Tuesday, November 18, 2014

The Abolition of C.S. Lewis


His friends called him Jack. The rest of us know him as C.S. Lewis. His genius for conveying truth on multiple levels in multiple genres is, to my mind, without parallel. And, he got me kicked out of a Facebook group last week.

“An atheist group?” you ask. No, a Christian one.

You see, my previous blog spot is a defense of prayer against an atheist antagonist. In the article I reference C. S. Lewis. I posted the article in the group and was promptly informed by an administrator that C.S. Lewis was a “heretic” of the worst sort.

She inquired if I was familiar with Lewis and if I knew he was an “impostor.” I assured her that I am indeed very familiar with him and that I am positive he was not an “impostor” but rather an Anglican.  

She was not amused.

I further explained that quoting is not the same thing as endorsing—that to agree with some statements is not to agree with all statements.

She totally disagreed.

I then asked her if she believes that the Apostle Paul endorses and agrees with all that the pagan poets have to say when he quotes them in Acts 17. (Similarly, we could mention Jude’s quoting of “The Book of Enoch.”)

I also told her that I was not an apologist for C.S. Lewis and wouldn’t comment on him any further, but I would be most happy to discuss prayer—which is what the article in question is about.

That’s when I found myself on the outside looking in: BANNED.

I didn’t even get a mock trial. This was a papal-like bull (or perhaps some sort of Protestant bull) delivered with the full force and speed of a Facebook anathema. Too late did I realize that I had just run afoul of a gal who had a keyboard with a hair-trigger and she wasn’t afraid to use it.

I can’t help but believe that our stunted, shall we say, discourse, reveals much more about her than C.S. Lewis or me.

What should we think of such an encounter?

Well, my knee-jerk response was: This is why the Apostle Paul disallowed women in leadership. (Yeah, I know…that’s another whole debate that I’m not interested in having.) But for the record, I quickly recovered myself! (When it comes to the war against women I’m a pacifist, you see.)
  
My second and more serious thought is this: I was more respectfully treated by the professing atheist to whom I was speaking in the article, than the professing Christian who read it. How sad.

My third premise is: It’s this kind of illogical thinking and behaving which give Christianity’s detractors sticks to beat us with. Certainly, the majority of Christians aren’t as unreasonable as this woman and her C.S. Lewis hating cohorts, but the enemies of our faith are proficient in broad-brush painting. Suffice it to say, slow to think, quick to quarrel Christians make the apologetic task more difficult.

I grow increasingly weary of bickering believers. I really do.

Even so, what should our attitude be towards our unthinking—and sometimes hostile—weaker brothers and sisters? In this particular instance I’ll paraphrase the prayer of our Lord: Father forgive them for they don’t know Jack.


18 comments:

  1. Great thoughts, Steve. But, not to worry . . . the worst is yet to come. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Undoubtedly, you are correct, sir. But thanks for reading and thinking!

      Delete
  2. Pope-ettes can be frustrating. I'm going to nail 96 sandwich recipes on the wall of the next one I encounter. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Trinity Foundation says she is right and may be the source of her confusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You may be right.

      Rather than seeing such disagreements in a nuanced way and as being of secondary or even tertiary importance..."heresy hunters" view nearly ALL disagreements as being of primary or essential importance.

      They have no use for Augustine's dictum: "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity."

      Delete
    2. They would only reply, 'Augustine was a heretic. '

      Delete
  4. You're in good company. She doesn't like you and she doesn't like CS Lewis. I suspect that, if she actually knew what they thought, she wouldn't like Calvin, Augustine, Luther, or Barth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're probably right about that. Thanks for reading and have a blessed Holiday season.

      Delete
  5. Sounds like a great group.... people who still care about the truth, and fake professors like you. What's it called? Seriously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's called "Defending the Faith" and I'm sure you'll fit right in.

      Delete
  6. Steve, though you might hesitate being a Lewis apologist, I have no trouble being one and I am thoroughly Reformed. Lewis was much more Reformed than even he imagined himself being. Just look at Miracles or some of his essays. I have been teaching college courses on Lewis for 25 years and never grow tired of his passion for Christ.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. Thanks for reading and thinking, Mark.

      Delete
  7. Steve I have been banned or have had my account deleted at Helium, writer.com, gather (the entire writers posters site was taken down except for a few). It is corporatism and occurs routinely. The internet is owned by global corporatists. Though a kulture kampf of the left is going on at NPR (another place where the public writer's Your Turn Discussions was terminated that I wrote at) and in the administration is in't a lady's proclivity thing-it is a general intolerance of free speech by the left when in power.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Things aren't always as they appear, are they? Thanks for reading and thinking, Gary.

      Delete
  8. The universal poverty in fallacy-free reasoning impacts academics & illiterates, Christians & atheists, pastors & congregation, judges & lawyers & criminals..

    The > 60 textbook techniques include DAMNING THE ORIGIN to dismiss all ideas from that source!

    Illiteracy in reasoning is the norm, not the exception.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for reading and thinking, Sanyi.

      Delete