The fear of Tolkien and Lewis found in some Christians, in my opinion, goes beyond just misunderstanding the word myth in it's earlier usage (which I'm certain some people do). Further, I think it is in one sense, justified for those people. The real issue is what you touched on when you talked about the concept of worldview and particularly the demythologizing modern worldview. By the time of Chesterton, Lewis, and Tolkien, the modern worldview had been around already for 400 years or more. Even the last vestiges of the earlier medieval/ancient worldviews were basically dead by 200 years before. The point I'm getting at here is that most of the Christians in the western world, by that time, already held a version of Christianity that was founded firmly upon a modern worldview. The worst results of that worldview only began to become apparent to many Christians when they began to be confronted by the 'demythologizing' of modern theologians, and when that began to trickle down from universities and seminaries into pulpits. At this point there was a reaction in which many Christians rejected what they saw as largely the fruit of dead intellectualism and man's scholarship. They did not recognize it as the fruit of the modern worldview because they themselves had already been so indoctrinated of infected with that worldview that they were incapable of recognizing it. Some groups went off and formed their own new colleges and seminaries, effectively trying to stick their tent pegs into the road of modernity where they already stood and avoid treading any further down the path. Others simply disengaged from intellectual life altogether out of fear. With Chesterton, Lewis, and Tolkien, you have not simply a reaction against the latter results of modernity, but rather a rejection of the entire modern worldview. The worldview that they present is deliberately meant to be an anti-thesis (though in imaginative form, and thus we might call it a counter enchantment rather than an anti-thesis) to the modern worldview. As a result, while those who fear Lewis and Tolkien are completely and utterly wrong in alleging that they are not Christian, or that they hate the bible. They are in this sense right. Tolkien and Lewis (and Chesterton) represent a worldview that is anti-thetical to their own and it is a worldview which, if seriously engaged with would shatter many of the intellectual foundations upon which their worldview, and thus their engagement even with the Bible and the Faith, are based. The final point there being that the Christianity of many modern Christians is based much less on the Bible than they think, and much more upon the philosophical underpinnings of their own modern worldview than they realize.
Once upon a time, a preacher warned his flock that while Tolkien and Lewis lead many into the Church, they can also be a bridge out of it. One of the sheep (already disparaged as 'differous') went away, read Lord of the Rings, and found the preacher was right. After a fashion. Where Lewis had introduced him to Platonic Forms as an underpinning for his Evangelical theology, Tolkien set him on the road, via Chesterton, Aquinas & Averroes to Aristotle. Once he understood the difference between Plato's 'dualist' Forms and Aristotle's 'monist' Forms, what he once called his 'faith' turned into his 'narrativium' wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Narrativium (Discworld was inspired by Chesterton's 'Napoleon of Notting Hill' famouspick.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/terry-pratchett-award-winning-author.html).
I like your addressing to concept as myth being not equal to untrue. I've met several people, both Believers adn non-believers who can't get over this particular conceptual hump.
You are a very engaging lecturer. I am thankful at the way you dragged my bored attention span along 3000 years of history so well. I am not belligerent, just engaging. It might help create fodder for you next book, the one you are obliged to put out by the college
you said that the rational arguments for God's existence were not there in G.K.C/Lewis/Tolkiens time that is not true, they just were not present in many protestant circles. Take for example the thomist/scholastic arguments.
I also found it interesting that he use Clifford Geertz's term, thick description. He argued that anthropologists would do a much better job if they used this.
I very much have enjoyed all your lectures both on the church history and with the Inklings. I would appreciate your addressing the issue of fellow evangelicals lambasting Tolkien as satanic. Best wishes!
Hey I really enjoy these video, im looking for something in these series you said in a video that Christians love to have a sense of wonder and to explore, it had to do with the nature world but im not sure what video it was ?
regarding saying grace after meals ... Birkat Ha-Mazon: Grace After Meals One of the most important prayers in Judaism, one of the very few that the Bible commands us to recite, is never recited during synagogue services. That prayer is birkat ha-mazon, grace after meals. In Deuteronomy 8:10, we are commanded that when we eat and are satisfied, we must bless the L-rd, our G-d. This commandment is fulfilled by reciting the birkat ha-mazon (blessing of the food) after each meal. Reciting birkat ha-mazon is commonly referred to as bentsching, from the Yiddish word meaning "to bless." Although the word "bentsch" can refer to the recitation of any berakhah, it is almost always used to refer to reciting birkat ha-mazon. Grace after meals is recited in addition to the various berakhot over food recited before meals. Birkat ha-mazon actually consists of four blessings, three of which were composed around the time of Ezra and the Great Assembly and a fourth which was added after the destruction of the Temple. These blessings are: Birkat Hazan (the blessing for providing food), which thanks G-d for giving food to the world, Birkat Ha-Aretz (the blessing for the land), which thanks G-d for bringing us forth from the land of Egypt, for making His covenant with us, and for giving us the land of Israel as an inheritance, Birkat Yerushalayim (the blessing for Jerusalem), which prays for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the coming of the mashiach; and Birkat Ha-Tov v'Ha-Maytiv (the blessing for being good and doing good), was added after the destruction of the Temple, although it existed before that time. It emphasizes the goodness of G-d's work, that G-d is good and does good. In addition to these four blessings, the full birkat ha-mazon incorporates some psalms and additional blessings for various special occasions (holidays, guests, etc.) If you would like to hear the Birkat Ha-Mazon sung, check out the MP3 recording by Rabbi Mark Zimmerman on SiddurAudio.com. The recording is designed for educational purposes, and is chanted at a very moderate pace with very clear enunciation. Siddur Audio and its sister site, Haftorah Audio are great sources for learning the melodies of Jewish liturgy. (Rabbi Zimmerman is not associated with this website).
'The Man Who Was Thursday' elaborates the theme of revolutionaries coming full circle back to 'orthodoxy' - in a Neo-Platonist sense; "That is not a tree but the back of a tree" - an elegant illustration of the notion that the Form of 'Tree', what makes it fascinating to scientist or artist, lies outside the physical realm. I long suspected that this connected with C.S.Lewis's 'Wood between the worlds'.
Read The Hope of the Gospel by George McDonald - a mentor to both Chesterton, and Lewis and Tolkien...(I'm pretty sure he waqs a big influence on all three of those men.) Or go to Archive.com and listen to it by audio book...It changed my life!
What would you say to someone who says that your protective instinct is all just biological, that you want to protect your child not because your Father put it there but because it is biologically beneficial to the species and the passing down of your DNA? What do you say to people who don't even believe in love really, who say that it all basically boils down to dopamine? I ask this because as you were saying what you said to this acquaintance of yours, my brain was recalling stuff I have heard real people say to me or others about such things. I have always thought that was a really sad way of thinking, very... reductionistic I guess. But I've never come up with a decent response to someone who's like that.
+AdaptiveReasoning // Depends on the person, but I would ask them why they care to much to argue the point, since their own instincts would be based on the same reductionism. This type of argument is meant to sound superior because it claims to be based on science--though the terms of scientific exploration itself never claim to rule out the possibility of God or anything with faith, only to focus on natural explanations of natural phenomena. But there is a bit of humor in the emotional lengths to which people reach to sum everything up as foolish. This is one of those types of arguments. It shrouds itself in pseudo-intellectual appeals to know where everything comes from, but really all it is attempting is to shut the conversation down. But the argument itself comes not from science but from philosophy: this was a prevalent argument with later Enlightenment philosophies, that everything results from psycho-biological impulses. In the end, this makes science its own religion, basing their views off the mythology that science has answered everything, that their faith in biological determinism gives life meaning, and that everyone else must convert to their worldview. In the end, it results in what sounds like two religions claiming ultimate authority, which makes it the same as any other discussion between a Christian and non-Christian.
Ryan Reeves Thanks for answering! I've slowly been going through your back catalog, have you done any videos that touch on the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement?
Hi LoverOfTruth2010, No, the idea of the true myth really only works with the Abrahamic religions, and particularly Christianity. There are a number of factors that play into this and make this a reality. The central issue is that most, if not all religions have mythic elements. Most religions, however, have ONLY mythic elements. What is more, in most religions, the mythic elements are very obviously non-historical, or mythological in the negative sense of not being factual. For example, the mythic motif of death and rebirth, or death and resurrection is found in almost every ancient mythology. However, the stories that convey the idea in most pagan religions are obviously not historical, and it is doubtful whether even the ancients believed them to be factual historical occurrences. In other words, it's not a case where everyone once believed them but now we know they never really happened. It is in the very nature of the stories that most people, especially most learned people always knew that they were mythic stories, but not real factual events. Further, those stories contain elements which don't ring true morally or ethically or philosophically as well. Which is why Lewis would describe them as glimmers of celestial glory falling on a jungle of filth and imbecility. In Christianity you have the mythic idea of death and resurrection, and spiritual re-birth, but it is not ONLY a mythic story, the story actually takes place in history. It is a historic, factual, event. Thus it is the marriage of myth and truth. It is, if you will, the consummation of myth because myth has entered into history and become fact. It could be argued that Judaism and Islam also have elements of this as well, because they are both based off of the Bible. The Bible itself is a unique blending of mythic and historical that is really not present in the mythologies of the surrounding cultures and peoples. However, with both Judaism and Islam you are missing the completeness of the myth. The central elements are left out, or yet to come, as it were.
For one thing, God made us to have bodies, and in fact we begin with them even in terms of reason. For another the "Gospel" is a narrative, it is an announcement of good new concerning events that took place, thus the imagination is first appealed to in the call to faith (1), even if rational reasons may be given to support the credibility of the message. And faith its self is an act of trust in God and therefore in the truth of the message, this act involves the affections and will and not reason only, the former especially tends to be stired by the imagination and not by dry reason alone. (1)"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full."-1 Jn 1:1-4
George Sayer's Book "Jack" is listed as book to read on C.S. Lewis. I would stay away from that one. He's not totally fair about Lewis. I would read Lewis' own words and go for "Surprised by Joy".
Hi Ryan, Is Orthodoxy the one that talks about REALLY exciting everyday life, it IS in the small town...the big city all you get is people just like you whereas in the small down setting you find EVERYTHING and it's going to persist and so you have to be much more careful... Oh yes, being born, coming down the chimney into your own house...WAS that in Orthodoxy?
The fear of Tolkien and Lewis found in some Christians, in my opinion, goes beyond just misunderstanding the word myth in it's earlier usage (which I'm certain some people do). Further, I think it is in one sense, justified for those people.
The real issue is what you touched on when you talked about the concept of worldview and particularly the demythologizing modern worldview. By the time of Chesterton, Lewis, and Tolkien, the modern worldview had been around already for 400 years or more. Even the last vestiges of the earlier medieval/ancient worldviews were basically dead by 200 years before. The point I'm getting at here is that most of the Christians in the western world, by that time, already held a version of Christianity that was founded firmly upon a modern worldview. The worst results of that worldview only began to become apparent to many Christians when they began to be confronted by the 'demythologizing' of modern theologians, and when that began to trickle down from universities and seminaries into pulpits. At this point there was a reaction in which many Christians rejected what they saw as largely the fruit of dead intellectualism and man's scholarship. They did not recognize it as the fruit of the modern worldview because they themselves had already been so indoctrinated of infected with that worldview that they were incapable of recognizing it.
Some groups went off and formed their own new colleges and seminaries, effectively trying to stick their tent pegs into the road of modernity where they already stood and avoid treading any further down the path. Others simply disengaged from intellectual life altogether out of fear.
With Chesterton, Lewis, and Tolkien, you have not simply a reaction against the latter results of modernity, but rather a rejection of the entire modern worldview. The worldview that they present is deliberately meant to be an anti-thesis (though in imaginative form, and thus we might call it a counter enchantment rather than an anti-thesis) to the modern worldview.
As a result, while those who fear Lewis and Tolkien are completely and utterly wrong in alleging that they are not Christian, or that they hate the bible. They are in this sense right. Tolkien and Lewis (and Chesterton) represent a worldview that is anti-thetical to their own and it is a worldview which, if seriously engaged with would shatter many of the intellectual foundations upon which their worldview, and thus their engagement even with the Bible and the Faith, are based.
The final point there being that the Christianity of many modern Christians is based much less on the Bible than they think, and much more upon the philosophical underpinnings of their own modern worldview than they realize.
Once upon a time, a preacher warned his flock that while Tolkien and Lewis lead many into the Church, they can also be a bridge out of it.
One of the sheep (already disparaged as 'differous') went away, read Lord of the Rings, and found the preacher was right. After a fashion.
Where Lewis had introduced him to Platonic Forms
as an underpinning for his Evangelical theology,
Tolkien set him on the road,
via Chesterton, Aquinas & Averroes
to Aristotle.
Once he understood the difference between
Plato's 'dualist' Forms and
Aristotle's 'monist' Forms,
what he once called his 'faith'
turned into his 'narrativium'
wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Narrativium
(Discworld was inspired by Chesterton's 'Napoleon of Notting Hill'
famouspick.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/terry-pratchett-award-winning-author.html).
Rationalism is like a house with a good roof, spiritualism is the fire place that warms you
The Apollonian and the Dionysian
I like your addressing to concept as myth being not equal to untrue. I've met several people, both Believers adn non-believers who can't get over this particular conceptual hump.
If you read "Orthodoxy" make sure you have a highlighter with you. Trust me.
Love the Ethics of Elfland! Had there been no Chesterton, I seriously doubt there would have ever been a Narnia! Thank you, Dr. Reeves.
You are a very engaging lecturer. I am thankful at the way you dragged my bored attention span along 3000 years of history so well. I am not belligerent, just engaging. It might help create fodder for you next book, the one you are obliged to put out by the college
The modern use of myth did not come out of sociology, but from everyday use. Sociologists use the earlier meaning of myth in their studies.
you couldn't fully grasp Chesterton without identifying his staunch Catholicsm.
you said that the rational arguments for God's existence were not there in G.K.C/Lewis/Tolkiens time that is not true, they just were not present in many protestant circles. Take for example the thomist/scholastic arguments.
blablabubles Tolkien was a devout Catholic though, as was Chesterton. Only Lewis was a protestant.
I also found it interesting that he use Clifford Geertz's term, thick description. He argued that anthropologists would do a much better job if they used this.
I very much have enjoyed all your lectures both on the church history and with the Inklings. I would appreciate your addressing the issue of fellow evangelicals lambasting Tolkien as satanic. Best wishes!
17:58 Oddly enough there *are* things you can observe in the laboratory which defy rationalism, such as quantum interference and quantum entanglement.
The beginning of the universe, something from nothing. The beginning of life. The mind brain issue.
Even the lamppost is from GK!
Brilliant. Thank you
it's all the latest accepted Hodge podge of a myth of Cosmogony - Zeitgeist
Thank you
Thank you for this! This is gorgeous!
Hey I really enjoy these video, im looking for something in these series you said in a video that Christians love to have a sense of wonder and to explore, it had to do with the nature world but im not sure what video it was ?
regarding saying grace after meals ...
Birkat Ha-Mazon: Grace After Meals
One of the most important prayers in Judaism, one of the very few that the Bible commands us to recite, is never recited during synagogue services. That prayer is birkat ha-mazon, grace after meals.
In Deuteronomy 8:10, we are commanded that when we eat and are satisfied, we must bless the L-rd, our G-d. This commandment is fulfilled by reciting the birkat ha-mazon (blessing of the food) after each meal. Reciting birkat ha-mazon is commonly referred to as bentsching, from the Yiddish word meaning "to bless." Although the word "bentsch" can refer to the recitation of any berakhah, it is almost always used to refer to reciting birkat ha-mazon.
Grace after meals is recited in addition to the various berakhot over food recited before meals.
Birkat ha-mazon actually consists of four blessings, three of which were composed around the time of Ezra and the Great Assembly and a fourth which was added after the destruction of the Temple. These blessings are:
Birkat Hazan (the blessing for providing food), which thanks G-d for giving food to the world,
Birkat Ha-Aretz (the blessing for the land), which thanks G-d for bringing us forth from the land of Egypt, for making His covenant with us, and for giving us the land of Israel as an inheritance,
Birkat Yerushalayim (the blessing for Jerusalem), which prays for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the coming of the mashiach; and
Birkat Ha-Tov v'Ha-Maytiv (the blessing for being good and doing good), was added after the destruction of the Temple, although it existed before that time. It emphasizes the goodness of G-d's work, that G-d is good and does good.
In addition to these four blessings, the full birkat ha-mazon incorporates some psalms and additional blessings for various special occasions (holidays, guests, etc.)
If you would like to hear the Birkat Ha-Mazon sung, check out the MP3 recording by Rabbi Mark Zimmerman on SiddurAudio.com. The recording is designed for educational purposes, and is chanted at a very moderate pace with very clear enunciation. Siddur Audio and its sister site, Haftorah Audio are great sources for learning the melodies of Jewish liturgy. (Rabbi Zimmerman is not associated with this website).
amazing!.. any GK book recommendations? :)
Yeah my favorite of his is 'Orthodoxy'. First one I read, and still my favorite. Happy reading! :)
'The Man Who Was Thursday' elaborates the theme of revolutionaries coming full circle back to 'orthodoxy' - in a Neo-Platonist sense;
"That is not a tree but the back of a tree"
- an elegant illustration of the notion that the Form of 'Tree',
what makes it fascinating to scientist or artist,
lies outside the physical realm.
I long suspected that this connected with
C.S.Lewis's 'Wood between the worlds'.
Read The Hope of the Gospel by George McDonald - a mentor to both Chesterton, and Lewis and Tolkien...(I'm pretty sure he waqs a big influence on all three of those men.) Or go to Archive.com and listen to it by audio book...It changed my life!
What would you say to someone who says that your protective instinct is all just biological, that you want to protect your child not because your Father put it there but because it is biologically beneficial to the species and the passing down of your DNA? What do you say to people who don't even believe in love really, who say that it all basically boils down to dopamine?
I ask this because as you were saying what you said to this acquaintance of yours, my brain was recalling stuff I have heard real people say to me or others about such things. I have always thought that was a really sad way of thinking, very... reductionistic I guess. But I've never come up with a decent response to someone who's like that.
+AdaptiveReasoning // Depends on the person, but I would ask them why they care to much to argue the point, since their own instincts would be based on the same reductionism. This type of argument is meant to sound superior because it claims to be based on science--though the terms of scientific exploration itself never claim to rule out the possibility of God or anything with faith, only to focus on natural explanations of natural phenomena. But there is a bit of humor in the emotional lengths to which people reach to sum everything up as foolish. This is one of those types of arguments. It shrouds itself in pseudo-intellectual appeals to know where everything comes from, but really all it is attempting is to shut the conversation down. But the argument itself comes not from science but from philosophy: this was a prevalent argument with later Enlightenment philosophies, that everything results from psycho-biological impulses. In the end, this makes science its own religion, basing their views off the mythology that science has answered everything, that their faith in biological determinism gives life meaning, and that everyone else must convert to their worldview. In the end, it results in what sounds like two religions claiming ultimate authority, which makes it the same as any other discussion between a Christian and non-Christian.
Ryan Reeves Thanks for answering!
I've slowly been going through your back catalog, have you done any videos that touch on the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement?
+AdaptiveReasoning // Nothing that specific yet, no. I'm still trying to finish up the overall survey bits! :)
Can't the argument that Christianity is a true myth be applied to other religions as well?
Lewis and Tolkin said Christainity is the ultimate truth " truth myth" other religions r only glimmers of the real...mostly false..
Hi LoverOfTruth2010,
No, the idea of the true myth really only works with the Abrahamic religions, and particularly Christianity. There are a number of factors that play into this and make this a reality. The central issue is that most, if not all religions have mythic elements. Most religions, however, have ONLY mythic elements. What is more, in most religions, the mythic elements are very obviously non-historical, or mythological in the negative sense of not being factual.
For example, the mythic motif of death and rebirth, or death and resurrection is found in almost every ancient mythology. However, the stories that convey the idea in most pagan religions are obviously not historical, and it is doubtful whether even the ancients believed them to be factual historical occurrences. In other words, it's not a case where everyone once believed them but now we know they never really happened. It is in the very nature of the stories that most people, especially most learned people always knew that they were mythic stories, but not real factual events. Further, those stories contain elements which don't ring true morally or ethically or philosophically as well. Which is why Lewis would describe them as glimmers of celestial glory falling on a jungle of filth and imbecility.
In Christianity you have the mythic idea of death and resurrection, and spiritual re-birth, but it is not ONLY a mythic story, the story actually takes place in history. It is a historic, factual, event. Thus it is the marriage of myth and truth. It is, if you will, the consummation of myth because myth has entered into history and become fact.
It could be argued that Judaism and Islam also have elements of this as well, because they are both based off of the Bible. The Bible itself is a unique blending of mythic and historical that is really not present in the mythologies of the surrounding cultures and peoples. However, with both Judaism and Islam you are missing the completeness of the myth. The central elements are left out, or yet to come, as it were.
Why does narrative and imagination have more epistemic significance than reason?
For one thing, God made us to have bodies, and in fact we begin with them even in terms of reason. For another the "Gospel" is a narrative, it is an announcement of good new concerning events that took place, thus the imagination is first appealed to in the call to faith (1), even if rational reasons may be given to support the credibility of the message. And faith its self is an act of trust in God and therefore in the truth of the message, this act involves the affections and will and not reason only, the former especially tends to be stired by the imagination and not by dry reason alone.
(1)"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full."-1 Jn 1:1-4
I've been trying to tell people this but most tolkien fans have no clue abt Chesterton (who is the GOAT)
George Sayer's Book "Jack" is listed as book to read on C.S. Lewis. I would stay away from that one. He's not totally fair about Lewis. I would read Lewis' own words and go for "Surprised by Joy".
Hi Ryan, Is Orthodoxy the one that talks about REALLY exciting everyday life, it IS in the small town...the big city all you get is people just like you whereas in the small down setting you find EVERYTHING and it's going to persist and so you have to be much more careful... Oh yes, being born, coming down the chimney into your own house...WAS that in Orthodoxy?
I like Spinoza
the sociological and psychological necessity for rituals and memes
I see this is Sept 2014...have you lost or gained weight? ;-)