The Secular C.S. Lewis: Neil Postman’s Unlikely Influence on Evangelicals (2013)
secondnaturejournal.com
secondnaturejournal.com
In my former life I was a graduate student in Historical Theology so this was my silo of "expertise" AKA I can be a critics easier then most.
Only one HUGE logical problem. C.S. Lewis wasn't a Evangelical Christian he was Anglican. Evangelicals at the time hated them with equal venom to Roman Catholics C.S. Lewis converted to Christianity by JR Tolkien (Yes the one who wrote Lord of the Rings) who was Roman Catholic.
SOOOOO What is written about Postman's lectures are also true of Lewis. They both came from outside of Evangelicaldom and were respected for their thoughts.
Also they stated that George Whitefield (1714-1770) was Anglican BUT he co-founded the Methodist Church with John and Charles Wesley which was the founding of Evangelical Christianity of today. They were the Martin Luther of the Anglican Church.
Also Postman was not an evangelical, but a Jewish humanist. For some unknown reason Modern Atheist have hijacked the term Humanist which was actually found by the Reformation Founders. I have read Postman and his book "Amusing Ourselves to Death" especially Chapter 8 "Shuffle Off to Bethlehem" show that Postman had some positive views of religion and was at best a Agnostic with positive feelings towards religion. I believe Postman would also share in my declaration Humanism historically and fundamentally doesn't mean Atheist. Atheist is a good term why leave it to take over another term and all its historical foundations? Humanism was founded by Christians and not some academia but the leaders of the Reformation Movement of Calvin and Luther.
What's the logical problem here? The article doesn't claim C.S. Lewis was an Evangelical (it's not about C.S. Lewis at all) nor does it claim Postman was one.
That Postman was an "unlikely influence", being secular, whereas C.S Lewis is mentioned as an obvious (since Christian) influence.
But, as the parent observes, C.S Lewis was also an unlikely influence to evangelicals, being an anglican.
Close: The Wesleys were both priests of the Church of England; while founder John Wesley defied a lot of C of E doctrines and conventions, and "rejoiced that the Methodists in America were free, he advised his English followers to remain in the established church and he himself died within it." [0] Charles Wesley strongly opposed separation from the C of E. [1] Only after they died did their Methodism movement formally split off. [2]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wesley
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wesley
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodist_Church_of_Great_Brit...
Surely you’re taking some artistic license here in asserting that Luther, and then later, Calvin are the founders of what we consider humanism. Care to explain?
>“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
- C.S. Lewis
edit: pedantry
Here's the full essay: https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/churchman/073-02_055.pdf
I wonder what he would think of the "Bastoy" prison island in Norway: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-pr...
> She knew what she feared—to be locked up in some dark, narrow place by people who loved her. An enemy might drop his guard, weary of his task, turn his back; love would never falter.
-- Paladin of Souls, by Lois McMaster Bujold
Here's a PDF: https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/churchman/073-02_055.pdf
American democracy grew more so out of the pragmatic commercialist negotiation of the extent of colonist autonomy in the colonial charters (see [1] though there are better supporting docs 4 sure out the). Colonists got a measure of freedom not possible in England/Europe and wanted the whole pie eventually.
"Revivalism" and "materialism" were both second fiddle to "I make my living how I damn well please".
I completely agree that eventually they wanted the entire pie, but that happened in a context based on European history for those people in-country. We can look at other areas, like Central and South America, and find that it didn't work out so well.
Religious freedom was a huge motivating factor for the initial wave of migration, and part of that freedom involved a heritage of things like the 30 Year's War. This was the basis and background of what played out later, even if what played out later was more commercial and deist in nature.
I think it's a mistake to look at the American Revolution in terms of what happened in 2-4 decades around 1776. There was a lot more going on.
ADD: You don't get the wording and reasoning of the DOI and the fact that multiple states had state religions at the founding of the country from purely commercial interests.
IMO, that's a key part of the American Revolutionary experience. America was a backwater land of weirdos in many ways... Puritan fanatics, feudal Dutch, Catholic heretics, Quakers, etc. The colonies were kept at arms length in some respects, and were a lower priority for attention than the far more lucrative India and sugar islands.
Were they though? Because people elsewhere could have said that as well, but didn't (and in some places, did), regardless of being in similar circumstances.
You're not addressing the argument, only scoring points on a specific statement out of context.
Those are manifestations of "I make my living how I damn well please", so can't be its cause.
In other words, the argument takes for granted what it should prove -- that "Revivalism" and "materialism" were both second fiddle".