For my own part I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books, and I rather suspect that the same experience may await many others. I believe that many who find that ‘nothing happens’ when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand.
–C.S. Lewis, from his Introduction to St. Athanasius’ De Incarnatione Verbi Dei.
…Amen!
gmail.com
I would caution anyone who enjoys CS Lews because his doctrine was way off in some important areas. Not many realize this. I hope these quotes might serve to show the error of Lewis so others won’t fall into the thinking he spoke for Evangelicals in any sense.
On page 59 of ‘Mere Christianity’ Mr Lewis writes ‘There are three things that spread the Christ life to us: baptism, belief, and that mysterious action which different Christians call by different names – Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord’s supper’. …
On page 62 of ‘Mere Christianity’ he writes ‘this new life is spread not only by purely mental acts like belief, but by bodily acts like baptism and Holy Communion…God never meant man to be a purely spiritual creature. That is why He uses material things like bread and wine to put new life into us’.
In his book ‘Prayer: Letters to Malcolm’ C S Lewis wrote [p 109-111] “‘Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter men…And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden.”
“…To pray for them presupposes that progress and difficulty are still possible. In fact you are bringing in something like Purgatory. Well, I suppose I am…I believe in Purgatory…”
On page 173 of ‘Mere Christianity’ C S Lewis wrote –‘There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (although he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been in this position…Consequently it is not much use trying to make judgments about Christians and non-Christians in the mass’.
For more info: http://www.takeheedministries.net But you can read for yourself in “Mere Christianity.” Test against Scripture.
Thanks for your thoughts, Denise. I agree that the above referenced positions are in error. Lewis was no theologian, and he never claimed to be one. However, even though Lewis held some rather non-evangelical theological positions, there’s a great big baby in that bathwater; throwing it out would be tragic. As JI Packer once said, “God honors a needle of truth in a haystack of error.” Lewis, though theologically unsophisticated (which he openly–and proudly–admitted), has very much to offer us. For example, his paradigm-shattering insights into the nature of praise in his Reflections on the Psalms (“joy expressed is joy consummated”), the duty of delight and meaning of longing in his The Weight of Glory, the no-nonsense way of thinking about Christ (as either Lord, Lunatic or Liar–nothing else) in his Mere Christianity, his warnings against “chronological snobbery,” his amazing insights into the nature of language and communication…I could go on and on.
Every non-inspired writer must be read with discernment, and Lewis is not to be excluded from that caveat; he had his errors. But surely his inducements to wonder at Christ, his invitation to appreciate the mysteries of Christianity as much–if not more than–the ‘hard facts’, and his challenge to maximize our desires for joy in Christ, are to be embraced, enjoyed, and encouraged, rather than locked up in a cell with his occasional theological inaccuracies…
The best learning is done when delight and wonder, as well as rote memorization, fuel the mind and heart of the student; and Lewis succeeds here where few others can even approach.
I hate to disagree with you, but I disagree with you. =)
I can’t help but feel that the quotes I posted by Lewis were not read. He was unbiblical in the matters of spiritual consequence: the atonement for one, redemption and repentance for others.
Lewis was definitely a Romanist and what does Rome have to offer believers? Nothing.
I read the quotes you posted, Denise–along with many of his books and quite a few of his sermons and essays. You’re welcome to disagree, but please don’t be rude.
Your assertion that Lewis was “definitely a Romanist” is wrong, and here’s why:
First, agreement with some (rather selective) Romish doctrines does not equal agreement with all Romish doctrines. To say so reflects a failure to make distinctions, and is a logical fallacy. Every biblical Christian will find agreement with some Romish doctrines, but that doesn’t make him a “Romanist.” For example: much of their Doctrine of God and the Holy Trinity; the Virgin Birth; the historicity of Christ’s sinless life, passion, resurrection, ascension, and bodily return; the veracity of Scripture; the canon of Scripture (up until the mid-1500s anyway); and many others. I agree with these, yet I am not a Romanist. Luther, however, went even further: he believed in purgatory, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, the invocation of the saints and many other Roman distinctives–yet I’m sure you wouldn’t call the great Reformer a Romanist…would you?
Second, Lewis himself flatly rejected Romanism. George Sayer writes, “I remember Dr. Havard saying, ‘Jack, most of your friends [such as J. R. R. Tolkien] seem to be [Roman catholic]. Why don’t you join us? Aren’t you tempted?’ Lewis…said that he was not tempted to share what he called ‘your heresies.’ ‘Heresies! What heresies, Jack?’ ‘Well, here are two–the position you give to the Virgin Mary and the doctrine of papal infallibility.’ But he refused to discuss them.” “…he wanted very much to avoid what he thought of as sectarian controversy and the bitterness that often went with it.” – George Sayer, Jack: A Life of C. S. Lewis (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1988 [repr. 1994]), p. 421. Being in the Roman church is defined by submission to the Pope–the “vicar of Christ,” the “visible head” of the church (see their edicts, papal bulls, catechism, etc.)–thus, Lewis was not a Romanist.
What, then, was he? He was a layman in the Anglican church. He never claimed to be, nor aspired to become, a theologian of any sort. He was a Professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature by trade, whom God gifted with an amazing ability to think and communicate. He has done much good for the cause of Christ, fraught with error though his work was (as is all of ours, as well). Anyone who rejects Lewis in toto, betrays that they’ve never actually read him (without a fault-finding eye), cuts himself off from one of the most precious of God’s gifts to his church in recent history, and has neglected to heed the wisdom-command of John 9:49-50 [show]ERROR: No passage found for your query.
–for Lewis is “not against us, but for us.”
A world of Christ-centered wonder awaits any who would give this non-inspired author a fair reading. If you look for it, you’ll find it. Of course, if you look for evil, you’ll find it as well. The choice is yours…but I hope you will. But either way, Lewis wasn’t a “Romanist.”
Aron,
I actually have this book, On the Incarnation, by Athanasius. If you ever want to read it, or maybe you already have it?, just let me know and I’ll send it your way.
Thanks, Mike – that’s very generous of you. I’m pretty deep into a reading plan right now, but I’ll definitely keep your offer in mind for the future.