by Oscar M
The later letters, being the most cogent, shift the narrative onto more desperate measures to turn Wormwood's human away from Christ, and in letter 26, Lewis’ exploration of ‘unselfishness’ is one that evokes a sense of familiarity. The scrutiny of human social pattern behaviours that Lewis undergoes is one that suggests the truly harmful nature of the paradoxical ego-centric selflessness. Lewis suggests that “a woman means by Unselfishness taking trouble for others; a man means not giving trouble to others” and that this may result in the “Generous Conflict Illusion”. The comment Lewis is making is that a trivial comment might be made, typically in a group activity, and that, upon the occasion that this is challenged by another member of the group and a decision must be come to, that each party will debate in an almost underhand way: devaluing the proposition they put forward and justifying it meaninglessly, in an attempt to evoke some kind of sympathy that results in their option being chosen. Finding this as the beginning of the disruption to domestic bliss, Lewis’ examination is one that not only explores the basic failing foundations of marriage, but also one that analyses the passion driven up from simple argument, and how an overanalysis of a simple decision leads to a real quarrel. Lewis’ aim to spiritually convict his readership throughout the whole book, but, most notably in this letter, is built on the mundane things in human, and stereotypically British, behaviours. In letter 26, when describing how “thanks to [Unselfishness] you can, from the very outset, teach a man to surrender benefits not that others may be happy in having them but that he may be unselfish in forgoing them”, the altruistic tendencies of a regular conversation are flipped on its head. They therefore go from being viewed as a behaviour to be condemned, to one that we see applied unknowingly in the daily lives of many people, and how our perception of selflessness is narcissistic or vain. What discredits Lewis’ argument is his gendering of altruism. Critic Gretchen Bartels argues that “Lewis’ problematic portraits of women [...] grow out of his theological understanding of humanity’s feminine relationship with God as masculine.” Bartels is referencing the relationship between Christ and the Church: one where the Church is Christ’s bride and, according to the Epistle to the Church of Ephesus, is both subservient to it, and simultaneously joined in union with it. What Bartels argues here is that Lewis believes that humanity’s feminine relationship with Christ as his bride is one that is, in actuality, masculine. Gretchen goes on to argue that:
Although we may be tempted to conclude from Lewis's views on the emancipation of women and his fictional portrayals of emancipated women that Lewis was a backward-thinking misogynist, his practice and his theology complicate this straightforward condemnation. With regard to his personal life, Lewis was a complex combination of unease with women and respect for them.
Therefore, what can be inferred is that Lewis’ theology, and potential personal reading of the Epistle to the Ephesians, interferes with his gendering of altruism. In Paul’s letter, the way the Church’s submission to Christ is modelled is through suggesting that a wife should submit to her husband. It also goes on to suggest that husbands should love their wives. This could suggest then that Lewis’ Biblical analysis of this passage is one that leads him to believe that he is superior to women, whilst also respecting and loving them, therefore suggesting that Lewis’ relationship with the female gender is highly linked to this excerpt. This begs the question of why Lewis then feels like he must gender altruism and Unselfishness. What the author argues when he writes that “a woman means by Unselfishness taking trouble for others; a man means not giving trouble to others” is that a woman in her altruism will, like a servant, take trouble for others. This has connotations of subservience, as suggested by Paul in the New Testament. Additionally, Lewis’ idea of a man avoiding troubling others connotes respect and love. This again fits in with the gender roles provided by the fifth chapter of the letter to the Ephesians. Therefore, Lewis once again, whether consciously or subconsciously, points us back to the Bible, which, for a Christian apologetic, is effective. If this was Lewis’ conscious decision, it is hard to agree or disagree with Bartels, as the author writes from the perspective of Screwtape, the narrative voice, and could be aiming to present misogynistic ideas founded on a misreading or under-analysis of the Christian religious text to argue the true evil of the demonic. Alternatively, if unconscious, then Bartels is undeniably correct in that Lewis’ theoretical misogyny shines through here. What is most interesting is that the Greek word for ‘head’ that Paul uses to suggests that husbands are head of their wife as Christ is head of the Church is κεφαλή, is also used in Matthew 21:42 to mean the cornerstone, the key foundation of a building. Therefore, it is possible that Paul was suggesting that a husband supports his wife, rather than her being subservient to him. Therefore, if Lewis was misguided in his reading, potentially as a result of the misogyny which Bartels claims he has, then he has subconsciously allowed this to penetrate through into the text. Therefore, although Lewis’ highly relatable discussion of Unselfishness may be spiritually forgiving, it would not be unfair for his gendering of altruism to be discarded, depending on a reader’s understanding of the Epistle to the Ephesians, with which this segment so clearly intertwines.
What seems to be clear is how the reader’s religious opinions so clearly dictate their reading of the text, but perhaps more prominently, the author. This is a concept Lewis is not unfamiliar with, as in letter 23, he explores the idea of a ‘historical Jesus’, where Screwtape notes that over time, the Bible’s various messages are twisted through suppression and exaggeration to fit society at any given time, producing “a crop of new Napoleons, new Shakespeares, and new Swifts”. A good example of this is John O’Sullivan’s idea of Manifest Destiny, which he published in an essay entitled Annexation in 1845. Michael T. Lubragge of the University of Groningen describes O’Sullivan’s idea as the “belief that it was God's will that Americans spread over the entire continent, and to control and populate the country as they see fit.” He later links this to the idea that “Many expansionists conceived God as having the power to sustain and guide human destiny.” Therefore, in the concept of Manifest Destiny, the force that drove many Americans to leave their lives on the Eastern side of the continent in search of a life on the West Coast, we find a key value of duty, founded on the notion of God. Perhaps this comes from the book of 1 Chronicles, where Ezra, the author, notes that Jabez cries out to God saying, “Oh, that you would bless me and enlarge my territory!” Therefore, as Lewis suggests within the text, there are periods of time throughout history, such as the American Expansionist movement, that create this idea of a historical Jesus, using scripture, sometimes flimsy, to provide religious backing to their cause. Lewis’ condemnation of this is interesting in comparison with Bartels view of his theoretical misogyny, where it can be argued, as Bartels does, that he uses the Bible and theology to support these views. However, Lewis’ views of gender are contentious, as Neil Gaiman’s idea of ‘The Problem of Susan’ (the situation in which Susan is the only character who does not return to Narnia, a conceit for salvation, in ‘The Last Battle’ as she was ‘interested in nothing nowadays except nylons and lipstick and invitations. She always was a jolly sight too keen on growing up.’ Where some critics, such as Phillip Pullman, hold the view that Susan’s sexual maturation as the reason she is denied Narnia, others suggest that it is her idolisation of social acceptance above other things which prevent her salvation. Therefore, Lewis’ misogyny can be contended, but it does call into question the hypocrisy of the author being responsible for his own ‘historical Jesus’, whilst condemning it in the lives of others. Additionally, as Lewis places this idea coming from the narrative voice, a demon, his vilification of a ‘historical Jesus’, alongside the other ideas he presents within the text, suggests that this concept is one of true evil. Therefore one may explore The Screwtape Letters as an apologetic which is highly subtextually opinionated, and that, although the narrative is fictional, Lewis’ expression of evil and less obvious sin shines through as religious commandments. When the author then pairs this with the humour and the narrative that runs through the text, it becomes more light-hearted, which is a more powerful way of conveying religious conviction, as it encourages unconscious reflection, often verbally, as a reader discusses the text with their peers or acquaintances and thinks of the text they enjoyed reading to such a high degree. In some ways, it can therefore be argued that Screwtape is polemic in its ability to convict, and challenge the unchallenged beliefs of believers. However, it is apologetic in its ability to defend the Christian viewpoint and why Lewis believes what he believes. Despite this, the hypocrisy he may be exhibiting, at least in letter 23, may disregard the validity of his beliefs.
One of the greater challenges for Lewis when writing the text would have been having to create an image of the demonic: one that is theologically sound, engaging and also one that is cohesive with the narrative. One of the greater tensions within the novel comes in letter 19, when Lewis implies that the demons have a sense of guilt, and thus, of personal morals, which seems paradoxical for creatures which are theologically, the incarnation of evil. Screwtape expresses to Wormwood that he “hope[s] you understand, too, that some apparently uncomplimentary references to Slubgob [another demon] were purely jocular. I really have the highest respect for him. And, of course, some things I said about not shielding you from the authorities were not seriously meant. You can trust me to look after your interests . But do keep everything under lock and key.”
The implication of this is a mistake, as Screwtape appears to conceal the errors of his ways, by reassuring Wormwood that he is for him and not against him, and then preventing further exposure of his mistakes by ordering Wormwood to not speak to other demons about the advice he is giving. Lewis’ humour reemerges here, with the regret of the protagonist becoming almost comical through the paradox. However, beneath the text, the principal idea that a demon could make a mistake, and then feeling guilty (and thus attempting to gloss over this mistake) is theologically confusing. On one hand, how can an evil spirit feel regret after acting incorrectly, or sinning, when that is the very thing they encourage in order to distance humanity from their creator? On the other hand, and perhaps the more likely idea, Lewis’ sinning demon could simply be a device for suggesting the twisted effect that sin has on its perpetrator, acting as a way of pointing the reader to God. If the latter is true, then I would argue that Lewis’ portrayal of this is not as effective as it could be, as the suggestion that a demon could have morals, and understands when they make a mistake does not necessarily suggest that the Christian God is any more effective than Satan when dealing with evil in the world. What seems to be Lewis’ issue here is that he cannot seem to focus on the wider viewpoint, and he has, according to W. W. Robson, “general moral pettiness.” Robson laters goes on to question that although “‘take care of the pence and the pounds will take care of themselves’ may be a sound maxim in economics, [...] is it so in morals?” Therefore, as Robson suggests, Lewis’ portrayal of the demons, and thus the implications it suggests about Lucifer, highlight that, in the author’s view, human damnation is dependent on small and petty things, which, when written in the time of the Second World War, presents God also narrow-minded also. This once again highlights how Lewis is so focused on detailed theology that he overlooks the bigger picture, resulting in intellectual criticism and discrediting his argument. Perhaps if published at a different time, Lewis’ work would have been viewed differently, without the burden of war overshadowing a highly-praised collection of letters which are successfully spiritually edifying.
The other interesting facet to Lewis’ presentation of the demonic is through the ‘lowerarchy’ of Hell. In letter 27, Screwtape suggests that “You, being a spirit, will find it difficult to understand how he gets into this confusion [that “a granted prayer becomes just as good a proof as a denied one that prayers are ineffective”]” This lack of understanding founded on the basis of Wormwood’s position within Hell suggests the power evil has in the world. Lewis, through presenting a strict hierarchy within Hell, brings the reader back to two ideas: Government, and battle. If the reader jumps to either, they are forced to accept the concept of the power of Hell, which constitutes the main theme of the apologetic. Ultimately, the faith that Lewis is defending is that Hell is an inescapable force that finds its way into the mundane and the things humanity often glosses over, and that the human race should be more conscious of the persistent effect that evil has. Nancy-Lou Patterson comments this:
“In sum, [Lewis] presents evil as defined by [...] the absence of good, as he explores the mythic structures of the War in Heaven. He describes a bureaucratic hell in which Satan and his fallen angels, unable to create so much as a single pleasure, continually struggle to understand the intentions of their Adversary, God.”
Patterson’s view that Lewis is exploring the War in Heaven is founded on the idea of bureaucracy in Hell, which suggests that humanity has a lack of choice and agency in the attacks of evil, and thus the constant battle between Heaven and Hell is built on the inability of humanity to interfere with Hell without the assistance of the armies of Heaven because the physical cannot rebel against spiritual attack directly. Therefore, this could be seen as Lewis encouraging his audience to turn towards God in order to win the war against evil. However, Christian theology would suggest that this viewpoint is invalid, as humanity has been given the victory already through Christ. Therefore, if Lewis is suggesting that humanity must draw closer to God as he will fight our side in the battle with Hell, then his theology is once again flawed. However, the Bible does suggest that there will be trouble in the world, implying temptations and challenges from Satan to get believers to turn from God. Despite this, in the same verse, it acknowledges that there is no need to fear the Devil’s attacks, for God has overcome the world. Therefore, Lewis’ implication of the Devil’s war tactics to win against God by turning people from him accepts that the war is ongoing for the armies of Hell, but theologically, this is false. However, it is highly possible that Lewis is simply presenting the ignorance of Lucifer and his fallen angels, rather than suggesting that the war is truly ongoing. While this would make his theology sound, it does create a problem for new believers in the faith, who may become confused by this idea and perhaps, at an extreme, turn from the religion altogether. Originally published in The Guardian Newspaper, The Screwtape Letters would have been read by many new believers, and, even more likely, unbelievers. Therefore, as an apologetic, the implications of ‘Hell’s war’ are effective for ‘mature Christians’, whereas as an evangelistic text, it fails, as it misrepresents elements of Christianity. Therefore, Lewis’ early publication in the Guardian Newspaper was not the most effective choice, especially considering his relative misogyny inferred from letter 26, and the ability for his narrative choices to be so easily misinterpreted.
To conclude, C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters is a compelling epistolary text, which take new angles on often overlooked elements of the Christian faith; however, Lewis’ theology, and exploration of these stances are often under-analysed by himself, with the connotations of some of his messages being so easily able to be misconstrued, or allowing room for contention. As an homiletic and apologetic text, the novel is engaging and achieves the goal of conviction in and edification of the reader, yet as an evangelical text, its arguments are less compelling. Despite this, Lewis’ Screwtape presents an intriguing new angle to Christianity: one that views it from not just an outside perspective but an antithetical one. Considering the author’s venture out into this relatively unknown territory, of an opposing viewpoint used to make satire out of Hell in an attempt to spiritually edify his audience, Lewis’ exploration of God, of the demonic, of altruism is one that will remain literarily unchallenged, artistically beautiful but theologically contended for many years to come.
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments with names are more likely to be published.