Notice that over the past four days we’ve gone from vontsira saying:
> Initially: I don’t react well to being badgered into becoming a Christian (and
> Lewis’s take on Christianity strikes me as being a fairly negative, restrictive, and
> miserable one) on pain of eternal damnation.
to Trinopus saying:
> For his ideas to work, he would be, in essence, making up his own new religion, or
> at least inventing differences larger than those between many modern
> denominations.
So the problem with Lewis is that either he sticks too close to conventional Christianity or he wanders too far from it. And I’m not saying that either position is obviously false. The question of whether Lewis’s philosophical/religious ideas are consistent is an interesting one, as is the question of whether the ideas of Christianity are consistent and whether the versions of Christianity espoused by various groups are consistent with each other. And then there’s the question of whether the ideas espoused by vontsira, Trinopus, and/or me are each consistent. This is why I started by saying that it would take many long hours to resolve any such argument.
Well, it’s theology. A morass within a quagmire within a quaking bog! An entire civilization fragmented over whether the Holy Ghost comes “from” the Son or “through” the Son! People have died over whether God is Three, or One, or Three-in-One (not the sewing machine oil…)
Heck, we aren’t competent here (because of space restrictions) to put down as much as the chapter headings of the major issues!
For years, I’ve wanted to read the “Silent Planet” trilogy, but nearly every review I’ve ever read has said it’s a tedious bit of rough going. I keep getting daunted!
Over on the Tolkien side, I actually read LOTR three times without really “getting it.” (I was probably too young.) It was on the fourth reading that I finally grokked the gestalt of the story. But what that tells you is – his writing is so good, it rewards re-reading, even without a clear understanding of the overall story and concept.
I can pick up LOTR and start in at any given point…and enjoy it for an hour or three of uninterrupted reading pleasure. Every chapter is its own reward.
Heh. We could probably fill up the entire forum discussing what’s lost (or gained) from reading for pleasure v. fulfillment of an obligation. That said, one of the problems with chronological order is that the man who was writing TMN was also the man who had already written TLTWATW, but the converse was not likewise true.
Here’s the Wikipedia section on the reading order:
Many, and perhaps most, Lewis scholars think that the publication order is better than the chronological order. One of the reasons given for the change to the chronological order is that a letter from Lewis to a child acknowledged that that new order might be possible. Lewis doesn’t say that it’s best, just that it’s O.K. for the kid to read the books in that order. That 11-year-old boy, Laurence Krieg, is still alive. I met him many years ago. I once suggested to some other Lewis fans that we should get hold of him and ask him to make a public statement. He could say something like “Would you forget about that stupid order I suggested back in 1957? I was just an 11-year-old kid then. Put the books back in the correct order.”
Re: For his ideas to work, he would be, in essence, making up his own new religion, or at least inventing differences larger than those between many modern denominations.
He wasn’t making them up. As I mentioned, just about everything he talks about in ‘The Great Divorce’ has precursors in the writings of some medieval Christian mystics. Christianity is a big and broad religion, and different Christians believe (and always have believed) some very different things, including about hell. Christian universalism has a very long history, the idea that salvation even after death is possible also has a long history, and there have even been some Christian heresies, like the Albigensians, who believed in reincarnation of sorts.
C.S. Lewis considered himself an orthodox Anglican Christian, so clearly he wasn’t going to have much truck with universalism, Albigensianism, or any other officially condemned ideas, but even within orthodox Anglicanism (or for that matter within Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or most other major denominations today), the specifics of what hell is and how it works aren’t pinned down in much great detail, although they all believe that hell exists.
I don’t think that any of those four churches, for example, would argue with the idea that ‘people freely choose hell, God doesn’t send them there against their own will’.
Re: As long as there is misery, anywhere in the cosmos, God is not “perfect.”
That touches on a very ancient Christian debate (how you reconcile the existence of evil with a perfect God). My response would be that I disagree with your definition of perfect, and that I think a God who presides over a universe where free will exists is more perfect than one who rules a universe without free will. And if free will exists, it must be possible for people to choose evil and suffering, including into eternity.
The second one, Perelandra, is the toughest, I thought, mostly because it doesn’t really take place in any sort of society. The vast majority of the book, there are only three characters, who are essentially alone on the entire planet. It ends up reading more like the philosopher’s sort of dialog, rather than the novelist’s. And the third, That Hideous Strength, is also a bit wearisome, mostly because of how over-the-top cartoonishly villainous the villains are. Do read Out of the Silent Planet, though, at least: The theology is overt, but it’s mostly just a good adventure tale.
As over-the-top cartoonish as the villains are, That Hideous Strength is head and shoulders better than any contemporary “End Times”-style literature, such as that “Left Behind” dreck. Of course this is damning with faint praise.
I’ll just reiterate, although I said it earlier, that anyone who hasn’t read Lewis’s Till We Have Faces is missing out on the absolutely best that he had as a fiction writer. It remains one of my favorite books of all time. And I still have a lot of fun re-reading from time to time The Screwtape Letters and The Great Divorce, both entirely fiction. Screwtape is the ultimate unreliable narrator, and it’s very fun in my opinion.
The three books are different enough (in the style and type of story they tell) that it’s certainly possible to love one and hate another. Of the three, I believe Perelandra is generally most highly regarded by critics (and by Lewis himself).
Perelandra is absolutely my favorite. The passage where the protagonist, Ransom, receives his epiphany about what he must do still gives me the chills.
Does it? And which “conventional Christianity” are we talking about? The Eastern Orthodox believe Hell has been emptied. There is a long tradition in Catholic theology that Hell is merely a separateness from God, rather than eternal suffering and torture. And I would argue that most mainline Protestants don’t believe in the idea of Hell at all (One of my most amusing memories is a fellow mainliner who was astonished that anyone really took the concept of Hell literally at all - I think that is what may be considered blockading one’s self in the ivory tower ;)).
I think the problem is that a particular idea of Hell has become lumped in with “conventional Christianity”.
I suppose that which of the books one likes best depends on what one is looking for. As a book of philosophical dialogues, Perelandra is great. As a work of fiction per se, however, not so much. So it depends on whether one is looking for philosophy or fiction.
And kaylasdad, I take it from that comment that you were about 14 when you first read it? The mere mention of a naked woman, with little detail given, and in a completely non-sexual context, doesn’t really do anything for most of us.
You mean my plan to make a million dollars by releasing new versions of old classics where I’ve inserted the sentence “Plus, she was naked” isn’t going to work?
Okay: deal! I’ll start with Silent Planet, and see how much farther I go.
I did read that one…but too long ago, and I was probably too young. I actually don’t remember a single word of it. I’ll put it on my list also.
Okay, nifty! I honestly did not know this.
This, and, alas, a big problem is that radio and tv evangelism is, for many, the primary face of U.S. Christianity. Even the “moderates” in that field, such as Bob Dutko, are alarmingly right-wing, literalist, creationist, and “fire and brimstone” in their outlook. (Which gives a hint as to what the extremists must be like!)
U.S. Christianity has a serious P.R. problem if, in fact, a majority of Protestants don’t actually believe in Hell, because the major publicity machines – radio and tv – are absolutely dominated by it.
(And, after all, Lewis came up with the “trilemma” for a radio show.)
The Eastern Orthodox don’t believe hell has been emptied. There is more tolerance of ‘hopeful universalism’ in the east than in Western Christianity, but they definitely still believe in hell. Here’s some discussion.
"Whatever differences may exist between the Greek and Latin Fathers, they are united on the retributive, vindictive nature of the punishments of hell. A minority report does exist, of course—represented by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Isaac of Ninevah, and perhaps also Ambrose—but it is a minority report (see John Sachs, “Apocatastasis in Patristic Theology“; for an older, albeit flawed, presentation of universalism in the patristic period, see J. W. Hanson). Eventually the retributive views of Augustine in the West and the Emperor Justinian in the East prevailed. "
Well, aside from the fact that you seem to be taking me a tad more seriously than I’m used to, you’ve pretty much nailed it. Fourteen-year old Catholic school boys don’t really require that much from their erotic literature. At least, this one didn’t.
We could probably fill up the entire forum discussing what’s lost (or gained) from reading for pleasure v. fulfillment of an obligation. That said, one of the problems with chronological order is that the man who was writing TMN was also the man who had already written TLTWATW, but the converse was not likewise true.
