Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end (spiritual evolution)

Hi Bernie,

I have no problem taking Lewis' as speaking literally throughout this chapter, especially as he seems to be VERY clear that evolution of the "spirit man" will be something entirely different from that of the "old" man.

Thus, Lewis does argue that the "spirit man" literally "evolves" -- it's just that he doesn't have Darwinian evolution in mind. Rather he has in mind the "mechanism" of choosing the gift offered by God.

As this could NEVER happen naturally or by necessity (and Lewis makes this clear) then there SHOULDN'T be any danger of this collapsing into a claim that humanity is inevitably proceeding toward divinity.

So I think Lewis argues that human beings as a species have LITERALLY evolved (understanding "evolution" in Darwinian terms), AND that humans can LITERALLY evolve to become sons (and daughters!) of God through receiving the gift of adoption offered by God (understanding "evolution" in NON-Darwinian terms).

Where one would go wrong in a catastrophic sense would be to think that Lewis is arguing that the SAME sort of "evolution" is had in mind in both instances.

So my take on Lewis' use of the notion of "evolution" in this chapter is that he uses the term in two different senses: in the ordinary scientific sense to refer to biological evolution and in a theological sense to refer to the new birth. These two senses of "evolution" are related by analogy (i.e. "new birth" is LIKE "biological evolution" in that a distinctly new "species" is formed thereby). But as long as one is aware that Lewis IS using the idea of "evolution" in two different senses then I see no reason why one ought to deny that the use is literal in the respective contexts.

If that seems confusing, then at least such confusion makes clear one potential danger of what is, in my mind, a quite unproblematic approach!

One might attempt to clarify this by picking up on something you have already suggested;

First, let me recite what I believe Lewis to be saying;

1. Humans LITERALLY arose through a process of "biological evolution"

2. Humans LITERALLY can become children of God through a process of "spiritual evolution"

3. The process of "spiritual evolution" is LIKE the process of "biological evolution" in SOME respects, but totally unlike it in other MAJOR respects.

And now let me offer a parallel to which you have already alluded;

A. Planets LITERALLY arose through a process of "planetary evolution"

B. Humans LITERALLY arose through a process of "biological evolution"

C. The process of "planetary evolution" is LIKE the process of "biological evolution" in SOME respects, but totally unlike it in other MAJOR respects.

Here we can see that there is a LITERAL use of two different senses of "evolution" - which DISTINCT senses are related by analogy. Easy enough?

I'll only add that I believe that appropriating the language of "evolution" in the context of apologetic / evangelistic dialogue with scientifically literate people was precisely what Lewis had in mind. So I believe that you are being quite faithful to Lewis' intent in your use of this material.

Blessings,
Murray

Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> Hi David- let me state it this way, and tell me what you think (lots of
> steps are skipped, like in biblical geneologies :-) :
>
>
>
> Evolutionary sequence:
>
>
>
> 1. Big bang (nothing but energy- no matter)
> 2. Elements form (matter forms)
> 3. Stars form
> 4. Planets form
> 5. Biological life forms
> 6. Humans form
> 7. The “spiritual man” forms
>
>
>
> That is taking Lewis’ ch. 11 literally. Where’s the error? Yes, God
> does something new in step 7 (directly intervening and creating a
> personal relationship with humans/God), but there’s always something
> radically new anyway in each major stage- so why is that a problem?
> This seems like an interesting impact on evangelism- a message for
> scientific people to accept the next stage... become a “new creature”
> and enter into a relationship with God. I feel like I’m spear-heading
> something here… taking Lewis farther than he intended- has anyone else
> wrote or espoused this possibility of the gospel being in-line with
> evolution as “the next step?”
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, November 14, 2008 10:01 AM
> *To:* Dehler, Bernie
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end
>
>
>
> I don't think Lewis is making those distinctions; he's trying to make an
> analogy with biological evolution.
>
>
>
> If all you mean is that conversion is an "evolutionary" process in the
> sense that it is gradual and happens over time, I think that is a fair
> statement, at least if we are understanding "coversion" to mean the
> entire ordro salutis.
>
>
>
> But the analogy still breaks down because Christian conversion is
> obviously teleological, while natural evolution is not (at least from a
> human perspective). Moreover, Christian conversion doesn't happen in
> accordance with natural laws -- it specifically requires divine
> intervention.
>
>
>
> So, it seems to me a limited analogy. The classical notion of a
> "pilgrimage" or the Pauline idea of running a race seem more apt.
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Dehler, Bernie
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi David-
>
>
>
> Evolution is different in different realms. For example, there is the
> sex act in some biological evolution, but not all. For chemical
> evolution, there is no sex. Same with planetary evolution. DNA
> mutation plays a part in biological evolution, but no part in planetary
> or star evolution. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with the next step
> of evolution, getting born again, being by choice. Evolution also
> creates new things, for example, the ability to hear, see, talk, think,
> etc. The new thing in this case is the introduction of the spiritual
> man, and the way it is received.
>
>
>
> I'm still looking at to why this chapter can't be taken literally. Any
> other ideas? Does this seem foolish, or am I picking-up on something new?
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com
> <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 13, 2008 3:14 PM
>
>
> *To:* Dehler, Bernie
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end
>
>
>
>
> That conversion is analogous to biological evolution. Biological
> evolution happens "naturally." Conversion doesn't.
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com
> <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>> wrote:
>
> I guess a clarifying question of mine would be "What does Lewis say in
> Ch. 11 that is figurative and can't be literal?"
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com
> <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 13, 2008 12:01 PM
> *To:* Dehler, Bernie
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end
>
>
>
>
> It's an interesting analogy. But read it carefully -- nowhere is Lewis
> suggesting that we simply evolve into new creations. His focus is on
> transformation, of the sort that only comes through submission to
> Christ. He uses the metaphor of evolution to suggest that this process,
> as it occurs in Christians here on earth, isn't always obvious and often
> is gradual. But without that crucial aspect of transformation by Christ
> and in Christ, you're really starting to talk about a different gospel,
> I think.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com
> <mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> One thing I wanted to share and see what feedback I get.
>
>
>
> I kind of feel like I might be going-off the deep-end. The reason why
> is because of how I understand C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity" (online
> here: http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt )
>
>
>
> In his last chapter, 11, "The New Men," he offers evolution as a
> metaphor for gospel transformation. Here's why I think I might be
> going-off the deep-end: I'm starting to see what he wrote as literal
> instead of figurative. It seems so profound and touching, I'm wondering
> if what he says about evolution isn't really just an analogy, but
> literally true.
>
>
>
> By evolution, I mean "total evolution" not just biological evolution.
> Total evolution explains how everything evolves- from the big-bang, to
> elements, to stars, planets, etc. Maybe the work of Christ is the
> latest injection according to total evolution? He talks about "the next
> step" in evolution- the ability to be born-again.
>
>
>
> Anyway, I feel strange taking something that was offered as an analogy
> to be thinking of it quite literally.
>
>
>
> I'll likely be giving a presentation of this chapter 11 at one of the
> meetings I hold, so I would appreciate feedback on this chapter.
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 14 14:34:51 2008