Deification expresses human salvation as in inward process
of transformation experienced within the life of the Church
and leading to mystical union with God. As St. Basil put it, man
is nothing less than a creature that has received the order to
become god. Chris Jensen
Road to Emmaus: Vol.VIII, No. 2 (#29)
Road to Emmaus: A Journal of Orthodox Faith and Culture should be warmly congratulated and generously supported for their willingness to ponder the affinities between C.S. Lewis and the Orthodox Tradition. I have, in a previous article, reflected on the Road to Emmaus article-interview with Herman Middleton, ‘An Old Western Man: C.S. Lewis in Light of Orthodox Christianity’
(Vol. VIII, No. 1 # 28). I have also commented on the insights and problems of Timothy Ware’s article on Lewis as an anonymous or implicit Orthodox that was published in Sobornost (the same article was also published with much the same content in The Pilgrim’s Guide: C.S. Lewis and the Art of Witness: 1998). The fact Road to Emmaus has dealt with two articles on Lewis is more than worth noting.
It seems Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals are keen to call Lewis one of their own. Lewis was, of course, a classical catholic Anglican and remained so until his death in the autumn of 1963. Why is there this pressing desire from other traditions to claim Lewis?
‘Shine as the Sun: C.S. Lewis and the Doctrine of Deification’ (Road to Emmaus: Volume VIII, No. 2 #29) is yet another fine article on Lewis and the Orthodox Tradition. The author of the essay, Chris Jensen, is a member of the Orthodox Church of America, has taught college seminar courses on Lewis in the Portland area, and the content of the paper was initially given at the C.S. Lewis Summer Institute in 2005. The article Andrew Walker published, ‘Under the Russian Cross’, in 1990 on Lewis and the Orthodox Tradition has certainly gained much ground and momentum since then. The topic of Lewis and Orthodoxy has become a hot topic for some.
Jensen, to his credit, has not wandered far and wide in exploring the various and varied affinities between Lewis and the Orthodox Tradition. The topic of the lecture turned paper says it all: ‘Shine as the Sun: C.S. Lewis and the Doctrine of Deification’. The path that Jensen starts on, stays on and ends with is ‘The Doctrine of Deification’. Those who have been drawn to the Christian Tradition from within the West often have little or no understanding of the atonement as deification. Most tend to see this as a peculiar aspect of the Orthodox Tradition.
But, is it? Why do many in the West have such a lean and thin understanding of the atonement, and is the ‘Doctrine of Deification’ only found within the historic Orthodox way? The fact that Lewis seems to inch and incline towards the ‘Doctrine of Deification’ makes it appear, for some (who think the West has no notion of deification) that Lewis must have Orthodox leanings. But, let us wander through Jensen’s insightful and informed paper.
‘Shine as the Sun: C. S. Lewis and the Doctrine of Deification’ is divided into nine sections: 1) Introduction to a ‘repellent doctrine’, 2) God In and Out, 3) Deification as Glory, 4) Big Medicine, 5) Flip Side of Incarnation, 6) If We Let Him, 7) a sidebar on C.S. Lewis and the Orthodox Church, 8) Horror to Ourselves and 9) Happiness Transposed. Jensen has to deal with the obstinate fact that Lewis does not explicitly use the language of deification, but the deeper meaning and content of deification can be found in Lewis’ many writings. Jensen, rightly notes, that Lewis uses such language as ‘new men’, ‘little Christs’, ‘Sons of God’ and ‘gods and goddesses’ when referring to the new life in Christ and the Church. Jensen is spot on when he aptly states that ‘Lewis was a professor of medieval and renaissance literature by trade’ and that meant he ‘encountered the concept of deification in St. Athanasius classic On the Incarnation as well as in Pseudo-Dionysius, Richard Hooker, Lancelot Andrewes and George Macdonald’. I might add that Lewis encountered such a doctrine in the life and writings of many other classical catholic Anglicans.
Jensen often, in the essay, veers far from Lewis when discussing the notion of deification by turning to a diversity of Orthodox theologians on the subject. Such a turn is valuable as a source of Orthodox theology on deification, but such an approach does not necessarily mean that Lewis heartily endorsed deification. Jensen does, though, to his thorough credit, demonstrate by touching on a collage of Lewis’ books his affinity with deification. Lewis went to the same well to draw forth the ancient truth-- he merely used a different bucket to do so—Jensen wisely and cogently demonstrates how and why this is the case.
Jensen’s section on ‘Flip Side of Incarnation’ is worth many a meditative reread. Such comments as ‘It might be said that Lewis’s belief in deification can be seen as an index of just how seriously he took the doctrine of the Incarnation’—fine insight indeed. Jensen probes, from a variety of angles, just what deification means from the such basic notions as the transition from our false to our true self (see Till We Have Faces) to such things as confession, participation in the eucharist and the meaning of big medicine.
Jensen has made the case well that Lewis has a definite affinity with the doctrine of deification. Does this mean, then, that Lewis is a covert, implicit or anonymous Orthodox? I don’t think so. The point does need to be consistently made that Lewis was a Medieval-Renaissance scholar, and such an ethos was grounded and rooted in classical thought. Lewis was, therefore, thoroughly immersed in the Classical tradition. The classical tradition of Athanasius and Pseudo-Dionysius is foundational to the catholic Anglican way that Lewis knew so well----Hooker, Andrewes, Taylor and many other catholic Anglicans lived, moved and had their being from such a heritage. Lewis, as I mentioned in other articles, shares with the Orthodox way a commitment to the classical ethos, but Lewis’ view of the church is pre schismatic. In short, Lewis’ mere catholic Anglican Christianity means that he would affirm the doctrine of deification, but he transcends the Roman Catholic-Protestant western fragmentation and the Roman Catholic (Western)-Orthodox (Eastern) schism. There is a deeper unity that Lewis points to that refuses to be taken captive by the ecclesial tribalism of historic schisms in the West and East. I’d suggest that Lewis’ notion of deification has a great deal to do with the unity that should exist in the universal church (East and West). When we ignore this, the meaning of deification becomes somewhat thin just as when the language of deification does not deal with larger issues of justice, ecological issues and peace.
‘Shine as the Sun: C.S. Lewis and the Doctrine of Deification’ illuminates much, but there are deeper places that need to be gone to in the meaning of deification. Will the Orthodox, at a certain juncture in the trail, part ecclesial paths with Lewis? If so, what does this say about the relationship between deification and the unity of the body of Christ? I’m not sure Lewis would claim the Anglican Tradition is the only or best form of the church, but he would lead one and all to the ancient sources and life we all share in Christ. Much does hinge, does it not, on how the Patristic era (East and West) is read, interpreted and applied for unity (or schism) in the 21st century. Is the destination that Lewis points to in his understanding of the church and deification the same as the Orthodox at a spiritual, material and formal level? If not, at what point does Lewis become a liability for the Orthodox? Jensen does not really deal with such questions, but in a meaningful dialogue about Lewis and the Orthodox Tradition such questions do need to be faced and not flinched from.
The interest in Lewis and the Orthodox Tradition has much to commend it. Road to Emmaus should be lauded for the two articles done on the topic. The approach to the Lewis-Orthodox dialogue has been decidedly one sided, though. Lewis is viewed as an anonymous or implicit Orthodox. There is something seriously problematic about such an approach to Lewis and Orthodoxy. If the dialogue about Lewis and Orthodoxy is ever going to go deeper and further, colonizing Lewis will not do. The Anglican way as reflected in such theologians and historians as Rowan Williams, A. M. Allchin, Derwas Chitty and C.S. Lewis (to name but a few) and embodied in the Society of St. Alban and St. Sergius is a way forward in Anglican-Orthodox dialogue that offers much promise---ecclesial one-upmanship is a dated notion and. cul-de-sac that will prevent the church from being what it is meant as the deified body in Christ both in time and beyond this earthly journey.
Ron Dart
Comments