CS Lewis trilemma misunderstood (was Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered)

--- "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@chartermi.net>
wrote:
(SNIP)

> The original point was that Lewis gave only two
> options regarding Jesus: 1)
> Jesus was the "Son of God" in the particular manner
> decided in the 4th
> century when the Council of Nicea chose the
> Athanasian meaning of Jesus'
> divinity over the Arian version; or 2) Jesus was
> some combination of madman,
> fool, and demon.
>
> I say that Lewis's setting up this stark either/or
> choice was a disservice
> to Christianity. It leads many Christian people,
> including some on this
> list, to dump all persons who question any part of
> 1) into the trash
> category specified by 2).

Howard, I respect very much your views on many things,
but you have misunderstood C.S. Lewis, in part,
because of what Josh McDowell did in actually changing
C.S. Lewis' use of the trilemma. A very good analysis
is written up by Andrew Rilstone and is found here:
http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/trilemma.htm

He sums up what CS Lewis actually said quite well, and
I will quote it in part:
----------
"An 'apologist' is one who 'answers objections' to the
Christian faith. Lewis at no point claims to be able
to prove that Christianity is true. His claim is far
more modest: to give sensible answers to difficulties
such as 'Hasn't science disproved the existence of
God?', . . . The so-called trilemma is an answer to
one such objection: 'Jesus was a good man, but not the
Son of God.' You do not have to listen to many
religious discussion programmes or political speeches
to realize that the idea that 'Christianity is really
about Jesus moral teaching' (or, "If you follow Jesus
moral teaching, then you are a Christian") is still
very prevalent.

"Lewis wrote that it was almost impossible for English
children to hear and understand the Christian story,
because it was so bound up with bad hymns and stained
glass windows. Part of the purpose of his children's
books was to present the story in a non-religious
context so that they could really hear it, perhaps for
the first time.

"He also said that the Christianity of most of his
countrymen was in fact 'vague Theism with a strong and
virile ethical code' which demanded churchgoing as 'at
best a part of loyalty and good manners, at worst a
proof of respectability.' Again, he said that 'the
great difficulty is to get modern audiences to realize
that you are preaching Christianity solely and simply
because you happen to think it true; they always
suppose you are preaching it because you like it or
think it good for society or something of that sort.'
The trilemma, like the figure of Aslan, is intended to
be a wake-up call to such people, encouraging them to
see the Biblical Christ for the first time. If
McDowell wishes to claim that it proves more than
this, he has no right to attribute this claim to C.S.
Lewis."
------------
Of course, you are in good company, NT Wright also
thinks that CS Lewis coined a trilemma view of CSL.
;)

The interesting thing is I don't think CSL would
disagree with NT Wright's argument about Jesus'
self-understanding, which would underscore exactly the
point CSL was trying to make -- that Jesus was not and
did not portray himself to be a moral teacher. While
CSL may have lacked the historical context that NT
Wright has in describing how and why the followers of
Jesus and Jesus Himself saw Him acting on behalf of
and in the stead of God the Father, the understanding
in both instances would lead one to assigning to Jesus
the label of Son of God as being entirely appropriate.
 In neither case would you describe Jesus as a moral
teacher in the same way as one would describe Buddha
or Lao Tze as a more teacher.

I think the disservice thus lies not with CSL but
those who took an argument intended for one purpose
and applied it to a wholly different purpose.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
Received on Sat Dec 20 19:40:03 2003