Friday 17 August 2012

Voices From the Past - Christians and Politics Introduction (Ong Meng Chai)

This introduces a series of posts which I hope will help address a contemporary situation in the Malaysian Church today. Since my return from the UK two and a half years ago, I have noticed that the Church is more socially and politically engaged. Indeed, not a week passes by for me personally when I am not reminded in one way or another of how the Church should be more actively involved in both the social and political arenas. While such a call is to be applauded to an extent, I am increasingly alarmed by the rising crescendo of political rhetoric not just among Christians in general but also from our pulpits. I am reminded week-in and week-out that there is a political sea-change coming and that Christians must not only not be “left-behind” but must be involved in bringing about that very change. Even more alarming is the suggestion by some “pulpiteers” (who see themselves as modern-day “prophets”) as to who and which party Christians ought to elect into government! In all my living memory, I have never encountered such feverish endeavours to coerce (I mean that seriously) into “party politics”. It has reached a stage where if you are not aligned to these folks, you will be seen as their opponents and, even worse, as opponents of God and goodness.

What precipitated it for me were three recent sermons in a week I heard which contained precisely the kind of rhetoric I mentioned above. I returned home telling myself that I must seek to address the situation. Far too many Christians in Malaysia are being swayed by such rhetoric. Furthermore, if the so-called self-appointed prophets should happen to be leaders of the Malaysian Church (or at least perceived to be leaders by ordinary Christians), which incidentally they are, surely there must be some truth to what they are suggesting as the way forward? My own take is that Christians in Malaysia need to realise that our Christian forbears have been down this same road before. More recently, this same road has been travelled by our brothers and sisters in some hot-spots around the world and, unfortunately, the outcome is not what they had expected.

What I hope to do is to provide three different voices from the past which I hope will inform us of an alternative perspective and caution us to a road less travelled by Christians in countries like ours which are still grappling with how, as Christians, we ought to be socially and politically engaged. Rather than re-inventing the wheel by expressing in a halting way what I believe is the alternative perspective, I felt that it would be far more cogent if it came from them directly.

Just so you get a feel of what is forthcoming, let me briefly express what are some of my concerns regarding our present fixation as Christians with politics in Malaysia. In much of what I have heard thus far – in personal conversations, at meetings, and from the pulpits – I have noted a number of matters which have not been addressed by these folks who advocate a more active political engagement by Christians.

For example, the reality of the Fall of man into sin is, unfortunately, a much neglected and (I suspect) a much maligned doctrine among Christian political activists. That is not at all surprising. Browsing through some modern Christian books on the Bible and politics, I couldn’t help noticing how very glaringly silent they are on the subject of the Fall. Genesis, chapters 1 and 2 are their regular fodder, in addition to a sprinkling of Old Testament historical and prophetic texts. Seldom do they address how the Fall actually affects our understanding of how we should engage in social and political concerns. I also get the impression that most authors are committed to an underlying conviction regarding the “goodness” and general morality of mankind. Can Christians understand the reason for their presence in the world without understanding the significance of the doctrine of sin? One of the voices from the past will address this issue.

Again, these modern books give the impression that times have changed so much from the past, we need to re-think what the Church should be doing today. In fact, more often than not, the Church in the past is castigated for their lack of engagement in politics and social concerns, or else, for their ineptitude with such engagement. I think it very sad that somehow Christians today think we know better, and that we need to get rid of the shackles of the past without actually understanding the past. A second voice from the past has been chosen to bring some clarity to this critique from an unexpected angle. That voice’s take will be supported by a modern voice who affirms the former.

Again, these modern authors do not seem to have a clear understanding of biblical theology and of the discontinuity between the New Testament and the Old Testament. They not only see a unity between the two; they often amalgamate the two as if they are one and the same. They don’t seem to recognise that while Israel is “the Church” in a profound sense, yet it is not the same as the New Testament Church. Thus, their often confusing God’s injunctions in the Old Testament as having a direct application for the Church today!

Again, these modern authors give little attention to the devil and his role in the world of politics. In saying this, I do not deny the providential ordering of God over politics. I dare not as there is umpteen evidence in Scripture for just such a providential ordering! God raises up governments just as He also razes them down. Indeed, God is sovereign over all nations and governments and He orders them according to His supreme will and purpose. But the Scripture also acknowledges the reality of the great enemy of God’s purpose and will, namely, the devil. The devil is called the “ruler of this world” and the “prince of the power of the air” not for nothing. At times, he is depicted as raising up rebellions against God and His people. But modern treatments of Christians and politics have little patience with such a “superstitious” belief in the person of the devil. They are merely interested in the politics of man and of God.

Again, these modern authors have little patience with a biblical eschatology that distinguishes the “already” and the “not yet”. It is true that since the end of the 2nd World War there has been a heightened awareness among Christians of the political significance of eschatology (re: Jurgen Moltmann, George Weigel, Oliver O’Donovan and Whittaker Chambers, among others). In fact, it could be said that much of the Church’s engagement in politics and social action today have been engendered by this emphasis. But often, their eschatological vision is short on the providence of God as described above and leaves no place for how God works through nation states to achieve His purpose and will. At times, that vision is obscured by mistaking what has been promised for the “then” as if it is for the “now”, thus raising false hopes of a “utopia” right here and now.

Again, these modern authors do not seem to wish to engage much of the New Testament teaching on the Christian’s relationship with the state. Passing comments are made about the clear injunctions of Paul to Christians to submit to the authorities and his corresponding silence on the issue of slavery. But there is no wish on their part to ask the uncomfortable question as to why Paul took an almost indifferent attitude to the latter, for instance. What about Jesus’ constant resistance to be crowned a human king, and His outright rejection of the setting up of an earthly kingdom, and His clear disclaimer to be an earthly king? While I happen upon one book which dealt with the politics of Jesus, I noted that the gospels were given a “political” interpretation with no real understanding of the intention of the gospel writers themselves. Obviously, there is this modern trend that you can’t know anything about an author’s intention by simply reading his writings. I suppose these same critics would say the same about what I am writing here – that none of you reading this post will know my intention for writing it! I leave that for you to judge. That said, I have chosen a third voice to address some of the issues mentioned above.

I have no doubts that many will disagree with me, as already there are in recent discussion with certain folks. My plea is that in the heat and fire of all our rhetoric, let us keep a cool head and read the Scriptures again, understand what is being said or "not said" therein, take a leaf from our forbears, and pray that the Lord will give us understanding. I don’t pretend to be the only viable voice and I am very conscious that the subject has been debated for more than two millennia with no clear conclusion. But precisely because there are so many perspectives, I offer this as one possible perspective which warrants our careful attention and serious consideration.

With this brief introduction, I will let you move on to read those voices from the past (or "a blast from the past", as I was tempted at first to entitle these posts though subsequently I felt it might prove too provocative) beginning with my next post in the near future. And if you do happen to find the forthcoming posts helpful, please pass them on and pray that the Lord will grant us all discernment at a time like this.

Wednesday 15 August 2012

Fern-seed and Elephants 2 (C S Lewis)

This is the second and final part of the article, "Fern-seed and Elephants" by C S Lewis.

_______________


But my fourth bleat - which is also my loudest and longest - is still to come.


All this sort of criticism attempts to reconstruct the genesis of the texts it studies; what vanished documents each author used, when and where he wrote, with what purposes, under what influences - the whole Sitz im Leben of the text. This is done with immense erudition and great ingenuity. And at first sight it is very convincing. I think I should be convinced by it myself, but that I carry about with me a charm - the herb moly - against it. You must excuse me if I now speak for a while of myself. The value of what I say depends on its being first-hand evidence.


What forearms me against all these reconstructions is the fact that I have seen it all from the other end of the stick. I have watched reviewers reconstructing the genesis of my own books in just this way.


Until you come to be reviewed yourself you would never believe how little of an ordinary review is taken up by criticism in the strict sense; by evaluation, praise, or censure, of the book actually written. Most of it is taken up with imaginary histories of the process by which you wrote it. The very terms which the reviewers use in praising or dispraising often imply such a history. They praise a passage as ‘spontaneous’ and censure another as ‘laboured’; that is, they think they know that you wrote the one currenete calamo and the other invita Minerva.


What the value of such reconstructions is I learned very early in my career. I had published a book of essays; and in the one into which I had put most of my heart, the one I really cared about and in which I discharged a keen enthusiasm, was on William Morris. And in almost the first review I was told that this was obviously the only one in the book in which I had felt no interest. Now don’t mistake. The critic was, I now believe, quite right in thinking it the worst essay in the book; at least everyone agreed with him. Where he was totally wrong was in his imaginary history of the causes which produces its dullness.


Well, this made me prick up my ears. Since then I have watched with some care similar imaginary histories both of my own books and of books by friends whose real history I knew. Reviewers, both friendly and hostile, will dash you off such histories with great confidence; will tell you what public events had directed the author’s mind to this or that, what other authors had influenced him, what his overall intention was, what sort of audience he principally addressed, why - and when - he did everything.


Now I must record my impression; then distinct from it, what I can say with certainty. My impression is that in the whole of my experience not one of these guesses has on any one point been right; that the method shows a record of 100 per cent failure. You would expect that by mere chance they would hit as often as the miss. But it is my impression that they do no such thing. I can’t remember a single hit. But as I have not kept a careful record my mere impression may be mistaken. What I think I can say with certainty is that they are usually wrong.


And yet they would often sound - if you didn’t know the truth - extremely convincing. Many reviewers suggested that the Ring in Tolkein’s The Lord of the Rings was suggested by the atom bomb. What could be more plausible? Here is a book published when everyone was preoccupied by that sinister invention; here in the centre of the book is a weapon which it seems madness to throw away yet fatal to use. Yet in fact, the chronology of the book’s composition make the theory impossible. Only the other week a reviewer said that a fairy-tale by my friend Roger Lancelyn Green was influenced by fairy-tales of mine. Nothing could be more probable. I have an imaginary country with a beneficent lion in it; Green, one with a beneficent tiger. Green and I can be proved to read one another’s works; to be indeed in various ways closely associated. The case for an affiliation is far stronger than many which we accept as conclusive when dead authors are concerned. But it’s all untrue nevertheless. I know the genesis of that Tiger and that Lion and they are quite independent.


Now this surely ought to give us pause. The reconstruction of the history of a text, when the text is ancient, sounds very convincing. But one is after all sailing by dead reckoning; the results cannot be checked by fact. In order to decide how reliable the method is, what more could you ask for than to be shown an instance where the same method is at work and we have facts to check it by? Well, that is what I have done. And we find, that when this check is available, the results are either always, or else nearly always, wrong. The ‘assured results of modern scholarship’ as to the way in which an old book was written, are ‘assured’, we may conclude, only because the men who know the facts are dead and can’t blow the gaff. The huge essays in my own field which reconstruct the history of Piers Plowman or The Faerie Queen are most unlikely to be anything but sheer illusions.


Am I then venturing to compare every whipster who writes a review in a modern weekly with these great scholars who have devoted their whole lives to the detailed study of the New Testament? If the former are always wrong, does it follow that the later must fare no better?


There are two answers to this. First, while I respect the learning of the great Biblical critics, I am not yet persuaded that their judgement is equally to be respected. But, secondly, consider with what overwhelming advantages the mere reviewers start. They reconstruct the history of a book written by someone whose mother-tongue is the same as theirs; a contemporary, educated like themselves, living in something like the same mental and spiritual climate. They have everything to help them. The superiority in judgement and diligence which you are going to attribute to the Biblical critics will have to be almost superhuman if it is to offset the fact that they are everywhere faced with customs, language, race-characteristics, class-characteristics, a religious background, habits of composition, and basic assumptions, which no scholarship will ever enable any man now alive to know as surely and intimately and instinctively as the reviewer can know mine. And for the very same reason, remember, the Biblical critics, whatever reconstructions they devise, can never be crudely proved wrong. St. Mark is dead. When they meet St. Peter, there will be more pressing matters to discuss.


You may say, of course, that such reviewers are foolish in so far as they guess how a sort of book they never wrote themselves was written by another. They assume that you wrote a story as they would try to write a story; the fact that they would so try, explains why they have not produced any stories. But are the Biblical critics in this way much better off? Dr. Bultmann never wrote a gospel. Has the experience of his learned, specialized, and no doubt meritorious, life really given him any power of seeing into the minds of those long dead men who were caught up into what, on any view, must be regarded as the central religious experience of the whole human race? It is no incivility to say - he himself would admit - that he must in every way be divided from the evangelists by far more formidable barriers - spiritual as well as intellectual - than any that could exist between my reviewers and me.


My picture of one layman’s reaction - and I think it is not a rare one - would be incomplete without some account of the hopes he secretly cherishes and the naïve reflections with which he sometimes keeps his spirits up.


You must face the fact that he does not expect the present school of theological thought to be everlasting. He thinks, perhaps wishfully thinks, that the whole thing may blow over. I have learned in other fields of study how transitory the ‘assured results of modern scholarship’ may be, how soon the scholarship ceases to be modern. The confident treatment to which the New Testament is subjected is no longer applied to profane texts. There used to be English scholars who were prepared to cut up Henry VI between half a dozen authors and assign his share to each. We don’t do that now. When I was a boy one would have been laughed at for supposing there had been a real Homer: the disintegrators seemed to have triumphed for ever. But Homer seems to be creeping back. Even the belief of the ancient Greeks that the Mycenaeans were their ancestors and spoke Greek has been surprisingly supported. We may without disgrace believe in a historical Arthur. Everywhere, except in theology, there has been a vigorous growth of scepticism about scepticism itself. We can’t keep ourselves from muttering multa renascentur quae jam cecidere.


Nor can a man of my age ever forget how suddenly and completely the idealist philosophy of his youth fell. McTaggart, Green, Bosanquet, Bradley seemed enthroned for ever; they went down as suddenly as the Bastille. And the interesting thing is that while I lived under that dynasty I felt various difficulties and objections which I never dared to express. They were so frightfully obvious that I felt sure they must be mere misunderstandings: the great men could not have made such very elementary mistakes as those which my objections implied. But very similar objections - though put, no doubt, far more cogently than I could have put them - were among the criticisms which finally prevailed. They would now be the stock answers to English Hegeliansim. If anyone present tonight has felt the same shy and tentative doubts about the great Biblical critics, perhaps he need not feel quite certain that they are only his stupidity. They may have a future he little dreams of.


We derive a little comfort, too, from our mathematical colleagues. When a critic reconstructs the genesis of a text he usually has to use what may be called linked hypotheses. Thus Bultmann says that Peter’s confession is ‘an Easter-story projected backward into Jesus’ life-time’. The first hypothesis is that Peter made no such confession. Then, granting that, there is a second hypothesis as to how the false story of his having done so might have grown up. Now let us suppose - what I am far from granting - that the first hypothesis has a probability of 90 per cent. Let us assume that the second hypothesis also has a probability of 90 per cent. But the two together don’t still have 90 per cent, for the second comes in only on the assumption of the first. You have not A plus B; you have a complex AB. And the mathematicians tell me that AB has only an 81 per cent probability. I’m not good enough at arithmetic to work it out, but you see that if, in a complex reconstruction, you go on thus superinducing hypothesis on hypothesis, you will in the end get a complex in which, though each hypothesis by itself has in a sense a high probability, the whole has almost none.


You must, however, not paint the picture too black. We are not fundamentalists. We think that different elements in this sort of theology have different degrees of strength. The nearer it sticks to mere textual criticism, of the old sort, Lachmann’s sort, the more we are disposed to believe in it. And of course, we agree that passages almost verbally identical cannot be independent. It is as we glide away from this into reconstructions of a subtler and more ambitious kind that our faith in the method waivers; and our faith in Christianity is proportionally corroborated. The sort of statement that arouses our deepest scepticism is the statement that something in a Gospel cannot be historical because it shows a theology or an ecclesiology too developed for so early a date. For this implies that we know, first of all, that there was any development in the matter, and secondly, how quickly it proceeded. It even implies an extraordinary homogeneity and continuity of development: implicitly denies that anyone could have greatly anticipated anyone else. This seems to involve knowing about a number of long dead people - for the early Christians were, after all, people - things of which I believe few of us could have given an accurate account if we had lived among them; all the forward and backward surge of discussion, preaching, and individual religious experience. I could not speak with similar confidence about the circle I have chiefly lived in myself. I could not describe the history even of my own thought as confidently as these men describe the history of the early Church’s mind. And I am perfectly certain no one else could. Suppose a future scholar knew I had abandoned Christianity in my teens, and that, also in my teens, I went to an atheist tutor. Would not this seem far better evidence than most of what we have about the development of Christian theology in the first two centuries? Would not he conclude that my apostasy was due to the tutor? And then reject as ‘backward projection’ any story which represented me as an atheist before I went to the tutor? Yet he would be wrong. I am sorry to have become once more autobiographical. But reflection on the extreme improbability of his own life - by historical standards - seems to me a profitable exercise for everyone. It encourages a due agnosticism.


For agnosticism is, in a sense, what I am preaching. I do not wish to reduce the sceptical elements in your minds. I am only suggesting that it need not be reserved exclusively for the New Testament and the Creeds. Try doubting something else.


Such scepticism might, I think, begin at the very beginning with the thought which underlies the whole demythology of our time. It was put long ago by Tyrrell. As man progresses he revolts against ‘earlier and inadequate expressions of the religious idea... Taken literally, and not symbolically, they do not meet his need. And as long as he demands to picture to himself distinctly the term and satisfaction of that need he is doomed to doubt, for his picturings will necessarily be drawn from the world of his present experience.’
In one way of course Tyrrell was saying nothing new. The Negative Theology of Pseudo-Dionysius had said as much, but it drew no such conclusions as Tyrrell. Perhaps this is because the older tradition found our conceptions inadequate to God whereas Tyrrell find it inadequate to ‘the religious idea’. He doesn’t say whose idea. But I am afraid he means man’s idea. We, being men, know what we think; and we find the doctrines of the Resurrection, the Ascension, and the Second Coming inadequate to our thoughts. But supposing these things were the expressions of God’s thoughts?

It might still be true that ‘taken literally and not symbolically’ they are inadequate. From which the conclusion commonly drawn is that they must be taken symbolically, not literally; that is, wholly symbolically. All the details are equally symbolical and analogical.

But surely there is a flaw here. The argument runs like this. All the details are derived from our present experience; but the reality transcends our experience: therefore all the details are wholly and equally symbolical. But suppose a dog were trying to form a conception of human life. All the details in its picture would be derived from canine experience. Therefore all that the dog imagined could, at best, be only analogically true of human life. The conclusion is false. If the dog visualized our scientific researches in terms of ratting, this would be analogical; but if it thought that eating could be predicated of humans only in an analogical sense, the dog would be wrong. In fact if a dog could, per impossibile, be plunged for a day into human life, it would be hardly more surprised by hitherto unimagined differences than by hitherto unsuspected similarities. A reverent dog would be shocked. A modernist dog, mistrusting the whole experience, would ask to be taken to the vet.

But the dog can’t get into human life. Consequently, though it can be sure that its best ideas of human life are full of analogy and symbol, it could never point to any one detail and say, ‘This is entirely symbolic.’ You cannot know that everything in the representation of a thing is symbolical unless you have independent access to the thing and can compare it with the representation. Dr. Tyrrell can tell that the story of the Ascension is inadequate to his religious idea, because he knows his own idea and can compare it with the story. But how if we are asking about a transcendent, objective reality to which the story is our sole access? ‘We know not - oh we know not.’ But then we must take our ignorance seriously.

Of course if ‘taken literally and not symbolically’ means ‘taken in terms of mere physics,’ then this story is not even a religious story. Motion away from the earth - which is what Ascension physically means - would not in itself be an event of spiritual significance. Therefore, you argue, the spiritual reality can have nothing but an analogical connection with the story of an ascent. For the union of God with Goad and of man with God-man can have nothing to do with space. Who told you this? What you really mean is that we can’t see how it could possibly have anything to do with it. That is a quite different proposition. When I know as I am known I shall be able to tell which parts of the story were purely symbolical and which, if any, were not; shall see how the transcendent reality either excludes and repels locality, or how unimaginably it assimilates and load it with significance. Had we not better wait?

Such are the reactions of one bleating layman to Modern Theology. It is right that you should hear them. You will not perhaps hear them very often again. Your parishioners will not often speak to you quite frankly. Once the layman was anxious to hide the fact that he believed so much less than the vicar; now he tends to hide the fact that he believes so much more. Missionary to the priests of one’s own church is an embarrassing role; though I have a horrid feeling that if such mission work is not soon undertaken the future history of the Church of England is likely to be short.