While the Bible records many instances of miracles, in most cases Christian faith doesn't depend for its existence on belief in, or literal interpretaWhile the Bible records many instances of miracles, in most cases Christian faith doesn't depend for its existence on belief in, or literal interpretation of any one of them, and they don't play a significant role in Christian consciousness; for instance, whether or not Jonah endured three days in the belly of a whale makes no difference in how I live my life. Christianity stands or falls, however, on the claim of one central miracle: that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead by the act of God, attesting to the truth of his message and the meaning of his death as a sacrifice for human sin, and inaugurating an ultimate redemption of the world from sin and death. If that can be successfully dismissed as a fraud or a mistake on the part of the disciples, then we're free to dismiss Jesus as a lunatic (as one of my college teachers maintained) or a charlatan in the mold of Jim Jones. But if it can't successfully be dismissed....?
British journalist Morison, convinced that supernatural religion was a myth, but respectful of the "historical Jesus" of turn-of-century (and modern) liberalism, set out to write a book about the real human drama of this "great teacher's" last days, stripped of the superstitious legends. In the course of his research, he ran squarely into the reality of which another of my college teachers, an atheist who taught the Heritage of the Bible class (not an unusual situation, in a state university!) spoke to a surprised class: while the idea of a miraculous resurrection appears to be a scientific impossibility --at least, if you define miracles as impossible-- all the purported natural explanations for the historical data also appear to be psychological, physical or historical impossibilities; yet something happened. Morison's intellectually honest research --not starting from the assumption that the Gospel accounts are inerrant Divine revelation, but rather treating them as human documents subject to historical analysis and verification-- forced him to the conclusion that the literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead is a fact, which the Gospel writers correctly report and interpret. That fact does not, in itself, validate the theology or lifestyles of any particular Christian group; it does not in fact validate any teaching except Jesus' own. But --if it be admitted-- then it does mean that his life and teaching has to become the central starting point for our understanding of ourselves and our world.
This book is clearly written, lucidly argued, and would be a fairly quick read for most people. But the relatively short time invested in it might well pay great rewards spiritually and intellectually. It's a good resource for Christians who want to know more about the evidence for our faith; but I think it would be an even better read for any atheist or skeptic who values critical thinking and honest inquiry into the questions of ultimate meaning that concern all of us....more
During World War II, British literary scholar and Anglican lay theologian C. S. Lewis, a former atheist who converted to Christianity as an adult in 1During World War II, British literary scholar and Anglican lay theologian C. S. Lewis, a former atheist who converted to Christianity as an adult in 1931, was invited by the BBC to deliver a series of radio talks about the Christian faith. These were delivered in 1941-43, and were well received by the British public as a whole; Lewis subsequently published the content of the broadcasts in book form, in three parts: Broadcast Talks, or, The Case for Christianity (1942), Christian Behaviour (1943), and Beyond Personality (1944). First published in 1952, the present book brings together the texts of these three, with a bit more editing to adapt to the different format, and some added material responding to reader feedback. (There's also a Preface by Lewis explaining the origin of the book and the purposes behind it, and this edition has a short but perceptive Foreword by Christian poet Kathleen Norris.) Like the broadcasts, the book is directed primarily towards ordinary non-Christians; but it's also well worth reading for Christians who want to better understand the case for, and the content of, their own faith.
The three component books here determine the structure of this book (except that the first one is broken down into two numbered "books," while the next two are each incorporated in one). I've shelved this as both "Christian apologetics" and "theology," but only the first "book" deals directly with Christian evidences. And strictly speaking, this part only deals with one evidence (though for Lewis it's the most conclusive), the fact that the human race both a.) has an intrinsic moral sense which is remarkably consistent across cultures and which cannot be convincingly explained as a product of materialistic evolution, and b.) universally falls short of living up to the behavior demanded by this moral sense. From this, he deduces the existence of an intelligent and moral Creator, who created the material universe but stands outside of it, to whom we are morally responsible and before whom we are all guilty of our moral shortcomings. This problem of guilt in relation to our moral Creator is precisely the central problem which Christianity purports both to explain and to resolve.
In the second "book," Lewis explains the basic beliefs he sees as common to all Christians, regardless of denomination. This is the titular "mere Christianity," that is, Christianity unmixed with any sectarian additions, a phrase he borrowed from some of the writings of the 17th-century British nondenominational Christian thinker Richard Baxter (https://www.discovery.org/a/460/ ), although Baxter spelled it as "meer." Lewis also distinguishes this from what he calls "Christianity-and-water," that is, a watered-down theism that discards classical Christian doctrines about sin, judgement, and redemption. The basic beliefs of mere Christianity, as Lewis defines it, are a God with definite moral ideas, against which the world in general is in rebellion; the incarnation of Christ as the invasion of this world by God in human form, and the death of Christ as an act which reconciles humans to God; Christian salvation as incorporation of the life of Christ into our life through belief, baptism, and the Lord's Supper (though without dogmatism as to the means of how these things work); final judgment and a tangible afterlife.
"Christian Behaviour" explains Christian moral principles in terms of three factors: formation of our inner character in such a way as to fit us for the eternal life of a redeemed community in heaven, in fellowship with a holy God; guidance of our external relations with other people in such a way as to avoid harming them; and conforming our actions to the furthering of what God is doing in the world. (So Christian morality is not, as many people imagine, conformity to a list to purposeless taboos, nor opposition to anything that brings about human pleasure.) Lewis discusses these principles in the context of the traditional teaching about the four "cardinal" and the three "theological" virtues. He devotes a chapter to sexual morality, which confines sexual expression to male-female marriage, and to Christian marriage, which is intended as a commitment for life. In that context, he defends the idea of male headship in marriage as a biblical command; IMO, there he fails to take seriously enough the possibility of mutual submission, which I see as the biblical command.) The last "book," which has the alternate title "First Steps in the Doctrine of the Trinity," consists of reflections attempting to flesh out and make sense of the classical Nicene understanding of the Trinity, and to relate it to themes expressed in the previous three "books."
There are nits that could be picked here. Personally, I have a few disagreements with particular positions he takes (including male headship in marriage). In one place, in an example illustrating a particular point, he appears to take for granted a stereotypical racial view (that blacks necessarily have better and brighter teeth than whites), though I don't believe he harbored any prejudice against blacks, nor intended anything pejorative in the comment. He doesn't entirely succeed in setting forth an exposition of Christianity that would satisfy all denominations; Quakers would reject his references to baptism and the Lord's Supper, biblical Unitarians would not completely accept his Trinitarianism, and since his exposition of Christian belief takes a solidly free will position in explaining human response to God (and God's response to humans), no Calvinist would accept it at those points. (But since I agree with him at those points, I don't view that as a fault!). In the main, though, this is a very substantial, insightful treatment of Christian belief, written in simple lay language, but with considerable intellectual rigor. Much more could be said; but I'll be content with noting that I've now read it twice, taken much from it that shaped my own outlook, and rate it more highly now on a second reading than I did decades ago after the first one!...more