The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Do you think this is true? (That Hideous Strength)

So: right before Merlin appears, the whole house (except for the Jackdaw?) was sitting around the kitchen. Ivy Maggs was talking to Ransom about the ‘visitors’ he had been receiving in the Blue Room.

“Do you know”, said Ivy in a low voice, “that’s a thing I don’t quite understand. They’re so eerie, those ones that come to visit you. I wouldn’t go near that part of the house if I thought there was anything there, not if you paid me a hundred pounds. But I don’t feel like that about God. But He ought to be worse, if you see what I mean.”

“He was, once,” said the Director. “You are quite right about the Powers. Angels in general are not good company for men in general, even when they are good angels and good men. It’s all in St. Paul. But as for Maleldil Himself, all that has changed; it was changed by what happened at Bethlehem.”

I’m not at all sure that the Director was right about what happened at Bethlehem; he is implying that God the Father’s character was changed, from an eerie and overpowering Numinous to a more - what? - grandfatherly type of role? Easier to relate to? Whatever - my question being whether our Father had to change at all, or whether Bethlehem and what followed was the way He always was.

What do you think?

That’s very interesting, Dave, and as I’m currently reading That Hideous Strength I have to comment on it. :smiley:

The first explanation I see is one stemming from Penal Substitutionary Atonement which Lewis seemed to hold—God was angry at men, but after Christ “paid the price” he now looks on mankind differently, (as do His agents the Eldila or Angels.)

Secondly I suppose it could just be the idea that the incarnation changed angels view of men or their relationship with humankind somehow as well given that the Creator Himself became human. I’d be interested to hear what others have to say.

Steve

I have sometimes thought that God’s compassion for us was “perfected” or enhanced in some way because of the incarnation
giving God first hand knowledge of what it’s like to live the lives we live.

Peace

Scott

I’ve put off reading that one because I didn’t like the start of it. Maybe I’ll have to give it a go. I hope [tag]JasonPratt[/tag] might comment on this, as our resident Lewis scholar . . . .

Sorry for the delay; out with nieces this weekend and now recovering. :wink:

I’m pretty sure Lewis is following a line of thought from some of his other books where God Himself doesn’t change, but by Incarnating He makes Himself more accessibly intelligible to humanity.

Lewis didn’t hold much to PSA, he generally went with other atonement theories; and in one of those the Incarnation meets us where we are to help us work out our relationship with God by allowing us to follow along with the Son in how He relates to the Father. I recall Lewis having the most to say about this in one or two of his Mere Christianity string of essays.

A Catholc (eastern or western) or a high Anglican could take that idea even farther with the Real Presence in the Mass. It’s one version of the idea of ‘down-reachment’ or ‘down-up-reachment’ which is the Greek word behind our translations “reconcile” (from Latin) and “atonement” (from older English).

That’s what I was thinking. I need to scrounge around for those other books that address this question.

He also talks something along the same way during his Grand Miracle chapter of MaPS (and related articles based on that chapter).