Defending C. S. Lewis

Over the last several weeks I've been asked on a couple of occassions to come ot the defense of C. S. Lewis.  First of all, Ales Rarus (aka my favorite papist) pointed me to this post from Rand at "A Pattern of Sound Words" who questions whether or not C. S. Lewis was a good Christian apologist, and who also questions whether or not he was even a Christian.  Ales gives Rand a good fisking here.

More recently my buddy Adrian has challenged me to come to the defense of Lewis in this post.  Adrian points to this post on Destruction of Gog wherein Lewis is quoted as denying the doctrine of penal substitution.  In doing so, Adrian admits that Lewis sure sounds like what he calls a "neo-liberal" and he invites me to come to Lewis's defense.

In receiving these challenges from Adrian and Ales Rarus I feel like I am being exposed as a fraud.  Because my blog takes its name from a C. S. Lewis quote I am giving off the impression that I am a great lover of C. S. Lewis and maybe even someone who knows alot about Lewis.

The truth is that I do love Lewis, but I am far from being a scholar of his works.  I have read the Chronicles of Narnia, Screwtape Letters, Mere Christianity and the Four Loves.  Other than that I have merely dabbled in his writings.  I have enjoyed many of his essays, particularly God in the Dock and the one on Learning War Time.  But having read those things hardly qualifies me as an expert on Lewis.

Which makes me think I need to change my little blurb about where I got the inspiration for "Jollyblogger."  I think it was Michael Spencer from the Boars Head Tavern who thought I had taken my inspiration from the Jolly Roger, and he once encouraged people to say "Jollyblogger" in a real piratey voice.   So, maybe I should replace my C. S. Lewis quote with a quote from Captain Jack Sparrow or something.  But if I do that, people will start asking me questions about Johnny Depp and pirate stuff and then I'll be in real trouble.  My only expertise in piratey stuff is that, when my kids were young I used to know all the words to "We are the Pirates Who Don't Do Anything."

So, I'll just go back to the whole C. S. Lewis thing.  And while I don't feel that Lewis needs me to defend him I do think there are a few things we can learn from this whole discussion.               

First of all, Rand's comments were not the first time I have heard someone say that Lewis wasn't a Christian.  Several years ago my wife Lynette spent some time with a lady that we were both acquainted with and she came home and said "Mrs. So and So says that C. S. Lewis isn't a Christian."  Mrs. So and So were the local conspiracy buffs, they had a son who said that they could find a conspiracy on a trip to the 7-11.  Sure enough, this lady had been in some kind of new age bookstore, probably doing some research on how the new age conspiracy dovetailed with the activities of the Illuminati, the Tril-Lateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, and how they were all working together to establish a one-world government.  While she was in the bookstore she saw that they were selling the Chronicles of Narnia.  She spoke with the proprieter about this and he confirmed that he was not only into the new age, but also witchcraft, and (here's the kicker) C. S. Lewis was his doorway into this.  It was the magic in Chronicles of Narnia that got him pointed in that direction.  So, Mrs. So and So concluded that Lewis wasn't a Christian. 

Such a line of thought isn't too far off from Rand's reasoning, just the details are changed:

  Let me also add that a believer really doesn't need to read C.S. Lewis to see that   there is something fishy going on with his books. Notice that every faith, from   the Roman Catholic to the Mormon, from the Anglican to the Pentecostal, all these   groups are perfectly okay with Lewis' writings. Am I really one of the few who finds   this to be a bit weird?

  As far as I'm concerned, the only way an author can get away with pleasing such   a large variety of faiths is to write fluff and stuff (nothing concrete),   or to be everything to everyone; neither being very profitable to the Christian,   or honoring to God.

In one sense you could see these as examples of fallacious ad hominem reasoning, where these folks assume Lewis to be a false prophet or non-Christian simply because certain people like him.  In another sense these are non sequitors because it doesn't follow that, if lots of different people like someone then the one they like must be writing "fluff and stuff."  It doesn't follow that, because one person turned to the new age through C. S. Lewis's writings he must be a non-Christian.  Mormons, Catholics, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, atheists, new agers and neo-pagans all believe that there was a historical person named Jesus (though they understand him differently), that the sky is blue, that pigs can't fly and that water is wet.  Must we assume therefore that anyone who believes these things is suspect because so many of the wrong people believe them?

Moving on to Adrian's challenge, I have no problem admitting that Lewis was a neo-liberal, if that is the label we want to use.  I'm even willing to take the neo- off of the label.  In that respect, Rand is right - Lewis did not hold to many of the key doctrines that evangelicals hold to. I have known for years that Lewis had a weak (in my own opinion) view of Scriptural authority and that neither he, nor many of his proponents, nor many evangelicals would claim him as an evangelical, at least in the sense that we 21st century Americans understand evangelicalism.   

But that doesn't diminish his value to evangelicals and anyone else who reads him.  George Grant quotes G. K. Chesterton frequently, in fact rarely does he get through a speech where he doesn't quote Chesterton.  Grant is a dyed in the wool Presbyterian-Reformed-Calvinist-thank-you-very-much and sometimes people will hear him quote Chesterton and will pull him aside and try to edumacate him.  He says it usually goes like this.  They pull him aside and very quietly whisper to him, "psst, George, don't you know that Chesterton's a Catholic!"  George gets a kick out of this.  Of course he knows Chesterton's a catholic.  When he quotes Chesterton he's not trying to get him ordained in the PCA, the man is just full of wisdom and insight that is beneficial to anyone from any tradition.  I see the same thing as true with Lewis.  No, he probably wouldn't get ordained in my presbytery.   But if he were alive and I had access to him, would I try to spend as much time with him as I could?  Absolutely.  His writings are just too good to pass by.

I would hope that most of us are to the point where we can read people who are different from us and take the good from their writings and discard the things we disagree with.  For now, we still see through a glass darkly.  Because of that, Lewis got alot of things wrong.  But do any of us really think we are going to get to heaven and not be in for a big surprise about the things we ourselves have gotten wrong? 

There is a story, it may be a legend, but its a good story nonetheless involving John Gerstner and Karl Barth.  Gerstner was one of the leading defenders of reformed orthodoxy in the last century and Barth was the leading proponent of neo-orthodoxy.  Most of those in the "paleo-orthodoxy" crowd argued against Barth vociferously, and Gerstner was no exception.  Yet, many also had a great respect for Barth and were very careful to argue against his ideas, not him as a person.  One day in class, an impudent young student (of which seminaries are full) asked Gerstner if he thought Barth had reconsidered some of his theological positions now that he had time to think them over in hell.  Gerstner was not pleased in the least with such a question and he let the student know.  It's one thing to engage in vigorous debate with someone, its another to arrogate to oneself the ability to discern the eternal state of that person.  There may be much we can criticize in people like Barth and Lewis, but let's use the hermeneutic of charity when reading them (and anyone else for that matter).

Comments

[Richard McIntosh]

Thanks for this blog article. After having long chats with adrian going round in circles. He does not seem to know much about Karl Barth. I asked him if he would ask you to do I post on Barth. Just wondered if you could go though a few points (and importantly why) you agree or disagree.

Particularly

Election
Atonement
Doctrine of Scripture

Richard

[Phil Aldridge]

Interesting post!

I think too many Christians view Christianity as some sort of recipe that one must follow in order to be properly called a Christian.

CHRISTIAN SURPRISE

5 oz - Young Earth Creationism
6 pc - 5 Point Calvinism
1 lb - Biblical Inerrancy
1 lb - Conservative Republicanism
3 tbsp - Rejection of Purgatory
4 tsp - Disdain for Liturgy
1 oz - Rejection of Saints
5 cups - Kinkade Paintings in Hallway

Combine all ingredients in a weekly small group and bake until Second Coming.

I don't think it works like that. C.S. Lewis has done immensely great things for Christ with his amazing writing and incredible wit. He represents the kind of diversity the church should embrace.

[Terry]

C.S. Lewis is one of those guys that everyone re-creates in their own image. You see brother Jack is just like me. Me is spoken by a very diverse crown. Many could be right, but many are just thinking overly optimistically.

On the same note, we could deconstruct many heros of the faith. Luther is much too cerimonial and sacrimental. Hey, did you know he originally was actually a Catholic and was influenced by that! He was not tea totaler like myself. He even was sort of fond of beer if I have my facts straight. Calvin of course was involved in civil government in a way that would make most American evangelicals blow their stacks. If you thought Jerry Falwell was a little too involved in civil government issues, just wait till you really look a brother John's roles at Geneva. How about William Cary the father of modern missions. He took a wife that appears to have been mentally ill to the mission field. He made translations that lacked the rigor and understandability that we require today. How about Spugeon's cigars? The list could go on and on. Let us not make these men and women of faith in our image. Rather, let us take the example that was positive and embrace it, let us reject the poor examples but there is no reason to even start to debunk the great saints of the past.

Oh by the way, neither Abraham nor David could not have gotten ordained in many of our evangelical denominations. Having said that, I'm evangelical.

[keith]

I particularly appreciate the grace in your penultimate paragraph. How we need that attitude, not only when reading saints of the past, but also as we read and discuss with our fellow Christians with whom we disagree today.

[Rand]

"It's one thing to engage in vigorous debate with someone, its another to arrogate to oneself the ability to discern the eternal state of that person."

Ouch!

Well, I'm probably wasting my time, but if I'm going to leave that "trackback" there, I want to put in a final word.

My point, in a nutshell:

Charles Spurgeon: Born-again Christians love him. Romanists, Mormons, Atheists couldn't care less.

Jonathan Edwards: Born-again Christians love him. Romanists, Mormons, Atheists couldn't care less.

John Newton: Born-again Christians love him. Romanists, Mormons, Atheists couldn't care less.

George Whitfield: Born-again Christians love him. Romanists, Mormons, Atheists couldn't care less.

And then we have...

C.S. Lewis: Born-again Christians are, at the very least, split over whether he was a Christian or not. Romanists, Mormons, and yes, some Atheists love him.

I don't know what Lewis' final spiritual destination was or will be. But I can judge the fruit...and there is plenty of bad fruit in that "theology tree"!

Please take time to study Matthew 7:15-29, perhaps then, you will see where I'm coming from.

Peace,

[Joel Thomas]

If C.S. Lewis wasn't a Christian, then neither am I.

I think TULIP represents awful, horrible theology, but that doesn't change my view that there are a lot of good Christians who hold to that understanding.

I would hope that Christian folks could Lewis and each other the way Whitefield and Wesley saw each other -- as wrong on some key theological points, but committed to bringing people to Christ.

[Bill Wallo]

Thanks for the post. I am always surprised when someone suggests that Lewis wasn't a Christian. And I am intrigued when they point to literary works - predominently something like The Chronicles of Narnia - which appeal on levels beyond that of a sermon as support for their position. "Oh look at all the folks who like the Narnia books!" "If an atheist or a Mormon likes Narnia, Lewis must be a Mormon or an atheist!"

Let's face it: atheists might like Narnia (though not all: Phillip Pullman doesn't), but you'll find few atheists who think all that highly of Mere Christianity. Anyway, a fundamental aspect of literary criticism is to remember that what we find in a work is often largely influenced by what we bring to it; further, a valuable literary work is one that sublimates its teaching or preaching component and pushes it to subtext.

Sadly, I see many of these folks striving to put their standard of Christianity on others, and assuming that the only good book is a sermon.

[RazorsKiss]

The "romanist" title is getting a little bit old from our friend Rand.

Must we fight the English revolution in the blogosphere now?

William and Mary are not knocking at the gates.

[RazorsKiss]

And thank you, Jolly, for your take on good 'ol Jack.

I've been reading him, and not just his Narnia series, since I was knee high to a grasshopper.

After I finish my Schaeffer series, I just might do a Lewis series. I so want to do some Screwtape apologetics. A demolition of humanism from a demonic perspective would be an absolute hoot. Well.. sort of.

*sigh*

If I only had the time!

[Karen]

You might be interested to know that yours is the only "conservative" blog I read. Though I don't necessarily agree with all that you write, I consider you thoughtful, fair-minded and respectful. Hope this admission that a "liberal" likes you doesn't compromise your standing among your peers.

[David Wayne]

Karen - let's just let that be our little secret - k? ;-)

[The Dane]

According to Rand, my eternal state is in jeopardy (or at least should be viewed as such) because, well, both Christians and non-Christians love me (well, at least they find me an enjoyable sort and think highly of my more entertaining, less theological stuff). *shrug*

[Scott McClare]

RazorsKiss: "The 'romanist' title is getting a little bit old from our friend Rand."

Hmmm. If nothing else, it's at least more accurate a description than "catholic."

[edpi]

I am an agnostic who is still weighing the claims of Christianity. If I ever do become a Christian, Lewis will have played a major role.

In the meantime I must state the obvious. Lewis went out of his way to avoid commenting on the various doctrinal issue which divide Christians. One of his reasons was that dwelling on those issues is poor apologetics. It tends to makes folks like me think that becoming a Christian is something of a lottery: all denominations save one are false, and their adherents are hell-bound. Can I possibly pick the right one? Did you?

[David Wayne]

edpi - cool.

Care to share what you have found in Lewis that is compelling?

[David Wayne]

Dane - I wish you had told me your eternal state was in jeopardy before I added you to the PCA blogroll. I'll have a hard time explaining this one to the Presbytery.

[Rick]

I think it's good that Lewis is critiqued, but bad that he's condemned. I would like to see Charles Finney get a hearing-- he is so critiqued and condemned by many, yet he has important things to say. If we can forgive Lewis, maybe we can also forgive him as well?

[edpi]

"Care to share what you have found in Lewis that is compelling?"

In no particular order:

I've always enjoyed Lewis' prose, and learned from his erudition. His "The Discarded Image" is fascinating.

I appreciate Lewis' approach of trying to convince the intellect rather than swaying the emotions with "come to Jesus" revival antics.

I have twice experienced the phenomenon Lewis calls "joy" in Surprised By Joy. I have not (yet) drawn the same conclusions as Lewis, but it is what keeps me from atheism. My heart is open to the possibility of God, though my intellect is extremely dubious.

I am impressed by Lewis' insight into people. "Screwtape" is an example, "Till We Have Faces" is an even better one.

He seemed like a man I would liked to have known.

[The Dane]

Well, I wouldn't have submitted had I read this thread earlier. Honestly, I didn't know I was in any kind of jeopardy 'til now. I s'pose I'll have to speak with my elders *sigh* This ruins my week for sure.

[Jim Bilkins]

Rand,

I'm an atheist, and I love you. Does that mean you're gonna burn in hell?

[Steve]

"Lewis was so influential in my understanding of joy and desire and duty and worship that I will add another quotation from him as a tribute to the greatness of his wisdom. I hope my enthusiasm for Lewis will set you to reading him, if you haven’t. He, of course, had his flaws, but few people in the twentieth century had eyes to see what he saw."

John Piper, When I Don't Desire God (P16)

[David Marcoe]

Irenaeus and Hippolytus, early church fathers, traced the start of Gnosticism back to the Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8:9-25), the guy who offered Peter and John money for their "spells." So loosely, by the same logic, maybe Peter and John weren't Christians as well?

Of course most Christians also don't know that the epic poem of Beowulf, considered to be a Christian work, contains a pagan story line. Taken from the Wikipedia article (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf):

"Beowulf represents the retelling of a classic Germanic tale for a Christian audience, a tale of which elements appear in Rolf Krake's saga. Certainly, the poem's characters are pagans, but the narrator places events in a thoroughly Christian context, casting Grendel as the kin of Cain. Consequently, scholars dispute whether Beowulf's main thematic thrust is pagan or Christian in nature."

Maybe we should also condemn Medieval Christian philosophers for using Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle in their argumentation as well, or condemn Paul for debating Epicurean and Stoic philosophers at the Areopagus. And, oh my gosh, he told the Gentiles that through their alter to the unknown god they were unknowingly worshipping God himself! Scandalous!

Looking at C.S. Lewis' introduction to the Gospel, anyone can see he came to Christ outside of any major denomination and with out having been raised in one. Coming straight from undiluted atheism, he explored his faith outside the typical framework that many Christians use to approach their faith.

Was he off the mark on some things? Yes. But here is a question: Who of us isn't the mark in some regard to Truth? Before the very thrown of God can you honestly say that every belief you hold to be Truth will hold up under God's perfect standard? You and I will wither under his light.

If we accept this fallacious "bad theological fruit," then we end up developing doctrinal paranoia and cutting ourselves off from other branches of the body of Christ. The understanding the thief on the cross had of Jesus was probably rudimentary, and he was saved.

There is a little doctrinal statement called the Nicaean Creed that all three major branches of the Church hold to. That cuts out a lot of fat. Instead of "bad theological fruit," let us look for the fruit of Christ-like character.

[Mad Minerva]

Thank you for a great blog article. I too am tired of some folks trashing C.S. Lewis. He played a significnat part in my own conversion many years ago -- and is an inspiration even now on how to be both a Christian and a professor.

[Jennifer]

I have some books by C.S. Lewis and always thought he was a Christian but I guess only the Lord knows for sure. Does anyone know if he proclaimed Christ as the Messiah during his life and spoke to others about knowing Him? I am no scholar and I am very simple. I'm just curious. Maybe I should read a biography, but how would I know which one is most true? Help

[David Wayne]

Jennifer - yes, Lewis proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah during his life and told others about him. He was a Christian. Probably the best place for a biography of Lewis is his bio - Surprised by Joy