C OV ER STORY

Whythepath
toreasoriablefaith
beginswithstory
anaimagination. (

By Michael Ward

36

CHRlSTIANITYTODAY.COM

NOVEMBER

2013

ofLondons
^ s t ^ n s t e r A b b e ^ w herefora
thousand vearstheKinss and queen:

N THE SOUTH TRANSEPT

sitsacrowdedcollectionofstatues,
plaques, and engraved flagstones.
jeoffreyChaucer.Alfred Lord Tennyson,
and Charles Dickens are buried '

there; dozens more are commemm orated there. On November22,2013,

50years to the day after his death,
c. S. Lewis willjoih them.
P o e ts C o rn er m ay se e m like an odd
place for a w rite r w hose p o etry is largely
overlooked (though his first tw o publicatio n s w ere volum es o fv erse, an d Lewiss
p o etry is far b etter th a n m an y rem em b er
realize). B ut you n e e d n t be a p o et to
jo in P oets Corner. M usicians like Ceorge
Frideric H andel an d acto rs like Laurence
Olivier m ingle w ith Tennyson an d Chaucer. The C orner is devoted to po ets in th e
older, deeper sense of th e w ord. They are
m ak ers w h o assem ble w o rd s (or m usical n o tes or d ra m a tic p erfo rm an ces) for
artistic ends.
In th is older, deeper sense, th e re is no

place Lewis m ore rightly belongs. Indeed,

perhaps w e should th in k of th e celebrated
Oxford n 0elist, literary critic, an d apologist above all as a poet. Eor Lewis believed
th a t know ledge itself w as fu ndam entally
poeticth a t is to say, shaped by th e imagination. And his poetic ap p ro ach to com nding and defending the C hristian faith
still lights th e w a y fo ru s today.
Of course, everyone recognizes L e n s 's
g reat im aginative gifts. O ften people will
say th a t his great stren g th w as his ability
to p r e s ^ C t o i t i a n i t y b o t ^ t i o n ^ l y a n d
im aginatively

His rational approach is seen in TheAbolitionofMan,Miracles, and, a ta m o re popular

level,Mere Christianity. These w orks show
Lewiss abilityto argue: to set forth a propositional case, proceeding by logical steps
from defined prem ises to carefully draw n
conclusions, eveiyAhing clear, orderly and
connected.
And his im aginative side, so th e argum entgoes, is seen in TheScrewtape Letters,
TheGreatDivorce, and, a ta m o re accessible
level,TheLion,theW itchandtheW ardrobe.
These w orks show his ability to dram atize:
to setfo rth an attractive vision oftheC hristianlife, proceeding by m eans o ^ h m a c te r
and plotto narrate an engaging story everything colorful, vibrant, and active.
By th e s e a c c o u n ts, L ew iss ra tio n a l
w orks and im aginative w orks are different
and distinct. They are tw o discrete m odes
in w h ic h he p re s e n te d th e faith . A nd it
sense th a t w e w ould th in k this w a y
T hedichotom y betw een reasonandim agination is h o w w ^ v e been ta u g h tto think
ever since the so-called E nlightenm ent of
th e 17th an d 18th cen tu ries. R easonable
people dont need im agination. Im aginative people dont need reasons.
S ir F ra n c is B aco n (1561-1626), th e
father ofthescientificm ethod,declared,All
th a t concerns ornam ents of speech, similitudes, treasu ry of eloquence, and such like
em p tin e ss, le t it be u tte rly d ism isse d .

statem ents. Fanciful rh etoric m ay indeed

be used to disguise confuse. It can cerfitin ly b eco m eaco v erfo r em ptiness and
"deceit.
B ut a re s im ilitu d e sth a t is, m etap h o rs a n d an alo g iesalw ays a n d necessarilybad?Y ou couldnt find view further
from Lewiss own, for Lewis w as far from an
E nhghtenm entthinker.
^ o u r ^ t h . o r ^ b u t a f e w fragments,
is w on by m etap h o r, Lewis w ro te in his
essay "Bluspels an d Flalansferes. Similitu d e^ seein g o n e thing in term s ofanother,
finding m eanings here w h ich correspond
w ith w h a t w e w a n t to say there, a re for
L e ^ s th e essence of m eaningful thought.
F o r m e, re a s o n is th e n a tu r a l o rg a n of
tru th ," Lewis w ro te, b u t im ag in atio n is
th e org an o f m eaning. Im ag in atio n . . . is
n o t the cause o ^ ^ h b u t i t e c o n d i t i o n . In
o th e r w ords, w e dont g rasp th e m eaning
of a w ord o r concept u n til w e have a clear
image to co n n ec t itw ith .
For Lew is, th is is w h a t th e im ag in atio n is about: n o t ju s t th e ability to dream
up fanciful fables, b u t th e ability to identifym eaning, to know w hen have come
u p o n ! to in g fru ly m e a n in g fu l.

Blinking Lights
Im agine fo ra m o m e n t th a t I take m y car to
th e auto m echanic for its annual checkup.
At th e end, as I am a b o u t to drive aw ay I
realize I have forgotten to check one thing.
I roll do w n m y w in d o w an d call over my
sh o u ld erto Billy the mechanic: "Is m y rear
turn -sig n al light w orking? He responds,
Yes.No.Yes.No.Yes.No.Yes.
Billys a b ility to p erceive m e a n in g is
ob^ously limited, h s not a b se n t-h e knows
th e basic m eaning of electrical circuits. He
know s th a t w h en a light shines a connection has been made, and w hen a light goes
o u tac o n n e ctio n h a s been broken. B uthe is
lacking th e ability to perceive th at, in this

th e light, an d even u n d erstan d electricity

b u th is rgan of m eaning here is broken.
Lewis to o k th is one ste p fu rth e r. ?
Lewis, m eaning is "the an tec ed en t conditio n of b o th tru th and falsehood. In nther
w ords, before som ething can be e ith ertru e
orfalse, itm u s t m ean som ething. Evenalie
m eans som ething, an d a lie u n d e rsto o d asa
lie can be very instructive. Reason, th e natural organ of tru th , is our ability to discern
true m eanings from false meanings. B utthe
m eaning comes first. So, im agination has to
operate before reason. Reason depends on
im agination to supply it w ith m eaningful
things th a tit can th en rea so n about.
B ack to Billy a n d th e car. N ot every
flashing light is in fact m eaningful. Sometim e s loose c o n n e c tio n s ca u se lig h ts to
flicker on an d off a t ran d o m . W e sh ould
describe th is as nonsensical: th e connections ^ e arb itrary .m ean in g less.
B ut if th e c o n n e c tio n s w e re re g u la r
o r p a tte rn e d , w e w o u ld likely co n clude
th a t th e y w ere sig n ifican t, m ean in g ful.
W h at kind o fm eanin g w o u ld th ey h av e?A
tru e m eaning, show ing th a t th e d riv e rw as
fe o ^ to m ^ n to ^ re e tfO ra fa ls e m e a n ing, show ing th a t th e driver h ad forgotten
to cancel th e signal?
In Levriss^ e w , reason judges betw een
m eanings, helping us to differentiate those
m eanings to a t are tru e from those th a t am
false. But u ntil w e have m eaning, w e have
n o th in g to rea so n abo u t. A nd for Lewis,
t h e w ^ ^ u g e C m e t i n g is im agination.
R e ^ n c ^ W r k w it h o u ti t.
Im agination can w ork w ith o u t reason,
though. It can produce m eanings th a t are
sim p ly im aginary. M eaningful im ages
flood our dream s at night, for example, but
try in g to ratio n ally investigate th e m will
getyou nowhere.
W h a t d o es all of th is te a c h u s a b o u t
Lewiss legacy? It m eans th a t w hen Lewis
took up the role of apologist, he didnth av e

toctoohe^enr^ional^dim aginative

ALL OUR TRUTH, OR ALL BUT A FEW

Clergyman T hom asSprat, in The History o f
theR oyalSocietyofLondon,fortheIm provingofNaturalKnoivledge, urged his readers
to ^ m ^ t e tte k ^ w l e d g e o f N a t u r e f r o m
the colors ofRhetoric, th e d e u ces ofFancy
or the delightful deceit of Fables.
Like all of th e m o st m islead in g ideas,
th e re is som e tr u th w ra p p e d up in th ese

38

CHRISTIANITYTODAY.COM

c ^ e .a s te a d ily flashing light m eans turning, n o t bad connection.

Billy c a n see th e ra w in fo r m a tio n
lig h t on, light off, lig h t on. B ut he c a n n o t
d iscern th e c o rrect m ean in g of th e b ru te
facts. Lewis w ould say th a t th e problem is
d f i c i t i n B i l i y ^ a ^ n ^ i o n w h a ^ e ^ d s
called th e organ ofm eaning. Billy can see

NOVEMBER

2013

presen tatio n s of Christianity. There is ju st

^ ^ h i m a g i ^ t i v e l y discerned m eaning
in Miracles as in Perelandra, b u t o fa differe n tk in d ,p u tto a d iffe re n t end.
N ot only is im ag in a tio n as n ecessary
as reaso n in Lewiss approach; in a sense,
im a g in a tio n is m o re i m p o r t a n t th a n
re a so n , b e c a u se it co m es first. R eason

PHOTO BY BORT B U N N / M A 6N U M P H 0 T 0 $

The schoia
)grapher Bui
^e year$ he(

d e ^ n d n im a g in ^ io ff itm w a ^ ^ im a g in a tio n d o e sn t d e p e n d on re a so n . A nd
c e r t ^ y i n L W s s o ^ p ^ f f i o f dth,im agination cam e first-

1< 0

back upreligam enting, if you like. Doct n e s o m e ^ m ^ ^ i c a l dissection; they

recast th e original historical m aterial into
a b stra c t categories. Because of this, doctrines are notnearlyasrichlym eaningful as
th e historical m aterial they reflect.

TrueMytn

1 1
*( 1)<
<

Lewiss conversion w as sparked (hum anly

speaking) by a long n ig h ttim e conversation w ith j. R. R. Tolkien and Hugo Dyson.
T h ey w ere discussing Christianity, m etaphor,andm yth. In a letter to A rthur Greeves
(dated O ctober 18,1 3 1 ), Lewis recounted
the conversation. It is clear th a t questions
ofm eaningth atisto say ,o fim ag in atio n
w p re a tth e heart of it.

A nd h e re is w h e re L ew is h a d a b reak th ro u g h . He u n d e rs to o d th a t th e sto ry
recounted in the Gospelsra th e r th a n the

outw orking o fth a t sto ry in th e E pistles

w as th e essence of Christianity. Christianity w as a tru e m yth (m yth here m eaning
a sto ry ab o u t u ltim ate things, n o t a falsehood), w hereas pagan mirths w ere m ens
mirths. In paganism , God expressed himself in a general w ay th ro u g h th e im ages
th a t h u m a n s c re a te d in o rd e r to m ake
s o ^ t y h e w o r l d .I f o ^ e s t o t y o f C h r i s t i s
GodsmWh." Gods m yth is the story of God
revealing him self through a real, historical
lifeo fa p articu larm an ,in ap articu lartim e,

At th a t p o in t, L ew iss p ro b le m w ith
C hristianityw as fundam entally im agina-

tive. W h at has been holding m e b a c k ...

has not been so m uch a difficulty in believin g asad ifficu lty in k n o w in g w h a tth e doctrine m eant, he told Greeves. Tolkien and
Dyson showed h im th atch ristia n doctrines
are not the m ain thing about Christianity.
Instead, doctrines are translations o fw h at
God h as ex p ressed in a lan g u ag e m o re
adequate: nam ely the actual incarnation,
^ ^ X o n a n d r e s u r r e c t i o n of Christ. The
prim ary language of C hristianity is a lived
languagethe real, historical, visible, tangihle language of an actu al p e rso n being
born, d^ing, and living again in a new, ineff e b l^ ^ s f o r m e d w a y .
W h e n Lew is re a liz e d th is, he b eg an
to u n d e rs ta n d w h a t C h ristian ity m ean t,
because he w as already fascinated (he had
been since childhood) by stories of dying
and rising gods. Many ancient mythologies
include ch aracters w hose d eath s achieve
o r reveal som ething on earth: new life in
th e crops, for instance, or su n rise, o r th e
com ing of spring. Lewis h ad always found
the h eart ofth ese pagan stories profound
an d suggestive of m ea n in g s b ey o n d m y
grasp,even tho 1could not say in cold prose
w h at it m eant
And so Lewis accepted th a t C hristianity had to be understoo d in its ow n term s
as a story, before being tran slated into codified doctrines. And in this way, he moved
from an analytic to a religious perspective
o fth e faith.
Analysis literallym eans loosening up,
while religion m eans som ething like tying

r1A NITYTODAY.COM

NOVEMBER

>

2013

in ap articu larp lace-Je su s ol'Nazareth, the

M essiah, crucified u n d e r P o n tiu s P ilate
outsidejerusalem , circaA.D. 33.
Pagan stories were m eaningful bu t not

fim e.^e^^stotyisbofom eaningihland

true. Christianity is the true myth, the m yth
become fact,as Lewisw ouldcom e to call it.
A couple of w eeks a fte r his conversationw ithTolkien and Dyson, Lewis became
certain th a t C hristianity w as true. But its
im p o rtan t to note: Before he could accept
the tru th of C hristianity he had fo clear an

im aginativehurdle.H isorganofm eaning

had to be satisfied. Rational assen tto Christianity cannot occur unless there is meaningful co n ten t to w hich the higher faculty
o freaso n m ay assent. R easoncanto p erate
w ithout im agination.
And in th is, Lew is, w h o called h im self a "d in o sau r in his in au g u ral lecture
a t C am bridge, is in m an y w ays clo ser to
o u r p o stm o d ern co n tem p o raries th a n he
w as to his own. Our challenge in th e postC h ristian w o rld is n o t so m u ch to prove
th a t C h ristia n ity is tru e as to sh o w th a t
it h as m ean in g , th a t it is n o t g ib b e rish .
U nless p eople see th a t C h ristia n term inology actu ally m akes sense an d is n o t a
foreign language, they are unlikely to care
w h e th er it is also true. And w h at is needed
is n o t ju s t d ictio n ary d efin itio n s or b rief

of real h u m an beings in real tim es in real

places. A ctions speak louder th a n w ords.
If fa ith h a s to be tu rn e d in to apolo getic
w o rd s, it is b e st to u se a s to r y as in th e
synoptic Gospels, or w ords th a t are richly
reso n an t and connotative, like th e mighty
n o u n s of ]o h n s gospel (Word, Light, Life,
W ay, W ater, Glory, Vine, B read). T hese
w ords convey th e m eaningfulness of faith
m u c ^ t t e ^ l n d o a b s t r a c t argum ents.
This is w hy Lewis did not lim it him self
to pro p o sitio n al, no n fictio n apologetics.
His m ost notable a tte m p t was, of course,
the ChroniclesofN am ia. These stories have
achieved m ore, p e rh a p s, th a n an y of his
w ritin g s in co m m u n ic atin g th e h e a rt of
hi. faith. Chad W alsh, a u th o r of th e first
study of Lewis, Apostle to the Skeptics, wrote,
In these bool w here his im agination has
full scope, he p resen ts th e Christian faith in a m ore eloquent and
p ro b in g w ay th a n ever his m ore
stra ig h tfo rw a rd books of apologetics could.

BECOME FACT.
illu stra tio n s, b u t an im m ersiv e sto ry in
w fa c h a s^ c fo o H h e C h ristia n life c a n take
hold in a p erso n s im agination.
Lewis w restled directly w ith how m uch
to focus foe argum ents and abstract categories th a t apologetics requires, and how
m u ch in ste a d to re fra m e ap olo g etics as
story. How m uch to re-present th e narrative
a c o u n ^ a p e r s o n being born, grow ingup,
teaching, dying, and rising again.
As an ap o lo g ist, Lew is re a liz e d th a t
d e b a te , w ith a b s t r a c t p r o p o s i t i o n s
designed to d em o n strate an d persuade, is
less ad eq u ate th a n sto ry w ith its characte rsa n d p lo tsa n d atm ospheres. Inadebate,
th eap o lo g isth asto thin dow n his language
to co m m u n icate w ith o p p o n e n tssince,
alm ost by definition, th ey do n o t possess
th e im aginative em brace o fw h a t the apologist believes.
The ap o lo g ist h as to w o rk a t th e university lecture podium or at foe b a r o fth e
courtroom, all foe while talking aboutsom et ^ ^ a ^ o e s o n a t n e i t h e r p l a c e . How can
th e apologist tu rn the holistic life of faith
prayer, fellow ship. C om m union, read in g
S crip tu re , service o f th e n eed y info an
argum ent? It is like M ozart trying to prove
his m usicality n o t by w riting a sym phony
b u t by sta n d in g gagged at a b lack b o a rd
using onlynum bers.
T h i is w h a t L ew is m e a n s w h e n he
talks about the great disadvantages under
w hich the C hristian apologist labors. The
lifeoffaifo is best com m unicated in its own
te rm s, n a m e ly life: th e lived language

TheGreat Wedding
Life is m ore hke a sto ry th a n like an argum ent. And so, all things being equal, a stotied presentation of Christianily will always
be m ore effective th a n an argued one. But,
course, things are not always equal, and
th e re fo re th e church needs b oth m e th o d
D ifferent people w ill have d ifferen t calld e ^ n d i n g n tid e n t s and context. But
even propositional apologetics should be as
concrete as possible. Narrative apologetics,
meanwhile, is n o tju stim ag in ary .ltis maginative, relating at all tim es to reason, the
natural organ oftruth.
Both p ro p o sitio n a l an d p oetic apologetics poin t beyond them selves to th e historical story o fth e incarnate God. h i s th a t
story, as G. K. C hesterton p u t it in TheEverasrgMan, w hich satisfies the mythologic ^ s ^ c ^ o rro m n c e b fa in g a s to ry a n d
th e philosophical search for tru th by being
a tru e story.
fo Christ, p o etry and philosophy have
m e t to g e th e r. M ean in g a n d tr u th have
kissed, c. S. Lewis understood, like fow in
th e p ast c e n tu ry ju st how deeply faith is
b oth im aginative and rational. T hat w hich
God has joined, let no one p u t asunder. CT
MICHAEL WARD is se n io r re s e a rc h fell/at
Blackfriars Hall, h n iv e rsity of O xford, a n d p ro fesso r
of ap o lo g e tic s a t H o u sto n B ap tist University. P art of
th is a rticle is d eriv ed from his co n trib u tio n to
Imaginative A pologetics (B ak er A cad em ic).

41

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATT,AS subscriber agreement.
No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s) express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia funding from Liiiy Endowment !).
The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.