Every American my age or older knows where he was the day C.S. Lewis died. Most remember unwittingly. The great man died in Oxford around the same hour John Kennedy was shot in Dallas. November 22nd, 1963, leaves us with more than one reason for remembering.
Some Christians progress through a C.S. Lewis phase which leads on later to something else. Call it a fixation, but the phase never left me. I hope it never does. Far from abating, the lucidity of CSL’s logic and the purity of his prose arrests my attention and commands my admiration more and more each passing year.
The individuality of Lewis’ practically articulated theology frustrates many Evangelicals. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, born the year after Lewis, whose brother knew Lewis at Oxford, went so far as to suggest that Lewis’ conversion may have been solely intellectual. I am impressed emphatically to the contrary. While unexposed to many emphases of evangelical conviction, Lewis hammered out a relatively evangelical theology in virtual isolation. He eschewed the label ‘evangelical’ because he eschewed all labels except for ‘Christian.’ He was the quintessential ‘Mere Christian.’ Although Lewis may line up with evangelical theology only 85% of the time, it is more or less universally agreed that he expresses that 85% more elegantly and convincingly than those who agree with us at a rate of 99% plus. As for the other 15% let us regret but let us also remember that Lewis had no truly conservative biblical influences. He had no evangelical mentors or heroes (with the possible exception of Bunyan). His wide learning and his Bible reading alone led him to a conviction of the rightness of orthodox Christian doctrine.
Among those of his friends who took Christianity seriously many were Roman Catholic. These included his physician, R.E. Havard, his favorite pupils, Bede Griffiths and George Sayer, and his closest Oxford faculty colleague, J.R.R. Tolkien. There have been revisionist efforts to claim CSL as a closet Roman Catholic. This point of view is abetted by the Catholic enthusiasms of Walter Hooper, Lewis’ last secretary and literary executor. Lewis’ generosity toward Roman Catholics is better explained by the aforementioned friendships and a determination to distance himself from the anti-Catholic postures associated with the Belfast of his youth. On the Person and Work of Christ and the supremacy of Christian claims over against all other religions Lewis was thoroughly biblical. Evangelicals better trained and more theologically acute have been less effective in wooing 20th century skeptics toward the Savior. Lewis was (sadly) Arminian, but it is a demonstration of sovereignty that God would appoint an Arminian layman devoid of biblical training to be such a powerful force in putting across the Christian message.
Lewis’ personal life, though not without blemish, was admirable on the whole. It is true that he likely only fell in love twice in his life and both times with married women. The record of his dealings with the first (much older) woman was shameful to a high degree. In his defense he was a naïve and atheistic youth at the time the liaison began. One could wish that he had worked harder to save Joy Gresham’s marriage. But, as some who knew them well (including members of her own family who are committed believers) are still alive and able to represent this part of CSL’s life, it is perhaps better to maintain a courteous reticence.
But there is much to be celebrated in his life as well as his writings. He was a wounded war hero. He lived a life of strict frugality so that he could sustain a record of rare generosity in giving away much of the material assets which passed through his hands. He was indefatigable in his labors. The demands of his professional life were such that his enormous contribution to Christian efforts was offered in the context of great personal sacrifice in moments he could eke out after duties to his University and his household were discharged.
We may thank God for such a gift. C.S. Lewis and Winston Churchill were born on successive days (November 29th - 30) in different years (1898, 1874). Churchill and Lewis died in the same 14-month period. Just as we search in vain for Churchill’s successor in the realm of world politics, so we search in vain for Lewis’ successor in the world of apologetics. While we wait, we remember.
And we are grateful.
Some Christians progress through a C.S. Lewis phase which leads on later to something else. Call it a fixation, but the phase never left me. I hope it never does. Far from abating, the lucidity of CSL’s logic and the purity of his prose arrests my attention and commands my admiration more and more each passing year.
The individuality of Lewis’ practically articulated theology frustrates many Evangelicals. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, born the year after Lewis, whose brother knew Lewis at Oxford, went so far as to suggest that Lewis’ conversion may have been solely intellectual. I am impressed emphatically to the contrary. While unexposed to many emphases of evangelical conviction, Lewis hammered out a relatively evangelical theology in virtual isolation. He eschewed the label ‘evangelical’ because he eschewed all labels except for ‘Christian.’ He was the quintessential ‘Mere Christian.’ Although Lewis may line up with evangelical theology only 85% of the time, it is more or less universally agreed that he expresses that 85% more elegantly and convincingly than those who agree with us at a rate of 99% plus. As for the other 15% let us regret but let us also remember that Lewis had no truly conservative biblical influences. He had no evangelical mentors or heroes (with the possible exception of Bunyan). His wide learning and his Bible reading alone led him to a conviction of the rightness of orthodox Christian doctrine.
Among those of his friends who took Christianity seriously many were Roman Catholic. These included his physician, R.E. Havard, his favorite pupils, Bede Griffiths and George Sayer, and his closest Oxford faculty colleague, J.R.R. Tolkien. There have been revisionist efforts to claim CSL as a closet Roman Catholic. This point of view is abetted by the Catholic enthusiasms of Walter Hooper, Lewis’ last secretary and literary executor. Lewis’ generosity toward Roman Catholics is better explained by the aforementioned friendships and a determination to distance himself from the anti-Catholic postures associated with the Belfast of his youth. On the Person and Work of Christ and the supremacy of Christian claims over against all other religions Lewis was thoroughly biblical. Evangelicals better trained and more theologically acute have been less effective in wooing 20th century skeptics toward the Savior. Lewis was (sadly) Arminian, but it is a demonstration of sovereignty that God would appoint an Arminian layman devoid of biblical training to be such a powerful force in putting across the Christian message.
Lewis’ personal life, though not without blemish, was admirable on the whole. It is true that he likely only fell in love twice in his life and both times with married women. The record of his dealings with the first (much older) woman was shameful to a high degree. In his defense he was a naïve and atheistic youth at the time the liaison began. One could wish that he had worked harder to save Joy Gresham’s marriage. But, as some who knew them well (including members of her own family who are committed believers) are still alive and able to represent this part of CSL’s life, it is perhaps better to maintain a courteous reticence.
But there is much to be celebrated in his life as well as his writings. He was a wounded war hero. He lived a life of strict frugality so that he could sustain a record of rare generosity in giving away much of the material assets which passed through his hands. He was indefatigable in his labors. The demands of his professional life were such that his enormous contribution to Christian efforts was offered in the context of great personal sacrifice in moments he could eke out after duties to his University and his household were discharged.
We may thank God for such a gift. C.S. Lewis and Winston Churchill were born on successive days (November 29th - 30) in different years (1898, 1874). Churchill and Lewis died in the same 14-month period. Just as we search in vain for Churchill’s successor in the realm of world politics, so we search in vain for Lewis’ successor in the world of apologetics. While we wait, we remember.
And we are grateful.
5 comments:
Wow, Ronnie, I'm impressed you have a blog!
Next thing you know you will be changing the oil on your car.
Have always enjoyed CSL and been challenged by his depth of understanding, basically from his own personal study.
Brett
Ronnie, as a brand new 20 year old Christian, I began to read CSL. Every once in a while I would see something in his writings that seemed to be less than biblical, as I was being taught by mostly Presbyterians. For a short while it bothered me, that he wasn't "thoroughly orthodox." Then I thought: He has helped me understand Christianity more than anyone else. From then on I have never stopped reading him.
Thanks for the thoughts on the "45th anniversary"
Roger
Lewis was merely following in the footsteps of the great Puritan pastor and author Richard Baxter (1615-1691). Baxter first coined the phrase when applying for a preaching license under the Act of Toleration when, refusing to be labelled, he described his church affiliation as a 'mere Christian'.
He was a 'big tent' guy and wanted to avoid 'camps'.
JFB
Those that disparage Lewis for the 15% disagreement, often fail to recognize the work that God has done in drawing others to Him through Lewis' writings. As you've noted, let's regret the 15% but express our gratitude for the articulateness of the remainder.
It's interesting to me that both men that are lauded as great leaders (Churchill and Lewis) were both often insensitive to the niceties of the day. If one gets the "big issues" right, maybe the trivial ones are rightly recalled as insignificant? (Of course, not all the points of disagreement with either man are in fact trivial, but many may be.)
Hi Ronnie,
I am so encouraged that you have a blog. Now I can glean on your reflection and deep insight. God bless.
Post a Comment