So my selection for this month is Deeper Magic by Donald T. Williams. The subtitle brings everything into focus—The Theology Behind the Writings of C.S. Lewis.
The book is a fantastic resource for those who are interested in the theological underpinnings of Lewis’s writings. What Williams does is take the standard loci of systematic theology, and in each section he brings in all the relevant sections from Lewis’s corpus. For example, chapters address the doctrine of Scripture, theology proper, the person of Christ, the atonement, and so on. In each section you encounter what Lewis taught on that subject, gathered from his fiction and nonfiction alike, and all woven together by the Williams, the sympathetic and intelligent critic.
Williams clearly has Lewis on everything at his fingertips. But he does not simply gather and record—he also engages with Lewis where that is necessary. In his discussion of the famous Trilemma, Williams defends Lewis against the soi disant intellectuals who sneer at anybody who knows how to write on theology as though horse sense were an important commodity, which it is, and which Lewis had. At the same time, although Williams is an amiable critic, he knows how to take Lewis to task where necessary. A couple of examples of that kind of interaction would be Lewis’s view of inspiration, and Lewis’s misunderstanding of the doctrine of total depravity.
This is a good book. It is a useful book. It is an engaging book. It is a resource book. It is a book to read clean through. It is an orange book.
I recommend you get it. Alas, the Amazon page says that it is not currently on their premises, but the publisher’s page says that you can get it from Ingram. So do that.
“Lewis’s view of inspiration… and… total depravity”
Doug, have you written on these?
I wish he would. What I remember Lewis writing is that if man was totally depraved, he would not be able to recognize his own depravity. I think that his position is standard Catholic/Anglican theology. I’ve had it explained to me that total depravity doesn’t mean that man is as depraved as he could possibly be, but I don’t understand why Lewis’s position reflects a misunderstanding of the doctrine.
I’m sure I don’t recognize the extent of my own depravity.
I agree that we don’t recognize extent. And I have met people who don’t seem to recognize their depravity at all–who would tell you that they are good, and have no trouble being good. But do you think that most people have some awareness that they fall short of the mark–that, on a purely human level, they are flawed in that they are unable to live up to their own moral standards?
Is this awareness even possible under the doctrine of total depravity?
Hi jilly, here is a traditional Reformed take on the T in tulip, if helpful. http://www.ligonier.org/blog/tulip-and-reformed-theology-total-depravity/
I like his use of ‘radical corruption’ as a less misleading name for the concept.
I read that; thank you. It is a clearer term than depravity.
Thanks for featuring our new book! Our friends at Hearts & Minds Bookstore (http://www.heartsandmindsbooks.com) are always the first to get Square Halo Books in stock and always have them on hand. Folks can order “Deeper Magic” there!
I’ve often heard that C.S. Lewis, as evidenced by The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe holds to the ransom from Satan theory of the Atonement, as opposed to Penal Substitution. And I beg to differ, because in the book the White Witch is simply performing her God-ordained role as Prosecuting Attorney (like in Zechariah 3). Aslan took the just penalty that was supposed to go to Edward.
Does Williams tackle this?
On the legal substitution idea, where else in jurisprudence do we see an innocent punished instead of the guilty?
And how does the math work where one man can substitute for an infinite number of guilty?
Well, there aren’t an infinite number of people that were ever created. And God can do anything He wants. If he says that Christ’s blood is satisfaction for sins, then so it is, and we need to rethink how we think about justice if we’re not in line with what He says is so. Even math starts with axioms. Regarding precedence in jurisprudence, first off, Christ and His work on our behalf are unique. Why would you expect a precedent? But having said that, Christ wasn’t innocent: He took on our sin, and our punishment. “For our sake He made… Read more »
never, to my knowledge, is it demanded that the innocent receive the punishment for the guilty. But in our own system at least, any time a financial fine is levied, another person may choose to pay that fine, i.e., to receive that punishment, in place of the guilty.
additionally, i always love the example given in A Tale of Two Cities though granted the justice of the punishment being meted out there was entirely spurious.
as for the math, i would think it relevant to remember that the son of God is of more infinite value than any of us.
Is a fine considered punishment?
Is it ever demanded that an innocent NOT receive certain types of punishments?
For example, isn’t it always prohibited that anybody but the convicted do time?
This goes to getting a better grasp on exactly why and how Jesus was punished — rather than the more typically heard sentimental flavored teaching that he simply stepped in for us.
Also — how DO you get those italics produced?
If a fine isn’t a punishment, what would you call it? A reward for bad behavior? In Asian cultures, it is common for family members to share greater responsibility for the sins of their offspring than in the west. In Japan I recall parents making the elaborate “gomenasai” apology ritual on behalf of family members, and a failure to do so(under the reasoning of individual responsibility) would be understood as shirking responsibility. Also, In ancient Israelite culture, I understand it was common for a got to take the punishment for sin in place of the one deserving punishment… (And italics… Read more »
fines might also be considered reparations and/or incentives and not necessarily a punishment.
Thanks for thehtml lesson.
How do you know so much about Japan?
Fines might not be considered punishment….? I also “could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space.” But a fine by definition is “a sum of money imposed as a penalty for an offense or dereliction” Penalty? as in “penal”? The penalty – or punishment, in our system may simultaneously accomplish what you mention (reparations and incentive), but this does not change its basic nature as a punishment. Lewis pointed out something similar in his essay on “The humanitarian theory of punishment.” He had no issue with the idea of punishments (simultaneously) accomplishing other ends,… Read more »
“A fine by definition ” – you’ll always win if you get to define the terms. I’m using “punishment” as an action designed primarily to be a retribution, to hit back, give tit for tat, eye for eye – and that whole ethos may or may not work as a disincentive, doesn’t really matter as long as a payback is accomplished. Anyway an expected apology is not the same thing as a demand, nor does it act to mitigate the demand for punishment or retribution. That some Japanese family feel the obligation to apologize by virtue of their connectedness to… Read more »
If *I* get to define the terms?? – just for clarity, I was quoting from the dictionary; I had no intention of defining the term myself.
As for the main meat of the topic; can you give me a snapshot of what you understand the atonement to have actually accomplished, and how? That is, the “why and how Jesus was punished” that you mentioned above? And further, could you share exactly what your objection is to the traditional Reformed understanding? What you called (if I understood rightly) the “typically heard sentimental flavored teaching that he simply stepped in for us.”
I recall reading Lewis when I was way younger and felt then that his take on the atonement was not as detailed and not as certain as the Reformed or even the Baptist formulas.
Now I’ve started to better appreciate that Lewis was not so certain how it got accomplished.
I know I’m not so certain myself.
In the following couple of replies I’ll answer your questions first with traditional Reformed, then my understanding.
Typical Protestant: God chose to save us. He did so before we had even sinned, knowing we would. And there was only one way to do so, given the theological physics involved. He would have to send part of Himself as Jesus down into humanity to become one of those humans. Only because God is sinless, this new human-with-the-soul-of-God (more like human on the outside, God on the inside) would be pure and sinless — like a jump back to like Adam was before the fall. Like an Adam on steroids; or God with a man suit — some permutation… Read more »
My understanding:
I think the Reformed is largely true.
I’d teach my kids this, BUT:
I’d just add that we don’t know nothin’ about theo-physics, let alone how the Trinity or incarnation is constructed.
We may be able to make some steps in the right direction, and should.
But this stuff is way deeper than I have the means now to work out.
Therefore it is presumptuous at best to speak like we know how it works.
Therefore the Reformed position is only a sketchy boundary mark-up, better designed to keep us from too many ditches on each side.
Yes.
Wilson, honey, you’re embarrassing yourself trying to be a Lewis fanboy. The contents of C.S. Lewis’s colon were more wholesome and decent than are the contents of your mind and soul. The fruit of his labor, a palatial masterpiece. The fruit of your labor, a sick and twisted wreck. Please, stop sullying his beauty with your filthy shadow and get a hero who more closely represents your villainy.