C.S. Lewis has a knack for prose; his ability to convict and encourage is superb. And the plot structure is creepy and convincing. Does it have any merit beyond a literature scope? I must answer with a resounding, "Yes!" The Screwtape Letters has enough "meat and potatoes" for even the most critical of readers. His quiver is full of sharp, insightful arrows waiting to pierce your conscience.
Lewis captures the vices of man in a simple, but powerful way. We often excuse our own weaknesses and motives (or act as if they don't exist!), while proclaiming the absolute and terrible villainy of others. We never intend our comments to be taken "that way", but always take others comments "that way." We proclaim our own innocence, while impugning the motives of others. There is no charity. Or when we do have "charity", it is not true charity. We pretend to be "selfless" all the while resenting the other person for not bending to our wishes or understanding what we want. Wouldn't it be better to be forthright and honest about our expectations - and then we do sacrifice, do it with a willing heart?
Even in regards to the church. We start to believe that church is about us. How does the church serve my needs? And rather than discuss the matters of importance (doctrine), we argue about the color of the church carpet or whether coffee should be served before worship. (And if you're wondering - No, I've never actually argued about any of these things, but hopefully you understand my point.)
Furthermore, Lewis' emphasis on living in the tension is spectacular! Don't fall either into "vainglory" or "false modesty." (I sense another blog post on this topic...) Stay away from "licentiousness" and "legalism." How often do I need to hear that message! It is so easy for us (read: me) to fall to one side of the line. And either side of the line is NOT godliness. God's purpose is to live in between these two pits. On the line.
Though I LOVED Lewis' theme of balance, perhaps, his most poignant arrow was his chapter on time. How often do we become irritated with those who "waste" our time. If you're like me, quite often. How dare that person cut me off, I need to get to work! Could that pedestrian walk any slower?! Why does Mom need my help now? Can't my brother study by himself? My time is valuable; why can't they understand that? But in reality, whose time is it anyway? Who gave us the time for His glory? Can we every say that the time is ours? We are merely stewards of it. And it is a lesson I should well remember.
Pride. Yes, Lewis remarks on that vice too. (It seems little escapes his notice.) Thinking too highly of oneself for gifts that God has given. And looking down on others who do not have those gifts... Funny how I seem to remember a Sunday school lesson about duties to "superiors and inferiors." See G.I. Williamson's study-book on The Shorter Catechism.
My only caution in regarding to The Screwtape Letters is Lewis' Arminian position on the "perseverance of the saints." He posits that some who were part of the Father's camp are now in Satan's. (But as Christ says in John 10:29, "My Father
Thanks for reading with me y'all! And for waiting patiently for my thoughts. :O)
Picture Credit: Myself;), Narnia Wiki, and Clip Art
As I am writing from my office (my laptop's video card decided to commit suicide this week), I am away from my hard copy of The Screwtape Letters and have to rely on a shoddy online PDF for reference, but to which passage are you referring when you say that Lewis "posits that some who were part of the Father's camp are now in Satan's"? I see, at the beginning of Chapter II, a passage where Lewis says that "hundreds of these adult converts have been reclaimed after a brief sojourn in the Enemy's [Father's] camp and are now with us," but I think it would be believable to exegete Lewis here the same way Reformed scholars have exegeted Hebrews 6:4-9. That is, we say the author of Hebrews is describing the visible church, or people who have heard the Gospel and started out strong with a public profession of faith but never, in the inward man, made a *true* profession. Maybe I'm just trying to rationalize Lewis, but couldn't he intend the same thing by a "sojourn" in the Father's camp?
ReplyDeleteYeppers. Chapter 2. You pegged it. The passage does say "reclaimed" as if the adults were once actually claimed by the Father. But as my father pointed out to me, Satan is a creature; he does not know whose are his. Therefore, neither would his minions.
ReplyDeleteOkay, sure. He could intend the same thing by "sojourn" as the Reformed authors, but my (admittedly small) knowledge of Lewis leads me to think otherwise. Take the Chronicles of Narnia for example. "Once a King or Queen in Narnia, always a King or Queen in Narnia." Right? This seems to indicate that Lewis believes in the perseverance of the saints - yet, Susan denies the faith... "My sister Susan is no longer a friend of Narnia." Of course, meaning she once was a friend. She becomes more interested in "nylons and lipstick and invitations." Perhaps this only indicates (as you previously postulated) that Susan was a member of the visible church, but doesn't Aslan seem to claim her throughout the books - until The Last Battle? *Sigh* This is my biggest pet peeve about Narnia.
So, all-in-all, I think you might be giving Lewis a little too much credit. ;)
Laura,
ReplyDeleteWell, once upon a time (1997), there was a huge flame war on the Internet over whether the utopian society in the book Starship Troopers, by Robert Heinlein, required citizens to serve in the military if they wanted to vote. The "Heinlein is a fascist" side argued that, because one character in the book seemed to assume that public service for the vote was necessarily *military* public service, then it was necessarily military public service. The other side argued that Robert Heinlein had plainly asserted, both in the book and at Sci-Fi Conventions, that the public service didn't need to be in the military.
Against the temptation to go all postmodern on you to try to win the argument, I'll just admit that I think that the "Heinlein was a fascist" people are drooling, doobie-smoking, pinko morons who can't accept that art means what the artist says it means and that, to be self-consistent, I suppose I have to concede that if Lewis was Arminian in the much clearer Narnia series, then he was an Arminian in Screwtape, too.