Lewis quote--That guy

[Columcille]

Welcome to the board 'that guy.'

Just thought it would be good to start the discussion in regards to the CS Lewis quote you have.


I think we may accept it as a rule that whenever a person's religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently, on the faults of other people's religions, he is in a bad condition.

-C.S. Lewis
Collected Letters Vol. 3 pg. 209


I wanted to discuss this in greater detail. The whole letter reads as follows:


To Mary van Deusen (W):
Magdalen College, Oxford. 26/6/52

Dear Mrs. Van Deusen--
Incense and Hail Marys are in quite different catagories. The one is merely a question of ritual: some find it helpful and others don't, and each must put up with its absence or presence in the church they are attending with cheerful and charitably humility.

But Hail Marys raise a doctrinal question: wether it is lawful to address devotions to any creature, however holy. My own view would be that a salute to any saint (or angel) cannot in itself be wrong any more than taking off one's hat to a friend: but that there is always some danger lest some practices start one on the road to a state (sometimes found in R.C.'s) where the B.V.M. is treated really as a deity and even becomes the centre of the religion. I therefore think such salutes are better avoided. And if the Blessed Virgin is as good as the best mothers I have known, she does not want any of the attention which might have gone to her Son diverted to herself.

It seems, nevertheless, quite clear that the Spirit of God is, or is more strongly with Kemper Hall than with P.A. Wolfe. In him you describe a type I know. I think we may except [accept] it as a rule that whenever a person's religious conversation dwells chiefly, or even frequently, on the faults of other people's religions, he is in a bad condition. The fact that he shakes your faith is signifant. Pray for him but not, I shd. say, with him. If he insists on talking religion to you ask him for positive things: ask him to tell you what he knows of God.

All blessings. My 'new trouble' is still there: but I have much to be thankful for.
Yours
C.S. Lewis

Collected Letters Vol. 3 pg. 209-10.

[Columcille]

Ecclesiastes 3.1 'For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:'

My position in regards to Lewis comment is mainly that criticism that is leveled toward the inner circle of Christendom. First of all, his audience is a fellow Christian. I believe the person in question P.A. Wolfe is also a Christian, albeit both Wolfe and Mrs. Van Deusan come from different Christian traditions. Hence, the instruction to pray for him and not with him and to ask him for positive things.

Now as a rule, it is practical to know one's own religion rather than the an***hesis of all religions. Just as much as a person studies what a real genuine US dollar looks like rather than all the counterfeits floating around. It is a sad situation for people to always fault other people's religions; but he is not saying never to fault the religions' errors.

Lewis faults other religions, he does so in Mere Christianity calling atheism simple, he writes in his letters that Islam is simplistic, he states the errors of Dualism, polytheism, agnosticism, and other religions. But, Lewis does not make it a point to always being critical of those religions as he demonstrates the glory of Christianity in its 'mere' state. Yet even so, he is even being critical of the practice of Hail Marys in this letter.

I would be weary of applying the quote liberally to people that are posting here or elsewhere. I am sure there might be a few people like Wolfe around, but considering the atmosphere of discussion on forums that discuss religious differences... most people have a life outside the forum.

[That Guy]

Ecclesiastes 3.1 'For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:'

My position in regards to Lewis comment is mainly that criticism that is leveled toward the inner circle of Christendom. First of all, his audience is a fellow Christian. I believe the person in question P.A. Wolfe is also a Christian, albeit both Wolfe and Mrs. Van Deusan come from different Christian traditions. Hence, the instruction to pray for him and not with him and to ask him for positive things.

Now as a rule, it is practical to know one's own religion rather than the an***hesis of all religions. Just as much as a person studies what a real genuine US dollar looks like rather than all the counterfeits floating around. It is a sad situation for people to always fault other people's religions; but he is not saying never to fault the religions' errors.

Lewis faults other religions, he does so in Mere Christianity calling atheism simple, he writes in his letters that Islam is simplistic, he states the errors of Dualism, polytheism, agnosticism, and other religions. But, Lewis does not make it a point to always being critical of those religions as he demonstrates the glory of Christianity in its 'mere' state. Yet even so, he is even being critical of the practice of Hail Marys in this letter.

I would be weary of applying the quote liberally to people that are posting here or elsewhere. I am sure there might be a few people like Wolfe around, but considering the atmosphere of discussion on forums that discuss religious differences... most people have a life outside the forum.

I apologize for this taking so long. School and work have me nailed down lately.

Thanks for the clarification and posting of the letter in full. IMO, Lewis stated something worthwhile but diminishes its full potential within the full context of his letter. It is often audacious to me that religions discriminate against one another in claims of 'truth'. It carries an air of pretentiousness.

Whether Lewis agrees with the purpose of Hail Mary's is fairly irrelevent since he is not a Catholic and not an authority on the matter in general. I respect Lewis for his scholarship but I reserve the right to disagree with him. Christianity in its 'mere' state is glorious but it becomes whitewashed, dirtied and stained by the many groups, orthodox or otherwise, who adhere to it.

I'm a pluralist and a relativist, I'm a humanist and I will have to disagree with Lewis and others who agree with his ideology.

[Columcille]

Thanks for the clarification and posting of the letter in full. IMO, Lewis stated something worthwhile but diminishes its full potential within the full context of his letter. It is often audacious to me that religions discriminate against one another in claims of 'truth'. It carries an air of pretentiousness.

Whether Lewis agrees with the purpose of Hail Mary's is fairly irrelevent since he is not a Catholic and not an authority on the matter in general. I respect Lewis for his scholarship but I reserve the right to disagree with him. Christianity in its 'mere' state is glorious but it becomes whitewashed, dirtied and stained by the many groups, orthodox or otherwise, who adhere to it.

I'm a pluralist and a relativist, I'm a humanist and I will have to disagree with Lewis and others who agree with his ideology.

I believe all Christians should be humanist, doing works to promote the welfare of the local, regional, and international communities. And in this regard, Christianity has a better track record than secular humanists since Christian ministers lay their life on the line believing in the resurrection and the divine mercy and justice of God. Even to the point of being a disappointment to the authorities for standing up against injustices, like St Herman of Alaska; or even Mother Teresa going to the poorest of the poor in Calcutta, India. We have glorious people in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. While secular humanists are great philanthropists, they lack the caliber of the saint in that they distance themselves from the real troubled, and in their excess do they give away of their fortune. I believe U2's Bono a great humanist, he does a lot of good; he is a Christian, but he sometimes distances the glory of God for the sake of politics. Perhaps he is still a notch to be counted among the Christian humanist, I guess it depends on how much glory to God he actually brings.

As far as you being a relativist and pluralist, what can be said?

I do not believe in universal salvation, but I do believe that salvation of those who do not know Christ by name will still be saved through Christ via natural morality as attested by St. Paul's letter to the Romans chapters 1 and 2. Many righteous people are catholic, they just don't know it yet.

However, I do believe there is a real setback in the official positions of relativism and pluralism. Our country is pluralistic; we live in a country that prides itself on being tolerant of religious and ethnic/racial divisions and we live in that reality.

As far as relativism is concerned, I believe CS Lewis' discussion on morality demonstrates how morality is based on fairness and its application being the resolving of the crisis of two competing instincts. The drowning man being saved by another shows two instincts of both survival and of tribal instincts. We hear a man drowning, we want to save them due to our tribal instinct, yet we want to perserve our own life in the process. If you are capable to saving the drowning man, it is the morally right thing to do to swim out and save him; but if you don't know how to swim, what good would it be to the drowning man if you are now drowning yourself. The grey areas of relativism are therefore not so grey after all. There are clear choices to be made that are not relative. It is a matter of recognizing the nature of things as God intented them.

[That Guy]

I believe all Christians should be humanist, doing works to promote the welfare of the local, regional, and international communities. And in this regard, Christianity has a better track record than secular humanists since Christian ministers lay their life on the line believing in the resurrection and the divine mercy and justice of God. Even to the point of being a disappointment to the authorities for standing up against injustices, like St Herman of Alaska; or even Mother Teresa going to the poorest of the poor in Calcutta, India. We have glorious people in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. While secular humanists are great philanthropists, they lack the caliber of the saint in that they distance themselves from the real troubled, and in their excess do they give away of their fortune. I believe U2's Bono a great humanist, he does a lot of good; he is a Christian, but he sometimes distances the glory of God for the sake of politics. Perhaps he is still a notch to be counted among the Christian humanist, I guess it depends on how much glory to God he actually brings.

As far as you being a relativist and pluralist, what can be said?

I do not believe in universal salvation, but I do believe that salvation of those who do not know Christ by name will still be saved through Christ via natural morality as attested by St. Paul's letter to the Romans chapters 1 and 2. Many righteous people are catholic, they just don't know it yet.

However, I do believe there is a real setback in the official positions of relativism and pluralism. Our country is pluralistic; we live in a country that prides itself on being tolerant of religious and ethnic/racial divisions and we live in that reality.

As far as relativism is concerned, I believe CS Lewis' discussion on morality demonstrates how morality is based on fairness and its application being the resolving of the crisis of two competing instincts. The drowning man being saved by another shows two instincts of both survival and of tribal instincts. We hear a man drowning, we want to save them due to our tribal instinct, yet we want to perserve our own life in the process. If you are capable to saving the drowning man, it is the morally right thing to do to swim out and save him; but if you don't know how to swim, what good would it be to the drowning man if you are now drowning yourself. The grey areas of relativism are therefore not so grey after all. There are clear choices to be made that are not relative. It is a matter of recognizing the nature of things as God intented them.

You raise a good point. I have never thought relativism to be simplistic. Actually, I see it to be comfortably complex. Your perception of the grey areas may not hold up to die hard relativists, which I am not. I tend to disagree with the precepts of the Protestant Reformation and the far earlier ideas found in the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, etc. However, just because they don't work for me does not mean they don't work for you.

As far as how God intended things, I request explicit, unbiased, extra-Biblical evidence for such a claim considering I believe that God is much more than what people have written about him. This request may not hold up with you because of what I see as an extremely evangelical stance, but it is my request nonetheless. Also, I would prefer that you not quote the ECFs because much of their work, even to modern Christian scholars, is debatable.

[Columcille]

As far as how God intended things, I request explicit, unbiased, extra-Biblical evidence for such a claim considering I believe that God is much more than what people have written about him. This request may not hold up with you because of what I see as an extremely evangelical stance, but it is my request nonetheless. Also, I would prefer that you not quote the ECFs because much of their work, even to modern Christian scholars, is debatable.

The first and formost extra-Biblical evidence is a changed life. This, I do not think, I am able to show you personally in a forum medium. What I can attest to is something as the following: The Franciscian community I am desiring to join works with an apostolate mission helping people with AIDS--providing housing, companionship, and other necessities. The example of St. Francis' inner conversion trully began when he kissed the leper's feet. In the same manner, the Franciscans of today embrace with genuine love and compassion, imitating St. Francis of Assisi as St. Francis of Assisi imitated Christ, the lowly and suffering. I can quote every saint from every generation with the same instances of a changed life. The consistency throughout each and everyone of them is their knowing their own sinfulness and weaknesses, and deliverance through Christ, his forgiveness, his atoning death, and the hope in his resurrection.

I will stipulate that, as I stated before, that there are those who do not know Christ, whose lifes reflect Christ as they understand him through his creation. What keeps people from becoming Christian, is in many cases other Christians.

I am not sure what kind of 'gospel' your relativism can assure, nor of plurality.
Personally, when I fell from Christ as a Protestant and embraced a secular mindset of relativism... it left an empty space that perhaps can only be filled via experience. How would I describe light when I was in darkness; how am I now then to describe light to someone else in darkness? Perhaps the only way is to say that at one time, when we were all children... innocent and without knowledge... the light within us brought joy to our parents, the light within us evoked purity. Now after all our knowledge and struggles and pains, we forgot what purity really means. Perhaps you embracing Christ will bring that joy back, but with a profoundness in knowing forgiveness and mercy.

[Columcille]

bump. Franciscanism does not seem to be a hot topic. So I am bumping this to forefront. I believe relativism and pluralisms' ideas spiritually inconsistent with the orthodoxy of Christian belief. Our belief is unique, it is the road to salvation, and it is complete. Christianity does not hold to the heresy of Origenism (Universalism) as one of the ecumenical councils of the Church condemned a long time ago. While some people may not know Christ, they will be saved through him as attested by St. Paul's explanation in Romans 1 and 2.