On August 6 Lewis returned to the
Kilns from The Acland Nursing Home. Warnie was still away, a male nurse was
hired, and Jack’s bedroom was moved downstairs since the doctors forbade him
from climbing stairs. Walter Hooper continued to assist Lewis in his
correspondence and other affairs. Lewis resigned his professorship at Cambridge.
On August 8, 1963 Lewis writes to
Miss Harlan:
“The other passage (‘He who has
not the Son’) [1 John 5:12] must mean, I think, he who wholly lacks the Spirit
of the Son. Those who do not recognize Him as the Son of God may nevertheless
‘have’ Him in a saving sense – as the ‘Sheep’ had in the parable of the sheep
and goats. [Matthew 25:31-46].
“I could write you a better
letter if I were not ill.” [This letter was apparently dictated by Lewis to
Hooper and signed by Lewis.]
On August 10, 1963 Hooper writes
to Mary Willis Shelburne:
“I am Professor C.S. Lewis’s
secretary writing to tell you some of the facts of Professor Lewis’s present
state of health…
“Professor Lewis regrets that he
is unable at this time (and probably for a long time) to answer your letters.
He is much concerned for you and prays that you may have courage for whatever
may be yours both in the present and future.”
I include the letter to Shelburne
in this post because it reflects Lewis’s concern and faithfulness to his
long-time correspondent. The letter to Harlan is included because it shows
Lewis picking up the pen (via dictation) two days after returning home to
answer questions regarding Scripture and Christ, as well as giving insight into
Lewis’s approach to Scripture.
My sense of Lewis is that where Mere Christianity is concerned (the
essentials of the Christian faith that Christians of all times and in all
places generally agree upon) that his approach is tight and clearly defined. Where
matters beyond Mere Christianity are
concerned Lewis, as it seems to me, gives room to various approaches, thoughts,
interpretations, and applications. Hence he writes, “The other passage…must
mean, I think…” Earlier in his letter to Harlan Lewis writes:
“But whether confession here
means auricular confession to a priest or pastor or confession to the human
parties whom one has offended or simply confession before God in the heart is,
I suppose, one of those points on which
Christian authority has given different answers in different times and places.”
[Italics mine].
This is, in my thinking, a fair
representation of Lewis’s approach to many questions of doctrine and practice –
an acknowledgement that historically and presently we live in a large Kingdom
with a rich (and sometimes not so rich) tapestry of thought. Lewis tends to
honor various Christian traditions, indeed, as he tends to respect all
traditions, and it appears that Lewis allowed plenty of room for mystery, for
questions, for possibilities – the one thing he was not likely to do was to
say, “The interpretation and application of this passage must be this way; it is my way or the highway.” Again, I’m writing
about his approach to things beyond Mere
Christianity.
On the other hand, Lewis could be
polemic and tightly weave arguments on philosophical and literary questions,
which by extension were Christian questions (informed by Christianity) – the
body of his published work does exactly this. And of course, his writings about
Mere Christianity, which range from
the Space Trilogy to Narnia to Miracles to the Problem of
Pain are anything but nebulous – though again mystery is present is many of
his works; he acknowledges (I think) whether overtly or by implication that we
just don’t know everything, that we simply don’t know how all the pieces of
God’s plan for the ages fit together.
Lewis’s approach disturbs some
people, and many who use Lewis’s work apologetically don’t know him well enough
to know that their rigid attitudes toward other Christians are the antithesis
of Lewis’s approach; nor do they often know that their attitudes toward other
religions and philosophies and histories lack the grace and thoughtfulness that
Lewis bore toward others. Then there are those who hijack Lewis to promote
political agendas, while Lewis did have political thoughts, my sense is that he
knew that politics was not the “main thing” in life.
The pastoral Lewis (if you will),
the Lewis who answered the questions of his many correspondents, both high and
low, was (to me) a Lewis who gave people room to grow, to think, to explore –
he was a man of grace. And why not? For I think that he was a man who knew
about grace and forgiveness – who knew about pain and joy – who knew that one
could be oh so wrong – but who also knew of Christ’s amazing love and mercy.
And remember, Lewis did not come to Christ via argument per se, he came to
Christ by responding to beauty, to desire, to the transcendent; he was not
convinced by argument, he was surprised
by joy.
No comments:
Post a Comment