![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/08\/CSL42.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nIn his book,\u00a0Roman but Not Catholic: What Remains at Stake 500 Years after the Reformation<\/em><\/a> (2017), co-written with former Catholic Kenneth J. Collins, Jerry Walls wrote in the Introduction: We have heard from lots of people who have read John Henry Newman\u2019s famous essay on doctrinal development and found his arguments compelling. I thought it might be helpful to hear from persons who have read Newman but found his arguments deeply confused and his conclusions badly overstated. (p. xxii) C. S. Lewis is cited no less than 26 times in this book, but not from his book, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer<\/em><\/a> (1963), where he lobs an unfair potshot at Cardinal Newman. I discovered this today in a post by Anti-Catholic Ignoramus Extraordinaire John Bugay (\u201cC.S. Lewis: \u2018Newman makes my blood run cold \u2026\u2019 \u201c<\/a>: Tribalblogue<\/em>, 9-11-17). Bugay points out a passage from chapter 6 of that volume (pp. 29-30 in the Harvest \/ HBJ Book edition of 1964):<\/p>\n I can well understand how a man who is trying to love God and his neighbour should come to dislike the very word religion<\/em>; a word, by the way, which hardly ever appears in the New Testament. Newman makes my blood run cold when he says in one of the Parochial and Plain Sermons<\/em> that Heaven is like a church because, in both, \u201cone single sovereign subject \u2014 religion \u2014 is brought before us.\u201d He forgets that there is no temple in the new Jerusalem.<\/p>\n He has substituted religion<\/em> for God \u2014 as if navigation were substituted for arrival, or battle for victory, or wooing for marriage, or in general the means for the end.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, I love<\/em> C. S. Lewis. He\u2019s been my favorite writer for 45 years, ever since my evangelical conversion to Christ. I have all his books (proudly displayed in my living room); I\u2019ve read most of them, along with biographies and two huge volumes of his letters. I\u2019ve seen many documentaries and movies about him. So I have no fundamental animus against him.<\/p>\n But he was dead wrong in this<\/em> instance; most unjust and unfair to St. Cardinal Newman, whom he cited out of context and contrary to his clear intent. This is shoddy citation: all the more surprising for a giant and brilliant Christian scholar like Lewis. Put of charity and immense respect, I\u2019ll assume that he was citing from memory and forgot the context. That\u2019s the best case scenario.<\/p>\n Lewis cites just nine of Newman\u2019s words from Sermon 1 in Vol. 1 of 8, \u201cSermon 1. Holiness Necessary for Future Blessedness\u201d<\/a>. I\u2019ve had the collection of these sermons in one hardcover (Ignatius, 1987) in my library since it was published (when I was still a Protestant). Volume 1 was published in 1834, which (it should be noted) was eleven years<\/em> before Newman became a Catholic. <\/span><\/p>\n At this point he was a very popular [\u201cHigh\u201d or \u201cAnglo-Catholic\u201d] Anglican priest: in the same denomination that Lewis never left. Thus, his thoughts came from a widely admired and praised\u00a0 Anglican mind, not a fully Catholic one. For Lewis to treat him so shabbily is, I submit, most likely a manifestation of his incipient emotional distaste for <\/a>Catholicism<\/a>, left over from his Belfast upbringing<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n The mistake that Lewis makes here is, sadly, a very common Protestant one. It\u2019s an irrational hostility to the word \u201creligion\u201d as if it\u2019s a bad<\/em> word, and something to be avoided. It\u2019s no more\u00a0 \u201cbad\u201d word in Holy Scripture than \u201ctradition\u201d is: though one would never know this, listening to so many Protestants who seen to have an irrational unbiblical bone-seep aversion to both.<\/p>\n Lewis seems to completely misunderstand Newman\u2019s argument in this sermon and his use of the word \u201creligion.\u201d The words \u201creligion\u201d \/ \u201creligious\u201d \/ \u201cirreligious\u201d appear twelve times in the eight-page sermon, but \u201choly\u201d and \u201choliness\u201d appears 23 and 21 times, because that is what the sermon is about<\/em>. It was devoted to the Bible passage: \u201c\u201dHoliness, without which no man shall see the Lord.\u201d (Heb 12:14).<\/p>\n In the course of this sermon, Newman is clearly using the words \u201creligion\u201d \u201creligious\u201d \/ \u201cirreligious\u201d as synonyms<\/strong><\/em> for pious Christian observance and practice and reverence towards God, or lack thereof. Here is Lewis\u2019 brief citation of St. Cdl. Newman (in blue<\/span> below, and bolding added) in its complete context:<\/p>\n Heaven then is not like this world; I will say what it is much more like,\u2014a church. For in a place of public worship no language of this world is heard; there are no schemes brought forward for temporal objects, great or small; no information how to strengthen our worldly interests, extend our influence, or establish our credit. These things indeed may be right in their way, so that we do not set our hearts upon them; still (I repeat), it is certain that we hear nothing of them in a church. Here we hear solely and entirely of God. We praise Him, worship Him, sing to Him, thank Him, confess to Him, give ourselves up to Him, and ask His blessing. And therefore, a church is like heaven; viz. because both in the one and the other, there is one single sovereign subject\u2014religion<\/strong>\u2014brought before us.<\/span><\/p>\n Supposing, then, instead of it being said that no irreligious<\/strong> man could serve and attend on God in heaven (or see Him, as the text expresses it), we were told that no irreligious<\/strong> man could worship, or spiritually see Him in church; should we not at once perceive the meaning of the doctrine? viz. that, were a man to come hither, who had suffered his mind to grow up in its own way, as nature or chance determined, without any deliberate habitual effort after truth and purity, he would find no real pleasure here, but would soon get weary of the place; because, in this house of God, he would hear only of that one subject which he cared little or nothing about, and nothing at all of those things which excited his hopes and fears, his sympathies and energies. If then a man without<\/strong> religion<\/strong> (supposing it possible) were admitted into heaven, doubtless he would sustain a great disappointment. Before, indeed, he fancied that he could be happy there; but when he arrived there, he would find no discourse but that which he had shunned on earth, no pursuits but those he had disliked or despised, nothing which bound him to aught else in the universe, and made him feel at home, nothing which he could enter into and rest upon. He would perceive himself to be an isolated being, cut away by Supreme Power from those objects which were still entwined around his heart. Nay, he would be in the presence of that Supreme Power, whom he never on earth could bring himself steadily to think upon, and whom now he regarded only as the destroyer of all that was precious and dear to him. Ah! he could not bear the face of the Living God; the Holy God would be no object of joy to him. \u201cLet us alone! What have we to do with thee?\u201d is the sole thought and desire of unclean souls, even while they acknowledge His majesty. None but the holy can look upon the Holy One; without holiness<\/strong> no man can endure to see the Lord.<\/p>\n When, then, we think to take part in the joys of heaven without holiness<\/strong>, we are as inconsiderate as if we supposed we could take an interest in the worship of Christians here below without possessing it in our measure. A careless, a sensual, an unbelieving mind, a mind destitute of the love and fear of God, with narrow views and earthly aims, a low standard of duty, and a benighted conscience, a mind contented with itself, and unresigned to God\u2019s will, would feel as little pleasure, at the last day, at the words, \u201cEnter into the joy of thy Lord,\u201d as it does now at the words, \u201cLet us pray.\u201d Nay, much less, because, while we are in a church, we may turn our thoughts to other subjects, and contrive to forget that God is looking on us; but that will not be possible in heaven.<\/p>\n We see, then, that holiness<\/strong>, or inward separation from the world, is necessary to our admission into heaven, because heaven is not heaven, is not a place of happiness except to the holy<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Lewis was thus wrong in three significant ways, by insinuating 1) that Newman \u201csubstituted religion<\/em> for God\u201d, 2) in his general tone implying that religion is somehow (or more often than not) a negative thing, to be frowned upon, and 3) that heaven is supposedly unlike a \u201cchurch\u201d. The first is a wholesale distortion of Newman\u2019s meaning, understood properly in context, and the second and third things are blatantly contrary to the Bible.<\/p>\n Newman is preaching about worship in heaven: which is (from what we know<\/em> in the Bible: chiefly the book of Revelation) primarily what takes place there<\/em>. We won\u2019t simply be sitting on clouds playing harps and hiking all the cool, glorious trails of heavenly paradise. We\u2019ll be worshiping God, in union with Him. In what I cited, \u201cworship\u201d is mentioned four times out of a total of five.\u00a0 In the portion immediately before what I cited, Newman wrote \/ preached:<\/p>\n [S]o far we are distinctly told, that that future life will be spent in God\u2019s presence<\/i>, in a sense which does not apply to our present life; so that it may be best described as an endless and uninterrupted worship<\/strong> of the Eternal Father, Son, and Spirit. \u201cThey serve Him day and night in His temple, and He that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them \u2026 The Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters.\u201d Again, \u201cThe city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it, and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.\u201d [Rev. vii. 15, 17; xxi. 23, 24.] These passages from St. John are sufficient to remind us of many others.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n None of this should be in the least objectionable to Lewis or any Protestant. For Newman, \u201creligion\u201d was, precisely, holiness, which in turn is devoted in heaven to worship and adoration of God. But Lewis seemed intent on forcing Newman\u2019s meaning and intent (which is a virtual celebration of the ecstatic, blissful worship of God in heaven)\u00a0 into an incorrect negative conception of what \u201creligion\u201d means (an idol set against God).<\/p>\n And to further analyze that, we must consult what the New Testament says about it. That\u2019s easy for me, since I already addressed the topic over a year ago in my article for National Catholic Register<\/em>: \u201cThe Bible Makes It Clear: Religion Means Relationship With God\u201d<\/a> (6-18-21). Lewis wants to falsely make out that religion is somehow inherently antithetical to relationship with and worship of God. The Bible and Newman teach the opposite.<\/p>\n Lewis in this chapter of his book makes good and valid points about excesses and distortions of \u201creligion.\u201d But of course, absolutely anything can be distorted, including religion (2 Tim 3:1-5; \u201cholding the form of\u00a0religion<\/u> but denying the power of it. Avoid such people\u201d). Paul is saying those who are\u00a0lousy<\/i>\u00a0at religion should be avoided, not those who are religious, period.\u00a0<\/i><\/p>\n We don\u2019t \u201cthrow the baby out with the bathwater\u201d because this is the case. And he seems all too ready to throw out \u201creligion\u201d in terms of pious practice. This is where the New Testament can fruitfully educate us. Lewis stated that the word religion<\/em> \u201chardly ever appears in the New Testament.\u201d In fact, it appears six times [in RSV], and \u201creligious\u201d appears three more<\/a>.<\/p>\n And this is in a New Testament where the word Trinity<\/em> never appears, nor God the Son<\/em> nor incarnation<\/em> nor faith alone<\/em>\u00a0in a positive<\/em> sense (it\u2019s condemned<\/em> in James 2:24), nor Scripture alone<\/em> nor grace alone<\/em> nor virgin birth<\/em> nor omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent<\/em> (and I could go on and on). In light of that, nine appearances of religion<\/em> or religious<\/em> seems to me to be a fairly large number!<\/p>\n St. Paul describes religion<\/em> as typified by \u201cgood deeds\u201d (1 Tim 2:10, RSV). It\u2019s a positive thing, not a negative one. Paul states:<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 3:16<\/strong> Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion<\/u><\/span>: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here \u201creligion\u201d has to do more with the doctrinal creed or confession that we accept; it\u2019s also used by Paul to describe his own former Jewish religious belief in Acts 26:5. That\u2019s part of it, too. We observe and do certain things because of what we believe in faith. Paul and James define religion as a good thing:<\/p>\n Acts 17:22<\/strong> Paul, standing in the middle of the Are-op\u2019agus, said: \u201cMen of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious<\/u><\/span>\u201c.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Paul was\u00a0complimenting<\/i> the pagan Athenians. They worshiped an \u201cunknown god\u201d (17:23), so Paul took the opportunity to proclaim the one true God to them \u2014 to preach the gospel (17:23-31). He built upon what they knew, citing their own pagan philosophers and poets (17:28).<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 5:4<\/strong> If a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn their religious duty<\/u><\/span> to their own family and make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God.<\/p>\n James 1:26-27<\/strong> If anyone thinks he is religious<\/u><\/span>, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man\u2019s religion is vain.\u00a0Religion<\/u><\/span> that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/strong> <\/span>Aronsyne<\/a>; C. S. Lewis in 1951<\/span> [Wikimedia Commons<\/a> \/ Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International<\/a> license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: C. S. Lewis, whom I love, was dead wrong when he attacked St. Cardinal Newman falsely with regard to his use of the word \u201creligion\u201d in an 1834 Anglican sermon.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In his book,\u00a0Roman but Not Catholic: What Remains at Stake 500 Years after the Reformation (2017), co-written with former Catholic Kenneth J. Collins, Jerry Walls wrote in the Introduction: We have heard from lots of people who have read John Henry Newman\u2019s famous essay on doctrinal development and found his arguments compelling. I thought it […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":66007,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[50],"tags":[2363,306,16450,13778],"class_list":["post-66004","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-salvation-justification","tag-c-s-lewis","tag-john-henry-cardinal-newman","tag-letters-to-malcolm-chiefly-on-prayer","tag-religion"],"yoast_head":"\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n