XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis   
   From: bree@bree.com   
      
   On 8 Oct 2005 09:20:29 GMT, Siwel Naph  wrote:   
      
   >Bree wrote:   
   >   
   >>>Why is MC silent on what are (to me) very important things like   
   >>>persecution of other Christians, cruel laws, freedom of conscience,   
   >>>etc but eloquent on (to me) very-but-less important things like   
   >>>doctrine?   
      
   Iirc he often talked about doctrine being less important than practice in   
   general. Doctrine just happened to be what HE was qualified to write about.   
   MC wasn't a matter of telling people what to believe. It was telling people   
   what the main common-factor doctrines of the churches  were, and making a   
   logical case for those doctrines being true or at least not illogical, so   
   that people wouldn't reject Christianity out of hand as a bunch of   
   superstitious nonsense (or make an effort to believe something thinking it   
   was orthodox when it wasn't, or think they did believe Ch when all they had   
   was a watered down version, or something).   
      
   Except for the main doctrine about us all being sinners, and the situation   
   being hopeless and needing faith and repentence; first chapter or so of MC.   
   That seems to be a doctrine that (if true) would really need to be better   
   known. :-)   
      
   He and Sayers and GKC often talked about doctrine being more important than   
   many of their contemporaries thought it was. He never said it was more   
   important than practice, especially such basic practices as mercy,   
   non-cruelty, etc.   
      
      
   >> Lewis said (in OHEL iirc) "Things need to be treated at length, not in   
   >> so far as they are great, but in so far as they are complicated."   
   >   
   >But did he ever treat them elsewhere? And did he agree that one was more   
   >important than the other in the order I've given?   
      
    I think he took that for granted in many places.   
      
   Re 'freedom of conscience' see STUDIES IN WORDS chapter on   
   'Conscience/Conscious'; then see OXFORD HISTORY OF ENGLISH LIT IN THE 16th   
   CENTURY.   
      
   I don't recall him settling down to the topic. There's the 'robber baron'   
   passage which strongly condemns Inquisitors as doing evil with the approval   
   of their own conscience, seeing their better impulses (eg mercy) as   
   'temptations', etc.  And condemns the whole idea of Theocracy because of   
   risk of this. I'm sure there are other equally strong mentions, tho I don't   
   recall any very long ones.   
      
   Occasionally he settles down for half a page or so to defend people such as   
   some of those who believed in executing witches, on the grounds that their   
   error was of fact (believing in devil-dealing quislings) rather than of   
   morality (how to treat quislings).  But he was always defending some   
   unpopular point or other.   
      
      
   >>>Why is MC silent on what are (to me) very important things like   
   >>>persecution of other Christians, cruel laws, freedom of conscience,   
   >>>etc but eloquent on (to me) very-but-less important things like   
   >>>doctrine?   
   >>   
   >> How could he talk about persecution in MC, when obviously many   
   >> Christians have done it, and many now oppose it? He was talking about   
   >> things Christians have AGREED on (through the ages), not about things   
   >> they have disagreed on.   
   >   
   >Okay, but he was missing a step in the logic,   
      
   How so?   
      
   >unless he thought   
   >persecution, cruel laws etc were just a matter of "taste": one Mere   
   >Christian society might find them palatable, another not.   
      
   As for 'cruel' laws, in the sense of 'cruel and unusual punishment', I'm   
   afraid that's true: it is a matter of culture. The same societies that gave   
   painful punishment for religious crimes, also gave terrible punishment for   
   shoplifting, violation of dress codes.... Some future society may think we   
   were barbaric for putting people in jail for white-collar crimes; past   
   societies might think we're crazy for ever letting murderers out, or not   
   just executing them in the first place.   
      
      
   >>>I can understand it if correct doctrine is essential to ensure people   
   >>>get to heaven, as some MCs have believed. But that isn't part of MC:   
   >>>Lewis himself didn't accept that.   
   >>   
   >> But he wasn't pushing his personal opinions on disputed topics. He was   
   >> talking about the undisputed topics.   
   >   
   >Yes, but why are persecution, cruel laws etc disputed?   
      
   He left them out because they WERE disputed in the past. As you said, he   
   was talking about all Christians from St Paul to now. It wasn't up to him   
   to talk about why persecution was accepted then but not now. Culture, I'd   
   say, and I think this seems to have been his view. (As you say, we may be   
   missing some other points that the earlier ages had right; Lewis seems to   
   have often thought so. :-)   
      
   > Is it not clear that they are wrong?   
      
   Not clear to everyone in all cultures.  There are practices and beliefs   
   that even most of our liberals would 'persecute' -- ie the sort of   
   practices and beliefes that kill usenet threads. :-)  Different ages have   
   different views about what practices and beliefs fall into that category,   
   and about what responses to them are 'cruel and unusual'.   
      
      
   > Unless, as I said, correct doctrine was essential   
   >for heaven... which Lewis did not believe.   
      
   No, tho I think he thought it helped. :-)  Anyway, in most churches there   
   is much help toward good practice; and mistaken ideas about what doctrines   
   churches  believe, can make people reject churches altogether.   
      
   /snip/   
      
   >>   
   >>>and some Mere X's would be uniformly bad.   
   /snip/   
   >   
   >I meant that all worlds espousing something like "Mere Nazism" or "Mere   
   >Stalinism" would be bad, tho some would be worse than others.   
      
   Ok. So, are you looking at a one and only MC  wardrobe world, including   
   everyone from St. Paul to current Christians?  Vs a one and only Buddhist   
   wardrobe world, including everyone from Gautama to current Buddhists?   
      
   In that case -- just clone this world, and subtract all the non-Christians*   
    from one and all the non-Buddhists from the other. :-)  That's what Lewis   
   meant by his MC: common beliefs of all the actual Christian leaders through   
   the ages.   
      
   The main difference I suppose is that there would be no 'outside enemy' to   
   focus attention on. Some of each side would settle down and stop the arms   
   race, so to speak; missionaries' occupation gone. Others on each side would   
   look to other Christian denominations for new enemies; it would just depend   
   on the person's temperament. Even now we see some groups criticizing the   
   RC's as tho trying to convert people away from them. (See also L. M.   
   Montgomery's AVONLEA books, about an innocent Christian village in Canada   
   around 1890, where the Methodists used to debate whether the Presbyterians   
   were even going to Heaven. :-) Even in the mildest tea-party, some people   
   will find room for a tempest. :-)   
      
   I think there are still quite a lot of small US towns that don't happen to   
   have any non-Christians in them. It would just be like that, all over the   
   world, I suppose. Unless you want to mix in all the Christians of all past   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)