Re: [asa] CS Lewis and going-off the deep-end

Hi Bernie,

The below got assigned to my drafts folder rather than sent to the list - so apologies if I seem a bit behind in responding.

I have no problem taking Lewis' as speaking literally in 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.

<cite>
I should expect the next stage in Evolution not to be a stage in Evolution
at all: should expect the Evolution itself as a method of producing change,
will be superseded.
</cite>

I think it clear that he's using "evolution" in more than one sense - or perhaps better, that he understands the "evolution" of "little, naked, unarmoured animals which had better brains" to be a different sort of process than the evolution of "sons of God";

<cite>
It is not a change from brainy men to brainier men: it is a change that goes
off in a totally different direction-a change from being creatures of God to
being sons of God. The first instance appeared in Palestine two thousand
years ago. In a sense, the change is not "Evolution" at all, because it is
not something arising out of the natural process of events but something
coming into nature from outside. But that is what I should expect. We
arrived at our idea of "Evolution" from studying the past. If there are real
novelties in store then of course our idea, based on the past, will not
really cover them. And in fact this New Step differs from all previous ones
not only in coming from outside nature but in several other ways as well.
</cite>

He goes on to elucidate how this new "mode" of evolution varies from previous "modes" in what follows, amongst which (1) it does not involve sexual reproduction; and (2) it is voluntary "not...in the sense that we, of ourselves, could have chosen to take it or could even have imagined it; but it is voluntary in the sense that when it is offered to us we can refuse it."

It's not, in other words, either "natural" or "necessary" that this next step in "evolution" actually occur in respects of any particular individual - certainly it doesn't entail a change in humanity as a species (although given Lewis' historical circumstances he might - and I stress might - have seen the Christianisation of the world as in some sense inevitable).

In all of this, I don't think you're misreading Lewis to any great extent. I think it was PRECISELY his intent to explain the new birth in terms of evolutionary concepts. And I think he had in mind, as you do, that this would be a helpful way of speaking to scientifically literate people.

The problem, as I see it, is that it requires a change in the way the term "evolution" is understood which introduces an obvious difficulty -- think in terms of Gregory Arago's objection to speaking of the "evolution" of societies. In effect, one can speak of humans (and their societies) "evolving" just so long as one is clear that this "evolution" has nothing to do with Darwinism. Whether that can be achieved is another question. The fact that some find Lewis' remarks here so difficult to understand - despite the fact that he is saying something which is, in my view, perfectly straightforward suggests that making the requisite distinctions might, in practice, be near impossible.

Blessings,
Murray Hogg
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology

Dehler, Bernie 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 Wed Nov 19 16:31:10 2008