Posted tagged ‘loving God’

CS Lewis on the “True Myth”

July 3, 2018

The Areopagus in Athens

“Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s myth where the others are men’s myths: i.e. the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call ‘real things’. Therefore it is true, not in the sense of being a ‘description’ of God (that no finite mind could take in) but in the sense of being the way in which God chooses to (or can) appear to our faculties. The ‘doctrines’ we get out of the true myth are of course less true: they are the translations into our concepts and ideas of that which God has already expressed in a language more adequate, namely the actual incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. Does this amount to a belief in Christianity? At any rate I am now certain (a) That this Christian story is to be approached, in a sense, as I approach other myths. (b) That it is the most important and full of meaning. I am also nearly certain that it really happened…”

This quotation is from CS Lewis in a letter to Arthur Greeves: from The Kilns (on his conversion to Christianity), 18 October 1931. If you have read much of what I write, you would readily notice that I quote and allude to CS Lewis often. He resonated with me in college, and he continues to resonate. He is cited by more diverse groups of people, perhaps, that any person I can think of. He had a unique way of approaching things from fresh points of view, often pulling those fresh ideas from the dusty tomes of ancient literature. His concept of myth and True Myth is one such point.

Some might consider his frequent allusions to ancient, pagan myth heretical, and some might even confuse his love of pagan myth as New Age. I find him to be extremely orthodox in unorthodox ways, and I find his creative approaches to orthodoxy to be refreshing and thought-provoking.

We don’t have to look any further than the ultra-orthodox, Paul the Apostle, to find some common ground with CS Lewis. When Paul was in Athens, some Epicureans and Stoics he debated in the marketplace, brought him to the Areopagus to address a Greek crowd. In that address, Paul referenced an altar inscribed “To An Unknown God” and quoted Aratus, a Cilcian poet (Phaenomena 5): “in him we move and live and have our being”. (Acts 17:22-28)

Paul used the quotation from Aratus that was spoken by a pantheistic poet to convey a theistic principle about God. (See Acts 17:22-28 – Quoting the Philosophers?) On the one hand, Paul connected with the people “where they were” using language and references they understood to convey something about God. In one sense, this is how CS Lewis relates the ideas of myth and True Myth.

It’s interesting to me, as well, that Paul know enough about pagan poetry to quote Aratus. In Titus 1 (v. 12), Paul quotes a Cretan philosopher, Epimenides. Again, it’s striking that Paul knew enough about pagan philosophy (presumably) that he could quote Epimenides.

What CS Lewis says about myth is that it contains some elements of truth, which shouldn’t be surprising at all, as truth is universal and should, therefore, be something that is universally recognized. The difference between myth and True Myth is that all myth ultimately is just a shadow of the True Myth. All myth conveys truth through storytelling. True Myth isn’t just another story; it is The Story. It isn’t “just” myth, but reality – “it really happened” as CS Lewis says.


Can Hell be Reconciled with a Loving God? Part 1

May 17, 2018

Depositphotos Image ID: 45826369 Copyright: kamchatka

Tim Keller gave a series of talks on the biggest objections to Christianity about eight years ago. In one talk, he addresses how can we reconcile a God who is loving with a God with the idea of hell. I’m going to summarize what Keller says partly in his words and partly in my own words. I will also go off script down some side roads. I will cover the subject in several blog posts.

Before we start, I want to observe that truth and reality are not always how we would like them to be. The nature of truth is that “it is what it is”. We don’t advance in our knowledge and understanding by denying it. If we are going to take the Bible seriously, and particularly the things that Jesus said, we have to contend with the idea of hell. Jesus mentions hell more than any other person in the scripture.

Tim Keller claims that hell is crucial for understanding our own hearts, for living at peace in the world, and for knowing the love of God. The text he uses to set up the subject is Luke 16:19-31. This text is known as the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. I encourage you to read it before continuing on. I am only addressing the first point in this blog post – that hell is crucial for understanding our own hearts (because it is something we choose).

The idea of hell, of course, is a basic Christian principal. Jesus did not shy away from the subject, and neither should we. Hell is a principal that doesn’t sit well with the sentiments of modern people, but that is no reason to dismiss it anymore than we should dismiss the idea of disease just because we don’t like it. We dismiss it only to our detriment.

One interesting quirk about this parable is that two of the characters are named (Abraham and Lazarus), and one character is not named (the rich man). Keller says this parable is the only one in which Jesus named any of the characters. (I didn’t double check him on that.)

In Hebrew culture, even more than in our day, names were intimately connected to the identify of a person. In this parable, Lazarus is identified by name, but the rich man remains anonymous. He has lost his identity. Why is that? And how does that relate to understanding our own hearts?

The fact that Jesus named characters, but he didn’t name all the characters, is a window into understanding the parable and understanding our own hearts.


Suffering Eternal Decisions

February 21, 2018

Depositphotos Image ID: 31692361 Copyright: DesignPicsInc

I often listen to podcasts in the morning as I shave, shower, brush my teeth and get ready for work. Today I was listening to Dr. William Lane Craig respond to some questions about free will and suffering, and his comments prompt this blog piece.

He made the following statement

“Natural suffering forms the arena in which the drama is played out of people being freely called to come into the kingdom of God and find an eternal relationship with God. It is not at all improbable that only in a world infused with natural suffering would an optimal number of people freely respond to God’s gracious and initiatives and come to enjoy a relationship with God and eternal salvation.”

Dr. Craig represents the Molinist view of the tension between God’s sovereignty, knowledge and power and man’s free will. On the Molinist view, God knows the future, but he does not determine it. Knowing the future, God chose to set the universe in motion, but he does not determine every aspect of it, including the choices that people make. Knowing the future, God chose to set the universe in motion, and to that extent, He determines the outcome, because He knows the outcome. He does not determine it, however, to the extent of interfering with the free will He gave humans who are created in His image. The fact that he knows the outcome, does not mean that He determine the choices each person makes. Each person is free to choose as they will, but God knows how they will choose from the beginning, and so He wills it.

This is (my simple version of) the Molinist view. It respects God’s sovereignty, while acknowledging the clear implication of free will and moral responsibility to which God holds us that is reflected from beginning to end in the Bible.

I tend to like the Molinist view, but I am always somewhat cautioned in my own thinking not to be overly concerned with doctrinal nuances. I don’t want to die on a Molinist hill other than the Gospel. The Calvinist resurgence in the church today stands in contrast to a more Armenian view of inviolate free will. Many have been the discussions and debates between these two views, and I fear we spend too much time and energy on debating when we should spend more time living out the Gospel. I think Paul might lump these debates in the category of vain discussions.

Still, I think it is good to chew on these things as they may be beneficial to our knowledge and understanding of God. As I thought about Dr. Craig’s comment above, I could not help think that this is a kind of divine utilitarianism – what is optimal for generating the most free will responses of love for, relationship with God and eternal life with God.

Dr. Craig’s thesis is an attempt to explain why suffering exists in the world when God is supposed to be good, all-powerful and sovereign. Why doesn’t God stop suffering if He is all those things? Why does he allow suffering at all?


How Can a Loving God….?

December 8, 2014



In 1 Samuel 15, God told King Saul to wipe out the Amalekites, every last one of them, and leave no survivors. The story is about Saul failing to follow God’s directions while claiming to have done so. He kept King Agab alive and allowed his men to save the best of the sheep and other animals. When Samuel, the prophet, asked, “What is this bleating of sheep I hear?” Saul blamed the men for his failure to obey God, but Saul was the one who did not obey God. That is how the story goes….

But, wait a minute! …. God told Saul to kill them… all of them. That sounds incredibly harsh. It sounds worse than harsh. Is God not supposed to be a loving God?

This is a pretty common question (a rhetorical one) posed by people who oppose Christianity and reject the Bible. “A loving God would not kill people,” they say. Since the Old Testament, in particular, depicts God in this way, the Bible cannot be true, the Christian God is fiction and the whole thing is bunk.

The unspoken sentiment behind that line of thinking is that “we” (humankind) have come a long way since primitive times. We have evolved past the Enlightenment into a modern scientific age in which we have superior moral and intellectual stature. We are the gods of our own world. We have thrown off superstitious belief in a tyrant God that stifles human potential in this post-enlightenment age.

Of course, since the Enlightenment, Stalin killed some 20 million citizens (International Business News). Not to be outdone, Hitler also killed about 20 million citizens at about the same time. (DEMOCIDE: NAZI GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER by R.J. Rummel). Regardless, of who was responsible for a greater genocide, (or how accurate those numbers are) these things happened in a post-enlightenment, scientific age. Humanism was budding as these mass atrocities were being perpetrated.

With numbers so large, there are bound to be some discrepancies. One site keeping a tally reports the following mass killings in the 20th Century in this order: 1) Mao Ze-Dong – China (up to 78 million); 2) Hitler – Germany (15,000); 3) Leopold of Belgium – Congo (8 million); 4) Stalin – Soviet Union (7 million); 5) Hideki Tojo – Japan (5 million); 6) Ismael Enver – Turkey (2.5 million); 7) Pol Pot – Cambodia (1.7 million); 8) Kim Il Sung – Korea (1.6 million); 9) Menghistu – Ethiopia (1.5 million); 10 Yakubu Gowon – Biafra (1 million) (Worst Genocides of the 20th and 21st Centuries) Those are just the genocides that are measured in the millions.

The Soviets wiped out about 900,000 Afghans in the late ’70’s and early ’80’s. About 800,000 people were killed in Rwanda in 1994. Saddam Hussein accounts for about 600,000 Kurds and Iranians. About 570,000 were killed in Yugoslavia after WWII through as late as 1980. Add to that 500,000 Indonesians in the 1960’s, 500,000 Chinese civilians in Japan in the 1930’s, 400,000 people in Angola in the last quarter of the 21st Century, 400,000 by the Taliban in Afghanistan; 300,000 Ugandans at Idi Amin’s hands in the 1970’s; 300,000 Bengalis in Pakistan in 1970-71; 359,000 Jews, Gypsies and Serbs in Croatia during WWII; and 300,000 at the hands of Mussolini in the 1930’s.

There were also genocides in Zaire (1965-67), Liberia (1989-1996), Sierra Leone (1991-2000), New Guinea (1975-1998), Vietnam (1953-1956); Burundi (1972), Yugoslavia (1992-1999), and Sudan (1989-1999); and those just round out the genocides that number into the hundreds of thousands.

If we are going to count genocides that “merely” number in the tens of thousands, the list is considerably longer. It includes the USA (100,000 in Vietnam – 70,000 under Nixon from 1969-1974 and 30,000 under Johnson from 1963-1968), South Korea (80,000 from 1948-1950), Syria (75,000, including 50,000 under Assad from 2012-2013 and 25,000 under Al-Assad from 1980-2000), Guatemala (70,000 from 1982-1983), Haiti (60,000 from 1957-1961), Dominican Republic (50,000 from 1930-1961), Equatorial Guinea (50,000 from 1969-1979), Chad (40,000 from 1982-1990), Taiwan (30,000 in 1947), Spain (30,000 after the civil war), Cuba (30,000 from 1959-1999), El Salvador (30,000 in 1932), Iran (20,000 from 1979-1989), Zimbabwe (20,000 from 1982-1987), and Argentina (13,000 from 1967-1983). Those numbers only round out the genocides that number in the tens of thousands.

You might have noticed the USA on that list, arguably the most advanced country in the world. Consider the fact that over twice as many people were killed in the City of Chicago since 2001 (over 5000) than soldiers who were killed in Afghanistan (over 2000) (Huffington Post as of 2012), and that is only one American city. The murder rate in Chicago is 18.5 to every 100,000 people! (PEW Research) But, Chicago hardly has the highest murder rate per capita in the US. Topping out the list are Flint, MI (62), Detroit, MI (54.6), New Orleans, LA (53.2) and Jackson, MI (35.8).

How far have we really come?

Going back to God’s direction to King Saul to wipe out the Amalekites, the fact that modern genocides are numerous does not “let God off the hook” (as if we are in any position to judge God); but it does create some perspective. We most definitely have not grown in moral stature. We only think we have.

But what about God; how could a loving God order Saul to kill all the Amalekites?

Before going further, I note that there is no inherent reason that the Creator of the Universe should even be a loving Creator, theoretically speaking. Why must he/she/it love? What is it about the kind of creative power or force necessary to create the Universe that requires the author or source of that power to be loving? Yet, even non-believers assume, if there is such a power or force, that it must be loving. At least some skeptics use that standard (loving) to measure the claims of believers that God exists, asserting that there is no God from the fact that evil exists in the world. That is a topic for another day, but it is somewhat ironic (and not particularly logical) for atheists to hold out love as a measure for whether God really exists. Why should love be the measure?

Of course, the Bible does portray God has a loving God. Agnostics have a better argument than atheists here, as they question whether the God of the Bible is really “the” God. The God of the Bible, at least God as He is portrayed in the Old Testament, seems harsh, arbitrary and quick to wipe people out en masse. 1 Samuel 15 is only one example. The Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah are examples of God wiping people out directly, and there are other examples of God directing His people to wipe out other people in similar fashion.

In fact, when God promised Moses and then Joshua the Promised Land, they had to go in and take the land by force, displacing the inhabitants and wiping them out. As with Saul, the instruction was to eradicate the land completely, but the Israelites did not follow that instruction. They left pockets of Canaanites (Philistines, and other groups) and that became a problem for the fledgling kingdom as it grew. (

The people groups left to live among the Israelites worshipped idols (Asherah, Ashteroth, Baal, Chemosh, Dargon, Hadad, Marduk, Milcom, Molech) ( A primary practice of these people was child and human sacrifice. ( “The Ugaritic literature has helped reveal the depth of depravity which characterized Canaanite religion. Being a polytheism of an extremely debased type, Canaanite cultic practice was barbarous and thoroughly licentious.” (Quartz Hill Theology) (See for a rundown of the gods of the people groups in the Mediterranean).

We see God in the Old Testament instruct the nation of Israel not to engage in child sacrifice, though child sacrifice was practiced as a primary religious ritual by the people around them (the people God told the Israelites to drive out of the Promised Land). In Leviticus 18:21, Lev. 20:20-25, Deuteronomy 12:31 and Deut. 18:10 Moses is given clear instructions against child sacrifice. (For an exposition on an alleged claim that the bible is contradictory on the issue, see this Apologetics Press article.)

The people God called to be His own were continually turning to the idol worship and unsavory practices of the people they allowed to remain in their midst. In this way, those indigenous people became stumbling blocks and distractions from God. God’s people may have even succumbed to the barbaric practice of child sacrifice that was practiced by the people they allowed to remain in the land. (Patheos)

(I note that, to the extent that we allow sinful behaviors, attitudes and our own idols to remain a part of our lives, we are experiencing individually what the nation of Israel experienced as a people. God calls us to root those things out completely (to die to sin) and not hold on to them or allow them to remain because they draw us back to the sin and away from God. We, too, have many influences around us that tempt us to follow them instead of God.)

Interestingly (and tragically), the practice of living child sacrifice is not really much different than modern abortion. ( Again, are we really any more advanced in our morals today than people many centuries ago? Not really!

Was God’s instruction to wipe the people out of the Promised Land arbitrary and harsh? Is it an indication that the God of the Bible is not loving in spite of the statements that He is? How can God forbid human sacrifice in one instance and instruct His people to wipe out their neighbors in another instance?

If we say killing any person at any time is unloving and wrong, then we would say that God is unloving and wrong. But who are we to make that judgment? We are not really any more morally advanced than the people of the Old Testament if we consider the genocides in modern times and abortion, including live birth “abortions”. Who are we to judge God?

The Bible says God is not just loving, He is love. (1 John 4:8) Jesus does not give us the option to disassociate God as depicted in the Old Testament from God portrayed in human form by Jesus. Jesus and God the Father are one ((John 10:30)

We really are not in a position to judge God. The Canaanite and Phoenician people groups that God ordered to be driven out of the land were were a barbaric, licentious, child-sacrificing group of people. He identified that place for the nurturing of a nation devoted to the God of love; would it now make sense to eradicate that place of the bad influences first? If they were allowed to remain, the influence would hinder the development of this people devoted to God. In fact, that is what happened because they did not do as God instructed.

The Creator of the world is not judged by His creation. We do not sit in moral judgment of God. But there is more.

Consider that God found in Abraham a man of faith, someone who was attuned and responsive to the voice of God. When God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, his only son, Abraham would have been familiar with the practice of child-sacrifice practiced by all his neighbors around him. It would have been “acceptable”. But this was different.

God had promised Abraham that his seed would populate the earth like the stars in the sky. Though Abraham was old, his faith was steadfast. A son was finally born to him in his old age about fifteen years after that promise was made. In that context, the sacrifice of that son would have been a supreme step of faith. As “acceptable” as that sacrifice might have been in that day, it would have strained Abraham’s faith and grieved him. With all of the gods around and child sacrifice being a demonstration of allegiance to them, this was an important “test” of Abraham in following the One who claimed to be the only God. But this was different.

Abraham believed God would fulfill His promise, in spite of the instruction, and God did. He provided an alternative, and, in so doing, God also declared the end of child sacrifice for Abraham and all of his progeny.

From this one man in the middle of a primitive, licentious child-sacrificing people, God would attempt to grow a new group of people, a new nation that would lead the world in a different direction. Out of this nation, a Messiah would be born and summarize all that God in the Old Testament attempted to reveal to His people: that all of the Law and the prophets can be summed up in two main principals: 1) love God above all things; and 2) love other people as yourself.

God’s dealing with Abraham’s progeny was like the kindling of a fire. A fire requires the right material for a spark to ignite, and it requires care to keep it going. It must be protected from the elements of wind and rain. The wrong fuel (like wet wood), not enough fuel or even too much will fail to keep the fire going or smother the fire and threaten to put it out.

The world in which Abraham lived was full of darkness. God had to make room in that darkness for the light from the fire ignited by a spark that found the right material in Abraham’s faith. Even with God’s continual oversight provided through men who were able and willing to listen to Him, many things threatened to smother the fire. The biggest threat to this relatively insignificant group of former captives of the Pharaohs of Egypt were the depraved, barbarous, licentious people living among them and around them. These were the same people God told them to displace completely…. But they did not do it.

I need to admit that I approach the question (whether God is a loving God) from a biased position. I know God to be kind and loving. He has been better to me than I am to myself. But having experienced the love of God, and therefore having some confidence in God’s loving nature, I have a different view than someone who has not had that experience. I am not sure how I would convince someone that God is loving if they have not experienced the love of God.

At the beginning of the movie, the Ragamuffin, it begins with this proposition: “When you die God will ask you only one question: ‘Did you believe that I loved you?'”

This piece is not likely going to answer the question for someone who is not convinced, but I know that we (people) are not loving and good, in spite of all of our enlightenment. We are in no position to judge. Yes, God is jealous for the people He loves, and His love for His people is fierce. I will cast my lot with God.

“A Ragamuffin only knows that he is a beggar at the door to God’s mercy.”

God Still Speaks

To share the Word of God with all people

Reading Acts

Some Thoughts on the Book of Acts and Pauline Theology


A blog about writing, society, and life itself

Help Me Believe

Strengthen the believer. Answer the critic.

Hotrodhell's Blog

Just basic thoughts on faith and weblog

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity

Belong to The King

Christian, Faith, Jesus

Quantum Awareness

Are Buddhism and Quantum Mechanics saying the same thing in different languages? Let's finally bring the two together and have an enlightening discussion.


Setting Sail for an Abundant Life


" Contrary to the claims of "sexual rights" propagandists there is no agreement at the United Nations that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) can be used to create "rights" to abortion, to be a prostitute, to be a child who has sex as they choose or for Men who have Sex with men (MSM) to engage in fisting, felching, rimming, farming, scat, chariot racing, jackhammering , anal penetration etc ".

%d bloggers like this: