Why not practice mere Christianity when relating to the non-Christian world?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Carolyn_Lee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Carolyn_Lee

Guest
Why not choose mere Christianity as the approach to non-Chriatians ?
 
Define “mere Christianity”. As a Catholic I’d define Catholicism as Christianity in its purest form, if that’s what you’re referring to.
 
Carolyn_Lee said:
C.S. Lewis “Mere Christianity”.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to water down the message if I’m trying to explain/defend Christianity to a non-Christian.
But Lewis’ ‘Mere Christianity’ is an excellent start. Teach the basics and then progress to more advanced material.
 
Carolyn_Lee said:
Why not choose mere Christianity as the approach to non-Chriatians ?
Click to expand...
We do choose that approach, in preaching what the Catholic Church teaches. The problem is that some people, including some Christians, have watered-down further what mere Christianity is.
 
We do use that approach, to some extent. Like Lewis, our job is first to bring persons into relationship with Christ. But Mere Christianity also emphasized the importance of the Church. Ideally we (guided by the Spirit) bring them into the larger building, then they sooner or later decide which apartment (denomination) is where they want to live.

Lewis was no non denominational Christian. He wouldn’t have supported the current practice of trashing the “institutional church”.
 
I agree. Lewis wanted to bring people into the larger building and they sooner or later decide in which apartment (denomination) they wanted to live. As the Catholic Church accepts the baptism of the long list of Christian denominations, am I to assume that this group and the Catholic Church are all part of the “larger building”?
 
It is the approach, when it comes to evangelization.

There is a concept in Catholicism called the “Hierarchy of Truths.”

All Catholic doctrine is presented as true and important, but there are some more “core” truths than others. This doesn’t mean we dispose of the rest. But it DOES mean we relate the lesser points to the more important ones.

For example, it doesn’t make sense to start with the Immaculate Conception or Assumption of Mary when an Atheist doesn’t even believe in God, in the first place
 
Last edited:
Clarification: I did not ask the question why not practice mere Christianity. I asked why not approach non-Christians with mere Christianity.
 
Last edited:
It is Lewis’ book, and he sent a copy of the yet unpublished manuscript to clergy of 4 different denominations, one of which was Catholic. So Lewis certainly considered the Catholic Church one of the rooms off the hallway. Many Protestants think Catholics are not really Christian, so they might disagree with Lewis’ contention that the CC is one of the rooms. But these types of Protestants might not read or like the book for that very reason.

I do agree with Lewis where in this same book he strongly discourages airing denominational differences in front of non-believers. Our common points are huge, our differences relatively minor, and the disunity in Christendom greatly undermines our outreach to a very lost and needy world.

It’s a wonderful book…!
 
Last edited:
I maintain many Catholics do this approach.

Start with God and who Jesus is. Then, talk about the Church he founded. Then, go on to morality and the sacraments, the life of prayer, etc.
 
That is so true. Mere Christianity is a wonderful book. The big hall in the building is not a place to live but it could be a great place to celebrate together strengthening the foundation of Christianity. And then we can go to our chosen apartment to live and work.
 
Your question got me thinking about how it might be a good idea to offer a pre-RCIA exploration of the basic beliefs of Christianity in a Catholic Church. Many Protestant churches offer the Alpha course for this reason, and Alpha claims it can be offered in a Catholic setting. I’ve never seen an Alpha course offered by a Catholic Church, but I bet it would be doable and perhaps meet a need.
 
I spent many years with a non-Catholic organization that focused basic evangelism efforts into many Asian countries. When different types of Christians get to arguing doctrine too acrimoniously, I tend to think that everyone who argues these differences too vociferously probably needs to go on a short term mission trip to a place and culture that has little or no Christian faith of any kind. The needs and lostness of the non-Christian world should break our hearts and spur us to action on their behalf.
 
Yes. I agree. How many Christians of any denomination know what is shared in common with all Christians. Who teaches which ever one you choose this they believe…
 
Last edited:
Carolyn_Lee said:
I agree. Lewis wanted to bring people into the larger building and they sooner or later decide in which apartment (denomination) they wanted to live. As the Catholic Church accepts the baptism of the long list of Christian denominations, am I to assume that this group and the Catholic Church are all part of the “larger building”?
Click to expand...
Yes.
But Lewis’ book reflects the situation of the early 1940s. He regarded all the Catholic, EO, mainline Protestant, and Evangelical denominations as essentially orthodox, as they were then.

If he were writing this book in 2019, I think he would still say truth can be found by the willing heart in any denomination. But I bet he would express definite preference for some more than others for growth, always accepting the individual making the final choice.
 
He publically avoided any specifics about his personal religious beliefs and I think he still would. Of course he had his own denomination and his private opinions.
 
In his essays, he did address issues that came up after Mere. He specifically opposed trends then in the proposal stage within the Church of England, and mainline Protestantism , adopted after his death.

For instance he called for “high church” types (sacramental, traditional) and “low church” types, (Evangelical) to declare a truce, perhaps form “deep church” against the liberals ascending to power. To the end of his life he rarely criticized institutions by name. But if you look at who implemented what he publicly warned against, you can draw conclusions.
The best expert is @GKMotley.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top