C. S. Lewis on Christianity as a Means to an End

The genius of C. S. Lewis is, perhaps, most clearly evident in his devotionally rewarding, theologically rich, and whimsical book, The Screwtape Letters. Those brief snippets of supposed letters from a senior devil to a junior one get at many of the issues that were wrong with Christianity in his day, which happen to be remarkably similar to those that are wrong in our day.

In Letter 25, Screwtape writes to Wormwood:

“The real trouble about the set your patient is living is that it is merely Christianity. . . . What we want, if men become Christians at all, is to keep them in the state of mind I call ‘Christianity AND.’ You know––Christianity and the Crisis, Christianity and the New Psychology, Christianity and the New Order, Christianity and Faith Healing, Christianity and Psychical Research, Christianity and Vegetarianism, Christianity and Spelling Reform. If they must be Christians let them at least be Christians with a difference. Substitute for faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring.”

Depending on who reads that paragraph the object to the right of the “And” will vary. It could be social justice, anti-racism, prosperity, comfort, political conservatism, or doctrinal orthodoxy (when pursued for its own sake). In other words, this isn’t a “left” or “right” issue, it is one that can impact all Christians and often the “And” is adopted in the name of making Christianity purer and more proper.

In Letter 23, we get prelude to the “Christianity And” discussion:

“We do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything––even to social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy [God] demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop. Fortunately it is quite easy to coax humans round this little corner. Only today I have found a passage in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the ground that ‘only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the birth of new civilisations.’ You see the little rift? ‘Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason.’ That’s the game.”

To be clear, Lewis prized actual social justice. Many casual readers of Lewis would be surprised at just how much he wrote on particular social issues of his time in a wide range of periodicals. In some areas he was quite advanced for his time and in other areas he sounds like the dinosaur he claimed to be. But the man was always arguing toward truth from Christianity. He was not attempting to use Christianity as a means to gain something else. This prevented him from falling into the trap of “Christianity And.”

The temptation in reading a moralist like Lewis is to look at what he wrote and say, “Boy, he gave those other guys a good drubbing. Wait until I post this quote on social media.”

The proper response to reading Lewis on these issues, especially in The Screwtape Letters, is to ask that more significant question, “In what ways have I fallen into the trap that Screwtape outlines.” If we are honest, we’ll probably find that we have been at least somewhat guilty at some point. As we pursue holiness, our task is more to knock off the rough edges of our own sanctification than to point out the problems of the other folks.

---

The Christian Mind of C. S. Lewis: Essays in Honor of Michael Travers

Wipf and Stock

Buy on Amazon

Defeater Language and Critical Thinking

The habit of reflexively affirming current evolutionary theory is inculcated into new generations of students, too. For example, in a section on protein structure in a college biochemistry textbook we read:

Keep in mind that only a small faction of the myriads of possible [protein] sequences are likely to have unique stable conformations. Evolution has, of course, selected such sequences for use in biological systems.

Note that jaunty ‘of course.’ Yet we don’t have anywhere near sufficient experimental evidence for the book’s conclusion. The authors’ confidence isn’t based on empirical knowledge––it’s feigned knowledge. An unembellished second sentence would read plainly, ‘Such sequences are used in biological systems.”

Gratuitous affirmations of a dominant theory can mesmerize the unwary. They lull people into assuming that objectively difficult problems don’t really matter. That they’ve been solved already. Or will be solved soon. Or are unimportant. Or something. They actively distract readers from noticing an idea’s shortcoming. ‘Of course,’ students are effectively prompted, ‘everyone knows what happened here––right? You’d be blind not to see it––right?’ But the complacency isn’t the fruit of data or experiments. It comes from the powerful social force of everyone in the group nodding back, ‘Of course!’

When references to it can be dropped from explanations with no loss of information, when proffered evidence for it boils down to a circle of mutually nodding heads, alarm bells should blare that the theory is a free rider.

---Michael Behe, Darwin Devolves, 24-25.

Whether one agrees with Behe’s theory of intelligent design or not, this passage from his 2019 book, Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA that Challenges Evolution, is worthy of consideration for those that claim to seek truth.

The finiteness of the human experience requires that we absorb certain assumptions on faith. William Clifford famously claimed that accepting something as true with insufficient evidence was morally wrong. His exaggerated bid for empiricism, however, is simply impossible. We simply lack the time, energy, and objectivity to evaluate all truth claims exhaustively.

And yet, there are times when falling into the habit of accepting a consensus understanding of something can be decidedly unhelpful. At times, advances in technology and society are held back because “everyone knows” that something is true. Everyone knew that darker skin meant an inferior person through much of the early modern period. There was apparent evidence in the “primitive” quality of African culture, for example. But more often, the point was assumed in Western cultures rather than proved in more than a cursory way.

Cursory proof often takes the form of appeals to consensus to fill in limited available information, creating the image of a comprehensive and convincing argument. As Behe points out, these arguments are often much less convincing when they are presented without the logical “defeaters.”

Words like “obviously,” “of course,” and “clearly” can be useful rhetorical terms. There are points at which the evidence is so consistent that one can claim that something “clearly” indicates something else. But these are also dangerous terms that can be used to defeat sound arguments without engaging them.

When an expert in the field states that “clearly” something must be true. Or that “obviously” this leads to that, they might be skipping some important evidence. Or––a popular tactic among revisionist biblical scholars––“the best scholars argue” for a particular position they are often trying to subvert a really contentious debate by presenting a certain way of thinking as “best” when it simply agrees with their position. Orthodox biblical scholars sometimes do the same thing, of course, dismissing valuable readings from revisionist scholars without fully considering them simply because the individual does not approach the Bible as an authentic testimony to God’s working in history; that presumption does have significant impacts on the resultant reading of Scripture, but—as the saying goes—sometimes a blind squirrel finds a nut.

In any case, it’s worth thinking about the way arguments are put on display and the amount of defeater language that is used. It should raise red flags in our minds when we read “obviously,” “clearly,” or “certainly” in places where they are not needed. It may be that the author is conveying a greater amount of confidence than the evidence warrants.

Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution

By Behe, Michael J.

Buy on Amazon

The Neglected C. S. Lewis - A Review

One of the greatest frustrations for fans of C. S. Lewis is the number of fake quotes attributed to him. Some of them seems as obvious as the old joke, “Never trust information from the internet – Abraham Lincoln.” Some of the misquotes are, however, less obvious fabrications that distort people’s understanding of C. S. Lewis and undermine his legacy by trivializing it.

There are several contributing factors to the regular misquotation of C. S. Lewis. First, Lewis was a fabulous writer with a gift for turning a phrase, so he is imminently quotable. This is nowhere more apparent than in the exceedingly useful volume edited by Wayne Martindale and Jerry Root, The Quotable Lewis, which serves as a topical index of much of Lewis’s thought as well as fodder for social media posts.

A more significant contributor to the misquotation of Lewis is that too few people have read enough C. S. Lewis to recognize the difference between the true and counterfeit quotes. Many Christians know the name but have read nothing, so they like and share fake quotes out of ignorance. Many others have read some of the A-side works of C. S. Lewis: The Chronicles of Narnia, Screwtape Letters, Mere Christianity, or another of his more popular works. Nearly everything Lewis wrote has some value, so readers ought not to be discouraged. But there is an entire B-side of C. S. Lewis’s writings that are much more rarely discussed, even in academic research on Lewis and the Inklings.

Professionally, Lewis was a university level teacher of English literature. While his apologetic work was prolific and lucrative (he gave most of the money away), he also made significant contributions in his academic discipline. The books he wrote on literature and theory are often unknown even to fans of C. S. Lewis. And yet, his English Literature in the Sixteenth Century Excluding Drama was a landmark work comprehensively researched. His Discarded Image and Allegory of Love continue to be texts used in classes on medieval literature in both secular and religious academic settings.

Mark Neal and Jerry Root have set out to provide an introduction to some of the B-side works of C. S. Lewis in their recent book, The Neglected C. S. Lewis. In this relatively short volume, the authors explore some of the less popular works of Lewis that are no less valuable in understanding the mind of C. S. Lewis and, in fact, help illuminate what he does in some of his more popular works.

Buy on Amazon

This is not a comprehensive volume. There are number of neglected works of Lewis that Neal and Root do not explore, likely because of space constraints. However, the volumes they do highlight are helpful. In the eight chapters of this text we get an overview of (1) The Allegory of Love, (2) The Personal Heresy, (3) Arthurian Torso, (4) English Literature in the Sixteenth Century excluding Drama, (5) Studies in Words, (6) An Experiment in Criticism, (7) The Discarded Image, and (8) Selected Literary Essays.

Some of these volumes are difficult to find (especially Arthurian Torso and English Literature), while others have been reprinted by reputable presses to ensure continued availability. The common links among them are they tend to be connected to Lewis’s proper field of study rather than his more popular apologetic work.

It might seem to some readers of Lewis enough to read Chronicles, Mere Christianity, and Screwtape, enjoy the readability and devotional quality, and move on. However, to understand the framework that Lewis is working from (which he partially unpacks in essays like “De Descriptione Temporum,” which is his inaugural address for his Chair at Cambridge), scholars and students need to read beyond the A-side of Lewis’s works into his more neglected works.

Neal and Root have done a great service to the field of Lewis studies by providing an accessible introduction to some of Lewis’s lesser-read works. This is the sort of auxiliary text that could accompany a college course on C. S. Lewis that is housed in the English Department of a university. For those engaged in the academic study of C. S. Lewis, this is an exceedingly helpful way to get an overview of and prioritize the study of volumes that are important, but off the beaten path.

The target audience of The Neglected C. S. Lewis is not the high school aficionado or the casually interested. However, this survey of some of the neglected works of Lewis is an essential part of a Lewis scholar’s library and a key resource for those looking for new areas of study in the increasingly crowded field of Inklings studies.

The Neglected C.S. Lewis: Exploring the Riches of His Most Overlooked Books

By Neal, Mark, Root, Jerry

Buy on Amazon

NOTE: I received a gratis copy of this volume with no expectation of a positive review.

Dorothy and Jack: The Transforming Friendship of Dorothy L. Sayers and C. S. Lewis - A Review

C. S. Lewis is a figure that fascinates contemporary, English speaking Christians. His writing is connected to the deep well of Medieval thought, especially the pervasively Christian tide of that thought. For the modern Christian, C. S. Lewis is a gateway to orthodox Christian thought from a different era that has been adapted to wrestle with the problems of modernity.

As a result, of the writing of C. S. Lewis biographies there is no end, and much reading of them can weary the body. Most of the biographies of Lewis in recent decades have simply rehashed old themes, picked over the same published data, and repackaged the same accounts in a slightly different structure.

And yet, periodically there are new approaches that expose different facets of Lewis scholarship. Harry Poe’s Becoming C. S. Lewis, for example, has an innovative approach and includes new data. Or Alan Jacob’s book, The Year of Our Lord 1943: Christian Humanism in an Age of Crisis, that looks at Lewis alongside other Christian thinkers like Dorothy L. Sayers, T. S. Eliot, and W. H. Auden. These varied approaches are vital to the field of study and are useful in inviting new scholars and writers into a rich community of thought.

Gina Dalfonzo has produced a delightful volume that looks at the relationship between Dorothy L. Sayers and C. S. Lewis. This account is, of course, biographical. However, by focusing on the relationship between these two great Christian thinkers and by including Sayers alongside Lewis, this moves from garden-variety biography to a valuable contribution to the literature of the field.

Sayers is the lesser celebrated of the two. Lamentably, she has not received the attention her work warrants. There are, I believe several reasons for this. First, Sayers was much more private than Lewis. While she had deep friendships and sometimes includes her own experience in her writing, it is hard to truly know Sayers by simply reading her published works. Her letters and the biographies written by friends help, but compared to Lewis, she is a stranger even to fans of her work. (The fact that she hid the existence of her son from close friends shows how private a person she was.) Second, Sayers was much more reluctant to become a spokesperson for Christianity than Lewis, so there is less of her work that deals with the topics that many Christians find so important. Third, though Barbara Reynolds has done the world a great service in editing Sayers’ letters and writing about her, Walter Hooper had more opportunity and was more effective in editing and promoting Lewis posthumously.

Though Sayers was less known, she is no less significant. Her detective fiction is par excellence. Her translations of Dante are still in print. And her essays and plays still move readers. For many young scholars who have found the field of study surrounding the Inklings to be overcrowded, Sayers is an “Inkling-adjacent” thinker with room still available for original topics.

Dalfonzo’s book, Dorothy and Jack, is an example of solid, new synthesis. Her bibliography shows little original research (i.e., there is little evidence of her diving into archives in various locations), but she has put the available information together in a helpful way. Dalfonzo has read through and correlated some of the correspondence of both figures, compared the timelines of their lives to create a roughly synchronous chronological retelling, and put together ideas from secondary sources for both Lewis and Sayers. The result is thoroughly enjoyable to read for the average reader, but original and enriching for those interested in academic studies.

Summary

This short volume is divided into seven chapters. The first chapter deals with the early life of the two friends, in some respects very similar and in others very different, and extends roughly until their first introduction to one another. Chapter Two moves into the early stages of their friendship, beginning with a fan letter written by Sayers to Lewis and through the first few years of their growing mutual admiration, which consisted mostly of letter writing. The third chapter shows how the friendship blossomed between Lewis and Sayers as they were able to give each other critical feedback alongside pointed praise. Their friendship was one of equals who valued thoughtful criticism as much as loud, undeserved congratulations. Chapter Four explores Lewis’ attitude toward women in general and the relationship both Lewis and Sayers had with Charles Williams. For those interested in the attitude of the Inklings toward women and Sayers’ own opinions on society and women, this is an engaging chapter.

The fifth chapter focuses on the worldview of both Sayers and Lewis. Both were deeply influenced by the thought of the middle ages. Lewis famously described himself as a dinosaur, which title he also ascribed to Sayers affectionately. The title was well received. To understand their unusual friendship, the reader must understand how different the two were from the rest of the world and how similar they were in their engagement in medieval thinking. Chapter Six covers Sayers’ relationship with Joy Gresham, Lewis’ late-in-life spouse. We see similarities in the personalities of Gresham and of Sayers, as well as possible sympathy between Sayers and Lewis in that both were married to divorcees. The final chapter wraps the book up, drawing together several streams and highlights the friendship as one of mutual admiration and equal respect.

Analysis and Conclusion

Buy on Amazon

The book is well-researched and clearly written. Dalfonzo takes contested positions on a few topics like the Lewis-Anscomb debate, the Lewis-Moore relationship, and a few others. Readers may disagree with Dalfonzo, but there is a reason those topics are contested—the evidence is muddled at best. Perhaps more controversially, the underlying theme in Dorothy and Jack is the possibility of meaningful friendship between men and women, outside of marriage. Dalfonzo shares a vision with Aimee Byrd, as she developed it in Why Can’t We Be Friends? But Lewis and Sayers are such unique individuals that it isn’t clear they are a good test case for Byrd’s ideas. Whether one finally agrees with Dalfonzo on that issue does not diminish the value of this book.

Many readers may not notice, but for academics the use of the Sayers’ and Lewis’ first names may be a bit jarring. After all, as Dalfonzo notes, it was twelve years into their fifteen-year friendship before the two referred to each other by their Christian names. However, the quality of the research makes up for the feeling of informality (for those who care about such things) and the informality serves to illustrate the friendship between the two. This reads like a popular book, but the research will warrant consideration by a more academic audience. Sometimes one size does not perfectly fit all.

This is an excellent volume. Those interested in Lewis or Sayers should immediately buy it or, at least, put it on their wish list not to be long forgotten. It deserves a place alongside books like Humphrey Carpenters’ The Inklings, the Zaleski’s The Fellowship, and Colin Duriez’ Tolkien and C. S. Lewis: The Gift of Friendship. This is a solid work of secondary literature that makes a meaningful contribution to the study of both Sayers and Lewis, while being accessible and interesting to the casual reader.

Dorothy and Jack

By Dalfonzo

Buy on Amazon

NOTE: I was granted access to uncorrected proofs of this volume.

Human Goodness and the Perfectibility of Society

Humans were created good in the very beginning. They were good in every way. After God created the whole universe, including Adam and Eve, he looked at it all and observed it was all “very good.” (Gen 1:31) But the first humans made a choice to defy God’s command and they ate of the forbidden fruit. As a result, everything in creation was touched by a curse to remind humanity that the way the world is is not the way the world was meant to be. (Gen 3:16–19)

It didn’t take very long for sin to show itself in human society in powerful ways. One generation after Adam’s sin, one son murdered another in a fit of jealousy over God’s affections. (Gen 4:8) A few generations later Lamech uses his freedom and power to unjustly kill a man as disproportionate revenge for wounding him (Gen 4:23-24). Not too many generations, Scripture records, “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Gen 6:5)

Despite the wickedness of humanity and the corruption of creation, God preserved eight of his people on a boat constructed because of Noah’s faithful obedience to God’s command. After the flood, God released those eight people and the animals back onto the earth and made a covenant with both the humans and the rest of creation not to destroy it again. (Gen 9:8–17) But despite God’s grace, the old story repeated itself over and over again. Humans fell into patterns of sin that included oppression, violence, and greed. These are patterns that seem to repeat themselves down to the present day.

And yet, despite their continual disobedience, humans remain good in God’s sight. So good, in fact, that he came himself in the form of a human with the name of Jesus.

Jesus came to restore the goodness of humans and to bring salvation from sin, but the process of redemption is ongoing. Though all creation witnessed moral perfection in the person of Jesus Christ, all of creation continues to live under the effects of Adam’s sin. Even those who have been redeemed by Christ’s blood on the cross still regularly fall short of the moral goodness that God demands.

One of the central purposes of government is restrain evil. As the apostle Peter notes, we are to understand that “governors [were] sent by [God] to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.” (I Pet 2:14)

The government is necessary as a means to prevent the powerful from oppressing the weak. Among the things necessary for a healthy society are the rule of law and enforcement of property rights. These are proper roles for the government.

The worst documented humanitarian abuses in the world have occurred when government has moved from the role of attempting to restrain evil to creating a perfect society. According to C. S. Lewis, this impulse is common among many forms of modern government, as he noted in his essay, “Is Progress Possible?,”

“The modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good–anyway, to do something to us or to make us something. . . . We are less [government leaders’] subjects than their wards, pupils, or domestic animals. There is nothing left of which we can say to them, ‘Mind your own business.’ Our whole lives are their business.”

The pursuit of social improvement requires that government become engaged in social interaction. In order to move from obedience to the law to moral improvement, there must be an allegiance to the power of the government.

In modern forms of government that are seeking to perfect (or at least enhance) the moral fabric of society, that allegiance is often sought in the name of superior information, which often goes under the name of science. If government is to improve society and improvement is measured by science, then good must be scientifically measurable and the theories of advancement offered by science must be obeyed absolutely.

As C. S. Lewis writes, “I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in. In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent.”

If science is seen as the means to determine policy, then a party need merely control the direction and flavor of scientific research and publishing to change the direction of society and reinforce control. This is what is happening now in China. It is what happened through the German propaganda during WWII.

Human sin is exactly the reason why therapeutic structures of society are bound to be unhelpful, because it gives the state or community to continue to shape and reshape human behavior according to whatever the contemporary consensus is and by whatever means are socially approved. It seems like tenderness, but, as Walker Percy once wrote, “tenderness leads to the gas chamber.” Sin corrupts everything and ensures that even movements begin with good intentions don’t usually end there.

The Christian Mind of C. S. Lewis: Essays in Honor of Michael Travers

Wipf and Stock

Buy on Amazon

To Think Christianly - A Review

One of the challenges for Christians in modernity has been trying to integrate faith will all areas on knowledge. Some fundamentalists attempted this by simply abandoning the public square and retreating into their own corners of the world with independent publishing, music, and entertainment that mimic the world, usually at a lower level of quality, but maintain ideological purity. Some revisionists simply accept what the world produces, call it good or attempt to relate Christian themes to the very non-Christian content and argue that everything is permissible. A third response has been to attempt to engage the culture and its artifacts from a meaningfully Christian perspective and highlight the ways that the world’s wisdom is consistent with Christianity and the points of difference.

All three of these methods of relating to the world around us can be witnessed within Christian education. Christians invented the university, in part because of the Bible’s message that all of creation speaks God’s name. Thus, all of creation should be understood in unity—a uni-versity. But as modernism undermined the place of God in creation—often denying any role through deism and later his very existence through atheism—those naturalistic ideas have largely taken over the educational spaces of the world. This left many Christians without a place to stand to think Christianly.

One response to the crisis of education was to create separate Christian universities. Those take several forms, with varying degrees of openness to broader scholarship. The Christian College movement has both strengths and weakness. It rises above its worst instantiations of institutions like Oberlin, which no longer reflect their Christian heritage in any way, or some fundamentalist institutions which are notorious for tight control of messaging.

Another response to the crisis of education, however, was the creation of parachurch institutions that often ran parallel to other educational institutions with the express goal of helping Christians think about all of life from a distinctly Christian perspective. Charles Cotherman’s recent book, To Think Christianly: A History of L’Abri, Regent College, and the Christian Study Center Movement, presents an engaging account of how that parallel movement rose and has flourished.

L’Abri, of course, was the home of Francis and Edith Schaeffer in the Swiss Alps. They founded “The Shelter” as a place to ask hard questions and provide answers from an orthodox Christian perspective. That faith community grew over a period of years, primarily through word of mouth, until it became a pilgrimage for seekers, skeptics, and Christians seeking to find how to live out their faith. The Schaeffers provided hospitality for many, the gospel for all, and a safe place to seek answers in God’s world. L’Abri was a first of its kind community, which is why Thinking Christianly considers that project in the first chapter.

Chapter Two moves to a history of Regent College, which came chronologically after L’Abri and shared some themes, but was intended to bring a Christian element to other non-ministerial degrees. Cotherman details the origins of Regent College as an affiliate institution to a Canadian university. James Houston was the founder of Regent College and, indeed a significant figure within the Christian Study Center movement, which this book discusses. The informal L’Abri model of lay-training and the more formal Regent College model remain the two major options for bringing theological teaching to a broad audience.

In Chapters Three through Six Cotherman looks at four particularly Christian Study centers that tried to replicate either L’Abri or Regent College. The C. S. Lewis Institute  was originally an attempt to found a Regent like institution, but shifted to a more informal study center that exists and continues to attempt to help working professionals in multiple large metro areas integrate their faith, work and life. The Ligonier study center was very L’Abri-like when it was founded by R. C. Sproul in Western Pennsylvania. It was small, residential, and community oriented. However, the shift from audio tapes to videos drew Ligonier to shift its model, move to Florida, and focus less on community-based instruction. In California, an attempt was made to provide some discipleship in a study-center in Northern California. The center still exists near the University of California Berkeley as a Center of Distinction of the Graduate Theological Union, which has continued its existence but allowed it to chart a different path than the first two centers. Similarly, the Center for Christian Study near the University of Virginia functions to help seekers understand Christianity and Christians to integrate their studies with their Christianity. Each of these four centers looks different, but each is attempting to show how faith is consistent with and can strengthen studies in another area.

The final chapter deals with the Consortium of Christian Study Centers, which exists to encourage entities like the six discussed in the book to start, maintain, and grow. Spawned out of the same movement, this is an attempt to bring discipleship to many people who might otherwise struggle to find meaningful Christian engagement with their lives.

As storm clouds continue to gather over accreditation of orthodox Christian institutions, especially those who seek to embody biblical Christian sexuality, Christian study centers may be an attractive option for future students. Some are residential, but many are simply physically located near a campus, allowing students access to resources and fellowship that can help put the pieces together in the fractured intellectual environment of the modern university. Christian study centers have the potential of helping to develop a Christian mind. While distinctly Christian institutions of higher education have a place and should continue to exist, even when social forces disbar them from accreditation, Christian study centers may be a way to help build disciples for future generations of nurses, doctors, engineers, and teachers in a cost-effective and deeply integrated manner.

For those interested in the life of the mind, the history of L’Abri and similar institutions, and parallel educational opportunities to universities, this is a very interesting volume. It is well researched, engaging and thorough. The book focuses excessively on whether or not institutions have promoted egalitarianism of ministerial function, which seems strange given the focus is not on ministry within the church but ministry in the world. Overall, the level of interest in this niche topic seems excessive, but does overly distract from an otherwise solid book. The beginning of the book is also much more interesting than the latter portion, as the emphasis on successor organizations that many people have never heard of seems both highly selective and, at times, too far into the weeds. That fact, which might discourage general readers somewhat, is likely to increase the academic value of this book that deals carefully with the history of institutions slightly off the beaten path.

Overall, this is a useful volume, particularly for those thinking into the future about ways to help bring unity to the cacophony of the modern university. As institutions grow increasingly hostile to Christian student organizations, an independent study center may be a strong path forward for both evangelism and discipleship.

To Think Christianly: A History of L'Abri, Regent College, and the Christian Study Center Movement

By Cotherman, Charles E.

Buy on Amazon

NOTE: I received a gratis copy of this volume with no expectation of a positive review.

Medieval Wisdom for Modern Christians - A Review

Theological retrieval has become increasingly popular among evangelicals as young evangelicals, especially, react to some of the narrowly contextual interpretations of many Twentieth Century evangelical and fundamentalist theologians. There has been a great deal of orthodox preaching that has tried to present orthodox theology as if it is the simplest, most obvious reading of texts that any casual interpreter should be able to arrive at. Sometimes, in a rush to conserve the apparent authority of Scripture, well meaning interpreters arrive at heterodox conclusions and claim they are authentically biblical, despite disagreeing with the careful, Bible-saturated arguments of centuries of prior Christians. Theological retrieval is the process of reading historical theology, parsing it against the witness of Scripture, and using the copious resources of our theological ancestors to enrich our theologies.

There has been a great deal more work done on retrieval of the Early Church resources than of Medieval resources. Part of this is due to the acceptance by most Protestant traditions of the product of the seven ecumenical councils, the last of which wat the second council of Nicaea, which concluded in 787 AD. Another reason for the relative concern for retrieving Medieval theology is that the Roman Catholic tradition claims to have direct ties to that tradition.

The Middle Ages was also the time during which the worst abuses of papal authority and incrementally increasing confusions of Christian doctrines were incorporated. The Protestant Reformation was, after all, an attempt to reform some of the deviations from biblical orthodoxy that had evolved during the Middle Ages. Some of Martin Luther’s most severe critiques are of elements of Christian theology invented in the Middle Ages and the Roman Catholic church, which claims continuity with Medieval versions of Christianity, killed many Protestants trying to enforce both political control and adherence to some of those doctrines invented in the Medieval era. There is a reasonable basis for a reduction in concern for that theological age.

Christ Armstrong’s book, Medieval Wisdom for Modern Christians: Finding Authentic Faith in a Forgotten Age with C. S. Lewis, is a project for Protestant theological retrieval from the Middle Ages. The book is written for a predominately Evangelical, but possible broadly Protestant audience. It uses Lewis’ interest as a medievalist to show that retrieving doctrines from the Middle Ages is consistent with mere Christianity and can be fruitful.

 Lewis was deeply influenced by the contemplative and devotional aspects of Medieval theology. His book, The Discarded Image, is basically a call for a retrieval of a medieval perspective on the cosmos—not for the adoption of their astronomy, but for their memory of the enchantment of the created order.

Armstrong offers ten chapters in this volume. He begins with an explanation of his approach to the topic, which is focused on maintaining Christian orthodoxy while retrieving the treasures from oft-ignored saints. In Chapter Two he makes the argument, which is easily defensible, that Lewis had a distinctly Medieval worldview. Helpfully, Armstrong also acknowledges that while Lewis was a man of the Middle Ages, there were times his argumentation and epistemology were distinctly modern. He was a man of his times as well as a man deeply saturated with the time before. In Chapter Three Armstrong caps off the introductory topics by arguing that tradition can be a source for truth. His argument here does not conflict with Sola Scriptura, a fundamental of the Reformation, but shows that we can glean wisdom as we discerningly parse through historical and theological writings of the church.

Chapters Four through Ten focus on retrieval of medieval ideas within various categories. Chapter Four deals with recapturing the delight in theological thought of the Middle Ages. The fifth chapter considers the ethical reasoning of Medieval Christians. Chapter Six builds on the previous chapter discussing the culture shaping influence of Christianity in the Middle Ages, which led to the invention of institutions like hospitals. In the seventh chapter Armstrong pushes back against the over-spiritualizing tendencies of much of modern, orthodox Christianity, which tends to value the spirit to the neglect of the body. Armstrong’s argument is that the Medieval, despite the influence of asceticism, had, on balance, a much better doctrine of the body and the created order. In Chapter Eight the pietistic traditions of the Middle Ages are celebrated, with some of the better elements highlighted for consideration. The ninth chapter argues that the medieval focus on the Incarnation was far superior to that of many modern Evangelicals and should be retrieved. Finally, Chapter Ten ties the pieces together and calls for continued work to discover the helpful elements of Medieval theology that can enrich and inform the Christian faith.

The premise of Armstrong’s book is outstanding. There were a great many gospel-saturated Christians in the centuries of the Middle Ages whose writings can enrich our understanding of Christian doctrine, our worship, and our devotional practices. Armstrong is absolutely correct that Lewis was tied into the ethos of the Middle Ages, which means that by reading Lewis deeply (especially beyond the most popular works) one gets an introduction into a Medieval worldview and that by studying the Middle Ages, one can understand Lewis’ work better. This book is worth buying and reading on those accounts.

Perhaps because a great many books highly critical of errant ideas in medieval theology have already been written, there is very little critique offered in this book. In fact, there are some recommendations for adoption of ideas that are, at best, not biblically supported and are, at worst, unhelpful for gospel Christians. Lewis himself adopted a belief in Purgatory toward the end of his life, claiming that it would function as a hot bath to cleanse the Christian from sin before entering heaven. That, indeed, is a reasonable conception, but it undermines the sufficiency of the work of Christ on the cross. Christ paid the penalty to cleanse us from sin, so that no additional, extra-biblical purgation is needed for the sacrifice of the God of the universe to do its work in us. Additionally, Armstrong seems to affirm the idea of transubstantiation of the elements of the Eucharist. The confusion caused by this doctrine has been analyzed greatly, so that I can add little to it, except to note that it that it is a case of (a) excessive literalism, with (b) a strongly contested tradition even within the early Church and  it (c) leads to potential confusion of the creation/creature distinction, which (d)  leads to “veneration” of the elements and (e) an unbiblical belief of the special spiritual status of those ordained by the Church. Another example includes Armstrong’s apparent preference toward the traditional Roman Catholic representation of Christ on the cross as the center of worship. He claims this reinforced the doctrine of the Incarnation. However, this also undermines the biblical emphasis on Christ’s completed work, which was recognized through the triumphant resurrection. Apart from potentially violating the Second Commandment, as many Protestants would argue, the crucifix contributes to an unhelpful focus on the misery of the cross rather than the triumph of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. We must understand the first to get to the second, but we worship a Christ ascended, not a Christ trapped in the tortures of the cross. There are reasons, after all, that the Protestant Reformers rejected some of the traditions of the Papal tradition that were not supported by or ran directly counter to Scripture.

Despite some disagreements with where Armstrong takes Medieval retrieval, this is an excellent book. As a volume in Lewis studies, Medieval Wisdom for Modern Christians is an example of the best sort: it looks where Lewis was pointing, rather than seeing Lewis as the final stopping point for theological consideration. As a volume encouraging theological retrieval, it shows that Armstrong has carefully studied and lived within the traditions he is attempting to retrieve. He is right to show that there is much good that has too often been ignored and contemporary Protestants would do well to revisit some of the theology from a forgotten age.

Medieval Wisdom for Modern Christians: Finding Authentic Faith in a Forgotten Age with C. S. Lewis

By Armstrong, Chris R.

Buy on Amazon

Holiness and the Culture War

What if we’ve been thinking about the culture war all wrong?

There are multiple ways to be wrong about the culture war, but I’ve come to believe that many of us are thinking about it counterproductively.

Some people deny that there is a culture war. Somehow the changing moral compass of society, which is now attempting to “cancel” people for holding centuries ago positions that were held by the vast majority of people a decade ago. An essay written more than three decades ago, and on which someone’s view has changed, is enough to cost a senior executive a job. There is a culture war and no amount of compromise will ever be enough to stay within safe boundaries.

Other people see the culture war as primarily a political battle. If we can elect the right politicians we can get the right rules and everything will be well with the world. This perception has become a cancer among many believers with orthodox theology, who have sold out their public credibility to lobby and defend the indefensible time and time again.

What if, however, the culture war is primarily spiritual and the stakes are not just our physical prosperity but our spiritual well-being?

This is the argument that Peter Kreeft makes in How to Win the Culture War: A Christian Battle Plan for a Society in Crisis.

Kreeft begins the book by stating nine things we must know:

1. that you are at war
2. who your enemy is
3. what kind of war you are in
4. what the basic principle of this kind of war is
5. what the enemy’s strategy is
6. where the main battlefield is
7. what weapon will defeat the enemy
8. how to acquire this weapon
9. why you will win

In nine very concise chapters, Kreeft helps readers to know these nine things. In 120 pages, Kreeft does more than many other people do in volumes dozens of times longer.

This is an important book for this day, although it was written in 2002. It is far from Kreeft’s best book, but it is one that should be read more widely because it carries a necessary message for many of today’s Christians about the war raging around us.

Kreeft obviously believes that we are in a culture war, otherwise he would not have written a book that purports to be a manual for winning one. It would be an ironic twist, much like the message of the classic movie, War Games, to argue that the only way to win the culture war is not to play. However, that is not Kreeft’s argument.

We are in a culture war. The issues of our day are primarily related to sex. Of course, the distribution of wealth is an issue, but anyone watching the news can see that in the West the controversies are primarily about sex—abortion (which is an attempt to have sex without consequences), normalizing sexual dysphoria, redefining marriage, accepting polyamory—all of these issues are about sex. Kreeft argues that sex is a major focal point because it is a point of contact between the soul and the body. This is why even in peaceful protest about racial injustice, some culture warriors feel it necessary to expand the issue from one of ethnicity to one of sexuality.

The spiritual nature of sex is, of course, hotly debated. But Scripture reminds us that to consummate a marriage is to become one flesh. The emotional damage caused by hookup culture is another reminder, though, that even those that reject the transcendent rationally experience it emotionally.

That sex is the focal point of the culture war is no surprise to anyone paying attention, but explaining the spiritual nature of sex as a driving cause for its centrality helps readers to understand the nature of the culture war. We are in a spiritual war. Few orthodox Christians would deny that. Many people, however, shy away from talking about spiritual warfare in reaction to the cheesy Peretti novels of the 80’s and 90’s, as well as attempting avoiding some of the excesses of charismatic theologies. But Scripture indicates that “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” (Eph 6:12, ESV)

Ephesians 6 often gets interpreted as a passage to individuals, which is encouraged by the armor metaphor that Paul uses. Each individual must put on the armor of God, but one warrior cannot alone take on an entire culture. There is both an individual and a corporate aspect to Ephesians 6; we need to encourage both understandings.

And, though many Christians love their Bibles, believe that we are in a spiritual war as Ephesians 6 tells us, many of us are still fighting the culture war as if it really about bathrooms, student aid, and marriage certificates. Those are just tinsel trophies in a cosmic battle where the well-being of our souls in on the line.

What would change if orthodox Christians acted on their belief that this is primarily a spiritual battle and not a physical turf war?

First, we would accept that our political positions are not the determinant of our spiritual state. There will be Christians who, for various reasons, fall on either side of the bipolar catastrophe that is the American political system.

Second, we would be much less willing to compromise our morality to promote (not to say vote for) and excuse sin in those who claim to be our defenders in this world or promoters of our vision of the good life politically.

Third, we would recognize that the sinner on the other side of the bathroom debate should not be the target of our scorn. Even the white-suburban rioter who throws a brick through an immigrant’s window in the name of “racial justice” is not our enemy. Rather, they are a victim of the culture war having been deceived by the common enemies of all humanity: the world, the flesh, and the devil.

Fourth, we would understand that our part in the culture war is first to be sanctified. Our first priority is not to determine whether masks are a precursor to the mark of the beast or if the so-called 1% are really rigging the economy. Our first priority is not tear down statues of people we do not recognize but don’t think we like or to defend statues of people who fought for the enslavement of human persons. Rather, our first priority as Christians is to “be Holy as [God is] holy.” (1 Peter 1:16; Lev 11:44)

The fourth point is really the critical takeaway of the book. Before we can change the culture as individuals, we must first be holy. Before we can change the culture as a church, we must first embody holiness in our congregation.

This point does not excuse inaction in the political sphere, of course. We still vote, volunteer, give, and try to convince people. But before we can convince them to see what the Bible says about human relations is true, we must first be able to show them signs, at least, that the Bible has changed us. Before we can convince someone that the gospel has the power to save, we have to act like our salvation has somehow changed us into the new creation we are supposed to be. We must be holy as God is holy. That is the most important aspect of the culture war.

Holiness is the primary focus and the main way in which we will change the culture. This is, of course, consistent with what Jesus told his disciples: “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?” (Matthew 16:26) Will we seek to be sanctified or make women’s sports, bathrooms, abortion laws, and the like our primary goal? Will we seek first the Kingdom of God or will we seek to live by bread alone? We need to eat, but first we need to be holy.

This is the main message of Kreeft’s book. It isn’t a message of retreat, but one of advancement along the most important front first

How to Win the Culture War: A Christian Battle Plan for a Society in Crisis

By Kreeft, Peter

Buy on Amazon

Technopoly - A Review

Neil Postman’s most well known book is Amusing Ourselves to Death. There is good reason for that, since he both explains the media ecology of the early ‘80’s, including the election of a movie star presidents, and predicts where culture will head. His predictions have proved to be largely true, which is a stunning feat. He provides no timeline for what he anticipates, but he looks at the trajectory of culture and describes where it is headed—for us, where it has headed—in the decades to come.

His book, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, is less well-known, but in many ways more powerful and prescient. Published in 1992, Postman was standing at the beginning of the internet age, when personal computers were beginning to be more widely available.

The book is not about some dystopian future where Artificial Intelligence has taken over and time traveling robots have been sent back to wipe out the people that started it all. But it is a book that helps explain what technology is, why understanding that definition is important, and what it is doing to society.

From the very beginning, Postman makes it clear that technology is all around us in ways that we no longer detect. Technology fundamentally changes the way society works and how our brains function. (This is part of Jacob Shatzer’s argument in his recent book, Transhumanism and the Image of God, which is also worth your while.) He begins with one of Plato’s dialogues, Phaedrus, which contains a story of Thamus who resists the use of written languages, especially books, because it will change the way people receive information and allow readers to gain info apart from the oral tradition. To modern readers, so many centuries beyond that technological revolution, and also well beyond the revolution enabled by moveable type on printing presses, it may seem incredible to consider what life would be like without written communication. And yet, that was a technology that has fundamentally changed society in a way that we can no longer fully comprehend because it is so ubiquitous.

The central message of Technopoly is simple, but it is important: Every new technology that gets widely adopted changes society. It would, therefore, important that we ask whether those changes are good or not and what we are giving up by adopting new technologies.

According to Postman,

“Technology is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind. It consists in the deification of technology, which means that the culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from technology. This requires the development of a new kind of social order, and of necessity leads to the rapid dissolution of much that is associated with traditional beliefs. Those who feel most comfortable in Technopoly are those who are convinced that technical progress is humanity’s supreme achievement and the instrument by which our most profound dilemmas may be solved. They also believe that information is an unmixed blessing, which through its continued and uncontrolled production and dissemination offers increased freedom, creativity, and peace of mind. The fact that information does none of these things––but quite the opposite––seems to change few opinions, for such unwavering believes are an inevitable product of the structure of Technopoly. In particular, Technopoly flourishes when the defenses against information break down.”

Postman further notes, only a couple of pages later, that social institutions are supposed to function as control mechanisms to help people discern which information is important and which is noise. As he notes,

“Social institutions sometimes do their work simply by denying people access to information, but principally by directing how much weight and, therefore, value one must give information. Social institutions are concerned with the meaning of information and can be quite rigorous in enforcing standards of admission.”

In this information age, even the best of our institutions cannot function fast enough to accomplish this task. And, based on the violation of trust that many institutions have engaged in or been accused of, people tend not to trust some of the institutions that might possibly be able to do a fair job at keeping up with information.

Technopoly helps explain the dis-ease of contemporary culture because we are being perpetually swamped by information and it is difficult to discern what is true. We have few reliable handlers of information that we can count on to present the information in a reasonably unbiased way. Some of the gate keepers of information, including members of the media, abuse their institutional role as information handlers to intentionally mislead through shifting perceptions.

Technopoly predicted our present state and our ongoing trajectory. Postman’s book highlights the epistemic and social nightmare we live in: there is too much information and we don’t know who to trust. Postman has few suggestions for a solution (indeed, he pokes fun at himself in the last chapter for that fact), but simply having the problem exposed is helpful.

Personally, I think that part of the solution needs to be a renewal of the Christian Mind, which I have written about previously and will discuss further in this context in a future post.

Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology

By Neil Postman

Buy on Amazon

Spirits in Bondage - A Review

C. S. Lewis is known in most contemporary circles for his apologetics and for his children’s books. If you were to do a “person on the street” interview about Lewis in a local church, you would probably find people mentioning his Chronicles of Narnia, Mere Christianity, and perhaps the collection of essays titled, God in the Dock. There might be some who know about The Screwtape Letters or, if they have a philosophical bent, The Abolition of Man, or, perhaps, The Great Divorce.

Not only would you find people ignorant of any of the works that focused on Lewis’ primary vocation as a scholar of Medieval and Renaissance literature (one of which is still a text in use), but you would be hard pressed to find someone who has not fallen deep into the well of Lewis studies that would describe Lewis as a poet.

And yet, the first volume Lewis ever published was of poetry, and he published many along the way. In an informal exchange, senior Lewis expert James Como (who contributed an essay to the volume, The Christian Mind of C. S. Lewis) informed me that Lewis may have executed his mythopoeic power more effectively in his poetry than in his narrative writing. Based on some of his later poetry, particularly poems like “As the Ruin Falls,” there is an argument to be made there.

Lexham Press has recently released Lewis’ first published volume, which is a cycle of poetry. Spirits in Bondage: A Cycle of Lyrics was begun during his teenage years (as we know from his correspondence with Arthur Greeves) and completed while Lewis was in the trenches during the Great War and during his recovery after he was wounded. It bears the marks of a broadly read teenager. Engaging, imitative, emotionally powerful at times, and at other times not quite enrapturing.

This small book, originally published under the pseudonym Clive Hamilton, earned a lukewarm reception from reviewers, which contributed to Lewis becoming more invested in other forms of literature. Part of the reason for its meager applause when released was that Lewis largely borrows from existing forms of poetry and, at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, English poetry was trending toward more modernistic form and structure. Lewis’ tendency to imitate the art of others, borrowing their themes and structures to present ideas in a fresh way, did not catch the fancy of readers of poetry as it would in his highly imitative science fiction trilogy or with the Chestertonian moralism of much of his apologetic prose. In many ways we should be thankful, because Lewis the novelist and apologist has been more effective than Lewis the poet may have been.

The new edition of Spirits in Bondage is a well-constructed book. The slender hardback volume is artistically illuminated, with brilliantly colored endsheets. It is well-typeset to invite the reader into a meditative digestion of Lewis’ poetry. This is a lovely volume and a pleasure to experience.

The reprint book has been published with a new introduction by Karen Swallow Prior. Her brief essay helps welcome unfamiliar readers into this book. She reminds people that this “is a work of literary, intellectual, and spiritual immaturity––and promise.” And it is all of those things. The reader of Mere Christianity would be surprised to pick up this book and find a tendency toward supernaturalism, but no real sense of the grandeur of the Divine. Prior’s introduction does what all introductions should do: it puts the work into its context so the uninitiated reader need not puzzle over themes and concepts that seem foreign. It also sets expectations, as Prior notes, “While sometimes weak in both concept and execution, the poems overall exhibit considerable metrical variety and a range of perspectives impressive for such a young writer. They are worthy reading for the poetry lover and the Lewis aficionado alike.”

Readers should understand that Spirits in Bondage is being reprinted because of the man who wrote it, not because it is the best poetry of its age. But for those struggling to understand the complexity of Lewis (there is a great deal more to even his children’s stories than some will acknowledge), these poems are exceedingly helpful.

When Lewis wrote Spirits in Bondage he was not a theist. He was past the most strident phase of his atheism, which was fueled by his tutor. He had found joy in the transcendent beauty of Nordic mythology. He had dabbled in the occult in his late teens, and that supernaturalism can be seen beneath some of Spirits in Bondage. This is, to be clear, not a series of love poems to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But it is not directly antagonistic to the faith, however. We encounter a Lewis who has not been found by Christ, but is searching for something he knows is out there.

This book will have the most appeal for those studying the life and work of C. S. Lewis. But those that enjoy poetry will find it a generally pleasant experience, too. Those who both enjoy poetry and are deeply interested in Lewis will find this a thoroughly intriguing book, because there are echoes of later Lewisian thoughts and motifs even in this very early work.

Spirits in Bondage: A Cycle of Lyrics

By Lewis, C.S.

Buy on Amazon

NOTE: I received a gratis copy of this volume from the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.