Friday, February 15, 2008

 

Some Lewisian insight

"Do not confuse Repentance with Disgust: for the one comes from the Landlord and the other from the Enemy."

--The Guide, from "The Pilgrim's Regress," by C.S. Lewis

Some context.

A little more context.

Discuss.

--ER

Comments:
So you throw in the "Great" C.S. Lewis, portions of his first and failed "Novel" and then an apologist's explanation of it and then say :DISCUSS?

That reminds me of the professors that always had something to say but never prepared for their lectures. You will do well Pilgrim as an academic.

Discussion:
If C.S. Lewis had lived in the first or second century of Christian development he would definitely been a Gnostic Guru, perhaps with his own following if not sect(or maybe he does even today). He can not help but tell a story at several levels, just as the gnostic teachers did. One level for the young or undeveloped Christian and a second level with more sustenance and finally a third level with mystical truths and knowledge enlightenment or as they said, Gnosis.
The difference of course is that we know Lewis is writing "inspired stories" for these certain purposes, where as we endow some of the earlier works of others with much more power.

I think the unrecognized strain of gnosticism in Lewis is why J.R.R.Tolkien dispared as to his having converted Lewis to Chritianity in the first place. Tolkien was nothing if not Orthodox in his religion (See Lord of the Rings).

How's that for discussion?
 
Good start.

I agree on the multiple-level thing. That's why I got him one way when I was a teenager and others ways now.

C.S. Lewis does have a following that spans denominations. But I think most conservatives like him, if they do, because he drank beer, so that means they can.


The notion that disgust is not repentance is what I "got" from my recent rereading. Struck me as clearly as the first time I realized that I was living with one of the "strange women" Proverbs (in KJV) advises against. (Not Dr. ER, former life).
 
What I mean is: I didn't start trying to lose weight a year and a half ago because I repented of gluttony, but because I was disgusted with myself.

I usually don't start trying to rein in other behaviors, either, out of repentance, but because I get tired of embarrassing myself.

I think the difference is worth a good, long ponder.
 
Well that being the focus of discussion, let me ask what then would define "conviction" of sin, in that in the orthodox formula it is required prior to repentence?
Would not disgust, repulsion, distain, be perhaps the first element in a procees of conviction?
 
Oh, and ER, Lewis drank Ale.
 
Might very well be the first inkling of a need for repentance and changed behavior. The very next line in the book is:

"And yet disgust has saved many a man from worse evils."

But then, "Fighting one vice with another is about the most dangerous strategy there is. You know what happens to kingdoms that use alien mercenaries."


So, I think that disgust is a great thing to stop behavior, but stopping behavior is not repentance. Changed attitude and new behavior is. Isn't it?
 
But is disgust comes from the enemy and can be the first element of "conviction" then isn't the enemy aiding the landlord?
 
"Might very well be the first inkling of a need for repentance"

No pun intended? :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inklings

BTW, the Eagle and Child does serve a nice ale. Can't
 
Ah, DrLoboJo stumbles, or perhaps walks deliberately, into a profundity:

The Enemy, indeed, can be used for the Landlord's own ends.

The Prodigal Son sent himself into the world, where the Enemy, presumbably, led him to his every worldly desire, which left the Son disgusted when he saw how far he'd fallen. With a reduced sense of self, he could think of others -- his father. And he went home. In repentance. But he might have clung stubbornly to his diminished, disgusted self, and killed himself in despair.
 
Alan! I'd never heard of those Inking! Cool.
 
First, I've never been a fan of Lewis. I've found his "Christian" writings shallow, bereft of serious insight, and pretty lame all the way around. I realize that's heresy in many circles, but it is my opinion which are as ubiquitous as a certain body part to remain unmentioned.

Having said that - pasting the label "gnostic" on every person who comes along is a bit like Republicans calling everyone to the left of Ronald Reagan a socialist. Lewis is no more gnostic than any other contemporary apologist. Indeed, his Christian "insights" are so shallow, I despair of finding any "there" there. Unlike serious gnostics, Lewis doesn't shade his meanings, or pretend to a level of meaning and understanding only available to the unenlightened. Rather, he treats his readers much like I imagine most Oxford dons treat their students - dunces who must be talked down to in order to understand the lofty truths they hold in their heads. It isn't gnosticism so much as it is simple British elitism.

OK - I got that out of my system.

I think, in essence, the sentence is correct as far as it goes. It is a recognition that there is a distinction, a necessary distinction, between the old Christian dialectics of grace and law, forgiveness and judgment, love and justice, etc. Lewis wishes his readers to remember that repentance includes God's act, as quoted by the Psalmist, of removing our sin as far as the east is from the west. It is removed from the Divine mind. Sitting around in a state of disgust is as sinful as what prompts us to repent, because we dwell far more on the sin than on the reality of forgiveness.
 
GKS, I didn't say he was a competent gnostic.

Don't discount how much gnosticism has traveled along with the orthodox versions of Christianity over the centuries.

"The Baby and Bird" serves on tap the local Varsity Ale, and Guinness in bottles. I don't think "beer" is available.
 
Re, "I've found his 'Christian' writings shallow, bereft of serious insight, and pretty lame all the way around."

Dude. For those of us not formally schooled in theology, he's pretty damned profound. Your habitual sizing up of writers who don't measure up to your own standards or goals as a writer is ... well, I just don't get it. :-)
 
Re, "Lewis wishes his readers to remember that repentance includes God's act, as quoted by the Psalmist, of removing our sin as far as the east is from the west. It is removed from the Divine mind."

I like that, as a complement to the definition of repentance as changed attitude reflected in a turning, or turnings, of behavior.
 
My own preferred ale is Bass, and sadly, my preferred doggery, the ceegar bar, doesn't have it.
 
GKS, sorry for jumpin' a little ugly for yer jumpin' ugly on master Clive. He *is* one of the first Christian writers to help me out of the box I was raised in.

And I should remember by now that you, like myself, are a grump when you first get up. :-)
 
Dr. ER and Bird and YB are on the Riverwalk in San Antone! The mariachis are "all keyed up" and loud, the report.

I loves me some San Antone!

But hey, I'm watrm in the house with yet another ice storm barrelin' up I-44 out of Texas, I got Chinese vittles on the way (large wonton soup, ribs, cashew chicken and pork lo mein), and "Little Big Man," one of the best movies (and novels) ever about the West, is fixin' to come on.
 
I wasn't grumpy, I hadn't just awakened, and I don't have standards, high or otherwise, to which C. S. Lewis just doesn't reach. I do not judge one writer by how well he or she matches up with someone else writing in the same genre. I take each on his or her own terms, understanding what the attempt is, and decide whether or not the attempt is successful. In my estimation, C. S. Lewis, for the most part, is a panderer, believing it necessary not because he is a gnostic but because he believes he's smarter than everybody else.

I recognize that there are many people who come away from Lewis moved, touched, awed, and given a different perspective, and I respect that. I also ask that I not be told I'm "grumpy" because I think he's shallow, condescending, and at times doesn't get what Christianity is all about. Whether it's The Four Loves dissing of eroticism, or The Screwtape Letters formulaic, predictable reliance on legendary imagery rather than a serious, Biblically based analysis of the problem of evil, or whatever, I just come away wondering what all the fuss is about. Not only am I entitled to my opinion, I have good, rational reasons for them that have nothing to do with any alleged standards that I, in fact, do not have.

Furthermore, I never once said that I thought Lewis should not be read, be ignored, provided no spiritual solace to anyone ever. I would never say that. I was venturing my estimation and my reaction to his writings, based on my own experience of reading them. Apparently this "discussion" does not include the possibility that some people just don't "get" Lewis.
 
Ha. As you said, "Lighten up."

The discussion -- and you really are miusing scare quotes today hee hee -- was about this:

"Do not confuse Repentance with Disgust: for the one comes from the Landlord and the other from the Enemy."

Not your opinion of the writer and his entire body of work. Since you asked. Pbpbpbpbbpbpbpth!!
 
Except, I gave my opinion of that sentence. You seemed to make a point of pointing out my aside concerning Lewis, which was hardly worthy of note.

Creating an entire thread, about my alleged grumpiness? Harrumph!!
 
I always thought that the "Four Loves" had one of the most memorable examples in Christian literature.
Lewis equated the first love to finding a men's room in New York City when in dire need. I have forgot most else of what was said, but that image has come up a number of times over the years, culminating in an appreciation of his insight upon relief.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?