature. One of the best tests of literature is it’s versatility. The Bible is a magnificent piece of literature that can be viewed from several different lenses and valid, rational arguments can be made from it. The Bible also has tension built into it. These contradictions are efforts to explain spiritual truths in physical terms. When we close ourselves off from other interpretations all we are doing is limiting our own spiritual growth. Remember, the process of maturing is nothing more than expanding what we currently know.

Improper Rhetorical Training

I have seen many debates over the past few years. I have seen some between equally matched rhetoricians. I have seen some that were not so equitable. It is never a pretty scene when one party clearly outclasses the other. There have been cases when I have agreed with the overall point from the individual with poor rhetorical skills, but concluded that the other person was more convincing and therefore “won” the debate.

The problem is that some Bible Studies, Conferences, Sunday Schools, etc. are not addressing the problem of rhetoric at all. They are teaching that all you need is a Bible verse and man’s cleverly devised arguments will not hold up (see second point). Clearly, that is not the case. Even books that try to build apologetic cases may, at times, fall short.

Bible Studies, Conference, Sunday Schools, etc. should never relieve the burden of reason. We should never check our brains at the door. We should bring our brains into the conversation. Too many times, conference-taught individuals only know how to answer a particular question a particular way and are unable to respond when the question is altered the slightest little bit. In that case, they are being taught what to think instead of how to think.

Don’t get me wrong. I have been to great conferences and I have been to lousy ones. Some try to get you to think, others try to control your thoughts. These are two vastly different approaches. It is a major problem. It is a problem for the integrity of the faith. It makes Christians look like buffoons. I have no excuse for the buffoon. They have created their Straw-Boogie-Man and insist it is reality. That is a great delusion.

Conclusion

Looking back, I realize that I have been harsh. I have laid out a scathing set of accusations and I am sorry if my readers do not like it. However, these are my honest evaluations of the state of Apologetics in the Church as a result of several years of interactions. The sample includes peers, older brethren, and younger generations. People simply do not entertain different ideas.

That is not to say that there are no believers that are willing to use their intellect. I do not wish to portray a gloom-and-doom scenario. As I mentioned before, believers have contacted me to share their experiences of growth and pleasure with the way I cause them to think differently. I trust that I’m not the only source of “different thinking” in their lives. I trust that they use their brains to make connections that I do not prompt.

A very wise statement was shared with me a while back and it has influenced my thinking ever since. Someone told me to listen like I’m eating a watermelon: accept the sweet flesh and spit out the seeds. This applies to disagreements about scripture:

  1. Truly listen to the other person’s points,
  2. Accept and acknowledge what you have in common,
  3. Seek clarity on what you disagree with, and
  4. Express disagreements intellectually, always remembering to be courteous.

That is what I expect from my readers. That is what I expect from myself. It is a basic courtesy and integral to the in the learning process.

Yes, I want to know what your thoughts are on this post. Let me know in the comments section below!

via http://www.wetalkofholythings.com/2013/12/an-advocate-for-straw-boogie-man.html