C.S. Lewis Obssession...

[mitsuki lover]

Don't forget G.K.Chesterton.Lewis often cited Chesterton.

As far as it goes Calvinism and Armianism are both broad theological spectrums,ranging from the hyper to the 'soft'.I suspect
MacDonald might have been more of a 'soft' Calvinist to begin with.Though his
universalism might not have been totally at odds with Calvinistic theological thinking if it had it's roots in the Sovereignty of God,which after all is the central
part of all Calvinism.
Not being Arminian I won't pretend to even attempt to go into it.

Lewis,it must be remembered,was born and bred in Ulster,and we need to keep that in mind when dealing with his reconversion and why he choose the Anglican and not the Catholic church.

btw:Lewis' private tutor Kirkpatrick was a former Presbyterian turned Atheist who
put his best clothes on Sundays to work in the garden.

[JasonPratt]

Good points all. Though Lewis didn't cite Chesterton nearly as much; and never referred to him or anyone else but MacD as his Teacher, so far as I can find. Again, it was only of MacD that Lewis (so far as I can find) ever said that he had quoted him at least once in every book he ever wrote. (Hyperbole, I think, but it shows the strength of Lewis' opinion about his indebtedness to MacD.)

And yes, MacD's universalism had its roots in the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God.

{{Lewis,it must be remembered,was born and bred in Ulster,and we need to keep that in mind when dealing with his reconversion and why he choose the Anglican and not the Catholic church.}}

True; which is why I mentioned his family as a factor. {s}

[rocklobster]

I love The Screwtape Letters!

[mitsuki lover]

Screwtape earned Lewis his cover story in Time Magazine.

[USSRGirl]

REAAALLY? I know Screwtape is pretty much his most popular book... but honestly I didn't think it was that great. Maybe it's because I read it last and heard the same kind of arguments in his other books. Still... I think it was done better in the other books than Screwtape.

...and...would someone PLEASE explain to me the random centipede outburst midway through Screwtape Letters? I've heard it was from Milton... that he thought demons could turn into bugs or something. *shrug* Can you say RANDOM?

[Kokhiri Sojourn]

REAAALLY? I know Screwtape is pretty much his most popular book... but honestly I didn't think it was that great. Maybe it's because I read it last and heard the same kind of arguments in his other books. Still... I think it was done better in the other books than Screwtape.

...and...would someone PLEASE explain to me the random centipede outburst midway through Screwtape Letters? I've heard it was from Milton... that he thought demons could turn into bugs or something. *shrug* Can you say RANDOM?

I semi-agree. I was confused as to why it ranked as one of his best. I know that the concept was ingenius, but so was The Great Divorce, let alone others. Maybe it was the subject matter. I don't think it was a bad book at all, but I would choose most of his others before it to read.

[JasonPratt]

I recall it being a tough book for him to write, and one he wasn't all that happy with afterward. Also, it annoyed him that this was his most popular book, though he took it as a way of deflating his ego when he realized that the book's length was probably why it sold so well compared to his other works! {lopsided g}


The centipede thing... the notion is that the devils are cursed to change into forms more appropriate to their passions, when they allow their passions to overwhelm them. Directly, yes, it was borrowed from Milton; it may also have some connection to a speculation from George MacDonald, though, that souls undergoing purgatory are 'devolved' somewhat (this is part of the story of "The Princess and Curdie"). The basic theological notion, which is widely accepted, is that when we surrender to our passions we give up our inheritance of being made in the image of God (selling our birthright for porridge, in the OT story of Jacob and Esau for instance). We regress to being only reactive beasts, not creatures supernaturally endowed by God to initiatively _act_.

(As an aside on medieval trivia--which Lewis was aware of, btw, and which may factor back in more directly in a minute--this is why the theologians of the Middle Ages agreed that _any_ sexual activity involved some kind of sin, even if the sin was only a venial one: we are always led into a purely reactive state by the strength of our passion, and so treat our mate at the climax, if not sooner, as a thing for our own satisfaction. This is part of the curse of being under original sin; to be cured, one way or another, in the resurrection.)


As to _why_ Lewis chose to go this route in the story, at this point: obviously he takes advantage of the 'transformation' to link demonic attitudes to the philosophy of George Bernard Shaw, but that doesn't explain why he did it in the first place.

This is notably the one time in the whole story where Screwtape utterly loses his temper, and I think Lewis wanted to emphasize this in a way that seemed comic to him (while also giving a nod to something he thought was 'cool' in Milton, whose work he studied and wrote about extensively.) Personally, I think it's funny as a contrast: the witty, urbane Screwtape goes into the screaming fits and then tries to regain his witty, urbane air... as a centipede! It reminds me of how a cat will try to pretend he's still all suave and cool in a manifestly ridiculous situation.


Now--here's something to consider. What is this one single time in the whole book when Screwtape goes ballistic? It isn't when the protagonist (who is a thinly disguised version of Lewis himself, by the way) becomes a Christian--the devil is angry about that, but knows all is not lost. (And later, when the protagonist is killed in a bombing raid, as Lewis had some expectation of happening to himself as well during the Blitz, Screwtape is lethally furious, but his anger is focused and horrible.)

No, the one time Screwtape goes freakishly berserk is when the protagonist (i.e. Lewis) _meets and falls in love with a good, Christian woman_! Something Lewis was always hoping for, and might at that time have been more specifically hoping for than usual. (If I recall the chronology of his life correctly, he _had_ met a young woman of this sort at about this time; but nothing ever came of it, partly because Helen Joy Davidman eventually showed up and put a decisive end to several years of tentative courting. {wry g})


Keeping Lewis' hopes in mind, and connecting with the thematic I mentioned earlier, we now may have an extra reason for Lewis to end out his chapter this way: he may have been tacitly reminding himself that however much he wanted romantic love, he mustn't think of it as being something to simply fulfill _his_ needs. (And yet also reminding himself that in a fallen world, there will always be a bit of that selfishness tragically present in every romance.)

[USSRGirl]

I never said Screwtape wasn't good, Kokhiri, just not as good as his others like Great Divorce and Pilgrim's Regress in my opinion.

Jason, hmm interesting insight. Yeah, I kinda interpretted the centipede thing as Screwtape reverting to his true form. A lot like Calicifer from Howl's(ok maybe Cal wasn't THAT profound), Screwtape has lost all beauty by selling his soul to Hell. Like Palpatine, his true face is revealed once the layers of cleverness are peeled off and he flies into a flat out rage. Still, it seemed a bit random in the middle of the book.

Lewis said somewhere that he thought Screwtape could have been better if he had been able to right the opposing view of the man's gaurdian angel, but of course he didn't feel that any human could adequately write something like that. Still, I liked his other books better because he used other characters to present an opposing argument with the antagonists. Interesting though that in Screwtape, the antagonist actually argues against himself with extreme irony.

I think Screwtape was mostly ticked off because the girl was a completely sincere, modest, strong-willed Christian. To get Screwtape that worked up, it would seem that this kind of person is also the only kind that actually makes the devil a bit nervous - even scared. He realizes he's about to lose his hold over the main character. Then at the end... well... oh my... poor dear Wormwood. XD

[mitsuki lover]

I think Calvin Miller wrote a book from the Guardian Angel's point of view.I can't remember the title though.

[Kokhiri Sojourn]

I never said Screwtape wasn't good, Kokhiri, just not as good as his others like Great Divorce and Pilgrim's Regress in my opinion.

Sorry for misrepresenting you - it was accidental, but still, my apologies, USSRGirl.

[JasonPratt]

To get Screwtape that worked up, it would seem that this kind of person is also the only kind that actually makes the devil a bit nervous - even scared. He realizes he's about to lose his hold over the main character.

I just realized Lewis _might_ have been also borrowing from a phrase Chesterton wrote about a young lady of much the same sort, in _The Ball and the Cross_. "She wasn't afraid of devils. I think that they were afraid of _her_."


(Sadly, this interesting observation isn't borne out in Chesterton's actual story--since when the devil does eventually show up, he isn't remotely afraid of this girl at all. Nice to see it happening in Lewis, though. {g})

[USSRGirl]

Sorry for misrepresenting you - it was accidental, but still, my apologies, USSRGirl.

Oh, no prob.

[Kokhiri Sojourn]

So... Question: what do you think about Lewis' statements (as Aslan) in the Last Battle, as some from an apparently different faith get into "Aslan's Country?" I was fairly confused when I read over it this summer. Any thoughts?

[mitsuki lover]

Perhaps Lewis was inspired by Naaman's words to Elisha in 2 Kings 5:18 when he wrote it.
What he was getting at,it would appear,was that what mattered was where a person's heart really was and not just what they said.

[Kokhiri Sojourn]

Perhaps Lewis was inspired by Naaman's words to Elisha in 2 Kings 5:18 when he wrote it.
What he was getting at,it would appear,was that what mattered was where a person's heart really was and not just what they said.

I agree with that the heart matters over all, but the surprising thing to me was that I never remembered that Emeth Tarkaan actually coming to know Aslan before the end of Narnia (i.e. that he was converted before death/end of all things). That was what confused me - can your heart be in the right place when it is elsewhere from God, even if you've never heard the message? This was the only time in the series I hesitated on Lewis' allegory. I don't know that I disagree yet, but just wanted some clarification/opinions.

[USSRGirl]

So... Question: what do you think about Lewis' statements (as Aslan) in the Last Battle, as some from an apparently different faith get into "Aslan's Country?" I was fairly confused when I read over it this summer. Any thoughts?

You mean with the Calormene dude (Emeth?)? Well... I think he was saying that certain people are, regardless of different faiths or backgrounds, will be God seekers. This goes along with a lot of the same theme in Pilgrim's Regress. Some people might be of a different faith, but looking for God and trying to worship with all their heart. I think it also comes from that verse somewhere that says good can only come of God. Those people that are truly, deeply searching or trying to worship what they think is right will be drawn to God (Aslan) in the end like Emeth was. Even if they get off on the wrong foot by being misdirected to idols or whatever, God will draw them into His country in the end because like it says in the Bible, He has predestined them from the begining of the world.

*shrug* That's how I interpretted it at least.

[USSRGirl]

I agree with that the heart matters over all, but the surprising thing to me was that I never remembered that Emeth Tarkaan actually coming to know Aslan before the end of Narnia (i.e. that he was converted before death/end of all things). That was what confused me - can your heart be in the right place when it is elsewhere from God, even if you've never heard the message? This was the only time in the series I hesitated on Lewis' allegory. I don't know that I disagree yet, but just wanted some clarification/opinions.

I think that a person who is truly, sincerely seeking God, even if they don't know who or what it is they're seeking, will be drawn to Him in the end. A lot of people who are searching will go to things like nature, philosophy, mystic stuff, ect., but will only be satisfied when they find God. Like Emeth seemed dissatisfied with Tash but went on searching any way.

This is sorta like a running theme in Pilgrim's Regress... (hmm... and in my novel too for that matter... but I swear I wrote it before I read Pilgrim's Regress. Darn it, old British dude ripped off my writing %%$@#!@)

[JasonPratt]

It's a pretty standard part of Lewis' theology. He was saying is that Emeth's heart _was_ in fact close to God, even though Emeth had always believed Aslan was a wicked demon. (The reversal is actually stronger than Emeth never having heard of Aslan at all.)

Based on some parallel language he uses elsewhere, I suspect Lewis was analogically illustrating his interpretation of the judgment of the sheep and the goats, from GosMatt 25. (Unfortunately, I can't quite recall where Lewis discusses it. I'll try to dig around later to find the reference, after I'm not swamped. )


And yes, Lewis takes flak from many Christians for advocating this doctrine.

[mitsuki lover]

It may have also been influenced by Lewis' boyhood friend Owen Barfield who was a follower of Rudolf Steiner's teachings.
In the long run there is a lot of merit to what Lewis says on the matter as even Jesus said that it was what is in the heart that matters.

[ClosetOtaku]

It fundamentally addresses the question: "What of the heathen who dies never hearing of Christ?" Lewis believes that Faith is Faith (e.g. Abram put his faith in God, and it was credited to him as righteousness).

[USSRGirl]

I agree with ClosetOtaku, that was the question Lewis seemed to be trying to answer. However, it gets a little sticky there, and I absolutely despise (YES! DESPISE TO THE POINT OF SPORKING INDEED!) it when people critize Lewis as being a sort of liberal universalist for this. I don't think he ever had the mind set of 'well if a Buddhist does good, he'll still go to heaven.' Or that 'one river many wells nonsense' about it not mattering who you worship you'll all end up in the same place if you do a good job worshipping, which would be contrary to scripture that Christ is the one and only way to eternal life.

I think Lewis is just making a point of the God-seeking person who never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel.

[mitsuki lover]

Which is entirely different from Universalism.Lewis himself would never have claimed to have been a Universalist.Also (to go off topic a bit)I believe MacDonald's Universalism would have been more anchored in the belief that at the
crucifixion Christ died for all Mankind and so the Atonement applies to all.This is what I think a Universalist of MacDonald's theological views would argue.

[JasonPratt]

It fundamentally addresses the question: "What of the heathen who dies never hearing of Christ?" Lewis believes that Faith is Faith (e.g. Abram put his faith in God, and it was credited to him as righteousness).

To which, we may add that Lewis would have recognized this as being an argument from... (wait for it {g})... Geeeeeoooorrggge MacD!

It may be replied, of course, that Abraham put his faith in God, not in Moloch, nor was under any confusion about who was Who (unlike Emeth). MacD (and Lewis) would say this makes no difference insofar as a reckoning of faithfulness goes--and MacD is especially interesting in his application of it, since he has a very practical application of the doctrine in mind: namely, he not unfrequently will accuse other Christians of in effect worshiping Moloch. Nevertheless, he recognizes their faithfulness, such as it is, as being such that God cares for, and possibly greater than his own. i.e. the people whom he considered to be his theological enemies might, he believed, actually be ahead of him in the kingdom of heaven already.

Whether one agrees with that or not, at least he's consistent about the application--including in favor of many people who would not agree with him.

[JasonPratt]

Which is entirely different from Universalism.Lewis himself would never have claimed to have been a Universalist.Also (to go off topic a bit)I believe MacDonald's Universalism would have been more anchored in the belief that at the crucifixion Christ died for all Mankind and so the Atonement applies to all.This is what I think a Universalist of MacDonald's theological views would argue.

True. The universalism of GMcD (which Lewis was very close to, the main difference being a touch of annihilationism on Lewis' part) is only superficially like the populist sort of universalism today. Or vice versa, rather. {s} Much _much_ tougher and chewier and doctrinally orthodox. No metaphysical relativism, at all, period. (Loads and loads of _charity_, yes.)

That being said--and readers should be aware of this, for better or for worse (and without entering on a debate about this here, which would likely get the thread locked down and rightly so {cautionary g})--

the fact of the matter, is that while neither Lewis nor MacD would say the Buddhist is getting into heaven _because_ she is good, they would both be betting on the good Buddhist going to heaven anyway, and would both expect to see her there (though not as a Buddhist per se anymore). Because God, in and as Christ, would be saving that Buddhist from her sin, and is clearly well along in the process of that (or else we wouldn't be recognizing her in terms of being 'good' to begin with; the fruits of the Holy Spirit being peace, love, joy, etc.)

Now, readers can disagree with Lewis (and MacD) on that or not. But that's how he was, and what he taught (when he thought he had to address it--though he was a lot more careful about it than MacD, not wanting to be a stumbling block to large numbers of his fellow Christians.)

[Kokhiri Sojourn]

That (all of it) makes a lot of sense in the reading of the text. I think that Lewis is incredible in showing his theology instead of telling his theology, as a good novelist does, and as well, always leads people to think, and this is always valuable.

[mitsuki lover]

Lewis did use MacDonald as his model.
Though again I would stress the importance of his lifelong friendship with Owen
Barfield.