So now. As a blessing to everyone, I've chosen to shower before blogging this time around. So no complaints of filthiness from me! Though I do have a pressing obligation to make some cookies as soon as this is through...so no promises to be completely focused. :)
On to the topic. One would expect that reading Lewis is near tantamount to scripture; that with every flip of the page you're hit with a new revelation, that in every paragraph lies some gem that encourages you to lead a better life. For a lot of Lewis, this is true. However, his ideas on the nature of God continue to be pretty off-putting to me, and I wanted to examine why.
To put it in context, Lewis theorizes on the nature of God in response to a false idea of God that he finds in Liberal Theology. Questing for an "enlightened religion," these theologians take God's defining characteristics to be that he is "infinite, immaterial and immutable" (Miracles, 143). They conjecture from these that this must be all God is, removing from him all human attributes and leaving him a rather immaterial life force reminiscent of Pantheistic tradition.
Lewis is right that this view is incorrect, that it leads to the confused worship of a "non-entity". However, his replacement, to me at least, is similarly off-putting. For one, Lewis sticks to the trinity in his depiction of God, saying that "in God's dimension...you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a cube is six squares while remaining one cube" (Mere Christianity 162). To me this basically implies that God is one being with three faces, and how those Persons interact with each other and man will be unknowable to us until we reach Heaven. This--the reliance on things that are unknowable--is a good and functional view. There are certainly things we don't know about God. However, the concept of the trinity breaks down to me in scenarios like the Virgin Birth, and like Christ's baptism. Lewis' reliance on the Trinity is alienating to me, and although his description of God as 'super-personal' (above personality as we understand it), I prefer a relatable Father-God, who promises that I can become like him through the grace of his son.
Further, Lewis does not begin with a belief that we are the children of God. In Mere Christianity he asserts that Christ was literally begotten of God, while he only "makes" us (160). In this way we are like tin soldiers, resistant to becoming the real men in emulation of Christ. This is true enough; we do go through a natural man/spiritual man process that is painful and often unsuccessful The key difference between Lewis' philosophy and Mormon Doctrine is in LDS belief we at all times remain sons and daughters of God, from before our transformation until afterwards, and with Lewis, we start as merely creations. The love of God for us as humans is much more tangible to me when I can relate to him as a Father, not a creator.
Commiserating over theorist's ability to really know the nature of God, Lewis writes that we "have no resources from which to supply the blindingly real...attributes of Deity" (Miracles 144). He tries to do so, however, in cementing the idea of the Trinity as well as defining God as our Creator rather than our Father. However, the beauty is that in modern times we do have resources through which we can understand the true nature of God--the prophets, modern scripture, and personal revelation. Through these we understand that Heavenly Father, Christ and the Holy Ghost, though united in purpose, are separate beings. We understand ourselves as having a direct and personal relationship with all three members of the Godhead, as they act as the Fathers and guides of our mortal lives. And most importantly, we understand our capacity to become like them--in their separate and glorified state-- through our growth and acceptance of the Atonement. I love Lewis, but for me, the nature of God is one truth that he missed.
(This was a little boring for me to write. It was probably boring for you to read. Next time, I'm going to bring in stories and not make this so stinkin academic. My apologies. Off to cookie making!)
No comments:
Post a Comment