# C. S. Lewis, an Anglo-Catholic



## sastark (Apr 6, 2011)

I thought I would post links to two articles written by our own Brian Carpenter about C. S. Lewis' Anglo-Catholicism. I for one have found them to be extremely interesting, timely, and useful. If you haven't already, give them a read yourself and see what you think:

Was C.S. Lewis an Anglo-Catholic? « Johannes Weslianus

Some Guesses on the Origin of Lewis’ Anglo-Catholicism « Johannes Weslianus


----------



## lynnie (Apr 7, 2011)

You might enjoy Piper's bio on him. I listened to the tape but I assume this link is the full text of the message:

Lessons from an Inconsolable Soul Learning from the Mind and Heart of C. S. Lewis - Desiring God

a snip:

1) It Seems I Shouldn’t Find Lewis So Helpful
My approach in this talk is personal. I am going to talk about what has meant the most to me in C. S. Lewis—how he has helped me the most. And as I raise this question, as I have many times over the years, the backdrop of the question becomes increasingly urgent: Why has he been so significant for me, even though he is not Reformed in his doctrine, and could barely be called an evangelical by typical American uses of that word? 

He doesn’t believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, 1 and defaults to logical arguments more naturally than to biblical exegesis. He doesn’t treat the Reformation with respect, but thinks it could have been avoided, and calls aspects of if farcical. 2 He steadfastly refused in public or in letters to explain why he was not a Roman Catholic but remained in the Church of England. 3 He makes room for at least some people to be saved through imperfect representations of Christ in other religions. 4 He made a strong logical, but I think unbiblical, case for free will to explain why there is suffering in the world. 5 He speaks of the atonement with reverence, but puts little significance on any of the explanations for how it actually saves sinners. 6 

In other words, Lewis is not a writer to which we should turn for growth in a careful biblical understanding of Christian doctrine. There is almost no passage of Scripture on which I would turn to Lewis for exegetical illumination. A few, but not many. He doesn’t deal with many. If we follow him in the kinds of mistakes that he made (the ones listed above), it will hurt the church and dishonor Christ. His value is not in his biblical exegesis. Lewis is not the kind of writer who provides substance for a pastor’s sermons. If a pastor treats Lewis as a resource for doctrinal substance, he will find his messages growing thin, interesting perhaps, but not with much rich biblical content. 

The Ironic Effect of Reading Lewis 

So you see the kind of backdrop there is for this message. How and why has C. S. Lewis been so helpful to me when I think he is so wrong on some very important matters? Why don’t I put Lewis in the same category as the so-called “emergent” writers? At one level, the mistakes seem similar. But when I pose the question that way, it starts to become pretty clear to me why Lewis keeps being useful, while I think the emergent voices will fade away fairly quickly. 

etc......


----------



## Tripel (Apr 7, 2011)

I, for one, am not really concerned with Lewis' Anglo-Catholicism. It doesn't take away from the helpfulness of his writings.

I'm still a fan.


----------



## Zenas (Apr 7, 2011)

Haven't found Lewis to be very practical reading for some time, only entertaining. If you're looking for a theolocially sound allegory for Christianity, CoN is not it. Pilgrim's Progress is far more useful, just not as entertaining.


----------



## Philip (Apr 7, 2011)

Is it really that surprising, given his friends?

The fact of the matter is that apart from John Bunyan, there are precious few literary folks in the reformed tradition (Herbert and Donne were certainly Calvinists in theology, though conformist in practice).


----------



## Rufus (Apr 7, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Is it really that surprising, given his friends?
> 
> The fact of the matter is that apart from John Bunyan, there are precious few literary folks in the reformed tradition (Herbert and Donne were certainly Calvinists in theology, though conformist in practice).


 
Herbert who and Donne who? I'd like to research them a bit.


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 7, 2011)

Rufus said:


> Herbert who and Donne who? I'd like to research them a bit.


 
George Herbert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Donne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Rufus (Apr 7, 2011)

John Donne wikipedia article excerpt: "His satires dealt with common Elizabethan topics, such as corruption in the legal system,_ mediocre poets_, and pompous courtiers." 
After finishing Romeo and Juliet for School I can say that Elizabethan England must have been filled with mediocre poet, because Mercutio and Benovolio mock Romeo saying his love poetry is like rhyming Love and Dove


----------



## torstar (Apr 7, 2011)

Tripel said:


> I, for one, am not really concerned with Lewis' Anglo-Catholicism. It doesn't take away from the helpfulness of his writings.
> 
> I'm still a fan.


 

It's a fallen world and culture. Anybody who came along with goodness for me to glean has my full admiration.

If I keep demanding the world and culture be perfect before I come out of my little cubbyhole, it's going to be a long and dreadful temporal existence.

And if one is demanding this perfection and doesn't feel they are suffering for it, all those around that person are sure feeling it.


----------



## Philip (Apr 8, 2011)

Rufus said:


> John Donne wikipedia article excerpt: "His satires dealt with common Elizabethan topics, such as corruption in the legal system,_ mediocre poets_, and pompous courtiers."
> After finishing Romeo and Juliet for School I can say that Elizabethan England must have been filled with mediocre poet, because Mercutio and Benovolio mock Romeo saying his love poetry is like rhyming Love and Dove


 
My one caveat with Donne is, naturally, to read the stuff he wrote _after_ he came to Christ. His earlier stuff is . . . racy.


----------



## Rufus (Apr 8, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> My one caveat with Donne is, naturally, to read the stuff he wrote _after_ he came to Christ. His earlier stuff is . . . racy.


 
We actually read a piece of his work for English class, I can't remember the exact subject matter, but I believe it may have (with little memory) been racy. 
Great that he came to Christ though.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Apr 8, 2011)

I'd like to hear more about John Donne's "good vs. bad" poems.


----------



## Rufus (Apr 8, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I'd like to hear more about John Donne's "good vs. bad" poems.


 
Well, according to Wikipedia in his earlier poetry (seems to be prior to Parliament term, and Converstion), he wrote elegies that had inappropriate subject matter...maybe a little too inappropriate for here. If you want to read it: John Donne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (second paragraph)


----------



## Philip (Apr 9, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I'd like to hear more about John Donne's "good vs. bad" poems.


 
The sonnets written before his conversion tended to be about his various mistresses and how much fun they had. His later poems (the holy sonnets, etc) are generally about the relationship of the believer to God, as well as the hope we have as Christians.

_Death, be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so ; _


----------

