C.S. Lewis College Buys Campus
The dream begins. I visited with the people behind this recently and am extremely excited. Wonderful, raving, gigantic thanks to the Hobby Lobby people for backing the great men and women of the C.S. Lewis Foundation.
Read more here. Be sure to watch the video, too.
This is very, very good. I am so thankful for the dreamers and the workers who make wonderful projects like this into realities.
December 16th, 2009 | 2:22 pm | #1
This is such exciting news!
December 16th, 2009 | 2:30 pm | #2
Okay I totally laughed at your title! I really did! I think this is a great idea.
December 16th, 2009 | 2:52 pm | #3
I like C.S. Lewis’s works as well. I think they’re terrific.
But I kid you not, there is a segment of conservative Protestantism who are not enamored with C.S. Lewis, not at all, and who even wonder whether he was a Christian.
It seems to me, and I could be really wrong since it’s just my limited vantage point, but there seems to be a correlation between those opposed to C.S. Lewis and those opposed to the co-belligerency agreement between RC’s, EO’s, and Protestants in the Manhattan Declaration.
December 16th, 2009 | 3:26 pm | #4
Lord willing, one day I will be a professor there. Better yet, the college gets so big that a West Coast branch is started in North County San Diego. I will teach there and come home every day to my wife, six kids, and multiple dogs. On the weekends I’ll surf, and on many evenings I’ll fish.
Hey, I can dream, can’t I?
December 16th, 2009 | 3:29 pm | #5
TUAD should get some kind of award for being able to bring up the Manhattan Declaration in more posts than any other commenter.
When do we get to the point where we can also sing the Strawman Theme for him.
;)
December 16th, 2009 | 3:32 pm | #6
Mark Lamprecht,
I joyfully signed the Manhattan Declaration.
December 16th, 2009 | 3:49 pm | #7
TUAD said
You’re kidding? You keep talking about signing the MD, but I’ve yet to see any proof. ;)
December 16th, 2009 | 4:02 pm | #8
It’s funny that one can say one enjoys Lewis’ writing, reads the Narnia books with his kids, but is deeply troubled by the end of The Last Battle, and that becomes both a referendum on Lewis’ state of salvation and the MD.
Hunter: write a post about socks. I want to see if TUAD can make that into a thread about the MD.
December 16th, 2009 | 4:09 pm | #9
I am opposed to socks before marriage and so can joyfully support the MD.
December 16th, 2009 | 4:15 pm | #10
I’m aware, and Hunter Baker might be aware of it too, but there are Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox members who are keen on what C.S. Lewis termed “Mere Christianity”.
And from this “Mere Christianity” platform which C.S. Lewis constructed, these Protestant, RC, and EO Christians have joined together in cultural co-belligerency, and from which the Manhattan Declaration is a specific expression of it.
If I’m not mistaken, Hunter Baker has also signed the Manhattan Declaration.
December 16th, 2009 | 4:22 pm | #11
So it’s relevant to this post?
Sounds like maybe a review of the problem of the dwarves needs to be reviewed by certain reconstructor of what it means to be “co-belligerant”.
December 16th, 2009 | 4:29 pm | #12
I tried to sign the MD just for fun, but I couldn’t find a pen or pencil that would write on my monitor.
TUAD, are you sure you signed it? :)
December 16th, 2009 | 4:38 pm | #13
Derailed topic is derailed.
December 16th, 2009 | 4:58 pm | #14
I signed it. But GUYS, QUIT HARSHING MY BUZZ, MAN!
December 16th, 2009 | 5:06 pm | #15
TUAD,
I, too, appreciate the MD. But you’re just not doing your cause any good anymore.
Let’s don’t jump on Frank Turk because he doesn’t like the MD. This is a C.S. Lewis post. Let’s jump on him because he doesn’t like C.S. Lewis.
Scratch that. Let’s don’t jump on anybody. For anything. At least until Epiphany has come and gone. That’s my proposal.
Disclaimer: Nothing said in this comment should be construed as intending to convey a true representation Frank Turk’s likes or dislikes of anything or anyone in any way whatsoever. Amen.
December 16th, 2009 | 5:14 pm | #16
Hunter –
Waitamimininit: you signed the MD and then you went on WHI with Michael Horton who refused to sign it? And you didn’t bring any torches and pitchforks?
When will the madness end? It’s like we need a savior or something … good thing it’s Christmas.
BTW, I like CS Lewis. I’d ask him to reconsider the ending on one book.
December 16th, 2009 | 5:16 pm | #17
Frank,
I’m with you, man. Screwtape Letters totally should have ended with the Piercing The Darkness crossover.
December 16th, 2009 | 5:17 pm | #18
Blergh. That’s “a” crossover, not “the” crossover.
December 16th, 2009 | 5:20 pm | #19
[...searches for the "clown" button ...]
December 16th, 2009 | 5:22 pm | #20
JMR –
It’s socks and violins I cannot abide. Therefore, I respectfully decline.
December 16th, 2009 | 6:38 pm | #21
Well, to be fair, Michael Horton and I had our conversation before the MD was signed. The broadcast wasn’t live.
I probably would never have allowed that fine gentleman to help me sell books if I’d known he wouldn’t sign the document! :-)
December 16th, 2009 | 6:39 pm | #22
At the risk of causing people to scream “Silent Night,” may I address Mr Turk:
From what I understand, Lewis based his entire philosophy of speaking about Christianity in terms of what he called “mere Christianity”: “It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.” This mere Christianity is “divided from all non-Christian beliefs by a chasm to which the worst divisions inside Christendom are not really comparable at all.”
From what you have said in recent threads, you would disagree, would you not? You would not include RC or EO within Lewis’ “Christendom.” And if, as you have said, his mere Christianity ambiguates the Gospel, then is TUAD really so far off his nut in comment #3? (I probably am, to ask!) Does it not follow that we must question the salvation of one who promulgates such ambiguation of the Gospel (as an Anglican proponent, no less?) More so than, say, a Presbyterian in good standing? And question altogether the benefit of his writings? Or are the problems inherent in the MC and the AC not on the order of those of the RCs or EOs?
Seems to me your objections to Lewis’ writings go a little farther than the ending of one book.
(I beg your patience — this is an honest question, and I’m fully aware that I may just be a big dope.)
(humming to myself…)
December 16th, 2009 | 6:50 pm | #23
“But I kid you not, there is a segment of conservative Protestantism who are not enamored with C.S. Lewis, not at all, and who even wonder whether he was a Christian.”
The same folks who believe that King James was a Regular Baptist. :-) (If you don’t know, a “regular Baptist” is a Baptist who takes Metamucil.
:-))
December 16th, 2009 | 7:21 pm | #24
Can I just say one thing? In the beginning of Mere Christianity, CS Lewis makes the claim that he is writing a basic book. He states that many denominations/traditions will have trouble with things he leaves out. I specifically recall that he states that Catholics will say that he does not say enough about Mary. He also says that mere Christianity can be compared to a front hallway, but that you can’t stay in that hallway too long–you need to find a room in a house in which to get warm (you need to find a church to attend).
I think CS Lewis provides a wonderful introduction to Christianity, and I am a fan of his–but as informed Christians, we need to explore our faith further and make deeper inquiries, or else we are going to have an immature faith.
And this college that is being proposed states that it will be a place where people can discuss and have a dialogue about Christianity–Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants will be welcome–and I think that is a great thing for mature adults.
December 16th, 2009 | 9:22 pm | #25
If I post a list of questions with answers again, will I be molested for arrogance, insolence, shallowness, stupidity and all manner of evil, or is it sufficient that the questions have (again) been asked and that’s enough to prove that TUAD speaks for me, and I am just a bad man?
December 16th, 2009 | 9:26 pm | #26
And I go back to my question: why does Colson not treat objectors to the MD the way TUAD does? Why can Ligon Duncan be serious and committed to what he did but treat his theological friends with civility and TUAD cannot? Ditto Al Mohler vs. TUAD?
December 16th, 2009 | 10:45 pm | #27
You want to hear something both silly and a little pathetic? At one time in my Christian life, I refused to read anything by C.S. Lewis (one of my favorite authors now, I should say) because I knew he smoked a pipe and drank beer.
Obviously not a follower of the True Gospel.
December 16th, 2009 | 10:47 pm | #28
And don’t harsh my buzz, either. (I am so totally going to steal that.)
December 16th, 2009 | 10:59 pm | #29
Craig,
May I join you among the ranks of the silly and pathetic…over a beer and pipe?
(although it never stopped me reading him)
Word has it that Lewis still refuses to sign the MD (joyfully even)…I just don’t get it.
Must be the beer.
December 16th, 2009 | 11:05 pm | #30
We recently finished going through Mere Christianity in my SS class. Honestly, it wasn’t very enjoyable for me. I did appreciate the chance to evaluate Lewis’ positions from Scripture and talk through issues.
Oh, and I’m a non-MD signer. :)
December 16th, 2009 | 11:10 pm | #31
“Word has it that Lewis still refuses to sign the MD (joyfully even)…I just don’t get it.”
No need for the MD, where he is. :)
December 16th, 2009 | 11:44 pm | #32
Yes, Mark, but are you a JOYFUL non-signer?
December 17th, 2009 | 12:05 am | #33
At the risk of appearing pathetic, I want to know: is my question really that stupid? Mr. Turk, I understand your frustration. But I also beg your (or anyone else’s) mercy — what is it that I’m not getting? Where do we draw the line on where the non-Gospel of the non-Gospeling mere Christians causes trouble? Who is in mere Christian communion and who is not? If a person’s gospel is too ambiguous, should we even be reading him or her? How do we decide which, if any, takeaways (of Lewis’ or any other self-professing mere Christian’s or mere-Christian-plus’ pronouncements) are worthwhile? I’m sorry to be having such a time getting my head around what you’re saying — I want to understand. I really do. Unless there’s nothing to understand and you are truly not consistent. Which it seems like to me, but I would like to be wrong. Hence my (hopefully not too obnoxious) pestering.
Or just please point me to where you already gave the answer to my question. Thank you :-)
(putting away the hammer now)
December 17th, 2009 | 12:19 am | #34
Daryl, I am a joyful non-signer AND I joyfully did not sign. :)
December 17th, 2009 | 12:25 am | #35
Bonnie, I’m not sure you’ve made the case that Frank (and others) are not consistent. You’ve made some assertions and then asked why Frank is not consistent.
The situations you asked about are not exactly the same from scenario to scenario. Do you agree?
December 17th, 2009 | 7:11 am | #36
Now, about CS Lewis College. . . .
December 17th, 2009 | 8:25 am | #37
Dear Bonnie: No, your question is not stupid, but no, you are not going to get a satisfactory answer. If you have the patience for the very extensive discussion/argument/cage-wrestling tournament, you might look under “Older Posts” for the threads “Becoming Christian” (read that one first) and then “An Interview with the Devil Himself.”
December 17th, 2009 | 8:28 am | #38
Segue back to C.S. Lewis? Why, yes, of course: I read somewhere that he also was involved in cage-wrestling tournaments. Tolkien had the slight advantage, though (that whole Beowulf vibe).
December 17th, 2009 | 9:25 am | #39
Now, about CS Lewis College. . . .
I bet they’re going to have the hadns down best chapter of the Society for Creative Anachronism in the whole country.
December 17th, 2009 | 9:28 am | #40
“If you don’t know, a “regular Baptist” is a Baptist who takes Metamucil.”
Isn’t there a General Association of Generally Irregular Baptists somewhere?
December 17th, 2009 | 10:13 am | #41
link to this comment
Mark, on Mr. Carter’s post, “Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience,” Mr. Turk commented, “What if I agree with the morals of this document but think it makes a false appeal to the Gospel? That is: what if I think that the Gospel is the solution to these issues but is not defined by these issues?”
Then in his post, “I Respectfully Decline,” he says of the MD: “I agree with the morals of the document but think this documents and others like it obscure the Gospel. Collin, my co-blogger here at Evangel, didn’t see what I meant (prolly because I didn’t explain a lick of it), so I’m going to give an apologia for myself here and hope that it makes something like good sense.” (I couldn’t find Collin’s comment.) Then he says, of the following MD text: “We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image., “the reason that distinction ['Evangelical'] exists is in complete denial of the italicized text.” Later, “When we substitute the phrase ‘with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image’ for the phrase ‘to proclaim and thereafter live by the Gospel of Jesus Christ’ we have…obscured the necessary and central fact of the Gospel by overlooking the irreconcilable differences between [EVs, RCs, and EOs] by calling all of these groups ‘believers’ in a rather indiscriminate way…By obscuring that line, the Gospel is obscured — because the actual consequences of the Gospel are obscured.”
In a gracious response to me in comments to his “Interview With the Devil” post (#82), Mr. Turk said, “the way the Gospel is defined by EO, RC and EV are three distinct things which cannot be reconciled. The MD makes it clear that this issue is not a central matter in defining who is and is not a “believer”. That is: the definition of the Gospel is incidental to defining the Christian faith, not central…The question is about how this document positions the Gospel relative to its necessity in defining what is and is not Christian.” Further, of C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity,” he says (#83), “Mere Christianity ambiguates the Gospel.” All this is consistent.
But then I ask, if this be true, and what he believes, and it is bad for unbelievers (and believers) to obscure the Gospel, then why is Mr. Turk going relatively easy on Lewis’ books and the founding of a C. S. Lewis college? Lewis stood for, and wrote under, the very thing which Mr. Turk says ambiguates and obscures the Gospel. If it matters when signing a “Call of Christian Conscience,” why is he not expressing concern over reading Lewis’ books to his children or the founding of a C. S. Lewis college?
Further, if Mr. Turk believes, as per his “Interview” post, that “not one denomination in the history of the world ever could lay claim to a ‘pure’ Gospel,” but that there is one, and all Christians must seek this pure Gospel as the solution to the “culture of themselves,” and that “nobody is a finished product,” including himself, then…is he also saying that, as far as the MD goes, the EV gospel is as wrong as the RC and the EO? Or simply that, given their differences, they can’t all be right? And how does he know he’s right that the MD and MC ambiguate and obscure the gospel, if he himself is not a “finished product”? How can he speak somewhat condescendingly, “Gosh, that’s frustrating to hear someone ask that question! It’s like they aren’t listening at all” (from “Interview”) if he left room for question at the beginning: “I’m going to give an apologia for myself here and hope that it makes something like good sense”?
December 17th, 2009 | 10:17 am | #42
P.S. I would say that the “pure Gospel” that Mr. Turk describes in his “Interview…” post is Mere Christianity.
December 17th, 2009 | 10:46 am | #43
This entire thing has been one of the most egregious instances of threadjacking that I have ever seen.
December 17th, 2009 | 11:11 am | #44
Do you think CSL College will serve beer in the student center?
December 17th, 2009 | 11:22 am | #45
Dr. Baker, you are right. Even though, for some reason, I find myself chuckling, I’m sorry for participating in the high-jacking.
So Bonnie, I’m sorry I can’t ask you if you are stalking Frank ;-) online and what not. Nor, that I can’t ask how you can’t see the difference between signing a document with doctrinal implications vs. reading/recommending a particular book or two.
December 17th, 2009 | 12:42 pm | #46
I’d love to answer these questions. Will I be lynched as a self-involved person with a low intellectual ability and a poor writer for doing so?
Let me know, and I’ll choose my poison.
Hunter: Sorry ’bout this, dude. Joe should have warned you that this is what happens when you blog on a blog where I blog.
December 17th, 2009 | 12:44 pm | #47
Will I be lynched as a self-involved person with a low intellectual ability and a poor writer for doing so?
Is that an invitation or a request?
; )
December 17th, 2009 | 1:06 pm | #48
Maybe Lewis was familiar with Deuteronomy 14:26?
December 17th, 2009 | 1:38 pm | #49
Mike, maybe Deuteronomy 14:26 should be the school’s motto!
December 17th, 2009 | 1:38 pm | #50
“This entire thing has been one of the most egregious instances of threadjacking that I have ever seen.”
I’m guessing your buzz has been harshed.
December 17th, 2009 | 2:06 pm | #51
Mr. Baker, I just wanted to get more people mad at me than Frank Turk or TUAD.
BTW, while remaining continent, I am THRILLED to learn about the C. S. Lewis College, and that it will offer training in the arts. Thank you for the post.
Mark, why is it that, when I do what we’re supposedly all supposed to do; i.e., engage in truthful inquiry and dig deep, I’m suspected of stalking? Especially when I took the time to respond to your charge that I didn’t back up my assertions? Sure, I could’ve just shaken my head, thrown up my hands and said, ok, I’ll just drop this. And maybe I should have. And maybe I will shortly. But not just yet. Since I’m admittedly slow, dense, stupid, annoying, stubborn, obnoxious, and whatever else, please explain to me slooowwwwlllly what the doctrinal implications of the MD are over any other expression of ambiguous or obscure gospelocity (such as Lewis’ MC).
Mr. Turk, fire away, but please, easy on the poison. Unless it’s chocolate.
Merry Christmas, everybody
December 17th, 2009 | 3:43 pm | #52
The buzz is totally harshed, man. I give up.
December 17th, 2009 | 4:04 pm | #53
Bonnie,
I’m quite sure Mark was simply joking when he commented about stalking (in fact I read it as a back-handed compliment). Also, maybe I missed it somewhere else, but has Frank Turk even stated his position on Lewis? We’re just assuming he likes him, but maybe he doesn’t.
That out of the way, let me explain the difference between the MD and Lewis’s mere Christianity, as I understand it. I chose not to sign the MD because of the same language to which Turk objected: the implication that RC and EO are “believers” in the same gospel as evangelicals. By signing the document, I (like Turk) would be agreeing to what the document says as I understand it, which is dangerously (even damnably) false. (To be clear, I recognize that men like Mohler and Duncan interpreted the document differently, so I’m not accusing them of heresy.)
Now, if I’m going to refuse to sign the MD on those grounds, why don’t I refuse to read Lewis? Well, at one level, I read Lewis for the same reason I read Shakespeare (though he can be lewd) and Spinoza (though he is a panentheist). There is benefit in exposing oneself to ideas, and it is fully possible to recommend a book with which one thoroughly disagrees but in which one sees an interesting interaction of ideas. Lewis, however, has benefit at higher level, as much of what he writes has no problem at all. I’m not a huge fan of Colson’s, but I don’t reject everything he says out of hand simply because he was involved in drafting the MD. Even Lewis’ mere Christianity concept has merit when used as an apologetic, which was of course the purpose of his book. Furthermore, the concept of a great hall with many rooms is very useful even outside an apologetic, though I see the hall as smaller than he would.
December 17th, 2009 | 5:07 pm | #54
I like C.S. Lewis.
December 17th, 2009 | 5:55 pm | #55
Heretic.
December 17th, 2009 | 6:13 pm | #56
What do you think the CSL College mascot is going to be? I would vote for The Fighting Pfifltriggs!
December 17th, 2009 | 6:44 pm | #57
Hi Bonnie,
Sorry, I was joking about the stalking. You just had so many quotes and I saw the opening. :)
I was also trying not to contribute to further derailing of this thread.
And Scott? Thanks!
December 17th, 2009 | 7:06 pm | #58
Better than the Bulgy Bear :-)
Scott, thanks so much for responding and taking me seriously. I only wondered about Mr. Turk’s views on Lewis because of what he said about Mere Christianity ambiguating the gospel. I don’t see that the MC of the MD is any different from Lewis’ MC, the philosophy of which pervades pretty much his entire corpus, including the Chronicles of Narnia. It seemed to me that Mr. Turk would have no less reason to sign the MD than to welcome a college in Lewis’ name or his books, given Lewis’ views. But I’m not saying that anyone’s approving Lewis’ writing while choosing not to sign the MD is problematic; only God knows that :-).
I wonder whether there is a political element affecting the way you and Mr. Turk and others view the MD, something deeper than merely the claim that the MD substitutes “Christian morality” for the Gospel (which I don’t think it does, if you accept their ecumenism as one based upon Lewis’ type of mere Christianity). Otherwise I cannot see why the same ambiguated/obscured gospel is problematic there but not in Lewis. Or if it is in Lewis too, then why isn’t anyone speaking out against it and hoping that the new C. S. Lewis College doesn’t promote it? Do you see what I mean? I don’t mean that to sound over-the-top. If in fact Mr. Turk is being consistent about ambiguated presentations of the Gospel, then there is something that I’m missing, and that’s what I’m probing for. I don’t mean to be harassing or stalking (yeesh)! Just probing. But if it’s too much, then please (kindly) let me know.
Even Lewis’ mere Christianity concept has merit when used as an apologetic
If this is so, then I don’t see why it can’t have merit in the MD :-)
though I see the hall as smaller than he would
Yes, and it seems that Mr. Turk and others would as well. I am not ready to go that far; nor, I think, are the authors of the MD, and I guess that’s where we differ. I also am wondering whether or not EV denoms could be said to be part of your smaller hall, and, if so, what distinguishes them, if in fact none of them (as Mr. Turk states) hold the “pure” Gospel either. In other words, how impure does the Gospel have to be before it can’t be part of the hall? I don’t mean that as an impudent question. I’m trying hard to understand a view that differs from my own, and also to see whether my own view needs adjusting. Thanks again for your response.
Sorry about the long comment.
And did I mention, I’m THRILLED about the C. S. Lewis College! Should anyone propose a toast, I’ll raise my spiked eggnog.
December 17th, 2009 | 7:08 pm | #59
Oh, woops. Okay, thanks Mark.
December 17th, 2009 | 8:35 pm | #60
Team names: The Narnians? The Apologists? (A bit defeatist, perhaps.) The Apologetic Anglicans? (Ditto.) The Lewis Lions? The Perelandrans? (No, that would be inaccurate.) The Inklings? The Trusty Trilemmas?
December 17th, 2009 | 10:05 pm | #61
Hunter:
What do you mean by the phrase thread jacking? Are you a Catholic? Are you a Mormon?
Did you vote for Ron Paul?
Huh?
John Mark
December 18th, 2009 | 10:08 am | #62
Craig: the Inklings. Definitely the Inklings.
December 18th, 2009 | 12:37 pm | #63
No, gotta go with the Lions. You can’t have pictures of Lewis, Tolkien, and the rest on the side of their football team’s helmets! ;)
December 18th, 2009 | 2:02 pm | #64
Just wait until the anti-Lewis folks find out that Northfield is right next door to Satan’s Kingdom!
December 18th, 2009 | 6:22 pm | #65
In a weird way, Lewis and Plato are somewhat alike: People always think and speak highly of them, until they take the time to find out some of the things they actually believed and wrote. Then the conversation heats up!
To be fair to Lewis, he always made it clear when he was speculating, and he never claimed to be a theologian (in fact, he claimed the opposite).
December 18th, 2009 | 6:23 pm | #66
“right next door to Satan’s Kingdom!”
Wouldn’t work as a team name.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact