Joe McGarry: February 2008 Archives

Athanasius remains one of Christianity's important figures, though few 21st century American Protestants have ever heard of him. He is most famous for his theology about the person of Jesus of Nazareth. In a very tumultuous time in the life of the Church, Athanasius wrote about who Jesus was and why his life was significant. The work is called On the Incarnation, and remains a very important piece of writing in the life of the church.

But what is really quite interesting about this translation (because it was originally written in Latin) is the introduction by C.S. Lewis. If you are, perhaps, one of the people who passed over the above links because a) you've never heard of this Athanasius guy and b) the word theology makes you itch......well, you're in luck. Lewis provides an amazing salve which feels cool upon the theological/intellectual wounds we carry. He writes a fantastic introduction to Athanasius' work and implores us, the modern readers, to take the time to read the old books once more. He begins by writing this:

Since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o'clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why--the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity ("mere Christianity" as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books.

So--what do you think? Have you read any of the "Old Books" recently? Do you even know some to read? What do you think of the other stuff Lewis says?

Now, I'm all for the general push of this article. I'm all for moving away from aggressive, fury laden images of an all powerful God that is angry at us and wants to kill us.

However, the author still hasn't really said anything--or even defined what she's talking about. She's "Undefined" God by actually "Redefining" God. And in fact, she has redefined God in one of the few terms that God has defined himself to begin with!

So, sure, I'm still all for a popular reconfiguration of how we understand God to be in his very nature. The God who did not choose to remain hidden from creation, but chose to reveal himself and redeem his creation. The God who revealed himself on the cross: Immanuel--God with us and God for us.

I also find it interesting that she concludes the article by saying, "The pain and anger can be replaced with peace and mercy, but only when we agree on His definition."

Yet she doesn't say where we get this definition of God from, save maybe C.S. Lewis's account of Aslan. I find myself wondering if she's said anything at all......which, unfortunately, seems to be something I find myself saying about 1 in every 5 times I hear a pomo Christian talk. Anyone else?