Here we are, at the beginning of another round of Reading Classics Together. In the past months we’ve read four great Christian classics—Holiness by J.C. Ryle, Overcoming Sin and Temptation by John Owen, The Seven Sayings of the Saviour on the Cross by A.W. Pink and The Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards. And now we add to the list Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. I trust that this will be a slightly easier read than Edwards, whose great work we finished just a few weeks ago.
If you are interested in joining in this effort, please feel free to do so. Simply buy, borrow or download a copy of Mere Christianity and start reading. Our assigned reading for this week was nothing more than the Preface and Foreword, so you will not be far behind. Every week we will read a portion of the book and then return here on Thursdays to enjoy a little bit of discussion. It’s a good, easy way of making your way through some of the classics of the Christian faith.
Discussion
This week’s reading was, by design, very simple. To help set the stage for the book, we read just the Preface and Foreword. Essentially, we learned a little bit about the book’s genesis and Lewis’ rationale for writing it. And, of course, we learned what he meant by the term “Mere Christianity.”
Lewis wastes no time discussing the book’s origins. “The contents of this book were first given on the air, and then published in three separate parts as Broadcast Talks (1942), Christian Behaviour (1943) and Beyond Personality (1944).” The book has been adapted slightly to fit the print medium, but is otherwise consistent with what he taught over the radio. In the Foreword, Kathleen Norris provides further context by setting these messages in the midst of the Second World War, in a day when people were asking questions about the nature and existence of God. Lewis “gave talks to men in the Royal Air Force, who knew that after just thirteen bombing missions, most of them would be declared dead or missing. Their situation prompted Lewis to speak about the problems of suffering, pain, and evil, work that resulted in his being invited by the BBC to give a series of wartime broadcasts on Christian faith.” This is not a work of academic philosophy but a work of oral literature, delivered to people at war.
In the Preface, Lewis addresses the inevitable question of “what is mere Christianity?”. He says it is “the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times.” While he does not hide his own Anglicanism, he says that he will not be arguing for one particular denomination. Nor will he concern himself with issues of secondary importance since, as he says, these tend to fracture rather than divide and are not very useful for purposes of apologetics. “I am not writing to expound something I would call ‘my religion,’ but to expound ‘mere’ Christianity, which is what it is and what it was long before I was born and whether I like it or not.”
Norris writes this: “The ‘mere’ Christianity of C.S. Lewis is not a philosophy or even a theology that may be considered, argued, and put away in a book on a shelf. It is a way of life, one that challenges us always to remember, as Lewis once stated, that ‘there are no ordinary people’ and that ‘it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit.’ Once we tune ourselves to this reality, Lewis believes, we open ourselves to imaginatively transform our lives in such a way that evil diminishes and good prevails. It is what Christ asked of us in taking on our humanity, sanctifying our flesh, and asking us in turn to reveal God to one another.”
And so mere Christianity is the essence of the Christian faith—those beliefs that have been held in common by all true Christians through all of the church’s history. And on that basis, I think we are ready to move forward, knowing what it is that Lewis hopes to accomplish through the book.
Next Week
For next week, let’s read Book I. It’s not as bad as it sounds. There are five short chapters that together come in at less than 30 pages (which together are probably easier to read than 5 pages of Edwards or Owen!). I think this section is best read as a unit so we’ll treat it in that fashion. So read those pages and come back here next Thursday!
Your Turn
The purpose of this program is to read these classics together. So if there is something you’d like to share about what you read, please feel free to do so. You can leave a comment or a link to your blog and we’ll make this a collaborative effort.
Comments (74) »
1. Foolish Tar Heel
December 4, 2008
9:18 AM
This is a great book. I look forward to following your reflections.
2. Rebecca
December 4, 2008
9:59 AM
I really enjoyed reading the Preface to Mere Christianity. My copy does not include the forward by Kathleen Norris. I think the part that really struck me was when C.S. Lewis said “When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to the object.”
I thought about how we use the word “Christian” so lightly and I think sometimes it has lost its true meaning. I have heard people who have not accepted God’s gift of salvation say that they are “Christians” just because they live in America. I think when this happens the word Christian becomes a useless word.
This is the first time I have ever read a classic before. I am looking forward to reading the rest of the book, reading your thoughts, and the book discussion.
Rebecca
3. Brian
December 4, 2008
10:01 AM
I wish all of us, in the present day, would be more like Lewis in this book: promoting and defending the core of the Christian faith instead of endlessly squabbling among ourselves over music styles, Calvin vs. Arminius, cessationism vs continualism, etc. If I spent as much time trying to evangelize the lost as I did arguing theological fine points with people who already believe, I’d be helping grow the Kingdom instead of dividing it.
4. Rebecca
December 4, 2008
10:04 AM
Brian
I agree with you!
5. Paul
December 4, 2008
10:25 AM
Hi, I’m Paul. I’m Laurie’s husband and will be on board for this reading too.
I posted a few thoughts on the preface on my blog.
http://possumbane.livejournal.com/439440.html
6. ChrisB
December 4, 2008
10:30 AM
If you found the preface and forward interesting, you might enjoy reading CS Lewis in a Time of War by Justin Phillips. It is in many ways a biography of Mere Christianity. It will also tell you much about Lewis himself. I usually don’t go for biography, but this was surprisingly interesting.
7. Pastor Chad
December 4, 2008
10:34 AM
Thanks for choosing this book, Tim, I am really looking forward to a great discussion. You can see my initial ramblings here.
8. Michael Ives
December 4, 2008
11:07 AM
Great. Interestingly, I just started making my way through it this week. It is a welcome providence that you’re starting this. In case anyone has a stack of dishes like I do, take heart! There is a free audio version online: http://www.apollos.ws/blog/mere-christianity-audio-book.html
Happy reading.
9. Michael Ives
December 4, 2008
11:09 AM
Great. Interestingly, I just started making my way through it this week. It is a welcome providence that you’re starting this. In case anyone has a stack of dishes like I do, take heart! There is a free audio version online: http://www.apollos.ws/blog/mere-christianity-audio-book.html
Happy reading.
10. Faith and Facts
December 4, 2008
11:46 AM
Thank you for the opportunity to join in this group. It is my first book with you and I look forward to the discussion as well as ‘learning the ropes.’
I especially like the concept of group discussion on a book vie the Internet. We do this in our church with small home groups on Sunday evenings. This is a great format to include the entire church in a single discussion.
Blessings,
Bruce
11. Laurie
December 4, 2008
11:51 AM
My early thoughts, which also contain some comparison with our last reading, are here : http://lauriemo.blogspot.com/2008/12/early-comparisons-and-contrasts-edwards.html
My edition does not carry the Norris Foreword, so I appreciate the quotes from it here and in the comments. My husband, Paul, is joining in on this reading, which has already opened up a rich dialogue here at our house. Also, to anyone who’s interested in further studies on Lewis, Reformed Theological Seminary has a lengthy series of lectures on Lewis’s life, thought, and theology available for free download at iTunes.
12. Jeff
December 4, 2008
11:53 AM
I would agree with Rebecca in that it is sad that the term “Christian” has lost it’s true meaning. Lewis does a great job in setting the stage to discuss the term “Christian” with the discussion on the word gentleman and he is spot on. This is classic Lewis and I see it.
I am truly looking forward to this read - Thanks Tim for selecting this book!
-jeff
13. Jim Brown
December 4, 2008
11:54 AM
a very good book, my comments are posted here
http://ke4juh.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/cs-lewis-mere-christianity/
14. Noah
December 4, 2008
12:09 PM
“And secondly, I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has not tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold.” (page VIII of my Harper Collins paperback).
I tend to agree that the arguments and debates among Christians do not generally draw outsiders in. But on the other hand, some of the debates are crucial (sola fide, solus Christus) are are actually necessary to communicate “Mere Christianity.” Of course, if we followed Lewis’ advice to be more charitable toward those who are behind “different doors” perhaps we could debate these issues without driving unbelievers away.
http://noahdlee.blogspot.com
15. Fillip
December 4, 2008
12:20 PM
I haven’t yet taken the time read everyone’s blog yet (maybe I should have first) so if my short comment has been addressed in one of the m, forgive me.
I liked very much how Lewis really tries to express his intention for this book. It’s almost like he could hear the postmodern trying to fit in their own interpretation years later. He really wants to make sure the reader reads what is saying, nothing more, nothing less.
One other thing he does (and I know he was trying to avoid my next comment) in the very beginning is group Catholics as a denomination of Christianity. I hope I don’t get slammed by all the Catholics on this blog, but I don’t usually (at least in my circles) hear Catholicism mentioned as another Christian denomination. I’m used to seeing it as its own separate religion.
16. Frank!
December 4, 2008
12:23 PM
So far so good. But as a response to Brian, we should begins with the basics. That is what Lewis describes as what existed before we were here. That does sound a bit like paleo-orthodoxy. That is a theology that looks to what Christians have always believed, especially in conjunction to what the early church fathers held in common. Some great Evangelicals have advocated this view (Donald Bloesch comes to mind) but it has its drawbacks. Many within the emerging movement have come to similar conclusions with bad results. You can learn more here: http://is.gd/adVO
However, Lewis himself states on page XV (of the 2001 Harper Collins edition) :
I Hope no reader will suppose that ‘mere Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions-as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy…It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms…it is in the rooms, not in the hall, where there are fires, and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait…. not a place to live in.
And it’s important because at some point you have to make a stand in one area of doctrine over another approach to that doctrine. His ‘mere’ Christianity, he explains in pg. XI, is to show people the core ideas of our faith. And even those are not, as he writes, “vague and loveless H.C.F” (HCF being Historic Christian Faith)
Did anyone else wonder what he meant on page XI when he writes:
The Roman Catholic thought I had gone too far about the comparative unimportance of theories in explanation of the Atonement
Did he not think the Atonement important enough to go through the major theories about it? Or was one view (the Anglican view?) popular enough that it had no contenders at the time?
I’ll be posting my thoughts in two places
newreformation.ning.com
letmypeopleread.blogspot.com
17. paul t.
December 4, 2008
1:52 PM
This is my first time reading a book in this format. I like the fact that he refers back to Acts11:26 for the definition of a christian. I loved the line, ” When a man accepts the Christian doctorine lives unwortily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad christian than to say he is not a christian.” My children ask all the time is this or that person a christian and after reading the forward I have a much better response to that question.
18. Jared
December 4, 2008
2:28 PM
A great introduction to a great book.
I wonder how many people here have also read N.T. Wright’s “Simply Christian” and see the parallels? I first read “Mere Christianity” a number of years ago, and then read “Simply Christian” a few times. It is interesting going back to “Mere Christianity” and seeing similarities.
I’m interested to know if anyone else has read “Simply Christian” and sees similarities.
19. Shannon
December 4, 2008
2:54 PM
Tim: This is my first classic with you and I’m excited to join the group.
On page XV (Harper Collins) Lewis writes, “When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much easier to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.”
I work in youth ministry and I see countless teens who raise their hands in an alter call setting, yet continue to live their lives any old way they choose. Many of these teens would simply refer to themselves as bad Christians or “back slidden” Christians. I often take them to Jesus’s words in Matthew 7:21-23 where He says that not everyone who calls Him Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven.
So, a question I would like to throw out to the group is this: How do we correctly reconcile Lewis’s thought that it’s better to call a man a bad Christian than a non Christian with Jesus’s words that not everyone who calls Him Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven? Thanks in advance for your input!
20. Isaac
December 4, 2008
2:57 PM
Good start to some good discussion! I appreciate what Frank! said…that helped clarify some things for me. Also appreciated giving the meaning of H.C.F. - where’s a footnote when you need it??
How much have we changed in such a short time! I would fall out of my chair if the major news station invited a top evangelical to spell out the basics of Christianity to the nation in a series of programs.
21. Jessica Watson
December 4, 2008
3:02 PM
As others have already mentioned, “mere Christianity” is a helpful concept when you are discussing Christian beliefs with unbelievers,or finding common ground with believers in different denominations, but I was glad that Lewis went on to explain that his silence on some secondary issues didn’t mean he didn’t have strong opinions about them. I’ve been thinking about this though, where do you draw the line with what you consider secondary issues? I don’t think “mere Christianity ” means or should mean an absence of conviction. I’d be interested to hear if anyone has thought that through enough to comment.
22. donsands
December 4, 2008
3:13 PM
“Once we tune ourselves to this reality, Lewis believes, we open ourselves to imaginatively transform our lives in such a way that evil diminishes and good prevails. It is what Christ asked of us in taking on our humanity, sanctifying our flesh, and asking us in turn to reveal God to one another.”
Nice.
Looking forward to reading this book again. It’s been a long time.
And I think I shall go buy a DVD of ‘Prince Caspian’ to celebrate Clive Staples Lewis’ contributions to the Church.
23. Jamie Fugate
December 4, 2008
3:43 PM
This is my first book with you guys and I’m very excited about our dialogue.
My favorite part about this small section was his hallway/rooms illustration. The Hallway is the Historic Christian Faith that he is arguing for but I love the way he described the rooms (read Churches), the place of fires and chairs and meals. It is in the context of local churches among the redeemed sinners of God’s family that the Historic Christian Faith is lived out.
In these kind of apologetic books there is the danger that in avoiding advocating a single denomination that all argument for the local church is simply ignored, I deeply appreciate this emphasis on the local church and I hope that it continues in some manner throughout the book.
24. Rita Martinez
December 4, 2008
4:13 PM
I’m so excited about this classic I loved reading the preface and foreword , Rebecca and Brian I so completely agree with you both.
There were a few things I felt identified with right away, like this quote: “When two Christians of different denominations star arguing, it is usually not long before one asks whether such-and-such a point ´really matters´ and the other replies: ´Matter? Why, it’s absolutely essential.´” I’ve been in this situation so many times before.
Also I was very humbled by what he said about us not seeing into men’s hearts: “It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not a Christian in this refined sense.” (p.XIV) it reminded me so much of what Edwards said in his Religious Affections.
As for what he said here: “Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only God.”(p.VIII-IX)
I could not agree more with Lewis here! I wish others would understand this.
Finally the only thing that kind of bothered me was his inclusion of the RCC as just another denom, buttt casting that aside the book so far has seems very promising and I can’t wait to read and discuss Book I.
25. Jessica Watson
December 4, 2008
4:45 PM
Rita,
I have been in that position before too and that is why I love movements like together for the gospel, where differences like baptism are cast aside for more important unity of the gospel, but is it possible to go too far in the other direction? Aren’t some things, like the atonement, as was already mentioned, important enough to voice very solid convictions about? Again, maybe not in front of unbelievers, but certainly “mere Christianity” shouldn’t mean a postmodern tolerance of every thing.
I love Lewis, I have read virtually everything he has written, more than once, so I am not trying to be negative. I also enjoyed the preface and foreword, I just wondered if anyone else felt a little nervous that “mere Christianity, ” if misunderstood, could sink into a bad sort of ecumenicalism.
26. Laurie
December 4, 2008
5:36 PM
Jessica,
I feel your tension here: “I just wondered if anyone else felt a little nervous that “mere Christianity, ” if misunderstood, could sink into a bad sort of ecumenicalism.”
I, by “fluke” happen to also be reading a copy of John MacArthurs’s book Reckless Faith: When the Church Loses Its Will to Discern, which I came across in a thrift store recently. . In it he explains why the Apostles’ Creed, while true and valuable, is inadequate as a test for orthodoxy (It doesn’t address the deity of Christ, or the infallibility of Scripture, for instance.) He proceeds to argue against an ecumenism that compromises the gospel message itself and specifally objects to viewing the Catholic church as a valid Christian system. I feel Lewis walking a delicate line here, and that’s, I think , where we’re feeling our tension. We love his work, and don’t want to see him cross that line. And we realize that because the line is fine, there are those who won’t see it and will read into it what’s not there. So far I haven’t seen Lewis cross that line, but I can really relate to your concern.
I also really appreciate his emphasis on treating others “in the hall” with love and respect. In my experience, the place inside those walls has not always proven to be very kind, respectful or loving. I’m glad to see that, so far, the discussion here has a tone that exemplifies what Lewis is encouraging.
27. Rita Martinez
December 4, 2008
6:15 PM
Jessica
“Aren’t some things, like the atonement, as was already mentioned, important enough to voice very solid convictions about? Again, maybe not in front of unbelievers, but certainly “mere Christianity” shouldn’t mean a postmodern tolerance of every thing.”
I completely agree.
“I just wondered if anyone else felt a little nervous that “mere Christianity, ” if misunderstood, could sink into a bad sort of ecumenicalism.” I did feel nervous but I’m thinking its just the preface, at least we are aware of that line Laurie is referring to. So we’ll see how it all goes as we read along.
28. Curtis
December 4, 2008
6:18 PM
It is troubling that Lewis does not take a stand on theological issues, and I do realize he gives explination as to why, however I believe sound theology is too valueable to not be so glibly swept to the side. One indicator of the danger of not disscussing the essential truths of scripture, though I’m not and “expert”, He lumps Catholics in as a Christian denomination, which shows his lack of understanding, and possibly misguided beliefs regarding justification, santification, and what it means to be born again. A closer examintation of the common book of prayer, to which he holds as his belief, which is no secret, you as a conservative Christian should be ready to use a large measure of discernment while reading the remainder of this book, as there is some spurious teaching regarding the same such topics.
He also calls for a reuniting of Christians, but I would ask at what expense? Would Lewis have signed the Evangelical and Catholics together document? I think so, Lewis was a smart man, he knew about what he talked about, but I have much concern over what he professed as a Christian convert. He also relays why he won’t discuss temptations that he has not experienced, though ought we not go to scripture and pull out principles that apply, and why is he quick to not do the heavy lifting? He seems to elude what the scripture teaches of human inability, and obviously leans or even stands on the side of the power of mans will. Though he makes the statement, “we cannot see mens hearts”, we do know what scripture says about the heart of man and our desire to be saved. http://www.traviscarden.com/archive/2007/01/08/total-depravity-verse-list
And may I say there is no division whithin the bride of Christ, only between the true and the false, sheep and goats, and wheat and tares. Theology does divide, as it should, the sword Christ brought is meant to divide the true from the false, the believer and the unbeliever.
I find it amazing that Lewis would go so far as to conclude someone is a bad Christian, rather than a false Christian. What happened to church discipline and if the brother does not repent, they are to be treated as though they are an unbeliever. Would Lewis ever use the word Heretic to describe another. Would Lewis be more likely to include Mormons into the Christian denominations, as they too believe and teach and accept the apostles teahcings, though wrongly, so perhaps they are only “bad” Christians, and not heretics.
The last lines of the preface says we should pray for those who are in a different “room”, I think he means queer doctorinal stances. If this is the case, should we not only pray for them but more importantly preach the gospel to them, for if the true gospel is preached it is more likely they are to let go of false teachings. The true Gospel does not allow for many of these new false gospels, so you must either reject the one and hold on to the other. There is very little room for sitting on the fence, the way is narrow.
Overall, from what I’ve read from the preface, I am concerned as to what to expect from Lewis. With what he has already revealed, I am definately using a large amount of discernment, as I am not sure at this point if Lewis actually knows the true gospel message, but I will hold out hope that he will present it shortly, as he says this book is to discuss what is common between all Christian “denominations”, and what is more common than this, or should be more discussed?
I realize how critical I am being, but much that has happened within the professing church in regards to false teaching and false gospels is our own fault because we did not take such a firm stand on these issues. As I’ve said before this for of apathy is not what is needed at this time, bold proclaimation of the gospel is.
29. Rebecca
December 4, 2008
6:47 PM
Shannon
“How do we correctly reconcile Lewis’s thought that it’s better to call a man a bad Christian than a non Christian with Jesus’s words that not everyone who calls Him Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven? “
The only thing that I can think of is there are some who love the Lord and are trying to follow Him and are Christians but are considered a “bad Christian” because of maybe an addiction to drugs, pornography, alchol ect. I think that they might be considered a “bad Christian” instead of not a Christian at all because they are not able to give up the addiction but they want to and there is an inward struggle. Jesus words that not everyone who calls HIm Lord will enter the Kingdom of heaven I think refers more to those who have no signs of even tryiing to follow the Bible or placing there trust in Jesus no evidence at all. But will say “I beleive in Jesus.” For example and I might get into a lot of trouble for saying this but I was at Walmart once and the cashier had buttons all over her vest and one said “I support abortion” and another one said “I love Jesus” to me you can not love Jesus and support abortion at the same time. So that would be a person who might not enter the Kingdom of heaven. But I am in no position to judge who does or does not go to heaven I am just giving my two cents.
30. David Porter
December 4, 2008
7:07 PM
Hmm…something happened to my comment from this morning.
Oh well. This is my third reading with the group. Lot’s of interesting discussions. Many of these discussions were handled by Jonathan Edwards in our last reading.
Here are my initial thoughts on C.S. Lewis. I don’t intend to make any judgments until I am deeper into his text, and have a better feel for what he is saying.
http://www.boomerinthepew.com/2008/12/cs-lewis—-mere.html
31. Jessica Watson
December 4, 2008
7:29 PM
Thanks Laurie, that was helpful.
Like you, Rita, I will be curious to see how the discussion proceeds as we delve deeper into the book.
32. Curtis
December 4, 2008
8:03 PM
Why I say what I said.
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2641
33. Tom Hardy
December 4, 2008
8:06 PM
Brian said: “I wish all of us, in the present day, would be more like Lewis in this book: promoting and defending the core of the Christian faith instead of endlessly squabbling among ourselves over music styles, Calvin vs. Arminius, cessationism vs continualism, etc. If I spent as much time trying to evangelize the lost as I did arguing theological fine points with people who already believe, I’d be helping grow the Kingdom instead of dividing it.”
While I can definitely understand what you are saying here, in the fact that we need to make evangelism one of the strongest emphasis in our Christian walks.
I say that with caution, being how doctrine is also important; if not more so.
Whether we like it or not when we evangelize we are in essence telling people what we believe the Bible teaches concerning salvation. Our theology can not help but reflect in how we proclaim the Gospel.
34. Michele Harvey
December 4, 2008
8:18 PM
When Lewis suggests we might want to call someone a “bad Christian” I believe he means in cases where we look at Joe next door who kicks his dog or yells obscenities. It’s very common for us to look at the behavior of others who fall short of the glory of God and make a judgment against their faith, when we might better judge their behavior as bad or good and look for ways to encourage or admonish when necessary.
Further, I think that Lewis is acknowledging that there are three main tributaries which make up the river of Christianity: Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic(all branches of the Catholic Church). If you don’t agree with that thinking Lewis will probably be very difficult to read.
35. Curtis
December 4, 2008
8:21 PM
A video I thought was quite powerful, notice the quote near the end…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeu4lSMwCoc&eurl=http://www.jaywingard.com/&feature=player_embedded
36. Tom Hardy
December 4, 2008
8:32 PM
Something that I just thought about concerning Lewis’ stating that the RCC is just another denomination.
Not long ago the current Pope said what I consider to be telling concerning that issue. Although I don’t have an exact quote, in essence he said that the RCC is the only true Church.
I am actually glad he made that statement, because it just goes back to the reason for the Protestant Reformation. The Gospel that the Reformers preached and the Gospel that the RCC preaches are completely at odds. They are not “secondary issues”.
37. Barry Wallace
December 4, 2008
8:32 PM
This is actually one of my all-time favorite books. Rather than blog about it myself, I think I will just read it again and participate in your discussion. Thanks for the opportunity.
38. Scott D. Andersen
December 4, 2008
8:42 PM
Curtis#28, I can understand and relate to your concerns. I’m fighting in myself against making a rash judgment before I hear the man out. My hope is to follow David Porter’s (#30) example and not make any judgments until I am deeper into the text. BTW, I really enjoyed David Porter’s blog post regarding this reading. (David’s is the only one I have so far had opportunity to read.)
Tim, I am grateful you chose this book. It certainly comes high on the many reading lists of those that have proved worthy of respect for their work’s sake. But except for this great opportunity to have the benefit of the observations of others in a joint experience I probably would not have picked this book up.
As many above have said, this is a much more relaxed and easier reading than we had in Edwards, Owen or even Pink, I concur with Tim’s observation that 30 pages of Lewis are easier reading than 5 of Edwards or Owen.
The first thing that struck me from the forward was the sense of being transported back to WWII, blitzkrieg overhead, 400 planes every night bombing a self-proclaimed post-Christian England. And then thinking, what must it have been like to hear this description of what-is-Christianity in that setting with a real and horrific enemy coming hard from Nazi Germany.
I liked how I read that this WWII generation had rejected Christianity never knowing what it really is. And Lewis certainly does have a way of tapping into the imagination especially for me as he described the hallway with the many doors leading to rooms with fireplaces and chairs and meals, etc.
It will be interesting to see how this sentence proves out in the book itself: “..and the Roman Catholic thought I had gone rather too far about the comparative unimportance of theories in explanation of the Atonement. ” When I first read this I think I missed Lewis’ intent, but after reading your comments above and rereading Lewis here it does sound as though Lewis might be admitting a truth in his RC friend observing that in this book the different theories of the atonement are made out to be ‘comparatively unimportant.’
Lastly, I appreciated the following closing to Lewis’ preface:
“In plain language, the question should never be: ‘Do I like that kind of service?’ but ‘Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular doorkeeper?’”
39. Tom Hardy
December 4, 2008
8:44 PM
Curtus
Thank you for the link. It was a great reminder in the motivation behind why we should stand up for the Gospel.
I especially like the following MacArthur quote:
“Remember, Christ rebuked the churches in Revelation 2-3 who had tolerated false teachers in their midst (2:14-16; 20-23). He expressly commended the Ephesian church for examining the claims of certain false apostles and exposing them as liars (2:2). Churches have a clear duty to guard the faith against false teachers who infiltrate. Christ Himself demands it.
At the same time, we need to notice carefully that a polemical defense of the faith by no means guarantees a healthy church, much less a healthy individual Christian. Christ also rebuked the doctrinally sound Ephesians for departing from their first love (Revelation 2:4). As vital as it is for us to enlist in the Truth War and do battle for our faith, it is even more important to remember why we are fighting—not merely for the thrill of vanquishing some foe or winning some argument, but out of a genuine love for Christ, who is the living, breathing embodiment of all that we hold true and worth fighting for.”
40. Curtis
December 4, 2008
8:55 PM
Thank you for responding Scott and Tom, I tend to get overly critical, and even arrogant. However I still question, as much as I can, anything a professing Christian postulates and filter it through scripture. Perhaps I have made some assertions that will be shown not true of Lewis, for that I will be the first to repent of, but my concern stands based on what was presented so far. I realize I go to the extreme side of being critical and trust the true message will stand up beside scripture.
41. RC
December 4, 2008
10:20 PM
Once again I would like to thank you Mr. Challies for providing this avenue to discuss Mere Christianity. Like many here I have read this work before, but look forward to reading it again. The communal aspect of this book study is appealing to me. It reminds me of a Lewis quote from one of his other works. The work in question is “The Four Loves.” The quote stems from a chapter entitled “Friendship.” In the quote he is reflecting on how the death of his friend Charles has affected the lives of his community of friends. He goes on to relate how his group of friends and their interrelationship exhibits a resemblance to heaven.
“In each of my friends there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out. By myself I am not large enough to call the whole man into activity; I want other lights than my own to show all his facets. Now that Charles is dead, I shall never again see Ronald’s [Tolkien’s] reaction to a specifically Charles joke. Far from having more of Ronald, having him “to myself” now that Charles is away, I have less of Ronald…In this, Friendship exhibits a glorious “nearness by resemblance” to heaven itself where the very multitude of the blessed (which no man can number) increases the fruition which each of us has of God. For every soul, seeing Him in her own way, doubtless communicates that unique vision to all the rest. That, says an old author, is why the Seraphim in Isaiah’s vision are crying “Holy, Holy, Holy” to one another (Isaiah 6:3). The more we thus share the Heavenly Bread between us, the more we shall have.”
The point he is making is that through the eyes and minds of others we can gain a greater knowledge of God than we could ever relying on our own witness alone. So with that in mind I am grateful for the opportunity to learn and grow with this community that Mr. Challies has graciously brought together.
Rather than post copious thoughts on the selection I will devote my effort to two items which really resounded with me.
The first was Lewis’ discussion of the word gentleman and how the misuse of it had made it a useless word. One of the first theological books I read was B.B. Warfield’s book “Biblical Doctrines.” In his chapter, “Redeemer and Redemption” he discusses the death of the word gentleman in relation to the death of Christian words:
“You see, that what we are doing today as we look out upon our current religious modes of speech is assisting at the death bed of a word. It is sad to witness the death of any worthy thing, —- even of a worthy word. And worthy words do die, like any other worthy thing —- if we do not take good care of them. How many worthy words have already died under our very eyes, because we did not take care of them?”
“If you persist in calling people who are not gentlemen by the name of gentleman, you do not make them gentlemen by so calling them, but you end by making the word gentleman mean that kind of people. The religious terrain is full of the graves of good words that died from the lack of care.”
It is important that we as Christians protect the words and the definitions of those words which we use to define our belief.
The second thought that really stirred me was Lewis’ statements, “there are no ordinary people” and that “it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit.”
How profound is that? How often do we as Christians lose sight of our own immortality, much less the immortality of others?
I look forward to moving forward in the book with the group. I believe some will find it not what they expected.
42. Allen
December 4, 2008
10:25 PM
Below is a link to my blog where I posted my review.
http://theist.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/mere-christianity-review-imere-christianity-review-i
Everyone is making good points. While the contention that the RCC is the same as protestant Christianity does raise red flags for me (if he even intended that), I do intend to give the good author time to prove our his arguments.
In reference to # 35, the quote is referenced in the below link:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56612
43. Sonya
December 4, 2008
11:46 PM
This too is my first time joining the group in reading a classic together. Although I’m excited about it, after reading all these comments I feel quite intimidated about posting my thoughts.
I want to comment about what Lewis said about words an the danger of the word Christian becoming a useless word. I believe that Christian has already become a useless word among Muslims outside the Western world. I say outside the west because that is where I lived and worked, I don’t know yet about what Muslims living in the US might think but I imagine that it might be the same.
Anyway, its been my experience that most Muslims “overseas” do not understand the US concept of seperation of church and state. In their world, religion defines life. Everything they do from how they eat and dress to family life roles and decision making is defined by their religion. In their eyes America is seen as a “Christian” nation and therefore everything that occurs within or is produced by her must be a representation of Christianity. So, seeing a lot of Hollywood movies and MTV videos only reinforces their belief that Christianity is immoral, ungodly and needs to be destroyed. In attempting to share the Gospel with them this is the first and often toughest barrier I face. In fact, overseas I don’t initially refer to myself as a Christian but as a follower of Jesus the Messiah. In this context, the word Christian has already become useless.
Anyway, that paragraph about words (#2 Rebecca already quoted it) really stood out and this was why.
44. Curtis
December 5, 2008
7:06 AM
Ok, I’ve read and reread book #1, and I must say it was really well done, and the concerns I held from the preface stand and have not yet been resolved. However the first five chapters have proved to be excellent. I will comment further when it is time to move on to the next reading, until then I will continue to reread and hold it up against scripture to see if it stands.
Is my assumption correct in that this work was intended for Atheists(if there is such a thing) or Agnostics, primarily?
45. Larry
December 5, 2008
10:20 AM
I stumbled on one of your participamts’ blogs and was directed to this site so I’m coming late to the party. I have never read this book and only yesterday downloaded the audio version (thanks to Michael Ives).
I am no intelectual, but do care very much about deepening my relationship with Christ and am looking forward to going through this book with the community - I have always ‘wanted’ to delve into the mind of Mr. Lewis, but felt ill-equiped to do so on my own merit alone and welcome the chance to read each of your thoughts along the way.
That being said, I must admit I was hesitant at first to join you as I feel as if some in the group are more concerned with church doctrine (whatever your church may be) than with the greater issue of relationship with our creator and His one and only Son. To me, it matters little where, or even if, you attend church. The more important issue is that you claim some sort of relationship to Jesus Christ. I think Mr. Lewis’ point is a valid one concerning the terms of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ christian -vs- ‘non-christain’ - we have no way of knowing what is in a man’s heart. If he wants to call himself a Christian, who am I to tell him he is not. I have known many people who called themselves Christians and acted in very un-Christ-like ways (including myself from time to time). The bigger issue is to applaud them and pray for them and hold them up so they may find a deeper, more personal relationship with their Savior. Only in this way can we truly have the heart of Christ ourselves.
46. Kim
December 5, 2008
11:12 AM
My version of the book also does not have the forward, and after reading the comments, I think I’m missing out! I am going to get a library version that includes it so I can read it myself.
47. Lisa
December 5, 2008
2:39 PM
Did you choose your denomination? Or did it choose you?
Lewis’ “hallway” and “room” analogy led my mind in this direction. My particular denomination has the reputation as the workshop of the house. But I don’t feel bound to stay in my room 24/7; I can go run in your playroom or converse in your formal living room from time to time. As long as we’re in the same house, we’re family. [My full post is here: http://lisanotes.blogspot.com/2008/12/this-room-in-this-house-thoughts-from.html]
I’ve enjoyed reading the diversity of thoughts so far, and look forward to more.
48. Lisa
December 5, 2008
4:25 PM
Address correction:
http://lisanotes.blogspot.com/2008/12/this-room-in-this-house-thoughts-from.html
49. Curtis
December 5, 2008
6:22 PM
Larry said, “I feel as if some in the group are more concerned with church doctrine (whatever your church may be) than with the greater issue of relationship with our creator and His one and only Son. “
Sound doctorine is of immense importance, and wrong doctorine with lead someone to Hell, it’s that important! Everyone has a relationship with Christ, Satan has a relationship with Christ, it’s just not a good one.
———————————
“To me, it matters little where, or even if, you attend church. The more important issue is that you claim some sort of relationship to Jesus Christ. “
Well it mattered to the early church and Paul, so I’ll take there word on that, it’s not that you have some sort of relationship, but a saving, right relationship. As I said earlier, even those in Hell have a relationship with Christ.
This is why we need to not be so cloaked in obscurity.
—————————
“If he wants to call himself a Christian, who am I to tell him he is not.”
It’s not about who you are, but by what authority you determine the validity of there profession. I view averything in light of scripture, therefore if there profession doesn’t line up with the word, it maybe time to exercise church discipline, and with everyone, make opportunities to preach the gospel to them.
——————————————
“The bigger issue is to applaud them and pray for them and hold them up so they may find a deeper, more personal relationship with their Savior. “
But what if they are not saved, they will end up in Hell in a very personal relationship with Christ, under His wrath, the whole time being prayed for, thinking they were saved and hearing the fearful words,”Depart from me..” So many have been lead into a false conversion in the west, we literally have church buildings filled with unbelievers, and as Paul Washer said,”Sunday in America is the greatest day of idolatry.”
50. Rebecca
December 5, 2008
9:40 PM
Curtis
What would be your definition of someone being saved? I sure do not want to be one of those people who thinks they are saved but going to hear the words “Depart from me.” Please explain.
Thank you
51. RC
December 5, 2008
11:10 PM
Let me preface my comments with a quote by Machen from his book “Christianity and Liberalism” from the first chapter “Doctrine.”
“Christianity is based, then, upon an account of something that happened, and the Christian worker is primarily a witness. But if so, it is rather important that the Christian worker should tell the truth. When a man takes his seat upon the witness stand, it makes little difference what the cut of his coat is, or whether his sentences are nicely turned. The important thing is that he tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If we are to be truly Christians, then, it does make a vast difference what our teachings are…”
There is an article by John Frame on his and Vern Poythress’ website. It is entitled “Machen’s Warrior Children.” In it he details Machen’s legacy and his offspring.
His opening statement is:
“From 1923 to the present, the movement begun by J. Gresham Machen and Westminster Theological Seminary has supplied the theological leadership for the conservative evangelical Reformed Christians in the United States. Under that leadership, conservative Calvinists made a strong stand against liberal theology. But having lost that theological battle in the Presbyterian Church, U. S. A., they turned inward to battle among themselves about issues less important—in some cases, far less important—than liberalism.”
He queries,
“Should the Reformed community be willing to become more inclusive, to tolerate greater theological differences than many of the polemicists have wanted?”
In his blog entry “Quick and Dirty Calvinism”, Phil Johnson of the Pyromaniacs states:
“I think it would be helpful to ponder why Calvinism, which seemed to be the flavor of the month not so long ago, has suddenly become so odious to so many of its one-time friends.”
His answer:
“I don’t think the problem really lies in Geneva, or in historic Calvinism, or in any of the classic Reformed creeds. I especially don’t think the stench arises from any problem with Calvinism per se. In my judgment, the problem is a fairly recent down n’ dirty version of callow Calvinism that has flourished chiefly on the Internet and has been made possible only by the new media.”
His view of Historic Calvinism:
“Yes, Calvinism is virile; it’s relentless when it comes to truth; and it’s not always easy to swallow. But it is full of truths that should humble us and fill us with compassion rather than swagger and conceit. The best Calvinism has always been fervently evangelistic, large-hearted, benevolent, merciful, and forgiving. After all, that’s what the doctrines of grace are supposed to be all about.”
Prior to visiting and later joining my current church I was more uncharitable than I am now. I was what I like to term a “Theological World Leader Pretend.” I had no accountability group and so could believe and behave any way I wanted to without any repercussions. I have been guilty of disgusting behavior in internet forums in the name of truth. In my desire to defend the truth I hurt a loved one. The knowledge that I had done this made me question myself and my beliefs.
I believe that we should be relentless when it comes to the truth, but I also believe we should exhibit the best of Christianity. The best Christianity has always been fervently evangelistic, large-hearted, benevolent, merciful, and forgiving.
In posting this I do not wish to offend anyone and if I have I apologize. My desire is for the discussion to maintain a level of decorum befitting Christians. I am one of those Christians that in an unguarded moment have the propensity to violate the very decorum I desire.
52. Larry
December 6, 2008
1:05 AM
Curtis:
“By what authority you determine the validity of there profession” - This very question was asked of Jesus by the Pharisees. In their worldview, they had all the answers and the preaching of this ‘upstart from Galilee’ completely turned their world upside down. In my humble opinion, I have no authority whatsoever, except a fervent desire to know, not who Jesus was, but who I am through the will of the Living God. To discover that, I do not need rebuke, I need compassion. If I have acted in a non-Christ-like fashion towards someone, then by all means they should tell me so, but do it out of love. If someone disagrees with my views because of their doctrine, they have no grounds to turn me away. They should instead lovingly show me the error that I may correct it. Is that not what Jesus did when dealing with the lawyer in Luke chapter 10?
“even those in Hell have a relationship with Christ.” - As I understand it, darkness cannot exist on its own. Darkness is the absence of light. In the same way, Hell does not exist on its own, it is the absence of God. If Hell is the absence of God, then those in Hell are in eternal torment not as a form of punishment dictated by God, but because of their LACK of relationship with God. As long as a person is alive, God is always reaching out to him or her - calling for us to help Him create that relationship. The theif who was crucified beside Jesus is a case in point (Luke 23: 42-43). There is no way for me to know the disposition of your relationships nor you to know mine. We must, therefore, learn to live in relationship with each other as a means of drawing others into community with believers. That does not mean we have to agree, it means we must respect the fact that we are both trying to find a deeper relationship with the One who REALLY matters.
“Satan has a relationship with Christ, just not a good one.” - Again, I humbly disagree. I think it would be more accurate to say that Satan knows Christ, which is obviously true since Jesus had be a part of the triune God from the beginning (John 1:1), but to have a relationship by its very definition requires some level of interdependence and mutual admiration. To say that Satan admires God is foolish and to think that God has any interdependence with Satan is equally absurd.
I, too, do not wish to offend nor ‘swagger with conceit’ as RC so eloquently wrote, but neither do I wish to push people who sit astride the fence in the wrong direction simply because I think ‘they are doing it wrong.’
53. Curtis
December 6, 2008
5:37 AM
First I will address Larry.
Let me begin by saying, Larry, I in no way question your sincerity or intentions, what I call into question is the inaccuracy what you stated and the misunderstanding that usually does result. I stand by what I said, though it is rather hard, and even though it may hurt feelings or offend some, it must be said. I truly believe there would be more people, who now profess to be Christian, who would outright reject Christianity if they actually knew the cost, the true gospel, and understood the holiness of God. I also beleive that a majority of people who call themselves Christians, who are actually false converts, are so because of the weak message that has been preached by us and from the majority of pulpits.
Along those lines, I believe there are far to many thin skinned Christians who would rather have an unbeliever “like” them, no matter how much they have to water down the gospel, rather then be stoned if necessary. “If the message is getting to hard for the sinner to hear, that’s ok, we’ll just lighten it up a bit, and leave out or soften the parts that offend them.” No, we must not change the message for the sake of the lost.
You said,”I have no authority whatsoever, except a fervent desire to know, not who Jesus was, but who I am through the will of the Living God. “
You know thats not what scripture says right? This is to all believers, isn’t it?
Titus 2:15
“Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.”
I try never to speak on my own authority, but by the authority of scripture, and I have recieved various godly counsels on what I’ve posted here. It’s not as though I throw caution to the wind and post what I “feel” like, I’ve only tried to be honest and present what the scriptures say.
“desire to know, not who Jesus was”
HUH?
I’m sure you meant something more than I’m understanding, but that’s what I meant when I spoke about obscurity by what we say. Isn’t it better to speak the truth, in love, clearly, so the unbeliever or the professing Christian knows exactly what your meaning is, even at the expense of their feelings? How else can they come to God for forgivness except broken and in sorrow over their sin? Isn’t that why we present the Law of God to the unrepentant sinner before we tell them about grace?, In order to cause them to fall on their face, weeping over their sin against and infinitely holy God.
You also said, “understand it, darkness cannot exist on its own. Darkness is the absence of light. In the same way, Hell does not exist on its own, it is the absence of God.”
What verse would you use to support this? This is what I found.
Psalm 139:8
If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol,(could mean only death, but in the context of Heaven/Hell it makes more sense), you are there!
Matthew 10:28
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (God is doing the destroying of the soul and body “in Hell”.)
Proverbs 15:3
The eyes of the LORD are in every place,keeping watch on the evil and the good.(Is Hell a place?)
God created Hell, yet we seem to look upon it as an evil place. Doesn’t that ever strike you as odd? When God finished creating all that He had made He declared it to be “good”, right? So why is Hell considered bad? Oh I know it’s bad for those who are going there, but isn’t Hell Gods place of punishment, doesn’t it show just how holy God is, how much He hates sin, and how just He really is? God is in all places, but those who are cast into Hell will no longer have Gods grace on their lives, there will be no more mercy, no more pleasure and a total pouring out of Gods wrath.
Do I like the idea of Hell, well no, and yes. No becasue I feel for those who are made for destruction, I know I deserve Hell, and I am so fearful for those who don’t realize their fate. And yes because I know it will be Gods display of justice towards mankind, and also will cause His glorious grace on those He saved to shine on to infinite glory.
This is getting rather long so I will conclude with this. If you will take some time to read this article and watch this video, maybe you will understand better why I hold such distain for the soft, watered down gospel that is prominent in the church today, and by some well meaning Christians too.
***
Article http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/10623
Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shxQcczYuAA
MUST WATCH!!
***
I know that I tend to go on the offensive sooner than I should, perhaps I read to much from the Puritans, or perhaps not enough. Whichever it maybe, please accept my appology if you thought I was attacking your intentions, I was not. I was merely pointing out parts of what you said that doesn’t appear to be supported by scripture, and should probably have better corrected you by direct use of scripture and let your words fall for or against His.
Even my conclusions are getting too long.
Rebecca
I hear the tone, but would still direct you to watch the video I link to in this post, rather than take up more space than Tim’s blog can handle. :-))
54. Curtis
December 6, 2008
6:01 AM
RC, my last post, if approved by Tim, is meant for you as well. I appreciate what you said, and I’ll be the first to admit, you understand what I mean when I say, I’m boldly assertive and contentious. This is an area I definately need work on. Thank you.
55. Curtis
December 6, 2008
6:38 AM
I hope my last post didn’t get lost in cyberspace, but if it did, this article and video sum up what I said in response to those who addressed me.
Article http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/10623
Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shxQcczYuAA
Please take the time to read and watch, and hopefully you will better understand why I get contentious when it come to things pertaining to the scriptures and God.
56. RC
December 6, 2008
9:08 AM
Curtis thanks for posting the resources. I admire both of the ministers you chose. I hope that you do not feel like I thought you were being rude. I think your intentions were honorable. I was not singling you out.
A Machen quote from the introduction of “Christianity and Liberalism” would sum up my thoughts about the importance of the truth.
“Light may seem at times to be an impertinent intruder, but it is always beneficial in the end.”
I guess I am a little sensitive when regarding Lewis. I happen to admire his work. That being said I disagree with Lewis in many areas of theology. One of my favorite books is “The Reformed Pastor” by the Puritan, Richard Baxter. It can be read at Christian Classics Ethereal Library. It is a fabulous book, however, I do not agree with some of the points in Baxter’s theology. When I first entered the reformed theology fold I would purposely not read anything by an author that did not fit the reformed mold. By doing that I was missing out on a wealth of Christian thought. I think we can learn a lot from Lewis, however, discernment must be used when reading any theological work. My desire is to hold up to the light the gems which can be found in this book. Someone else’s desire may be to protect the truth and hold up to the light the theological inaccuracies found in the body of the work. Both desires are important, however; my only concern would be that I, or someone else, would focus on one of these objectives to the detrimant of the other. I look forward to continuing this study with each of you and thanks for stimulating my mind.
57. Curtis
December 6, 2008
11:01 AM
RC, i have been critical of Lewis, or at least some of what he stated, or avoided in the preface of Mere Christianity, however I have read and reread the first book several times and though I don’t agree with how he stated some of what he presents, I must say that what he presents is very excellent. I will resist further in depth comment until its due time, but will say I am glad to have met the man on a more personal level, his train of thought anyway.
That said, I have enjoyed his fiction very much(Narnia) and plan on using it as part of our homeschool program when our children our able to read at that level. I don’t fully know where he stands theologically, except for holding to the Church of England and the Common Book of Prayer of which I have not studied in depth itself so refrain from commenting on, though I do plan on it in the future, Lord willing.
I’ve state this before but have considered stating it another way. I know I don’t season my statements with the love that I ought, but every word I write I do because of love and concern, because of the love Christ has shown me. Christs love isn’t some soft, cute love, but love shown in the cruel cross, the self sacrifice and the love for Gods own glory. Even when I express myself over this blog or others, it may not come through as loving rebuke and correction, as one brother towards another, I trust everyone can understand that this medium is sometimes difficult to portray this though. Especially for one as unskilled as me in writting.
If I could, I would extend my arm around your shoulders and in earnest prayer and compassion say the very same things I already have, even as the tears of my sadness for the professing church flowed, I would use the words convicting power to break the hard hearted, and by the word and Spirit, pray that God would heal the broken heart.
Though it is easier to express the frustration, I must learn more to also express the passion I have for the love of God and for the glory of God. Done rightly, I know those who are His will desire Him, and His glory.
I know people scorn me because of the way I bring the message, and I understand, but my wish is that if they scorn me it’s becasue of the message and not me, then I will know I am preaching the way I ought. Please, anyone who will, pray that the Lord may grant me more love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, & self-control. Thank you.
58. RC
December 6, 2008
11:36 AM
I need the same daily reminder to temper the truth with love as as much as you do Curtis. I am not skilled at writing either. I have found myself having a disagreement in a forum only to figure out we both were saying the same thing just awkwardly.
“I know people scorn me because of the way I bring the message, and I understand, but my wish is that if they scorn me it’s becasue of the message and not me, then I will know I am preaching the way I ought. Please, anyone who will, pray that the Lord may grant me more love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, & self-control. Thank you.”
Well said Curtis. While I am not a minister, yet. I too need everyones’ prayers in the area of sharing the Gospel with love.
59. Larry
December 6, 2008
12:17 PM
Curtis I have enjoyed our discussion immensely and you have given me some interesting points to ponder. I think that in our faith overall we probably agree more than disagree, but you and I seem to be monopolizing the space, so I would like to draw us down to the original point of contention: doctrine.
From what I understand, man created doctrine to make order and to live in community with one another out of necessity - in our brokenness we need rules to govern how we interact. I am all for peaceful interaction, but in our pride (another example of our brokenness), we have a tendency to lean on doctrine to justify ourselves. The Pharisees used doctrine to have Christ crucified, the inquisitors used doctrine to justify killing thousands during the Dark Ages, the puritans used doctrine to justify the Salem witch trials, the missionaries used doctrine to justify enslaving and killing entire cultures during the settling of the western hemisphere. Many churches today use doctrine to justify keeping seekers out rather than letting them in.
In Matthew chapter 9, Jesus is admonished for the Pharisees for their doctrine when He was eating with the tax collectors. In Mark, Jesus is very clear about doctrine: And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.” And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! (Mark 7:6-9 RSV). In his letter to the Romans, Paul also makes it clear that the law does not justify us: Now, we have knowledge that what the law says is for those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and all men may be judged by God: Because by the works of the law no man is able to have righteousness in his eyes, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. But now without the law there is a revelation of the righteousness of God, to which witness is given by the law and the prophets; That is, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ, to all those who have faith; and one man is not different from another, For all have done wrong and are far from the glory of God; And they may have righteousness put to their credit, freely, by his grace, through the salvation which is in Christ Jesus: Whom God has put forward as the sign of his mercy, through faith, by his blood, to make clear his righteousness when, in his pity, God let the sins of earlier times go without punishment; And to make clear his righteousness now, so that he might himself be upright, and give righteousness to him who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:19-26 BBE).
Let me be clear, I am NOT saying we should not have rules of engagement, or doctine, or law. I AM saying we should be careful how much we lean on those things when judging others and their points of view.
60. Curtis
December 6, 2008
12:45 PM
……………………………………………………………….someone must have prayed for self-control. Larry, did you have opportunity to watch the video I linked to? It needs to be seen right through to the end so maybe if you have time, please do.
61. DM
December 6, 2008
5:34 PM
Hi folks - I too am looking forward to this ongoing reading and discussion. To me, two of the most important aspects of this week’s passages are Lewis’ circumscription of his goal and his admission of his own ignorance. Unsurprisingly, to some readers among us, the admitted ignorance of Lewis caused the circumscription of his goal to be misguided, for instance in his discussion of denominations and exclusion of certain doctrines. I think it is important to remember that, though Mere Christianity is frequently held out as authoritative, Lewis himself had no intention for it to be so, and, by his own admission, had insufficient training to write such a book. It is not and was never intended to be a systematic theology, and it is inherently limited and colored by Lewis’ beliefs, education, and experience.
I enjoyed both the Preface and the Foreword; actually, one of my favorite passages came from the Foreword - “the great religious struggle is not fought on a spectacular battleground, but within the ordinary human heart, when every morning we awake and feel the pressures of the day crowding in on us, and we must decide what sort of immortals we wish to be.”
One interesting comment by Lewis that dates the book is “As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word [“Christian”] in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise.” I think nowadays just the opposite is true; it is used by “unbelievers” as a derogatory pejorative.
Looking forward to next week.
62. Charlie R
December 6, 2008
7:01 PM
Earlier this year while visiting a Christian book outlet store I was fortunate to have seen and purchased C.S.Lewis’ “Mere Christianity and The Screwtape Letters”. When a friend informed me of these reading- together discussions, I thought it might be a good time to read the book I had kept in my bookcase.
I’m pleased to be in with you.
63. Larry
December 7, 2008
2:49 PM
Curtis perhaps someone should have prayed for kindness and charity as well. I found your last comment to be, at once, dismissive, petulent and unkind. I cannot help but think you believe that, unless I follow YOUR doctrine, I have nothing to offer the community of believers. You have single-handedly proved every one of my original aprehensions to be true… how patently absurd and foolish of me to think I could find commonality amongst fellow believers reading a book about finding commonality amongst believers. I guess I should just go to the corner, sit down, shut up and wait for God to usher me to Hell so I may be properly punished for all eternity for my heretical views. Until then I will struggle through this book on my own, thank you very much.
To the rest of the community, I appologize if my meanderings and musings have seemed inane and obtuse - I was just trying to understand some literature a little more completely than my little brain seems capable of. Good luck with the rest of your study.
64. Curtis
December 7, 2008
7:29 PM
Larry, this is what I saying about thin skinnedness. Just becasue I suggest and point out areas where your theology doesn’t match up with scripture and historical Christianity teaches you cross your arms and pout “in the corner”. The absurdity of your last post is quite shocking, that you’d go from civil and tasteful to melodramatic in such a flippant manner may reveal more than you originally let on.
This has never been about following “MY” doctorine, I’ve always said that if someone can show me where I am wrong by scripture, I will change my view after a more careful study. You seem to think I believe what I do and have no support for it, though I could say most if not all my theological understanding comes from such modern day teachers and pastors as John MacArthur, John Piper, RC Sproul, JI Packer, Al Mohler, Paul Washer, to name a few, but some of the dead guys would be Martin Lloyd Jones, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Edwards are some of the more prominent. I give this list for no other reason than to point out even that “my” doctorines, are not mine at all, but what learned men have taught me from the scriptures. Where “their” doctorines conflict, there is nothing strange about what the others teach, nor is anyview, as best I can tell, heretical.
If I may, the reason I did not respond to your last post is because there was far to much strange doctorine in it, whether you know it or not, scripture does not teach what you purport.
Such as:
“From what I understand, man created doctrine to make order and to live in community with one another out of necessity - in our brokenness we need rules to govern how we interact.”
This is so false I don’t know where to start, man did not create “right” doctrine, man created “false” doctrines. Right doctrine is what God has revealed to us in the scripture. The truth of His word, when taught is the doctrine on a given subject. False doctrine in mans attempt to teach what is not taught and supported by the scriptures. The purpose of right doctorine is not so that man can live in community with one another, but to show the truth and thus cause a definite divide from error. When right doctorine is taught there will be a division, right from wrong. This cannot be avoided, it is what it is intended to do. As Christ said, “Matthew 10:34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” What is the sword, well the word, truth, right teaching, docrine. Doctrine divides, as Christ taught it would. There is much more I could say about what you’ve posted, but I think this makes the point best.
Perhaps this is what why you are upset. You would rather go by yourself and hold to the doctrines as you understand them instead of staying and possibly learning the truth as presented in scripture. Even if what I say hurts your feeling, is that in itself be reason to reject it, what if it is true, then you are rejecting truth. I admit being dismissive as I was wasn’t the best way to respond, but i didn’t want to continue the discusion any longer, even though I have seen numerous statements you’ve made that are outright wrong.
I asked you to go watch that video clip, did you? You didn’t comment on it and I’d like to hear your opinion, whether you agree with it or not.
65. Larry
December 8, 2008
12:05 AM
Curtis, it seems to me that the only opinion that truly matters to you is your own. I tried to express my opinions to you and was shot down, rather rudley I might say, at every turn. Why would I invite more abuse from you? Gool luck in your future endeavors.
66. Mary Eady
December 8, 2008
12:49 AM
it is great to see all of this discussion and i’d like to add my thanks, Tim, to your hosting this on your blog. this is my first book with all of you.
to add an additional wrinkle of excitement for me, a cousin for whom many in my family have been praying for years (come to think of it, about 22 years now) recently asked me for a bible. i bought her one and also a copy of Mere Christianity a day or two before seeing that this was the next classic up for discussion. it is my hope that some of the discussion here will help inform my responses to her if she has any desire to talk about the book. if any of you think of it and would keep her in your prayers as you read, i’d greatly appreciate it.
all right, off to my own set of dishes and then hopefully some reading before i sleep.
67. Curtis
December 8, 2008
4:33 AM
Larry, I just happen to disagree with much of what you have said, I did not mean to sound rude, but as I stated earlier I know I can be contentious and even arrogant, for that I am sorry. I know we live in post modern age, and to be told you may be or are wrong, is viewed as a worse sin than blasphemy by some, I still hold to my convictions. I try my best to study the scriptures, read commentary, listen to sermons and get godly council from those I believe and trust are correct in much that they teach, and also agree with countless years of church history. My intention was not to defame nor malign you, my intention was to present what the scriptures teach as opposed to much of what you stated. I chose not to go through your entire postings and make further comment for the sake of this blog, and because I realize I’ve taken far to much space on this subject with you already.
Good day sir.
68. Curtis
December 8, 2008
4:38 AM
Larry, I just also had to add, I don’t believe in luck. I just had to get the last word…
….that was like….a …joke :) But I’m still a Calvinist, they can laugh to, ……no really they can.
69. Ryan
December 8, 2008
10:44 AM
Everyone,
This medium of communication, being one-way with no body language or voice inflections, can make it very difficult to express your views without unintentionally offending others. The Curtis-Larry dialog is one that I am very familiar with.
The intent here is to discuss what Mr. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, and to discuss how does that stack up against the Scriptures.
As a Christian, I think you need to be willing to be subject to correction and reproof by other Christians. Also, as a Christian you need to make sure that you do your correction and reproof with love.
Unless somebody is calling you names or “shouting” expletives at you, which I could never expect or imagine on this blog, please increase the thickness of your skin and listen to what is being said. Do not cling to your views if somebody shows you that it is un-Biblical.
I know that if it were not for somebody else correcting me (thinking that being good would get me to heaven), I would not be a Christian today.
In Love,
Ryan
70. Ryan
December 8, 2008
10:55 AM
I liked C.S. Lewis’ story on the distortion of the word “gentleman”, and his caution as it relates to the word “Christian”. Many of the theological debates I have had with my friends have required us to pull up a dictionary (www.m-w.com) and respond with the intended definition of the word we were using. (BTW, this is an excellent way to learn more about the words you use.)
It is pretty clear that the word “Christian” has lost the meaning it had in Acts 11:26. Many people call themselves “a Christian” without really being one. I think I would have qualified for at least the first 30 years of my life, even though I grew up going to church and was “confirmed”.
Unfortunately, I think that Mr. Lewis’ definition of “Christian” is too broad (not very well defined).
I am interested in hearing YOUR definition of the word “Christian”.
71. Curtis
December 8, 2008
1:27 PM
Ryan, I would say I consider a Christian to be one who adheres to the teaching of scripture as a whole, not to say they are sinless, but live a life in the direction of obedience(sanctification). One who has truely repented of their sins and has placed their trust in the works that Christ has done on the cross. But also that they understand their sin(as described in the scripture), Gods holiness, and what it means to be justified, (the salvation process). All that to say they must be born again, God will have done such a work in their life that the sin they onced love they now hate, and the righteousness they onced hated they love. You could easily expand or condence what I’ve said, but the basic understanding and change in desires and lifestyle must be present or one must begin to wonder of the validity of the profession and even examine ones-self. Hope this makes sense.
72. RC
December 8, 2008
2:39 PM
Ryan-
I will try to answer your question regarding my definition of the word “Christian when I have a little more time and I would enjoy hearing/reading your definition.
Larry-
I hope you are still out there and I would encourage you to continue this study with us. I would be interested in continuing the discussion with your input. If, however, you do not feel comfortable in the setting feel free to contact me by clicking on RC whereby you can access my blog and e-mail address.
73. Amber
December 9, 2008
12:35 AM
Larry, I would encourage you to keep with the group, thanks for all your honest insights!
Sonya (43), that’s an interesting perspective you bring to the group. cool to know that!
Definition of a Christian:
Someone who has put their faith and trust in Jesus.
Romans 10:9, John 3:16, John 6:29, Galatians 3:6, Ephesians 2:8
I would propose that as Lewis describes the confusion with the word “Christian” we may be exhibiting the same sort of confusion now… with the word doctrine.
http://www.dare2share.org/articles/the-d-word
Curtis:
“And may I say there is no division whithin the bride of Christ, only between the true and the false, sheep and goats, and wheat and tares. Theology does divide, as it should, the sword Christ brought is meant to divide the true from the false, the believer and the unbeliever.”
1 Cor. 1:1-2 & 10-12
74. Curtis
December 9, 2008
11:17 AM
Amber, thank you for that. For more reading, http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/1812
I should not have said “there is no division” because there is, obviously, in the sense of strife and quarrels.