The Anchor and Compass

Yesterday most of the world celebrated New Year’s Day as January 1^st “arrived” around the globe.  For much of the history of the Christian West, however, this date may or may not have marked the actual “beginning of the year.”  Jan. 1 was the first day of the year under the Julian calendar used by the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus’ birth, though many common folk in the empire continued to mark  the start of the new year on March 1, as it had been under the “old” Roman calendar.

January 1 continued to be the first day of the new year when the present Gregorian calendar was introduced in October 1582, when Pope Gregory XIII “removed” 10 days from the calendar to properly “realign” its days with the solstices (Catholics in Europe went to bed on “October 4” that year only to wake up on “October 15”!).  It took a couple of centuries for European Protestants (and the rest of the world) to fall in line, and during that time many of parts of Europe continued to view March 1 as the start of a new year because of its general coincidence with Spring.

January 1 was an important day, however, and Luke’s Gospel tells us why. In Chapter two, right after the famous Christmas passages about angels announcing Jesus’ birth to local shepherds, Luke records in verses 21-22:  “When the eight days were completed for His circumcision, He was named Jesus—the name given by the angel before He was conceived.  And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were finished, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord.”

So, since most of Christian Europe celebrated Jesus’ Nativity on December 25, this “eighth day” fell on January 1 and began to be commemorated as the Feast of the Holy Name.  Luke tells us on that original “eighth day,” Mary and Joseph encountered a man named Simeon at the Temple who’d been told by the Holy Spirit that “he would not see death before he saw the Lord’s Messiah.”  When he saw the Holy Family, Simeon took the baby up in his arms, praised God, and said:  “Now, Master, You can dismiss Your slave in peace, as You promised. For my eyes have seen Your salvation. You have prepared it in the presence of all peoples—a light for revelation to the Gentiles and glory to Your people Israel” (Luke 2:25-32).

Mary and Joseph came in obedience and “done everything required by the Law,” but consider the extra blessings they receive in the process!  When they presented their baby to the Priest, he would ask, “What is his name?”  Joseph would say, “His name is Jesus.” I think this day after the Feast of the Holy Name is a wonderful time to consider the blessings we who believe receive in His Name!

The Epistle Reading for the Feast of the Holy name is Galatians 4:4-5:  “When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children.  At just the right time; according to His sovereign plan, God sent “the Light of Salvation” to the whole world; redemption for those born “under the law” (Paul in Galatians); a revelation to the Gentiles (Simeon in Luke); so we might be adopted as His Children and share in the blessings of His Name.  What are some of these blessing?

John 20:31 tells us we have life “in Jesus Name.”  Acts 2:38 Peter says our forgiveness “comes in the name of Jesus Christ.”  In Acts 3—after God heals the crippled man at the temple, Peter reminds the amazed onlookers, “By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has completely healed him.” 1 Corinthians 6:11 tells us we are “washed, sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Simeon waited his whole life for salvation’s light to come.  Many still walk in the darkness, despite the reality that salvation’s light has come.  Some of us have walked in the blessings of this light for most of our lives; some for a short time.  One day, the whole world will acknowledge this Wonderful Name.  “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:9-11).  Pope Gregory had the power to transform the calendar.  Only Jesus has the power to transform our lives and our world.

Psalm 89 (v.15-16) reminds us, “Blessed are those who worship you, who walk in the light of your presence, Lord.  They rejoice in your name all day long; they celebrate your righteousness.”  As you walk in “the light of His Presence” this coming new year—and every day of your life— Remember his promises.  Receive His blessings.  Rejoice in His Name.  And if you are not yet walking in the Light of Christ, reach out for His Grace.

Part 3 of The Question of God

So far we’ve examined the role that imagination (part 1) and senses/reason (part 2) play in human efforts to answer “the big questions of life.”  Using the former, we find answers through stories (“myths”) that explain the material world around us—and ourselves—in terms that integrate supernatural and natural “realities.”  Through the latter, we use our capacity think about our experiences in the natural world (or vice-versa), looking for answers in that have rational and material (“scientific”) explanations alone.

By Freud’s time, the wide acceptance of “science” as the only valid way of “knowing” reality allowed highly imaginative theories (like Darwinian evolution) to gain widespread intellectual credibility—so long as they were couched in the language of empirical methodology.  Unfortunately for Freud, his own theory of the unconscious failed to win the imprimatur of the scientific community (although it greatly influenced  20^th C. social science and popular culture!).  But the broader influence of “scientistic modernism” created an academic culture in which religious interpretations of the human condition were increasingly untenable.  In this atmosphere C. S. Lewis was himself first educated and then professionally engaged.  Yet within him still lingered an attraction to the “deeper” well of Classical learning as a source of truth, goodness, and beauty.

Of course, imaginative interpretations of the human experience are nothing new.  During the “Classical” age of Greece (4^th-5^th C. bc) such approaches to understanding the human identity, condition, and destiny were foundational to the formation of what we call “Western Civilization.”  Protagoras’ famous utterance, “Man is the measure of all things,” voices a human claim as sole  interpreter of the cosmos that rings down through the centuries.  More significantly, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle aim the imagination not at mere individual interpretation, but rather toward deeper principles woven into the cosmos, directing personal and social existence toward a greater good.  Even the characters and plots of Greek drama (Aeschylus, Sophocles, etc.) were designed to remind audiences of truths they already knew about humanity and the consequences of transgressing those truths (while also providing Freud the source of his famous “Oedipus Complex”!).

Socrates was condemned for insisting that human interpretations of truth must reflect timeless, absolute truths that transcend individual and temporal interpretation.  Though he never himself claimed to have “The Answers,” he believed a well-lived life must be based on the presumption of their existence and the cultivation of their influence.  Plato extended philosophical idealism from the individual to society, advancing in his “theory of forms” the “reality” of eternal, immutable ideas (from which all material reality derives).  A well-lived life aims to subject “lower” natural and material forms of human existence to the higher “virtues” that shape both individuals and societies.  Aristotle’s theory of “four causes” begins with material substances that comprise physical “reality,” but it also considers the essential ideas, activating agents, and ultimate purposes that give true “existence” to natural and material phenomena (metaphysical causes).  These all point to a design in the cosmos, which must logically be an “uncaused cause.”

Classical foundations provided the model for education in the West.  From Plato’s Academy and Aristotle’s Lyceum the “Arts and Sciences” emerged as a unified expression of the “fullness” of human learning. Protagoras provided the basis for modern divisions of learning into man-made, often exclusive categories of “expertise.”  Lewis and Freud were both educated in a culture still shaped by and mindful of its Classical influences (which will ultimately be to Lewis’ benefit).  At this point in their story, however, each is much more captivated by the trends of modernity (a captivity from which Freud will never escape).

Learn more about Classics and the Human Story—

Louise Cowen and Os Guiness, eds.  Invitation to the Classics (Baker, 1998)

Robt. Littlejohn and C. T. Evans, Wisdom and Eloquence:  A Christian Paradigm for Classical Learning (Crossway, 2006)

I have worked in academic or ministry settings for more than 20 years.  Everyone whose vocation places them in this world experiences the familiar rhythm of an annual cycle. Our years are marked in quarters and semesters, by “ordinary” time contrasted with the “strong” seasons of Lent, Easter, Advent, and Christmas.  We have arrived once again at the major transition point in both our academic and liturgical calendars.  Reflection often accompanies transition, and this particular turn has brought me to a fresh consideration of Advent through an exchange of images from Isaiah chapter 9 and John chapter 1.

Let’s begin with Isaiah 9:2: “The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of darkness, a light has dawned.”  The starting point of all humanity—even the people of God to whom this is addressed–is darkness.  We are born “blind” into a broken world over which a dark deception has been drawn.  We are unable to “see” who we really are or even to understand why we are really here.  As 1 Corinthians 13:12 recognizes, our perceptions of reality are but a dim reflection of how things really are.  At its most basic level, our dark deception is this—we believe that “we are on our own”; or worse–that “we are our own.”

But by God’s loving mercy glimmers of grace peek through the cracks.  In this land of darkness, a light shines on dawn’s horizon.  The nature of this light is poetically set forth in John 1:  “Life was in Him,” we are told, and contrary to our lot, “that life was the light of men.” This one born in light “shines in the darkness,” with power even “the darkness did not overcome.” What is so brilliantly illuminated by this Life that is “the light of men?”

In this “child [who] will be born for us,” this “son [who] will be given to us,” Isaiah sees the full reason for His coming:  “The government will be on His shoulders.”  With his coming, the oppressive darkness of our self-deception—that we are in control—is lifted for those who desire to see.  The awful consequences of humanity’s hubris is set right when we rightly acknowledge the Lordship of He who is named “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.”

This is why lights play such an important role in this annual journey through Advent and Christmas.  Our neighborhoods come alive with light (and, alas, so much more!).  Our sanctuaries are illuminated by candlelight.  Our hearts are strangely lit by hope, whether we believe or not.  All because, one day long ago, the Light “became flesh and took up residence” in our hearts, our sanctuaries, and even our neighborhoods.

Because He is Light, we are able to see through the darkness that blinds us.  Because He is Lord, we are set free from the deception that we are.  Because He was “born in the flesh,” we are “born of God.”  No wonder these days we mark are so filled with wonder.  Whether we count ourselves among “those who receive Him” or amidst those still “walking in darkness,” the Truth is that the Light has come.  Let us rejoice and be glad.

Reflections on “The Question of God,” part 2

Program Two of the Question of God (www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod) is titled, “Science or Revelation.”  It takes us into the world of science in the late 19th Century–a world Sigmund Freud would make his home for the rest of his life.  Here the “naturalistic” worldview held sway and was gaining increasing power to shape culture.

The path to Freud’s naturalistic worldview goes back much farther in Western Civilization then the 19th Century.  It began with the “Natural Philosophers” of Ancient Greece, also known as the “Pre-Socratics.”  Xenophanes famously observed, “Man has created the gods in their own image.”  As their name implies, these early mathematicians and naturalists sought natural rather than supernatural explanations for why things were as they were.  They rejected the mythical stories of the gods as rationale for natural phenomena, speculating variously that truer answers were to be found in basic constituent substances and the natural interactions between them that produced change.

Their initial emphasis on the four elements (earth, water, air, fire) initiated the empirical quest for explanations about the world that could be observed, experienced, and explained.  As panelist Michael Shermer put it, “All phenomenon have natural explanations. There is no supernatural, there’s just the natural and stuff we can’t yet explain.”  Three important early Greeks provide a basic framework for the naturalistic worldview that influences science down to our time.  Parmenides focused on the constants in the natural world, concluding that human reason (rationalism) is the primary path to knowledge.  Heraclitus thought since natural world was always in a state of flux, and our senses helped us discern the “universal reason” (logos!) behind all this change (empiricism).  Democritus proposed the existence of immutable, irreducible particles (“atoms”) that constituted all “knowable” reality (materialism).

The Classical and Medieval worldviews that influenced C. S. Lewis will be more thoroughly considered later, but suffice to say that the interplay between natural and supernatural played a more significant role in the cosmology of those periods.  While the “scientific revolution” of the Renaissance and Baroque era gave us Copernicus and Galileo’s heliocentric universe; Bacon’s Scientific Method; Descartes’ “cogito ergo sum”; and Newton’s Universal Laws; these “new views” remained rooted in a worldview heavily influenced by Christian understandings of the uniqueness of human agency in the cosmos.

The Enlightenment’s emphasis on human reason and rejection of traditional authority (particularly religious authority) was followed in the 19^th Century by the impact of Darwin’s evolutionary theory.  By the time Freud was taking up serious scientific and medical studies, the influence of rationalism, empiricism, and materialism on the scientific worldview was profound.  Man was a highly-evolved, thinking animal progress-ing toward an ever greater understanding of—and control over—the natural world and his place in it.

Freud the scientist argues vehemently against the existence of God. He points to the problem of suffering and he develops the psychological argument that the whole concept is nothing but a projection of a childish wish for parental protection from the vicissitudes and sufferings of human existence. He also argues against the objection of those holding the spiritual worldview that faith “is of divine origin and was given us as a revelation by a Spirit which the human spirit cannot comprehend.” Freud says this “is a clear case of begging the question” and adds, “The actual question raised is whether there is a divine spirit and a revelation by it, and the matter is certainly not decided by saying this question cannot be asked.”

Learn more about Science, Revelation and the Human Story—

Steven Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (U. Chicago, 1998); Never Pure: Historical Studies of Science (J. Hopkins, 2010)

Thomas Cahill, The Hinges of History Series (Doubleday, 5 volumes, more planned):  How the Irish Saved Civilization (1995); The Gifts of the Jews (1998); Desire of the Everlasting Hills: The World Before and After Jesus (2001); Sailing the Wine Dark Sea: Why The Greeks Matter (2004); Mysteries of the Middle Ages (2006)

Reflections on “The Question of God,” Part 1

Repetition is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the teaching life. If your subject area remains the same for many consecutive years, you find things that work well and use them, with careful tune-ups and adjustments–year after year.  I always approached teaching as a narrative process.  Each year I was telling a story, and–like in any good story–there were always my favorite parts.  I found particular joy and comfort in reaching the same place each year with different students in the seats getting different things out of the same lesson.

Every year since it was first broadcast on PBS in 2004, I used a wonderful video series, “The Question of God,” in my Senior Worldviews class.  Tonight I wrap up the nine week program for the first time with college students.  Based on a popular Harvard course taught by Dr. Armand Nicholi, this series examines the formation and implications of two contrasting worldviews through the lives of Sigmund Freud, life-long critic of religious belief, and C.S. Lewis, celebrated Oxford don, literary critic, and perhaps this century’s most influential and popular proponent of faith based on reason (learn more at the Question of God website pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/program/index.html).  I thought I’d share some highlights from the guiding narrative I’ve created (with some help from the Q.O.G. website) to go along with each week’s viewing and discussion.

From the outset, I think it important to look back to the very different paths in the Human Story that brought Freud and Lewis to the same cultural moment in Western History.  That “moment” is generally called “modernity,” and it is characterized by a marked decline in Classical and Christian influences in Western culture.   Science and Reason had risen to intellectual and cultural prominence during the 17^th-19^th Centuries, and while religion was still an important cultural presence in Europe, its influence was waning.

Freud’s path to modernity is rooted in the story of European Judaism.  This tale of cultural marginalization, persecution, perseverance, and the ultimate achievement of a measure of prosperity weaves from ancient through medieval times.  The Jewish story is the story of a Transcendent God whose chosen people are called to faithfully represent His Reality through story, ritual, tradition, and the fulfillment of sacred obligations (mitzvot).  After the Enlightenment (17^th/18^th C.), many Jewish intellectual elites embraced a secularized Judaism that preserved cultural identity and marginalized religious observances.

As part of his intellectual legacy, Freud strongly advocated an atheistic philosophy of life. Freud’s philosophical writings, more widely read than his expository or scientific works, have played a significant role in the secularization of our culture. In the 17th century people turned to the discoveries of astronomy to demonstrate what they considered the irreconcilable conflict between science and faith; in the 18th century, to Newtonian physics; in the 19th century, to Darwin; in the 20th century and still today, Freud is the atheist’s touchstone.

Lewis was the product of Anglo-Irish Protestantism and a traditional Classical Education.  The Anglican Church of his upbringing was as much a cultural institution as a spiritual one, one which the educated Lewis (like many “moderns” of his time) would eventually find irrelevant and unnecessary.  His desire for “enchantment” in the world was initially fueled by encounters with the natural world around him and the literary canon of Classical Antiquity and Medieval Christendom.

But Lewis embraced an atheistic worldview for the first half of his life and used Freud’s reasoning to defend his atheism. Lewis then rejected his atheism and became a believer. In subsequent writings, he provides cogent responses to Freud’s arguments against the spiritual worldview. Wherever Freud raises an argument, Lewis attempts to answer it. Their writings possess a striking parallelism. If Freud still serves as a primary spokesman for materialism, Lewis serves as a primary spokesman for the spiritual view that Freud attacked.

Armand Nicholi, host and panel moderator for The Question of God, nicely sums up the focus of the series:  “Whether we realize it or not, all of us possess a worldview. A few years after birth, we all gradually formulate our philosophy of life. We make one of two basic assumptions: we view the universe as a result of random events and life on this planet a matter of chance; or we assume an Intelligence beyond the universe who gives the universe order, and life meaning. So each of us embraces some form of either Freud’s secular worldview or Lewis’s spiritual worldview.”

Next time we’ll take a look back at the Classical foundations of these two worldviews.

Learn more about the “story” of the lives of Freud & Lewis—

Alan Jacobs, The Narnian:  The Life and Imagination of C. S. Lewis (Harper One, 2005)

Phillip Rief, Freud: The Mind of the Moralist (Viking Press, 1959)