XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis, alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, rec.arts.books   
   From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   An Eastern Orthodox Appreciation of C.S. Lewis by Richard Barrett   
      
   February 17, 2015 by Guest Author Leave a Comment   
      
   Today’s guest post is authored by Richard Barrett, Fellow in Residence   
   at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, MA,   
   where he is completing his Ph.D. dissertation (History, Indiana   
   University), “Civic Devotions to the Mother of God in Late Antique   
   Constantinople.” He is also active as a church musician, having sung   
   recently with both Cappella Romana and the Choir of the Patriarch   
   Tikhon Russian American Music Institute. He is also Artistic Director   
   of The Saint John of Damascus Society, a sacred arts nonprofit that   
   supports educational and outreach efforts related to the music of the   
   Eastern Orthodox Church.   
      
   * * *   
   Lewis the ‘Anonymous Orthodox?’   
      
   C. S. Lewis represents a dilemma for Anglophone Orthodox readers. It   
   is tempting for some to claim him as a fellow traveler, an “anonymous   
   Orthodox.”   
      
   On the one hand, as one of the most popular and widely-read Christian   
   apologists of the twentieth century—to say nothing of the author of   
   the beloved Narnia books—he bears a lovable, yet authoritative,   
   avuncularity; as a result he is able to speak complicated truths with   
   a devastating and sophisticated simplicity that is accessible to all   
   audiences.   
      
   In terms of doctrine, Lewis’ discussion of the atonement in terms of   
   ransom is in line with the thought of Eastern Fathers like Gregory of   
   Nyssa and Athanasius. In addition, Orthodox may find his arguments   
   that Christianity is explicitly and intentionally prefigured by   
   paganism resonant and helpful; certainly, those Orthodox who read his   
   earliest apologetic work, The Pilgrim’s Regress, will likely be struck   
   by the path of John towards what looks to be a very recognizable   
   sacramental Christianity, complete with the apparent voice of God   
   telling the protagonist, “…was there any age in any land when men did   
   not know that corn and wine were the blood and body of a dying and yet   
   living God?”   
      
   On the other hand, there are elements of Lewis’ apologetics that   
   Orthodox will perhaps find troubling; his reductionist “mere   
   Christianity” with its ecclesiology of convenience, for example, and   
   his marginalization of the Virgin Mary.   
   A Man for Every Room   
      
   To be sure, Lewis is a figure many would claim.   
      
   Obviously American Evangelicals want to see him as one of their own.   
   Joseph Pearce, a Catholic biographer, attempted to tease out the   
   extent to which Lewis could be seen as an ally of the Catholic Church   
   in the book C. S. Lewis and the Catholic Church (Ignatius Press,   
   2003). In terms of Orthodox Christianity, it’s clear that Lewis had   
   some amount of sympathy and affection; he participated in the   
   Oxford-based Orthodox-Anglican ecumenical organization, The Fellowship   
   of Ss. Alban and Sergius, and he wrote fondly about attending Orthodox   
   churches when he traveled to Greece. This sympathy and affection is   
   eagerly seized upon by some Orthodox writers, particularly given that   
   at that time some believed that communion between Anglicans and   
   Orthodox was certain and pending. As with Catholicism, however, Lewis’   
   apparent belief that the Church of England’s claim to apostolic   
   succession was sufficient and therefore the default option for an   
   “ordinary layman” like himself was not to be shaken.   
   Between Lewis and Schmemann   
      
   Much of this is well-covered territory; what has generated much less   
   discussion are parallels between Lewis and contemporary Orthodox   
   voices. One such example might be this oft-quoted passage from Mere   
   Christianity:   
      
       Hope is one of the Theological virtues. This means that a   
   continual looking forward to the eternal world is not (as some modern   
   people think) a form of escapism or wishful thinking, but one of the   
   things a Christian is meant to do. It does not mean that we are to   
   leave the present world as it is. If you read history you will find   
   that the Christians who did most for the present world were just those   
   who thought most of the next. The Apostles themselves, who set on foot   
   the conversion of the Roman Empire, the great men who built up the   
   Middle Ages, the English Evangelicals who abolished the Slave Trade,   
   all left their mark on Earth, precisely because their minds were   
   occupied with Heaven. It is since Christians have largely ceased to   
   think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this.   
   Aim at Heaven and you will get earth ‘thrown in’: aim at earth and you   
   will get neither. It seems a strange rule, but something like it can   
   be seen at work in other matters. Health is a great blessing, but the   
   moment you make health one of your main, direct objects you start   
   becoming a crank and imagining there is something wrong with you. You   
   are only likely to get health provided you want other things   
   more–food, games, work, fun, open air. In the same way, we shall never   
   save civilisation as long as civilisation is our main object. We must   
   learn to want something else even more. —Mere Christianity 3.10   
      
   Compare this with Fr. Alexander Schmemann, a much-admired   
   English-language scholar and apologist in the Russian Orthodox Church   
   who was roughly contemporary with Lewis:   
      
       Christian love is sometimes the opposite of ‘social activism’ with   
   which one so often identifies Christianity today. To a ‘social   
   activist’ the object of love is not ‘person’ but man, an abstract unit   
   of a not less abstract ‘humanity.’ But for Christianity, man is   
   ‘lovable’ because he isperson. There person is reduced to man; here   
   man is seen only as person. The ‘social activist’ has no interest for   
   the personal, and easily sacrifices it to the ‘common interest.’   
   Christianity may seem to be, and in some ways actually is, rather   
   sceptical about that abstract ‘humanity,’ but it commits a mortal sin   
   against itself each time it gives up its concern and love for the   
   person. Social activism is always ‘futuristic’ in its approach; it   
   always acts in the name of justice, order, happiness to come, to be   
   achieved. Christianity cares little about that problematic future but   
   puts the whole emphasis on the now–the only decisive time for love.   
   The two attitudes are not mutually exclusive, but they must not be   
   confused. Christians, to be sure, have responsibilities toward ‘this   
   world’ and they must fulfill them. This is the area of ‘social   
   activism’ which belongs entirely to ‘this world.’ Christian love,   
   however, aims beyond ‘this world.’ It is itself a ray, a manifestation   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)