MandM header image 2

Moving Beyond CS Lewis?

January 6th, 2011 by André Z

CS Lewis still provides a great read and he has been an important figure in my own journey of working out my faith. But I cringe a little when, as repeatedly happens, Christian people hear I’m into philosophy and science and such and they recommend I read the author of the Narnia books.

CS Lewis left a legacy - not all the answers

I’ve been reading some of his works for quite a while and they’re great, with plenty of insights into the poverty of a purely secular life – but they’re not the only thing out there if you’re looking for a critically engaged faith. (There’s perhaps a similar deal with Francis Schaeffer, but I struggle to think of other Christian thinkers who people in the pews would tend to know. For the rest of the post, I’ll refer to Lewis, as representative and chief of a possibly larger tribe; I’m open to being convinced anyway.)

I’m curious about what causes the phenomenon which I clumsily christen “you’re a Christian into thinking? Oh well (it’s a pity you can’t play the guitar); but quick, you better read CS Lewis!” The Church is not noted for being fast and trendy and up to date, but that’s not the whole story. I don’t have any evidence for the claim, but I suspect CS Lewis has been popular for a long time i.e. the Church hasn’t only just discovered him; and more fundamentally, that previous generations, who were more likely to read books and keep up to date with the world of literature, were better acquainted with a few defenders of the faith who were not long-dead at the time.

I’m not advocating the sin of chronological snobbery and I know that new and shiny stuff often soon enough hits the trash pile, but in my opinion, people really need to know that God is alive in the academy today and He’s worth taking as seriously as He ever was. That’s good news, but news which may be hard to hear above the dance/trance/pop/punk/thrashmetal-indie sounds of popular Christian culture and Christianity-lite ®. I have suggested the Church is slow in some respects, but it’s fast in others – making bad copies of non-religious pop culture arguably being one of our special skills.

If I sound bitter it’s only because, as much as I love the vibrancy of many of our churches, it’s not always well-rooted; and I hate to see people wander away from faith when they hit the combined power of big questions and the pressure of a society convinced that Christianity is irrelevant to things which really matter. Imagine if, in a society that slips away from literature, science and reason, the Church one again championed the life of the mind? Joining the rest in their slide is a short-term solution.

Of course, readers of this blog, whether Christian, atheist, subscriber to New Age confusion or whatever, are unlikely to be the culprits regarding ignorance of modern Christian thought and apologetics – but if you want, even you, the humble blog reader, can take the next step and help raise the level of conversation in our churches. I’ll give more suggestions as we go on, but an easy start would be to buy a young adult (or even one of those oft-neglected older adults) a copy of Tim Keller’s “The Reason for God”. Work out how to convince the youth leader in your church to spend some of their small budget on getting older teens a copy, perhaps instead of upgrading the smoke or coffee machine. If you are a preacher, mention that book in sermons; or if you dare, talk about a book like “To Change the World” by James Davison Hunter, published by OUP (I hope to write a post on this one soon) or one of the many well-argued evangelical tomes that gets pumped out every year, to sadly leave this nation completely unchanged as the New Zealand Church does not read.

I’ll say it again – I am a big fan of CS Lewis. It took me a while to realise how long ago he actually wrote, as I’m a bit slow and his defences of Christianity and critiques of its opponents are so often so spot-on. If I had more money and it was a live option, I’d pay a lot to have him revivified and do a lecturing stint. Yet, 40, 50 + years is a long time and things have definitely shifted. Some cultural aspects remain, but others have changed. My amateur assessment of the intellectual history of the West in the past few decades is that a combination of postmodernism, loss of faith in aspects of the Enlightenment project and dedicated Christian scholars who have chipped away at atheistic arguments and resurrected academic apologetics and natural theology have left the doors of tertiary institutions and those who reside therein considerably more open to Christian faith than might be expected. At the time of Lewis, secularism was on the up in the academy, though evangelicalism was booming on the ground; since then, the secularisation thesis has become far less plausible as religion has held its ground and the general expectation for the future seems one of an uneasy pluralism. Perhaps it’s something like the situation of the early Christian church – given the growth that occurred then, one can only hope.

I’m also a fan of Oxford University; I’d give at least one tooth to study there, so I appreciate that the fact Lewis was a Professor at that place carries some weight. But, he was a Professor of English, quite a while ago. That didn’t limit him much; it was before the popularity of post-modernism and literary critical theory, he got his initial training in philosophy and went on to run the meetings of the “Socratic Club”, which involved engagement with many of the top thinkers of the time – but it was also before the recent burgeoning of the philosophy of religion and Christian philosophy more generally. As such, of greater interest to me is the fact that there are a number of quality Christian thinkers currently or far more recently employed at that institution. I think particularly of John Lennox – Professor of mathematics and Fellow in the philosophy of science – who has three earned doctorates; the distinguished philosopher of science as well as religion, Richard Swinburne; historian of science Peter Harrison; philosophers and theologians researching and debating the nature of God like Alister McGrath, Brian Leftow, Keith Ward and Markus Bockmuehl. Others newer on the scene, like rising star evolutionary biologist Andrew Parker, philosopher Tim Mawson and physicist Ard Louis are heavily involved in the conversation between faith and reason.

Despite my bold cynical claim (which I hope will elicit a response of some kind) in the sentence about reading and our lack thereof, you may yet realise that even little young New Zealand has a number of Christian people who spend a fair amount of time thinking about Christian stuff in a way that hasn’t shut the door to the outside world. Some of the readers of this blog may have heard of a guy called Matt Flannagan. If you’re a thinking Christian or looking for depth, feel free to get in touch and interact with this blog and perhaps Thinking Matters too, for starters.

I don’t have the answers, but I love the questions and have some idea of who to ask. ‘Loving God with your mind’ isn’t an elitist agenda – it’s part of what Christians are called to do and it’s good clean fun too. If you’re really into it, you can even carefully read what opponents of Christianity are saying – from the beginning of the incorporation of the Christian community, it’s been hard work, but we’ve been listening to what others are saying and responding truthfully with the reasons why we continue to trust in Jesus.

As an aside, if you’ve got through the collected works of CS Lewis, try his Australian cousin (not literally) David Lewis – being an atheist he didn’t write much about religion, but his paper “Do We Believe in Penal Substitution?” is a classic that manages to be cited by both sides of the debate. Anyway, regardless of whether you want to spend your evenings with Richard Dawkins, Stephen Law or whoever, let it all spill out in conversation – and God knows, people may even be interested to find out with you whether this life thing has a purpose and a Purposer behind it.

Tags:   · · · 28 Comments

Leave a Comment

28 responses so far ↓

  • […] the rest, see Andre Z’s Moving Beyond C.S. Lewis. Rod of AlexandriaPreacher of Hope | Black Scholar of Patristics | Writer for Nonviolent Politics […]

  • Thanks Madeleine. I did enjoy C.S. Lewis when I was young, but I’ve moved away from him in my advanced years. I still enjoy G.K. Chesterton though, although critics have pointed out, truthfully enough, that while explaining things within the Christian paradigm beautifully, he didn’t spend much time arguing for the Christian paradigm.

    Ben Witherington III, Craig Blomberg, Mike Licona and Gary Habermas should probably be on your list too.

  • I’m not sure exactly what you’re arguing for, that the church should take note of contemporary Christian/theistic thinkers?

    The argument from reason isn’t exactly Narnia material. Victor Reppert continues to work philosophically in this area that CS Lewis landscaped.

    What’s your issue with Schaeffer? Why should the Christian choose to read John Lennox or David Lewis over him? Or perhaps you’re saying that Christians should just read all of them. I think Christians (that read about faith) tend to buy what’s in the bookstore. John Lennox is not going to be at the front of the bookstore. Christian marketing…barf!

    I also agree that the church has become anti-intellectual in nature, but there’s a larger problem with academia. Academic philosophy has become a shallow and culturally irrelevant linguistic peeing contest. How’s that for a bold claim? 🙂

    Seriously though, I think we need to blame academia just as much as the church (or pop culture). Sister Fluffyhead in the pew might be *comforted* by Francis Collins, John Lennox, or William Lane Craig; but she’s not going to examine the B-theory of time. There was a time when even non-academics (meaning they don’t earn a living by it) were heavily involved in philosophy (Spinoza for example). In today’s overly-specialized and information-laden world, it just isn’t likely that Sister Fluffyhead has the time, patience, or linguistic precision to read a philosophical essay, or grow closer to the Lord from it. She needs someone to simplify it. Someone like Schaeffer, Lewis, Lennox, Strobel, Geisler, Sproul, etc.

    Lots of young men like myself study philosophy for enjoyment, but if you’re arguing that “the church” needs to do likewise: those demographics tend to despise arguing for faith. It’s the lingering fideism, Finneyism, revivalism, and whatever other isms (in America, I’m not familiar with NZ).

    Tim Keller’s main point is that people accept or reject religion for intellectual, personal, and social reasons. I think your point that the church has become less intellectual is true, but I think adjustments to all three factors are necessary in order to achieve a good balance. I think Christian marketing needs to be included in the problem/solution. Getting people interested in philosophical theology or apologetics is a good thing, but ultimately there is a much larger problem (which I’m sure you wouldn’t disagree with).

    Admittedly, this was a visceral reaction and I’m sure that I read you wrong at some point. Interesting article Andre!

  • All fair points, Jason & David. (I wasn’t trying to give a comprehensive list of Christian thinkers by any means Jason – most of those would make my list though!)

    David, I agree – I’m not entirely sure what I was arguing for either! It was more a list of observations than anything. One example I didn’t state explicitly – it seems to me that the bog-standard atheist will be reading and preaching Dawkins, while the Christian is about as likely to read and preach CS Lewis. When giving a reason for your faith, using Lewis’ material isn’t bad, but when it comes to responding to what non-Christians are actually thinking today, it’d be cool if more people had a grasp on what Lennox etc are saying. I don’t entirely agree with Francis Collins, but his writings are targeted to a lay audience – I don’t see why our Sister shouldn’t read them, or something similar. It’s not just about getting people in a particular kind of book – it’s part of a bigger project of mobilising the Western Church to be able to engage daily with a wider culture that thinks, often with good reason, that we’ve got nothing to share with it in areas it deems important.

    The problem isn’t though that Christians are reading Lewis et al – I love to talk about what they say. A problem is when these are considered the canonical Christian authorities on issues that they were not specialists in. Another is that with Schaeffer, I’ve seen a rather hands-off approach used – it’s ok to read Schaeffer, but actually studying philosophy is dangerous – when he tells people that what we need isn’t less philosophy, but more and better! To put it a different way, maybe what we need to do is actually listen to what these people said and try and do it ourselves. Maybe it’s not for everyone in the Church, but there’s plenty of room for more to join in.

    I read Reppert’s blog on a pretty much daily basis, but few others do! You probably know as well as I that the stuff that seems to dominate Christian bookshelves is on quite a different plane to that which dominates the shelves of secular people of influence. Little wonder that the Church isn’t considered particularly relevant.

    Atheism dominates the key institutions of our culture, even though most educated people (even in NZ) wouldn’t call themselves atheists because – well, why? That’s what I want to know. It appears to me that those who do call themselves atheist are self-consciously intellectual. Responding to this involves both pointing back to the rich tradition of Christian thought and continuing to write about Jesus and what he means, well into the 21st Century, showing how new knowledge fits in to well-formed patterns of truth.

  • To quote Lewis himself:

    “Theology is practical: Especially now. In the old days, when there was less education and discussion, perhaps it was possible to get on with a very few simple ideas about God. But it is not so now. Everyone reads, everyone hears things discussed. Consequently, if you do not listen to Theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones – bad, muddled, out-of-date ideas. For a great many of the ideas about God which are trotted out as novelties today are simply the ones which real Theologians tried centuries ago and rejected.”

  • Sounds like we basically agree Andre, thanks for responding.

    Keller is one of my favorite contemporary thinkers because he you never know what he’s been reading. One minute it’s sociology, the next it’s Alvin Plantinga.

  • Andre Z wrote:
    “I’ve been reading some of his works for quite a while and they’re great, with plenty of insights into the poverty of a purely secular life ”

    at that point I stopped taking the OP seriously.

  • As Puzzle the donkey might say, “Of course, Shift (Paul), of course. I see that.”

    In any case Paul, you haven’t yet given me any reason whatsoever to take you seriously, so it seems I’m two sentences (my post’s intro) up on you at the moment.

  • Sure, if you limit yourself to CS Lewis, you’re only going to go so far. But frankly, are you going to complain if every Christian read him? How much stronger would the Church be if that happened?

  • […] couple of blog posts critiquing C.S. Lewis (here and here). One challenged his view of warfare; the other the idea that if you are a thinking Christian you must read Lewis. I happen to agree with both of […]

  • […] I linked to two posts here and here that suggested that Christians, especially evangelicals, read Clive Staples Lewis with a […]

  • A good resource to point people to newer apologists as well as old is “Apologetics for The 21st Century” by Louis Markos of Houston Baptist University. It is published by Crossway and released in Oct 2010. It gives an overview of apologetics through the last two millenia, and gives a synopsis of their thought. I think it would serve to be a fair introduction to some of the more recent works, too.

  • Blog I really enjoyed was Evangelical Realism, and I mention this because his final entries are a criticism of Mere Christianity. Deacon Duncan basically gave up on it after Chapter 5 and is off to a new Blog about making reality into a religion.(good luck with that)

    The upshot of the criticism was, I think, that Lewis ended up preaching to the choir, if it wasn’t a given that he started off doing that.

    I’d like to see a book on anti-solipsism, prehistoric, biological, physical, chemical or even ‘mere’ rational evidence of how we came to the point where we recognise ourselves since it’s not important for our primary function.(reproduction, it’s not a secret, folks)

    Maybe there’s just not enough material.

    Still, more on topic, I’m not sure why you guys imagine you need more books on persuading yourselves that you’re right. Or books that might persuade others, is that it?

    Doesn’t it just boil down to believers imagining that there is an eternal personality behind the universe, the philosophy of it being that we cannot prove there isn’t? A whole lot of, “I must be important!”, going on.

    Hey, correct me if I’m wrong.

  • Yeah pboy, you can dismiss everything by asserting that we are really stuck up people who imagine things.

    Its always easier to impunge others moral and intellectual integrity than to actually address their arguments or even inform one self about what they think.

  • Yes, I understand how it might sound dismissive to boil something down to it’s basics, but I wasn’t trying to be dismissive.

    “Its always easier to impunge others moral and intellectual integrity..”

    This is simply diversion. Why doesn’t the whole idea of God, you know, putting each and every person ‘in there’, ‘mattering’, make it such that if one doesn’t believe, one has ‘no hope’ and/or one has a ‘bankrupt doctrine’?

    Isn’t that the kind of things you say yourselves?

    It’s a diversion because I wasn’t saying anything at all about your(as a group) intellect, nor am I denying you(as a group) have morals.

  • pboy, I enjoy it or at least appreciate it when people keep to the topic of the post; given your comment-tendencies at this blog, you may need to work on this.

    However, here you make an interesting suggestion; I paraphrase it as “the idea of God is man-made/invented/imagined – and is believed as it cannot be proven false”. In response, you may be away that in fact all ideas (e.g. ideas about sub-atomic particles or the history of NZ) are man-made. Some correspond to reality, some do not. The universe exists and has certain features – these fit in well with a ‘personal’ creator.

    What’s more, this guy called Jesus did some stuff which fits in well with the earlier revelations of the monotheistic Jewish faith; himself revealing more about the nature of this creator, such that saving faith in this personal reality is available today. Well before philosophical justifications (which are hardly all summed up as “we cannot prove there isn’t [a God]”) came revelation. That’s the centre and without that, even if there is a supernatural reality of some kind, belief one way or the other is little more than academic. But we do have a universe; I think this needs an explanation and that God fits nicely; similar deal with e.g. the naturalness of my own belief in God – it comes so easily to humans, from little children upwards.

    Belief in God is not about the special status of human beings – it’s about the special status of God. According to Christian theism, all humans have a tendency to not do what they are meant to – this is not a pretty self-motivational fact. The universe isn’t here just for us – it’s all, including humanity, for God.

    Incidentally, I’m not too sure you could justify reproduction being our “primary function” – how does one function gain priority over another? Sure, our ancestors may have survived due to being able to reproduce, but we’ve also clearly got brains of a fairly special kind and the commensurate ability to debate our priorities. On a kinda related note, you may like to ask yourself how the purported truth of our beliefs (any of them) would fit in with this “primary function”, or a naturalistic evolutionary account in general.

  • “The universe exists and has certain features – these fit in well with a ‘personal’ creator.”

    André, the universe exists sure, we know this because, “Here we are.”

    You think that certain features of it fit in well with a ‘personal’ creator?

    Fine, we have the, “..believers imagining that there is an eternal personality behind the universe..”, part.

    As to the, “..the philosophy of it being that we cannot prove there isn’t?”, part, I’m thinking that this is a given.

    Is there any way to prove that God does not exist? Unless there is, I see no point in anyone pretending to dispute this indirectly by talking about intellect or morality, do you? (Not saying this in any ‘disparaging way’ here)

    Now, isn’t it also true that if there were a God, who was a person like us, who not only created everything but took a personal interest IN us, that this would make us important, in this universe?

    You know, compared to the ‘hypothesis’ that there isn’t?

    Perhaps you think that it’s an invalid comparison?

  • “Belief in God is not about the special status of human beings – it’s about the special status of God.”

    This is a puzzling statement to me. Seems to me that you guys are saying that God was always, is always and will always be, right? So it’s the universe that is a special ‘thing’, being temporal, and it is human beings who are special, being given only a few years of physical life and our supposed choice to accept or reject eternal life.

    I think this is one of those statements where you might have said it the other way round than you did, depending on the situation.

    Forgive me if my saying that you ‘imagine God’ sounds disparaging, I didn’t mean it that way.

    I meant it in the sense that when we are inside with the curtains closed we imagine the world is still out there, and is the way it was and that, but we only know for sure when we look!

  • Moving Beyond CS Lewis?…

    Imagine if, in a society that slips away from literature, science and reason, the Church one again championed the life of the mind? Joining the rest in their slide is a short-term solution… FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO CONTINUE READING >>> Moving Beyond CS…

  • pboy, you could prove that God (a certain kind of God anyway) did not exist by demonstrating logical inconsistency in His attributes. However, the fact that you can’t (logical inconsistency aside) really show that God does not exist hardly means that you also can’t show, to some extent or another, that He *does* exist. This seems to be what you are asserting, as bizarre as the claim is. You seem to also suggest that unstated arguments concerning morality and intellect are indirect and therefore irrelevant (somehow following from the claim that God cannot be disproven.) I personally believe any consideration relevant to questions of the existence and nature of God is worth exploring. God makes very good sense indeed and if that seems at all likely to you, it’s important that you work out if the further claims to do with His purported revelations in Scripture and in Jesus are believable. He’ll help you on the way.

    Knowledge of the existence of God would warrant belief in the existence of some kind of objective value, in that what God values would have a kind of ‘value’ or importance not existing in a naturalistic universe. Things thus having special value independent of human claims, would include human beings themselves, on the Christian account of things. But that doesn’t mean that it is the belief that humans would be valuable if theism were true that primarily motivates theistic (e.g. Christian) belief and it does absolutely nothing to deal with the actual reasons proposed as to why people ought believe in God. ‘Psychologising’ the opposition is easy, but a distraction from the real issue – does God exist and can we know it; and if the answer is yes, what is God like?

  • “pboy, you could prove that God (a certain kind of God anyway) did not exist by demonstrating logical inconsistency in His attributes.”

    Can you demonstrate that God has any positive attributes?

    Of course I’m not meaning any attributes that people simply infer by how they imagine HIM, because, in this case, we’re simply thinking of a ‘well-imagined’ God. This would of course include anyone who imagined that they were on the receiving end of some ‘revelation’ and/or wrote a story about God long ago.

    Seems to me that imagining gods is not hard.

  • If God exists, he has certain attributes or, perhaps more correctly, properties (whatever they may be). That an existing entity would have properties of some kind I take as pretty much self-evident. I can explain why I think God has particular properties; for instance through appeal to his revelation in the Scripture of the Old and New Testaments. That would be a little off track for this post though.

    My ideas about you, pboy, are currently entirely a projection; you, as I perceive you, are the product of my imagination. Yet it’s reasonably likely that you do still actually exist, somewhere out there. It’s not difficult for me to imagine all kinds of things about you, even about fantastical families of pboys out there on the internet trolling Christian blogs – but if it is the question of your actual existence that’s particularly important, the fact that my perceptions of you are in a sense a projection says little of related value.

    The Christian faith has an historical basis. Read up on it; read up on Jesus. I’d suggest that then you might stop talking/posting nonsense about “imagining gods”. It’s simply not particularly relevant.

    You’ve previously mentioned the certainty which 1st-person sense perception provides over against the nature of ‘belief’ in God (linked with “imagining”, etc). If Christianity raises historical questions, these were a matter of sense perception and from there, eyewitness testimony at some point. So, even by your own lights it probably ought not just be dismissed as intangible or unintelligible nonsense. However, more generally I’d encourage you to read some of the philosophical posts at this blog which indicate the poverty inherent in only relying on empirical sense data and the like. Sense data itself provides no useful framework within which it can be interpreted – to really make sense of things, you need to at least touch on metaphysics. Doing so could I think challenge any assumptions of naturalism you are making. God exists and explains the nature of the universe – and whatever your own beliefs and motivations (and thoughts about mine), you won’t get rid of Him.

  • Well, you’ve caught me at a bad time here. I started commenting on this blog, simply because the posts interest me.

    Matt jumped on my comments to call me snarky, ‘nother guy couldn’t help feign insult and now you’re calling me a troll.

    The tone of any reply seems to me to be that my commentary is ‘wrong’, not for what I am saying, but for who I am.

    Then there are the general put-downs, calling any dissenters ‘Fleas’ and such.

    I guess if I came here to find out what Christians are like, if they’re all not just exactly like the trolls that come on other blogs I follow, now I know.

    As for your historical evidence, well, they are just stories after all, aren’t they?

    Washington had wooden teeth? The pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock? Columbus had eight bodies, each buried in a different city!?

    There’s a few ‘historical facts’ right off the top of my head.

    How about some Scriptural facts? The four Gospels were four untitled versions, given names well after they were written. The ‘trusted historian’ and apparently physician, Luke, seems to disagree with modern scholars about when Herod died and when any kind of a census was done and copied most of his story from Mark. Luke also gives us Jeus’ ancestry, which is different from the one written by the author they named Matthew, both being different from the ancestral line-so-far in Chronicles.

    There is no archeological evidence for a city of Nazareth, a town of Nasareth or even a village of Nazareth at the time in question and no hill with a cliff in the area to match a story involving Jesus.

    A lot of the prophecies in the Bible are obviously anachronistic accounts where the author knows more detail about the supposed future than he does about his ‘present’.

    Others are just lines copied from the Old Testament and reprinted with, “He said, as was foretold he would say by Isaiah(for example)”, and drivel like this.

    Christianity is such a ‘huge tent’ religion that it is amazing to me how you guys can still call it the same religion. (that there’s a HUGE elephant in the room), and the whole anti-science stance that millions upon millions of people of ‘roughly your version’ who nevertheless feel that they are privy to guidance/’knowing’ from the Spirit of the creator OF the universe ITSELF is nothing short of astonishing.

    Now philosophy is touted to be something it is not, some saying that it is meant to clarify, but in reality, philosophers turn out to be the trickiest word-magicians of all, perhaps outdoing politicians.

    We’re never sure if a philosopher is imagining that he has the upper hand from before engaging in a discussion simply because of the wordplay that, “Since God is defined AS existing, the sentence, ‘God does not exist.’, is ludicrous nonsense!”, and such.

    How do you know that God exists then Andre? Could it be something about time not going back for infinity? Could it be that there ‘must be’ a necessary first cause?

    But that’s not it really, is it? No. You think God exists and HE is the Christian God because you grew up in a Christian society, THAT’s why.

    Madeleine is dead wrong that you guys want students to question their faith, because when questioned, you guys automaically think that the questioner is questioning YOUR faith. Isn’t THAT right?

    And, as I noted above, judging from the tone of the responses I get, you guys just can’t handle it.

    Not feeling my happy self today, Andre, I’ll look in and see if you can manage a civil response.

  • pboyfloyd, I’ve written some quick responses to your comment here. I’ve put it on my personal blog as it seemed a better location for what adds up to a fairly long piece for a blog comment. Few people read the blog, so I assumed you’d be ok with that. You’re not named there anyway.

    Let me know if you have particular issues with my suggestions. Some things I’m better informed on than others. Since I spent a while on it and I’ve got other commitments, I may not contribute again for a few days. Thanks for the interaction.

  • Hey Andre, be happy to continue the conversation with you. Coincidentally my google account has been suspended due to unusual activity and wouldn’t you know it, I have no cell phone.

    So for now, guess I’ll be creating new I.D. ’til I figure out a solution. At the moment, I have ground to scratch and eggs to lay, so it might be a day or two for any replies, which you KNOW I have, to get there.(nothing too ‘drastic’, LOL)

  • […] Moving Beyond CS Lewis?. This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← The Poached Egg: Books & Bibles LikeBe the first to like this post. […]

  • Pboys logical fallacies are clear inhis comments.