One of the quotes that Michael Ward utilized in his learned work Planet Narnia [1] to discuss C.S. Lewis’ view of the nature of God can be found in the second chapter of Lewis’ work The Discarded Image: An Introduction To Medieval And Renaissance Literature. The quote is a simple and straightforward one, and it is originally made in a different context than Ward uses it in entirely: “Comparative evaluations of essentially different excellencies are in my opinion senseless (20).” It is worthwhile to comment on the original context of this quote in Lewis’ book and also how it can profitably be extended, with reservations, of course, so that we do not accuse someone of saying something that one is not saying, even if there are wider repercussions and implications of what is said. In examining the work of C.S. Lewis, or anyone else, one needs to keep in mind the hermeneutic of charity, which compels us to give the most charitable interpretation to the author when it comes to the meaning of a given writing, so that we give every possible benefit of the doubt, knowing that we too are beings in need of mercy and not merely pitiless and merciless critics of the works of others.

Lewis, in commenting on the incommensurable nature of different excellencies, quotes a maxim from Coleridge’s Aids to Reflection that reads (in Latin) as follows: “Heterogenia non comparari possunt, which translated means: Heterogeneous [things] cannot be compared. The examples that Lewis uses are noteworthy in being entirely unobjectionable with regards to larger theological controversies—he describes science and poetry as being different excellencies similar to surgical skill and playing the violin, both of which require fine motor control to do successfully, but are very different tasks. Recognizing the different standards that apply to differe works, in order to judge them fairly and give them their proper due, he chooses not to enter into controversies of the relative value of different fields where valid measures of comparison are not available, able to compartmentalize different models as they relate to different areas of life. It may be argued that this ability to syncretize different belief systems and compartmentalize different areas of thought and study are characteristic of Lewis’ thought, given that he wrote ably in such disparate areas as literary history and criticism, Christian apologetics, and imaginative literature (both poetry, science fantasy, and most notably, children’s literature).

That this is typical of Lewis’ thought is quite true, but these tendencies also lead, quite understandably, to readers drawing conclusions from an originally stated context and applying them to novel contexts. At times this may do violence to the intents and beliefs of an author, but as we have already seen that C.S. Lewis in his book The Four Loves discusses areas of the subordination of Jesus Christ to our Heavenly Father [2], we are doing no such violence by applying this principle as Michael Ward does to his beliefs on the essentially different excellencies of Jesus Christ and God the Father. Unlike the case of science and poetry or surgical and musical skill, we may have no immediate idea as to how these excellencies would be impossible to compare because of their heterogeneity, but it nevertheless easy enough to understand when one has taken the time to explain the matter a bit. That such explanation is necessary ought to be understood because arguments over the Nature of God exist on a level that is often viewed as being too high for human understanding, and often in a muddled way because human beings cannot speak of spiritual matters without extensive recourse to metaphorical language, which can reduce clarity when one is engaged in such elevated discussion of the place of beings within the Godhead, as we are doing here.

The relationship between Jesus Christ and God in Lewis’ thought, specifically in his conception of the Nature of God in Mere Christianity, is one where God the Father is eternally begetting and Jesus Christ is being eternally begotten. It is clear that in this eternal relationship of Father and Son that there is difference. Rather than phrase the difference as an inequality, by supposing that fathers were superior to sons, he phrases it as an incommensurability, that sons and fathers cannot be compared as such because both are heterogeneous categories. That which is excellent in a father, whether early or heavenly, may be very inappropriate in a son, and vice versa. That does not mean that there are not reciprocal obligations, but that the two categories do not admit of comparison, for both are clearly related but also distinct categories. They have different parts to play—one could no more profitably compare the supposed worth of different instruments in a string orchestra as to the superiority of violas to cellos, or between different voices in a choir. The whole point of the Family of God (or families here on earth), like that of a string orchestra or a choir, is to form a complicated unity out of the distinct parts, each part doing its part in the right proportion for the greater benefit of everyone involved, and anyone who is observing the beautiful harmonious unity they are witnessing as members of the audience.

Even so, in families as in orchestras there are issues of subordination, even though one may not necessarily profitably compare the skill of different parts. In families husbands are to have a role of self-sacrificial authority over their families, and parents in general are to rule over children as stewards, preparing them for their own ability to serve as spouses and parents in turn, to repeat the cycle anew of raising godly offspring. In an orchestra or choir a conductor sets the pace of the piece being performed in terms of tempo and tone while in an orchestra the concert chair, virtually always the first chair of the first violin section, may have a subordinate position of delegated authority by leading the ceremonial tuning of instruments before a performance before the conductor takes command. Within sections as well, there is some degree of subordination, as there are leaders within each section who set the pace for the rest of the musicians who follow their lead. This may be formal, as it is in an orchestra, where there are finely graded hierarchies where one’s seat is a sign of one’s place, or it may be informal in many choirs where those who are more skilled and quicker to learn a piece often take the lead in setting an example for their fellow section members, without having any formal authority but leading through modeling nonetheless.

In this context we may see that God the Father and Jesus Christ are viewed by Lewis as having a relationship based on subordination, even though he views it as incommensurable, at least in part to avoid any accusation that he views Jesus Christ as any less “God” for being subject to the Father, which is an accusation that could be labeled against him and anyone who views the nature of God in a like fashion. The key is in the relationship between Father and Son. Both are viewed here as full members of the same Family of God, and both are viewed as having been eternal, without beginning, in stark contrast to those human beings who will enter into God’s family after having lived as human beings and receiving the gift of eternal life that cannot be earned and cannot be bought. Yet despite this essential equality, there is both an incommensurability in the fact that the Father is distinct from the Son, and also inequality in that sons are subject to fathers—their equality as members of the same family does not mean a political equality in terms of their place within the familial order, and different responsibilities and expectations are placed on different members for the good of the family as a whole and all of its members individually. In a good family, the distinction between essential equality as family members and their political inequality because of their roles is a matter of unity in diversity, and in a bad family this distinction becomes tragic and abusive. Thankfully, the Family of God is a good one, unlike the families many of us have experienced in our lives.

If this were the only case where the issue of subordinationism pops its head in The Discarded Image, we would be able to quickly leave it aside and move on to other areas, but the issue seems to have a great influence on Lewis’ thoughts, not least because he himself was devoted to a syncretic unity between Greek philosophy and Christian ethics as a thoroughgoing Hellenistic Christian. Shortly after making the previous comment about the incommensurability of different excellencies, he turns to discuss the way that human beings are the property of God: “Whether we accept or not the doctrine taught in the Mysteries (that the body is a prison and we must not break from it), at any rate we men are certainly property of the gods, and property must not dispose of itself. That this prohibition makes part of Christian ethics is indisputable; but many, not unlearned, people have been unable to tell me when or how it became so (25).”

Again, the context of this passage does not relate to Yahweh or Yeshua, to God the Father or Jesus Christ the son, in any obvious sense, except that once again what is said has application to the submission of Jesus Christ to the will of the Father. If human beings are the property of God, at the very least while Jesus Christ walked this earth He too was subject to God in the same sense that human beings are, as creatures are subject to their Creator. Such a subordination would have been very different from subordination of two eternal Spirit beings within the same Family, given the wide differences between God and mankind in terms of form as well as the conditions of our existence. Since we did not create ourselves, but entered into life through the will of God, without having been murdered by our parents while we were helpless prisoners within the womb, we are subject to God absolutely, since it was His will and not our own that brought us about. It should be noted that for this reason as well earthly parents are not absolute authorities over their children, but only temporary and subordinate ones, since it was God’s will that formed the family and not the will of the physical parents themselves, and His purposes are inscrutable and far beyond our comprehension. Like our Lord and Savior, we too must come to the point where we can say, “Not my will, but yours be done,” and when we do that we too enter into a relationship based on the subordination of our own wills and ways to those of our Father above.

Later in The Discarded Image Lewis discusses one of the major differences between the Hellenistic Christian and Neo-Platonic trinities by saying: “The Second Person of the Christian Trinity is the Creator, the provident wisdom and creative will of the Father in action. The idea that He became less one with, or turned away from, the Father by creating would be repugnant to Christian theology. In Mens, on the other hand, creation is almost a sort of infirmity. She became less like God by creating, declines into creation only because she turns her gaze away from her origin and looks back. The next step is the same (67).” Here we see that neo-Platonism likely had a similarly dark view of physical creation that existed in Gnosticism, where the Creator was viewed as a rebellious demiurge rather than God acting in His glory to create godly offspring out of beings formed in His image and likeness from the dust of the earth given the breath of life. About this passage we need only note that it represents a sense of subordination in that the action is the servant of the will, and that which is done must first be conceived in some fashion, so that word and deed are in some way subordinate to thought and to will, being the means by which that which does not yet exist except within the mind can be brought to exist through action and practically directed wisdom.

Let us note as well a passage in The Discarded Image in which C.S. Lewis comments directly on Origen, which is rare in his writing, even though it does not deal directly with the subject of the subordination of Jesus Christ to God the Father: “These very difficult passages may not really imply the pre-existence of the individual soul, but they could easy be thought to do so. Origen held that all those souls which now animate human bodies were created at the same time as the angels and had long existed before their terrestrial birth. Even St. Augustine, in a passage quoted by Aquinas, entertains, subject to revision, the view that Adam’s soul was already in existence while his body still ‘slept in its causes (155-156).’” This would indicate a noteworthy and ironic contrast to what is commonly complained about subordinationism, at least in its clearly heretical Arian or semi-Arian forms. Subordinationism is often viewed as heretical because it is connected with the view that Jesus Christ was a created being, rather than being eternally in existence along with the Father, and therefore an uncreated member of the Family of God, but Origen is here, disappointingly not cited by Lewis as to where he made his claim, referred to as believing in the prior existence of human souls, which would cut against any supposed belief in the lack of pre-existence of the Creator Himself. It would be good to know where Origen says this, although Lewis himself does not say.

Let us some everything up. The nature of God is not in any way a major point of C.S. Lewis’ The Discarded Image, which has its focus the scientific model of the Middle Ages and its influence on the literature of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. That said, because it was such an important area to Lewis himself, not least as a lay Christian intellectual, it seeps through in his writings. It is also noteworthy, largely because this particular work is focused on literary history rather than biblical commentary, that Lewis’ thoughts are primarily focused on the writings of antiquity and the Middle Ages rather than the biblical sources, aside from a few references in the literature that he is addressing. From Lewis’ own writing, it is clear that he viewed the neo-Platonic thoughts of the educated heathen as a source of truth that, if not equal to that of scripture itself, is clearly on an immensely high level, far more than many Christians are comfortable with. He is honest about his influences, and even to the extent that we do not share his worldview or his acceptance of the syncretistic model of the Christendom of the Middle Ages, his honesty is commendable. Does his honesty, as well as the indirect means by which he defends a subordinationist view of the relationship of God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son, save him from the opprobrium of being a heretic that Origen has despite his honored status as a noted Church Father? Let us now turn to this question and deal with the reputation of C.S. Lewis and the contemporary debate within Christendom about the legitimacy of any form of subordinationism.

[1] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2016/04/13/book-review-planet-narnia/

[2] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2016/04/13/c-s-lewis-an-acceptable-place-for-orthodox-subordinationism/

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2016/04/22/the-subordination-of-jesus-christ-to-god-the-father-in-c-s-lewis-the-four-loves/

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/a-musing-on-the-purpose-of-christian-fantasy-through-the-works-of-c-s-lewis/