Lewis, being British and an intellectual, always tried to find a way to use reason to explain his faith. I feel sometimes he was a bit defensive, and in context of his place and time maybe he was. In England, speaking or writing in public about faith - any faith - is considered a bit embarrassing, thus the British phrase "god-botherer." It's not that it's forbidden, but it's considered a bit outside the bounds of good taste, as if one were to get on the bus and yell, "MAN I HAD SOME GOOD SEX LAST NIGHT!"
The British also bear the scars of many years of religious wars between Protestants and Catholics, and between the Puritans and the Church of England.
One such religious war led to the execution of a king and the institution of a dictator, Oliver Cromwell, who called himself the "Lord Protector," and believed he was ordained by God to rule. Cromwell proceeded to commit genocide against the Irish (as a matter of fact, the actions that Cromwell and his Protectorate instituted against the Irish are part of the historical basis for the Troubles in Northern Ireland that continue to this day)and Cromwell's forces also invaded Scotland and carried out massacres there as well.
The point of this story is that after Cromwell's death and the re-institution of the Monarchy, the British had firsthand experience of what horrors religion could bring. Thus the British attitude toward religion; they regard it as something best left private.
Lewis, I feel, was often defensive because he violated that taboo. As a result of his defensiveness, and because he was surrounded by intellectuals, he attempted, and in my opinion failed, to defend his faith through reason and intellect. I believe that experience with the Divine is, by necessity, transcendental, and cannot be described in words. The closest one can come to describing any experience with the Divine is through poetry, as in the first words of the gospel of John. The Gospel of John puts aside any attempt to link Jesus with David or to justify his Messiahship in any way, and instead posits him as a mystical Logos, and that is why more Christians can relate to you the first verses of John than can recall the (contradictory) genealogies of Jesus.
Lewis is not as popular in his native land as he is in America. In England he is regarded as a fantasist and literary critic with a slightly embarrassing religious bent; in America, his literary works are mostly ignored, and his Christian apologia embraced wholeheartedly. Americans, a religious people, want to be able to defend their faith against what they see as the threats of skepticism and disbelief. And to be more honest, some Christian Americans want to use Lewis' apologias as an offensive weapon. Thus the use of Lewis' "Mere Christianity" as an offensive weapon against intellectuals who disbelieve, or who do not believe, fundamentalist Protestant Christianity.
Ironically, Lewis was not a fundamentalist as it is understood now, and I have a feeling he would be horrified by pseudochristians like Tom DeLay, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 05:54 pm (UTC)The British also bear the scars of many years of religious wars between Protestants and Catholics, and between the Puritans and the Church of England.
One such religious war led to the execution of a king and the institution of a dictator, Oliver Cromwell, who called himself the "Lord Protector," and believed he was ordained by God to rule. Cromwell proceeded to commit genocide against the Irish (as a matter of fact, the actions that Cromwell and his Protectorate instituted against the Irish are part of the historical basis for the Troubles in Northern Ireland that continue to this day)and Cromwell's forces also invaded Scotland and carried out massacres there as well.
The point of this story is that after Cromwell's death and the re-institution of the Monarchy, the British had firsthand experience of what horrors religion could bring. Thus the British attitude toward religion; they regard it as something best left private.
Lewis, I feel, was often defensive because he violated that taboo. As a result of his defensiveness, and because he was surrounded by intellectuals, he attempted, and in my opinion failed, to defend his faith through reason and intellect. I believe that experience with the Divine is, by necessity, transcendental, and cannot be described in words. The closest one can come to describing any experience with the Divine is through poetry, as in the first words of the gospel of John. The Gospel of John puts aside any attempt to link Jesus with David or to justify his Messiahship in any way, and instead posits him as a mystical Logos, and that is why more Christians can relate to you the first verses of John than can recall the (contradictory) genealogies of Jesus.
Lewis is not as popular in his native land as he is in America. In England he is regarded as a fantasist and literary critic with a slightly embarrassing religious bent; in America, his literary works are mostly ignored, and his Christian apologia embraced wholeheartedly. Americans, a religious people, want to be able to defend their faith against what they see as the threats of skepticism and disbelief. And to be more honest, some Christian Americans want to use Lewis' apologias as an offensive weapon. Thus the use of Lewis' "Mere Christianity" as an offensive weapon against intellectuals who disbelieve, or who do not believe, fundamentalist Protestant Christianity.
Ironically, Lewis was not a fundamentalist as it is understood now, and I have a feeling he would be horrified by pseudochristians like Tom DeLay, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.