“You will find this again and again about anything that is
really Christian: every one is attracted by bits of it and wants to pick out
those bits and leave the rest. That is why we do not get much further: and that is why people
who are fighting for quite opposite things can both say they are fighting for
Christianity.”
—C. S. Lewis
C. S. Lewis has become, in the last few decades, a hero and
model for many within the North American Evangelical community. This was not
always the case. Lewis was, for most of his life, a Classical and Medieval
scholar, and, as such, Roman Catholics and High Church Anglicans were fond of
him. It was not until the late 1950s that Lewis began to appeal to the
Evangelicals in North America. By this time, Lewis was coming to the end of his
life.
When Clyde Kilby of Wheaton College (the Vatican of North
American Evangelicals) visited Lewis in the late 1950s, he was quite taken by
what Lewis had to say. Wheaton soon became a centre of Lewis’s thought. The
Americanization of Lewis by North American Evangelicals did much to both
popularize and distort Lewis’s insights and perspectives. It was just a matter
of time before Lewis became a key figure in the renewal of American republican
thought.
We have always had culture wars with us, and the political
right, left and centre have, each in their time and turn, held high their view
of what religion, culture and society should look like if the good life is to
be understood and lived. This is where Lewis can still speak to us today.
There is no doubt we live in the midst of intense culture
wars, and political correctness is there for one and all to see. It cannot be
missed by the alert and attentive. The political right tends to hold high the
importance of traditional family values, clear and distinct gender roles, crime
and punishment for those who break the law, a strong state to deal with
violence from without and within, the death penalty when needed, a strong and
pronounced pro-life position, a market economy and a lighter state when it
comes to health care and public education and culture. The political left tends
to hold high the importance of individual choice in such issues as gender
roles, alternate family values, affirmative action, abortion and a more
interventionist and distributivist state in the areas of health care, public
education and culture. In short, the left and right do hike in different
directions in the culture wars. Tribalism does dominate; and many is the
chieftain who beats the drum for either the right, left or sensible centre.
And, Christians can be found in all clans in the culture wars.
There are many who see C. S. Lewis as a committed apologist
for the political right in the culture wars. But, can Lewis be read in this
way? Is this read of Lewis (and many of the Inklings) more of an American
appropriation of Lewis? The best way to test this is to hear and heed Lewis.
Lewis gave the BBC lectures in the early 1940s, and they
were published as separate lectures at that time. The lectures were published
as Mere Christianity in 1952. Lewis’s
lecture on “Social Morality” in Mere
Christianity goes straight to the heart and core of this article. Lewis
makes it clear in these lectures that Christianity seems to be on the political
left, at times, and on the political right, at other times. The problem, for
many Christians, is this: they pick and choose what they want and ignore what
they do not approve of. This is what Lewis means when he says many Christians
pick the pieces they like and discard what offends them. And, this is why
Christians are at odds when they think about Christian social morality.
Lewis seems to be on the political right when he argues that
Christian social morality is about a more traditional view of the family. This
means, for Lewis, that men have their role to play, as do women. Children
within such a framework and frame of reference stand within an order of being
in their ongoing development. Each honours and respects the role of the other
in this social structure. Needless to say, such a view of the family, gender
and the role of children fits hand and glove with the political right.
Lewis seems to be on the political left when he suggests
that Christian social morality has a place for trade unions, interest (usury)
is the death knell to a healthy and just community, each and all should share
generously, and affluence and advertisements for the unnecessary things in life
should be questioned. Lewis was quick to admit that Christian social morality
in the area of economics leans towards the left and a socialist perspective. He
realizes Christians on the political right will not be pleased by this
position, but he also realizes this is the Christian position.
Lewis concludes his article on “Social Morality” by
suggesting that those on the political left will think Lewis has not gone far
enough down the leftist path and trail, and those on the political right will
argue he has gone much too far down such a trail and path. Lewis, as I
mentioned above, opposed those who picked and chose from the Christian moral
position what delighted them and ignored what did not please them. He suggested
that until Christians were faithful and true to a more integrated and
consistent ethic they would forever be divided.
C. S. Lewis was much too nimble a thinker to be taken in by
the culture wars of his time, and I suspect (were he alive today), he would be
much too sharp to be taken in by the politics of the right, left and centre of
our time. Lewis saw good in each of these positions, but he was wary of being
taken in by any of them. The left, right and centre had much to contribute to
social morality, but when any of these positions idealized their own stance
while ignoring the good in the other, they became uncritical ideologues.
A thoughtful read through “Social Morality” in Mere Christianity will clearly
demonstrate that Lewis had a mind that could not be co-opted by the politics of
the political right, left or centre, and, as such, he transcended the tribalism
of the culture wars of his time. It is in this sense that there needs to be a
revisionist read of Lewis that removes him from both the American evangelical
ethos and American republican politics. “Social Morality” is a good place to
begin a revisionist reread of Lewis. There are many other articles, books and
tales well told that could further this task.
rsd