
The Secular C.S. Lewis: Neil Postman’s Unlikely Influence on Evangelicals (2013) - pmoriarty
https://secondnaturejournal.com/the-secular-c-s-lewis-neil-postmans-unlikely-influence-on-evangelicals/
======
baldfat
Rehashed Article from the same author was posted a few years later in 2015,
[https://secondnaturejournal.com/neil-postman-judeo-
christian...](https://secondnaturejournal.com/neil-postman-judeo-christian-
worldview/).

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.

~~~
pvg
_Only one HUGE logical problem. C.S. Lewis wasn 't a Evangelical Christian he
was Anglican_

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.

~~~
coldtea
It's not about what it claims, but about what it implies.

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.

~~~
pvg
It's hard to tell what it 'observes', it just says HUGE in all caps and then
talks about things that aren't in the article.

------
gnarbarian
here's my favorite quote from C.S. Lewis:

>“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

~~~
remarkEon
Link to this?

~~~
dbatten
The particular essay in question is "On the Humanitarian Theory of
Punishment."

Here's a PDF:
[https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/churchman/073-02_055.pdf](https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/churchman/073-02_055.pdf)

------
nwatson
FTA : Confessionalists would sympathize with these ideals since many of them
believe American democracy grew out of the Reformation as much as it did the
Enlightenment.

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".

[1] [http://www.ushistory.org/gov/2a.asp](http://www.ushistory.org/gov/2a.asp)

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Yes and no. It's not that you're wrong, it's just incomplete.

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.

~~~
Spooky23
"Religious freedom" has two sides, the "free practice of religon" on the one
side, and the "get rid of troublesome fanatics" on the British side. Making
troublesome people (including petty criminals) go away paid immediate
dividends at home.

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.

~~~
_emacsomancer_
Of course while the Puritans were in power they also got rid of undesirables
(i.e. the royalists/Cavaliers) in much the same fashion.

