Interesting. I snipped this article at length in my own blog because I felt there were a number of points that would be good for discussion. Few takers, alas. I do wish you'd start some fights over at my place. 
I agree completely with the "bakery" comment - specifically that those attracted to the romanticism of the Grail and pre-Raphaelites etc. are far better served by Catholicism than by the newage (rhymes with sewage) nonsense in which they end up finding themselves mired.
And *of course* LOTR is a Christian book (although I of course see it as a distinctly Gnostic Christian book, but that speaks to the scope of Tolkien's mythic language). However, to say that Tolkien is subtle in his religiosity where Lewis is ham-fisted is hardly "garbage" in my opinion. It's a fair call.
The real core point I think that Lewis' supporters miss, is that L's "target audience" no longer really exists. That "secular humanism" abandoned atheism a generation ago, and that it is distinctly and profoundly deist (which is why ID supporters are talking nonsense when they charge that evolution is atheist, but that's another three bottle subject).
Lewis was attempting to reconcile his intuition about God with the dessicated Churchianity of his youth, so of course he thought for much of his life that imagination and art were contrary to Christianity – it's what he'd been told.
I think that Traddies face the same thing today: mystery and art and beauty are bad, guitars and tie-dye and theatre sports are good, because it democratizes worship and makes the Church less scary. But of course, real mystery SHOULD BE scary, even if just a little bit.
Sorry, rambling, I'll shut up now. Keep up the good blog.
J+
I'll take your ramblings any day Jordan. I could use about a dozen of you in my comboxes.
Anyway, my irritation with this author isn't due to his saying Lewis is more blunt that Tolkien. As you say, that's simply true. What got under my skin was the chirpiness and low level scholarship being passed off as something more signifigant than it was. This was a weak effort and all the crisp prose in the world can't hide that it was little more than a drive by shooting by someone who has very little understanding of what it is he is writing about.
http://www.zenit.org/english/vis...phtml?
sid=80072
J, you might find this news release from Zenit encouraging as it signals that the mass as entertainment is not going on the Vatican's agenda anytime soon.
Thank goodness.
Jordan - I don't understand what you mean when you say that ' "secular humanism" abandoned atheism a generation ago, and that it is distinctly and profoundly deist ...' Can you (or anyone else) help me out with a little more explanation, or point me in the direction of where I can find more information about this idea?
Commenting by HaloScan
