You also want to check out Newsweek's coverage of Narnia on their site. On one of the articles, they make mention of a C.S.Lewis tour in Oxford, by a childhood friend of Doug Gresham that is now a cabbie. My wife and I took that tour in our last stop in UK, and think it's great he made Newsweek's pages...
Now this could be the first *interesting* thing on Lewis I've read since high school!
Yeah, it sounds like a great book. Every time I read a piece on Mr Gresham, I'm interested in reading more. Seems like a very warm, sensible chap to have a pint with!
(SIGH) Another book for the pile!
Interesting interview. I'm wondering where his brother David is? Last I heard he was in India and not a Christian. I know that Douglas sold his rights to the Lewis books years ago. I imagine he regrets doing so. I was able to visit the Kilns two summers ago. It was a dream come true.
Americans have latched on to C. S. Lewis, and yet here's a guy who was a chain smoker, who liked his pints, who told ribald jokes, and in general, wouldn't fit what we think of as the "typical evangelical." And yet we've all wrapped our arms around him. Why is that?
Gresham: One of the reasons is that through the—if you can excuse the expression—the bulls--- that has come to be taken so seriously in American Christianity, through all of that, they can still see the essential truth that Jack represented. The problem with evangelical Christianity in America today, a large majority of you have sacrificed the essential for the sake of the trivial. You concentrate on the trivialities—not smoking, not drinking, not using bad language, not dressing inappropriately in church, and so on. Jesus doesn't give two hoots for that sort of bulls---. If you go out and DO Christianity, you can smoke if you want, you can drink if you want—though not to excess, in either case.
But I think that even past the trivialities, many evangelical Christians can see the ultimate truth to what Jack wrote. I think that's why he's so popular.
It's sadly ironic that when Gresham complains that Evangelicals "concentrate on the trivialities—not smoking, not drinking, not using bad language, not dressing inappropriately in church, and so on," and says that this focus in bullshit, the Evangelicals at Christianity Today helpfully alter his expression to bulls---, so as not to offend those readers obsessed with trivialities, like bad language.
the chap he was with... said, "Jack, you shouldn't have given that fellow all that money, he'll just spend it on drink." Jack said, "Well if I had kept it, I would have only spent it on drink."
I loved that 
It's sadly ironic that... the Evangelicals at Christianity Today helpfully alter his expression to bulls---, so as not to offend those readers obsessed with trivialities, like bad language.
Ain't that the truth!
> trivialities, like bad language.
Unless uttered by one M. Luther. Then bad language proves he was evil.
When's Mark gonna start telling us ribald jokes...*mumble mumble*
Tom Round scores another little point!
Admittedly, I don't recall myself or anybody saying Luther was evil for using earthy language, but be that as it may, Tom Round definitely scored a little point. And that's all that matters!
Mark, if you haven't come across Catholic writers (or Calvinists or Baptists, FTM) arguing "Luther said the Scheiss-word, therefore everything else he ever wrote was wrong", you haven't read much in that area.
(Admittedly the first linkable instance I can think of is by Art Sippo, so I won't impute his view to you... But there are a lot of others.)
Btw, Part 2 of the Douglas Gresham interview is now online: http://
www.christianitytoday.com...asgresham2.html.
if you haven't come across Catholic writers (or Calvinists or Baptists, FTM) arguing "Luther said the Scheiss-word, therefore everything else he ever wrote was wrong", you haven't read much in that area.
I have read a lot about Luther by non-Lutherans, including Catholics, and have never seen such absurd accusations. That's inane.
Mere vulgarity is not a sin, and Catholicism does not teach otherwise.
I repeat: you have to get out more. "Luther had a filthy mind and mouth, and his theology was merely a way of justifying his sins" is the gist of a number of non-Lutheran critiques I have read.
Most were in print, not on-line: give me a month or two and I can dig some up, if you are still interested.
In the interim, PHA, please peruse these (but keep the smelling-salts at hand)...
www.tanbooks.com/doct/facts_luther.htm
www.chantcd.com/doct/facts_luther.htm
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ29.HTM
http://aquinas-multimedia.com/ca...herine/
new.html
Google will give you 256,000 hits for "Luther + filthy" in 0.4 seconds.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
