Prominent atheist returns to the faith of his youth

Greg Clarke

British writer A. N. Wilson has announced his return to Christian faith. After decades spent publishing some of the most sceptical biographies of the 20th century, the self-proclaimed doubting Thomas has done an apostle Paul. He’s stopped persecuting and started praising.

Wilson spent this Easter in church, not as a hardened journalist looking for a story of scandal and hypocrisy, but as a believer, hymnbook in hand and creed of faith on his lips. I remember putting down Wilson’s biography of C. S. Lewis in frustration and disgust - frustration because Wilson really is a good writer, and disgust because he had used his writing skills to cast aspersions over most aspects of Lewis’s faith. He painted the 20th Century’s most celebrated Christian as a neurotic sexual deviant with an Oedipal complex, driven to theological gymnastics and special pleading in order to resolve the psychological issues of his childhood.

Wilson began to feel attracted to the faith he so often ridiculed

What his Lewis biography lacked in fairness and factual accuracy, it made up for in entertaining speculation, and I felt at the time that there was more going on for Wilson than mere biographical research. He seemed to have something to prove, and something to disprove.
It turns out that he had to prove that he was cool by disproving Christianity.

Writing in the UK’s Daily Mail last week, Wilson said,

“With the mentality of a child in the playground, I felt at some visceral level that being religious was unsexy, like having spots or wearing specs.”

Having reached his late 50s, being sexy has started to seem less important than being honest and facing reality. As Wilson ‘matured’, he began to feel more attracted to the faith he had so often ridiculed: “But the more I read the Easter story, the better it seems to fit and apply to the human condition”. Wilson began to sense that what he instinctively felt was the case—that human beings are spiritual, and not mere “animated pieces of meat”—was most likely to be true. It’s hardly a knock-down philosophical argument for Christianity, and he admits as much, but it’s where he has come to in his own reflections.

Most interestingly, he has maintained a view that he has always held (as far as I know): that Christianity lives or dies on the truth of the Resurrection. Except that now, Wilson thinks it lives, because Christ lived: “The Resurrection,” he writes, “which proclaims that matter and spirit are mysteriously conjoined, is the ultimate key to who we are.” I confess to finding Wilson’s conversion hard to swallow. I’m suspicious that he just has a new book to promote, that it’s all a cruel joke, and that yet again eager-beaver Christians will end up with Wilson-hurled eggs on our faces. I feel a bit like the older brother in the Prodigal Son story of the Gospel of Luke chapter 15, sulking as the wayward one returns home to be embraced by the Father with open arms. Isn’t that just like God, to forgive insulting biographies and smug unbelief? Still, I can forgive him, too. He does write well.

"the more I read the Easter story, the better it seems to fit and apply to the human condition"

Greg Clarke is Director of the Centre for Public Christianity.

28-Apr-2009 08:14 PM Joe
Hmmm.. interesting article.. I was just chatting with my Mother tonight about A.N. Wilson and having a spit about his treatments of Jesus, Paul, and of course our beloved C.S. Lewis. Might be interesting to see if Mr. Wilson issues new editions of his biographies hehe...

01-May-2009 04:08 PM jono andrews
Greg, I too read Wilson's biography of lewis and finished it feeling like not only had Lewis been defiled but I had also (Eg I remember Wilson saying that when Lewis wrote to his childhood friend arthur greeves he was writing 'on bended knee' which in wilson's eyes may have been a sadomasochistic reference!). I'm astounded, but I'm staying sceptical also.

06-May-2009 06:25 PM Anonymous

Dear Greg, it would be wonderful if Wilson wrote about his new perspective and what really led to it. The Lewis biography was truly undermining of the man's character, so maybe he could write a new one and make up for that! From memory he grew up in the church of England and then turned on it and now from what you're saying he has returned. I wonder how many others are in his boat, churched, departed and returned as believers? There's nothing like a gifted cynic coming to faith! John.

08-May-2009 10:16 PM Tim S

It's a long time since I read Wilson's Lewis biography but following Wilson's "re-conversion" I have bought another copy and was perusing it last night. From my brief look at the Joy Gresham chapters I am reminded of my original conclusion: that this is probably the most believable version of Lewis and his circle, away from the hagiography of Walter Hooper and others. I recall not finding anything in the book especially shocking first time around, or especially unbelievable. Indeed it all seemed to "fit" quite convincingly. The Lewis book struck me as being on a level with Wilson's equally unflinching accounts of Tolstoy or Iris Murdoch. The latter book was far more controversial outside the church context. Indeed, I don't think the Lewis book raised any controversy outside the church. Murdoch's own John Bayley, who is not a Christian but knew Lewis, thought it was very fair and accurate. Why all the fuss among Christians then? It seems to me that many Christians hated Wilson's Lewis book because it showed him to be a man with the same messiness, compromises and conflicts to the rest of us. To me this makes him (like another Wilson favourite, Dostoevksy) one whom Christ came to redeem, and in fact fleshes out what Lewis implied about himself at times: that he was far from perfect. It refuses to depict him as the bloodless Anglican saint to whom, according to Wilson in his final pages, some have attributed resurrection appearances. I believe Wilson on the last point. Doesn't that say it all? Lewis is so adored that his life must be given some retrospective perfection of holiness to fit the cult that has grown around him. Personally I am grateful to Wilson for bringing what is probably the real Jack back to us. I find Wilson's Lewis a lot more real, and attractive, and ultimately a stronger Christian witness, flaws and all, than the evangelical version. I don't think Wilson set out to demolish Lewis' reputation. He was a Christian at the time of writing (1987) - albeit just about to deconvert. I think he was understandably fascinated by Lewis and wanted to discover and reveal the real man behind the authorised version. Moreover, and finally - I don't think Wilson's re-conversion is a cruel joke. If you have followed his writings over the last few years you will have observed a growing wistful longing for spiritual, and specifically Christian things, which sat strangely with the formal scepticism pronounced in the Jesus and Paul books (though not necessarily in God's Funeral - see the final chapter). For my own part I am heartened to see someone who knows all the critical and sceptical arguments returning to faith in spite of them, and for similar intuitive, rather than rational, reasons that many of us have in our deepest and most honest, 3am moments.

14-Jul-2009 06:47 PM Norm Luke

When confronted with an intellect and writing gift infinitely greater than his, what did A N Wilson do? He engaged in the most egregious argumentum ad hominem through the character assassination of C S Lewis because he had no real answer to the actual arguments expressed so cogently by C S Lewis. To spend so much energy and so many words became a case of :methinks the lad doth protest too much:. Now, with the damage done, the arsonist wants to become a fireman.

11-Apr-2010 02:22 AM Luke

Tim your comments reflect an understanding of what it means to be a "real" Christian. Wilsons book on Lewis was not an attack on what many believe to be one of the greatest writers in the last century but rather an attempt to show that even a man as great as he was still just a man and fallible to the same shortcomings we all suffer from. as Christians we need skeptics to challenge our beliefs it gives us a reason to question and think about our faith and through our thoughts and challenges strengthens our faith and understanding. If it were not for skeptics or our own questioning mind then our faith would not be faith it would simply be a given which would not be free will. The fact that Wilson had such a questioning mind he became a skeptic and then through that skepticism found his truth in Jesus Christ for me shows a faith that is not only stronger for him but also a faith that others with a questioning mind can relate to and help them in their journey to discovering the truth. Love those 3am moments.

18-Jun-2010 11:26 AM Jonathan McKeown

The older I get the more reserved I become about making judgments. I can appreciate Greg's dubious sentiments, yet when I am honest with myself I am probably more like Wilson. Having myself moved from commited evangelical to Nietzschean athiest (for 15 years) before returning to some kind of faith in Jesus Christ I believe I know what kind of man Wilson probably is. The brief "mentality of a child" quote seems to me a very deep and humble admission. Although I think the Lewis, Jesus and Paul biographies were tainted by his corrosive critical standpoints at the time, I admire his willingness to fully step outside the pro-Christian standpoint and have a good honest look at things without the usual commitments. Things do look quite a lot different; rather than merely regarding (with fundamentally unwavering incredulity) the non- or anti-Christian arguments from within an essentially Christian commitment. What's more, unless you lobotomise yourself, you are never the same again even if you return to a basic belief in Christ. Belief in the 20-21st centuries is not easy for anyone who attempts to think in an unprejudiced way. It is not easy having to rely on 2000 years of tradition and mediation. Not all of us have the time to qualify ourselves to judge of its reliability. And for some of us God is not unambiguously present or direct. To have met the resurrected Jesus after having witnessed his crucifixion and burial would be a great help for me. I dare say even I (by the grace of God) could have become quite bold a witness had I been given those privileges. But alas, I have to rely on the mediated apostolic witness two millenia after the events. I like the way the Apostle Paul says that "Abraham faced the fact that his body was as good as dead ..." (Romans 4:19) - but that was after some considerably faith inspiring visitations and apparently direct communications from God. Wilson has faced some facts too, but perhaps because he, like me, has not had the priveleges of the patriarchs and apostles his faith "wavered". Add to this the many historical and contemporary instances of the church's impertinence and lack of real engagement with the world and it is easy to find oneself cringingly disassociating oneself from a Christian identity when faced with the obligation to take a side. Would I identify myself with a community of wealthy Christians worshipping Christ on Sunday but ignore the realities of global warming and environmental attrocities? - to mention just one example. I have to say that I wonder if a lot of the true Christians go under a different names these days. What's in the Name exactly? Does the literal or phonetic name really matter? What does it mean - "hallowed be thy Name"? I daresay Wilson would have a deeply considered answer to a question like that. [Thanks for your comment - but please stick to the 200 word limit for subsequent comments. Thanks]

30-Jun-2010 01:53 PM Jonathan McKeown
I put a comment up here a few weeks back. Is there some reason why it was removed?

Copyright © 2008 Centre for Public Christianity | Privacy Policy | 02-Jun-2010 03:29 PM | Powered by Business Catalyst