The Theology of C. S. Lewis. Questionable?

An 8 minute .mp3 version of this post may be listened to
here, at [url=http://www.theopenlife/audioblog/20081121_C.S.Lewis_questionable_theology.mp3]http://www.theopenlife/audioblog/20081121_C.S.Lewis_questionable_theology.mp3[/url].

Greetings, brothers and sisters.

Regular visitors to SI, I ask for your patience with this delicate subject. I trust you accept I have no affections for needless controversy; with earnestness my desire is for the glory of God and the good of the Church. I believe by God's grace, I have sustained over the years a reputation for cordiality, regardless of differences of view on certain subjects, and entreat you to consider this post in good faith of my intentions and sobriety.

It is not without deliberation that I raise these issues, and, lest someone assume I am fond of 'hunting heretics', it is the sheer ubiquity of Lewis' influence which compels me to raise this flag. My hope is that godly men and women acquainted with the writing of C. S. Lewis, or with others who are, would lend judgment to some concerns presented below.

Was the theology of Lewis questionable? Should his works be recommended to new believers as 'mere' Christianity?

Before beginning, I would ask that others refrain from joining this discussion until they have read the entirety of the first post. This is to prevent redundancy, prejudice, and confusion. Thank you very much for using your freedoms considerately.

* * *

"The Theology of C. S. Lewis. Questionable?"

I rarely meet a professing believer who has not read something by C. S. Lewis, and few others who have not at least heard of him. My first encounter came at age 7, by reading the Chronicles of Narnia. Those books were like childhood companions to me. By late teens I had read many of his other books and considered Lewis the 'foundation of my thinking' and certainly my favorite author. Following my conversion at age 21, I gravitated to 'older paths', mostly to the works of the Puritans, Spurgeon, Pink, etc. However, I still take interest in understanding a man who has left such far reaching influences, especially upon mainstream Western Christianity. Lewis' works are required reading at many schools, including my Alma Mater, where students were encouraged to "begin at Lewis". Recently in a visit to Walden Bookstore I found the Theology section underpopulated with little more than some Roman Catholic books, two volumes of Augustine, and yet an entire shelf of Lewis. This has prompted a fresh consideration of his beliefs and impact.

Having returned to some excerpts from his books I have been deeply troubled at the discoveries made. To state them bluntly might invoke disbelief or charges of cruel misinterpretation. I need not battle, but will let his own voice speak for itself. A small selection of quotes will demonstrate a sample of what I speak of, but the bulk is contained in an article published by John Robbins, pastor and founder of the Trinity Foundation, and Evangelical Theological Society, Atlanta, GA. Whether or not Robbins had "and axe to grind", I care little for his opinions as for the statements of Lewis himself, which are presented in abundance.

Consider the article a part of this post, and necessary reading for entering this discussion in an informed manner:

[url=http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/205a-DidCS.LewisGotoHeaven.pdf]http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/205a-DidCS.LewisGotoHeaven.pdf[/url]

But first, here is a sample taken from the final book in Lewis' childrens series, The Chronicles of Narnia. For those unfamiliar, Aslan the Lion represents Christ, and in this chapter Aslan is pronouncing final and eternal judgment upon all creatures. Some are entering to the right, others sentenced to the left. Before him is brought a Calormene man, something like an Arab or Hindu, who has all his life served Tash, a false deity, such as Christians consider the Islamic Allah.

“Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him [the Lion/Christ]. … But the Glorious One bent down his golden head … and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.

” … I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. ..
But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou shouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.”

-The Last Battle, Volume VII of The Chronicles of Narnia

So, to review the essence of this passage, Lewis presents Aslan, the Christ figure, as crediting the good works and sincere devotion of this idol worshiper as sufficing for his entry into eternal paradise. Though the man served a false God, yet he served his idol in morally devout ways, and so his service is considered acceptable, even to the extent that he is welcomed into the Kingdom and is promised rewards.

Now I ask regarding Lewis, is he, or is he not presenting universal salvation for "morally good" people, by sincerity of conscience rather than grace through faith in the atoning work of Christ? Does he not contradict a host of passages which proclaim that "by the works of the law, no man shall be justified in God's sight", and that "they are condemned already, because they have not believed on Him whom God sent", and that "the wrath of God abides presently on them." Most of all, that the "salvation which is by grace through faith", "comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God", which requires preaching and receiving of the gospel.

Did Paul write in vain that, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"

And if being found so erroneous at the heart of basic Christian orthodoxy, what may Lewis' writings add to the message of the Gospel "by grace alone through faith alone"? Undeniably his writings contain certain valuable insights, but do not also the works of Aquinas and Aristotle? Should we commend their volumes to new converts? And this seems only the beginning of apparent violent departures that have somehow been ignored by the mass of shepherds who are charged to defend the flock.

Again, the article which has the wealth of excerpts is here:
[url=http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/205a-DidCS.LewisGotoHeaven.pdf]http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/205a-DidCS.LewisGotoHeaven.pdf[/url]

Brother Michael,

Thankyou for your research and this post. I have long been leery of C.S. Lewis and his writings. I know many will disagree, but I adhere to the wholesome and sound words of Spurgeon, Pink, Sparks, etc.

Is C.S. Lewis questionable? Definitely.

The Lord BLess. Kathleen

Since I don't have the book, I can't give you the page numbers, but in "Letters to Malcom" Lewis talks about praying to the dead.

Lewis' theology certianly is questionable. Thank you Michael for calling us to be Bereans!

Hi Brother...

I agree that it is perfectly acceptable to question the doctrinal views or teachings of C. S. Lewis -- or any other man.

I remember telling a friend (who was a big fan of Watchman Nee) that I just didn't get much out of his words. Wow. You would have thought that this brother assumed that I had attacked the Lord! While Watchman Nee does say some interesting things, I just never thought that there was much that attracted me to his writings. I suppose that this is true of all of us...and even the "giants" and "pillars" of the faith.

Don't get me wrong: There are things that C. S. Lewis wrote that I entirely agree with! In fact, he provides some wonderful insight into dealing with certain issues. However, I look at him like I look at anyone else -- that they are thoughts of mere men. As men, we are all flawed and prone to error.

Even though I don't agree with everything said by men like Lewis, or Nee, or even to a lesser extent, Brother Ravenhill, it doesn't mean that I dismiss them as anything less than a man who believed himself as a lover of God. I don't agree with some things that some men say, but that doesn't lead me to spit upon or trample everything that they have to say.

I appreciate your encouragement here. We should TEST EVERYTHING (I Thess. 5:21) and not just the words or deeds of a few.

:-)

Well said and worth repeating.

kind regards,
white stone

"Is there any minimum belief required to get into Heaven, or have we all accepted the [b]Antichristian notion[/b] that God loves all men and desires to save all, regardless of their beliefs? [b]Has the Universalism implicit in Arminianism[/b], which has been the majority report of American churches for almost two centuries, and which lately has erupted in the openness of God controversy, caused American Protestants to accept Lewis as a fellow Christian without question?"

This was taken from the article that you posted. Though I lean more Arminian, I am hesitant to read anything that calls one of the others beliefs as "AntiChristian".

Though I have always been hesitant with C.S. Lewis, the obvious anti-Arminian slant to the written article provided kind of turned me off to the rest of what the article was saying.

Thank you for sharing brother. I truly know that you wish to honor the Lord in all that you do :-)

Lewis was not a theologian; he was an
apologeticist. He used logic and reason
to convince others of the existence of God,
and the need for faith.
He did not say he ever understood such
mysteries as the incarnate Word, the atoning
work of the cross, or the resurrection unto
eternal life !!

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:

Even though I don't agree with everything said by men like Lewis, or Nee, or even to a lesser extent, Brother Ravenhill, it doesn't mean that I dismiss them as anything less than a man who believed himself as a lover of God. I don't agree with some things that some men say, but that doesn't lead me to spit upon or trample everything that they have to say.

Well put as one other poster has noted.

I am currently reading 'Yours, Jack' which is a collection of letters that he wrote. Since I enjoy writing letters/email, to me the book is facinating. But, as seems to be the primary concern, I am a mature Christian and know how to run over things I do not agree with. At least in this book, so far, the good far outways the bad.

There is one other thought I would like to add. When I consider where our focus should be, and the many distractions, both good and bad, that are at work to distract even the best of us, my first thought as I began reading the article referenced, was the enormous amount of energy this work took, not to mention that it was just one article of an entire book-in-progress.

We have to ask, did satan prompt one (Robins) to work against one of God's greatest promoters of the gospel (Lewis), or did God prompt one (Robins) to expose one of the greatest subverters of the Gospel (Lewis). One thing is sure, God would not prompt one of His own, to work against one of His own. Satan might, but God would not.

I don't know the man (Robins); he could be as good as gold, but still I long for us to better about laying aside our differences and rather to look for common ground as we try to represent God to a world that desperately needs Him.

I think it would be one thing to say in passing, watch this and watch that, but to devote this amount of energy toward something like this, in my opinion, does more to devide the kingdom than to unite it.

We all have our differences. I don't even agree with myself all the time. I don't believe God is so much after our resolving all our differences so we can agree, but rather, that we be willing to lay them aside so we can agree, but that's just me.

I don't even agree with myself all the time.

Been awhile since I have read the book but thought this might also show another side ...

My dear Wormwood,

I note what you say about guiding your patient's reading and taking care that he sees a good deal of his materialist friend. But are you not being a trifle naif? It sounds as if you supposed that argument was the way to keep him out of the Enemy's clutches. That might have been so if he had lived a few centuries earlier. At that time the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as the result of a chain of reasoning. But what with the weekly press and other such weapons, we have largely altered that. Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to having a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn't think of doctrines as primarily "true" or "false," but as "academic" or "practical," "outworn" or "contemporary," "conventional" or "ruthless." Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don't waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong or stark or courageous—that it is the philosophy of the future. That's the sort of thing he cares about.

The trouble about argument is that it moves the whole struggle onto the Enemy's own ground. He can argue too; whereas in really practical propaganda of the kind I am suggesting He has been shown for centuries to be greatly the inferior of Our Father Below. By the very act of arguing you awake the patient's reason; and once it is awake, who can foresee the result! Even if a particular train of thought can be twisted so as to end in our favour, you will find that you have been strengthening in your patient the fatal habit of attending to universal issues and withdrawing his attention from the stream of immediate sense experiences. Your business is to fix his attention on the stream. Teach him to call it "real life" and don't let him ask what he means by "real."

Remember, he is not, like you, a pure spirit. Never having been a human (oh, that abominable advantage of the Enemy's!) you don't realise how enslaved they are to the pressure of the ordinary. I once had a patient, a sound atheist, who used to read in the British Museum. One day, as he sat reading, I saw a train of thought in his mind beginning to go the wrong way. The Enemy, of course, was at his elbow in a moment. Before I knew where I was I saw my twenty years' work beginning to totter. If I had lost my head and begun to attempt a defence by argument, I should have been undone. But I was not such a fool. I struck instantly at the part of the man which I had best under my control, and suggested that it was just about time he had some lunch. The Enemy presumably made the counter-suggestion (you know how one can never quite overhear what He says to them?) that this was more important than lunch. At least I think that must have been His line, for when I said, "Quite. In fact much too important to tackle at the end of a morning," the patient brightened up considerably; and by the time I had added "Much better come back after lunch and go into it with a fresh mind," he was already halfway to the door. Once he was in the street the battle was won. I showed him a newsboy shouting the midday paper, and a No. 73 bus going past, and before he reached the bottom of the steps I had got into him an unalterable conviction that, whatever odd ideas might come into a man's head when he was shut up alone with his books, a healthy dose of "real life" (by which he meant the bus and the newsboy) was enough to show him that all "that sort of thing" just couldn't be true. He knew he'd had a narrow escape, and in later years was fond of talking about "that inarticulate sense for actuality which is our ultimate safe guard against the aberrations of mere logic." He is now safe in Our Father's house.

You begin to see the point? Thanks to processes which we set at work in them centuries ago, they find it all but impossible to believe in the unfamiliar while the familiar is before their eyes. Keep pressing home on him the ordinariness of things. Above all, do not attempt to use science (I mean, the real sciences) as a defence against Christianity. They will positively encourage him to think about realities he can't touch and see. There have been sad cases among the modern physicists. If he must dabble in science, keep him on economics and sociology; don't let him get away from that invaluable "real life." But the best of all is to let him read no science but to give him a grand general idea that he knows it all and that everything he happens to have picked up in casual talk and reading is "the results of modern investigation." Do remember you are there to fuddle him. From the way some of you young fiends talk, anyone would suppose it was our job to teach!

Your affectionate uncle

SCREWTAPE

[i]Screwtape Letters[/i] C.S. Lewis

Dear theopenlife,

I think this has also become an essential read for this post:

Even though I don't agree with everything said by men like Lewis, or Nee, or even to a lesser extent, Brother Ravenhill, it doesn't mean that I dismiss them as anything less than a man who believed himself as a lover of God. I don't agree with some things that some men say, but that doesn't lead me to spit upon or trample everything that they have to say. (chrrrisss)

For the readers who have not read much of Lewis, this post is sufficent in showing no man is perfect. But do not hesitate to read his material. This is third, forth, even fifth hand information on Lewis, writers writting about writers, about writers... sick. Lewis wrote an essay in which he exhorted readers to always read the originals and then the comentaries.

"It still remains true that no justification of virtue will enable a man to be virtuous." - Lewis, [i]The Abolition of Man[/i]

Edit: November 22, 2008 11:17pm - I originally wrote Charles Lewis, I corrected this to Clive Lewis.

Even though I don't agree with everything said by men like Lewis, or Nee, or even to a lesser extent, Brother Ravenhill, it doesn't mean that I dismiss them as anything less than a man who believed himself as a lover of God. I don't agree with some things that some men say, but that doesn't lead me to spit upon or trample everything that they have to say.

I think the fundamental difference between men like Ravenhill and Lewis is that Ravenhill didn't teach things that were actually anti-biblical, whereas Lewis did. You may not agree with everything Ravenhill said and neither do I, but I can't say that most of his don't have some scriptural basis.

Cchrriiisss said,

I don't agree with some things that some men say, but that doesn't lead me to spit upon or trample everything that they have to say.

I'm sure you were not grouping me with those who would "spit upon or trample" Lewis, or any other man, seeing as I went out of my way to admit that Lewis gives many valuable insights.

However, you and some of the other posters thus far have entirely neglected to comment on the original point. Should new believers receive books which, however otherwise helpful, teach universal salvation on the basis of works, a subtle denial of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and that Christ Himself was ignorant and erred in his prophesies? (All of which errors are plainly stated in the direct quotes provided, and not second hand, as one mistakenly suggested.)

I wonder why their is such furor over Robbins' ill motives, and almost nothing said about the quotes of Lewis himself, when the article was no more than a vehicle to show the passages Lewis wrote?

Once again, I foresaw the insinuations of "theological nitpicking" and stand by my concerns. I readily accept the small faith of weak brothers, and will not disown a man at first signs of stumbling. But how did Paul respond to the Galatians? When some began returning to works as the basis for why God would save them, even in part, our inspired Apostle said, "Who has bewitched you? ... I fear for you, lest you have run in vain."

And now I only parrot the writer of the epistle, that those who would "lay aside differences" to lock arms with ones whose errors include denials of the Gospel itself, show little value for what they are holding. One must lay aside Christ to pick up the Law, for in the arms of justification both grace and worksism cannot be grasped.

Many are eager to tie upon the Law the red ribbon of the first born. These do not realize God has ordained a different heir, by which His promised children should be born. Grace, though second to appear, has received the sole title and parentage of the Kingdom. So said Isaac, "I have given him all." And, as it relates to justification, "Esau I have hated, but Jacob have I loved." God will not tolerate a mingled fabric of works and faith for justification, no matter how surely good deeds are the necessary result of being justified.

I have made no sovereign judgment, nor would I think in such a situation to say that with assurance Lewis trusted in the Law and was damned. Without flinching, however, I contend that if he was in truth taken to heaven, it was by a Jesus and a Gospel quite different from the one he described in his books.

I ask again, how should we respond to the energetic distribution of fundamentally flawed writings to new believers, as Lewis' so often are?

Hi theopenlife...

I'm sure you were not grouping me with those who would "spit upon or trample" Lewis, or any other man, seeing as I went out of my way to admit that Lewis gives many valuable insights.

I've read [i]Mere Christianity[/i] and [i]The Screwtape Letters[/i] (along with portions of some of his other works). I am not a big fan of books on doctrine (probably because I don't trust someone else to introduce or "spoon feed" doctrine to me). However, these books introduce some Biblical truths.

I know some brethren here at SermonIndex who admit to having changed a position about certain doctrinal issues. Some even admit to having embraced some of the more questionable "charismania" views at one time. I imagine that none of us would view them as anything less than a brother in Christ -- even though they might have been in error.

The problem with any sort of analysis of C. S. Lewis is that we can't speak with him...because he is dead. We can discuss, debate or argue against his words and writings -- but we can't determine whether this is something that he embraced for the duration of his life.

I remember reading [i]Beyond the Cross and the Switchblade[/i] by David Wilkerson. I know that David Wilkerson doesn't hold to some of those same beliefs that he did at that time in his life. Brother Wilkerson went through a drastic change in the 1980s (with encouragement from Brother Ravenhill). We don't know everything about C.S. Lewis -- including what doctrinal or spiritual views that might have changed over time.

It is perfectly acceptable to scrutinize...and "prove" the words of any man. Paul did this to Peter -- whom "seemed to be pillars" for the Church (Galatians 2:9). We should always be aware that we are men confined to the flaws of our own intellect and human nature. All that I am saying is that we should "rightly divide" EVERYTHING that we encounter as believers. It doesn't mean that we can simply dismiss every person -- or assume that they are anything less than lovers of God. They may, in fact, simply be wrong in a particular area. I don't agree with the teachings of Calvinism or "eternal security" (or other views, like Christian "pacifism") -- but that doesn't give me a right to dismiss the relationship with God of those who do. I can even receive instruction from such men, even if I strongly disagree with them on some issues.

I ask again, how should we respond to the energetic distribution of fundamentally flawed writings to new believers, as Lewis' so often are?

:-)

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:

I remember reading [i]Beyond the Cross and the Switchblade[/i] by David Wilkerson. I know that David Wilkerson doesn't hold to some of those same beliefs that he did at that time in his life. Brother Wilkerson went through a drastic change in the 1980s (with encouragement from Brother Ravenhill).

Chris,

Could you clarify what you're referring to here? I spent a year in training on the Wilkerson ranch in '76. Ravenhill was there a few times and spoke a little. Very cool stuff. Impacts me still today. Just curious.

Thanks,

MJ

Hi MJones...

Could you clarify what you're referring to here? I spent a year in training on the Wilkerson ranch in '76. Ravenhill was there a few times and spoke a little. Very cool stuff. Impacts me still today. Just curious.

One example: He said that he regretted that he seemed to take a "hard line" stance against TV in his first book ([i]The Cross and the Switchblade[/i]). He stated that he enjoyed "family time" in front of the TV as he and his children watched certain shows (I think he mentioned [i]Bonanza[/i] by name). This is entirely different from the David Wilkerson of [i]Set the Trumpet to thy Mount[/i] (published around 1985) in which he pleads with believers to remove it from their homes.

The point, however, might get lost in the specifics. None of us are the same people that we were just ten years ago. I have read comments by some very wonderful men here at SI who testified that they, just a decade ago, were caught up into some very questionable doctrines or churches. Ten years ago, they might have defended such doctrinal views. Yet they are no longer the people they were then. In fact, some of us change constantly -- as we feel the Spirit leading us. We might not be the same person that we were just last year, especially in regard to a particular doctrinal view. Why? We all mature as we walk with Christ. The more time spent with Christ, the more we become like Him.

In this regard, C.S. Lewis might be like all of us. Whatever doctrinal views that he held or promoted at one time does not necessarily mean that he held those to the day of his death. The views in question may have been propogated for a while, until he discovered otherwise. Yes, it is probably unwise to promote a particular doctrinal view or stance that could be deemed as, at the least, controversial to the Body of Christ. Yet this goes on each and every Sunday in our congregations. We hear pastors and teachers share a particular view as "truth" that is simply a persuasion or interpretation. For instance, how many people preach about "eternal security?" Regardless of where you stand on the issue, is this something that should be preached as an indisputable truth? I don't think so. However, I don't think that we should quickly judge those who share any such doctrines without viewing them as men who might truly love God (even in error) or to simply dismiss EVERYTHING that they said based upon some of their views.

If we were to dismiss everything that individuals who preach, teach or believe something "questionable," I seriously doubt that we would ever hear ANYONE. Martin Luther was the leader of the Protestant movement, yet he himself held to some very questionable doctrinal views. So did many other men that we embrace at least some of their views. Do we dismiss men (and the things that they say) on the basis of a few things that they say? Or do we judge those spoken things on their own merit -- regardless who they came from? While there are some people that I would avoid due to the gross extremism of their views as a whole, I lean toward the latter.

BTW, I enjoy the words of Brother Wilkerson. I see him as a wonderful example to the Body of Christ. I cherish many of his words as truths preached with passion for the honor of God. Yet I am so aware that he and other great men (like Brother Ravenhill), are still mere [u]men[/u] given to the same flaws, limitations and temptations of this present world.

I hope this clarifies my remarks just a bit.

:-)

*edit*
As far as Brother Ravenhill's influence and encouragement to Brother Wilkerson, I have read and heard several testimonies from Dave Wilkerson about it. Wilkerson talks about how God used Brother Ravenhill during a difficult time and temptation to spiritually point at him and say, "[i]Thou art the man![/i]" Wilkerson testifies to how Ravenhill gave him a copy of William Gurnall's work, "[i]A Christian in Complete Armour[/i]." This book helped change Wilkerson's life.

So, you would like to have some comment about the specifics you raised in this original post.

Personally, I am not a fan of any contemporary writer of theological works because I think they are boring - it is like eating warmed over food that has sat in the frig for a week! Go to the original and study it: now that is like eating freshly cooked food, some that had not been frozen, or canned. Fresh, delicious! and one can relax and allow these words to penetrate your heart with no reserve. My opinion - just explaining why I find most religious works boring.

Anyhow, when I was a young mother, with children who loved to read, we purchased the "Chronicles of Narnia" for our children based on the recommendation of "Christianity Today" magazine and others. I considered fantasy boring as well... :-? so I did not read them. But our children loved them.

Now after reading this post, methinks I will HAVE to read it to make sure...I would hate to give my grandchildren any of these books to read if they actively promote a doctrine that is antithetical to basic Bible doctrine.

Thanks for sounding the alarm...

ginnyrose

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
We all mature as we walk with Christ. The more time spent with Christ, the more we become like Him.

Wilkerson talks about how God used Brother Ravenhill during a difficult time and temptation

It's funny the things we remember. While there in '76, I remember seeing a pile of TV's that were evidently a result of a little purge. I think there were about 7 or 8 families that lived on the ranch, members of his evangelism team. They all went TV free for at least a while.

I like what you've said about the more time we spend with Christ, the more we become like Him. 5 years ago I did the same think David Wilkerson writes about in the Cross and the Switchblade. He traded in his 10 to midnight TV time for 2 hours with God. I've never forgotten that after 30 years. After a slight case of burn out in church work, I decided to take my mornings. I find the more time I spend, the more time I want to spend. It has transformed my life.

In relation to the temptation comment; I can't remember how it came about that I heard this, but I have never forgotten it. A good friend of his told him that high strung people are high strung in many areas. The drive that God instills in us is pure and simple drive. If it is not properly harnessed it can result in some pretty bad stuff. I have had occasion to recall that comment a few times over the years.

I think the time I have spent with God has resulted in a harnessing of that drive. It is now very focussed on seeking Him. New ministry is beginning to flow out of it. I feel like a horse who can't wait for the starting gate to open. God in His wisdom is opening it slowly.

It is sometimes difficult to express opposing views cordially. This thread got a little close to the line. I partly regret commenting, but at the time, another part of me could not resist. I was trying very hard to not be at all malicious, but in the end, it probably didn't accomplish anything. I think my point was in light of the change that has taken place in me, I am now focussed and have seen all too much of the different, even well meaning, distractions that obscure that focus.

I see and have been a part of a slumbering church that seems to be waking up. My passion is first to keep my passion alive, and in a sense, as I feel I have cleared a path to God, to then help as many as possible to see that path.

(Sorry about that. I'm back. Had to help the wife fold laundry and vacuum stairs. She helps me keep my feet on the ground.)

Now where was I? Oh yeh! Well it actually seems like as good a place as any to stop. I've enjoyed reading your comments and especially these that were at my request.

One last thing, since it is actually the original purpose of this thread. I would be hesitant to recommend anything to a new Christian that was not nearly flawless and very easy to understand. I lean more to recommending certain books of the Bible with a little guidance as to what to look for. It is hard to go wrong there; at least to begin with.

Hi MJones...

Thank you for the encouraging testimony, brother. I agree with the notion of not recommending anything to a believer that we can't be sure of the validity or truthfulness.

I remember two twenty-something believers who came to the Lord at the same time (when I was a teen). Both of them came from quite sinful "party" lifestyles and both were saved out of some nasty sins. The first was converted at a Church play, and the other came to the Lord one night at a grocery store.

However, one of the young men (the one converted at a Church play) immediately began to read everything that people recommended to him. He purchased dozens of books by popular preachers from the local Christian bookstore. He became extremely involved in the Church (weeks following his salvation). Several "spiritual" people would "prophesy" to him that he was "called into the ministry" ("youth" ministry, to be particular). The pastor would constantly boast about this young man's conversion during various meetings.

The other guy (the one saved at the grocery store) was just as eager in his faith. He told his family, coworkers and friends about his relationship with Jesus. He was bold, but very kind with those around him. He even made a list of all of the women that he had slept with (quite a few) and apologized to them all. He even went to his alma mater, confessed a past sin and returned some items that he stole from his college biology department (he has a biology degree). I remember feeling really comfortable talking with this guy. I loaned him a recorded sermon of a preacher that I know. About six months later, I asked this brother whether or not he had ever listened to it. He told me that he had not...because he felt that the Lord led him to NOT listen to it. I was surprised (because it was a good sermon), so I asked him, "Why?" He told me that the Lord had impressed upon him to not read books or even listen to many sermons UNTIL he had grown closer to the Lord (via the Word and through prayer). He said that the reason was so that he could better distinguish between what is really from the Lord and what is not.

My respect grew for this second brother.

Both of these guys are still walking with the Lord. However, the first guy (the one converted at the play) has turned into a typical charismatic preacher. He still consumes many, many books by famous charismatic preachers. He has hopped from Church to Church as a youth pastor, but he dreams of building a giant "megachurch." He attends many of the Church growth seminars, and even teaches that "small churches are unbiblical." The second guy (the one who met the Lord in a grocery store) is simply a good husband, father and witness for the Lord.

I've often thought of these two guys. They were both converted at nearly the same time. They were both baptized on the same day. But one of them has gotten caught up into charismania, while the other is...uh...a lot like the guys who meet here at SermonIndex. I suppose that it always demonstrated the problems that can arise from those who recommend books with questionable doctrines to young believers. The proverb about raising a child is true -- even for newborn babes in Christ!

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
but he dreams of building a giant "megachurch."

If our passion is anything other than God, we may get it, but with it, we will also get lienness of soul.

The desire to build a 'megachurch' is nothing more than being about self. We can easily convince ourselves it is about reaching many for God and console ourselves in the thought, but, when it all boils down, if we pursue anything more than we pursue God, we have missed the mark.

T. Austin Sparks, in a sermon he calls 'This Ministry', makes the point that it is out of this nearness to God that true ministry is born. I am experiencing the truth of that. I am accidentally doing more ministry now than I ever did in all my effort before.

We don't pursue ministry, we pursue God. Out of that pursuit will come ministry.