The Gospel Coalition

There are three major volumes of C.S. Lewis’ letters now available. Virtually every surviving letter from Lewis is now contained in these three massive books.

If you are like me, you wonder how to sort through so many letters in order to find the advice from Lewis that has spiritual value. There’s no reason to wonder anymore. Yours, Jack: Spiritual Direction from C.S. Lewis
is a collection of the best of Lewis’ letters from all three collections. In this volume, one finds the letters containing “spiritual direction” from Lewis.

I thoroughly enjoyed Yours, Jack. The editors did a good job of selecting which letters to include in this collection. And they helpfully include a summary of each and an index that makes the letters more accessible to readers looking up a certain topic.

There are some gems here. Let me give you a few worthwhile quotes:

“The trouble about God is that he is like a person who never acknowledge’s one’s letters and so, in time, one comes to the conclusion either that he does not exist or that you have got the address wrong.” (1921)

“One needs the sweetness to start one on the spiritual life but, once started, one must learn to obey God for his own sake, not for the pleasure.” (1931)

“(Sensual love) ceases to be a devil when it ceases to be a god. So many things – nay every real thing – is good if only it will be humble and ordinate.” (1940)

“I know all about the despair of overcoming chronic temptations. It is not serious provided self-offended petulance, annoyance at breaking records, impatience et cetera doesn’t get the upper hand. No amount of falls will really undo us if we keep on picking ourselves up each time. We shall of course be very muddy and tattered children by the time we reach home. But the bathrooms are all ready, the towels put out, and the clean clothes are in the airing cupboard. The only fatal thing is to lose one’s temper and give it up. It is when we notice the dirt that God is most present to us: it is the very sign of his presence.” (1942)

“The great thing, if one can, is to stop regarding all the unpleasant things as interruptions of one’s ‘own’, or ‘real’ life. The truth is of course that what one calls the interruptions are precisely one’s real life – the life God is sending one day by day: what one calls one’s ‘real life’ is a phantom of one’s own imagination.” (1943)

“The doctrine of Christ’s divinity seems to me not something stuck on which you can unstick but something that peeps out at every point so that you’d have to unravel the whole web to get rid of it.” (1944)

“When first things are put first, second things are not suppressed but increased.” (1952)

“You ask ‘for what’ God wants you. Isn’t the primary answer that he wants you?” (1954)

“The wrath of God: ‘something in God of which the best image in the created world is righteous indignation.’  I think it quite a mistake to try to soften the idea of anger by substituting something like disapproval or regret. Even with men real anger is far more likely than cold disapproval to lead to full reconciliation. Hot love, hot wrath….” (1963)

These are just a few of my favorite quotes from C.S. Lewis’ letters. Yours, Jack offers an inside look into Lewis’ correspondence. Readers will benefit from the counsel found in these pages.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2009 Kingdom People blog

Were the apostles deliberately seeking to subvert the Roman Empire as they preached the gospel?

Were the apostles planting seeds of political revolution?

How did the apostles react against the Cult of Caesar-worship?

Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Roman Empire in the Writings of Paul and Luke by Seyoon Kim (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2008) is an important book on a subject of great personal interest. The book I am currently writing (Holy Subversion) illuminates the ways in which the gospel proclaimed by the earliest Christians was deliberately subversive of the Roman Empire. Although many current authors are interpreting this subversiveness in primarily political terms, my book focuses on the ways in which the early Christians sought to subvert, not their present day government, but the powers and principalities that stand behind and are represented by the earthly Caesar.

Christ and Caesar represents a “push-back” that opposes much of the contemporary scholarship about Jesus and Caesar. Kim believes that the case for Paul against the Empire has been overstated. Most interestingly, Kim says that he began his research on Luke-Acts sympathetic to the politically-charged reading of Luke, but found that the evidence pointed him a different direction.

Here is the question he addresses:

“Did Paul and other preachers of the gospel in the first century A.D. formulate their message in conscious reaction to the imperial cult and ideology of Rome? Did they present Christ as an antithesis to Caesar?”

In the first half of the book, Kim devotes considerable attention to the letters of Paul. He seeks to demonstrate that the scholars who see Paul’s letters as politically subversive have read their views into the text. He takes on Richard Horsley, N.T. Wright, and others who see a profound political dimension in Paul’s writings.

Kim agrees that there are counter-imperial overtones in Paul’s writings. But although the Roman rulers may indeed be among the evil forces that Paul targets, they are not the specific or exclusive target of Paul’s critique. Instead, Paul was deeply concerned with the powers and principalities represented by the Roman Empire, not the political situation of the Empire itself.

To make his case, Kim points to certain fallacies in the overtly political interpretations of Paul:

1. Seeing too many parallels between vocabulary of the Caesar cult and Christian proclamation
2. Making deductions from asssumptions about the imperial cult
3. Proof-texting
4. Appealing to “code” in interpretation.

The second part of the book lays out the political dimensions of Luke-Acts. Kim believes that Luke deliberately pits Christ against Caesar, but in such a way as to merely highlight the inherent differences between the two kingdoms.

“Luke’s positive presentation of Jesus’ ‘redemption’ – or better, ‘salvation’ – leads to the same conclusion, that the gospel is not treason against Caesar. For although Luke repeatedly emphasizes that Jesus the Davidic Messiah has come to redeem Israel, as we have seen, he does not actually present Jesus’ redemptive work in terms of altering the political, economic, and social structures of the day to bring Israel political freedom, economic prosperity, and social justice. Rather, he presents it in terms of healing and exorcism, bringing relief for the poor and oppressed; forgiveness, restoration, and transformation of sinners; formation of a new community of the righteous, and the like.” (114)

Points of agreement

1. I believe that Kim and Wright are correct (over against Horsley) that Jesus was not a revolutionary in the Jewish zealot sense. He was working to overthrow Satan and to seek and save the lost.

2. Kim is right to see the apostles utilizing the pax Romana to promote the gospel. The apostles were not planning an overthrow of the current authority structure.

3. The fact that the kingdom of God is not spread in primarily political ways adds weight to the theme of my forthcoming book and provides me with a solid academic foundation for why I apply the subversiveness of the Christian gospel to the powers and principalities, not society’s current political manifestations.

Areas of disagreement

1. Setting up the argument within the framework of “political” or “non-political” is ultimately unhelpful. Did the apostles even think in these categories? Probably not. 

Can one can be subversive of the “powers and principalities” behind a regime without intentionally seeking to overthrow or replace that regime? I think so. Though I agree with Kim that the apostles had no intention of overthrowing the Roman government, I disagree with his statement that the gospel is “politically innocuous.” Because of his dichotomy between “political” and “non-political,” Kim does not leave room for a politically subversive gospel that is, at the same time, not interested in revolution.

2. Kim does little to explain why Luke and Paul choose to utilize terminology that points to political subversion. Why not choose more innocent language? Can one be subversive without actively seeking to undermine and overthrow the government? Can passive resistance, (like turning the other cheek) be subversive precisely because it is so different from the methods of Rome?

3. Kim believes the gospel was “politically innocuous” (45). He points to Paul’s hope for release in prison as evidence of the apolitical gospel:

“It would be most strange if, hoping to be acquitted for preaching Christ’s gospel, he wrote in the same epistle (Phil 2:6-11 and 3:20-21) in order to extol Christ’s triumph over Caesar.” (45)

I disagree with this logic. It is precisely because of Christ’s triumph over Caesar that Paul can be confident of release. Christ is ultimately in charge, not Caesar. That kind of confidence in a resurrected Messiah is not “politically innocuous.”

4. Kim pits the writings of John against the letters of Paul. He assumes a very late date for Luke-Acts, and this assumption hurts his thesis. I believe there is more agreement between Paul and John than Kim admits. John merely makes explicit that which is implicit in Paul’s letters.

Christ and Caesar is an important contribution to the current studies on the apostles’ relationship to the Roman Empire and imperial cult. Kim is right to see that the early Christians were not planning a political revolution or overthrow of the Roman government. Unfortunately, Kim leaves little room for deliberate political subversion that takes place indirectly (by focusing upon the powers and principalities behind the earthly Caesar), the solution that I believe best makes sense of the evidence left by the New Testament writers.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2009 Kingdom People blog

“And when the shepherd comes home,
he calls together his friends and his neighbors,
saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me,
for I have found my sheep that was lost!’”
- Jesus to the Pharisees “The Lost Sheep” (Luke 15:6)

In response to the Pharisees’ judgmental and cheerless spirit, Jesus emphasized the importance of joy in His parable of the Lost Sheep. Not only does the shepherd rejoice upon finding the sheep, but he also calls for a celebration when he arrives back in the village.

In the Jewish culture of Jesus’ day, the townspeople often shared shepherding responsibilities for their flocks, which meant that the loss of one sheep was a loss for the community and not just one owner. Consequently, when the shepherd would arrive safely back in the village, there would follow a time of jubilation and thanksgiving for his safe return. The joy of finding the lost sheep quickly spread beyond the shepherd to the community at large.

Jesus’ parable strikes at the heart of the Pharisees’ hypocrisy, for they were more concerned with their own righteous deeds than the people around them. Jesus’ mealtime manners created more of a stir for them than the “weightier matters of the law” that they themselves had neglected. Rather than celebrate over the repentance of those around them, the Pharisees were envious of the popularity that Jesus had with the people.

Today, Christ invites us to join with Him in celebration over those who have been saved. There is no room for envy, pride, or competition in the church of Jesus Christ. When the flesh reigns supreme in our lives and churches, joy is stifled and the “homecoming” celebration for the once-lost is met with passive indifference.

Jesus wants us to rejoice not only when someone is found by Him, but also as that someone grows spiritually mature through discipleship. The church is the place of joy where we, as Christians, share shepherding responsibilities in taking care of new believers.

Jubilation and thanksgiving should flow from the hearts of church members as they see lost people around them being found by the Good Shepherd, and then being discipled by His followers through the Holy Spirit.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2009 Kingdom People blog

Lord Jesus Christ,
you are for me medicine when I am sick;
you are my strength when I need help;
you are life itself when I fear death;
you are the way when I long for heaven;
you are light when all is dark;
you are my food when I need nourishment.

- Ambrose of Milan (340-397)