Remonstrans

Things Left Undone

03/19/08

06:03:13 am, by dissidens

, 297 words, 276 views

Categories: Old Main

Things Left Undone

For those who still have their books open, Chapter 4 gives me the willies. Of unliterary readers Lewis says:

They never, uncompelled, read anything that is not narrative.
They have no ears.
Not only as regards the ear but also in every other way they are either quite unconscious of style, or even prefer books which we should think are badly written.
They enjoy narratives in which the verbal element is reduced to the minimum...
They demand swift-moving narrative.

What was true in 1961 is true today. At a time when movement leaders lament their inability to "reach the young" and to instill in them an appreciation for their past, they lack a remedy. And it is sad to watch as an entire movement which has only a hammer treats every problem like a nail.

"The song in question should be commended primarily due to its doctrinely-rich lyrical content."

No, sorry; that old wheeze needs a rest.

As Tozer told us, we must feel in our hearts. We are currently thrashing about trying to recreate a doctrinally rich liturgy—which is a necessary thing: we can't look at the work of Garlock, Hamilton, Amy Grant and Reliant K without seeing a wasteland of the "doctrinely-rich". But it would seem obvious to the least astute fundagelical, we have piles and piles of "doctrine-rich" texts left to us by our fathers. Why aren't we returning to those?

Because they cannot be felt. We can no longer cultivate the imagination. We lack the power of the word. Hollywood captures the imagination. We can only regret that the Gospels don't have any compelling chase scenes or really impressive explosions. Without those things, without a suspenseful narrative, we have no way to touch the illiterate heart.

Permalink 4 comments • Trackback (0)

Trackback address for this post:

Comments, Trackbacks, Pingbacks:

1 Comment from: Scott [Visitor]

· http://dandelionend.wordpress.com

I've been lurking again here for a few weeks, not really taking the time to outwardly articulate my reactions to the discussions just past. However, I have been thinking, in particularly, about what Lewis says in the work referenced, and how Lewis himself wrote, in other works. In Mere Christianity, in The Abolition of Man, and in other books, he is obviously not writing narrative. Yet, even when he does use narrative, as in Narnia, the reader who is listening as he reads can discern that he is not using just narrative. For example, in The Magician's Nephew, he explains to the reader that Uncle Andrew can only hear the roar of Aslan, and not the song, because he "tried to make himself believe that he could hear nothing but roaring."

He continues, "Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. Uncle Andrew did. He soon did hear nothing but roaring in Aslan's song. Soon he couldn't have heard anything else even if he had wanted to."

Lewis is consistent, in his writings, with the quote above, in that, he doesn't provide readers with only narrative, even in a "story". As to the point he makes in the above quote, I think many in modern evangelicalism (and fundamentalism) willingly make themselves "stupider", and for that very reason cannot apprehend the problem, or even that we have a problem.

Permalink 03/20/08 @ 09:58

Reply to comment 4847 by Scott

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 Comment from: dissidens [Member]

Oh yes, Lewis is not criticizing narrative and he’s not saying good readers don’t enjoy the narrative. In the same chapter he explicitly says, [p. 38]:

Let us be quite clear that the unliterary are unliterary not because they enjoy stories in these ways, but because they enjoy them in no other. Not what they have but what they lack cuts them off from the fullness of the literary experience. Those things ought they to have done and not left others undone. For all these enjoyments are shared by good readers reading good books. We hold our breath with anxiety while the Cyclops gropes over the ram that bears Odysseus, while we wonder who Phèdre….

Likewise with liturgy and worship, it’s not that doctrine is not essential, it’s that what fundagelicals do is end with statements of pale orthodoxy.

I snagged this Tersteegen from over on Hymnophile:

Am I not enough, Mine own? enough,
Mine own, for thee?
Hath the world its palace towers,
Garden glades of magic flowers,
Where thou fain wouldst be?
Fair things and false are there,
False things but fair.
All shalt thou find at last,
Only in Me.
Am I not enough, Mine own? I, for ever
and alone, I, needing thee?

This transcends orthodoxy and its real value is overlooked by the doctrine-ferrets.

This is what we cannot get.

Permalink 03/20/08 @ 11:50

Reply to comment 4848 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 Comment from: exlibris [Visitor]

I'm running into this same issue while researching Radical Orthodoxy. The adherents of this movement take great pains to bash propositional theology or any thing that they deem as "foundationalist." Then, as if their own rules don't apply to them, they embrace Nicene Christianity. I suppose Nicene Christianity is un-propositional from their perspective????.

Not to allude to victor e., but we seem to have something here that fundagelicals have never really grasped: that in liturgy artistic device and proposition do not need to be competing ventures. It is not an either/or situation. It seems to be a both/and necessity. Additionally, I think Lewis would opine that when commingled this transcends both - the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

When we highlight the affective, fundamentalists cry, "foul!" because they are engaged in a enlightenment philistinism.

When we highlight the propositional, post-modern cherishing evangelicals cry "foul!" because they are engaged in a sort of classical philistinism.

But, I'm just thinking out loud here, seeking to reconcile a couple of pieces to the puzzle about which I am concerned.

Permalink 03/21/08 @ 08:36

Reply to comment 4849 by exlibris

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 Comment from: dissidens [Member]

Well of course I think fundamentalism is beyond redemption. (I recently went through some of the Burggraff and Saxon from Maranatha’s fundamentalist pep rally.) It doesn’t want to fix anything; it wants to romanticize the past to justify an implausible eccentricity.

I think it is clear that conservative evangelicals are willing to pay lip service to historic fundamentalism—I think more as a show of fraternity than real respect—but clearly they fear the consequences of rampaging zealots and monuments to nostalgia.

Lost in the wishes and the fears is a solid Christian imagination.

Permalink 03/21/08 @ 13:53

Reply to comment 4850 by dissidens

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
<< <				> >>
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Things Left Undone

03/19/08

Things Left Undone

Trackback address for this post:

Comments, Trackbacks, Pingbacks: