Alister McGrath's book C. S. Lewis: A Life: Eccentric Genius, Reluctant Prophet is by far the most academic of the trio. Its style is objective and authoritative. Its content is extensive, covering public, private, personal, theological, and professional aspects of Lewis' life. There are a few noteworthy moments in this book that call for brief examination.
First,
there is the much-discussed topic: McGrath provides a new chronology for Lewis' conversion. Many
Lewis scholars and fans have been weighing in on this topic online; a
google search for “McGrath Lewis conversion” will reveal
insightful, detailed discussions about the dates Lewis records (in
his letters, Surprised
by Joy,
and elsewhere), the dates McGrath offers, and evaluations of the two.
Here is one by The Pilgrim in Narnia that clearly explains the situation.
Second,
McGrath focuses a little more than other biographers have done on
Lewis' Irishness, discussing this topic heavily at the beginning of
his volume. He positions Lewis in historical context far more fully
than either of the others, discussing social class, politics,
economics, and war just enough to provide a robust understanding of
the world into which Lewis was born.
Third,
McGrath includes much material about Mrs. Moore and about Charles
Williams, analyzing each of these influences sufficiently.
His
approach to one episode has, however, generated criticism. McGrath is
very harsh towards Joy Davidman, Lewis' wife. He claims that Joy
purposefully set out to “seduce” Lewis (323). He refers to (but,
frustratingly, does not publish or quote from) “forty-five sonnets,
written by Davidman for Lewis over the period 1951-1954” (323).
Some of them, McGrath claims, “set out in great detail how Davidman
attempted to forge that relationship [with Lewis]. Lewis is
represented as a glacial figure, an iceberg that Davidman intends to
melt through a heady mixture of intellectual sophistication and
physical allure” (323). How strange, then, that McGrath does not
quote any lines at all from these poems to support his controversial
interpretation. Instead, he refers in his footnotes to Don King's
forthcoming study, Yet
One More Spring.
We will have to wait, then, to see how much evidence there is to
support McGrath's reading of Joy Davidman as a money-grubbing,
sexually motivated, American predator.
Even
more surprising than McGrath's negative interpretation of Davidman is
his failure to balance this ugly portrait with the image
of the woman who brought passionate, comforting, companionable love
to Lewis in his later years and the writer who inspired several of
his last, best books. Had she done nothing else, Joy's role as
midwife to Till
We Have Faces
alone would have earned her a place worthy of praise. Yet she did far
more.
Finally,
McGrath is also critical of one other character in this story: Lewis
himself. McGrath takes a refreshingly objective approach to the man
and his work. His is no wimpy paean of watery praise for St. Lewis.
Instead, he takes the philosopher and apologist seriously, analyzing
each of Lewis' arguments and pointing out their weak spots. This is
exactly what Lewis needed, and what he liked in his friends. He loved
a good argument. He would have been delighted to sit down with
McGrath and thrash out these points.
Perhaps
the most telling critique is his attack on the famous “trilemma”:
the Liar, Lunatic, or Lord proof about Christ's nature. I have long
thought that this lovely, elegant argument simply does not work as an
evangelical tool, because it functions on Christian
presuppositions—which are exactly what the listener presumably does
not
accept! McGrath takes the same approach, albeit much more thoroughly
and professionally than I have done. He points out: “the main
problem is that this argument does not work apologetically.
It may well make sense to some Christian readers.... Yet the inner
logic of this argument clearly presupposes a Christian framework of
reasoning” (227) and ignores several alternatives that
non-Christians may propose, such as “that Jesus was a well-loved
religious leader and martyr whose followers later came to see him as
divine” (227). One can imagine other possibilities, such as a
universe in which god lies, or in which there are so many gods that
anyone can truly claim godhead, or (the most plausible postmodern
option) a universe in which “truth” and “lies” have no
meaning-content.
In
short, McGrath's critiques of Lewis are good. They are necessary, in
a publishing world glutted with Jacksploitation and hagiography. They
are apt, opening cracks that should be further explored. And in spite
of his harsh treatment of Davidman and less-than-idolatrous treatment
of Lewis (or perhaps because of them), this is one of the most
intelligent biographies on the market.
No comments:
Post a Comment