A to Z with C.S. Lewis: U is for Universalism

by Lou Markos on April 25, 2013

Near the end of The Last Battle, a noble Calormene soldier named Emeth dies and comes before Aslan, the Christ of Narnia.  Although Emeth hails from a distant land that worships a false god named Tash (rather than the true Aslan), and although Emeth has served Tash all his life, when he meets Aslan, he is welcomed by the Great Lion and invited into heaven.

Of all the passages in the voluminous writings of C. S. Lewis, none has caused more controversy and confusion than this suggestion by the orthodox Christian Lewis that salvation can be attained outside of Christ.  Indeed, when I speak about Lewis, the most common question that I am asked is whether or not the episode with Emeth reveals Lewis to be a Universalist in disguise: that is, someone who believes that all who practice their religion faithfully—whether they be Christians or Jews, Muslims or Hindus—will be saved.

It does not.  Had Emeth come before Aslan and requested directions to the Tash part of heaven, and had Aslan obliged, then Lewis would be a Universalist.  But that is not what happens in the episode.  Quite to the contrary, when Emeth stands before Aslan, he realizes and accepts that Tash is false and Aslan true, and that the deep spiritual desire he has followed all his life has found its fulfillment in Aslan.  He proves this by falling to his knees in worship.

Like the Magi of the Christmas story, he recognizes that Aslan (not Tash) is the end of his journey.  In response, Aslan assures him: “‘unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly.  For all find what they truly seek.’”

Now, it must be admitted that though this is not universalism, it does border on a concept that the vast majority of believers would reject (rightly) as unbiblical: post-mortem (“after death”) salvation.  Orthodox Christian teaching states that all decisions for or against Christ must be made before we die.  Once we pass to the other side, all bets are off.  Though many Protestants think that the Catholic belief in purgatory allows for a second chance at salvation, it does not.  In Catholicism, those who reach purgatory are already saved; they just need to be sanctified.

So is Lewis an advocate of post-mortem salvation?  This time I must be a bit more nuanced with my answer.  Yes, Emeth is technically dead when he accepts Aslan’s offer of salvation, but that does not mean he is being given a “second chance.”

As Lewis explains in a number of his works, God lives in eternity, not in time.  Too often, people think that eternity means time going on forever, when what it really means is that time itself does not exist.  The closest we come to a perception of eternity, Lewis writes, is our experience of the present moment.  For the present is the point where time touches eternity.

The moment Emeth dies is an eternal moment—and that eternal moment contains all the other moments of his life.  He accepts Aslan (Christ) in that eternal moment, because all of the other moments have been building up to that acceptance.  And once he does, all the other moments become reoriented around that moment of decision.  That is why, in The Great Divorce, Lewis says heaven and hell work backwards.  For those who accept Christ in that eternal moment, it will seem, not that they have just entered heaven, but that they have always been there.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tumblr Linkedin Plusone Email

The City Podcast: A Cinema School for Houston

by Timothy Motte on April 23, 2013

The City, a podcast of Houston Baptist University: Smart. Sane. Spiritual.

Featuring: Joshua Sikora, Cate MacDonald, and Dr. John Mark Reynolds

The old regime is changing.

Digital media and the internet mean that anyone can make films, anywhere.

That’s why Houston Baptist University has hired Joshua Sikora, an independent film director who has had success outside the studio system, to lead its new Cinema & New Media Arts program.

In this podcast Josh talks about the difference between media and film, the emerging need for more creative jobs than technical, and the advantages of being in Houston.

Play

Keep up with the Cinema & New Media Arts program at their blog: cinema.hbu.edu

Email us at podcast@hbu.edu.

 

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tumblr Linkedin Plusone Email

A to Z with C.S. Lewis: T is for Tao

by Lou Markos on April 18, 2013

Laozi and Kong Fuzi

Mere Christianity is Lewis’s best known and most complete work of apologetics.  In it he begins with a general argument for theism (the existence of God) and then expands that argument into a specific defense of the Christian gospel.  From there, he goes on to explain and support the central moral and theological principles of Christianity.

Although Lewis believed firmly in the authority of scripture, he knew that many of his modern readers did not share his belief.  Accordingly, Lewis carefully builds his apologetical arguments on common ground: on facts and observations about our world and ourselves that all people, regardless of their religious beliefs, can see, understand, and acknowledge.

That is why he begins Mere Christianity with an unexpected statement that seems, on the surface, to have little to do with a defense of the Christian faith.  Did you ever notice, Lewis writes, that when two people disagree about something, they argue about it rather than fight?  Though most of us likely did not notice this phenomenon before, the moment we read Lewis’s statement, the truth of it becomes apparent. Of course we argue instead of fight!

And that’s when Lewis hooks us.  Whether we realize it or not, two people cannot argue about something unless they agree (often unconsciously) to a fixed standard that transcends them both.  When we argue, we take that standard for granted and then make a case (sometimes rationally, sometimes irrationally) that our side of the argument better approximates that standard.

In a case where two former business partners are suing each other for fraud, neither party says: “yes, I swindled my partner, and I was right to do so.”  If he did, he would not be sent to jail; he would be sent to an asylum.  Now, one party might partially confess to fraud, but then he would follow the confession by offering mitigating circumstances to show that the “fraud” was actually justified.  In other words, he still holds to the accepted standard that fraud is wrong.

On the basis of our shared experience of such ethical debates, Lewis posits that a universal, cross-cultural moral code exists and is binding.  In The Abolition of Man, he gives that law code a name: the Tao.  Many Christians are confused by this: why should Lewis borrow a word from Taoism (a branch of Buddhism) to bolster his case for the Christian faith?  The answer is simple: to show that all people (east and west) recognize the Tao, even though they continually break it.

Many relativists will balk against Lewis’s assertion of the Tao, claiming that morality veers wildly from culture to culture and is a man-made (rather than a divinely-given) thing that alters from age to age.  But those same so-called relativists will quickly change their tune if someone robs them.  “It was wrong of you to do that,” they will say, and if the person who robbed them says, “in my culture it is OK for me to steal,” the relativist will not accept the excuse.

The fact is everyone knows the Tao exists, for whatever our own personal ideology, we expect other people to treat us in accordance with the Tao.  Indeed, if there were no Tao, then no court could have tried the Nazis or Saddam Hussein or the perpetrators of apartheid.  The Tao does exist, but if it exists, then it makes necessary a director of the Tao who transcends all times and cultures.  It requires, in short, a super-natural Creator who inscribed the Tao into our conscience.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tumblr Linkedin Plusone Email

Boston Marathon Bombing – Ten Rules for an American Crisis

by John Mark Reynolds on April 16, 2013

Rule Number One: I will not blame mainstream members of a group for the actions in Boston of extremists. I will blame the extremists.

Rule Number Two: I will not try far-fetched linkage of this bombing to my favorite political clause.

Rule Number Three: I will remember that the first news from any act of violence is almost always incorrect.

Rule Number Four: I will not supersaturate in the news. If I must do something I will pray and give money to the Red Cross.

Rule Number Five: I will not overly focus on stupid social media comments by those I don’t agree with. Selection bias is real.

Rule Number Six: I will not respond to social media trolling.

Rule Number Seven: I will remember that this crisis is not about me, but about those suffering, and I will pray accordingly.

Rule Number Eight: I will recall to pray for my enemies. No hate, but justice.

Rule Number Nine: This is the worst possible time to speculate in any area outside of my area of expertise.

Rule Number Ten: I will give my fears to Jesus and rest in His love.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tumblr Linkedin Plusone Email

The City, a podcast of Houston Baptist University: Smart. Sane. Spiritual.

Featuring: Dr. Micah Mattix, Dr. Holly Ordway, Cate MacDonald, and Dr. John Mark Reynolds

Our discussion with Dr. Micah Mattix last week did not feel complete. So we had him back for a second round of looking at beauty in literature.

Many evolutionists try to argue that poetry, love, and our sense of beauty are the remnants of something that once had survival value.

Dr. Mattix strongly disagrees, for if you explain love, haven’t you explained away the very phenomenon of love?

Are we the first generation in the history of humanity that does not do poetry for enjoyment?

Also in this podcast we attempt a reading and instant critical analysis of a contemporary poem. If you enjoy this kind of poetic project, let us know by emailing podcast@hbu.edu.

Play

Look for Dr. Mattix’s article “Portrait of the Artist as a Caveman” in The New Atlantis.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tumblr Linkedin Plusone Email

Our Prime Minister?

by John Mark Reynolds on April 12, 2013

Her alma mater may not be thrilled with her politics, but one American university would be happy to claim her. Margaret Thatcher came to Houston Baptist University and I cherish a picture of one of the university founders walking with her into the event held in her honor.

The Iron Lady and the Founder

I know from speaking to him the honor he felt: she was America’s friend and ally.

Even my generation glosses over how marvelous the smashing of the Soviet Union was in the 1980’s. Thatcher, Reagan, and the Blessed John Paul applied external pressure of just the right sort, at exactly the right time, in precisely the right places and one of the bloodiest, most tyrannical regimes in human history died.

Where some lost themselves to jingoism and others to moral equivalence, Thatcher understood there was no comparison between British sins and Soviet crimes against humanity — and helped defeat a monstrous tyranny with minimal loss of British lives.

She was right on the great issue of the time — the evils of godless communism — and her steadfast support when other allies wobbled made all the difference.

Her intellect was first-rate and her political skills remarkable, but the same thing could be said about Bill Clinton. And yet, like Grover Cleveland, Clinton is likely to fade over time and be recalled, when he is recalled at all, twixt Reagan and Obama. Britain has had many peacetime prime ministers, but Thatcher was one of the greatest, greater than Churchill if his wartime tenure were excluded, and will dominate her era.

Thatcher made mistakes, some serious. Her support for some dictators is difficult to square with the big picture and the Cold War did not justify it. But Britain had become weak, overly controlled by unions, and Thatcher broke Britain free.

What made Thatcher great was her deep connection to the British past and her repeated attempts, sometimes failed, to make past wisdom relevant. She was no slave to bad ideas (some old ideas are just old) and her very success challenged class and sexual barriers. She was a grocer’s daughter from the wrong class to be PM, trained in chemistry not typical for a pol, and a woman leading the Tory party. What was almost unique was that Thatcher could reject the bad without going too far and destroying the good.

She conserved what should and could be saved, but she was just one person and the decline of Britain could only be delayed. From Thatcher to Cameron is a loss of intellect, courage, and character, but societies get the leaders they deserve.

Thatcher was often wrong, but she was always principled and her general direction was correct. Major, Blair, and Cameron get some details better, but they cling to unreal assumptions about humanity, Britain, and the world. Her world was that of a green grocer’s daughter open to the best of intellectual class. Their world is driven by assumptions of an academic and entertainment culture increasingly cut off from the Divine order.

One example, and it is a small one, makes the point: Thatcher bravely defended traditional marriage and family, but the limits of politics, limits she accepted, meant her staying action failed. Thatcher reminds Christians that it is better to have the music, television, schools and other cultural institutions than 10 Downing Street.

The British Christian establishment demonstrates beyond possibility of dispute that no compromise with modernity will be enough to stave off decadence. Prime Minister Thatcher’s time as premier shows the limits of political support. The PM may be with you, but if the West-End isn’t, the country eventually becomes like the West End . . . until the unreality cuts down Britain as surely as the fantasies, vice, and injustice described by Dickens caught up with pre-Revolutionary France.

Meanwhile, Christians should follow Lady Thatcher’s example and refuse panic. We must be men and women “not for turning.”  We will need to compromise where we can, but be steady where we cannot. We may even fail in the short term, as she did. My school, HBU, is getting ready for the long haul.

She may be the last we will see for some time, but she will always be HBU’s prime minister.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Tumblr Linkedin Plusone Email