He’s very well worth reading on a great many areas, and was in fact the scholar i named when asked who I’d modeled myself after, during my doctoral oral. After the sharp intake of breath they asked why. I said, because i want to create and not merely to critique other people’s original work. Most, maybe nearly all literary critics i studied after Elliot, Lewis, etc did nothing BUT critical work. (I got my wish…)
Yes, Lewis was worth citing on medieval literature. When I say he was 'outmoded' I didn't mean he wasn't worth bothering with.
The interesting thing about Lewis, I think, is how he appeals to a wide spectrum. The Orthodox tend to be big Lewis fans and many evangelicals talk about him as if he was one of 'theirs' - even though he wasn't at all evangelical.
Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones even wondered whether Lewis was 'saved' because he was squeamish about penal substitutionary atonement.
Interestingly, the late Metropolitan Kallistos (Timothy) Ware attended Lewis's funeral when he was a young man.
Don't get me wrong folks. I'm not dismissing Lewis, simply saying that much of his literary criticism is out of date. That doesn't mean it's not worth reading.
I used to be a huge fan of Lewis' Christian writings. I had almost all of them on my bookshelf at one point. I don't have any of them any more.
I think that the two that have left most impact with me have been The Four Loves (because it introduced to me the reality that the English word "love" is used for a number of Greek words which all have different meanings) and A Grief Observed (because of its heartbreaking honesty).
I think that Evangelicals especially need to be very careful about quoting him as some sort of semi-divine writer (I have known this to happen).
I think the evangelical penchant for Lewis is based on his accessibility and broad appeal.
I don't mean that in a patronising way. There's nothing wrong with being an accessible and popular apologist.
Citing Lewis as some kind of authority or 'semi-divine writer' is only a small t tradition equivalent of what Big T Tradition people do with the Fathers or various Big S Saints. It only serves to demonstrate that evangelicals are nowhere near as 'sola scriptura' as they imagine themselves to be. 😉
And yes, I know 'sola scriptura' doesn't mean that scripture stands alone ...
I must admit the 'Mad, Bad or God' thing did have an influence on me back in the days leading up to my evangelical conversion, but looking back I think I'd have got there without it or at least come to some form of faith in another setting at some point.
I was only 19 after all.
But this is turning into a Lewis thread ...
I'm more than happy to keep Lewis in my small c canon though.
Thing is, there are alternatives, of course but most evangelicals wouldn't go anywhere near them.
Mind you, in some evangelical circles it would be a sign of intellectual prowess even to have read Lewis.
The late Dr Andrew Walker the sociologist was a son of a Pentecostal manse and remembered it was the middle class Christian kids at school who read [/i]The Chronicles of Narnia[/i]. He'd never heard of them.
Things have improved, to some extent I think, but generally I think Noll rings as true today as when he wrote The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.
Thing is, we have to be careful making these kinds of judgements. It's not as if the people in my own Orthodox parish are steeped in Patristic study.
Some of the Eastern Europeans don't believe in evolution (to bring things back to the OP) as fervently as any US Protestant fundagelical.
As an insider, unfortunately, I can say "yeah" about Noll. And alternatives to Lewis. I was a church librarian for 2 decades. There is so much thoughtless schlock and drivel out there. And when I found good things, in line with the doctrinal statement, no one borrowed them.
Lewis's literary criticism was well out of date when I was at university 40 years ago.
His main legacy is the Narnia books and stuff like 'The Great Divorce'. He wrote poetry too, but very uninspiring.
He's interesting as a popular apologist but was by no means a heavy-weight theologian.
That's not to denigrate Lewis at all. He's a significant figure with a wide appeal across all churches and denominations.
I’d say his theology is very, very solid and orthodox. I also actually like his poetry, myself … and of course I’ve already talked about his literary criticism.
Lewis's literary criticism was well out of date when I was at university 40 years ago.
English literature as a discipline has changed, in that when Lewis was writing it tended to be something like a branch of ethics or aesthetics, and now it has become much more theory heavy with a tendency to look like applied sociology. But in terms of what English literary criticism used to be doing, Lewis's criticism is still worth reading.
He's not quite so worth reading on Milton in that he spends a lot of time arguing against objections that he doesn't quite see the point of, and as he doesn't quite see the point of the objection he doesn't quite meet them.
But on Chaucer he's brilliant.
I’m very much in the “English literature as a branch of ethics and aesthetics” camp myself. I actually changed my mind in grad school in the 90s about becoming a college professor when I thought I’d be spending the rest of my life arguing with deconstructionists, though I’ve become one anyway as of 2009 (just teaching composition rather than literature per se, though it sometimes is involved).
Don’t get me wrong, I think that literature does have a lot to teach us about the societies of the past, and/or the mind of the author, etc., and I do think that there is value in sociology, but I don’t agree with some elements in the worldviews of some strains of critical theory.
Ack, missed my chance to edit in time, but copied the text…
What Lewis said in Screwtape about the then-modern (and arguably still current) point of view on old books (I’m not sure how much we’re allowed to quote—help? So I’ll paraphrase), that people don’t ask themselves whether what the ancient author is true, but only care about who influenced the author, what their place is in history, etc., rather than taking wisdom and inspiration from it—well, I think that (to me) sad state of affairs has gone even further. I’m on the other side. (Again, some postmodern lit crit has value, in my view, but it should not replace the other stuff.)
Not in his false trichotomy of the '40s still beloved of Alpha.
We'll have to disagree on that, of course...
I'm surprised @ChastMastr. I choose option 4 personally.
Why are you surprised, and what’s option 4?
Because the trichotomy is obviously false. There aren't only three options; mad, bad or God. There's cultural and psychological inevitability. Belief. Moses, a few prophets, Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus. Believed. None of them was mad, or bad, or, intimate with, God. Just with their own neurology.
I still enjoy an occasional glass of good ale in good company. But not, thankfully, in the copious quantities of my youth. Only death will put an end to that!
I remember a vicar saying that, after years of dedicated searching, he looked forward to finally sampling The Perfect Ale when he reached heaven!
Not in his false trichotomy of the '40s still beloved of Alpha.
We'll have to disagree on that, of course...
I'm surprised @ChastMastr. I choose option 4 personally.
Why are you surprised, and what’s option 4?
Because the trichotomy is obviously false. There aren't only three options; mad, bad or God. There's cultural and psychological inevitability. Belief. Moses, a few prophets, Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus. Believed. None of them was mad, or bad, or, intimate with, God. Just with their own neurology.
I suppose we will have to disagree here. Peace be with you.
Paleobiology inquires "how did we get here?" by examining what can be gleaned from a bunch of old fossils.
Which is a vast, consilient, growing, body of knowledge alone of course, starting 4.1 Ga ago, less than half a billion years after Earth's formation as a grandchild of our universe. Most of the research will be done by postgrads, and their mentors aren't that old.
Not in his false trichotomy of the '40s still beloved of Alpha.
We'll have to disagree on that, of course...
I'm surprised @ChastMastr. I choose option 4 personally.
Why are you surprised, and what’s option 4?
Because the trichotomy is obviously false. There aren't only three options; mad, bad or God. There's cultural and psychological inevitability. Belief. Moses, a few prophets, Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus. Believed. None of them was mad, or bad, or, intimate with, God. Just with their own neurology.
I suppose we will have to disagree here. Peace be with you.
Believe it or not, multiple posting does create a tension in me, and this goes over a month back, but : )
Where's the disagreement? I imagine you would say Moses, a few prophets, Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus were, intimate with, or in the final case, God. But that's not what I'm opposing. I'm proposing an alternative to the false trichotomy. It is a perfectly valid alternative of equal weight.
Not in his false trichotomy of the '40s still beloved of Alpha.
We'll have to disagree on that, of course...
I'm surprised @ChastMastr. I choose option 4 personally.
Why are you surprised, and what’s option 4?
Because the trichotomy is obviously false. There aren't only three options; mad, bad or God. There's cultural and psychological inevitability. Belief. Moses, a few prophets, Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus. Believed. None of them was mad, or bad, or, intimate with, God. Just with their own neurology.
I suppose we will have to disagree here. Peace be with you.
Believe it or not, multiple posting does create a tension in me, and this goes over a month back, but : )
Where's the disagreement? I imagine you would say Moses, a few prophets, Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus were, intimate with, or in the final case, God. But that's not what I'm opposing. I'm proposing an alternative to the false trichotomy. It is a perfectly valid alternative of equal weight.
I’m trying to politely disagree without getting into further debate with you about this. I obviously don’t believe that it is a false trichotomy. Peace be with you.
Not in his false trichotomy of the '40s still beloved of Alpha.
We'll have to disagree on that, of course...
I'm surprised @ChastMastr. I choose option 4 personally.
Why are you surprised, and what’s option 4?
Because the trichotomy is obviously false. There aren't only three options; mad, bad or God. There's cultural and psychological inevitability. Belief. Moses, a few prophets, Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus. Believed. None of them was mad, or bad, or, intimate with, God. Just with their own neurology.
I suppose we will have to disagree here. Peace be with you.
Believe it or not, multiple posting does create a tension in me, and this goes over a month back, but : )
Where's the disagreement? I imagine you would say Moses, a few prophets, Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus were, intimate with, or in the final case, God. But that's not what I'm opposing. I'm proposing an alternative to the false trichotomy. It is a perfectly valid alternative of equal weight.
I’m trying to politely disagree without getting into further debate with you about this. I obviously don’t believe that it is a false trichotomy. Peace be with you.
So you don't agree that natural, cultural and psychological inevitability, with no madness or badness, is a valid alternative in with mad, bad or God?
Not in his false trichotomy of the '40s still beloved of Alpha.
We'll have to disagree on that, of course...
I'm surprised @ChastMastr. I choose option 4 personally.
Why are you surprised, and what’s option 4?
Because the trichotomy is obviously false. There aren't only three options; mad, bad or God. There's cultural and psychological inevitability. Belief. Moses, a few prophets, Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus. Believed. None of them was mad, or bad, or, intimate with, God. Just with their own neurology.
I suppose we will have to disagree here. Peace be with you.
Believe it or not, multiple posting does create a tension in me, and this goes over a month back, but : )
Where's the disagreement? I imagine you would say Moses, a few prophets, Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus were, intimate with, or in the final case, God. But that's not what I'm opposing. I'm proposing an alternative to the false trichotomy. It is a perfectly valid alternative of equal weight.
I’m trying to politely disagree without getting into further debate with you about this. I obviously don’t believe that it is a false trichotomy. Peace be with you.
Not in his false trichotomy of the '40s still beloved of Alpha.
We'll have to disagree on that, of course...
I'm surprised @ChastMastr. I choose option 4 personally.
Why are you surprised, and what’s option 4?
Because the trichotomy is obviously false. There aren't only three options; mad, bad or God. There's cultural and psychological inevitability. Belief. Moses, a few prophets, Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus. Believed. None of them was mad, or bad, or, intimate with, God. Just with their own neurology.
I suppose we will have to disagree here. Peace be with you.
Believe it or not, multiple posting does create a tension in me, and this goes over a month back, but : )
Where's the disagreement? I imagine you would say Moses, a few prophets, Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus were, intimate with, or in the final case, God. But that's not what I'm opposing. I'm proposing an alternative to the false trichotomy. It is a perfectly valid alternative of equal weight.
I’m trying to politely disagree without getting into further debate with you about this. I obviously don’t believe that it is a false trichotomy. Peace be with you.
I’m sorry, was I unclear?
Pellucid. So you won't believe that a perfectly valid natural explanation, with good will to all, can be posited.
Not in his false trichotomy of the '40s still beloved of Alpha.
We'll have to disagree on that, of course...
I'm surprised @ChastMastr. I choose option 4 personally.
Why are you surprised, and what’s option 4?
Because the trichotomy is obviously false. There aren't only three options; mad, bad or God. There's cultural and psychological inevitability. Belief. Moses, a few prophets, Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus. Believed. None of them was mad, or bad, or, intimate with, God. Just with their own neurology.
I suppose we will have to disagree here. Peace be with you.
Believe it or not, multiple posting does create a tension in me, and this goes over a month back, but : )
Where's the disagreement? I imagine you would say Moses, a few prophets, Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus were, intimate with, or in the final case, God. But that's not what I'm opposing. I'm proposing an alternative to the false trichotomy. It is a perfectly valid alternative of equal weight.
I’m trying to politely disagree without getting into further debate with you about this. I obviously don’t believe that it is a false trichotomy. Peace be with you.
I’m sorry, was I unclear?
Pellucid. So you won't believe that a perfectly valid natural explanation, with good will to all, can be posited.
Why do you keep pressing when @ChastMastr has said, repeatedly and clearly, he doesn’t intend to discuss it anymore?
Not in his false trichotomy of the '40s still beloved of Alpha.
We'll have to disagree on that, of course...
I'm surprised @ChastMastr. I choose option 4 personally.
Why are you surprised, and what’s option 4?
Because the trichotomy is obviously false. There aren't only three options; mad, bad or God. There's cultural and psychological inevitability. Belief. Moses, a few prophets, Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus. Believed. None of them was mad, or bad, or, intimate with, God. Just with their own neurology.
I suppose we will have to disagree here. Peace be with you.
Believe it or not, multiple posting does create a tension in me, and this goes over a month back, but : )
Where's the disagreement? I imagine you would say Moses, a few prophets, Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus were, intimate with, or in the final case, God. But that's not what I'm opposing. I'm proposing an alternative to the false trichotomy. It is a perfectly valid alternative of equal weight.
I’m trying to politely disagree without getting into further debate with you about this. I obviously don’t believe that it is a false trichotomy. Peace be with you.
I’m sorry, was I unclear?
Pellucid. So you won't believe that a perfectly valid natural explanation, with good will to all, can be posited.
Why do you keep pressing when @ChastMastr has said, repeatedly and clearly, he doesn’t intend to discuss it anymore?
Because the question remains to be validated on a forum. He doesn't have to respond. Anyone can. What do you think?
@Martin54, if it’s intended as a general question and not intended to be addressed to ChastMastr, then don’t tag him (as you did), and avoid using the second person in a way that appears to be addressing him (as you did). Otherwise your statement:
Because the question remains to be validated on a forum. He doesn't have to respond. Anyone can. What do you think?
As much as I like Lewis in may ways, except the sci fi trilogy which I found broke down under the weight of Lewis's ambition for it, apologetic set ups like his trilema put me on my guard. But you can make it a quadlema, duodecilema, etc.
Once one is out of the room and starts to breathe again, one sees there are likely other possibilities besides what is presented as the full menu. Even if one doesn't think of them oneself.
The good will aspect is interesting to me at the moment. Lewis likely understood how distasteful it would be, even for non-christian member of English or American society at the time, to say that Jesus was crazy or a liar. I suspect Lewis understood, if only in his gut, that most people would be reticent to choose the first two options.
When considering @Martin54 's 4th option the challenge to good will comes later, when one must consider the validity of and results of the belief (natural, cultural and psychological 'inevitability') of the original group (Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus, and disciples).
Oh, I love the SF trilogy myself, and as mentioned I'm fine with the trilemma. I find Lewis' apologetics... well, he basically led me to Christ in the first place, in my case, anyway. Your mileage may vary.
I loved Mr. Bultitude. And embraced Lewis for forty years and more. A great believer. And @ChastMastr, I owe you an unconditional apology for my my bad dog tenacity, my 'worrying' of you. Guilty as @BroJames charged.
And thoughtful as ever @Kendel. Showing that his works were very much of their time, notwithstanding the timeless, transcendent power of Narnia, nonetheless fiercely critiqued by Philip Pullman. Orwell's critique of The Space Trilogy's final third, That Hideous Strength, at the time shows the times were changing. Haldane's critique of his work too; Lewis was a liberal reactionary, middle class, ecumenical Ulster Protestant, terrified of Marxist scientific communism, 'evolutionism', via the scientific socialism thin end of the wedge.
Oh, I love the SF trilogy myself, and as mentioned I'm fine with the trilemma. I find Lewis' apologetics... well, he basically led me to Christ in the first place, in my case, anyway. Your mileage may vary.
@ChastMastr , there were things about the SF trilogy I liked, but overall, it wasn't for me. I'm glad other people - you! - enjoy it. And also that Lewis's apologetics speak to many people in ways that (the ones I am familiar with) don't to me.
I really liked "Surprised by Joy" and have always planned to read more of his nonfiction. I will need to pick carefully, as there are many, many books I hope to read.
About a year ago I learned of his "Footnote to all Prayers" which just about did me in. Yeah. There we see the real man with the real frustrations of genuine humility before God. We can't even get our prayers or idea of whom we pray to right. Thank God for his grace.
Recently I found Lewis's poem "On the Atomic Bomb" in a copy of "The Spectator" at work and used it in display about poetry in our periodical collections. I appreciated his perspective.
He wrote enough and on enough topics, that I think there is something there for a great many people.
Take care!
Sorry for cross posting, @Martin54 . It's been a very long time since I read the trilogy and of course read it with different lenses from yours and @ChastMastr 's . And have forgotten most everything but the aftertaste,
Comments
The interesting thing about Lewis, I think, is how he appeals to a wide spectrum. The Orthodox tend to be big Lewis fans and many evangelicals talk about him as if he was one of 'theirs' - even though he wasn't at all evangelical.
Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones even wondered whether Lewis was 'saved' because he was squeamish about penal substitutionary atonement.
Interestingly, the late Metropolitan Kallistos (Timothy) Ware attended Lewis's funeral when he was a young man.
Don't get me wrong folks. I'm not dismissing Lewis, simply saying that much of his literary criticism is out of date. That doesn't mean it's not worth reading.
"Mad, Bad or God" is still nonsense however.
I think that the two that have left most impact with me have been The Four Loves (because it introduced to me the reality that the English word "love" is used for a number of Greek words which all have different meanings) and A Grief Observed (because of its heartbreaking honesty).
I think that Evangelicals especially need to be very careful about quoting him as some sort of semi-divine writer (I have known this to happen).
I don't mean that in a patronising way. There's nothing wrong with being an accessible and popular apologist.
Citing Lewis as some kind of authority or 'semi-divine writer' is only a small t tradition equivalent of what Big T Tradition people do with the Fathers or various Big S Saints. It only serves to demonstrate that evangelicals are nowhere near as 'sola scriptura' as they imagine themselves to be. 😉
And yes, I know 'sola scriptura' doesn't mean that scripture stands alone ...
I must admit the 'Mad, Bad or God' thing did have an influence on me back in the days leading up to my evangelical conversion, but looking back I think I'd have got there without it or at least come to some form of faith in another setting at some point.
I was only 19 after all.
But this is turning into a Lewis thread ...
I'm more than happy to keep Lewis in my small c canon though.
I think the penchant is based on the lack of alternatives, we are back to Mark Noll territory.
Thing is, there are alternatives, of course but most evangelicals wouldn't go anywhere near them.
Mind you, in some evangelical circles it would be a sign of intellectual prowess even to have read Lewis.
The late Dr Andrew Walker the sociologist was a son of a Pentecostal manse and remembered it was the middle class Christian kids at school who read [/i]The Chronicles of Narnia[/i]. He'd never heard of them.
Things have improved, to some extent I think, but generally I think Noll rings as true today as when he wrote The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.
Thing is, we have to be careful making these kinds of judgements. It's not as if the people in my own Orthodox parish are steeped in Patristic study.
Some of the Eastern Europeans don't believe in evolution (to bring things back to the OP) as fervently as any US Protestant fundagelical.
As an insider, unfortunately, I can say "yeah" about Noll. And alternatives to Lewis. I was a church librarian for 2 decades. There is so much thoughtless schlock and drivel out there. And when I found good things, in line with the doctrinal statement, no one borrowed them.
Again "yeah". In mine for sure. Especially when you get beyond Lewis' fiction. Ignorant me, I only learned he wrote any poetry about a year ago!
I’d say his theology is very, very solid and orthodox. I also actually like his poetry, myself … and of course I’ve already talked about his literary criticism.
Why are you surprised, and what’s option 4?
I’m very much in the “English literature as a branch of ethics and aesthetics” camp myself. I actually changed my mind in grad school in the 90s about becoming a college professor when I thought I’d be spending the rest of my life arguing with deconstructionists, though I’ve become one anyway as of 2009 (just teaching composition rather than literature per se, though it sometimes is involved).
Don’t get me wrong, I think that literature does have a lot to teach us about the societies of the past, and/or the mind of the author, etc., and I do think that there is value in sociology, but I don’t agree with some elements in the worldviews of some strains of critical theory.
What Lewis said in Screwtape about the then-modern (and arguably still current) point of view on old books (I’m not sure how much we’re allowed to quote—help? So I’ll paraphrase), that people don’t ask themselves whether what the ancient author is true, but only care about who influenced the author, what their place is in history, etc., rather than taking wisdom and inspiration from it—well, I think that (to me) sad state of affairs has gone even further. I’m on the other side. (Again, some postmodern lit crit has value, in my view, but it should not replace the other stuff.)
This.
Because the trichotomy is obviously false. There aren't only three options; mad, bad or God. There's cultural and psychological inevitability. Belief. Moses, a few prophets, Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus. Believed. None of them was mad, or bad, or, intimate with, God. Just with their own neurology.
It's a bit wider than that. It puts palaeontological insights (from a "bunch old fossils") into a wider geological earth and life history context
Amongst other things.
I remember a vicar saying that, after years of dedicated searching, he looked forward to finally sampling The Perfect Ale when he reached heaven!
I suppose we will have to disagree here. Peace be with you.
Which is a vast, consilient, growing, body of knowledge alone of course, starting 4.1 Ga ago, less than half a billion years after Earth's formation as a grandchild of our universe. Most of the research will be done by postgrads, and their mentors aren't that old.
Believe it or not, multiple posting does create a tension in me, and this goes over a month back, but : )
Where's the disagreement? I imagine you would say Moses, a few prophets, Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus were, intimate with, or in the final case, God. But that's not what I'm opposing. I'm proposing an alternative to the false trichotomy. It is a perfectly valid alternative of equal weight.
I’m trying to politely disagree without getting into further debate with you about this. I obviously don’t believe that it is a false trichotomy. Peace be with you.
So you don't agree that natural, cultural and psychological inevitability, with no madness or badness, is a valid alternative in with mad, bad or God?
I’m sorry, was I unclear?
Pellucid. So you won't believe that a perfectly valid natural explanation, with good will to all, can be posited.
Because the question remains to be validated on a forum. He doesn't have to respond. Anyone can. What do you think?
BroJames, Purgatory Host
Once one is out of the room and starts to breathe again, one sees there are likely other possibilities besides what is presented as the full menu. Even if one doesn't think of them oneself.
The good will aspect is interesting to me at the moment. Lewis likely understood how distasteful it would be, even for non-christian member of English or American society at the time, to say that Jesus was crazy or a liar. I suspect Lewis understood, if only in his gut, that most people would be reticent to choose the first two options.
When considering @Martin54 's 4th option the challenge to good will comes later, when one must consider the validity of and results of the belief (natural, cultural and psychological 'inevitability') of the original group (Elizabeth, Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus, and disciples).
And thoughtful as ever @Kendel. Showing that his works were very much of their time, notwithstanding the timeless, transcendent power of Narnia, nonetheless fiercely critiqued by Philip Pullman. Orwell's critique of The Space Trilogy's final third, That Hideous Strength, at the time shows the times were changing. Haldane's critique of his work too; Lewis was a liberal reactionary, middle class, ecumenical Ulster Protestant, terrified of Marxist scientific communism, 'evolutionism', via the scientific socialism thin end of the wedge.
@ChastMastr , there were things about the SF trilogy I liked, but overall, it wasn't for me. I'm glad other people - you! - enjoy it. And also that Lewis's apologetics speak to many people in ways that (the ones I am familiar with) don't to me.
I really liked "Surprised by Joy" and have always planned to read more of his nonfiction. I will need to pick carefully, as there are many, many books I hope to read.
About a year ago I learned of his "Footnote to all Prayers" which just about did me in. Yeah. There we see the real man with the real frustrations of genuine humility before God. We can't even get our prayers or idea of whom we pray to right. Thank God for his grace.
Recently I found Lewis's poem "On the Atomic Bomb" in a copy of "The Spectator" at work and used it in display about poetry in our periodical collections. I appreciated his perspective.
He wrote enough and on enough topics, that I think there is something there for a great many people.
Take care!
Sorry for cross posting, @Martin54 . It's been a very long time since I read the trilogy and of course read it with different lenses from yours and @ChastMastr 's . And have forgotten most everything but the aftertaste,
I do like Lewis’ poetry as well, @Kendel.