I've been reading C. S. Lewis' Surprised by Joy recently, and several quotes have gotten my attention in this account of his conversion from atheism to Christ. So, with some comments, here are the quotes.
"In reading Chesterton, as in reading MacDonald, I did not know what I was letting myself in for. A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere--'Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,' as Herbert says, 'fine nets and strategems.' God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous." (p. 191)
I love the image painted here. Lewis is trying his best to maintain a reasonable atheism as his philosophy of life, but even in the realm of literature he seems to butt up against the idea of God constantly. He cannot escape the divine person he calls "the Adversary." In fact, I think this image is appropriate. God, the creator of the universe, is constantly trying to "trap" us in the net of his grace. He wants a relationship with us so much that he is willing to be (in Lewis' words) unscrupulous in his pursuit of us. Atheists be warned, God has laid a trap for you. He is on the hunt, and reason will not keep you safe from him. In fact, as Lewis describes it, reason itself is one of the traps God uses to catch us.
"Really, a young Atheist cannot guard his faith too carefully. Dangers lie in wait for him on every side. . . . For the first time I examined myself with a seriously practical purpose. . . . Idealism can be talked, and even felt; it cannot be lived. It became patently absurd to go on thinking of 'Spirit' as either ignorant of, or passive to, my approaches. Even if my own philosophy were true, how could the initiative lie on my side? My own analogy, as I now first perceived, suggested the opposite: if Shakespeare and Hamlet could ever meet, it must be Shakespeare's doing. Hamlet could initiate nothing. . . . The real terror was that if you seriously believed in even such a 'God' or 'Spirit' as I admitted, a wholly new situation developed. . . . I was to be allowed to play at philosophy no longer. It might, as I say, still be true that my 'Spirit' differed in some way from 'the God of popular religion.' My Adversary waived the point. It sank into utter unimportance. He would not argue about it. He only said, 'I amd the Lord'; 'I am that I am'; 'I am.' . . . . People who are naturally religious find difficulty in understanding the horror of such a revelation. Amiable agnostics will talk cheerfully about 'man's search for God.' To me, as I then was, they might as well have talked about the mouse's search for the cat." (pp. 226-227)
Lewis had come to the philosophical conclusion that a "Spirit" existed beyond mere natural existence, and now that very "Spirit" was interfering with Lewis' life and thought. The very idea unnerved him. He did not want such an interference, he wanted his soul to remain his own personal possession. Now, however, he was coming to the reasonable conclusion that such a wish is practically impossible. He could not live without interference from the divine. Lewis continues:
"Doubtless, by definition, God was Reason itself. But would he also be 'reasonable' in that other, more comfortable, sense? Not the slightest assurance on that score was offered me. Total surrender, the absolute leap in the dark was demanded. . . . The demand was not even 'All or nothing.' I think that stage had been passed, . . . Now the demand was simply 'All.'" (p. 228)
Given his own thoughts and attempts to live his rational philosophy, Lewis ended in one of God's traps. He could not find a way around the practical conclusion that if a divine "Spirit" existed, he/she/it had the right to demand something of humans. At least, that is how it reads to me. This realization of God's all encompassing claim on humanity caused a crisis for Lewis. What to do? He even uses the words "That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me." His response?
"I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms. . . . who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance to escape? The words . . . compel them to come in, . . .properly understood, . . . plumb the depth of Divine mercy. The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation." (pp. 228-229)
I love the way Lewis expresses himself here, and I am inclined to agree with him. Lewis the atheist has come face-to-face with the realization that Someone may be there, Someone who has a prior claim on humanity. It subsequently frightens him and concerns him, but he sees no recourse but surrender. Is he right?
What do you think?
I encourage you to get this frank book and read a description of a conversion that is quite unlike that of St. Augustine.
Thanks for reading!
4 comments:
One of my favorite books! I had to laugh about the "kicking, struggling.......escape" part.
Any All Powerful, All Knowing Creator God would know and understand every thing I (and YOU) do... and every "reason" I (and you) do it! And also HE/IT would accept responsibility for "creating" me to act in ANY way that I DO act and that he already KNEW I "would" act from the moment of his creating me. (Or he isn't All Knowing")
"I" (if I had power to create anything) would accept responsibility for ANY actions of MY "creations!"
" Personal responsibility" is a great human Social Value, but put a GOD in the equation and 'humans" are off the HOOK! Responsibility Wise!
Any GOD who really exists is responsible for EVERYTHING!
Or he isn't a GOD!
Hey Anonymous:
I'm betting you don't have kids, or that if you do, you don't claim ultimate responsibility for every act they do. Yet according to your logic, you should accept total responsibility, right? How does complete "knowledge" equal total "responsibility"? Your logic skipped a step.
To Anonymous: The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 14:12 that "each one of us will give an account of himself to God." The word "account" means a verbal reckoning. This account will be for every thing we did, and for every thing we did not do. Thus, I am compelled to respond to your comments.
In his book (which I highly recommend), especially the chapter on Responsibility) The Sovereignty of God, A.W. Pink writes, "...God's Sovereignty with Man's Responsibility is the gordian knot of theology." He is right. Believers and unbelievers have to deal with this issue. Reread Paul's verse above.
One of the places in Scripture where I see this played out is in John 6:37, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out" (NASB). In the begining of the verse we have God's sovereignty in giving to Christ. In the middle part of the verse, "the one who comes" is human responsibility.
The phrase "will certainly not cast out" is a strong double negation in the Greek. This means Christ will in no way, no how, cast out into the outside, those who come to Him.
Please don't trip over the promise while taking apart the words.
The same God that David wrote about in Psalm 139:1-6 (especially verse four - "You know it all."), this same responsibe God knew He would use me tonight to send you this response and to tell you that if you come to Him (His Son Jesus Christ) you too Anonymous, will never be cast out!
Post a Comment