tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239062544101975016.post309025973010218291..comments2024-03-28T14:05:25.134-07:00Comments on Sacnoth's Scriptorium: C. S. Lewis's Worst Essay? (part one)John D. Rateliffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12324926298336489295noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239062544101975016.post-2246268599943656212008-04-25T17:43:00.000-07:002008-04-25T17:43:00.000-07:00"He goes on to assert that Jesus would surely appr..."He goes on to assert that Jesus would surely approve of anyone with rightful authority using force to defend himself against violence, most amusingly using as one of his examples a tutor fighting back against a student who wanted to hit him (just how heated did CSL's tutorials get?)."<BR/><BR/>A.N. Wilson , in his biography of Lewis, relates the following-<BR/><BR/>"...The feelings may be imagined of the pupil who rashly let fall a slighting reference to <I> Sohrab and Rustum,</I> to be answered by Lewis's brandishing an old regimental sword of his brother's which stood in the corner of his room and shouting, 'The sword must settle this!'..."<BR/><BR/>Wilson goes on to say, while this incident was extreme, Lewis could be pretty intense at times.Paxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05169006271646821347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239062544101975016.post-85314174628045712502008-04-10T13:13:00.000-07:002008-04-10T13:13:00.000-07:00" Lewis's ability to quote scripture in support of..." Lewis's ability to quote scripture in support of his cause does not make that cause just"<BR/><BR/>As general principle, I agree. (In some cases and for some causes the nature of a quote may indeed be such that it in itself makes the cause just; but it is not a general assurance; cf. proof-texting, again.)<BR/><BR/>"Unfortunately, the same argument could be used to exculpate Judas."<BR/><BR/>Well, it <I>could</I> be used that way, but it would be unpersuasive to me. Judas freely chose to do evil, and the fact that a good came out of it (through Providence) does not lessen the evil, or make it good. As I'm sure we both agree. Peter's concern for Jesus (setting aside for now his physical defense), in contrast, was not in itself evil, only misguided in this case, due to Peter's lack of understanding. So it is simply not obvious that Peter is rebuked in Gethsemane purely because he resorted to violence in defense of another; and in fact the verses in question show that he was not ("Do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father?... how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled"). <BR/><BR/>And none of this obviously removes from governments the right (or obligation) to defend their citizens from attack. We as individuals may chose not to defend ourselves; but I would never force anyone to be defenseless. And if we as individuals are never to physically defend others, then what does it mean to say that "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends"? <BR/><BR/>As I said, I haven't read the essay, so I can't comment on Lewis's rhetoric.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239062544101975016.post-51041647123781101092008-04-10T12:26:00.000-07:002008-04-10T12:26:00.000-07:00Aelfwine said...". . . Should Christians set aside...Aelfwine said...<BR/>". . . Should Christians set aside that passage because it was (wrongly) used to justify slavery? . . . ['submissive to your husbands'] . . . goes right on to say that husbands must love their wives as they love their own body. Do we set all THIS aside, too, then, because some have (wrongly) used it to justify treating women as property?"<BR/><BR/>--My point here is simpler than that: Lewis's ability to quote scripture in support of his cause does not make that cause just, as is shown by the bad causes that have claimed justification from similar verses in the same section of the same epistle.<BR/><BR/><BR/>re. the scene in Gethsemene:<BR/><BR/>". . . Jesus HAD to die, and it was his CHOICE to do so; this is why Jesus rebukes Peter earlier. . . for solicitously urging Jesus to avoid his fate." <BR/><BR/>--Unfortunately, the same argument could be used to exculpate Judas. If the only issue is seeing that the fated crucifixion comes to pass, then Judas (who helps cause it) wd deserve more credit than Peter (who tries to prevent it). But Jesus condemns Judas's means just as harshly than Peter's. I conclude that Peter is using the wrong means (violence) in defense of the right end (defending the innocent). Lewis completely ignores that scene when arguing that Christ wants us to use violence to protect the innocent and also ourselves; taking it into account wd have strengthened his argument.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>". . . Scripture must be interpreted as a whole, not sifted through for the bits we like and interpreting them in such a way as to make the bits we don't like incoherent."<BR/><BR/>--Yes, which is why Lewis's highly selective citations don't help him make the case, and why the essay is among his failures. It's not the topic, it's his rhetorical strategies that fail him here.<BR/><BR/>--JDRJohn D. Rateliffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12324926298336489295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2239062544101975016.post-1123798981243958812008-04-10T11:51:00.000-07:002008-04-10T11:51:00.000-07:00I can't comment on Lewis's essay, since I haven't ...I can't comment on Lewis's essay, since I haven't read it. But I can comment on a few points that you make:<BR/><BR/>"the latter comes from the same section that admonishes servants to obey their masters (long used as a justification for slavery)"<BR/><BR/>And yet the letter DOES say that. Should Christians set aside that passage because it was (wrongly) used to justify slavery? (Servants at that time were not so completely regarded as mere property as were slaves in the United States; and remember, under Judaic law they had to be released after a time.) Should we, say, set aside Revelations because some millennialists have (wrongly) used it to justify mass suicide? <BR/><BR/>"and for wives to 'be submissive to your husbands'."<BR/><BR/>And, it goes right on to say that husbands must love their wives as they love their own body. Do we set all THIS aside, too, then, because some have (wrongly) used it to justify treating women as property?<BR/><BR/>"the scene in Gethsemene where Jesus rebukes Peter for striking the guard (an example of violence in defense of the innocent if ever there was one)."<BR/><BR/>It is that, but it is also far MORE than that. Jesus HAD to die, and it was his CHOICE to do so; this is why Jesus rebukes Peter earlier, and much more harshly ("get thee behind me, Satan!") just for solicitously urging Jesus to avoid his fate. Does this then likewise mean that Christians must never urge others to avoid danger? Peter is rebuked in Gethsemane at least in part for precisely the same reason he was rebuked earlier: he did not accept, and did not understand, that Jesus HAD to die.<BR/><BR/>Lewis, I am quite certain, understood the danger and invalidity of proof-texting Scripture. Scripture must be interpreted as a whole, not sifted through for the bits we like and interpreting them in such a way as to make the bits we don't like incoherent. There is a time for war, and a time for peace.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com