Yesterday, I linked to two posts here and here that suggested that Christians, especially evangelicals, read Clive Staples Lewis with a critical gaze.
Yesterday as well, Brian LePort even commented that,
“Lewis has mistakenly been used as a sort of “Bible answer man”. This is not the best way to approach him. Rather, I think he is a worthy dialogue partner and one who spurns the imagination. Also, he provides a good example of lay contribution in that it doesn’t always have to be the professional scholars that give the answers.”
Today, LePort has written post on the five reasons why he personally reads C.S. Lewis, as opposed to, you know, reading his work in public, something like a dirty little secret.
While I can see why Lewis would have an appeal to so many Christians, including PJ’s very own Optymyst. However, I think I take issue with excusing Lewis’s lack of historical accuracy, especially when it comes to the peace witness of the early Church in the name of saying “well he was a product of his time.” Certainly there were Quakers and pacifists in his day, and even one Congresswoman I believe who voted against both World Wars, so there existed an alternative perspective. Just because the majority believes something is necessary (say, war), does not make it so. Yes, we can understand a person in their context, and that is truly a good thing; but there is another case of the facts, and for a person to eschew the facts (in this case, Lewis’s use of the patristics to justify his just war position), and for that, Lewis should not get off scot-free.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Brian LePort on Why He (Personally) Reads C.S. Lewis | Political Jesus -- Topsy.com
Ha! “Something like a dirty little secret.” Nice.