We often say to ourselves, upon hearing of something someone has done (usually horrific), “I can’t believe they did that!” by which we mean, “I don’t understand that person and I would never do that!” It seems that in order to understand them we have to either have a similar experience, or know the person so intimately that we can “experience” it ourselves.

Tolstoy and Dostoevsky have a way of making option two come to life for their readers. They force us to understand how people get to the point in their lives where they do the things they do (horrific or otherwise). By allowing the reader to experience this they can relate to other people better. In fact, the reader can, if they are open enough, begin to see how they themselves are not that far off from doing the same things they once said they did not understand and could not do.

Have you read these guys? What do you think? Here’s a few of their most popular works, each highly recommended.

What does it mean for a chair to exist? A computer? A business? Does something exist merely when its material components exist? Can a chair can be said to exist when all of its parts have just come off the factory line, or do they need to be assembled and working before a chair exists?

Another Way to Understand Existence

Contrary to what the opening paragraph might suggest, this article is not a philosophical argument about a specific ontological position. John Walton, in his work The Lost World of Genesis One, suggests that existence can be understood in other ways than merely by material presence. That is to say, it is possible to understand that something’s existence is not necessarily based solely on the fact that its material is present. He suggests this, not to argue that we ought to revise our own materialist ontological assumptions (although a case might be made for that), it is instead to show that other possibilities exist, namely functional ontology. Existence can be understood in terms of functionality.

Ancient Understand Existence in terms of Functions

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kenlund/3378221946/

He argues that the ancients held to this sort of a functional ontology. For something to exist, it not only needs to have a material aspect, but more importantly, it needs to have a function. He argues persuasively in his second proposition, through the literature of the ancient near eastern peoples, that, for them, non-functioning things are non-existent. A barren landscape, to them, is non-existent land. Their creation stories deal with making the world a functioning place out of a non-functioning one.

What Does This Have To Do With Genesis?

This is extremely important in developing an understanding of Genesis. If all ancients held this view of existence, and for something to be created meant that something is given a function rather than given material substance (implying the material substance is required, but not part of the act of creation), then this could change our understanding of what Genesis is trying to convey. What if the act of creating is more literally understood as an act of making the world functional, rather than making its materials?

Next Time

We’ll examine how Walton proposes to make the leap from how non-Hebrew ancient near eastern people viewed creating to how Hebrew ancient near eastern people viewed creating through the evidence from Genesis.

Christ and Myth?

At first this sounds ridiculous since we know Christ was a historical figure and not a mythical one. However, Lewis’s definition of myth did not allow for such a harsh dichotomy between historical and non-historical. He wanted, instead, to suggest the idea did not carry a necessary historical component at all. It seems, rather, that the connection shows that Christ is ultimate myth. For, since myth is truth communicated within reality, and Christ himself is described as the truth, then Christ is the ultimate communication of truth since he is embedded in reality (as a person, not simply a story). Lewis describes this as myth become fact.

Myth Became Fact

Lewis writes, in his article Myth Became Fact, “The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history” (God in the Dock, p. 66. Italics his). While Lewis himself is referring to the stories and events surrounding Christ and the incarnation, I think it goes slightly further to include Christ himself as we have seen above. That is my own logical extension of what Lewis’s idea of myth implies, I’m not sure if Lewis himself would draw the same conclusion.

So, what does this mean?

For one, I think this deepens my understanding of Christ and his place within reality and his connection to it. I think it may also help us gain a deeper understanding of the Bible itself. I’m still thinking through all the implications of this, but I want to know what you think. So, what do you think it means?

This post is part of a series of posts on C.S. Lewis and his idea of Myth

• Part One – C.S. Lewis and Myth
• Part Two – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Historical Fact
• Part Three – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Scripture
• Part Four – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Truth
• Part Five – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Christ

Books I Directly Used (they go into more depth):

Is Truth Real?

If myth is a concrete expression of an idea (in the Platonic sense) it somehow takes Truth (abstract) and transpositions it into reality (concrete). Since Truth has to be transpositioned into reality by myth, it appears to mean that Truth is not real. However, this is not the case.

First, you have to keep in mind the his distinction between ideal and particular, or essence and existence. That sounds tricky, and but it’s not that bad, stick with me. Something’s essence (idea of a tree) is not dependent upon its existence (particular concrete expression of a tree). Lewis seems to hold that Truth is in the realm of essence and not existence.

Second, we have a common notion of “real” that differs from a philosophical notion of “reality.” When we say “real”, we mean that which is opposed to made up. Reality is the realm in which we live, move, experience things, etc. (the realm of existence). Truth is not in that realm and therefore not real – not in the non-made up sense, but in the not part of the realm of reality sense.

Myth’s connection to Truth

Thus, myth is connected to absolute Truth because it moves Truth out of the realm of essence and into the realm of existence. It makes Truth something we can experience.

I realize some of this seems kind of like just playing games with words, but I think it is more than that. It is fascinating to me to think about myth in this way. How a story, a great story, can bring an abstraction into my concrete experience of reality.

Next time

What gets more interesting the connection of myth and Christ. I haven’t even fully played with this in my head, but if Christ claimed he was Truth, then what does that mean in light of what we’ve just looked at? What is the incarnation then?

This post is part of a series of posts on C.S. Lewis and his idea of Myth

• Part One – C.S. Lewis and Myth
• Part Two – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Historical Fact
• Part Three – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Scripture
• Part Four – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Truth
• Part Five – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Christ

Books I Directly Used (they go into more depth):

Does Scripture Contain Myth?

It’s important to understand that Lewis was not a professional theologian, nor did he claim to be one. He had extensive philosophical training, but dealt primarily with works of literature. It is from this point of view that Lewis approaches Scripture.

With this in mind, Lewis sees Scripture as containing myth. Some examples of this might be the stories of creation, the Fall, Job, and Jonah. From Lewis’s notion of myth we are to understand these stories as providing us with an experience of reality from an abstract idea. He is not suggesting that there is no historical basis for these stories, nor is he suggesting that there is historical basis. He seems to separate historical fact and truth.

In terms of biblical interpretation, Lewis lies somewhere between the neoorthodox and liberal theologian of his day. To the neoorthodox theologian he suggests that the experience of reality through the story is intimately tied to the words on the page (myth can not be lifted from the words to communicate anything). To the liberal theologian attempting to demythologize Scripture he suggests that the experience of reality is more than an abstract understanding its words (demythologizing simply creates a poorer myth).

What does all of this mean?

If we accept that Scripture contains myth, and we accept Lewis’s notion of myth, then Scripture presents a great myth that transpositions a concrete experience of reality to us from an abstract idea (truth). Scripture is truth in this sense with or without historical fact.

So Lewis’s notion of myth connects to Scripture by showing how the story of the Bible brings us an experience of reality beyond what a simple understanding of an abstract idea can give. The experience is intimately tied to the words and at the same time more than just an understanding of their literal meaning.

Controversy

All this immediately brings up issues with regards to literal truth of Scripture, infallibility, inspiration, historical and scientific accuracy, and so on. Again, its important to note that Lewis was not a professional theologian, and consistently made statements to the affect that these were his tentative thoughts and he’d leave the final say up to the professionals. I can’t comment on Lewis’s exact position with regard to these controversies, nor is that my intent. Neither is it my intent to speak my own position. I am simply hoping to trace some connections between Lewis’s notion of myth and Scripture because I believe it is important to all those trying to understand the Bible. While I’ve tried my best in such a short space, it is necessarily limited and fallible. Hopefully, though, it will spur us on to understanding this connection better. For further insight into Lewis’s thoughts see the books listed below.

It’s your turn. What do you think?

This post is part of a series of posts on C.S. Lewis and his idea of Myth

• Part One – C.S. Lewis and Myth
• Part Two – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Historical Fact
• Part Three – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Scripture
• Part Five – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Christ

Books I Directly Used (they go into more depth):

To understand this a little further we’ve got to go back to Plato. Yes, him. (In one way or another, everything philosophical goes back to him it seems.) I’ll keep it real brief, one-sentence brief. Plato taught that there are two planes of existence; in the one exists the abstract ideas of which the other holds concrete instances.

Lewis, in this way, sees myth as a “transposition” of an idea in the one plane to an instance in another. In other words, a myth is a concrete expression of an idea (in the Platonic sense). It is more real because the idea flows to the one experiencing the myth as reality without the need for an historical occurrence. In this way truth is communicated not as an abstract idea, but as concrete reality (in the experience of a myth).

So, that a myth is true is not dependent upon any historical occurrence; and at the same time it does not exclude the possibility of historical occurrence. Lewis is attempting to disconnect myth from historical fact, while at the same time connect myth with truth.

So What?

Again it boils down to this question. Why does this matter? Well, you may have begun to quickly perceive the connection that is here with regards to the Bible. Religious writings are always connected in one way or another to some notion of myth. And truth-seekers often consult various religious writings. Lewis’s notion of myth has implications for our understanding of the Bible. My next post will explore some of those implications.

This post is part of a series of posts on C.S. Lewis and his idea of Myth

• Part One – C.S. Lewis and Myth
• Part Two – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Historical Fact
• Part Three – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Scripture
• Part Four – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Truth
• Part Five – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Christ

Books I Directly Used (they go into more depth):

• In reading his work it’s important to have his understanding in mind.
• The use of “myth” has been used widely in discussions of theology and scriptures
• It has implications for our understanding of fact, truth, and even Christ.

Since we’re talking about C.S. Lewis’s idea, it should be clear that it is not what you would find in a dictionary under the word “myth” (although since he used that term it bears relation).  Lewis himself considered coining a new term for what he was suggesting, but felt that it would be better to use the term myth in a different sense.

So what does it mean?

We find some help in understanding what Lewis means from J.R.R. Tolkien.  In a discussion on the term, he suggested to Lewis that as speech is to objects, myth is to truth.  For instance, the word “tree” is not itself a tree, but rather something we use to refer to a tree.  Similarly, myth is something we use to refer to truth.  Lewis later suggested in his article, “Myth become Fact” that myths allow us to concretely experience that which is only otherwise known as an abstraction.  So, a great myth gives concrete expression to a truth that is an abstract concept.  But what comes to you in experiencing a great myth is not truth, but reality (because truth is about something of which is reality).

Myth is a story that allows one to experience as concrete reality that which when examined is only an abstraction.

Looking Forward

This idea is something that needs to be chewed on like a good meal – long, slowly, and carefully.  In the future, I’ll post some of my thoughts on how this connects with things such as Historical Fact, Scripture, Truth (the absolute kind), and Christ.

This post is part of a series of posts on C.S. Lewis and his idea of Myth

• Part One – C.S. Lewis and Myth
• Part Two – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Historical Fact
• Part Three – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Scripture
• Part Four – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Truth
• Part Five – C.S. Lewis, Myth, and Christ

Books I Directly Used (they go into more depth):

I am a father of four young children from six years down to seven weeks.  I have no nerves left.  The last one packed up and left town about a couple weeks ago.  Being only six years into this job, I’m hoping they’ll return (or new ones will grow back), but if nerves are like hair, my chances are not good. So without nerves I’m forced to find alternatives to maintain any semblance of sanity – and mind you, it is all outward appearance; if my nerves left town a couple weeks ago it was because they could follow the worn path of my sanity.

Tonight my youngest decided to force my hand by screaming (the red face, eyes clamped, extremities flailing, tongue curling kind) for about 45 minutes straight (yes, he’s got a changed diaper and a full belly).  A few minutes into the screaming I went to my work area, grabbed my earplugs, and returned to snatch him from my weary wife.  After four, you’ve learned a few tricks, and I tried them all – rock, bounce, hold tight, hold loose, wrapped in blanket, unwrapped from blanket, gently stroke the temples, talk softly, hum, sing, sit, stand, lay him down, pick him up, take off anything that might appear tight, pacifier in, pacifier out, walk around, be still – to no avail.  Weak, worn-out, and without nerves I was surely sunk, but earplugs saved my life.  I managed to maintain my semblance without nerves.

Earplugs are great.  You can hold a screaming baby and since you can’t hear them nerves aren’t required for sanity.  Since I work at home, I’d wear them all the time, but my wife take issue with that.  I tried it once and it didn’t work too well for me.  But tonight, I was rescued by my earplugs.  So, in cases of dire need, maybe they can help you too.

Children are a gift from God, so they tell me. The Bible describes them as quivers in my arrow holder thingy. Some days though it doesn’t feel like a gift, and I’m the one left quivering. Challenges abound in a household of four young children. Challenges like eating lunch without falling out of your chair, walking quietly by your sister’s bedroom door when she is sleeping, sharing your favorite car (wait, was my favorite one the blue one or the red one… maybe it was the black one, I forget) with your brother, standing while drinking instead of hopping, and ..ahem.. bathroom aiming. With all these challenges it is easy to get frustrated and expect a four year old to act like he’s ten. But we have to force ourselves to stop and remember that this young life has been placed into our care and we can’t take that for granted.

So, the next time you deal with the challenges of your children and begin to quiver, remember that a fragile life is placed in your hands, and you’ve been given the privilege and responsibility to guide and instruct that one as patiently and lovingly as you can.

Enough said.

Second, Christians should always remember that the truthfulness and authority of the Bible are not based upon any authority external to the Bible itself. There is no external evidence required to “prove” the Bible’s truthfulness. It stands on its own claim to be the Word of God. Archaeology may sell magazines and make for interesting reading, but it cannot prove nor disprove the Bible.
www.albertmohler.com

for the first two sentences I think to myself, well yeah, of course something’s truthfulness is not based on anything external. But when he says,

It stands on its own claim to be the Word of God

I think he’s got truth and argument mixed up (not that I believe he did this intentionally, perhaps it was an over-site). Just as something’s truth is not based on external arguments, neither is its truth based on internal arguments (i.e. in this case, it’s own claims). It’s truth or falsity simply is. Arguments are not the same as truth nor are they the basis for something’s truth, but that doesn’t mean arguments aren’t useful. On the contrary they are extremely useful because arguments persuade someone of the something’s truth.

So while the truth that the Bible is the Word of God is not dependent on external claims, neither is it dependent on its own internal claims. But we are persuaded of the truth of this claim both by external and internal arguments. I tend to think that to an outsider an internal claim of truth is circular, which is to say that it is valid (logically) but not persuasive. This leaves external claims (valid ones that is) for persuasion.

How the specific claim that the Bible is the Word of God connects with external arguments for or against it’s truth (i.e. from science, history, archaeology, etc) is an import topic, but one for a different post.

Explaining Emergent Churches – Inner Compass from Calvin College on Vimeo.

To quote someone wiser than myself: “Time is slipping away, slip slip slipin’ away.” Let’s be wise with how we portion it out.