Christianity Today

The author misses a significant point in Lewis' paragraph: "Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christian and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives." It is not that Lewis disagrees with Tolkien - it is that he argues non-Christians do not have the resources to live a Christian life, namely the Holy Spirit and the community of faith. The author further confuses things in his statement: "Rather, the faith teaches us that submitting to the laws of our creator is the surest way to live reconciled lives with his creation." My understanding is that the surest way to live reconciled lives with God's creation is to be reconciled with God through Jesus Christ.

Well-written article, and good comments too! On the whole, I have to agree more with Lewis as regards public policy, while I prefer Tolkein's emphasis on universal truth. Looks like most of the correspondents here think similarly. But try this thought experiment: take CS Lewis's statement, and apply it not to divorce, his era's hot topic, but to our hot topic, gay marraige. Does it change anyone's views? Discuss.

There is sharp division between state registered and Church officiated marriage; a line now obliterated here long before there in England. Lewis is a bit of a visionary here and makes a point about what might be a more advertised distinction. J.R.R. makes a better point on naturality; Divorce for example was illegal in Rome, the natural state of man is to cause marriage to endure. We have so inverted nature that his bold statement of Patriarchy needs to be pointed out today as much as it was assumed in his day. We are blinded by our status quo; the state manipulates divorce to dissipate its people. It started in Soviet Union as a way to prevent organisation against Communism and here later to bolster state. In general history is natural, patriarchal (exceptions only proving the rule). Only state perverts this now, for the goal of subjugating fathers. Is there any contract so diminished by state? Marriage law should be held to a "Christian" standard like parenthood or property.

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.

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.