C. S. Lewis Weary of Apologetics

Many people know C. S. Lewis as probably the greatest Christian apologist to date. Fewer people know that, at least in his later years, Lewis found the whole topic of apologetics rather wearing. Said he in a letter from June 18, 1956, which I read a few weeks ago:

I envy you not having to think any more about Christian apologetics. My correspondents force the subject on me again and again. It is very wearing, and not v. good for one’s own faith. A Christian doctrine never seems less real to me than when I have just (even if successfully) been defending it. It is particularly tormenting when those who were converted by my books begin to relapse and raise new difficulties.

IS EASTER A LIE? Arguments for and against the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 3)

IS EASTER A LIE? Arguments for and against the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 2)

In this video, I continue to outline the case of Christian apologists for the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ as well as the response of skeptics, attempting to present both sides fairly:

IS EASTER A LIE? The Arguments for and against the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)

Not By Faith Alone: C. S. Lewis’ Socratic Club

C. S. Lewis is well known as the author of Narnia and popular Christian books. Fewer people know that he was also the co-founder and president of the Oxford Socratic Club.

The club met once a week in crowded rooms (“they were lucky who found seats even on the floor” ) to apply Socrates’ principle that men should “follow the argument wherever it led them.” This guiding principle the members took and applied to one topic in particular, namely Christianity. More specifically: the reasons for and against Christianity.

C. S. Lewis pointed out that, to the best of his knowledge, no society had ever before been formed for such a purpose. There had been plenty of overtly Christian groups, and there were others with a definite anti-Christian stance. A debating ground solely dedicated to the conflict between Christians and non-Christians was a novelty in Lewis’ day. And it was not, Lewis took care to point out, a disguised form of Christian propaganda. First of all, if someone had this objection to make, he would have been welcome to make an essay of it and read that paper to the Socratic itself. And second, C. S. Lewis and the committee had “with pains and toil (…) scoured Who’s Who to find intelligent atheists who had leisure or zeal to come and propagate their creed.” This means C. S. Lewis actually sought out the most intelligent and eloquent atheists of his day and exposed himself to the best shots they could give.

If C. S. Lewis had based his faith on faith alone, he would have been much more narrow-minded. And that would have made him a very different man than he was. “Faith alone” would not have gotten him very far in the Socratic Club. He would have ended up in a dead end.

C. S. Lewis believed that truth rather than the persuasiveness of a preacher ought to be the foundation of faith. Said he in a talk about Christian apologetics, “One of the great difficulties is to keep before the audience’s mind the question of Truth. They always think you are recommending Christianity not because it is true but because it is good. And in the discussion they will at every moment try to escape from the issue ‘True – or False’ …”

And yet, it is a legitimate question to ask whether truth can ever be the sole criterion when it comes to the acceptance of God or a particular religuous text. It is a wonderful ideal, but can it ever be the decisive factor? Was C. S. Lewis successful in his debating club because he had the truth or simply because he was a gifted debater? Might a gifted orator not take any point whatsoever—whether true or false—and argue his opponent into a corner? Is it not all too easy to give a rational appearance to the irrational? To make strong-sounding points for a weak case?

And, as the great Russian novelist Dostoyevsky wrote in Crime and Punishment, does the faculty of reason not suffer the weakness of seeing three possibilities where there might be millions?

These are the kinds of question marks one can put on C. S. Lewis’ approach to faith and the Bible.

Read more about C. S. Lewis’ approach to faith and the Bible in The C. S. Lewis Book on the Bible: What the Greatest Christian Writer Thought about the Greatest Book.

Unlike Anything I’ve Ever Read

The Pilgrim’s Regress: An Allegorical Apology for Christianity Reason and Romanticism

by C. S. Lewis

 

Like most of Lewis’ works, “The Pilgrim’s Regress” merits regular re-reading. Originally published for an academic audience, the book is an allegory that reflects Lewis’ inner journey away from the Christianized culture of his childhood to “popular realism,” and from there to Philosophical Idealism, to Pantheism, to Theism, and finally to an adult-understanding of Christianity (see Afterword to the Third Edition). Thus the subtitle of the book runs “An Allegorical Apology for Christianity, Reason and Romanticism.” 

“The Pilgrim’s Regress” might be difficult to understand for someone without prior knowledge of the philosophical developments of the past centuries, since it lies in the nature of allegory to provide pictures to concepts generally familiar to the reader and not explain the concepts didactically to an ignorant reader. But, given some extra effort, even the ignorant reader can glean many great insights from the book. 

To the philosophically educated reader it should be said that in “The Pilgrim’s Regress” you have a book quite unique in the twentieth century. Since Allegory Proper has not been the most popular genre of late (to say the least), and since a Christian who is equally enthusiastic about Reason and Romanticism is also rather uncommon, the book is probably unlike anything you have ever read. 

If you have not already done so, it is high time to buy the book and get enriched by its insightful imagery! 

(For more on C. S. Lewis, see my new book The C. S. Lewis Book on the Bible.)

The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture

Today, I got an e-mail about my Amazon book review of “How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture” by Francis Schaeffer:

hey saw your review of how should we then live. liked the chapter by chapter breakd own but i couldnt really get a god feel for the ideas and views of the book just wanted to know if you have any more in depth reviews on the book i am a pentecostal christian and never really have time to read books but am interested in you review please email me back with the review and or information

Luckily for him, in 2003 I actually did write a more detailed report on the book, even illustrated with relevant pictures. I dug it up from some CD-ROM in a big CD pile, and since I went to all that trouble, I thought I might just as well post it here.

Unwelcome Supporters

 

Have you ever been in the company of an “unwelcome supporter”?

To a lecturer – such as I am on occasion – it might happen rather often. When I try to make a case for the general historical reliability of the Gospels in the New Testament, for instance, someone in the class might raise his hand and say, “I would just like to say that I totally agree with you. I mean, science validates the Bible at every turn. Like the sun standing still in Joshua. Science has shown that there is a missing day in history, which proves that the story is true. And also, the fact that there are absolutely no contradictions between the Gospels shows that they must be divinely inspired.”

Such a contribution is meant to support the teaching, but it’s precisely the kind of support I do not desire. I don’t want to base the general historical reliability of the Bible on an uncertain interpretation of a very controversial passage. And I don’t want to defend the Gospels by saying that there are “absolutely no contradictions between them,” since there do seem to be contradictions between them.

The student has therefore become an “unwelcome supporter.” And it is difficult to deal with him. I don’t want to blow my case by signaling agreement with the supporter, but neither do I want to defend the other side by correcting him.

It is easier to deal with an outright antagonist, for with him the line is clearly drawn; one can argue the case out.