I’m loving the thread so far, but I can’t sit quietly in the face of all this wanton and rampant praise of C.S. Lewis. Surprised by Joy is an interesting and, in some ways fascinating, story of one man’s spiritual journey, but, as a theological/philisophical text, it, well, sucks. Re-read the portion where he takes the last step, from Theism to Catholicism (as opposed to another religion). It makes no sense, and just highlights Lewis’ cultural bigotry.
As for Lewis’ other books mentioned in this thread, Lewis is generally one of the more insipid Catholic apologists.
My $.02 having been put in, I retire to follow along with the thread as it develops.
No, David’s problem was that he killed Uriah to hide his adultery and took her to be his wife. As for God allowing/endorsing multiple wives, read for yourself (note the Thus saith the LORD part…):
C.S. Lewis was, of course, a member of the Holy Catholic Church. He was, however, not a Roman Catholic, but rather a member of the Church of England. (Cites on request.)
I don’t think so. C.S. Lewis was an Anglican, largely I believe because that was the mainstream form of Christianity in his area. he has commented in another of his works (can’t remember which one) that he doesn’t really like congregationalist church systems on the grounds that a large part of the practice of Christianity involved getting on with those around you.
I must also admit to being baffled by the insipid comment. How? In what way was Jack insipid?
BTW JRR Tolkein didn’t convert Jack, he was one of Jack’s christian friends who influenced him at the time.
Tolkein was Catholic, Jack was Anglican. Just like polycarp said.
And I’m still curious re: the use of the word insipid in the context of Jack Lewis.
Could you provide the cites? It’s been a long time since I’ve read Mr. Lewis (as my earlier post hinted, I’m not fond of him), I was first introduced to his writing in the course of a college class on 20th Century RCC philosophers/apologists/etc. I mean, I thought the professor who taught the class was pretty bad, but I don’t think he was so incompetent as to accidently slip an Anglican into the mix.
Chewie, my opinion of Mr. Lewis as insipid is a personal one, based upon my readings of him. I’m not going to go into a point-by-point analysis, as I’ve already hijacked Demo’s thread too much. Further, the debate may get too emotional, as you appear to have been on a first-name basis with the man. Suffice to say that, to me, Mr. Lewis is the Ayn Rand of Christian apologists.
Sua
The verse in Deuteronomy that you quoted was specifically an injunction to kings, and specifically an injunction against keeping an excessive number of wives (which the Talmud derives means more than 18). It is clear from a number of places in the Old Testament that men are permitted to marry more than one woman.
Examples:
Leviticus 18:18 - “`Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.” If polygamy in general was prohibited. there would be no need to specifically prohibit polygamy with two sisters.
Deuteronomy 21:15 - “If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love,…” Suffice it to say that these verses deal with the children, not with the wives, and both children are considered completely legitimate.
The following is taken from a FAQ list linked from but not located on the site of http:\cslewis.drzeus.net – which site is copyrighted but I could find no copyright notice regarding the FAQ. I will take responsibility under the fair use provisions for quoting it here. Since everybody from the RCC to the evangelical right of protestantism claims him, I’ve quoted the full description of his beliefs vis-a-vis both the above-named. While he would have never denied his Anglican beliefs, I think he would have been happiest described as a “mere Christian.”
Thanks Polycarp… I won’t be passing this tidbit onto my old professor - he’s retired, and I see no reason to embarass him (although he should be embarassed, as am I for taking his word for it).
Sua
Suffice to say that, to me, Mr. Lewis is the Ayn Rand of Christian apologists.