kvile.net

…at least I don’t think so. My mother never spoke of any kind of label affixed to me when I was born. Yet, we all insist on and persist in putting labels on people. Christians, like everybody else, are also fond of this. We have our own set of them.

Some of the Labels

It could be the big three: Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox. Maybe it’s a denominational label: Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Non-Denominational, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Methodist, Mainline, and so on. Or maybe it’s a doctrinal one: Orthodox, Liberal, Post-Liberal, Conservative, Post-Conservative, Fundamentalist, Heretic, etc. etc. Not to mention your theological labels: Calvinist, Armenian, Open Theist, etc. It could also be one of these words (whatever they might denote): Evangelical, Post-Evangelical, Missional, Emergent, Progressive, Biblical, Incarnational, Spiritual, Mystical, the list could go on.

But I didn’t come with a label. I came into this world with nothing and I leave with nothing.

Helpful?

Now it’s true, that labels of these sorts can be helpful, in a shorthand sort of way, in describing what one thinks or how one lives. Like saying, “I’m Lutheran.” That’s pretty simple.

The problem is that what one person thinks Lutheran means may be different than what another person thinks Lutheran means. Sure, we could have a debate and settle once and for all what Lutheran means. Maybe we could do that with each of the terms (and debates are out there). But even if we did decide, does the term ever describe a person? No.

Harmful?

More often, it seems, labels are used to make us feel better about ourselves. “Oh, he’s a liberal.” Now we know can put that person to one side, think we know them, and feel better that we’re not them. To know we’re on the “right” side and they are on the “wrong” side.

It’s a way for us to distance ourselves from the other and to exert a measure of control over them. It keeps us safe and comfortable.

This seems problematic to me. Does it to anyone else?

I didn’t come with a label and neither did you. Let’s keep that in mind.

So last time, if you can remember that far back, we talked about the connection between C.S. Lewis’s idea of myth and truth. Today I want to explore that connection in light of the fact that Christ described himself in the New Testament as “The Way, The Truth, and The Life.” So if Christ is the Truth, then logically there would be a connection to myth.

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):

So it’s been about a month since I posted my last article in the series on C.S. Lewis & Myth. I haven’t forgotten about that series, it’s still sitting in the back of my brain. Things have been a little busy around here, and when that happens I’m forced to prioritize. Which means this blog has to wait a little bit. So I’m still here, still working through the C.S. Lewis series as well as some other thoughts I have. Stay tuned. Thanks.

We next turn to examine the connection between C.S. Lewis’s idea of myth and Truth (the absolute kind).

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):

We’ve dealt with Lewis view of myth and its relation to historical fact. This leads us directly into our next connection; C.S. Lewis’s idea of myth and its relation to Scripture.

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):