1. I'm going to side with the author here, and say that the portraits are likely not wholly just. I will say, though, that it is likely that they are partially true---I can understand the general basis for both of them as being true. There can be quite a strong desire to water down God's Word and to make it easy to understand that ends up making it unprofitable, and the Vicar from the other church probably does suffer from that. And Fr. Spike likely does have a swiftly changing opinion on many things.

2. I'm against the practice of church hopping. It does treat the Church more as a club than as an unified body. If you church hop and have an issue with someone or some point at the church, instead of trying to work through it, you just leave and find a new one. I'm not saying you should never leave a church---especially in the case of large doctrinal issues---but we've become such a consumer culture that it's very easy to think you can treat the Church the same way you do a store by taking your business elsewhere if any little thing annoys you. It also hurts the church being left a lot---it is the Body of Christ and it's being broken apart.

3. Our attitude should be one of humility and love. Which, of course, is a very hard attitude to have, but so important when dealing with others, especially sisters and brothers in Christ who are sinners just like us.

1. In the in Preface, C.S. Lewis writes, "I think it very unlikely that portraits, say, of Fr Spikes or the patient's mother, are wholly just." What do you think? Is likely Fr Spikes is as Screwtape says he is? What about the Vicar at the other church? Do you think he is described accurately? I think Screwtape is exaggerating a little. It doesn't seem likely that Fr Spikes is as hateful as Screwtape implies since Screwtape himself admits that Fr Spikes really believes. I'm sure he does have problems with his parents and that at least some of his sermons are reactions against them. I think a character like Spikes is possible in the form Screwtape describes but not likely. The Vicar at the other church I could easily see being accurate. A lot of people have the tendency to simplify things because they think they are to hard for people to understand.

2. What do you think of the practice of "church hopping"?
I don't see how people can stand it. My sister and I have been going to one church for two Sundays or so a month and to another church for the other Sundays. (My sister has a job playing for the choir at the first church so we go there when she's needed to play and to the church we normally go to the other weeks) It is hard just missing a few Sundays. When I come back after just missing a week, it feels like I haven't been there in a long time and I feel a little hmm *searches for a good word* disoriented? out of the loop? I think church hopping is a dangerous practice to get into. There is always going to be something about a church or congregation that one doesn't like. People should try to work it out or deal with it instead of leaving. Church hopping is a way of catering to what one wants and likes and at times a case of "fine then, I'll pick up my toys and go home."

There are times when visiting several churches is appropriate, for example when one moves to a new location. However, one should make a decision as soon as possible. Like Valia said, there are cases that leaving a church is the best thing one can do. I think it is okay to occasionally visit different churches but one should have a church one thinks of as "home."

Church hopping is part of a pattern in society. There are other kinds of hopping out there - marriage, school, jobs, etc.

3. If there is to be a "unity of place and not of likings" what should our attitude be? We need to be nonjudgmental and willing to compromise. We need to understand that different people have different styles of worship, and it won't kill us to try different styles.

2. What do you think of the practice of "church hopping"?
It becomes often like what Screwtape was talking about. If you keep hopping from church to church you will probably not get enough of the community worship and you certainly can not work in of the churches of the body of Christ by hopping churches. This is not good for your spiritual walk to not have a specific group of Christians to get mentoring and give mentoring to. You need help on this spiritual walk like the rest of us do.

3. If there is to be a "unity of place and not of likings" what should our attitude be?

We only argue over real matters of importance like the things that are primary not secondary. How to be saved, the Trinity, things clearly stated in the Bible. Secondary issues are those of lesser value: Predestination or Free will, the eschatology (end times) theories, things of that nature.

1. Interesting question. I think Screwtape and company often misunderstand the things of God. They don't trust his love, because they can't understand it and so are always looking for another motivation as to why God died to make us like him, but still unique and free beings. So it's easy to see how Screwtape would assume that Friar Spikes is motivated entirely by hate. His last comment sheds some light that this can't be the whole truth. If Spikes really believed Jesus, his sole motivation wouldn't be hate. I can't tell you that.

I suspect he does have extremely strong emotions to switch his views so radically, but at the same time, he makes me think of Frances Chan. If you've ever read Crazy Love, you know that there are people out there, amazing people who want their listeners to be radical for Jesus. Now, Frances Chan doesn't switch political beliefs constantly, but he does have an aversion for lukewarm people and sermons. I get the feeling Spike is like this, except he brings politics into the picture, to shock and get a reaction. A sermon that puts a congregation to sleep almost seems like a sin to him, so he goes in the other direction.

2. Also, I find it really interesting that "church hopping" was a problem in Lewis's time. I figured it was a modern American consumer's problem. And of course I strongly disagree with it, I'd be a little worried about the theology of someone who was okay with changing churches every time you disliked the color of the carpet. I think people who church hop miss out on a lot of the community that God wants us to be a part of, and that includes disagreeing with each other and forgiving each other and in general looking kind of weird to the world.

3. I'm actually not sure what Lewis is trying to say here. "Unity of place and not of likings," sounds very nice though. I'm guessing he just means that members of a church stick together because of the gospel, and not because they have everything in common? It makes me think of something my mom said once about our church, now a family left because they didn't feel we were "mission's oriented" enough. My mom commented that we really needed that family to help us focus on what we were lacking. The last thing we needed was for them to just leave. It really does take all kinds to make a functioning body of Christ. In our human nature, we do gravitate towards people who are just like us, so everyone with the same gift ends up in the same church. That's not effective and probably just what Satan wants.

I think people who church hop miss out on a lot of the community that God wants us to be a part of, and that includes disagreeing with each other and forgiving each other and in general looking kind of weird to the world.

Yes, I think they certainty do miss out on a sense of belonging and community. But of course, say if you move to a new town or something some church hopping is to be expected. But the consumer attitude is definitely not the right one. Church should not be a bunch of people going to an auditorium to watch a show- which I fear it has become far too like that in some cases.

1. In the in Preface, C.S. Lewis writes, "I think it very unlikely that portraits, say, of Fr Spikes or the patient's mother, are wholly just." What do you think? Is likely Fr Spikes is as Screwtape says he is? What about the Vicar at the other church? Do you think he is described accurately?

If the author said or hinted that they're inaccurate, then I would assume they're inaccurate. However, if the author had said nothing about it, I wouldn't see much of a stretch in them being true portraits. I have met people who fit those descriptions in the past.

2. What do you think of the practice of "church hopping"?

I think it depends on the situation. You will never find a perfect church. If you leave one and try another as soon as you see a small fault, you will never be in a church to stay. However, there are many ungodly churches, filled with cruel people and false teachings. I would not advise a person to continue attending such a church just for the sake of not being a church hopper.

3. If there is to be a "unity of place and not of likings" what should our attitude be?

Our attitude should be Godly love toward our brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of differences or variety of interests.

~Riella

1. In the in Preface, C.S. Lewis writes, "I think it very unlikely that portraits, say, of Fr Spikes or the patient's mother, are wholly just." What do you think? Is likely Fr Spikes is as Screwtape says he is? What about the Vicar at the other church? Do you think he is described accurately?

Exaggerations. There is more going on than Screwtape is aware of.

2. What do you think of the practice of "church hopping"?

Not a fan. Part of being in a church is learning how to work with people, and even to work under people. -Trusting their authority to some extant.

3. If there is to be a "unity of place and not of likings" what should our attitude be?

I think unity of place simply means people are physically all at the same location. In other words, the mix is pretty random.

4. Lewis makes a comment that I don't see many teachings on, "that the human without scruples should always give in to the human with scruples." What do you think? Is Lewis correct? Is that what Paul was talking about or is Screwtape misrepresenting something?

I saw this article about church hopping in the newspaper. I immediately thought of this letter. I am continually amazed by how relevant the Screwtape letters is.

Lewis makes a comment that I don't see many teachings on, "that the human without scruples should always give in to the human with scruples." What do you think? Is Lewis correct? Is that what Paul was talking about or is Screwtape misrepresenting something?

In this day and age, so much emphasis is put on tolerance that one hardly things about helping other people by following their scruples. We are taught to expect differences and then follow our own scruples. Here is the text I believe Screwtape is referring to.

8 Now food [itself] will not cause our acceptance by God nor commend us to Him. Eating [food offered to idols] gives us no advantage; neither do we come short or become any worse if we do not eat [it]. 9 Only be careful that this power of choice (this permission and liberty to do as you please) which is yours, does not [somehow] become a hindrance (cause of stumbling) to the weak or overscrupulous [giving them an impulse to sin]. 10 For suppose someone sees you, a man having knowledge [of God, with an intelligent view of this subject and] reclining at table in an idol’s temple, might he not be encouraged and emboldened [to violate his own conscientious scruples] if he is weak and uncertain, and eat what [to him] is for the purpose of idol worship? 11 And so by your enlightenment (your knowledge of spiritual things), this weak man is ruined (is lost and perishes)—the brother for whom Christ (the Messiah) died! 12 And when you sin against your brethren in this way, wounding and damaging their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if [my eating a] food is a cause of my brother’s falling or of hindering [his spiritual advancement], I will not eat [such] flesh forever, lest I cause my brother to be tripped up and fall and to be offended.

I think the key is in the last few verses. We need to make decisions based on whether or not it could cause them to sin. We should try to help people in their spiritual walk not hurt them. I think it is kind of like this: person 1 is a recovering alcoholic. Person 2, being aware of that should refrain from drinking when person 1 is around in case it might become a temptation to them. I suspect that Screwtape is oversimplifying things. This passage is one that I have some trouble applying/understanding.