If C S Lewis were alive today, would he have become a Catholic? In his book, C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church (Ignatius Press, 2003), Joseph Pearce stops short of giving a definitive answer, but he does say (p. 167)
We can’t know for certain what Lewis would have done had he lived to see the triumph of modernism in the Church of England and the defeat of ‘mere Christianity’. There is no doubt, however, that he would have felt strangely out of place in today’s Anglican church. There is also no doubt that today’s Anglican church sees him as a somewhat embarrassing part of their unenlightened and reactionary past. The sobering truth is that even if Lewis had not chosen to leave the Church of England, the Church of England has chosen to leave him.
In his lecture at Notre Dame last evening (based primarily on his book), Joseph Pearce repeated the assertion that Anglicans have abandoned the works of C S Lewis. Catholics and Evangelicals are reading him, but not the church of which he was a part until his death.
Like C S Lewis, Pearce was raised in a Northern Ireland Protestant family. Unlike Lewis, he became heavily involved in anti-Catholic terrorist organizations in the 1970’s and 80’s, but later converted to Catholicism.
JRR Tolkien has been quoted as saying that the reason Lewis never became a Catholic was because of “the austerior motive.” Pearce joked in his address that he believes the motive was a bit more complex than that; if he didn’t think so, there would be no need for his book. (Tolkien was also born into a Protestant Family, but his mother converted after his father died when he was a toddler.)
In his teens, Lewis became an avowed atheist. However, Catholic apologist G K Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man had a profound influence on him, and helped him understand for the first time, he would later say, the Christian view of history. Sometime afterward he would have the famous conversation with his friends JRR Tolkien and Hugo Dyson about mythology. Tolkien would explain that mankind’s creativity and imagination are part of the image of God in which we were created. In his book, Pearce quotes a letter from Lewis to Arthur Greeves which explains the concept (p 39).
Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this important difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s myth where the others are men’s myths: i.e. the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call ‘real things’.
After Lewis became a Christian, he soon wrote the allegorical and largely biographical work Pilgrim’s Regress. Because of the ending of the book, many assumed at that time that Lewis had become a Catholic. There are also other ideas expressed in his works through the years, such as his apparent belief in purgatory, that seem to indicate he was conflicted in his beliefs and actually very close to Catholicism.
However, Lewis also expressed disapproval of certain doctrines of the Catholic Church such as the ultimate authority of the Pope and the “worship” of Mary. Pearce concludes that Lewis just didn’t “see the light” on certain issues, but that it seems certain that Lewis has become a Catholic since dying in 1963.
But of course, the conclusions of Joseph Pearce, non-Catholics would say, are a bit biased.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
It is utterly impossible for me to picture Lewis warming up to Roman Catholicism as the Biblical concept of grace was central to Lewis’ understanding of God.
“During a British conference on comparative religions, experts from around the world debated what belief was unique to the Christian faith. … The debate went on for some time until C. S. Lewis wandered into the room. “What’s the rumpus about?” he asked, and heard in reply that his colleagues were discussing Christianity’s unique contribution among world religions. Lewis responded, “Oh, that’s easy. It’s grace.” [Philip Yancey, What’s So Amazing About Grace?]
Is it not the historic and modern Roman Catholic position that eternal life is a goal and that goal is achieved through meritorious grace EARNED through good works, religious participation in sacraments, etc.?
“This gift is to increase his graces and acts of charity for the goal of reaching eternal life….The good deeds of the Christian are the main source of meriting grace before God.” [www.catholicdoors.com]
This is, and has always been a blatant and heinous perversion of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ as is faithfully recorded in Holy Scripture:
EPH. 2:8-9 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.”
JOHN 5: 24 “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me HAS eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”
I JOHN 5:11-13 “And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you HAVE eternal life.”
(emphasis of present tense forms of verb “to have” is mine)
Not to be overly sarcastic, but my guess is that, as a former “anti-Catholic terrorist”, the greatest attraction of the Roman Catholic church to Pearce may perhaps be a regular administration of the “sacrament” of guilt. What a shame he cannot bask in the unmerited gift of the grace of God, achieved by the Savior when He cried out, “It is finished!”
October 7th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
By the way, my earlier remarks should in no way be interpreted as meaning that C.S. Lewis would be hunky-dory comfortable with the modern Church of England, currently operating as it is under the leadership of a man who fairly recently was simultaneously promoting both the ordination of practicing gays & lesbians as well as the reasonableness of a sharia-based parallel legal system in England. Political pressure may have modified some of Williams’ public positions but his bizarre philosophical baseline is not likely to have shifted so easily.
I would like to think that, in a day of ever-increasing apostasy, if dear Jack was so unlucky as to still be here, his loyalties would be less institutional and would be more focused on his Savior and the scriptures which He has faithfully provided and preserved.
October 8th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Thank you for your comments, Don.
Of course, some of your statements against Catholicism might well be addressed toward the Anglican “high church” of Lewis’s day. Yet Lewis felt he belonged there (although he often publicly stated that he was neither “high church” nor “low church”).
I do agree with your last statement, and believe it also applies to Lewis while he was alive: “…his loyalties would be less institutional and would be more focused on his Savior and the scriptures which He has faithfully provided and preserved.”
October 9th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
To Don Blosser:
Your typical anti-Catholic tactic of throwing biblical quotations out is so passe. If you care to check, there is ample evidence in the Bible of the need for good works to acquire the grace necessary for redemption. Try looking at Jas 2:14-17, Heb 10:26, Jas 5:20, Lk 6:46, Mt7:21, Rev 20:12, and Jn 2:3-4, 3:24, and 5:3. I think James says it best: “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only”.
Regards,
L Duncan
October 9th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Thanks you for your comments, Lorne.
You are correct in pointing out that redemption involves works. However, from the the evangelical viewpoint (which I assume Blosser espouses), we do not earn grace by doing works, but are able to perform good works because of grace. Evangelicals interpret the words of James as meaning that works are the evidence of faith. There is no true faith (no faith that justifies) without works. Making works the prerequisite for grace is, they would say, putting the cart before the horse.
If you hold to a high regard for the trustworthiness of all scripture, the two sets of quotations must somehow be reconciled. According to Saint Paul, grace by works is the opposite of grace though faith (Romans 11:6). The only way to reconcile this seems to be the interpretation that works are the result of grace.
I think Lewis held this position (although perhaps not as consistently as most evangelicals), and is one reason he could not become a Catholic.
I am not saying by this that Catholics do not have this grace. All who truly have faith in Christ most certainly do, no matter their church affiliation.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:05 am
Dear Mr. Duncan. What a relief to only be considered “passe”. I suspect in past centuries, the more severe label “heretic” would have been hurled, as I was lead off to be burned at the stake for proclaiming the pure gospel of justification by faith.
Just so you know, I believe the whole Bible to be the word of God, from cover to cover. So YOUR “tactic” of trying to contradict scripture with scripture is pointless. Why not just address the scriptures I mentioned without jumping off somewhere else?
The passages you cited contain important truths but need to be properly understood in the context of the specific book and the Bible as a whole. For example, James begins in chapter one to address certain individuals who were self-deceived. Apparently calling themselves followers of Christ, there was no evidence of saving faith. They were “hearers but not doers”. It is this same sort of religious hypocrite that James speaks to in the next chapter. He speaks of those who SAY they have faith but live like those who do not know God. The third chapter discusses fruit. If a person is spiritually rooted in Christ by faith, of course there will be some visible evidence. How could it be otherwise if the Spirit of the living God has taken up residence?!!! But the new birth is not on the basis of works but rather believing the gospel (Ephesian 1:13, I Peter 1:23, etc…).
So…Lorne, what is your understanding of the passages I first cited? Have you gratefully received the gift of God or are you pridefully trusting in your own “good works”? Do you KNOW that you HAVE eternal life as a present possession? or is it a nebulous goal? If not nebulous, exactly what does a person have to DO to get to heaven? How can I know if i have done enough? What did the thief on the cross need to do to have the confident assurance that he would be with Christ that very day in paradise?
Given the centuries of R.C. dogma that blatantly contradict the clear teaching of the Bible, It appears to me that you are in the unenviable position of having to choose between the word of God or the traditions of men who have ignored or perverted the word of God to conform to their own man-made traditions.
I would certainly agree with Mr. Sommer that external religious labels are irrelevant. God’s grace is available to all. BUT if devout affiliation to a religious institution requires that one re-define grace as something to be earned, then they themselves have closed the door of access to God’s grace which is on the basis of a declaration of spiritual bankruptcy (Luke 18:9-14, Titus 3:2-9).
Once again, Mr. Duncan, what is your understanding of these following passages?
EPH. 2:8-9 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.”
I JOHN 5:13 “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you HAVE eternal life.”
October 19th, 2009 at 2:33 am
Just for the record, I am not “anti-Catholic” in the sense that I hold any animosity toward anyone who identifies themselves as such. I repudiate completely all actions of those who have acted unkindly toward their Roman Catholic neighbors. I am called by God to love all men. But I am also called to hate evil (Psalm 97:10). And corruption of the gospel of grace is a great evil.
Peace & Blessings,
Don Blosser, sinner saved by grace
October 19th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Don, this isn’t exactly a theological forum, and I’d rather not see it turn into one, but since you bring it up:
I am glad to see you declare your belief in the entire Bible. With this in mind, it would be wise to be careful how you use the verse in 1John, for the context of the letter indicates what John meant. The Apostle tells us we can know we have eternal life, but what does the rest of his letter say this knowledge is based on? (Quotes from the NIV)
2:3 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands.
2:5 But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him:
3:10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death.
3:18-23 Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them.
I could go on, but this is enough to get the point. John is saying that we know we have eternal life because we believe on Christ, love God and others, and keep God’s commands.
Now, we could go on for months arguing about whether faith is first, or if works are first. But the Bible never presents it that way. Faith and works are two sides of the same thing – you cannot have one without the other.
Don, despite your protestations to the contrary, your tone and words indicate that you do have very strong anti-Catholic feelings. The issue is not about what a certain group of Christians has or has not done. (Protestants – including Evengelicals – have done some pretty horrible things, too.) It is about what we as individuals believe and what difference that belief makes in our lives now.
I have met Catholics who have, at least outwardly, met the requirements of belief, obedience and love that John requires to say they have eternal life. I expect to see them in Heaven. I have also met many Evangelicals that are hateful and overtly disobedient to God. Will their “faith” save them? I highly doubt it.
October 20th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Mark, I have no problem accepting that some of your Roman Catholic friends may one day meet you in heaven. God sees our hearts, not our man-made labels. But perhaps you travel in wider circles than I, as I have never met a Catholic who had the present assurance of eternal life. Whenever I have asked if they knew where they would be spending eternity, I have been told that it was not possible to know and that to say otherwise constitutes the sin of presumption. Such individuals have been spiritually robbed and impoverished. My sympathies and yours ought to be with those who have been so victimized, not with the institution that has victimized them. And I did not enter this forum (responding to your promotion of Mr. Pearce’s book and public address) to wave the flag of Protestantism or Evangelicalism. I am quite aware of the historical human failings within each camp. Rather, I have invested precious time here for the purpose of lifting the banner of Christ and the gospel of God’s grace on the basis of the finished work of Calvary.
In contrast to the glory of that gospel, I find repugnant any dogma that would attempt to delude individuals into believing that grace must be EARNED by good deeds. Were the “tone and words” of the Apostle Paul any less strident when speaking of those in his day whose teaching likewise implied that “Christ died for nothing”? (Galatians 2:16-21, 5:12).
Regrettably, your comments here do not shed much light on this subject, in fact they seem to get murkier and murkier. The cart before the horse somehow becomes two sides of one coin. Is it your understanding that the new birth is an elusive goal, entered into on the basis of good works, to be nebulously determined at some future date? Do you agree with the position that grace is not a gift but must be earned? Could you produce even one passage of scripture to support these teachings?
BTW, since I had already stated that genuine faith in Christ will inevitably have visible results in the believer’s life, what was the point of your going on and on about the context of 1 John??? If a dog is really a dog, he is going to bark. But no amount of a man’s barking will ever make him a dog. And no amount of religiously motivated “good works” will result in a new creation (II Corinthians 5:17-21).
It has been my experience, limited as it may be, that Roman Catholics are generally warned against “those born again types” and have little or no understanding of the subject of spiritual regeneration. This is a fatal omission as it is the key to the whole subject of faith and works. If the Spirit of the living God has come to indwell our lives, then any good works are HIS works, not our own. Previous to this, the word of God declares all our attempts at righteous works to be filthy stinking rags, offensive in His sight (Isaiah 64:6, Philippians 3:8-9). Yes, believers are called to be fellow-workers in His artistic endeavor of conforming us to the image of Christ but the Potter’s hand, not the cooperative clay, gets all the glory.
May God grant you (and us all) the blessing of clarity and light.
I John 5:1 “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God…
10 Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you HAVE eternal life.”
Ephesians 2:3 “All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
Hebrews 13:18 “Pray for us. We are sure that we have a clear conscience and desire to live honorably in every way. 19 I particularly urge you to pray so that I may be restored to you soon.
20 May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, 21 equip you with everything good for doing His will, and may He work in us what is pleasing to Him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Don,
Thank you for challenging me to me more clear. We actually are saying practically the same thing (assuming I am understanding you correctly). If you would like to continue this conversation by e-mail, you can contact me at markasommer@yahoo.com. This comment section is not really intended to be a debate forum. However, I should try to clarify a couple things here since others can read this, and apparently I was unclear on a couple points. Hopefully I will not just stir up more mud.
First of all, the “two sides” and “cart before the horse” are two separate issues. I said that putting works before GRACE is putting the cart before the horse, and that works and FAITH are two sides of the same thing (”the same thing” being true saving faith). There is no true faith without works (and no acceptable works without faith). We do not work in order to receive grace; we receive God’s grace that we might have an energized faith that works. (”Lord, I believe; help my unbelief.”)
I was trying to point out with the verses in 1John that “knowing,” as John tells us, is based on more than just the assertion that we have faith. Any assurance based only on the subjective feeling that “I have faith,” is dangerous at best, as James also points out. (James 2:14-26)
There is a rift between Catholics and Protestants partly because we tend to talk past each other and, as you rightly point out, have certain prejudices against each other. But I think we (Catholics and Protestants) are much closer than we often care to admit. Much of the difference is in emphasis and point of view. The overemphasis of either faith or works causes a distortion of what the Bible actually teaches.
Salvation is not based on whether we have a precise understanding of how all this works. It is based on whether we have the kind of faith that makes a difference in how we live. And I’d rather see a Catholic who does not “know that he can know” living out his faith in Christ than an arrogant Evangelical who thinks he can live “like the devil” and still be acceptable to God because he “believes.” (And I would have much more assurance of the salvation of such a Catholic than of such an Evangelical.)
That’s what I was trying to say.