C. S. Lewis

[GKC]

Citations please.

In general, I suspect I know what Della is driving at. It’s a fairly common approach, when a RC muses on how Lewis remained Anglican. And part of the reason that I dislike dealing with the subject (though I have, often).

I too would like some specific ideas, though, as to where this might be coming from and going. I have an idea, but, then, maybe not.

 

[GKC]

I don’t follow you here. In what way didn’t he finish the trilogy when we have his three books: Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength?

(snip)

I suspect the reference would be to the supposed, incomplete THE DARK TOWER. A title I am in agreement with Kathryn Lindskoog on. A subject that can get a shouting match underway, among Lewisians.

 

[Della]

In general, I suspect I know what Della is driving at. It’s a fairly common approach, when a RC muses on how Lewis remained Anglican. And part of the reason that I dislike dealing with the subject (though I have, often).

I too would like some specific ideas, though, as to where this might be coming from and going. I have an idea, but, then, maybe not.

I’m not being biased, as I wrote in my post. I have no problem with Lewis remaining Anglican or anyone else being Anglican. I merely think he had a bit of a blind spot in his thinking that he seemed unwilling to address. That’s okay, we all have them about different things. It doesn’t lessen his contribution to traditional Christianity nor does it lessen my appreciation of him or his writings. He had a very great influence on me–his writings saved me from a reductionist sect hostile to logical thought, for which I will be eternally grateful. And I love his fiction–it’s much better than some of his critics give him credit for. I simply think he had an area in his life he’d rather not have dealt with, and that makes him human, just like the rest of us.

Ah yes, the Dark Tower. I read it, but it didn’t impress me as something Lewis would have penned. It may only have been an idea he was working on, I don’t know, but I wouldn’t die in defense of it or against it, either. It’s just not worth all the fuss, IMHO.

 

[GKC]

I’m not being biased, as I wrote in my post. I have no problem with Lewis remaining Anglican or anyone else being Anglican. I merely think he had a bit of a blind spot in his thinking that he seemed unwilling to address. That’s okay, we all have them about different things. It doesn’t lessen his contribution to traditional Christianity nor does it lessen my appreciation of him or his writings. He had a very great influence on me–his writings saved me from a reductionist sect hostile to logical thought, for which I will be eternally grateful. And I love his fiction–it’s much better than some of his critics give him credit for. I simply think he had an area in his life he’d rather not have dealt with, and that makes him human, just like the rest of us.

Ah yes, the Dark Tower. I read it, but it didn’t impress me as something Lewis would have penned. It may only have been an idea he was working on, I don’t know, but I wouldn’t die in defense of it or against it, either. It’s just not worth all the fuss, IMHO.

Can’t fault your para 1, even if I might not totally agree.

When DARK TOWER came out, I was elated. I bought it, read it, and half way through, stopped in confusion. I didn’t know who wrote it, but I wouldn’t believe it was Lewis. This was some time before the issues related to that book, and other matters, began to be talked about in Lewis circles.

Some time later, I read Lindskoog’s first book on these issues. And then the others, as they appeared. In almost all points, her assertions matched my conclusions and confusions, from some years back, on issues of authorship, provenance and some points of questionable biography. I corresponded with Mrs. Lindskoog, and she asked if she could print my letter in her newsletter. I could see no reason that would be useful; I’m not like the scholars and writers who more or less shared her misgivings. But what the heck, sure. I assume that happened.

DT in itself isn’t the major point. The major point is the questions raised, with respect to the last months of Lewis’ life and beyond, and the provenance of a number of the posthumous publications. "Christian Reunion " is one such, though I have no problem with it, which ,means nothing, in the scholarship issue. It’s all a tempest in a Lewisian teacup (a large one, as we are told by someone who has revealed some points of Lewisiana , as pretty much a sole source). But it was one that I had scratched my head over, as far back as the mid 60s, on things that I could not fit into a known time table of the year 1963.

 

[Contarini]

The DT text itself absolutely sounds like Lewis to me. I find Lindskoog’s literary judgment here to be completely unsound, whatever may or may not be the merits of some of her other claims.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

As for his comments about Catholicism being in a jungle, it has been in many jungles down through the ages and come out of them quite nicely. I wonder if the same can be said of his affiliation. I highly doubt he’d approve of the decisions his church has made since his passing. And as for not being able to accept whatever the Church might declare as doctrine (he seems not to have understood the difference between doctrine and dogma) it’s just plan silly. He wouldn’t accept a friend not knowing what he would say, so he wouldn’t accept the Catholic Church, either? But doesn’t one put one’s faith in a friend in spite of what he might say? That’s a poor comparison.

I think the element of personal trust is key here, and I think Lewis was indeed evading it.

No, he meant he would not bow to authority,

He wouldn’t sign a blank check, not.

which is rather odd considering he wrote about obedience as fundamental to being Christian. No, he simply couldn’t get past his Ulster repellency for Catholicism

I think that’s a facile explanation.

and wanted to remain independent of any particular association–to be, in effect, a Lone Ranger, a freelance Christian.

Nothing of the sort. He makes that very clear in SbJ and Screwtape. He believed very firmly in the need for the visible Church and the Communion of the Saints.

But certainly his own temperament inclined him to be a free ranger, and so he wasn’t going to go any further in terms of submission to communal authority than he had to. That much is fair, I think.

Edwin

 

[Della]

How do you all feel about C. S. Lewis’ writings?

To asnwer your original question, which I have not yet done, I very much like them. IMHO, they’re sharp and tangy whereas Tolkien’s are rich and poignant. His Narnia stories are full of insight and fun, his theological ones have much merit, although he doesn’t go deep enough, and his adult fiction is aimed at putting across ideas rather than endearing the reader to his characters. His approach is always original, but his ideas aren’t always his own, still, his writing has been a great influence for good for millions, and that’s nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Della]

I think the element of personal trust is key here, and I think Lewis was indeed evading it.

I agree.

He wouldn’t sign a blank check, not.

Which is why he couldn’t trust the Church, although his reasons for this weren’t as plain as he might have thought.

I think that’s a facile explanation.

I think it’s the heart of the issue.

Nothing of the sort. He makes that very clear in SbJ and Screwtape. He believed very firmly in the need for the visible Church and the Communion of the Saints.

Which is not consistent with his lack of trust in either–my point exactly.

But certainly his own temperament inclined him to be a free ranger, and so he wasn’t going to go any further in terms of submission to communal authority than he had to. That much is fair, I think.

Edwin

Indeed true. Again, my point exactly. But one really can’t be a free ranger and believe in a visible Church and the Communion of Saints. One has to roost somewhere. He was like a bird who wouldn’t commit to any branch, but only alit on one that suited him best. That’s not committment, that’s putting one’s own judgment over that of the Church he claims to be a member of. An inconsistency I don’t think even he could explain. I’m not denigrating him for that, but it’s something one should take into consideration when reading his writings.

 

[GKC]

The DT text itself absolutely sounds like Lewis to me. I find Lindskoog’s literary judgment here to be completely unsound, whatever may or may not be the merits of some of her other claims.

Edwin

Mileage varies.

 

[Peter_J]

Lot of good posts.

It’s hard to speak definitely, but there are some Catholics from whom I wouldn’t mind getting an explanation of their Lewis-fanship. That is to say, when a Catholic says than non-Catholics have gotta become RC, yet make a vague ill-defined exception for a great author like Lewis … Well, it makes one go “hmmmm”.

 

[Della]

Lot of good posts.

It’s hard to speak definitely, but there are some Catholics from whom I wouldn’t mind getting an explanation of their Lewis-fanship. That is to say, when a Catholic says than non-Catholics have gotta become RC, yet make a vague ill-defined exception for a great author like Lewis … Well, it makes one go “hmmmm”.

Thinking back over the thread, I don’t recall any Catholic stating that non-Catholics must become Catholic. Or are you thinking of some other thread?

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Della, and you’re right: when I said “when a Catholic says than non-Catholics have gotta become RC” I wasn’t thinking of this thread. I was referring to what seems to be, for many Catholic and Non-Catholic bloggers/posters/etc, one of the fundamentals of Catholicism.

 

[drac16]

He was an excellent author. His book, The Screwtape Letters, is brilliant. I take strong exception to his terms “Mohammedanism” and “Mohammedans” to refer to Islam and muslims, respectively. Other than that, I think he was brilliant.

 

[MaryT777]

Have I ever told you of the rather odd stuff I found in Sheen’s MOODS AND TRUTHS?

No, please do tell…

(I’m not all the way through the thread so if you addressed it just ignore my request)

Mary.

 

[GKC]

No, please do tell…

(I’m not all the way through the thread so if you addressed it just ignore my request)

Mary.

I’ve posted it somewhere here, some time back. I still have the main portions in my files somewhere, I’ll look. It is something that I couldn’t explain, even given my 50+ years of Chesterton stuff. And I’ll PM you with it.

 

[MaryT777]

I’ve posted it somewhere here, some time back. I still have the main portions in my files somewhere, I’ll look. It is something that I couldn’t explain, even given my 50+ years of Chesterton stuff. And I’ll PM you with it.

Thanks,

Mary.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

He was an excellent author. His book, The Screwtape Letters, is brilliant. I take strong exception to his terms “Mohammedanism” and “Mohammedans” to refer to Islam and muslims, respectively. Other than that, I think he was brilliant.

When Lewis was writing, those terms were probably the lingua fraca, and he probably wasn’t doing anything out of the ordinary for the times he lived in. He’s been dead for 52 years, having died on the same day John F. Kennedy was assassinated, which meant his passing was almost unnoticed by the media of the time.

You might be interested in this little extract regarding the terms “Allah” and “God” for that matter.

christiananswers.net/q-eden/allah.html

Allah” is the Arabic word for “God” and has been so long before the existence of Islam. The names “Allah” and “God” are generally interchangeable within the Muslim religion and in Middle Eastern cultures. Some English translations of the Qu’ran (Koran) use the name “God,” others use “Allah.” This sometimes comes as a surprise to Christians who were raised in Western cultures. Among former Muslims, many converts to Christianity commonly refer to God as “Allah.” (This is despite the fact that they recognize clear differences in the character of God as described by the Bible compared to Islamic writings. For example, although both Christians, Muslims and Jews firmly believe there is only one God, Christians have the additional doctrine of the Trinity.)

Of course, the word “God” does not actually appear in the original Hebrew or Greek manuscripts of the Bible, accepted as Holy by both Christians and Muslims. “God” is an old English word which developed from an Indo-European word, meaning “that which is invoked,” which is also the ancestor of the German word Gott (meaning: God).

 

[drac16]

When Lewis was writing, those terms were probably the lingua fraca, and he probably wasn’t doing anything out of the ordinary for the times he lived in. He’s been dead for 52 years, having died on the same day John F. Kennedy was assassinated, which meant his passing was almost unnoticed by the media of the time.

You might be interested in this little extract regarding the terms “Allah” and “God” for that matter.

christiananswers.net/q-eden/allah.html

I hesitate about giving him the benefit of the doubt. The word ‘muslim’ was around long before C.S. Lewis was born, so I don’t believe he was ignorant of that word. He chose to use his own derogatory term. Yes, muslims follow Muhammad, but that is secondarily true, so it would be absurd to have Muhammad’s name as the name of our religion. Don’t worry; you’re not giving credence to Islam by calling it Islam, you’re just being polite.

 

[drac16]

On second thought, perhaps I was unnecessarily harsh. I shouldn’t assume the worst about C.S. Lewis. My mistake.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I hesitate about giving him the benefit of the doubt. The word ‘muslim’ was around long before C.S. Lewis was born, so I don’t believe he was ignorant of that word. He chose to use his own derogatory term. Yes, muslims follow Muhammad, but that is secondarily true, so it would be absurd to have Muhammad’s name as the name of our religion. Don’t worry; you’re not giving credence to Islam by calling it Islam, you’re just being polite.

Out of curiosity I went looking for the term “Mohammedism”, since its not in vogue these days.

At the following site, I noticed a comment about “Usage Notes”

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Mohammedanism

Usage notes

The terms Mohammedan and Mohammedanism have been largely replaced by Muslim and Islam since the 1950s, and are now considered offensive, though some authors continue to use Mohammedanism as a technical term for the religious system (of Islam) as opposed to the theological concept of اسلام ‎(islam, “submission”) that exists within that system. The terms are said to be offensive because they suggest that a human being is central to Muslims’ religion, and/or because they parallel the formation Christian, Christianity and thus supposedly equate Muhammad and Christ.[1]

CS Lewis died in 1963, so much of his apologetic writing would have been done in the 1950’s. So I would say he was simply using the common term of the time. Now it may be considered offensive, but that’s the case with a lot of words. Their meanings change.

If I’d said about some ebullient, humorous bloke in the 1950’s that he was a gay fellow, everybody would have agreed. But if I made the same comment today, I’d need to be pretty sure of my reasons.