Simply Lewis

N. T. Wright, the Anglican Bishop of Durham, England, reflects on C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity after 60 years.

There are two constant powerful refrains throughout Mere Christianity. First, faith matters more than feelings; faithfulness to the high and hard standards of Christian behavior matters more than doing what you feel like at the time. Lewis was swimming against a strong tide of popular romantic existentialism, a tide running even more strongly in our own day.

To read all of Simply Lewis, please click here. Then, please join the discussion by clicking on the comments link below.

Comments

[Gretchen]

From the article: "Similarly, I don’t know how his line of argument in the first part would stand up against the rigorous and relentless assault from the determined atheists of our own day."

I believe Lewis' apologetic talents would've risen to the occasion.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

I thought much of Wright's criticisms were spot on - although I disliked this comment:

I am puzzled that such a great writer should have been so indiscriminate and seemingly muddled with his use of the colon and semi-colon.

It just seemed fussy and off-topic to me as a non-Literary type. Perhaps it didn't come across that way to others?

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Gretchen,

I'm sure Wright has no doubts of that - he simply suggests he would need to adopt a different line of argument on this point.

[Joe]

N.T. Wright wrote:

"One of the puzzles, indeed, is the way in which Lewis has been lionized by Evangelicals when he clearly didn’t believe in several classic Evangelical shibboleths. He was wary of penal substitution, not bothered by infallibility or inerrancy, and decidedly dodgy on justification by faith (though who am I to talk, considering what some in America say about me?).

But above all, like my businessman friend, it worked; a lot of people have become Christians through reading Lewis and, though, like me, they may have gone on to think things through in ways he didn’t..."

Mr. Wright solved his own puzzle. American Evangelicals lionize Lewis and try to claim him as one of their own because his writings "worked."

Nothing mobilizes Evangelicals faster than the desire to be associated with something, anything SUCCESSFUL! So what if he was leery of American Evangelicals (he never accepted any of their invitations to speak on American soil). So what if he cherished the Blessed Sacrament, venerated the Mother of God, made regular confession to a priest and believed in Purgatory? He was and is a SUCCESS so he must be made out as one of their own.

In part, this scheme has worked out wonderfully in terms of making Lewis' works perennial bestsellers. In smaller part, I'm sure that the bait-n-switch has taken in some people: "Join us, we believe just like C.S. Lewis of 'Mere Christianity' fame, that is, we believe in the parts that we want you to read!"

For many, the unexpurgated 'Mere Christianity' has led many to more logical ends: Anglo-Catholicism, Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.

I for one am grateful to C.S. Lewis for introducing me to Christianity. I am almost unforgiving to the Evangelical Protestants who hijacked my nascent faith with the "scheme" that I described earlier. I am grateful again that C.S. Lewis provided an escape map for me the finally led me to the Orthodox Church.

[Joe]

Excerpts from: "A Conversation with Thomas Howard"
by Frank Schaeffer, Editor of The Christian Activist

Frank Schaeffer was a highly visible Protestant Evangelical until his
midlife conversion to Orthodoxy.
Thomas Howard was a highly visible Protestant Evangelical until his midlife conversion to Roman Catholicism.

Frank Schaeffer: I first met Tom in the early 1960s at L'Abri Fellowship,
the Protestant retreat and study center in Huemoz, Switzerland, founded by my parents, Francis and Edith Schaeffer. I was a teenager and Tom a young man. I remember being impressed by the fact that Tom came from one of the most "influential" Protestant families in America. (There are indeed hierarchies even in Protestantism!) His father and grandfather were revered editors of a well-established magazine.

Frank Schaeffer: "...isn't it strange that C. S. Lewis is an "evangelical hero" when he certainly cannot be described as
Protestant, let alone 'evangelical' in the classical sense?

Thomas Howard: "You've put your finger on a very, very interesting point. I
had an article in a Roman Catholic magazine called Crisis several months back on this very point: on C.S. Lewis and his evangelical 'clientele.' Not only is it an irony, it is a contradiction. Lewis would have been appalled by the evangelical adulation of his work. He would have been horrified, even enraged by a lot of what he would see today in American evangelical circles."

Frank Schaeffer: How do evangelical, let alone fundamentalist, Protestants read C. S. Lewis and think that they are reading someone who is on "their side?"

Thomas Howard: "Maybe I'm being a little bit naughty, but the answer is, probably the same way they read the Bible! You and I would say the
Apostolic Church is there, in its seed, in the Bible, but apparently it's
possible to read the Bible as a Protestant for sixty or seventy or eighty
years and never see it! By the same token, Lewis' evangelical American
'clientele' simply don't get it. When C.S. Lewis speaks of the blessed
sacrament, they don't hear it. When Lewis speaks of the prayers of the
Church, they don't hear it. When Lewis speaks of auricular confession,
which he practiced, they don't hear it. I think when Lewis smokes a
cigarette or drinks his whiskey, they don't see it, either; not that that's
on the same level as his ecclesiology! (Laughter) C. S. Lewis would have
been very, very ill at ease with his eager North American free church
clientele. Very, very ill at ease and out of his metier."

[Yaknyeti]

We Protestants are used to reading good authors and trimming out the parts that we disagree with, that's all. C.S. Lewis was remarkable both in his elegant explanations and his ability to focus on the common areas that Christians share. If some of his writings indicate his Anglo-Catholic preferences, his most popular/ brilliant (Screwtape Letters, Problem of Pain, and I think Mere Christianity) are easy for Evangelical Protestants to accept.

I confess, though, that I'm taking a path toward the more traditional branches of Christianity, and C.S. Lewis' view of Purgatory in "The Great Divorce" was the first push beyond traditional Protestant thought. He was a sort of gateway drug. :-)

[Clifford]

I belong to a baptist church, and I was introduced to C. S. Lewis there. (Interestingly, I have often heard praise for N. T. Wright from these same folks as well -- chiefly regarding his work on the historicity of the resurrection and refutation of the Jesus Seminar. So, when I saw an article on C. S. Lewis by N. T. Wright, of course I had to read it!) Here I think is a clue to the puzzle raised by Mr. Wright, of why some have lionized Mr. Lewis even though Mr. Lewis did not elevate their favorite doctrines. The clue can be found in the introduction to "Mere Christianity." Mr. Lewis pictured Christiandom as a hall with many doors. You have to try a door and see if it's right with God and right with you. If not, you may have to try another door. But Mr. Lewis' stated purpose (and we may wonder how he accomplished it), in THIS book, was first to get you in the hall.

Now if I were behind a certain door which I believed to be the truth, and if I happened to agree with the hall/door picture (if nothing else) from Mr. Lewis' book, then I might use Lewis to lure people into the hall. Then I would add something more specific to commend my door to them. Of course, if I am virtuous, I could not resent it if they got in the hall because I showed them Lewis, but they chose another door. At least, this is how I think it is supposed to work, ideally. I'm sorry that some have done this deceptively as Joe can tell us. I hope that these people might have repented of their lack of integrity.

Wonders for Oyarsa, I think the comment about colons and semicolons was simply intended to recall some pleasant nostalgia about what it is like to read Lewis. It had the same effect for me as the comment about the words "religious jaw."

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

But does anyone have any thoughts on Wright's criticisms of Mere Christianity? Do you agree that, as great a book as it is, they are valid critiques?

[William Rush]

Reading Mere Christianity in my 20's was like having a light suddenly switched on.I remember how disappointed I was when I tried to share my new discovery with my evangelical friends. They were not interested then ( in the 60's) mainly I felt because Lewis was an Anglican and therefore possibly inclined to the love of ritual (horror!).
and too quiet on biblical inerrancy. It's interesting how their position has changed.
As for Lewis being essentially Anglo-Catholic I'm not so sure. I think he was happy worshipping in any church that used the beautiful cadences of the Prayer Book which were to him, a lifelong joy. Bells and smells were neither rejected nor required.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

I think Wright's criticisms are, for the most part, spot-on. And I imagine Lewis would most certainly be open to them.

To be fair to Lewis, I don't think he had Wright in mind when he was so causally dismissive of the quest for the historical Jesus. I certainly didn't expect much good to come of it. But I think Wright has done wonders in bringing us into the world of the 1st century to see Jesus with new eyes - and yet reinforcing rather than undermining the core of the Christian faith.

The historical criticism of Lewis' "lord liar lunatic" trilemma is quite valid, though I think we can excuse Lewis somewhat when we consider the scope of his point. He is trying to debunk the patronizing notion of Jesus as "good moral teacher" - something which Wright would clearly join him on. Wright just points out that there is a good deal more historical nuance than the trilemma implies...and he is, um, right.

A focus on New Creation - new heavens and new earth, rather than just "going to heaven" is a fantastic point Wright makes, and here I would be willing to bet Lewis would concede the point - even perhaps be grateful for the observation. Lewis is already aware of the idea of an embodied heaven - aka, The Great Divorce - and I think Wright's point isn't too much of a stretch for him. Doubtless Lewis would also find a way to continue to incorporate Plato's thought - but I think he would see that here at least the traditional Jewish thinking needs to win out.

I would pay real money to hear Wright and Lewis having a discussion, Lewis having read Wright's three volumes on Jesus.

[CPA]

I think Wright doesn't get the degree to which Lewis felt he had to be in some sense deliberately non-catechetical to approach non-Christians. That was his purpose in Narnia as well, which is frankly why the use of Narnian imagery for explicit Christian apologetics (like here, "Treaders") worries me a bit. The end result will be to peg Narnia as reading "only for Christians" and so negate its usefulnes.

Anyway, back to Mere Christianity, I think Lewis in some way recognized that any argument or position which looked too much like catechism instruction would be off-putting, so he had to drop them. Wright wants to go through all the important doctrines one by one. Lewis would think that's a "religious jaw" and would turn people off. I think that might well be more true today, and I don't expect N.T. Wright's apologetic efforts will be highly successful for precisely that reason.

And about Plato: here Lewis would just disagree with Wright. He loved Plato, he thought the Christianity-and-Plato thing that Wright evidently despises Lewis thought invaluable. As for the Judaism angle, Lewis was not particularly positive about the Jewish roots of Christianity either (like Tolkein, for whom the dwarves, with their embattled relations with the elves, were the Jews).

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Wright wants to go through all the important doctrines one by one

Gosh, CPA, have you ever read any Wright? That's not at all his approach - check out his new book "Simply Christian" (not as good as Mere Christianity in many ways, but still a good read). I don't think he at all objects to Lewis' method - he objects to the content.

[David Mills]

which is frankly why the use of Narnian imagery for explicit Christian apologetics (like here, "Treaders") worries me a bit.

Just a clarification. The title "Treaders" is short for "Touchstone readers". No one was thinking of Narnia when we chose it.

And fyi: There are four critical letters responding to Wright's essay with Wright's response in the May issue. Two of the letters are from Lewis scholars Thomas Howard and Louis Markos.

[David R.]

"Lewis would have been appalled by the evangelical adulation of his work. He would have been horrified, even enraged by a lot of what he would see today in American evangelical circles."

Can you imagine, then, what he would think of the developments in his Anglican church?

[Joe]

Well, he's had about 44 years (Earth time) to think about it. I would think that by now, he has converted to Orthodoxy.

[Phil]

I always take modern criticism of Lewis' Mere Christianity lightly. To some extent, dialog with Lewis' work is helpful. It should be remembered though that Lewis' book is actually a compilaton of his radio broadcasts. Thus, the original material was Lewis' apologetic engagement with his culture in his day. I doubt Lewis would have been so hubristic as to suggest his book would be the answer to all skeptics at all times.

Were Lewis alive and writing today, would he address our concerns in different ways; would he take into consideration the current state of postmodern thought and other philosophical systems? I think the answer to that is an unequivocal "yes!"

[Gene Godbold]

A few things that bug me about the article (they're minor):

1) "I also remember the apparent fact that from a scientific point of view there is no way a bumblebee should be able to fly, because its wings can’t support its body"

This is ludicrous. The lift that the rapid vibration of the bee's wings give it is completely sufficient for the insect to fly.

2) Wright's use of the word "fresh" gets old, though you'd probably have to read his other stuff to see how often he uses the term.

3) I'd probably trust Lewis' views about economics more than Wright's (from what I've read of him) but I don't think you'd get very far with either.

That said, I agree that Lewis--educated in the tradition of idealism--conflates our bodily life after "life after death" with "the intermediate state" (which is our unbodied "life after death" that many Christians assume is our ultimate destiny). I think Wright is correct to keep them separate. The latter will be enjoyed in a renewed (not destroyed and recreated) earth. I agree with Wright that Lewis was fuzzy on this. At the same time, Lewis was, in many ways, a lot closer to the true (Biblical) view than many over-spiritualized (at the expense of the body) Christians are today.

Wright admits a debt to Lewis and I think you can see it (at least) in his book "The New Testament and the People of God" when he's addressing the question of worldviews and disarming objections to the Christian proposal.

[High Church Methodist]

What is this site, anyways? Really a journal of mere Christianity, or rather, as it usually seems, a forum to bash Protestants, esp. the lowest of the low?

Mr. Joe, your comments are disgusting. And no, I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, and so find I am unable to reply to many of your points, but even somebody as hopelessly stuck in the brain-dead backwater of American evangelical Protestantism as I can tell where charity lies, and can recognize simple lack of decency.

[John L]

Wright misrepresents what Lewis had to say about historical investigation of Jesus (in The Screwtape Letters). Lewis did not say it was a waste of time; instead, he said that the quest for the historical Jesus was a waste of time - when that quest is understood as trying to discover a Jesus who is significantly different from the one presented in the Gospels. He is quite right about that. Wright's historical Jesus work is somewhat different - it is trying to get a better idea of what Jesus was in fact like than can be obtained from simply taking the gospel description to be correct, while not denying that the gospel description is substantially accurate. Unfortunately for him it is open to the same objection that Lewis raised to the more extreme quests for the historical Jesus, viz. that the gospels are the only historical records we have of Jesus, so if they cannot be trusted on some issue then we just have to remain in ignorance of the truth about it. There does seem to be a lot of complaining about by evangelicals by ex-evangelicals here; as a Catholic who was never evangelical, I think the ex-evangelicals should get over their past and stop going on about it.

[Glenn]

Bishop Wright,
Please excuse the late post.In your very fine article,"Simply Lewis," I think you stated that the Jew on the street could have had his sins forgiven by, "going to the Temple." If I have interpreted you correctly, why was it then necessary for God to appear in human flesh and be crucified for them?
Thank you again for your review of CS Lewis.