A Hebraic Inkling: (My) Introduction

The aim of this book is to examine precisely what C.S. Lewis believed and wrote about the ancient Hebrews, their scriptures their status as God's chosen people and about today's Jews.

Is C.S. Lewis a Hebraic Inkling?

That's the question that P.H. Brazier attempts to determine in his recently published fascinating book, "A Hebraic Inkling: C.S. Lewis on Judaism and the Jews." 

As I mentioned in my last post, I had the opportunity to discuss this work on the podcast Pints with Jack. However, the work deserves more attention than one podcast can provide, so every once in a while, I'll write something here. 

By way of introduction, I want to muse upon the above question. 

That Lewis was an Inkling, as in the literary discussion group at Oxford, is historical fact and needs no further comment. The real question is whether Lewis can be described as Hebraic, and that is what Brazier seeks to prove.

Now, of course, Lewis was Christian not Jewish and so Brazier must first define what it means to be Hebraic (but not Jewish) and then determine whether Lewis fits that definition. 

At least that's what I would think the book should be about. but it's not quite so. 

Brazier's stated aim is the above quote which is a necessary endeavor should we try to determine whether Lewis is Hebraic. However, this work is not a disinterested analysis comparing a sample (Lewis) to a theoretical construct (a Hebraic).  Instead, it is a work of Christian theology, and I might even say polemics, arguing passionately that all Christians must be Hebraic and that Lewis in general fulfills this imperative. 

A couple of additional points. First, Brazier's stated motivation to write this book was being told by a friend of an encounter with someone who branded Lewis an antisemite. However, Brazier clearly wanted to go further than that. Lindskoog believes that Lewis demonstrated anti-antisemitism but my guess is that Brazier (properly in my opinion) did not like that description either. Brazier sets out to demonstrate that Lewis is much more than anti-something, he is positively for something. What Lewis is for, according to Brazier, is a vision of Christianity in which Christians see themselves as, "Grafted... onto a cultivated olive tree. Romans 11:24)." And this entails: a recognition of Israel as elected (and crafted) by God, a need to respect the Hebrew Scriptures, a realization that Jews are spiritually senior, among other theological truisms. Lewis does not always meet these standards, but he reaches towards them. 

Second, Brazier passion for his topic sometimes gets in the way of organization. Nevertheless, that should not lead one to think that imperfect organization echoes lack of rigor. Brazier has clearly done his homework delving not only into Christian sources, but also into Jewish ones.   

Bottom line up front: Brazier has convinced me that the moniker 'A Hebraic Inkling' fits Lewis pretty well. For me, that was quite revealing especially as I felt that "Till We Have Faces" (a work that Brazier does not reference at all is this book) completely ignores a Jewish stage in the evolution from paganism to Christianity. But what Brazier has convinced me of without a doubt, is that he is 'A Hebraic Inkling' (or he would have been had he been alive at the right time, in the right place). Brazier knowledge is expansive and deep, and his writing is (generally) engaging. I think the Inklings would have welcomed him with open arms. 

We'll continue soon...

A Hebraic Inkling on Pints with Jack

Hi All,

I'm happy to let everyone know that my interview with David Bates from Pints with Jack on Paul Brazier's book "A Hebraic Inkling" is now online.

Thank you to David for once again being such a gracious host and sparking a wonderful discussion. Also continued thanks to the entire team over at Pints with Jack for the great content they consistently put out.

As you can imagine, there's a lot more to be said about Brazier's fascinating work than can fit in a one hour podcast and so I'll plan to write a little more about it over the next few months. 

But in the meantime, please do go over and check out the great C. S. Lewis content they have at Pints with Jack!

Wishing everyone health and happiness for the coming year. May God inscribe us all in the book of life.

Yaakov

Final Judgment of Narnia (Part 3)

Eustace even recognized one of those very Dwarfs who had helped to shoot the Horses.

The Last Battle tells of the final judgment of all who inhabited the Narnian world. Those who loved Aslan were to live forevermore in the eternal, true Narnia of Aslan's country. Of course, we find there our Narnian heroes: Reepicheep the Mouse, King Frank and Queen Helen, Caspian the X, Puddleglum, and all the rest. Yet, Lewis records, there were some "queer specimens among them."  How did such specimens achieve final redemption? 

The straightforward answer is that one cannot know the heart and mind, or even the deeds, of others. Every culture in its own way tells us not to "judge a book by its cover." While the outer veneer may be rough, an observer does not necessarily see great acts of kindness, charity, and love of God, that may truly characterize his fellow. 

However, there is one such specimen who we do seem to know somewhat well, the dwarf noticed by Eustace. To recall, this dwarf participated in the murder of Narnia's Talking Horses. This dwarf was part of a dwarfish rebellion seeking to rid Narnia of all but themselves. When Lucy pleaded with Aslan to help this dwarf and his fellows Aslan demonstrates and then explains:

'You see,' said Aslan. 'They will not let us help them. They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their own minds, yet they are in that prison; and so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out.' 

So, again, how did this dwarf achieve eternity? 

To some degree Lewis answers the question for us. After Eustace recognizes this dwarf Lewis tell us that Eustace, "had no time to wonder about that sort of thing (and anyway it was no business of his)." And in one sense that is true. God is the judge, and we are not. He decides who enters the eternal world and we do not. We are assured that He is the True Judge and thank Him for whatever we may have without questioning His justice and mercy upon others. 

However, there is something beyond. We do not currently inhabit the eternal world. The final chapter is not yet written. Perhaps there is something we can learn from Lewis' placement of this dwarf in Aslan's country. 

One possible approach is that perhaps this particular dwarf was a good fellow for the great majority of his life. True at the end he turned evil and joined a murderous rebellion, but this was not enough to cancel the good he done before that. Aslan punished him before the Final Judgment, through the rough battle he had to fight and his misery in the stable, but, with that, he could enter the eternal Narnia. 

This approach would be quite startling given other writings of Lewis. There we find that Lewis tends to look at the final destination of one's path as much as (if not more) than any particular weight of deeds. Indeed, Screwtape notes that, "the only thing that matters is the extent to which you separate the man from the Enemy. It does not matter how small the sins are provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing." Without question then, this dwarf was headed towards Nothingness, but anyway achieved salvation. Would Lewis say previous deeds were enough to cancel the path the dwarf finally took? I don't think so... 

A second approach is to say that while the dwarf took part in the rebellion he did so out of peer-pressure and other external factors. His actions were not the truth of his personality and, more importantly, his general approach towards moral value and God. Aslan, as the true judge, saw through the current situation in which the dwarf found himself and saw that the dwarf's true self belonged to Aslan.

In this way perhaps this dwarf is comparable to Emeth. Interestingly, everyone wanted to know Emeth's story since he also was not an obvious choice for salvation. Emeth's business does matter to us. So why doesn't the dwarfs? 

Let's amplify the question a bit. There are, thank God, great sinners who shed their evil ways and return to God. We (Jews, Christian, and I'm sure people of other faiths as well) celebrate their stories, we listen to their story and for good reason. They have what to teach us about the outside world. They can provide a perspective that others lack. They inspire us to work on ourselves. 

But what about the sinner who never did anything spectacularly bad. They too often played cards (to use Screwtape's example), they quietly embezzled funds, under the cover of darkness they frequented prostitutes. On the outside they look as just and righteous as anyone else. And then they repent. On the surface nothing has changed socially, perhaps not economically. Such a repentance is hard as well, just as hard, perhaps, as the person who totally transformed their lives. Does anyone pay attention? Does anyone care? Is it anyone's business? 

I don't know. But, perhaps that was this dwarf.