THOUGHTFUL CONVERTS -- Pelikan, Swinburne, and C.S. Lewis

[Astronaut]

I find it quite interesting that people like Jaroslav Pelikan (http://www.yale.edu/history/faculty/pelikan.html)and Richard Swinburne (http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0087/)have converted (http://www.thelutheran.org/9805/page51d.html) to orthodoxy. Pelikan is likely the person who knows the most about the history of Christian theology of any person alive.

I also regard C.S. Lewis as a convert to orthodoxy, although he never left the Anglican Church. His theologies of atonement (Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe) and hell (Great Divorce) are most certainly Eastern.

Which brings us to, C.S. Lewis's great mentor, George MacDonald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_MacDonald)who can properly be thought of as a convert to Eastern theology (and the instigator of Lewis's conversion), when you consider his theology expressed here (http://www.ccel.org/m/macdonald/unspoken3/htm/viii.htm). A list of the people deeply moved by George MacDonald's imagination -- W. H. Auden, J. R. R. Tolkien, Madeleine L'Engle, G. K. Chesterton, Mark Twain, and Lewis Carroll -- is evidence of the truth of St. Seraphim's observation that "Acquire a spirit of peace and a thousand souls around you will be saved."

What do you think about the significance of these things? Are any of you familiar with George MacDonald (I am somewhat infatuated by him).

[Rilian]

Astronuaut, I read most of the essay and yes MacDonald to me does have a view that is very in line with Eastern thought. I remember reading somewhere that he resigned his Congregational pulpit when he could no longer ascribe to the idea that unbaptized babies are destined for eternal perdition. I have read Lewis and Auden, so I guess I've gotten him second hand. I think it would be interesting to see where MacDonald got his thinking from, it's highly unlikely given when he lived that he had much if any familiarity with the Eastern church. Much of what we have now in English has only been translated in the relatively recent past.

I think the conversion of Prof. Pelikan is significant.

[Astronaut]

I think it would be interesting to see where MacDonald got his thinking from, it's highly unlikely given when he lived that he had much if any familiarity with the Eastern church. Much of what we have now in English has only been translated in the relatively recent past.
Reading his sermon "Justice," you get the sense that he believed he was reconceptualizing Christian doctrines on his own, unguided by the thought of others (besides Christ). He never cites the fathers, although he probably would have been delighted and relieved to see his thoughts expressed by St. Athanasius and St. Clement of Alexandria almost 2000 years earlier. MacDonald had an amazing mind and a huge heart -- put them together, and you have a spiritual guide that any person would do well to follow.

[Rilian]

I'm just glad we live in a time where Orthodoxy is accessible to us. Hoeing your own road is hard work, and perilous without guidance.

I've been meaning to read this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/080282921X/qid=1116276657/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-7589992-0251111?v=glance&s=books) book which was written by another convert, but haven't gotten to it yet.

[Astronaut]

Hoeing your own road is hard work, and perilous without guidance.
And terrifying for a person who grew up Calvinist like MacDonald, and who has been taught that the risks involve the potential to be hated by God for denying forensic justification.

[gzt]

I'm uncomfortable with retroactively declaring that people would have converted to Orthodoxy if they'd lived longer or in a different time or whatever. Though Lewis was a very High Anglican, he was quite certainly not Catholic, and despite your reading of his soteriology, he was closer to Calvinism [gasp] than Catholicism, much less Orthodoxy, in much of his theology. And while Lewis' theories of atonement are quite firmly Eastern, they are not Eastern to the exclusion of being Western. Despite how one may paint him, he is well within the standards of Anglican thought of the time.

[Astronaut]

And while Lewis' theories of atonement are quite firmly Eastern, they are not Eastern to the exclusion of being Western. Despite how one may paint him, he is well within the standards of Anglican thought of the time.
Well, I guess I don't know much about Anglican thought at the time, but Lewis's soteriology and atonement theology expressed in "Lion, Witch, Wardrobe" is nothing like I had EVER had explained to me before. I would be surprised if you could find a tract that would express any similar theory -- it's just not terrifying enough to be of much use in a tract.

[Photios]

I'm uncomfortable with retroactively declaring that people would have converted to Orthodoxy if they'd lived longer or in a different time or whatever. Though Lewis was a very High Anglican, he was quite certainly not Catholic, and despite your reading of his soteriology, he was closer to Calvinism [gasp] than Catholicism, much less Orthodoxy, in much of his theology. And while Lewis' theories of atonement are quite firmly Eastern, they are not Eastern to the exclusion of being Western. Despite how one may paint him, he is well within the standards of Anglican thought of the time.

I agree, if it is done in a serious manner. I would be willing to bet that future Orthodox people will be pretty sure that Ravi Zacharias would have been Orthodox. He may yet be, but I doubt it in terms of probability. Miracles are not unknown though.

However, I find it is a fun and somewhat uplifting thought that actually helps us to learn how to address Orthodox thought and teaches us to lift enlightening material from an otherwise oppositional text.

We just have to avoid declaring it, and merely ponder the possiblity

[Astronaut]

I guess I look at a person's theology of atonement to see where they line up. If they believed that Christ's death was a satisfaction of God's justice, I see Western theology. If they beleived that Christ's death was a ransom to death, I see Eastern Theology.

Also, I look at the understanding of salvation. If they believe that salvation is release from the bondage of sin, I see Eastern theology. If they believe that salvation is forgiveness by God and freedom from the "penalty of sin", I see Western theology.

Perhaps this is too simplistic.

[Photios]

Remember, the West is home to an amazing multiplicity of theological ideas. I don't think you could really call any one idea Western or even Eastern. A better division may be that a view either agrees or disagrees with the Church. This would allow you to keep good ideas from an author who may otherwise disagree, and cut down on the confusion of such labels.

[Astronaut]

Remember, the West is home to an amazing multiplicity of theological ideas. I don't think you could really call any one idea Western or even Eastern. A better division may be that a view either agrees or disagrees with the Church. This would allow you to keep good ideas from an author who may otherwise disagree, and cut down on the confusion of such labels.
There are some VERY bad ideas out there, that is why I see it as useful to identify, categorize, and isolate, like a surgeon removing a tumor. And I am glad to discover that some Orthodox people make their business to do so like here (http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/riveroffire.html) and here (http://orthodoxcanada.org/TEMP/point_of_faith_16.htm).

[Photios]

There are some VERY bad ideas out there, that is why I see it as useful to identify, categorize, and isolate, like a surgeon removing a tumor. And I am glad to discover that some Orthodox people make their business to do so like here (http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/riveroffire.html) and here (http://orthodoxcanada.org/TEMP/point_of_faith_16.htm).

I agree. I am speaking in terms of classification only. Even with what I recommended it is quite possible to do so. The things to isolate and remove are those mentioned as being in disagreement with the Church. I in no way meant that such things should be ignored, I was just trying to suggest a means of classification that might be a bit clearer and more helpful than East vs. West.

[The Virginian]

Which brings us to, C.S. Lewis's great mentor, George MacDonald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_MacDonald)who can properly be thought of as a convert to Eastern theology (and the instigator of Lewis's conversion), when you consider his theology expressed here (http://www.ccel.org/m/macdonald/unspoken3/htm/viii.htm). A list of the people deeply moved by George MacDonald's imagination -- W. H. Auden, J. R. R. Tolkien, Madeleine L'Engle, G. K. Chesterton, Mark Twain, and Lewis Carroll -- is evidence of the truth of St. Seraphim's observation that "Acquire a spirit of peace and a thousand souls around you will be saved."

What do you think about the significance of these things? Are any of you familiar with George MacDonald (I am somewhat infatuated by him).

George MacDonald was light reading for me whenever I tired of more heavy fare, such as books anout doctrine, theology, etc., etc., etc.. The majority of his works I've read as edited publications by Michael Phillips, or Dan Hamilton. It was a very short step from MacDonald to Frank Perretti and Stephen Lawhead.

If you've listened to interviews with popular musicians, you'll hear them speak of predecessors who heavily influenced them. The principle is the same in the genre of writers, painters, comedians, or photographers, secular or Christian. As a Protestant one of my all time favorite authors was a South African Dutchman named Andrew Murray. Murray punctuated his writings in the manner which people spoke, with the appropriate comma for a pause, question marks, and exclamation points. So when I began to write poetry I decided to not use any punctuation marks at all but use capital letters to mark stanzas and line breaks.

George MacDonald was influenced by a Colonial American preacher by the name of William Law. One of Law's more signal works is A Serious Call To A Devout And Holy Life. Many years ago I wrote an ode, which when my best friend read it; without me saying a word, remarked, "Been reading Geroge MacDonald again huh !" Nedless to say I later titled it An Ode To George MacDonald.

I was pumped when I found out that he was one of "The Inklings", whom C. S. Lewis (another favorite) considered his master.

Whether or not a persosn is a Christian, among the heirarchy of needs a sense of stability -peace is universal. Translated that means "...let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven..."




a bond servant of the Lord...................................:wave:

[grov]

Professor Pelikan has said that he doesn't view his experience as a "conversion". He says he reached a point where he realized that he has always been Orthodox, and simply acknowledged it from then on.

I attended a lecture of Fr. Peter Guillquest's, where he was asked by a local Protestant, "if C.S. Lewis' ideas were so close to Orthodoxy, why didn't he convert?" Fr. Guillquest's answer was that Anglicanism at the time of C.S. Lewis was really not so far removed from Orthodoxy - a far cry from what it is now. Still, my Priest sometimes refers to him as Father Lewis.

For a lesser-known "adoption", I'm told that Orthodox hold some of the writings of Flannery O'Conner in high regard. At the OCA Assembly in Dallas last year, one Priest did a very interesting take on her story "Parker's Back".

George

[gzt]

I, for one, really dig Flannery O'Connor. She even went to school in my hometown. But she's very Catholic, very Juan de la Cruz-in'. I really dig her.

[Marjorie]

I love Flannery O'Connor; my favorite short story (not just of hers, period) is "The Displaced Person." But yeah, she is definitely not 'Eastern' in piety in any meaningful sense of the word. (Of course, we're not just EASTERN Orthodox; we're Orthodox.)

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Lotar]

I owe a great debt too Jaroslav Pelikan.

[Fotina]

I owe a great debt too Jaroslav Pelikan.

Christ Is Risen!

We're still looking forward to the rest of your conversion story. :)

[Astronaut]

George MacDonald was influenced by a Colonial American preacher by the name of William Law. One of Law's more signal works is A Serious Call To A Devout And Holy Life.
I would appreciate it if you could direct me to a discussion of Law's (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/L/Law-W1ill.asp)relationship to MacDonald. Was he really an American?

[Lotar]

I hope to get to it soon...

I hate being busy.

[gtsecc]

Anglicanism includes a wide range of beliefs; however, there really is a vein of Anglicanism which is very close to Orthdoxy in theology, or about as close as possible while retaining a Roman liturgy. I don't think you can speculate about Lewis converting, after all, to him, what was wrong with Anglicanism that would nessecitate converting?

[Marjorie]

Anglicanism includes a wide range of beliefs; however, there really is a vein of Anglicanism which is very close to Orthdoxy in theology, or about as close as possible while retaining a Roman liturgy. I don't think you can speculate about Lewis converting, after all, to him, what was wrong with Anglicanism that would nessecitate converting?

That's true; a lot of Catholics/Orthodox/etc. speculate too much about what would have happened with Lewis... I don't think Lewis felt the need to make any drastic change. If he were alive today, though, I think it might be different.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Fotina]

There are some VERY bad ideas out there, that is why I see it as useful to identify, categorize, and isolate, like a surgeon removing a tumor. And I am glad to discover that some Orthodox people make their business to do so like here (http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/riveroffire.html) and here (http://orthodoxcanada.org/TEMP/point_of_faith_16.htm).

Both the writers you cite are controversial.

It's generally best in the beginning to study the standard introductions to Orthodoxy found on the sites of the main jurisdictions, i.e. goarch, oca, antiochian, etc. Reading the Lives of the Saints is also profitable. Your priest will guide you.

Have you attended Divine Liturgy yet?

[Astronaut]

Both the writers you cite are controversial.

It's generally best in the beginning to study the standard introductions to Orthodoxy found on the sites of the main jurisdictions, i.e. goarch, oca, antiochian, etc. Reading the Lives of the Saints is also profitable. Your priest will guide you.

Have you attended Divine Liturgy yet?
I have not yet attended Divine Liturgy. Yesterday I was attending worship at a Presbyterian (PCA) church with my sister, brother-in-law, and my babe nephew. I hope to attend this week end.

Why are these writers controversial?

[Fotina]

I have not yet attended Divine Liturgy. Yesterday I was attending worship at a Presbyterian (PCA) church with my sister, brother-in-law, and my babe nephew. I hope to attend this week end.

Why are these writers controversial?

Please share when you do get to DL.

Well, the polemics for one, and tends to aggravate "convertitis".:)

[Astronaut]

Please share when you do get to DL.

Well, the polemics for one, and tends to aggravate "convertitis".:)
Coming from a Calvinist tradition, I love polemics! :D Now I get to do it on the other side! But what do you mean by "convertitis"?

[Fotina]

Coming from a Calvinist tradition, I love polemics! :D Now I get to do it on the other side! But what do you mean by "convertitis"?

I'll let this article explain:

http://www.orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/brorthoc.htm

[Rilian]

I don't think you can speculate about Lewis converting, after all, to him, what was wrong with Anglicanism that would nessecitate converting?

You can read not so subtle hints in his writings about what he saw wrong with the church. If either he or Dorothy Sayers were alive today, I would be willing to bet they would be either Catholic or Orthodox.

[Oblio]

I know I am a bit late but I wanted to comment on:


I would be willing to bet that future Orthodox people will be pretty sure that Ravi Zacharias would have been Orthodox. He may yet be, but I doubt it in terms of probability. Miracles are not unknown though.


I like Ravi and see some Orthodoxy peeking through his sermons. His is one of the few Evangelicals that speak on the radio that I can stomach. If he would ever come home, he would make an awesome addition to the evangelical mission of the Church.

[Rilian]

Astronaut, you might find this interesting. Christianity East and West (http://pontifications.classicalanglican.net/docs/eastwest.pdf). It's written by a convert and talks about Lewis a little.

[Photios]

I like Ravi and see some Orthodoxy peeking through his sermons. His is one of the few Evangelicals that speak on the radio that I can stomach. If he would ever come home, he would make an awesome addition to the evangelical mission of the Church.

Ravi was instrumental in my becoming a Christian. I really appreciate his speeches, and have several recorded(they are free off his website).

This gets me thinking, I often drive by this one Protestant church that posts a small summary of the upcoming Sunday sermon. Nearly every week, it seems like it will be a great talk, however, when it comes to a choice between DL and Protestant sermons I choose DL. I wish they had recordings available.

[Llauralin]

You can read not so subtle hints in his writings about what he saw wrong with the church. If either he or Dorothy Sayers were alive today, I would be willing to bet they would be either Catholic or Orthodox.

I was just re-reading Dorothy Sayer's book Creed or Chaos, and she certaintly seems awfually close; in the introduction it says that she pretty much agreed with the Catholic Church axcept for the matter of papal infallability, and throughout the book she condems "angry God" theology and those who believe that God does not work through matter.

[Mark Downham]

I also regard C.S. Lewis as a convert to orthodoxy, although he never left the Anglican Church. His theologies of atonement (Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe) and hell (Great Divorce) are most certainly Eastern.

Which brings us to, C.S. Lewis's great mentor, George MacDonald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_MacDonald)who can properly be thought of as a convert to Eastern theology (and the instigator of Lewis's conversion), when you consider his theology expressed here (http://www.ccel.org/m/macdonald/unspoken3/htm/viii.htm). A list of the people deeply moved by George MacDonald's imagination -- W. H. Auden, J. R. R. Tolkien, Madeleine L'Engle, G. K. Chesterton, Mark Twain, and Lewis Carroll -- is evidence of the truth of St. Seraphim's observation that "Acquire a spirit of peace and a thousand souls around you will be saved."

What do you think about the significance of these things? Are any of you familiar with George MacDonald (I am somewhat infatuated by him).

I hold exactly the same views as C.S. Lewis and George MacDonald - all Evangelicals do - we are not Orthodox Converts but on a deeper level we are in a spiritual paraklesis with the real substance of Orthodoxy. I have some different perspectives to say Schmemann, Sophrony, Silouan, Seraphim of Sarov, Bloom, Hopko, Ware, Rilian - although when it comes to following Jesus we are in Union and Communion.


Mark

[Mark Downham]

Astronaut


And terrifying for a person who grew up Calvinist like MacDonald, and who has been taught that the risks involve the potential to be hated by God for denying forensic justification.

May I ask you a question? Why does an Arminian antinomian refutation of the rigid and inflexible Calvinist approach to forensic justification risk hatred by God?

Surely George MacDonald was not engaged in the refutation of forensic justification as a declaratory act but the Calvinist treatment of the doctrine of forensic justiifcation?

As you know - the Orthodox practice and praxis of Catharsis recognises abrogation and regeneration through the Cross which in effect ascribes to Forensic Justification as a declaratory act and Photosis and Theosis as synergetic expressions of progressive purification (sanctification).

Mark

[Astronaut]

I hold exactly the same views as C.S. Lewis and George MacDonald - all Evangelicals do - we are not Orthodox Converts but on a deeper level we are in a spiritual paraklesis with the real substance of Orthodoxy. I have some different perspectives to say Schmemann, Sophrony, Silouan, Seraphim of Sarov, Bloom, Hopko, Ware, Rilian - although when it comes to following Jesus we are in Union and Communion.


Mark
George MacDonald is quite far away from "all Evangelicals" -- he denied that Christ took the penalty of sin in our place on the cross. He denied that there was a hell (in the western sense). He denied that Jesus was a propitiation of God's wrath. Read the sermon on justice, he says some striking things.

[Astronaut]

Astronaut


May I ask you a question? Why does an Arminian antinomian refutation of the rigid and inflexible Calvinist approach to forensic justification risk hatred by God?

Surely George MacDonald was not engaged in the refutation of forensic justification as a declaratory act but the Calvinist treatment of the doctrine of forensic justiifcation?

As you know - the Orthodox practice and praxis of Catharsis recognises abrogation and regeneration through the Cross which in effect ascribes to Forensic Justification as a declaratory act and Photosis and Theosis as synergetic expressions of progressive purification (sanctification).

Mark
I think you misunderstand what George MacDonald was doing. He was genuinely saying that the doctrine of "justification" was a wicked lie. Also, I think you misunderstand Orthodox soteriology (at least as expressed by what I have read) if you think that it "ascribes to Forensic Justification as a declaratory act." Per McGrath, there simply was no patristic forerunner to the Reformed concepts of either imputed righteousness or forensic justification (see his article "Forerunners of the Reformation? A Critical Evaluation of the Evidence for Precursors of the Reformation Doctrines of Justification" in Harvard Theological Review, 75:2, p. 219ff.) Thus, it has no place in Orthodoxy.

MacDonald said all of the things which would demonstrate in the Calvinist mind that he was a "natural man" without a "new heart" to whom the "gospel" of Christ crucified was foolishness. And frankly, so do the Orthodox.

[Astronaut]

There is no paraklesis where George MacDonald says he loathes the God of Jonathan Edwards, and where Dr. Kalomiris says that Western theology is a diabolical deception, and where Frank Schaeffer (son of Calvinist Francis Schaeffer and convert to Orthodoxy) calls the God of Western theology a "demon-God."

[Suzannah]

/mod hat:

Just a reminder: Debate of ANY KIND in this forum by non-Orthodox is not permitted. The same applies to disruption.

/mod hat off

[Mark Downham]

Astronaut

I have read your views which I find fascinating. I know Alister McGrath personally and he knows my thoughts and perspectives. As for Orthodox soteriology I appeal to Lossky, Ware, Staniloe, Sophrony and Metropolitan Anthony of Zourosh to bear witness. As for George MacDonald, Evangelicals have a different reading of his works.

Suzannah, is that ok - would you now like to close your eyes ever so gently, count to three and I'll be gone - those Crosses are fantastic.

Love.

Mark

[Astronaut]

As for Orthodox soteriology I appeal to Lossky, Ware, Staniloe, Sophrony and Metropolitan Anthony of Zourosh to bear witness. As for George MacDonald, Evangelicals have a different reading of his works.
I am still a newby in Orthodoxy. I confess I haven't read these modern writers, but I have read St. Athanasius and St Clement of Alexandria and can confidently say that there is no "justification" in the sense of St. Augustine in their writings. Salvation is theosis and only theosis, there is no "abrogation," except abrogation of human selfishness, fear, and pride.

George MacDonald is an extremely clear writer and he could not be more direct about his feelings for "forensic justification":

The whole device is a piece of spiritual charlatanry—fit only for a fraudulent jail—delivery. The device is an absurdity—a grotesquely deformed absurdity. To represent the living God as a party to such a style of action, is to veil with a mask of cruelty and hypocrisy the face whose glory can he seen only in the face of Jesus; to put a tirade of vulgar Roman legality into the mouth of the Lord God merciful and gracious, who will by no means clear the guilty.

To believe in a vicarious sacrifice, is to think to take refuge with the Son from the righteousness of the Father; to take refuge with his work instead of with the Son himself; to take refuge with a theory of that work instead of the work itself; to shelter behind a false quirk of law instead of nestling in the eternal heart of the unchangeable and righteous Father, who is merciful in that he renders to every man according to his work, and compels their obedience, nor admits judicial quibble or subterfuge.

[Mark Downham]

.

[Suzannah]

I promised Suzannah I would not debate - I am simply asking questions.

Mark
Then do it by private message.