Christopher Derrick, a man who knew both Chesterton and Lewis personally, gives the opening address. A sober mind, quick witted, realist on the shortcomings of both men, he narrows what he sees as their primary similarities and strengths. He 'gets' them and notes reasons why many of us appreciate them so much.
Here are a few paragraphs I thought worth noting to you. When I read them, I found them robustly sane on the nature of my own work as communicator of who Jesus is and the Christian view of what he's doing with us. (Bold emphasis is mine.)
It has long been a commonplace to say that present-day people simply can't understand the traditional language of Christianity. I've always been rather skeptical about that. The verbal or lexical difficulties aren't so great. Where people fail to understand Christianity...I think it's mostly because they don't want to understand it.
However that may be, there's always a strong case for restating the gospel and the faith in the language of one's own time--provided that one does exactly that. The trouble is that some people claim and appear to be doing that necessary task, when in fact they're doing something radically different. It's one thing to restate the old faith so as to make it more easily understood; it's quite another thing to modify the faith so as to make it more easily acceptable. ...The pattern of much present-day theology--both dogmatic and moral--is not governed by what Jesus said and commanded, nor yet by the hard substance of the apostolic witness: it's shaped most crucially by what present-day people want to hear. As in business, the product gets modified in order to meet consumer demand. It's often modified very radically indeed. We hear of a renewed Christianity... made more relevant and meaningful and so attuned to the needs and preoccupations of this age. On closer inspection, it turns out to be mostly a secular humanism or a Marxism or something similar, just garnished with a top-dressing of Christian or Catholic terminology.
Now the great merit of both Chesterton and Lewis, considerined as religious writers, is that neither of them fell into that trap--that dishonesty, one might say. ...As regards substance, each--in the vst bulk of his writing--was in fact restating the ancient faith in the language of his day, in the rhetorical language of a flamboyant journalist or with the cool lucidity of a scholar, with a thousand new angles and insights but otherwise without modification. Each might thus be called a faithful translator, though a salesman or a propagandist as well, mightily successful in each.
One might sum it up by saying that while no sane person would read Orthodoxy or The Everlasting Man in order to find out whether the Christians were right or wrong, he might well read both in order to form a deeper imaginative understanding of what the Christians were talking about. ...You sometimes meet people who know that "love" is at the heart of the matter but are utterly confused thereby. They overlook the crucifying complexity of that four-letter word, its erotic and affective senses being so overwhelmingly dominant in our culture. The remedy is simple: tell them to read Till We Have Faces?"
2 comments:
"However that may be, there's always a strong case for restating the gospel and the faith in the language of one's own time--provided that one does exactly that. The trouble is that some people claim and appear to be doing that necessary task, when in fact they're doing something radically different. It's one thing to restate the old faith so as to make it more easily understood; it's quite another thing to modify the faith so as to make it more easily acceptable."
Wow, thats something I've been thinking a lot about lately. I've been reading Job lately and I have found that God does not look good in this book; he looks horrible. It's not overall ideas but specific sentences that bring up trouble, which tehn add to the overall picture. As I was thinking about this, I was asking myself, "When I talk to people about my faith, do I neglect the hard things and try to just get to the easily acceptable things?" I do some times.
The essence of Christianity is mostly very agreeable I would say, but the peripheral, and some of the essence, is very unagreeable. It's tough at times, but I am very thankful for Chesterton and Lewis both.
Yeah, we've gotta wrestle and keep wrestling... live with questions, Philip, we live with questions as a company of friends. :)
A key thing for me as a 'translator' (and it feels like that more every day--our fledge series, LOST WORDS, is an example) is that we have to understand both languages decently well to be a decent translator.
And I think that's the constant tension these days. Doubting I can do it well, or at all, yet feeling compelled to notice and try.
So many in today's language are in denial of their language and languish for the older language. Meanwhile, they don't understand the older language either. They are stuck with both a desire and a denial.
I want more heavenly patience and love for these folks. I'm not afraid for myself and my own doubts these days. Even the Scripture, as untamed and earthy as it is, doesn't bother me with it's jolts of peculiarity.
Some days I feel like scrapping the whole enterprise, leave people to fend for themselves who are slow to listen, and simply share from the wilderness as a flyfishing guide. The church today is full of too many voices that neither know the past nor know the present. But they will speak with such confidence, people will listen and follow (especially if it includes video and stage lights).
This is discouraging. The potential for friends who are not stodgy over truth but are dripping with love and grace is great in today's world. Yet many Christians don't know where to find it... and many, never having tasted it, don't know it even exists.
But I've tasted it, as you. And now we live as travelers to Narnia (not the movie version!). Remember the Professor's words to the children... don't go talking about it to others... you'll know it in their looks.
Cheers to fine looks.
Post a Comment