Surprised by 'Surprised by Joy'

This week I began to re-read C.S. Lewis' spiritual autobiography - Surprised by Joy. As I go through it, I am re-discovering its insights with pleasure. Do I mean pleasure? Lewis distinguishes carefully between that and joy. Whereas pleasure is merely gratification of some personal desire, joy is more impersonal, transcendent. An aching loss is more joyful than greedy feasting upon something. The longing, rather than possession, is the joyful experience. In this sense it is an other-worldly sensation - a hankering after heaven. 'God has set eternity in their heart,' Eccl 3:11.

Recollections from Lewis' private life make interesting reading. His lonely, cruel childhood is described. Indeed, it is almost suggested in the title, from a Wordsworth sonnet describing the loss of a child, his 'heart's best treasure'. Each discovery Lewis makes on the path to God is described so clearly and rationally, it is almost like I am making the same discovery, reaching the same conclusion, as he does. Does this suggest a good writer or a gullible reader? Lewis touches on a similar theme as he recollects, in his atheist phase, his encounter with the works of G.K. Chesterton.

Another amusing task is to trace pictures from Lewis' fictional work back to their sources in his personal experience. For instance, the old professor from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe might be his tutor in Surrey. The masked mourners in the Pilgrim's Regress seem reminiscent of the stiffly dressed people at his own mother's funeral. The recalcitrant parent in the Screwtape Letters might recall his father, with whom Lewis had trouble engaging.

There are several aspects of this book that I found most encouraging.

1. The diverse ways in which God draws wandering souls to himself.
2. Lewis' description of the utter emptiness of self-gratification (particularly of the fleshly kind) for the sake of the act itself.
3. ...and I'm looking forward to his conversion, on the top deck of an Oxford bus - but I haven't got that far in the story yet!

Is Salvation Selfish?

One of the major Biblical characterizations of humanity in its natural, default state is that we are selfish. "Men shall be lovers of their own selves." [2 Tim 3:2] This is in radical contrast to the two great commandments highlighted by Jesus - love God and love your neighbour. [Matt 22:37-40] Not only Jesus' teaching, but also his life, was characterised by selflessness. He took a towel and washed his disciples' feet. He always looked after other people's needs and concerns, [Phil 2:4-5] giving his life as a sacrifice for his enemies. [Ro 5:10]

So, here's a question. To obtain salvation (by grace alone through faith alone) is to accept eternal life from God. Isn't this the ultimate act of instinctive self-preservation? Surely this act is motivated by selfishness? I agree in one sense - becoming saved is the last selfish act we perform, since once we are Christians, our lives should become living sacrifices - given over in service to God and others.

But actually, we really need to define what we mean by selfishness. To take what we need to survive is only selfish if we are depriving others: Hence we breathe, but there's enough air to go around so that's not selfish. On the other hand, we in western society consume more than our fair share of world food, etc - perhaps this is selfishness?

Returning to the topic of salvation - when we accept what God gives us, are we preventing anyone else from getting it? The answer is a resounding no! God's gift is infinite - the world is His scope. In fact, when we become Christians, we might be starting a spiritual chain reaction, resulting in other people being saved. The apostle Paul is a good example of this. So no - while salvation may be self-preservation, it's not selfishness.

Happy Birthday KJV

The King James Version of the Bible is 400 years old. The Oxford English Dictionary and the BBC have been celebrating this milestone, and tracing the influence of the KJV on the English language.

Although I have been brought up reading the KJV, in my personal readings I often prefer to use more recent translations such as the RSV or the NEB (for) (against). CS Lewis agreed - it's helpful to read the Bible in an accessible and contemporary linguistic setting. After all, Koine Greek (the language of the original New Testament manuscripts) was the vernacular. Again, William Tyndale (the pioneer of English Bible translation) wanted the ploughboy in the field to be able to understand the words of Scripture. So I feel a modern translation is following an age-old (and theologically sound) precedent.

Often I feel slightly embarrassed quoting Bible passages directly from the KJV, especially to people who are unfamiliar with the style. I generally paraphrase as I go - turning "whosoever believeth" into "whoever believes", "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God" into "You shall love the Lord your God" etc.

So it was interesting to listen to various media, thespian and religious celebrities expressing their admiration for the majestic and simple language of the KJV, in the recent BBC Radio 4 broadcasts. I enjoyed listening to the various readings, which were spoken with clarity, passion and a suitable level of dramatic emphasis.

However when I reflected on the comments people made about the KJV, I was struck by the fact that people extoll its virtues as literature, influential upon the development of the English language. However they appear to give little thought to the underlying message of the Bible. Things haven't changed much since Ezekiel's day - we are quite prepared for cultural, high-brow entertainment from the Bible, but we don't want the sharpness of its message to pierce our hearts. What a tragedy! Let's get back to the Bible and read it "as it is in truth, the word of God". [1 Thess 2:13]

Mud and Stars

Two men looked through prison bars:
One saw mud and the other saw stars.

I recently re-encountered this couplet in a Christian article. It brings back a guilty memory, from when I furtively borrowed my sister's Trebizon boarding school stories. In the very first novel, the school headteacher encourages the heroine with this mud/star two-liner.

Apparently, it's a quote by Frederick Langbridge, although wikipedia wasn't too forthcoming with information about him. Anyway, it's the thought that counts - any situation is what we make of it. Do we see that the glass is half-full or half-empty?

As a Christian, I find that I have plenty of causes for optimism. I see the stars, twinkling gleams of glory, and anticipate a wonderful future - rejoicing in hope.
Of course, I'm not unaware of the mud. Most of the time I'm trudging through it, or perhaps assisting others. But the stars help put things in perspective.

Richard Dawkins mentioned something similar in a recent debate with John Lennox. He conceded that Christianity offers a real hope for the future, and a purpose for living in the present. Dawkins could offer neither. Unfortunately, the atheist's horizon does not extend beyond the mud.

Obviously, I believe that Christianity is more than wishful thinking. However star-gazing (literally and metaphorically) is a good pastime for citizens of heaven, as Paul reminded his friends at Philippi (Phil 3:20-21). At the same time, there should be some star-light luminosity exuding from our lives too (Phil 2:15). Perhaps we could be a means of bringing hope to other muddy people?

Natural Disasters



Whenever catastrophes occur, like the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, we often ask why an Almighty God would allow such disasters to happen. I have read some thought-provoking articles from other authors. Perhaps I take a slightly different view.

The Bible talks about creation groaning and travailing in pain [Ro 8] - very literal, if anthropomorphic, language to describe plate tectonics. We live in a fragile world, a fractured universe, a fallen creation. Why?


Jesus' plaintive words, "From the beginning, these things were not so," apply contextually to ruptures in society, but they ring true for the sad state of the cosmos. Originally, God deemed His creation to be "very good." [Gen 1]. However a perfectly innocent creation has been spoiled by mankind's rebellion against God - initiated by Adam's disobedience.

Here is my main thesis - just as God did not intervene directly to prevent Adam's choice of evil, so He does not intervene today to curtail its consequences. Our world is a dangerous place, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Does God operate on a passive, non-interfering basis? Not at all! God has moved to rescue humanity from sin. This rescue-mission was effected by the Lord Jesus Christ, when he gave his life "as a ransom for all, to be testified in due time". [1 Tim 2]. However, salvation requires an opt-in - God's grace and our faith are both necessary salvific ingredients [Eph 2]. Once we receive "the gift of God which is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" [Ro 6], we become part of God's "new creation." [2 Cor 5].

Ultimately, God will re-create the physical world we inhabit. There will be "no more sea" on the new earth [Rev 22], which symbolises the end of restlessness, transience, groaning and travailing. I don't see any cause for plate tectonics in the new creation...

The evolution of evolution

This year we celebrate the bicentenary of Charles Darwin's birth. Already the BBC has lauded the father of the theory of evolution. Originally propounded as a scientific theory to explain the diversity of species, the evolution bandwagon is now steered by humanist "We don't need a God" fundamentalists. That's what I mean by the evolution of evolution - people take the theory, and from it extrapolate an absolute world-view that does not incorporate the Divine.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a theistic evolutionist at all. I believe in Elohim the Creator. Yes, I go along with a six-day creation, and probably a young earth too. Now - this is my serious point. Christians and Atheists spend all their time arguing about creation vs evolution, intelligent design vs blind watchmakers, etc... We never seem to get past this first hurdle in our amicable debates.

However, the Lord Jesus said that he should be the "stone of stumbling and the rock of offence." If people find anything offputting about the Christian message, it should be the works and words of the Messiah. Shakespeare had it right - "All the world's a stage / And all the men and women merely players". Therefore when the principal actor (indeed, the author Himself!) steps front-stage, we shouldn't be distracted by the origins of the props and stage furniture. Instead we should be concentrating on what He says and does. This is the essence of the play, all else can only be peripheral...

Silent Night

I have been promised an MP3 player as a Christmas present. I am eagerly anticipating the opportunity to listen to my favourite podcasts and music tracks. However, this prospect prompted me to consider how we do anything we can to avoid silence: 24 hour news coverage in my dentist's surgery, in-flight films, seasonal (albeit secular) songs on the supermarket tannoy, the noisy list goes on...

Silence is uncomfortable. In moments of quiet reflection, we are confronted with truths we would rather bury under decibels of noise. Yet it is often in the silent moments that God speaks to us, with His still small voice [1 Kings 19] [Dear Lord and Father of Mankind].

I'm no quaker, but the principle of silence in the presence of God is far more ancient than George Fox's Society of Friends. "Be still and know that I am God" [Psalm 46].

So, just as on the Stille Nacht of the first Christmas, the quiet shepherds received a message from heaven, I recommend we all spend some time in silence this Christmas, quietly waiting for the salvation of the Lord. As the shepherds discovered, we find salvation when we find the Saviour - Christ the Lord...

How silently, how silently
The wondrous gift is given
So God imparts to human hearts
The blessings of His heaven
No ear may hear His coming
But in this world of sin
Where meek souls will receive Him still
The dear Christ enters in.