AJ
-
02:14:55 am on April 14, 2008 | # |
The Mark Driscoll - C.S. Lewis Connection
Thought I’d just point out an interesting facet of Chapter One and see what you guys made of it. Did you notice that at the end, Driscoll borrowed directly from C.S. Lewis, using his Liar/Lunatic/Lord trilemma? Lewis fan that I am, that scored some points with me. I thought it was an interesting move, though, since various people have argued that the trilemma is an invalid way of looking at Christ. (This approach, for example, adds the categories “Myth” and “Guru.” I guess it has to do with how far back Driscoll wants to start before he starts dealing with the person of Christ. Vintage Jesus isn’t really an apologetic work per say, so it doesn’t deal with “postmodernity” or “the historical reliability of the Bible.” Thoughts?
Ryan Imel 3:12 am on April 14, 2008 | #
Yeah, I noticed his use of Lewis’s method also. And by ignoring contemporary criticism of the idea, I think he’s ignoring postmoderns and those Christians asking difficult questions. It’s too bad that this wasn’t dealt with more, especially since he seems to be setting himself out to answer the “timely questions”, as he has.
It ends up sounding very outdated, unfortunately.
Bernard 12:32 pm on April 14, 2008 | #
Even though I don’t necessarily associate the trilemmic method (I know, that’s not a word…) with Lewis, is does tend to agree with my personal mentality. At this point in history, I think it’s absurd to add the “Myth” category, and I think “Guru” fits into “Liar”, if we really boil it down. To challenge the historical perspective of Jesus’ existence, at least based on my personal knowledge, would be a ridiculous claim. Even the recent Discovery Channel approach of supposedly finding a tomb marked with Jesus’ and his family’s names could actually be used as evidence AGAINST those who would purport that Jesus is a myth or a legend.
It’s true that Lewis’ work is dated and dateable, but the logic is not time-sensitive. Apologetics can be very time sensitive, depending on a lot of things, but I find Lewis to be more “argumentative” than I do truly apologetic. In my worldview, the pure longevity and belief in Christ over a 2000+ year period carries a lot of weight, and I don’t trust modern authors any more than I do ancient.
I suspect that Driscoll ignores contemporary criticism of Lord/Liar/Lunatic simply because he doesn’t feel it has any legitimate standing. As well, Vintage Jesus - to me - doesn’t appear to be written as an apologetic work, but the introduction makes a limited approach to it unavoidable.