C.S. Lewis, sins and stones

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Peter_J

Guest
Dear Anglicans,

For your own safety and that of your computer, I suggest sitting and putting down your coffee cup, because I want to praise one of your number.

(Just thought I should start with a little dramatic flare.) I mean C.S. Lewis, for this passage from The Screwtape Letters:

“The use of fashions in thought is to distract men from their real dangers. We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is in the least danger, and fix its approval on the virtue that is nearest the vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them all running around with fire extinguishers whenever there’s a flood; and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gone under. Thus we make it fashionable to expose the dangers of enthusiasm at the very moment when they are all really becoming worldly and lukewarm. A century later, when we are really making them all Byronic and drunk with emotion, the fashionable outcry is directed against the mere understanding of mere intellectual Christianity. Cruel ages are put on their guard against sentimentality; feckless and idle ones, against respectability; lecherous ones, against puritanism; and whenever all men are really hastening to be slaves or tyrants, we make liberalism the prime bogey.”

Now this may be a little bit of a stretch, but I want to compare this with John 8 (I have to get one scripture in to make our Protestants brothers listen, right? ;)) where the people were carrying, not fire extinguishers obviously, but stones:

The scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before them and said, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such a woman. So what do You say?”

They said this to test Him, in order to have a basis for accusing Him. But Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with His finger.

When they continued to question Him, He straightened up and said to them, “Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.”

See the connection with people “running around with fire extinguishers whenever there’s a flood”? They focused their righteousness against a criminal to whom the law showed absolutely no leniency, not against e.g. men who divorced their wives with no penalty at all (Mark 10:4-5, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.)
 
Dear Anglicans,

For your own safety and that of your computer, I suggest sitting and putting down your coffee cup, because I want to praise one of your number.

(Just thought I should start with a little dramatic flare.) I mean C.S. Lewis, for this passage from The Screwtape Letters:

“The use of fashions in thought is to distract men from their real dangers. We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is in the least danger, and fix its approval on the virtue that is nearest the vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them all running around with fire extinguishers whenever there’s a flood; and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gone under. Thus we make it fashionable to expose the dangers of enthusiasm at the very moment when they are all really becoming worldly and lukewarm. A century later, when we are really making them all Byronic and drunk with emotion, the fashionable outcry is directed against the mere understanding of mere intellectual Christianity. Cruel ages are put on their guard against sentimentality; feckless and idle ones, against respectability; lecherous ones, against puritanism; and whenever all men are really hastening to be slaves or tyrants, we make liberalism the prime bogey.”

Now this may be a little bit of a stretch, but I want to compare this with John 8 (I have to get one scripture in to make our Protestants brothers listen, right? ;)) where the people were carrying, not fire extinguishers obviously, but stones:

The scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before them and said, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such a woman. So what do You say?”

They said this to test Him, in order to have a basis for accusing Him. But Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with His finger.

When they continued to question Him, He straightened up and said to them, “Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.”

See the connection with people “running around with fire extinguishers whenever there’s a flood”? They focused their righteousness against a criminal to whom the law showed absolutely no leniency, not against e.g. men who divorced their wives with no penalty at all (Mark 10:4-5, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.)
Chap. XXV, 1st American edition, pp. 128-129.

GKC, Lewis collector, nigh unto 49 years.
 
Dear Anglicans,

For your own safety and that of your computer, I suggest sitting and putting down your coffee cup, because I want to praise one of your number.

(Just thought I should start with a little dramatic flare.) I mean C.S. Lewis, for this passage from The Screwtape Letters:

“The use of fashions in thought is to distract men from their real dangers. We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is in the least danger, and fix its approval on the virtue that is nearest the vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them all running around with fire extinguishers whenever there’s a flood; and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gone under. Thus we make it fashionable to expose the dangers of enthusiasm at the very moment when they are all really becoming worldly and lukewarm. A century later, when we are really making them all Byronic and drunk with emotion, the fashionable outcry is directed against the mere understanding of mere intellectual Christianity. Cruel ages are put on their guard against sentimentality; feckless and idle ones, against respectability; lecherous ones, against puritanism; and whenever all men are really hastening to be slaves or tyrants, we make liberalism the prime bogey.”

Now this may be a little bit of a stretch, but I want to compare this with John 8 (I have to get one scripture in to make our Protestants brothers listen, right? ;)) where the people were carrying, not fire extinguishers obviously, but stones:

The scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before them and said, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such a woman. So what do You say?”

They said this to test Him, in order to have a basis for accusing Him. But Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with His finger.

When they continued to question Him, He straightened up and said to them, “Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.”

See the connection with people “running around with fire extinguishers whenever there’s a flood”? They focused their righteousness against a criminal to whom the law showed absolutely no leniency, not against e.g. men who divorced their wives with no penalty at all (Mark 10:4-5, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.)
C.S. Lewis, my favourite Protestant
 
🙂

And, contrasting the numbers of responses to this thread (2) with the number of responses on a typical Protestant-bashing thread (hundreds), I’m going to take as a sign of how good this thread is.

:cool:
 
I was given a copy of C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity when we had the Graduation service at Boulevard in 1992. I had previously read his* Chronicles of Narnia* and afterwards read the Screwtape Letters. It was a good, insightful book ( my gifted copy of which I keep next to the* Bible*, Concordia and CFW Walther’s Law and Gospel on my dresser drawer in my room. Lewis was a prolific writer whose works have influenced countless numbers of Christians over the years in a very positive way.
 
🙂

And, contrasting the numbers of responses to this thread (2) with the number of responses on a typical Protestant-bashing thread (hundreds), I’m going to take as a sign of how good this thread is.

:cool:
Give it time
 
The distinction is not universally accepted.

GKC, Anglican
I have a high church Anglican friend that considers herself Protestant, although she has very Catholic beliefs. Maybe we should start a thread on whether or not Anglicans are Protestant. I don’t think Anglicans fancied themselves to be non Protestant until the Oxford movement.
 
I have a high church Anglican friend that considers herself Protestant, although she has very Catholic beliefs. Maybe we should start a thread on whether or not Anglicans are Protestant. I don’t think Anglicans fancied themselves to be non Protestant until the Oxford movement.
And that was over 3 weeks ago, too.

Anglicans are motley. If you want to know what one might think, best to ask one. And then another, if another one passes near you. Sample size counts.

High Church is not necessarily isomorphic with Anglo-Catholic. Though it could be.
 
I was given a copy of C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity when we had the Graduation service at Boulevard in 1992. I had previously read his* Chronicles of Narnia* and afterwards read the Screwtape Letters. It was a good, insightful book ( my gifted copy of which I keep next to the* Bible*, Concordia and CFW Walther’s Law and Gospel on my dresser drawer in my room. Lewis was a prolific writer whose works have influenced countless numbers of Christians over the years in a very positive way.
👍👍
 
I have a high church Anglican friend that considers herself Protestant, although she has very Catholic beliefs. Maybe we should start a thread on whether or not Anglicans are Protestant. I don’t think Anglicans fancied themselves to be non Protestant until the Oxford movement.
“Protestant” is one of those words that once had a fairly specific meaning. Protestants called themselves Protestants, and even named some of their institutions and organizations Protestant.

Today nobody (ok, a few peeps like your friend) calls themselves Protestant. It is a word used only by Catholics. This is what happens when a word gets to mean almost anything, it ends up meaning almost nothing. C. S. Lewis, who treasured the language, lamented the loss of the word “gentleman”. It once had a definite meaning, but by his time it meant someone who was polite and washes his hands.

I lament the loss of the good word Protestant, and call on people to defend the word Catholic.
 
Dear Anglicans,

For your own safety and that of your computer, I suggest sitting and putting down your coffee cup, because I want to praise one of your number.

(Just thought I should start with a little dramatic flare.) I mean C.S. Lewis, for this passage from The Screwtape Letters:

“The use of fashions in thought is to distract men from their real dangers. We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is in the least danger, and fix its approval on the virtue that is nearest the vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them all running around with fire extinguishers whenever there’s a flood; and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gone under. Thus we make it fashionable to expose the dangers of enthusiasm at the very moment when they are all really becoming worldly and lukewarm. A century later, when we are really making them all Byronic and drunk with emotion, the fashionable outcry is directed against the mere understanding of mere intellectual Christianity. Cruel ages are put on their guard against sentimentality; feckless and idle ones, against respectability; lecherous ones, against puritanism; and whenever all men are really hastening to be slaves or tyrants, we make liberalism the prime bogey.”

Now this may be a little bit of a stretch, but I want to compare this with John 8 (I have to get one scripture in to make our Protestants brothers listen, right? ;)) where the people were carrying, not fire extinguishers obviously, but stones:

The scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before them and said, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such a woman. So what do You say?”

They said this to test Him, in order to have a basis for accusing Him. But Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with His finger.

When they continued to question Him, He straightened up and said to them, “Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.”

See the connection with people “running around with fire extinguishers whenever there’s a flood”? They focused their righteousness against a criminal to whom the law showed absolutely no leniency, not against e.g. men who divorced their wives with no penalty at all (Mark 10:4-5, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.)
In, perhaps a vain attempt to drag this thread back on topic, I have to say that I haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re driving at with this post. :confused: I’ve read much of Lewis’ writings, excepting his professional college papers, and I cannot make any connection to his words and yours. I hope you aren’t implying what I think you are–sorry to be vague, but I don’t want to excite anyone over my assumptions. So, in the interest of clarity and charity, could you please explain what connection you see in your examples? They seem to have escaped me–at least I hope they have if what I suspect you’re trying to say is what you’re trying to say. 🤷
 
In, perhaps a vain attempt to drag this thread back on topic, I have to say that I haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re driving at with this post. :confused: I’ve read much of Lewis’ writings, excepting his professional college papers, and I cannot make any connection to his words and yours. I hope you aren’t implying what I think you are–sorry to be vague, but I don’t want to excite anyone over my assumptions. So, in the interest of clarity and charity, could you please explain what connection you see in your examples? They seem to have escaped me–at least I hope they have if what I suspect you’re trying to say is what you’re trying to say. 🤷
Sorry Della. The opening post should have had this paragraph at the end:

See the connection with people “running around with fire extinguishers whenever there’s a flood”? They focused their righteousness against a criminal to whom the law showed absolutely no leniency, not against e.g. men who divorced their wives with no penalty at all (Mark 10:4-5, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.)

I’m sorry if that dashes your hopes. (If it makes you feel better, I have mixed feelings almost every time I post on this forum.)
 
Sorry Della. The opening post should have had this paragraph at the end:

See the connection with people “running around with fire extinguishers whenever there’s a flood”? They focused their righteousness against a criminal to whom the law showed absolutely no leniency, not against e.g. men who divorced their wives with no penalty at all (Mark 10:4-5, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.)
But your first post did have that paragraph in it. I’m afraid it still means nothing to me in connection with Lewis’ quote. Sorry.
I’m sorry if that dashes your hopes. (If it makes you feel better, I have mixed feelings almost every time I post on this forum.)
I have no hopes to dash. Indeed, just the opposite. I very much hope what I can draw from your posts is not what I think it is. The upshot is, I still don’t get it–what are you trying to say?
 
I have no hopes to dash.
All I know is what you said, which included this: “I hope you aren’t implying what I think you are”.

But regardless, I think it would be best all around if I stop responding to these nebulous attacks.

Good day to you.
 
All I know is what you said, which included this: “I hope you aren’t implying what I think you are”.

But regardless, I think it would be best all around if I stop responding to these nebulous attacks.

Good day to you.
I’m not attacking you, I’m merely asking for clarification. :tiphat:
 
This may well be pointless, but I’m going to post on this thread again, in case the rest of you understand something about posts 15-19 that I’m missing. What I see is, first that my reflection and explanation in the Opening Post can be blatantly insulted in terms of having any worth at all, followed by hinting that I’ve hidden something sinister in them – without saying what that might be, on the grounds of how terrible it would be. Not to mention all of this then being passed off as “merely asking for clarification”.

If this is Christian, I’ll eat my hat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top