This morning, after a lengthy holiday break, we return to C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity in our effort to read together some of the classics of the Christian faith. After two short and preliminary sections (which were actually first published as short books) dealing with “Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe” and “What Christians Believe.”, we are now in the heart of Lewis’ classic. And I think we are beginning to see what sets Lewis apart and why Mere Christianity remains an important and even unmatched book even today.
Discussion
In Book 3, Lewis turns to his discussion of “Christian Behavior.” Here he shows how Christians are to live. He immediately distinguishes moral ideals from moral rules and shows that he has foreseen society’s slide into postmodernism. These words are near-prophetic: “It is dangerous to describe a man who tries very hard to keep the moral law as a ‘man of high ideals,’ because this might lead you to think that moral perfection was a private taste of his own and that the rest of us were not called on to share it.” And this, of course, is exactly what society declares today. We have left behind morals and have turned instead to values; we have left what is absolute and unchanging and turned instead to what is personal and temporary.
A couple of the chapters seemed a little bit odd or unexpected to me and perhaps none more so than “Morality and Psychoanalysis.” I suppose this reflects the time in which the book was written since psychoanalysis isn’t a term we encounter so often today. Then again, perhaps psychology has become so ingrained in our culture and our minds that terms like that one have almost lost their meaning. I did appreciate this warning: “Some of us who seem quite nice people may, in fact, have made so little use of a good heredity and a good upbringing that we are really worse than those whom we regard as fiends. … That is why Christians are told not to judge. We see only the results which a man’s choices make out of his raw material. But God does not judge him on the raw material at all, but on what he has done with it.” This is also a quote to file away and think about: “When a man is getting better he understands more and more clearly the evil that is still left in him. When a man is getting worse he understands his own badness less and less. … Good people know about both good and evil: bad people do not know about either.”
Where I thought Lewis was at his best is in the chapters dealing with sexual morality and Christian marriage. I am quite sure I’ll write at length in the future on Lewis’ thoughts on modesty, chastity and such. More on that another day. Here are two statements I had to highlight: “Christianity is almost the only one of the great religions which thoroughly approves of the body” and “Christianity has glorified marriage more than any other religion.” Lewis deals very well with the early years of the loosening of sexual mores that have continued and escalated between then and now. The lie in all of this “consists in the suggestion that any sexual act to which you are tempted at the moment is … healthy and normal.” While Christianity celebrates sex, it does so within its properly God-given context. Lewis’ encouragement to those who fight against sexual sin (or any other kind of sin) is well-taken. “Very often what God first helps us towards is not the virtue itself but just this power of always trying again.” “We learn, on the one hand, that we cannot trust ourselves even in our best moments, and, on the other, that we need not despair even in our worst, for our failures are forgiven. The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection.”
And then Lewis turns to marriage, presenting it as a good gift from God. “The monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside marriage is that those who indulge in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) from all the other kinds of union which were intended to go along with it and make up the total union.” I was really struck by his words about the way love inclines lovers to bind themselves to one another with promises. Lewis says, “The Christian law is not forcing upon the passion of love something which is foreign to that passion’s own nature: it is demanding that lovers should take seriously something which their passion of itself impels them to do.” Hence the promises of marriage are simply the promises of love taken to their natural end. For a man who, at this time in his life had never been married, Lewis had much mature wisdom to impart.
For sake of time I will stop with just these few reflections. I could go on at much greater length for this section really was a gold mine. I look forward to reading about the areas that stood out to you.
Next Week
For next Thursday, let’s just finish up book three. Again, six chapters seems like a lot, but in reality most of the chapters are only a few pages. To read only half of them would amount to only 20 pages of fairly light reading. After Edwards and Owen we should be well equipped to handle 40 pages of Lewis in a week!
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 (28) »
1. David Porter
January 8, 2009
10:36 AM
Tim,
I struggled with Lewis in the beginning, as I didn’t easily make the mental shift from the theologian Edwards, to the apologetic Lewis.
I also struggled with my preferred style of Edwards, laying his heart bare, versus Lewis’ more stoic sentiment.
Having finally moved past that, with a lot of help from friends, I am beginning to warm up to Lewis.
I thought his insights into Christian marriage were profound and ought to be required memorization for all newlyweds: http://tinyurl.com/7c8nm8
His chapter on Sexual Morality, and specifically modesty and decency, spawned a post “Is it Befitting for a Christian to be a Nudist” http://tinyurl.com/8bopm6 This post brought some interesting dialog from a nudist.
I am looking forward to diving into the three “theological” virtues.
Until next time…
2. Laurie
January 8, 2009
11:44 AM
I’ve only commented as far as the chapter on forgiveness, and intend to post separately regarding the chapter on humility/pride since it was so very rich. I thought I’d have finished the whole book by the end of this lengthy break, but it seems this holiday season was a lot busier than I anticipated. My thoughts are recorded here: http://lauriemo.blogspot.com/2009/01/so-in-light-of-resolutions-ive-made.html
3. Leslie Katz
January 8, 2009
1:44 PM
C.S. Lewis is not a Christian writer. They are all luciferians!
History and Link”
“a little leaven, leaven the whole lump”
Go to “the threshing floor radio” search audio for C.S. Lewis
Go to “ministry of truth” Gordon Comstock
search audio on C.S. Lewis.
“by their fruits will you know them”
By the very title “Mere” Christianity he blasphemes.
Don’t take my word on this but HIS
audio on C.S. Lewis titled appropriatly “C.S. Lewis “In his own words”
http://mp3.sa-media.com/media/331081744503/331081744503.mp3
If you have trouble with this link google “sermon audio” Dr. Scott Johnson C.S. Lewis. Or google title
4. Rita Martinez
January 8, 2009
4:02 PM
Leslie Katz said “By the very title “Mere” Christianity he blasphemes.” —> This is what he says:
“So far as I can judge from reviews and from the numerous letters written to me, the book, however faulty in other respects, did at least succeed in presenting an agreed, or common, or central, or ‘mere’ Christianity.” (Preface p.XI) If you’re not going to read the book at least read different reviews from different authors and compare what he says to scripture…is all I’m saying.
As for Book 3, first 6 chapters:
For the first chapter I can attest to what Lewis’ says about a Christian’s intelligence being sharpened and was sooo surprised to know that Bunyan was uneducated!
As for the chapter on psychoanalysis I didn’t know what to make of it other than it made sense, I also underlined those same sentences on pgs.91 and 93
I really liked his chapters on Sexual Morality and Christian Marriage as well. I completely agree with the way he reasoned that the problem with sex is not that it has been hushed up but that it is because “our sexual instinct, as it now is, has gone wrong” (p.95).
“If hushing up had been the cause of the trouble, ventilation would have set it right. But it has not.” and “There is nothing to be ashamed of in enjoying your food: there would be everything to be ashamed of if half the world made food the main interest of their lives and spent their time looking at pictures of food and dribbling and smacking their lips.”
Finally I though the solution he offers and the outcome of doing so which in essence is what will “fix” it, is really great:
To try to be chaste by asking God to help us in our endeavor, to ask for forgiveness when we fail, and the outcome of this will be to train us “in habits of the soul which are more important still. It cures our illusions about ourselves and teaches us to depend on God.” (p.101)
Like in Hebrews: we must look to Jesus always, for He is the founder and perfecter of our faith and in our struggles against sin we must endure knowing the Lord is always there to help us and discipline us.
I actually read book III completely during Christmas break..but I don’t mind reading those last 6 chapters again :D
5. Curtis
January 8, 2009
4:08 PM
I must say that I still hold to my comments from the last two books, although Lewis is finally getting to the point of using and explaining scripture, even if it is only 4 or 5 times(with some bad paraphrase). I can no more recommend Lewis’ first two books to non/new believers than I could Catholic teaching, even though there have been some good writtings to come from the Catholic church, I could never recommend it due to the bad theology. Because Catholics are not Christians I could never embrace them or their church as brothers, Lewis on the other hand, though he has some bad theology, appears to be a Christain, therefore that which is good in his theology can be and should be used to benifit and encourage the church.
I love Lewis as a Christian fiction writter, but when he attempts to explain theology, sadly he is lacking. I am thankful that i continued to read through this book as there is, as Tim says, gold to be mined. Unfortunately you must wade through the sludge to get to it. Just my opinion, I hope you can find more use for Lewis’ writting than I have. Maybe I’m just accustomed to reading books that contain more scripture and exposition on any single page than in this entire book. Maybe?
I hope this doesn’t come accross wrong, as my intent is to just state that I simply have issue with some of Lewis’ theology and found little benifit in the book as a whole. I would love Lewis as a brother, although I could have seen he and I having many late night *cough, cough…discussions.
6. John from Down Under
January 8, 2009
6:16 PM
Curtis [# 5]
I love most of Lewis’ writings and Mere Christianity is one of my all time favourites, but also agree with you that theology is not his strength. But Lewis never pretended to be a Bible expositor or teacher. He is an ‘original thinker’ and sceptic and perhaps the closest thing one could find to a ‘Christian philosopher’ (using the term philo-sophy in its literal meaning of ‘friend of wisdom’). His rich imagination and brilliant intellect enabled him to express his thoughts in unique ways. At the very least what he managed to do for me was to challenge some conventional ideas and he presents ordinary concepts from extraordinary angles. He frames mundane ideas in unusual frames.
Some of his concepts have no theological foundation but others do if you take a closer look. I certainly haven’t enjoyed all of his writings and I found his book Miracles to be painfully confusing and a verbal swamp. I couldn’t make much sense of it. It is THE ONLY book I ever bought which I happily stopped reading half-way as I lost interest altogether.
I would put Lewis in the same category of ‘original thinkers’ as Oswald Chambers and the more recent A W Tozer, although all three had distinctively unique styles. Their commonality for me was that they challenged popular perceptions about the Christian faith and all manage to impart conviction.
7. Rita Martinez
January 8, 2009
6:48 PM
Curtis
“Maybe I’m just accustomed to reading books that contain more scripture and exposition on any single page than in this entire book. Maybe?”
I have to agree with you on this one, its one of things I haven’t liked about the book. I like my books like I like my music, drenched in scripture, and with references.
8. Scott D. Andersen
January 8, 2009
6:54 PM
Great review again Tim. I’ve been pondering my own motivation for reading Lewis. I’ve read several of his books in the past, the Space Triology, Narnia Series, ScrewTape Letters, The Great Divorce, Miracles, and tried but failed to complete, Till We Have Faces. I’m trying to stretch myself, I think. I approach Lewis like an outsider looking in the window. Or that quiet guy in a party sitting by himself in the corner observing everyone else having all the camaraderie and fun.
I really want to learn here and “get it.”
As an example and motivation, I transcribed the following quote from John Piper in the Speaker Interview from the 2003 Desiring God National Conference. This quote is approx 24 minutes into the interview.
Piper was comparing Lewis’ effect upon himself with Jonathon Edwards’ effect and was describing Edwards as an 18th century C.S. Lewis for the effect’s sake.
“Lewis [I think he meant to say Edwards] for me was a kind of 18th century CS Lewis, he had the same effect only with theological substance, Lewis caused me to open my eyes and see the world, I was kind of walking through life as a dream, I didn’t see trees, I didn’t see concrete, I didn’t see noses, ears, hair. I just kinda saw ideas. Lewis in his writing is so utterly able to open your eyes to see all that is, you’re just stunned like you have awakened from a dream. Now, Edwards has exactly the same effect on me, spiritually [Dr. Piper said spiritually with great emphasis]. He talks about Hell like nobody else talks about Hell. He talks about heaven like nobody talks about heaven. He talks about the Holy Spirit. Anything he touches seems like I have never seen things before.”
I want to see if I “get Lewis” like Piper describes. That’s my motivation. It may be a difference in background, personality, goals, something but I’ve always been the outsider when it comes to Lewis. But I really like Edwards.
sda
9. Curtis
January 8, 2009
7:41 PM
Scott D. Andersen,
I agree with Piper on almost everything, in fact I can’t at this moment think of anything Piper has said(and not repented of) that I don’t agree with, theologically. However I must simply say I don’t “get” Lewis, I mean I understand what he’s saying and the point he is making, but I just really don’t get why he has attracted so much attention by so many. There are other authors, pastors, teachers to which I could make the same comments that Piper made of Lewis in the above quote, but unfortunately I have to disagree with Lewis on too many issues to give him the benifit of the doubt. On the positive side I am glad to hear that such a well known work has been such an influence and brought a great many to Christ through repentance and faith, but I don’t think it’s as much because of it, but in spite of it.
John from Down Undersaid,
“I would put Lewis in the same category of ‘original thinkers’ as Oswald Chambers and the more recent A W Tozer”
I could agree with much of what you said throughout your comments, however I must disagree in regards to Tozer, this man was drenched in scripture and based almost everything he wrote and preached on scripture. I mean have you heard the man preach….WOW, powerful stuff.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=109071731190
10. Curtis
January 8, 2009
7:47 PM
This & That
Tim, just some irrelevant Details, but I think it will be May 2 when you will hit 2009 consecutive days of blogging.
11. Deron
January 8, 2009
10:30 PM
I don’t know what all the fuss is about. I like pretty much everything Lewis has written.
Do I agree with it all? No.
But I don’t agree completely with any non-Biblical author. I tend to read things through a Scripture filter and keep what’s worthwhile…and this is what Lewis tells us to do in his books.
When I first read Lewis 18 years ago, I said to myself, “What, no Bible references?”
But you can still have a decent book without them. Like someone said he’s not exegetical so much as philosophical. He applies logic and clear thinking to sometimes muddy concepts.
Most importantly, his books point me to Christ. They are filled with hope and strategy for living out our earthly lives. They were the first books other than the Bible that really made me start to desire God.
12. Winston Waldemayer III
January 8, 2009
11:23 PM
Curtis said “I can no more recommend Lewis’ first two books to non/new believers than I could Catholic teaching, even though there have been some good writtings to come from the Catholic church, I could never recommend it due to the bad theology. Because Catholics are not Christians I could never embrace them or their church as brothers,”
Curtis… no offence brother but I disagree about the comment that Catholics aren’t Christians. I am not a Catholic but I have known some. I can say with all assuredness that there are some Catholics that have shown more love and sacrifice for others and for the sake of the gospel than most of us, not that their rites, traditions, theology may be somewhat in error. Over the centuries I believe that more than a few men and women of God have come out of the Catholic church (which is an understatement).
Hope that is not out of line for a blog on reformation. I prefer to agree with everyone on everything but on this I can not. I know it is off point and subject and I apologize but I could not help it.
13. Frank
January 8, 2009
11:29 PM
Amen Deron (#11)
Tim another great review. I’m not reading along this time as my copy is failing apart but I am enjoying checking to see if your high points match up with what i’ve underlined over the years. I look forward to reading your insights on Lewis’ thoughts on modesty, chastity and such.
14. Mark@DR
January 8, 2009
11:53 PM
Curtis and Rita,
John Calvin didn’t insert endless Scripture references in his works either, but it’s clear that Scripture is there.
Curtis, reading your comments about Tozer in #9, I did have to chuckle. His book Knowledge of the Holy is rife with references to mystics (mostly Catholics) that many fundamentalists/evangelicals have problems with. The medieval monastic Julian of Norwich, to name one (mystic, not critic), whom he joked was his girlfriend.
Besides, Tozer’s personal life didn’t fare very well; his children and his marriage suffered because he was a ministry workaholic. See Tim’s recent review of A Passion for God: the Spiritual Journey of A.W. Tozer.
It’s a tad ironic that you would dog on Lewis so much and gush about Tozer. There’s no basis for going to either extreme - they were both Christians, they both did intellectual service for Christ, and they both fall within the pale of Christian orthodoxy.
WW III, I’m on board with your comments, just for the record, and I didn’t think it out of line for this blog, nor this particular post.
Blessings, all.
15. Curtis
January 9, 2009
7:15 AM
Catholics are Christians?
Winston Waldemayer III said,
“I can say with all assuredness that there are some Catholics that have shown more love and sacrifice for others and for the sake of the gospel than most of us, not that their rites, traditions, theology may be somewhat in error.”
The above attributes does not a Christian make, at all. It is because of their “rites, traditions and theology” that they are not Christians. They are no more Christian than any other cult. That is not to say that someone who is a Catholic can not become a Christian, much like a Mormon or Muslim can become a Christian, but when they do, they are no longer practicing their false religion. You may disagree with me until you are blue but you are just confused as to what is necessary and essential to become a Christian. That isn’t to say Catholics aren’t closer to the truth, but they do not know God.
Mark@DR said,
“John Calvin didn’t insert endless Scripture references in his works either, but it’s clear that Scripture is there.”
Really, you’re going to stick with this answer? This comment is just grossly ignorant. Sorry, but it’s true.
“It’s a tad ironic that you would dog on Lewis so much and gush about Tozer.”
Was I gushing? Maybe a little, but really, have you heard him preach? And I’ve read much of Tozer and am somewhat confused by your statement. And do you really want to attack another mans personal life?
“Besides, Tozer’s personal life didn’t fare very well; his children and his marriage suffered because he was a ministry workaholic.”
I mean really.
Listen, all I’m saying about Lewis is that he lacks in his use of scripture, mostly uses philosophical logic and has some dangerous and wrong theology. That’s my opinion, and if people don’t like it, or think I’m wrong, tough. I stand on scripture and the backs of those who would and have died for it. I’m not sorry that I hold such a high view of scripture or that I regard it’s importance and authority to such a degree that anyone trying to teach ANYTHING about Christainity and God must saturate there writtings with it. To do any less is shameful.
Enough said.
16. Winston Waldemayer
January 9, 2009
10:37 AM
Curtis,
Understand your stance on the subject of Catholics not being Christians. However, in my humble opinion (which is in opposition to yours) a Christian is defined as someone who has accepted faith in Jesus Christ. That is all. To judge Catholics saying that they are not Christians and thereby going to hell is dangerous considering that God is judge and not us.
Romans 14:1-7
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
So it is not the rites, rituals, traditions, or theology that makes one Christian but faith in Jesus Christ. This is the essence of love. If they are in error, so be it, it is not for me to judge.
Romans 14:9-12
9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11It is written:
” ‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.’ ” 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Therefore, all are to be accepted as Christians who believe in Christ and God’s testimony concerning Him. The ideals of their worship, theology, etc are not to be brought into question. Though we may admonish them carefully as to an error in what they do or what the Catholic Regime considers holy, we are to stand on our common ground with them (which is Christ) and not on our differences.
Hate is evil in any form except to hate hate. Judgement, impatience, anger to anothers hurt, and standing on division and indifference, is not love but is plainly evil. Whatever man considers “Christian” in his own mind is arrogance for it is not about us or our feeble attempts to try and package it in to what we think it is supposed to be but it is only Christ and Christ crucified.
Granted Paul says we should judge inside the body of Christ and not outside. However, if Catholics are inside the body of Christ, then they are Christians. If not, you have no right to judge. So says scripture and on that I will stand. However, do not mistake my confidence in this matter as arrogance for it is confidence in God and His word and not in self. Humility is the key and freedom through Christ Jesus. If I am in error in my interpretation than feel free to correct me, afterall, we are all here to learn. I learn something different everyday. If you can find scripture that explains that Catholics are not Christians, by all means, educate me.
http://www.reigningimmortal.com
17. Laurie
January 9, 2009
12:15 PM
I hesitate to involve myself in a digression from the subject of the blog; but , for what it’s worth (and perhaps it will help), I do want to say something as regards this discussion of Catholicism. I do believe that throughout the centuries there have been those who have despaired of themselves and all the requirements of the Roman Catholic system, and from within that system clung by faith to the simple teaching of Christ crucified and resurrected for sins as their only hope. For all the faults of the Catholic church and all the falsehood they’ve heaped upon the truth (one might say buried it in), underneath it all there is still a crucified and resurrected Savior. There, by the grace of God, will always be simple folk , here and there, who cling to that alone. What these folks do not usually realize (though some outspoken ones, like Luther, find out - thus the Reformation) is that in doing so they’ve ceased to be good Catholics, and are actually holding to an anathematized belief. They may live out their lives this way, not knowing their own “church” regards them as heretics. Trent (sess. 7, canon 8) affirms an anathema upon those who hold to the doctine of justification by faith alone. “If anyone says that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed [ex opere operato, lit., ‘the work worked’] but [says] that faith alone in the divine promises is sufficient for obtaining of grace, let him be anathema.” (quoted from John Macarthur’s book Reckless Faith; when the church loses it’s will to discern).
My point is that the Roman Catholic system is opposed to the simple gospel of salvation through faith alone in Christ alone, and for that reason should not be regarded as a whole as a legitimately Christian system, and undermines and clouds the truths found in Scripture. (See Eph. 2:8-9, Acts 16: 31; Rom. 4:3-6; Gal. 1: 6-9) Yet even within that system, there is a crucified and resurrected Christ, that simple fact , that tiny kernal of gospel truth, is enough gospel to be the power of God for salvation for those who belief it. And such will cling to that simple truth all their days, for God is able to keep them. Some will become vocal, and be condemned (such as Jansenists like Blaise Pascal), others will live their lives quietly in obscurity, particularly in nations that are predominantly Catholic.
In short, we should not assume someone is not a Christian based upon the fact that they are Roman Catholic. We should, however, not cease to condemn the falsehoods of the Roman Catholic system which lead people from the simplicity of the gospel toward a system of works. And for this we have the example of the apostle Paul of where we should draw a line: “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? Let me ask you only this: Did you recieve the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? Did you experience so many things in vain? - if it really is in vain. Does he wo supplies th Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith…” Gal. 3: 1-5
18. Mark@DR
January 9, 2009
12:19 PM
Curtis,
This conversation isn’t irenic, isn’t going back and forth in a productive way, and is probably boring readers. So I’m going to refrain from answering your retorts, although there is so much I could say. You haven’t even engaged with my arguments; I only see some dismissive hand-waving.
Could I ask you to consider, however, whether your virulent attacks on Lewis and those who rise to defend him might be hijacking this thread? Not only this time, but every time Tim posts about Mere Christianity. If I were moderator…but I’m not.
With that, and no more, I am
Mark
19. Winston Waldemayer III
January 9, 2009
12:32 PM
Laurie,
Love your comment! Excellent! I agree.
20. Mark@DR
January 9, 2009
12:37 PM
Well, it appears I must return to apologize for a double posting.
Infernal ‘internal server errors.’
Mark
21. Tim Challies
January 9, 2009
12:58 PM
I think it would do us well to get this back on topic. This program is about more than reading only the classics with which we are going to agree with every word. There are some where we’ll have to play the “chew the meat, spit out the fat” game. This may well be a good opportunity to discuss some of those things. But let’s try to stay on topic!
22. Lisa
January 9, 2009
2:30 PM
So back to the book at hand? :-)
I found lots of nuggets in this section. Here are a couple I keyed in on:
There are a good many things which would not be worth bothering about if I were going to live only 70 years, but which I had better both about very seriously if I am going to live forever.
Who we are today, matters forever.
http://lisanotes.blogspot.com/2009/01/who-you-are-today-matters-forever.html
He wants a child’s heart, but a grown-up’s head. He wants us to be simple, single-minded, affectionate, and teachable, as good children are; but He also wants every bit of intelligence we have to be alert at its job, and in first-class fighting trim.
Does the Christian culture have the attention span and self-discipline to do this anymore? I pray so! I don’t want my Christianity to be like the little kid who chews a piece of bubble gum only until the sugar is gone, then spits it out.
http://lisanotes.blogspot.com/2009/01/chew-only-or-swallow-and-digest.html
Temperance…
An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons—marriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who do use then, he has taken the wrong turning.
Romans 14:3 echoed in my ear when I read that…”Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.”
A man who makes his golf or his motor-bicycle the centre of his life, or a woman who devotes all her thoughts to clothes or bridge or her dog, is being just as “intemperate” as someone who gets drunk every evening. Of course, it does not show on the outside so easily: bridge-mania or golf-mania do not make you fall down in the middle of the road. But God is not deceived by externals.
I love this point. Because I’m not vastly overweight, you might not guess that I struggle with not making food an idol, but I do, and God knows all about it.
I liked Lewis’ 3 reasons why there is a difference between someone doing a just action versus someone who is a just man:
1. It’s not just the action itself that counts; look at the motivation behind it. Right actions done for the wrong reasons do not build character.
2. God does not want obedience only to a set of rules; he wants a wants a particular kind of people.
3. Virtues are not just for this life; our character matters in the next world, too.
23. Belinda
January 9, 2009
8:12 PM
Amen again, Deron. (#11)
I’m glad to join in on this discussion, although I’m not so sure if I’ll add any intellectual weight….I learned a new word already! Irenic. Thanks. I love Lewis. His Space Triology books are some of my most favorite.
Like others, I especially liked the chapter on Christian Marriage. Although I read Mere Christianity years ago, I found fresh words today, especially from the discussion on submission. ( See my post at http://tinyurl.com/9jypn3 )
David (#1), I agree it should be mandatory reading for newlyweds!
Tim, great review. Thanks so much.
Blessings. B.
24. Lynn Cross
January 9, 2009
11:38 PM
I have received more from Lewis than any other writer. I have read as many of his books as I have been able to get my hands on and taught about four of them to my students. Our thinking as reformed individuals should always include the saying “reformed and always reforming.” That means several things, but what I want to highlight is that; “All truth is God’s truth,” whether you find it in Lewis, or the Pope. Don’t just get stuck and never think things through. Yes, Scripture is always the grid we look through, but learn from a host of writings. I have been in circles, dispensational and reformed that were so dogmatic, and all it did was show peoples lack of knowledge. One is combative usually because one is not confident in what they believe or they feel threatened in their own knowledge base.
just a couple of thoughts………….
25. Josh H.
January 10, 2009
8:26 AM
I apologize if this comment takes us down another rabbit trail, but I have a question about a specific paragraph which Lewis drops in the “Social Morality” section, namely the short comment condemning lending at interest. When I read this book a few years ago, this section stood out in my mind, mainly because it challenges a fundamental cog in the workings of our economy. So when I came upon it again, I thought I’d mention it here to see if someone could provide any insight. Is Lewis correct that lending money at interest (assuming a fair rate) is morally wrong?
At first I took his judgement as true and assumed this is yet one more example of sin in our fallen world. However, thinking about it further, it seems that lending money is akin to renting a tool. The client pays a fee to be allowed to use the tool for a given time, and both parties benefit. This seems simple enough. Am I missing something?
26. Scott D. Andersen
January 10, 2009
4:46 PM
Belinda #23, enjoyed the article and the application over at your blog. Thanks for that — this is the kind of observation that may help me to “get Lewis” like a Piper. I think I also thought along those lines while reading Lewis on “Why a man?” as you also described, but reading your affirmation made it sink in a little more and appreciate the insight of Lewis and his ability to communicate the same.
Thanks everyone for your willingness to comment, appreciate them all pro and con. It makes me think.
sda
27. EM
January 11, 2009
8:46 PM
I’m an unapologetic Lewis aficionado — I don’t think he’s perfect, but I’ve benefited greatly from his writings, especially, the Weight of Glory and A Grief Observed. Mere Christianity is the most frequent resource I give to thoughtful unbelievers.
I’m glad you are doing this series - more people in this generation should be introduced to Lewis and there are no few of the classic Christian authors (including Tozer) whom I have yet to study.
28. John from Down Under
January 11, 2009
11:15 PM
To Josh H. # 25
As a Christian who is also a banker I cannot see anything socially immoral with banks lending with interest. This is their lifeline and ‘product’. Banks are in the money lending business. Without interest there will be no profit, and no business can survive without profit. This is legitimate and hardly unbiblical.
However… when lending some money to a friend in need on a personal basis I do think it would be unethical to charge interest, see Ex 22:25, Lev 25:36-37, Deut 23:19, 30. These scriptures show that God is not against charging interest per se, but rather whom to and under what circumstances. I would draw a definite distinction between lending on a professional level than a personal level.
Hope this helps!
ALSO…in response to the several posts about Christian authors including many scripture references in their writings, it is a limiting view to conclude that they’re not worth reading because they don’t include many bible verses. Lack of scripture references does not make a book less Christian than the absence of the word ‘God’ in the book of Esther make the book less biblical.
If the writer is a Bible expositor / teacher, then he’d be expected to quote verses frequently, but Lewis and others like him do not fall under this category. Phillip Yancey may lean on the soft and/or liberal side theologically speaking, but his book The Jesus I never Knew is one of the most challenging and thought-provoking I ever read.