Overcoming the Great Divorce II: C.S. Lewis

Last updated on: July 22, 2008 at 8:00 am by Henry Karlson

Overcoming the Great Divorce II: C.S. Lewis 2008-07-22T08:00:23-05:00 Henry Karlson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Part I

If our social structure is disintegrating, is that not precisely because it has no constitutive spiritual principle, no ‘idea’ in Solovyov’s (and Coleridge’s) sense of the term, incarnate in it.

Owen Barfield, Introduction in Vladimir Solovyov. The Meaning of Love (Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Press, 1985):14 – 15.

The institution of marriage has always been a difficult institution for Christians to discuss. On the one hand, we know it was established long before the coming of Christ, and was a necessary part of society. On the other hand, we also know that Christ had transformed it, raised it up, and made it something new. It now points to the relationship between Christ with the Church. It brings grace to those involved. But how are we to connect the original institution with the Christian one? For when we try to do so, we note that the history of the institution is confusing, to say the least: some things, like polygamy, have their place in Scripture, but do not have their place in Christianity. Yet, since people came from a pre-Christian to a Christian state of being, many questions emerged. What was one to do with someone in a form of marriage which is not respected by the Church? Take, for example, polygamy. Should the man choose one wife, and kick the other women out of his house? Wouldn’t that be hard on the women? While the Church desired the man to be monogamous, no general solution to this one difficult question could be found. Instead, the answer was often given on a case by case basis, reflecting upon the needs of those involved. The same was true to other difficult cases. The Christian response to such difficult questions has, for the most part, been generous, but not sufficient. Yet, things changed. Christendom was established and most people were raised Christian. These questions disappeared from the limelight. There was a sense that there was a general understanding as to what marriage was and how it was to be practiced. In recent times, things have changed once again. What are Christians to do in a society which is trying to redefine the institution of marriage while their faith believes it to be something else? The questions which have been left unanswered have come back to us and demand an answer. But something else has been revealed in the midst of our crisis: Christians, even in the heyday of Christendom, really didn’t have theological agreement as to the nature of marriage.[1] The ways Christians answered the difficult questions before became the means by which different theological traditions about marriage were established. Thus, when trying to engage society, Christians must return to the basics and come to terms with what marriage is and isn’t for themselves as well.

C.S. Lewis tried to enter the discussion on a pragmatic level. Since Christianity no longer held sway over society, its moral concepts could no longer be enforced by the state. However, this did not mean Christians could not, nor should not, keep to their own values. Thus, Lewis believed that society could and should create its own norms, its own idea of marriage, and Christians when entering their vows should do so following the requirements of the state. At the same time, Christians must follow the dictates of their faith, and the rights and responsibilities of a Christian marriage, with its sanctifying grace, can only come about from a religious, not a secular, ceremony. “My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christian and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.“[2] One must assume, of course, that the only true marriage for Christians is the religious kind, and if the laws infringed upon the Christian’s right to practice their faith as they see fit, such laws would not have to be obeyed. Lewis tied this belief with his belief that divorce should be allowed by the state, because not everyone held to the Christian belief that marriage could not be dissolved. “A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine.“[3]

Taking what Lewis said above into the modern situation, it would seem that Lewis would support a state redefining marriage, and allowing various other kinds of practices: polygamy, homosexual marriage, and the like, if the society desired it. But he would complain if one element in society tried to force their views upon the state by changing the established norms if the rest of the state did not agree. This kind of reasoning, of course, transcends the issue of marriage and goes into the question of morality and its enforcement by the state. Who decides which morality the state is to follow? Lewis, it would seem, wanted to establish a kind of social contract which would allow, even require, the state to change its laws when societal morality has changed. “When the prevalent morality of a nation comes to differ unduly from that presupposed in its laws, the laws must sooner or late change and conform to it. And the sooner they do so the better. For till they do we inevitably have humbug, perjury, and confusion.“[4] Lewis would demand the law to be flexible, to allow for personal choice and virtue. He would not want it to be used to make people do actions which they would consider immoral (such as to make them have sex, make them drink wine, make them have an abortion). Of course, there would be times when personal morality and societal morality are in conflict, and Lewis’s position would offer little help in such cases. He would readily admit it. Indeed, he understood how difficult it could be to produce ethical solutions to moral dilemmas, but that was due to the nature of human fallibility: “The man without a moral code, like an animal, is free from moral problems. The man who has not learned to count is free from mathematical problems. A man asleep is free from all problems. Within the framework of general human ethics problems will, of course, arise and will sometimes be solved wrongly. This possibility of error is simply the symptom that we are awake, not asleep, that we are men, not beasts or gods.“[5]This would mean, of course, making laws based upon a society’s moral code would also be a difficult, and fallible, activity.

While being more flexible on the question of divorce, and believing that the state can define marriage as it sees fit, Lewis believed that there was something which made marriage important for all involved, whether or not it was a Christian marriage. One should not enter marriage lightly. Marriage vows should be respected for what they are, and treated seriously. Indeed, they should plan for the marriage to last. It they didn’t, they would be better off shacking up instead. “If people do not believe in permanent marriage, it is perhaps better that they should live together unmarried than that they should make vows they do not mean to keep. It is true that by living together without marriage they will be guilty (in Christian eyes) of fornication. But one fault is not mended by another; unchastity is not improved by adding perjury.“[6]

Lewis took his theory of marriage seriously, as can be seen in his relationship with Joy. When he first married her, it was purely a civil affair, one which allowed her to stay in England. He acted as if that was all there was to it, but no one (except maybe himself) was fooled by this, least of all his brother. “J assured me that Joy would continue to occupy her own house as ‘Mrs. Gresham’, and that the marriage was a pure formality designed to give Joy the right to go on living in England: and I saw the uselessness of disabusing him. Joy, whose intentions were obvious from the outset, soon began to press for her rights, pointing out with perfect truth that her reputation was suffering from J’s being in her house every day, often stopping until eleven at night; and all arrangements had been made for the installation of the family at The Kilns, when disaster overtook us.“[7] Only when Joy was discovered with cancer, and it looked as if she were going to die, did C.S. Lewis go one step further and enter into a Christian marriage with her. It was not an easy thing to arrange: she was a divorcee, and many, including his own bishop, were against the marriage. He had to get the service of an old pupil of his, who was from a different diocese, to bless his union.[8]

By putting his theory of marriage – and even divorce – into action, Lewis had created a scandal for himself. And many of his friends, like Tolkien, were upset enough about it. What made things much more complicated was the fact that Lewis didn’t even bother to tell many of his friends about his marriage. They had to learn about it from others. The two facts together created a great amount of friction between Lewis and Tolkien. “Tolkien, like many of Lewis’s friends, had not heard of the marriage until some time after it took place. When he did learn of it, probably at second hand rather than from Lewis himself, he was profoundly injured by the fact that Lewis had concealed it from him. He was also distressed by the fact that Lewis had married a divorcee, for his own views on divorce and remarriage were much less liberal than Lewis’s. In his eyes, Joy was still Mrs Gresham.”[9] Joy really wasn’t well liked by many of Lewis’ friends; she was often seen as an outsider forced into a well-defined territory she did not belong, and his friends used all kinds of excuses to avoid being around her.[10]Perhaps one of the greatest surprises to this story is how Tolkien’s wife, Edith, who had often found Tolkien’s Inkling meetings an annoyance which got in the way of his work and family life, was able to start a friendship with Joy.[11]

Lewis’ theories of marriage were seriously questioned by Tolkien, and indeed, he believed Lewis was trying to do two things at once: proclaim a kind of morality but also take it away, all with one stroke. The result, as we shall see, is that he thought Lewis was playing close to the kind of relativism he normally abhorred.

Footnotes

[1] While there are some basics held by most Christians, we must realize that Protestants do not, for the most part, recognize the sacramental nature of marriage. Moreover, Catholicism itself has at least two distinct understandings of marriage within its mantle. The West sees the couple as giving the sacrament to each other, while the East sees the priest as the one who confers the sacrament upon the couple. While this explains why in the West a deacon can preside over the marriage while in the East they cannot, we are left to question what this distinction means theologically, if anything.
[2] C.S. Lewis. Mere Christianity (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1965), 101-2.
[3] Ibid., 101.
[4] C.S Lewis. “Sex in Literature,” pages 105 -108 in Present Concerns(San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1986): 105.
[5] C.S. Lewis, “On Ethics,” pages 44 – 56 in Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992): 56.
[6] C.S. Lewis. Mere Christianity, 97
[7]Clyde Kilby and Marjorie Lamp Mead, eds. Brothers & Friends: The Diaries of Marjor Warren Hamilton Lewis (New York: Harper & Row, 1982), 245.
[8]Roger Lancelyn Greek and Walter Hooper. C.S. Lewis: A Biography (London: Harper Collins, 2002), 379.
[9] Humphrey Carpenter. The Inklings(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1979), 242.
[10] A.N. Wilson. C.S. Lewis: A Biography (New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1990), 271.
[11] Humphrey Carpenter. J.R.R. Tolkien: The Authorized Biography (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1988), 237.

Previous Post

July 21, 2008

Vox Nova at the Movies: WALL-E

Next Post

July 22, 2008 True Nature of the Occupation

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 2019 A Consistent Ethic of Life Aaron Weldon Abortion absurdity Abuse Scandal Academics Adoption Advent Africa agreement/disagreement with Church teaching Alexander Schmemann Alexham Alterity America Amnesty International Anarchism angels Anglicanism Animals Annual Statistics Anthony Anxietas Apocalyptic Apophatic Appalachia Aquinas Art Atheism Atonement Augustine Authority Baptism Beauty Bible biblical criticism biblical scholarship Bioethics Bishops Black Catholics Black Theology Blackadder Blogs Books Breastfeeding Brett Salkeld Buddhism Bush administration Byzantine Catholic Calvinism Canada Canon Law Capital Punishment Capitalism Caryll Houselander Catholic Blog Awards Catholic Blogging Catholic League Catholic Social Teaching Catholic Worker Movement Catholicity CFL Charity Children Chris West Christ and Culture Christian Democracy Christian Unity Christmas Christology Church Church Doctrine Church History Climate Change Cohabitation Colbert Collegiality Communion Communism Comparative Theology Competition Conferences conscience conscience rights Consequentialism Consistent Life Ethics Consumerism Contraception Contrition Conversion Converts Coptic COVID-19 Creation Critical Thinking Cross Cuba Culture Culture of Death Culture of Life Darfur David Cruz-Uribe David Wheeler-Reed Death Death Penalty Democracy Demons Desert Fathers Devil Dialogue dignity Disability Disarmament discernment Discipleship discrimination Dissent Distributism Division Doctrine Domestic Church Dorothy Day Double Effect Doubt Down syndrome Driving Early Church Easter Eastern Churches Ecclesiology Economics Economy Ecumenism Education El Salvador Election Election 2020 Ellul Embryonic Stem Cell Research Empire Energy Enlighenment Environmentalism Ephraim Radner Episcopal Church epistemology Equality Eschatology Ethics Eucharist Europe Euthanasia Evangelization Evil Evolution Excommunication F.X. Durrwell Facism Facts Fair Trade Faith Family Fashion Feddie Feminism Feminist theology Fertility Fetal Rights Fiction Film Finances First Things flags Folk Religion Food Foreign Affairs Forgiveness Frank Sheed Free Speech Freedom gay & lesbian persons Genocide George W. Bush George Weigel Gerald L. Campbell Girard/Mimetic Theory Global Warming Globalization Gnosticism Good Friday Grace Gratitude Greed Grey Cup 2009 Guadalupe Guest Post Guest Posts Gun Control Gustave Martelet Habitat for Humanity Hans Urs von Balthasar Harry Potter Hate Speech Health Health Care Healthcare Heather King Hebrew Bible Henri de Lubac Henry Karlson Herbert McCabe Heresy HHS Mandate Controversy History Holidays Holiness Holy Spirit Homiletics Homily Homosexuality Hope Hospitality How Far Can We Go? How Far Can We Go? Human Person Human Rights Humanae Vitae Humility Humor Hunger Hunting Identity Idolatry Ignacio Ellacuría Imagination Immigration In Memoriam Income Inequality Inculturation Indigenous People Individualism Inklings Intellect Interdependence Internet Interpretation Interviews Introduction Iraq War Islam Israel Jain James Alison James Martin Jazz Jesus Christ Jews Joe Biden Joe Hargrave Johann Baptist Metz John Allen John Henry Newman John Paul II John the Baptist John XXIII Jonathan Josef Pieper Joseph (the husband of Mary) Joseph Bernardin Joseph Ratzinger Josh Brumfield Journals Joy Judgment Just War Justice Kari Lundgren Karl Rahner Katerina Ivanovna Kenya Keynes Kingdom of God Kyle R. Cupp Labor Language Latin America Law Leanne Ogasawara Legion of Christ Leisure Lent Liberalism Liberation Theology Libertarianism Libya Lies Life life & dignity & responsibility of the human person Literature Little Way Liturgical music Liturgical Year Liturgy Living Simply Living Wage Local Church Lombard Lord of the Rings Louis Dupre Love M.Z. Magic Magisterium Mark DeFrancisis Mark Gordon Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masculinity Matt Talbot Matthew Fish Matthew Levering McCain Media Memorial Day Mennonites Mental Illness mercy Michael Iafrate Middle East militarism Miroslav Volf Mitt Romney Modesty Moral Theology Morality Mormonism Morning's Minion Mother Teresa Music Muslims Natalie Nate Wildermuth Nationalism Native Americans Nature Nazis Neuhaus New Evangelization New York City News NFP nihilism Nonviolence Not Abortion Nova's Ordo Nuclear weapons Nuns Obama Occult Old Age Opus Dei Ordination ordination of women original sin Orthodoxy Oscar Romero Other Voices Pacifism Palestine Palin Papacy Papal Peace Messages Papal Social Encyclicals Particular Affections Partisanship Patriotism Paul Paul Ryan Paul VI Peace Pentimento persecution Personalism Phantastes Philosophy PKD Planned Parenthood Pluralism Poetry Policraticus Politcal Apathy Politics Poll Pope Benedict XVI Pope Francis Pope John Paul II Pope Leo XIV Population Postcolonialsim Poverty Power Prayer Preaching Predictions Predictions for 2012 President Barack Obama priestly formation & discernment Pro-Life Progress Prophetic Witness Proportionalism Public Diplomacy Public Policy Question Quotes Rachel Maddow Racism Radical Catholic Mom Radical Catholicism Raymund Schwager Real Catholic TV Real Presence Reconciliation Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange Religion religious freedom Responsibility Ressourcement Resurrection Rick Garnett Ridiculous Crap You Never Thought You'd See Robert Barron Roe v. Wade Roman Curia Rome Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation History Sam Harris Sam Rocha Same-sex Marriage Saskatchewan Roughriders Satire School of the Americas Science Scripture Seamless Garment Second Vatican Council Seeing Sex sexual violence Sexuality Sia Sin social justice Social Security Socialism Society of Jesus Sofia Loves Wisdom Solidarity Sophia soteriology Soutenus Spirituality Sports St. Dismas St. Joseph Stanley Hauerwas Statistics Stimulus Suffering Sunday Reflections Supernatural Supreme Court Symbolism Syria Taxing Technology Terrorism The State The Tea Party The Trump Administration Theological Anthropology Theology Theotokos Thomas Merton Throwaway Culture Tim Muldoon Tim Riley Tim Tebow Time Titian Tolkien Torture Toys Trade Traditionalism Transgender Transportation Transubstantiation Trinity Truth TV U.S. Affairs Uncategorized Unions unity among people who disagree US Catholicism USCCB Usury Utilitarianism Utopia Valentine's Day Vatican Vatican II Veterans Vicarious Suffering Video Violence Virgin Mary Vocations Voluntary Associations Voluntary Poverty Voting Vox Nova vox nova blog war War and Peace War Strategy Wealth Weirdness Welfare state Women Women Priests Work Woundedness Youth

Select a Month June 2026 May 2025 February 2025 January 2025 July 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 July 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 November 2021 September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What did Isaiah say about Egypt's future in his oracles?

Select your answer to see how you score.

It would rule Persia It would prosper It would be conquered It would conquer Israel