The Reactionary Utopian
                    November 22, 2005


C.S. LEWIS IN THE DOCK
by Joe Sobran

     Forthcoming next month is a film of THE LION, THE 
WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE, the first of C.S. Lewis's 
popular children's stories of the land of Narnia. Lewis, 
of course, was a noted Christian apologist, and these 
books are informed by religious allegory that drives 
liberals nuts.

     So it's about time for a new attack on the man, and 
sure enough, it comes in THE NEW YORKER, where Adam 
Gopnik, often an interesting and intelligent writer, 
belittles Lewis's work in a way I can describe only as 
catty.

     Gopnik concedes that the Narnia stories are 
"classics in the only sense that matters -- books that 
are read a full generation after their author has gone" 
-- but he dislikes the author's overtly religious books. 
So he harps on what he chooses to call Lewis's 
"religiosity," with its overtones of aggressive 
sanctimony.

     In just his first four paragraphs, Gopnik writes of 
Lewis's "conservative religiosity," his "bullying brand 
of religiosity," and his "narrow-hearted religiosity." 
Would someone please send this man a thesaurus?

     I'm not sure how a book can be "bullying," but I'm 
sure the term hardly does justice to Lewis's gently 
persuasive defense of Christianity in THE PROBLEM OF 
PAIN, MIRACLES, MERE CHRISTIANITY, and other books. These 
are classics by Gopnik's own standard: they sell millions 
of copies a full generation after Lewis's death on 
November 22, 1963. If Lewis's readers felt they were 
being "bullied," why would they read him so eagerly?

     It gets worse. Gopnik can't stand Lewis's "racism," 
finds him "nasty," a "prig," a "very odd kind of 
Christian," and so on. He speaks of his "weird and 
complicated sex life" with a "sadomasochistic tinge." 
Lewis's school days, Gopnik suggests, made him a "warped, 
morbid, stammering sexual pervert." (In liberal 
discourse, only a heterosexual Christian can incur the 
charge of a sexual perversion. Ask Mel Gibson.)

     Lewis conceives God as a "dispenser of vacuous 
bromides," and Gopnik assures us that "believing cut 
Lewis off from writing well about belief," for "a belief 
that needs this much work to believe in isn't really a 
belief but a very strong desire to believe." At bottom, 
Lewis had a "bad conscience" and an "uncertain personal 
faith." The Narnia stories, "in many ways," are actually 
"anti-Christian"; Lewis didn't realize this, but Gopnik 
does.

     I'm afraid Gopnik hasn't read the C.S. Lewis 
millions of other readers have treasured. He has missed 
Lewis's point -- not a very difficult one, really -- 
about the virtue of faith. Belief is something you have 
or don't have; but faith is an act of will and fortitude, 
which is why we speak of "keeping" or "breaking" faith.

     A child may know perfectly well that the water is 
safe and that anyone can learn to swim, but still allow 
himself to succumb to fear of the water when he actually 
gets into it. The problem isn't the child's "beliefs" 
about the water; it's his irrational panic. In the same 
way, Lewis explains in CHRISTIAN REFLECTIONS, we may 
believe intellectually, but allow our moods and passions 
to weaken our faith when we are tempted.

     When our faith fails, it isn't usually because of 
any rational doubt. Reason isn't opposed to faith; it's 
opposed to the passions (the word is cognate with 
"passive;" we're truly active only when we act 
rationally). In spite of all the cliches equating 
intelligence with doubt, the loss of faith doesn't occur 
in the intellect, but in the will. Lewis understood this; 
but the clever Gopnik seems not to.

     Nor did Lewis present God's message as "vacuous 
bromides." He saw it as just the opposite: a love so 
consuming that our natural reaction to it is shock, 
almost terror. Lewis specifically =rejects= bland and 
comforting bromides: God is truly our Father, though we 
might prefer him to be (I love this image) a kindly 
"grandfather in heaven, a senile benevolence who, as they 
say, 'liked to see young people enjoying themselves.'"

     God's love is fierce, burning, and, like the love of 
any real father, troubling; he demands that we love him 
back with all of our energy. In truth, God loves us far 
more than we want to be loved. At times his love feels to 
us like hatred and tyranny. No wonder we're tempted to 
hate him.

     "Bromides," eh? For my part, I can say only that in 
his quiet way, C.S. Lewis has, like no other writer I've 
ever read, brought home to me some frightening truths -- 
frightening, yet also consoling. And in his Narnia tales, 
he found a way to convey them to children too.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read this column on-line at 
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/2005/051122.shtml".

Copyright (c) 2005 by the Griffin Internet Syndicate, 
www.griffnews.com. This column may not be published in 
print or Internet publications without express permission 
of Griffin Internet Syndicate. You may forward it to 
interested individuals if you use this entire page, 
including the following disclaimer:

"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's columns are available 
by subscription. For details and samples, see 
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write 
PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."