November 24, 2003
THE OTHER DEATH THAT DAY:
A Mind That Grasped Both Heaven and Hell (JOSEPH LOCONTE, 11/23/03, NY Times)
Forty years ago today, as the world mourned the assassination of an American president, the passing of the 20th century's most influential Christian writer was hardly noticed: Clive Staples Lewis, professor of English literature at Oxford and Cambridge, died on Nov. 22, 1963. In his ability to nurture the faithful, as well as seduce the skeptic, C. S. Lewis had no peer.Lewis was an atheist for much of his adult life, an experience that may have helped immunize him from the religious cliché, the reluctance to ask hard questions, the self-righteousness of the zealot. "Mr. Lewis possesses the rare gift," according to an early reviewer, "of being able to make righteousness readable." Lewis was not a theologian, but he expressed even the most difficult religious concepts with bracing clarity. He was not a preacher, yet his essays and novels pierce the heart with their nobility and tenderness.
The lessons found within his writings continue to resonate today. In fact, it's hard to imagine a time when the need for sane thinking about religion was more momentous. Cite an act of terror, from the sniper shootings in Washington to the bombings in Baghdad and Istanbul, and faith is close at hand. Many are now tempted to equate piety with venality — or worse — and it's here that Lewis may have the most to teach us. [...]
Many modern liberals dismiss Lewis's concept of the diabolical as a "medieval" superstition. Yet many religious conservatives seem to make evil the brainchild of God himself. For them, all individual and social sin — including the terror of Sept. 11 — is the perfect will of a Divine Judge (as the Rev. Jerry Falwell claimed at the time). Lewis disagreed: Evil is always man's doing, yet it is never his destiny. The power of choice makes evil possible, but it's also "the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having."
The modern mantra of tolerance is evil disguised, precisely because it denies that one's choices matter. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 24, 2003 1:52 PM
I can understand why someone would reject religion, but it is beyond me how anyone who read Lewis could mock it.
Posted by: Peter B at November 24, 2003 2:22 PMIf you choose Christianity, your other choices certainly don't matter, because you do not get to make them.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 24, 2003 7:10 PMIf only Christianity immunized you to making bad moral choices.
Posted by: oj at November 24, 2003 7:17 PMWhat I meant was that you do not choose what morality is. Somebody does it for you.
It's an easier way, I have to admit.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 25, 2003 12:29 AMHarry:
Clearer in some respects and maybe beyond certain kinds of arguments, but surely not easier. "Lord, make me good, but not yet." Besides, results count, no?
Posted by: Peter B at November 25, 2003 5:12 AMUltimately, we all choose for ourselves what morality is.
And we do it continuously, if not always consistently.
Posted by: at November 25, 2003 5:34 AMSorry, that was me....
Posted by: Barry Meislin at November 25, 2003 5:34 AMSilly me. I thought tolerance, or at least one form thereof, resulted from acknowledging one didn't have all the right, universally applicable answers.
Peter:
Religionists mock their opposites regularly.
Jeff:
Silly you. Tolerance stems from the belief that we are commanded to respect and tolerate others as our equals. The fact that one believes he doesn't have an inside track on absolute truth doesn't say anything about how he will relate to others. Do you believe religious Jews are tolerant and respectful of their Christian co-citizens because they doubt the tenets of their faith?
Posted by: Peter B at November 25, 2003 8:02 AMHarry:
It is, obviously, much harder to conform to absolute rules than to just declare--as you and Jeff do--that because your intentions are pure you're incapable of sin.
Posted by: oj at November 25, 2003 8:20 AMWe're tolerant because we're pre-millenium millenarianists. If we ever decide to become post-millenium millenarianists, we'll have to kill you all.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 25, 2003 8:43 AMDavid:
In which case I beg you to remember that good 'ole Judeo-Christian tradition, if only for old times' sake.
Posted by: Peter B at November 25, 2003 10:42 AMPeter:
On the contrary. Murderous intolerance stems from believing oneself to be in possession of universal, absolute truth.
Do you know any, say, fundamentalist Christians who are truly tolerant of other's beliefs?
Watch out for passive voice. Commanded by what, or whom?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 25, 2003 12:13 PMPeter -- You too, friend, you too.
Jeff -- Many.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 25, 2003 12:53 PMJeff:
Christianity tolerates those who are in error without pretending that we can't know them to be wrong.
Posted by: oj at November 25, 2003 1:07 PM
Jeff:
"Murderous intolerance stems from believing oneself to be in possession of universal, absolute truth."
Not if that universal, absolute truth is that we are all of equal worth in the eyes of G-d.
However, I appreciate that is a serious problem among secularists.
Harry:
As a good Calvinist, I must remind you that nobody gets to choose Christianity. God chooses it for them.
I was predestined to say that. Oops ;-)
Posted by: Judd at November 25, 2003 3:35 PMPeter:
That's funny. One of the first universal truths religionists throw in the bin is that one.
Not to long ago, a certain prominent poster on this site wondered how long religious people could tolerate the presence of secular "parasites."
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 26, 2003 7:48 AMJeff:
I wonder that too. I suspect we could eventually see some significant migration of secularists to Canada or Europe or wherever. Someplace they'll feel more comfortable.
Posted by: oj at November 26, 2003 8:31 AMJeff:
If the polgyamists and paedophiles keep making the strides you are letting them, not too much longer I hope.
Posted by: Peter B at November 26, 2003 12:40 PM