An old letter to Bud on Lewis

I just found this old letter to my dad, Pastor Bud Sparling. I wrote this from Lakewood, WA. I don't recall the response or any further discussion.

--------------------------------
Dad-

Part II of your Christmas 2004 present – something I believe you always enjoy: intelligent (?) conversation with your son…. 

The attached article was the cover story in the current Christian Research Journal – I naturally thought of you when I saw it! Reading it, I was struck realizing just how deeply Lewis’s ideas have influenced my own. He is an author whom I which to read so much more of, that I easily forget how much of him I’ve previously absorbed.

I look forward to your comments on the article; mine are below.

(Perhaps you should wait on reading these until after you’ve read the article.)

p.3 Challenges of the Common Hall. Mueller’s insight that many Christians today are “reluctant to make any commitment to a confession or a congregation” provides insight into the rise of the “mega,” and I would argue mega-shallow, churches. There’s a church up here that has an entire health club in it; I’m certain this not what Lewis had in mind in his metaphor of “fires and chairs and meals.” I think he was speaking more of Christ’s “food” that we know nothing about. Still these churches, like Lewis’ writings, are drawing the masses in – so finding the balance between evangelism and discipleship continues.
Perhaps Lewis’s metaphor of the Common Hall could have utility in your EPC pastor’s discussions toward making your denomination “relevant”.

My singular reaction concerning all three of Mueller’s main criticisms of Lewis is that Mueller sees the world from the deep center of the evangelical tradition while Lewis does not. In this regard Mueller’s approach typifies Richard Foster’s fourth Potential Peril of the evangelical tradition: “the tendency toward bibliolatry.” I think Lewis’ acceptance of the ineffable character of God and his embrace of the mysteries of the faith are parts of what make his writing so attractive and ultimately so strong. His general tone is one of suggestion, not discovered fact.

Consequently Mueller can hardly objectively ask if scripture is inerrant – his mind is not only made up, scriptural reference is the ONLY basis he makes an argumentative appeal to! Obviously this is a faith issue, a fundamental assumption and Mueller’s arguments would all be stronger if he would state this assumption up front.

p.4 Is Scripture Inerrant? Mueller says that Lewis “added a layer of subjectivity” to his understanding of scripture. I would ask how would he suggest is it possible for any reader to do otherwise? That’s what readers do – interpret the scribbles on a page given their own unique set of experiences and education. He clearly has done so himself with his interpretation of “today” from Luke 23:43. (p.5) Lewis clearly explained his views on the nature of time elsewhere in M.C.; Mueller must embrace the totality of Lewis’ world view when analyzing it.

Well…that’s about it for now. Kids are calling, “Come play Dad!” I must to them,