Flipping through “Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis” last night reminded me that I am long overdue for a promised book review. In his letter to Mary Willis Shelburne dated June 6, 1955, Lewis says:
“About prides, superiorities, and affronts there is no book better than Law’s Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life where you’ll find us all pinned like butterflies on cards – the cards being little stories of typical characters in the most sober, astringent 18th century prose.”
He’s talking about this book (free online), which I read at the suggestion of Dissidens at Remonstrans. I chuckled at Lewis’s use of the phrase “sober, astringent 18th century prose”, since it’s so true.
In his letter, Lewis speaks of the book as if it’s a sort of encyclopedia of human character flaws. But this is not William Law’s purpose in writing the book, and Lewis’s own books contain much better insights about human nature, better written. What Law sets out to do, and accomplishes powerfully, is to shake the foundation of nearly anyone who considers himself to be a “good Christian”.
Law methodically, ploddingly, dismantles every excuse proffered by Christians of his time. Maybe you think that you’re a pretty good Christian, because you don’t look at porn or steal from widows. Do you tithe 15% of your income? Jesus asked for all of your money. Do you spend even 10% of your free time on idle gossip? There is no room for that in the Christian life. Do you appreciate comfort and luxury? What room for that is there in the gospel? Law is very, very thorough in supporting his statements with scripture.
To be honest, I found nothing that Law said to be surprising or objectionable. Scriptures are quite clear, and I’ve never understood people who preach “prosperity theology”, “easy-believism”, and the like. Likewise, it’s surprising to me that Law’s book would change a person’s opinions on these matters. If a person can read the clear words of Christ and the Apostles, yet still cling to the idea that worldly attachments are compatible with Christianity, said person is obviously skilled at self-deception. Do we really think that “sober, astringent 18th century prose” will persuade such a person? Perhaps.
~
I was not surprised to learn that Law was an admirer of the Christian mystics. If not for the “sober” prose, I might have thought that I was reading something by one of the great mystic saints such as Theresa of Avila or Bernard of Clairvaux. In fact, while I could imagine many protestants reading the book and taking serious issue, it seemed to me that the sentiments expressed by Law would be more readily accepted by modern Catholics. Law essentially describes the ideal of a Mother Theresa or similar figure.
To describe authentic Christianity in a convincing manner, vivid examples like Mother Theresa’s (or better yet, Christ or the Apostles) are far more profitable than rhetorical prose. There is at least a dollop of mother-wit in the old saying that “Christianity is caught, not taught”. Undoubtedly, this is why Law liberally supplements his prose with stories of fictional characters who illustrate his points. But Law’s characters lack any sort of sympathetic depth, and are obviously contrived for rhetorical purposes. At times, it feels like reading a cross between Cicero and John Owens.
Having said that, the book is powerful and important. Most Protestant voices who are calling for a “Devout and Holy Life” tend to focus on personal responsibility, which flirts with “blame the weak” and neglects the aspects of service to the needy. And the voices who point out the hypocrisy in traditional Protestant attitudes, tend to be pushing decidedly heretical agendas (see Andrew Sung Park or Sara Miles). So it is nice to have an authoritative and orthodox Protestant voice making the case so strongly.
No Comments