Why C.S. Lewis Was Wrong on Marriage (and J.R.R. Tolkien Was Right)
This brings us back to the oddness of Lewis' concession in Mere Christianity. Certain aspects of the Christianity articulated at St. Anne's are very much en vogue right now. Evangelical Christians are talking about how to build deeper ties to our local communities by shopping local. We're attempting to respect and sustain creation by being less wasteful with our resources. Some of us have a renewed interest in agrarian communities.
We've had many conversations at my church, a broadly reformed evangelical college-aged congregation, about these sorts of issues. My pastor and I recently attended the Prairie Festival at The Land Institute. At Grace, we're trying to articulate a broadly Christian social imagination that encompasses all of life. And we aren't alone in that pursuit. The growing number of evangelical publishers releasing books dealing with Christianity and ecology suggest a broader trend. So far as they go, these are all desires and ambitions that Lewis and Tolkien would warmly commend.
But Lewis—in the majority of his work—and Tolkien would say we must look more closely at the underpinnings of our social ethic. The dominant metaphor for all those commendable activities described above is that of marriage. The ecological, communal, and creational (a far superior word to "environmental") goals are all understood through the metaphor of marriage, by which we mean a permanent, communally recognized, community-sanctioned relationship characterized by affection and fertility. That's the best description you'll find for Lewis' ethic toward the land, but it flows out of his ethic of sexuality. In much of his writing, and especially in That Hideous Strength, that is quite clear. So understood, we can now see that Tolkien's letter is simply Tolkien's attempt to help his friend see that his concession in Mere Christianity actually undermines his larger social vision. That's why Tolkien pushes so hard in the letter above. In staking out his odd position on divorce, Lewis was giving away much more than a single law on the books of a single nation. Rather, he was giving away the metaphor that shapes all elements of the Christian worldview.
On a note more relevant to contemporary evangelicals, this is why we need to be crystal clear on what the defining themes of our social vision actually are. Matt is fond of saying that the problem with the culture war for evangelicals wasn't necessarily the "war" part, but the "culture" part. We were defending certain values in the absence of a culture that can sustain those values. Now younger evangelicals are reacting against that and are attempting to develop a robustly Christian social ethic that holds all of creation accountable to the claims of Christ. It's an undeniably positive and most welcome development.

Sidelining the Stigma of Mental Illness

Starting a Dialogue with Hip-Hop
The Latest in Movie News, June 17, 2013

It's the Thoughts That Count

(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).










Comments
Displaying 46 of 20 comments
See all comments
Jon Trott
Lewis was far too liberal to be tolerated. (Wink.) In fact I think his one-paragraph argument completely convincing, regardless of all the words that followed it in this article or from J. R. R. Tolkien. The Church should uphold biblical marriage. The Church should *not* dictate biblical marriage to the state, just as it should not dictate other articles of faith to the state (such as the Trinity or Salvation via Christ alone). We have a tightrope to walk, and only via the Holy Spirit can we walk it. But insisting upon Christian marriage for non-christian people is both absurd and an act of anti-evangelism.
Hugh Wetmore
Defining Marriage has proved difficult for many. There is Social Marriage which has been practiced in every society long before Legal marriage was developed. But it is God's definition that Marriage happens whenever a man and a woman leave their parents (or previous ties) to form a new family unit, and join in sexual intimacy, that God joins them as one. The Public and the Private events constitute Marriage. This applies to every culture, ethic group, religion ~ from the beginning of Human History (Gen 2:24), and was affirmed by Jesus as a Creation mandate (Matt 19:4-6). It is heterosexual by definition. This is not an exclusively "Christian" institution. Is it permanent? Ideally, yes. But Jesus was realistic enough to say that "hard heart(s)" can lead to divorce. Most of his strong teaching seems directed against Remarriage, rather than Divorce. In our fallen world, we must often choose between the lesser of two evils: (Re)Marriage or Cohabitation.
Derek Atkins
Defending traditional marriage and traditional sexual morality is simply a matter of upholding the common good--every child benefits from having a stable, traditional marriage, and society as a whole benefits tremendously from upholding traditional moral behavior. I'm presently reading a book entitled Adam and Eve After the Pill, which is a devastating critique of the sexual revolution, and one of the key points the author of this book makes is that there are mountains of empirical evidence that demonstrate the awful consequences of the sexual revolution.