I don't actually think that was what Lewis thought at all - that people didn't need the Church. I don't think that he thought it was his calling to bring people to a particular Church, or to the Church. He had opinions about what that was and you can see that in his writing, but he is pretty explicit that he sees himself as filling a particular need as an apologist. People can start with almost nothing and read Lewis and get something real about Christianity out of it (even with the bad religious education most people have now), and that is often not the case with apologists that aim to bring people to a more particular position. Chesterton for example is not nearly as accesable as Lewis. I know some people might argue that is because he is complicated (and therefore better), but to write with the kind of simplicity that is open to almost everyone is actually incredibly difficult.
Thanks, MKJ,
I do agree with what you say on getting something real
out of Christianity (at large), and think it a good thing.
I don't think that he thought it was his calling to bring people to a particular Church, or to the Church.
This is my point. This IS what I am saying. From an Orthodox perspective, the Church is absolutely essential. Not somewhat essential, or sort of essential, but absolutely essential as in 'cannot be omitted'.
But Lewis's
de facto approach - perhaps not his opinion, but I am speaking to his missionary approach, not his private beliefs that he deliberately hid from us - for his own reasons, which he felt to be the good he was doing by avoiding the issue of the Church is indeed that it doesn't matter which church or Church you fall into.
There IS a level of truth in this, on the order of paganism - if a person is truly seeking God, he may well be saved outside the Church (not going into the corollary that being in the Church is not a guaranteed ticket on its own, either), but as soon as one says "Where can I learn about this Christ?" we can offer only one answer, and silence on the issue is "criminal". It is a great wrong.
So I admire the heck (heaven?) out of Lewis; one of the greatest thinkers of our time that truly loved God, but in this one thing he necessarily crosses foils with Orthodoxy by omission. That's why everybody loves him - he appears to offend no one. he was right about that. But what he avoided is just as important to us as what he did open his mouth about. I read and enjoy him immensely, but that characteristic of him sticks out - it was a deliberate sin of omission based on his reason.
Chesterton did not do this. Chesterton realized that the Church - which is it and where it is - is critically important. That's why I consider Chesterton's error the more forgiveable of the two. he did the best he could with what he had. The one thing I think Lewis can be criticized for would not be such criticism if he had honestly promoted the Anglican Church. He could have said exactly what he said everywhere else and not diminished his accessibility by also answering and writing on why he felt the Anglican Church was it (hey, I might have become Anglican instead of Orthodox - he was the first influence on me.), although the changes the Anglican Church has undergone since his time would make it significantly less likely to the external observer that he was right.
So some people wouldn't have read him. They would have said, "Oh, he's just an Anglican apologist." The problem would be in them, and not in him.
So did he do good? - yeah, I think so. Did the good hinge entirely on his avoiding the issue of the Church? Here I don't think so.
Chesterton does require more brains to get the most out of him. It requires remembering what he said in a previous paragraph, and some things you can only get by learning what he is referring to - and that's an entire education in itself. I have learned quite a bit about a great number of topics, and it has changed how I view a number of things. So to a great extent "accessibility" is a matter of having a little patience while reading and doing a little research - now made easier than ever. And the effort is worth it. He stood head and shoulders even above Lewis, and I can see that now. And people do find some of his works directly "accessible" - it would be difficult to explain the popularity of "Orthodoxy" or "The Man who was Thursday" if that were not so.
