C. S. Lewis on Honest Opinions

by Jun 16, 2014Books, Mission, Theology0 comments

51FbmZUtnwLIn the rich, classic story The Great Divorce, C. S. Lewis pictures a Christian and an atheist discussing the claims of Christianity. Both were scholars of a sort. They grew up together; they were schooled together; they lost their faith together.

Then one of them, late in life, regained it. The one who didn’t—the atheist—was offended that the Christian should blame him for refusing to believe in the resurrection of Christ.

Do you really think people are penalized for their honest opinions? …. Honest opinions fearlessly followed—they are not sins.

But his friend—now a believer and a denizen of heaven—replies,

Let us be frank. Our opinions were not honestly come by. We simply found ourselves in contact with a certain current of ideas and plunged into it because it seemed modern and successful…. We just started automatically writing the kind of essays that got good marks and saying the kind of things that won applause…. When did we put up one moment’s real resistance to the loss of our faith? (36–37)

Lewis here paints a very biblical picture, because the Bible doesn’t call any anti-God conclusion “honest.” This doesn’t mean Christians are free to doubt the proximate motives of their religious or political opponents. A given politician from across the aisle may genuinely believe that his political program will promote human flourishing. And by God’s common grace it might. No, the anti-Godness is often deeper down. Why does he want humans to flourish? Whatever the answer is, it has nothing to do with their status as image-bearers. This politician, and all non-Christians, is a mutineer. He may be cordial to his fellows—there’s honor among thieves. But no amount of courtesies and good deeds can change the central rebellion that defines his heart. He’s trying to occupy and steer a ship he doesn’t own.

What Lewis means is that one need not fear Bart Ehrman or Karen King, Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. None of them is a neutral, fact-processing machine. Each one of them is driven by desires, desires which in themselves may not be wrong (an ardently atheistic scientist may devote long hours to serving his neighbor through drug research), but desires which are founded on a heart that points violently away from God.

Read More 

Review: Think Again by Stanley Fish

Think Again: Contrarian Reflections on Life, Culture, Politics, Religion, Law, and Education by Stanley FishMy rating: 5 of 5 stars I have read multiple Stanley Fish books; I read quite a number of these columns when they were originally published in the New York...

Review: Why I Preach from the Received Text

Review: Why I Preach from the Received Text

Why I Preach from the Received Text is an anthology of personal testimonies more than it is a collection of careful arguments. It is not intended to be academic, and I see nothing necessarily wrong with that. But it does make countless properly academic claims, and...

Review: The Power Broker, by Robert Caro

Review: The Power Broker, by Robert Caro

The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York by Robert A. Caro My rating: 5 of 5 stars Robert Caro is fascinated by power. He has given his life to exploring how it is gained and kept. And in Robert Moses, the subject of this epic book, power looks like the...

Review: Finding the Right Hills to Die On by Gavin Ortlund

Review: Finding the Right Hills to Die On by Gavin Ortlund

Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage by Gavin Ortlund My rating: 4 of 5 stars Gracious, clear, accessible. Extremely well done. I nearly docked him a star for being ever-so-slightly in a different place than I am on creationism (though I...

Leave a comment.


Leave a Reply