Reddit reviews Dynamics of Faith (Perennial Classics)

I would skip Lewis, honestly. He's popular among certain Potestant trends of thought, but the Anglicans consider him something of an embarrassment, and he himself readily admits that he's no theologian. If you really want a pop-theology argument, I'd go to Chesterson's Orthodoxy instead, but even that's pretty low tier apologetic.

If you want serious theology and apologetic, Lewis has plenty of contemporaries that are worth reading. I'd suggest the following:

• Rudolph Otto, [The Idea of the Holy][1], which deals specifically with the numinous argument for theism -- that is, the argument that religious belief should be couched in the experience of the ineffable;
  
  
• Tielhard de Chardin, [The Divine Milieu][2], which addresses theism from the other side of a secular worldview, integrating a scientific and philosophical world view into a holistic religious sense;
  
  
• Paul Tillich, [The Dynamics of Faith][3], which begins with an examination of the phenomenon of faith and explores the notion of God as the logical terminus of faith;
  
  Even the longest of those three is still less than 300 pages, so they shouldn't be too daunting in terms of bulk, but they're all three packed with some very serious and challenging thought, so they should give you plenty to chew on. My only caution is that all three of them veer in their latter thirds towards a bias for specifically Christian theism, and particularly Protestant varieties. It's a bit of a disappointing given how they all three start out admirably ecumenical.
  
  All of those are specifically books written by theologians with the intent of making the 20th century comfortable with religion again, but while I'm at it I thought I'd throw out a few books that don't quite fall into the group:
  
  
• Mircea Eliade, [The Sacred and the Profane][4], which is not an argument for theism so much as an anthropological and sociological exploration into the nature of religion;
  
  
• Terry Eagleton, [Reason, Faith, and Revolution][5], which is novel precisely because it features a Marxist atheist arguing against the "New Atheists" to the effect that religion is valuable;
  
  
• Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, which I haven't actually read yet, but intend to, because the reviews that I've read of it mark it as one of the thorniest and most grandiose defenses of religion written in recent history.
  
  Good luck.
  
  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Idea-Holy-R-Otto/dp/0195002105/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253024930&sr=8-1
  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/Divine-Milieu-Pierre-Teilhard-Chardin/dp/1903900581/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253025127&sr=1-3
  [3]: http://www.amazon.com/Dynamics-Faith-Perennial-Classic-Tillich/dp/0060937130/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253025305&sr=1-3
  [4]: http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Profane-Nature-Religion/dp/015679201X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253025876&sr=1-1
  [5]: http://www.amazon.com/Reason-Faith-Revolution-Reflections-Lectures/dp/0300151799/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253025995&sr=1-1
  

>...Progressive Christianity is an approach to the Christian faith that is influenced by post-liberalism and postmodernism and: proclaims Jesus of Nazareth as Christ, Savior, and Lord; emphasizes the Way and teachings of Jesus, not merely His person; emphasizes God’s immanence not merely God’s transcendence; leans toward panentheism rather than supernatural theism; emphasizes salvation here and now instead of primarily in heaven later; emphasizes being saved for robust, abundant/eternal life over being saved from hell; emphasizes the social/communal aspects of salvation instead of merely the personal; stresses social justice as integral to Christian discipleship; takes the Bible seriously but not necessarily literally, embracing a more interpretive, metaphorical understanding; emphasizes orthopraxy instead of orthodoxy (right actions over right beliefs); embraces reason as well as paradox and mystery — instead of blind allegiance to rigid doctrines and dogmas; does not consider homosexuality to be sinful; and does not claim that Christianity is the only valid or viable way to connect to God (is non-exclusive).

>The resistance against demythologization expresses itself in literalism. The symbols and myths are understood in their immediate meaning. The material, taken from nature and history, is used in its proper sense. The character of the symbol to point beyond itself to something else is disregarded. Creation is taken as a magic act which happened once upon a time. The fall of Adam is localized on a special geographical point and attributed to a human individual. The virgin birth of the Messiah is understood in biological terms, resurrection and ascension as physical events, the second coming of Christ as a telluric, or cosmic, catastrophe. The presupposition of such literalism is that God is a being, acting in time and space, dwelling in a special place, affecting the course of events and being affected by them like any other being in the universe. Literalism deprives God of his ultimacy and, religiously speaking, of his majesty. It draws him down to the level of that which is not ultimate, the finite and conditional.

Your explanation would work if we were talking about a couple operating according to mainstream religious standards. The Christians and Muslims that you're accustomed to take everything very literally--"my Bible is right and things that contradict it can't be true," etc.

However, Reza explains that he and his wife approach religion in a very different way. It actually reminds me a lot about what a Christian theologian named Paul Tillich said in his book Dynamics of Faith. Reza and his wife share a common faith and common beliefs, but they express those faiths in different ways. They each use different symbol systems because they feel that those different symbol systems work better for their individual personalities and faith expressions, not because they believe that one symbol system is inherently better than the other. They are just, as Reza said, two different ways to talk about faith--two different languages.

Tillich has been criticized by Christian fundamentalists and Biblical literalists for being what they consider to be basically atheist. They essentially use your argument--religion has to be based upon stories and people that were real and literal. Symbols and myths don't work. Reza and his wife have it wrong--it's not religion unless they're taking something totally literally and rejecting their reason and logic.

Maybe there's an argument here, but I just think it's a different worldview. Some people think that religion can only exist if you take things literally and shit on everyone else. Other people, Tillich, Reza, and myself, think that faith is something much more deep and important than believing that snakes can talk or that people can survive in the belly of a whale or that a man can rise from the dead. Faith is deep and essential, and we use symbols and myths to talk about it. Symbols are the language of faith. Once our society progresses to see that all religions are trying to get at the same core message but simply using different symbols, we'll be much better off. It's not productive to encourage people to think that if they follow one symbol system, they have to disagree with every other religion.