Till We Have Faces, by C.S. Lewis

[Grillsy]

I am not sure why Lewis is given so much slack on the PB. Considering certain things about his personal life that he was unapologetic about or considering certain theological views.

If by "personal life" you are referring to the alleged inappropriate relationship with Mrs. Moore, I have done research on the subject and, to my mind, I have found no evidence that the relationship was anything but appropriate. To say otherwise is to read a Freudian interpretation into what was, in essence, a filial relationship rather than a sexual one.

As for theology, I tend to be forgiving of Lewis largely because theology was not his area of expertise (as he himself admitted). He was more of an expert on Christianity and culture, Christian behavior, and literature. Besides, he's a calvinist now, isn't he?

On topic, Till We Have Faces is, in my opinion, one of Lewis's greatest works, only outranked by That Hideous Strength and The Great Divorce. It's also his only work of fiction published after Joy Gresham's death, making its points about the nature of love and possession (themes througout Lewis's writings) that much more personal.

Actually I studied under one of the nations foremost Lewis experts. If you had read any of the newer Lewis biographies by those who have read his personal letters and those of his associates you would unquestionably that the relationship was sexual and therefore inappropriate.

That being said. The man held to certain aberrant theological positions yet we still recommend him? Perhaps we could recommend the works of the classical Arminians because they believe in total depravity?

-----Added 7/30/2009 at 10:17:18 EST-----

I am not sure why Lewis is given so much slack on the PB. Considering certain things about his personal life that he was unapologetic about or considering certain theological views.
Fine author, I just think that we could be a little more cautious about our open endorsements.

Hi, do you read fictional novels by non-Christians?

I am not sure why Lewis is given so much slack on the PB. Considering certain things about his personal life that he was unapologetic about or considering certain theological views.
Fine author, I just think that we could be a little more cautious about our open endorsements.

I actually openly endorse any number or literary talents, and most of them are, sadly for their sake, not Christians. I think this book was wonderful. I could not have personally written it, because my conscience squirms at even pretending for literature's sake that any other god was God; for instance, I could not have written Narnia, b/c Aslan is not the real Christ. I would have felt conflict at that.
However, I can and do appreciate authors who could use the idea of God or the idea of Christ, and in a fictitious manner, give an allegory. I actually might prefer in a work of fiction a representation that says, "I am Christ," not be used--since our knowledge of Christ is limited to what's revealed in the Bible. Lewis sought out true themes of God, by using a fictitious account of a fictitious god, and I think that was a good way to explore true themes. I would have been much more uncomfortable reading this book had Lewis named Ungit "Yahweh" and Ungit's son, "Christ." For I would consider that to be adding to the Bible (a la Anne Rice).
I probably sound defensive, and I don't mean to♥. I just don't personally have a problem with reading even unChristian authors, so it's hard to feel bad endorsing a work written by a Christian.

I do read fictional novels by non-Christians. However I usually don't try to use them to teach people about the faith like some do with the writings of Lewis.
Please understand that I recognize Lewis' talent. I have read more than my fair share of Lewis and fail to understand how his aberrant theology is ignored or pushed aside by the Reformed. I read Lewis as I am sure most of you do, as literature and not as theology. However, his books are too often being used as catechisms in certain churches. That is my worry and that is why I voiced my concerns.

 

[Montanablue]

Actually I studied under one of the nations foremost Lewis experts. If you had read any of the newer Lewis biographies by those who have read his personal letters and those of his associates you would unquestionably that the relationship was sexual and therefore inappropriate.

Which biographies? I'm certainly not an expert on Lewis by an stretch, but I know a fair bit about him (finding is live and work quite interesting) and this is the first I've heard of an accusation of an inappropriate relationship with Mrs. Moore.

 

[Caroline]

It's ironic that the Lewis books that I disliked upon first reading are the ones that I find that I quote from the most later. I did not actually find 'Till We Have Faces' enjoyable as a literary piece--at least, not the way that I enjoyed some of Lewis's other works. But some of the imagery is so gripping that I find myself referring back to it later.

Ditto for 'The Last Battle', which is a profoundly depressing book ... and yet quite profound. In fact, I wonder where Lewis gained his experience that allowed him to write about cult deception so compellingly ... indeed, people behave exactly as he described.

But, back to 'Till We Have Faces' ... by far the most oft-repeated section for me is the part wherein Orual stands before the gods to read her complaint, only to find that it is reduced to a scrawny, bitter, selfish rant that she is repeating again and again. How often I have found that to be the case ...that, when stripped of all the fine words, our complaints against God are immature, selfish, and not really as grand as we think they are.

 

[ewenlin]

I do read fictional novels by non-Christians. However I usually don't try to use them to teach people about the faith like some do with the writings of Lewis.
Please understand that I recognize Lewis' talent. I have read more than my fair share of Lewis and fail to understand how his aberrant theology is ignored or pushed aside by the Reformed. I read Lewis as I am sure most of you do, as literature and not as theology. However, his books are too often being used as catechisms in certain churches. That is my worry and that is why I voiced my concerns.

I don't see anyone here using Till We Have Faces as didactic much less a catechism level. Can't we merely discuss a single literary work as fiction?

 

[Caroline]

I do read fictional novels by non-Christians. However I usually don't try to use them to teach people about the faith like some do with the writings of Lewis.
Please understand that I recognize Lewis' talent. I have read more than my fair share of Lewis and fail to understand how his aberrant theology is ignored or pushed aside by the Reformed. I read Lewis as I am sure most of you do, as literature and not as theology. However, his books are too often being used as catechisms in certain churches. That is my worry and that is why I voiced my concerns.

I don't see anyone here using Till We Have Faces as didactic much less a catechism level. Can't we merely discuss a single literary work as fiction?

I think we can recognize that people are/were not perfect either in their personal lives or theology and yet still have something valuable to say once in a while.

-----Added 7/30/2009 at 11:10:23 EST-----

I love this book.

C.S. Lewis really understands women...

Oddly enough, I've read elsewhere the criticism that Lewis didn't understand women especially well, that he was single for much of his life, and worked in a very male environment, and that his female characters were often not well developed.

I've heard this criticism also, and it really puzzles me. So many of his female characters are the best developed in the book, and his books are often even told from a female perspective, which is a bit unusual for a male writer. I do think that Lewis preferred intellectual-type women, and he tended to develop his characters in that direction. I find it rather flattering to women that he seems to assume that they function with a high level of intelligence (something that many men of his era would not have assumed). But sometimes perhaps he does go to far in his impatience with other types. His Lasaraleen character, for example ... it appears that he absolutely could not bear giggly girls.

 

[Timothy William]

I don't see anyone here using Till We Have Faces as didactic much less a catechism level. Can't we merely discuss a single literary work as fiction?

Sure we can ....


It's boring. Here endeth the discussion.

On a more serious note, it is a book I intend to go back an finish (on my shortlist of about 4 that I need to complete one day.) But largely because I've been told by various people that it is profound (though not necessarily in a theological way) so I expect that by the end I'll get something from it.

 

[py3ak]

Willie, are you sure the newer biographies aren't merely pushing a salacious agenda? Walter Hooper, whose close association with Lewis is a matter of public record concluded that there was insufficient data to determine absolutely whether Lewis' relation with Mrs. Moore was ever more than filial.
Whatever might be the case in that regard, however, Lewis went to see her in fulfilment of a promise to his friend to take care of her, and was unsaved at the time of moving in with her and her daughter.
So for this problem to have any weight, you would have to have clear indications of an inappropriate relationship continuing after his conversion. Of course, that wouldn't necessarily mean that he gets a free pass, anymore than our love of the words of David means he gets a free pass for his shenanigans with Bathsheba.

But since no one has said, "Let's correct the confessions based on C.S. Lewis" I guess I don't quite grasp why we must be careful to launch an attack every time we mention him. Perhaps we ought to spit every time we say his name?

 

[Grillsy]

Willie, are you sure the newer biographies aren't merely pushing a salacious agenda? Walter Hooper, whose close association with Lewis is a matter of public record concluded that there was insufficient data to determine absolutely whether Lewis' relation with Mrs. Moore was ever more than maternal.
Whatever might be the case in that regard, however, Lewis went to see her in fulfilment of a promise to his friend to take care of her, and was unsaved at the time of moving in with her and her daughter.
So for this problem to have any weight, you would have to have clear indications of an inappropriate relationship continuing after his conversion. Of course, that wouldn't necessarily mean that he gets a free pass, anymore than our love of the words of David means he gets a free pass for his shenanigans with Bathsheba.

But since no one has said, "Let's correct the confessions based on C.S. Lewis" I guess I don't quite grasp why we must be careful to attack every time we mention him. Perhaps we ought to spit every time we say his name?

Lewis letters and those of his personal friends are the one used to conclude the sexual nature of the relationship. This honestly is one of those ask the authors type of questions. It is pretty clear in Lewis personal writings, certain letters which have not been published.

However, my main concern about Lewis is his odd theological positions on certain things. Like I said, I read him a literature, it worries me when we read him as theology or take too much of what he espouses to heart. That is all that I am saying. I am just worried. Not about most of the people on PB but the average Christian in the world who has grown up with modern evangelicalism that is now shifting into postmodernism. They're the ones who pick up Lewis and treat him like Augustine or Calvin. It comes from first hand experience. So please don't take it that I am trying to place undue scorn on him. Again the theology concerns me more than his bedroom.

 

[py3ak]

Well, perhaps some day they'll publish the unpublished letters; seeing the way people can read into things (as well as given what is available in personal letters and the journals) I am skeptical.

Well, again, people should be reading Calvin and Augustine with discernment also. Augustine is without doubt one of the Church's greatest teachers; but even in a late work, like The City of God you can find things where you wonder how such a great mind could go so far wrong.

 

[JennyG]

Grillsy wrote:

However, my main concern about Lewis is his odd theological positions on certain things. Like I said, I read him a literature, it worries me when we read him as theology or take too much of what he espouses to heart. That is all that I am saying. I am just worried. Not about most of the people on PB but the average Christian in the world who has grown up with modern evangelicalism that is now shifting into postmodernism. They're the ones who pick up Lewis and treat him like Augustine or Calvin. It comes from first hand experience. So please don't take it that I am trying to place undue scorn on him. Again the theology concerns me more than his bedroom.

I have experienced that too. And there are always going to be people, maybe lacking confidence in their own discernment, who take their cue from other believers and if they see Lewis held in such high esteem will assume that means ALL Lewis.

 

[Montanablue]

But since no one has said, "Let's correct the confessions based on C.S. Lewis" I guess I don't quite grasp why we must be careful to attack every time we mention him. Perhaps we ought to spit every time we say his name?

Yes. I disagree with Lewis on various theological matters. But since no one's suggesting that we substitute "Narnia" for the confessions, I'm not sure I understand what the issue is.

Lewis letters and those of his personal friends are the one used to conclude the sexual nature of the relationship. This honestly is one of those ask the authors type of questions. It is pretty clear in Lewis personal writings, certain letters which have not been published.

I'm completely unconvinced by this. You've really no idea how many people have had their good names sullied by "unpublished" materials. Really, you ought to be cautious in discussing these things. Its one thing to argue against Lewis theologically, but another entirely to accuse him of a sexual relationship. If you're absolutely beyond a doubt convinced that this is the truth, then I suppose you can argue for it. If not, don't run the chance of falsely slandering an innocent person.

Edit: And as Ruben notes, much of this would have taken place before Lewis professed Christ.

 

[a mere housewife]

I meant to thank you for that, Kathleen

I agree that we should always advocate discernment in reading anyone, but I think that if we choose to believe the worst of Lewis and not to speak well of him merely to keep others from falling into error, we have fallen into error ourselves regarding charity to a Christian brother.

Augustine had illicit sexual relationships before he was a Christian -- and he abandoned the care of a woman -- I don't think he would stand in line to cast the first stone at C. S. Lewis. It seems very clear from the letters I have read that Lewis' relationship with Mrs. Moore was a debt of honor -- a daily, very unrewarding, burden he carried for years. It's seems a sad case of taking somebody's most enduring Christian virtues to skewer them with to construct a reprehensible sin out of this. I can't think Lewis himself would have been affected by such accusations as he was keeping a clear conscience re: a promise by taking care of Mrs. Moore -- it's kind of like when my husband as interim pastor took another person in the church to go speak to a girl precisely because he didn't want to injure her testimony, and they were all accused of something even more disgusting: people who want to think that kind of thing about anyone will find a way to do so and the less there is to fabricate with, the more heinous they will make the whole thing appear, regardless of what is said or done to prevent gossip (we had to laugh thinking about how any number of people could have gone with my husband -- myself included -- resulting in even more despicable slander). It's not as if these people who slander and make every Christian out to be a hypocrite, or every married woman out to be a lesbian are pure in their motivations and perfectly objective. Christians should certainly practice discernment in being influenced by those who willingly think evil, and in the lack of sufficient evidence to decide a case either way, broadcast evil assumptions -- I don't believe we promote discernment best by swallowing and spreading such assumptions.

 

[Augusta]

Just yesterday, my girls got this to read in their book club. I am going to read it too. I am glad so many people liked it. This is a timely thread.

 

[steven-nemes]

I have it borrowed from a friend but haven't started it yet. Maybe I should...

 

[he beholds]

Spoiler Alert...Sort of (quote about a theme of the book)

Here's Lewis on the book:

Of course I had always in mind its close parallel to what is probably happening at this moment in at least five families in your home town. Someone becomes a Christian, or in a family nominally Christian already, does something like becoming a missionary or entering a religious order. The others suffer a sense of outrage. What they love is being taken from them. The boy must be mad. And the conceit of him! Or: is there something in it after all? Let's hope it is only a phase! If only he had listened to his natural advisers. Oh come back, come back, be sensible, be the dear son we used to know! Now I, as a Christian, have a good deal of sympathy with those jealous, suffering, puzzled people (for they do suffer, and out of their suffering much of the bitterness against religion arises). I believe the thing is common. There is very nearly a touch of it in Luke II. 38, 'Son, why hast thou so dealt with us?' And is the reply easy for a loving heart to bear?

There's more here, but this was what interested me most while reading it. I kept thinking how Orual was like an atheist friend of ours, who is determined that we "see the truth," despite our sincere love for God and joy in Him. Of course, I likewise want him to see the truth (but the real Truth!), despite his joy in nothing, so I cannot blame him. Truth is better than happiness. I think the parts where I sympathized most with Orual were the brief moments where I wasn't sure whether in the land of the story, their god was real or not. I will not say what the outcome was to allow any future readers to struggle with that on their own.

 

[py3ak]

On topic, Till We Have Faces is, in my opinion, one of Lewis's greatest works, only outranked by That Hideous Strength and The Great Divorce. It's also his only work of fiction published after Joy Gresham's death, making its points about the nature of love and possession (themes througout Lewis's writings) that much more personal.

Till We Have Faces went to press in December, 1955. He did not marry Joy until January, 1957.
There are other sources, but this information can be derived from Letters to an American Lady, specifically the letters dated March 4, 1956; December 12, 1956 and January 17, 1957, which is the volume I happen to have at hand.

 

[Philip]

On topic, Till We Have Faces is, in my opinion, one of Lewis's greatest works, only outranked by That Hideous Strength and The Great Divorce. It's also his only work of fiction published after Joy Gresham's death, making its points about the nature of love and possession (themes througout Lewis's writings) that much more personal.

Till We Have Faces went to press in December, 1955. He did not marry Joy until January, 1957.
There are other sources, but this information can be derived from Letters to an American Lady, specifically the letters dated March 4, 1956; December 12, 1956 and January 17, 1957, which is the volume I happen to have at hand.

I stand corrected.

I read Lewis (generally) as literary theology. Mere Christianity is possibly one of the best concise explanations of basic Christian doctrine (and apologetics) ever written, though I would couple it with Packer's Knowing God as a follow-up in a similar vein. The Great Divorce may not be theologically correct, but nonetheless contains truths about redeemed and depraved human nature that seem almost reformed in their application.

Lewis, in my opinion, was not reformed in theology, but was close to reformed in heart.

Til We Have Faces (and any of Lewis's writings on love) is proof of this. Lewis sees love as the highest virtue and therefore, in the unregenerate, the most easily corrupted into possession, which would smother and kill rather than wish the best for someone.

 

[py3ak]

There are times where through sheer philosophy Lewis almost reasons himself into Calvinism (e.g, Letters to Malcolm with regard to free-will).

But something we can get from him, that we have very little of, is the impact of a heavily Christianized imagination. We have many Christians from whom to draw, but surprisingly little imagination (though the powerful imaginative force of Christianity is seen in authors like Donaldson who are haunted by Christianity even though they have rejected it); and for cultivating imagination under the aegis of Christianity, there is Dante; there is Bunyan; there is Lewis, and there is not really much else (though an honorable nod to Christina Rossetti is by no means out of place).

 

[Calvinist Cowboy]

I loved the book, but my brother hated it. I thought it showed a penetrating glimpse into the way we think.

 

[Philip]

There are times where through sheer philosophy Lewis almost reasons himself into Calvinism (e.g, Letters to Malcolm with regard to free-will).

But something we can get from him, that we have very little of, is the impact of a heavily Christianized imagination. We have many Christians from whom to draw, but surprisingly little imagination (though the powerful imaginative force of Christianity is seen in authors like Donaldson who are haunted by Christianity even though they have rejected it); and for cultivating imagination under the aegis of Christianity, there is Dante; there is Bunyan; there is Lewis, and there is not really much else (though an honorable nod to Christina Rossetti is by no means out of place).

Oh, I think we can expand on that--we have whoever wrote Beowulf, some of the Arthurian Romances, Edmund Spenser, Jonathan Swift, J. R. R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, G. K. Chesterton, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Dorothy Sayers plus a host of poets like George Herbert, T. S. Eliot, and (in later life) Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

In addition, we could add works with biblical themes and imagery--Milton's Paradise Lost, Melville's Moby Dick (a friend of our family's came to Christ by reading Moby Dick), Leo Tolstoy, and George MacDonald (the optimistic Calvinist, as Chesterton called him).

What we have a shameful dearth of is reformed imaginations. I think every author you and I have mentioned (with the exception of Bunyan) is Anglican, Anglo-catholic, Roman Catholic, or (in Dostoevsky's case) Eastern Orthodox. Reformed authors need to get with it.

I think that reformed churches, for all their merits, have done a poor job of cultivating imaginations, whereas in more liturgical churches, imagination is praised and appreciated. There's a good reason why Bach's (in my opinion) greatest choral work was not St Matthew, but a setting of the Latin Mass (which I am currently listening to).

 

[py3ak]

It is not meant to despise those others you mention - but they don't necessarily attain to the same high level, either of imagination or of Christianity. Swift, for instance, is a sufficiently great author in his own right, but not by the force of a beautiful imagination.

Of course we can extend our net and swoop up the author of Pearl, Chaucer isn't hard to fit in, you can learn good theology from Shakespeare's villains, etc. Perhaps it would make my meaning, as well as my categorization plainer, if I clarified that it is not merely possessing an imagination, or literary talent, or professing Christianity, but rather having a vivid imagination with a literary talent suitable to its expression, so as to make holiness a practically tangible quality in your work. That sort of high-quality sanctified imagination is a scarce commodity - particularly among the Reformed. But I wouldn't necessarily encourage Reformed authors to get on with it as much as encourage them to think through a theory that will allow their consciences to be at peace in the production of imaginative literature (assuming that's the end result of such reflection), to listen to good stories while neglecting trends in literary criticism and advice from people about what is publishable, and then if a story comes upon them to write it down, and then probably burn it and try again.

 

[Philip]

Ruben, that does clarify. However, I would put Tolkien in with Lewis, especially as he developed a theology of stories and man's relationship to God and how writing literature is part of the imago Dei. This theory is (to my mind) actually reformed in its application as it sees God as the great writer of history--and the theme of providence is apparent in Tolkien's work.

But we digress.....

 

[py3ak]

As a translator Tolkien is superb, and as a theorist I think he did some good work; but I don't find the same quality in his imagination, or the same skill in his original writing.

 

[Philip]

Some don't care for Tolkien's style (which tended toward the archaic and included idiosyncratic--though purposeful--spelling and grammar), but his cycle of mythology rivals anything the Greeks or Norse ever came up with in terms of imaginative power. His (unfinished) poetic version of the story of Beren and Luthien is among the most beautiful epics of post-medieval literature.

That said, I realize that Tolkien has never enjoyed universal appeal due to a tendency toward archaic words, sentence structures, and including stretches of poetry and elvish language in places. It's amazing a) that his work was ever published b) that it was as great a bestseller as it was, given these obstacles--it seems that there is a market for great literature.

Ah, but again we digress......

 

[py3ak]

I've read most of the acres of Tolkien out there; there is certainly enjoyment to be derived, and Beren and Luthien, and the tale of the Children of Hurin (especially Glaurung) are memorable, as is the simple longing for home found in The Hobbit. The death of Boromir is a great, pathetic passage. But since I think that part of ordinate affection is a refusal to overestimate, I can't rank him as high as Malory.

 

[he beholds]

It is not meant to despise those others you mention - but they don't necessarily attain to the same high level, either of imagination or of Christianity. Swift, for instance, is a sufficiently great author in his own right, but not by the force of a beautiful imagination.

Of course we can extend our net and swoop up the author of Pearl, Chaucer isn't hard to fit in, you can learn good theology from Shakespeare's villains, etc. Perhaps it would make my meaning, as well as my categorization plainer, if I clarified that it is not merely possessing an imagination, or literary talent, or professing Christianity, but rather having a vivid imagination with a literary talent suitable to its expression, so as to make holiness a practically tangible quality in your work. That sort of high-quality sanctified imagination is a scarce commodity - particularly among the Reformed. But I wouldn't necessarily encourage Reformed authors to get on with it as much as encourage them to think through a theory that will allow their consciences to be at peace in the production of imaginative literature (assuming that's the end result of such reflection), to listen to good stories while neglecting trends in literary criticism and advice from people about what is publishable, and then if a story comes upon them to write it down, and then probably burn it and try again.

Dostoevsky definitely fits that description:Brother's Karamazov?

A side note on Lewis's work: In college I briefly dated a guy who knew I liked to read, so for Valentine's Day he bought me A Grief Observed, because his dad said it was a good book! I mean, maybe it is a good book, but it was about his sadness following his wife's death! Not your typical Valentine's gift.
The kid I dated was definitely a nice guy, but I still haven't chose to read that one yet!

 

[py3ak]

Dostoyevsky is the world's greatest novelist: he is also its worst great novelist, though perhaps that was largely for accidental reasons of his circumstances and the way he wrote. You've just read Till We Have Faces, so you know that the whole texture of the writing is quite dissimilar from anything in Dostoyevsky.

 

[he beholds]

Dostoyevsky is the world's greatest novelist: he is also its worst great novelist, though perhaps that was largely for accidental reasons of his circumstances and the way he wrote. You've just read Till We Have Faces, so you know that the whole texture of the writing is quite dissimilar from anything in Dostoyevsky.

Till We Have Faces is an incredibly written work, that cannot be denied. But Russian Lit is [probably] my favorite genre, so we will probably not agree!

 

[py3ak]

Russian literature used to be my favorite (and barring The Diary of a Nobody, to which it is unfair to compare anything, The Nose is still the funniest thing out there). That doesn't mean that the texture or flavor of the writing is identical or even similar to Lewis. I think you may be taking my notes on distinguishing qualities to be functioning as terms of commendation or reproach, which is not the case. No one, not even Kafka, sees as ruthlessly into the horrid inwardness of humanity as Dostoyevsky, as in Notes from the Underground. But there the quality of holiness conceived and expressed imaginatively is notorious by its absence.

 

[he beholds]

Russian literature used to be my favorite (and barring The Diary of a Nobody, to which it is unfair to compare anything, The Nose is still the funniest thing out there). That doesn't mean that the texture or flavor of the writing is identical or even similar to Lewis. I think you may be taking my notes on distinguishing qualities to be functioning as terms of commendation or reproach, which is not the case. No one, not even Kafka, sees as ruthlessly into the horrid inwardness of humanity as Dostoyevsky, as in Notes from the Underground. But there the quality of holiness conceived and expressed imaginatively is notorious by its absence.

I can see what you are saying, but I cannot agree with you (or disagree adamantly) on Brothers Karamazov, until I re-read it with this in mind.
But the genre as a whole, I TOTALLY agree. Most of it is simply about depravity, and not holiness.