Poor Alex and Martin. Misters King and Ketley had no idea that their forgettable English textbook would unleash one of the twentieth century’s most eloquent and destructive critiques of modernism, with the two of them in the marksman’s crosshairs.
The Control of Language: A Critical Approach to Reading and Writing, was published in 1939 as a textbook for upperform students in British schools. Little did Alex King and Martin Ketley know that their work would catch the ire of Oxford don and Christian apologist C.S. Lewis. But ignite his ire it did, and the result was one of Lewis’ most important books, The Abolition of Man.
In his first chapter, “Men Without Chests”, Lewis graciously gave King and Ketley the pseudonyms Gaius and Titius, and to The Control of Language he gave the title The Green Book. But beyond his civility towards their persons, Lewis gave no quarter when it came to his criticism of their book. For within the book, Lewis found an error that was pernicious and destructive, and one with the power to subvert young minds.
Their error has now become a commonplace in our day. They comment on Coleridge’s experience of hearing two tourists see a waterfall, one describing it as “sublime”, the other calling it “pretty”. Coleridge endorsed the former and was disgusted at the latter. King and Ketley wanted their readers to see this through modernist eyes, however. They wrote: “When the man said This is sublime, he appeared to be making a remark about the waterfall… Actually … he was not making a remark about the waterfall, but a remark about his own feelings. What he was saying was really I have feelings associated in my mind with the word “Sublime”, or shortly, I have sublime feelings.’”
And here Lewis released his truth bloodhounds. For contained in that statement is the germ of modernism, naturalism, and even atheism. Beauty, or sublimity (a form of beauty), according to King and Ketley, is not a real attribute of persons, places, things or ideas in the universe. Beauty is not something that can be predicated of another with any coherent meaning. Instead, beauty simply refers to pleasure in the subject. Beauty is the happy approval of observers.
From there, a logical connection is quietly made in the young person’s mind: we are not to make judgements of value about the world, calling things true, good or beautiful. Instead, we are simply to say, “Such and such is beautiful to me” or “I feel pleasurably attracted towards such-and-such”. All we are allowed to do (by the rules of modernism) is make statements about our thoughts and feelings. To make value judgements about the world would be to assume a meaningful universe that can be judged for meaning – including its beauty.
Lewis knew that this view was an Enlightenment revision, and an anti-Christian one. He wrote, “Until quite modern times all teachers and even all men believed the universe to be such that certain emotional reactions on our part could be either congruous or incongruous to it—believed, in fact, that objects did not merely receive, but could merit, our approval or disapproval, our reverence or our contempt.”
One wonders how many pulpits are occupied by men like Gaius and Titius.
“When you say that certain music is beautiful, what you of course mean is that it is beautiful to you, and that you know according to Romans 14 that it may not be beautiful to another Christian.”
“To say that Isaac Watts wrote beautiful poetry is true. But is it not true that a child’s prayer is just as beautiful, in its own way?”
“What style of music we like is simply a preference. That we all defer to one another’s preferences is what really pleases God. God has no musical preference.”
Whether or not they realise it, men who say these kinds of things, and the churches that approvingly nod, are heirs of King and Ketley. Finding the path that Lewis reminds us of may be a difficult task, but it is the original path of Christianity, and the one we must follow.
Ramakrishna
Are you saying that objects, personalities and edifices should not be revered & such reverence or perceiving beauty in them is anti Christian ? ( = pagan )
David
Nothing in the post references worshipping objects for their beauty. It merely refers to the importance of recognising that beauty is a real value that can be perceived.
David Martin
In my recent re-reading of “The Abolition of Man,” I too found myself more introspective and critical of the Church as we see it in America today. Subjectivism/Deconstructionism is rampant in our churches, and we are left with very little that is sacred, even in our most sacred spaces and times. SDG
David
Indeed, and few Christians still cherish the idea of the sacred.
Elaine Hightower
Thank you for this article, I look forward to reading more in this blog. I met with a pastor in my church last week to let him know I was somewhat discomforted by a subjective/relativistic thread running underneath most of what I heard and observes. I take issue with the “desire to get along” that is apparent in efforts such as “interfaith dialogue” movement. Most of our outreach seems to me to be more along the lines of a humanitarian philosophy rather than a means to share the gospel message to unbelievers or even awareness of persecuted Christians around the world. Not that there’s not plenty of good being done in the name of Christ, there is. But it is in the name of rather than in service to the great commission.
Also, I wanted to share this wonderful video on Men Without Chests – it helped make the concepts more clear to me: https://youtu.be/tX5e6eSkaMc
Cody
Excellent article! I’m reading The Abolition of Man for the first time and the ideas shared by CS Lewis really hit home for me in a number of ways. Very much helped me to connect some dots regarding the world we live in today and how deep the subversion of truth lies. The notion of “go along to get along” and each invidual being to pick & choose whatever they believe to be their own “personal truth”, with no notion of objective truth even being a possibility – (as if the world is one big salad bar for our pleasure!). What’s frightening to me is how hard wired this thinking is rooted in our society (and definitely within my own psyche). To the point that even a suggestion of blanket objective truths today, would be deemed close minded, bigoted, and likely dangerous in nearly all circles. This topic deserves more exposure.
Happy to have found your site while researching this topic. I’ll be back to visit again soon I’m sure!
David
Cody,
Thanks for your comment. The Abolition of Man can be life-changing for those who have ears to hear.