A Response to Professor Lawson

To What Extent is Simone Weil a Christian Thinker?', is a bold essay, as her thesis and conclusion are counter to the consensus, although not, admittedly, universal understanding of Simone Weil.It is decidedly straightforward in claiming that Weil is not a Christian thinker.Lawson believes that Weil's thinking is not Christian, but due to her own experience ('phenomenological experience'-whatever that means); Weil simply borrows some biblical notions to express it.Her adaptations of Christianity are 'strange'.Lawson bases these claims on her readings of Weil on the Creation, on the Resurrection and finally on a consideration of her mysticism.I would like to say something about her conclusions and what they might mean at the end of this response.But before doing so, I want to point out in detail that there is little in her argument to support her conclusions.In this response, I aim chiefly to discuss this building of a house on conceptual sand, but do not intend to provide a counter position other than what I have done in the past.I do intend in the near future to examine fully Weil's thinking about the Resurrection, with a much closer grained examination of Weil's actual comments on the Resurrection than Lawson provides.Hopefully, that can lead to a full discussion of the issue.Generally: Lawson's argument is philosophically lacking, first of all simply because she does not consider any counterargument.There is a lot of it, and it has existed prominently for decades.I note simply my own writings (Springsted 1983, 1986, 2021), Diogenes Allen's (Allen 1983; Allen and Springsted 1994), and Emmanuel Gabellieri's (Gabellieri 2003, 2019, 2023) as examples.Most recently, Rachel Matheson's excellent dissertation at McMaster University can also be added (Matheson 2025).In fact, many of the secondary sources that she does quote, usually to help explain Weil's position, most notably on the Resurrection-Rozelle Stone, McCullough and Meaney-all in their own overall arguments run counter to Lawson's conclusions.Moreover, for making such a sweeping claim about Weil's essential