This is an e-mail I received from my brother, Kevin, this week. Kevin and I like to discuss the deeper issues of the universe. I loved this essay:
"I wanted to talk to you about the distinction C.S. Lewis makes between supernatural and anti-natural. It is difficult to define outside of giving examples. The Bible describes supernatural acts of God (miracles) that may be unnatural, but not anti-natural. Lewis says in mythology, trees talk, ships become goddesses, men become literal beasts, and so on.
In these cases, were they to occur, we would realize we were being invaded by a power - but an alien power - not a power in keeping with nature. In particular, God's "style" is that he does not so defy nature in his acts that he is alien to it. All belongs to him and his acts tend to reflect that he is the God of nature.
When Jesus healed legs they still walked naturally; restored eyes saw naturally; the manna came with the dew and literally spoiled if not used. The miracle, once it occurs, becomes part of the stream of nature much like a branch thrown in a river - it continues downstream. Lazarus was resurrected but he died again, etc.
What about Balaam's donkey? That was more in line with a theophany, not a nature miracle as such. God clearly "opened the mouth" of the donkey, but the text says it was the Angel of the Lord communicating in this unusual way. Same with the burning bush. If the donkey were portrayed as understanding what it was saying - that would in fact be anti-natural.
I sensed this several years ago but did not know what to call it. I gave the example of God's making a gigantic mosquito to suck up all the water in the flood. Certainly God could do that, but he doesn't seem to do the preposterous. A donkey with human reasoning, a man who is immortal in this earthly body, and a moon-sized mosquito are all monsters. God doesn't make monstrosities."
In these cases, were they to occur, we would realize we were being invaded by a power - but an alien power - not a power in keeping with nature. In particular, God's "style" is that he does not so defy nature in his acts that he is alien to it. All belongs to him and his acts tend to reflect that he is the God of nature.
When Jesus healed legs they still walked naturally; restored eyes saw naturally; the manna came with the dew and literally spoiled if not used. The miracle, once it occurs, becomes part of the stream of nature much like a branch thrown in a river - it continues downstream. Lazarus was resurrected but he died again, etc.
What about Balaam's donkey? That was more in line with a theophany, not a nature miracle as such. God clearly "opened the mouth" of the donkey, but the text says it was the Angel of the Lord communicating in this unusual way. Same with the burning bush. If the donkey were portrayed as understanding what it was saying - that would in fact be anti-natural.
I sensed this several years ago but did not know what to call it. I gave the example of God's making a gigantic mosquito to suck up all the water in the flood. Certainly God could do that, but he doesn't seem to do the preposterous. A donkey with human reasoning, a man who is immortal in this earthly body, and a moon-sized mosquito are all monsters. God doesn't make monstrosities."
No comments:
Post a Comment