Mere Christianity A Revised and Amplified Edition, With a New Introduction, of the Three Books, Broadcast Talks, Christian Behaviour, and Beyond Personality

C S Lewis

I read this book as a beginning christian and was considerably impressed by its arguments. Now...more

I read this book as a beginning christian and was considerably impressed by its arguments. Now looking back, having advanced in my understanding and faith in God and also learned the ways of analytic philosophy, I find this book to be less satisfactory. Firstly, I did not like his downplaying of the role of the penal substitutionary atonement, and I especially find his Perfect Pentinent theory bordering on the ridiculous. The problem with all attempts to downplay divine satisfaction theories of atonement is that they fail to explain the gruesomeness and the necessity of the Passion. If Christ was incarnated merely to help us repent and pray, what's the point of the horrible death and torture of the Passion? The terribleness of the Cross demands an equally weighty explanation, and other attempts tend to not be able to explain the necessity of it. Secondly, I think his argument on the necessity of God to the reality of morality to be unstable. He is somewhat inconsistent on this point I believe as he is an essentialist about morals (that right or wrong and good and bad are not dependent solely on the divine commands). If the truth of morality is not dependent on the divine will, then it seems that this undercuts his argument on the necessity of theism to morality. A much more brighter path for moral arguments for God might be arguments from moral order, in the vein of Kant, where he argues that a morally blind universe does not entail the possibility of moral actions. And since morality must be essentially possible for man to execute (following his principle that ought implies can), therefore there must be a God that regulates a morally blind universe that enables morality. I am not saying that I completely buy Kant's argument, but I think that moral order arguments will work better than morality truth arguments. Thirdly, I also think that he gets the problem of evil wrong. Simply because morality is dependent on God does not entail that one cannot critique God. A moral nihilist may object to God's existence by arguing that God is not behaving according to the moral values which God sets up, he is evaluating God according to God's own standard, and the atheist is criticizing God for failing to live up to His own moral values as the theist claims that God fulfills his moral obligations perfectly. (Again, I am not saying that the problem of evil argument is decisive, I merely claim that Lewis's morality-needs-God argument does not solve it. It is questionable whether God even has moral obligations or not) However, inspite of the short comings of some of the arguments of C.S. Lewis (there is a good reason why he was owned by the analytic philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe in a debate), I find his other gems of spiritual insights to be helpful. Furthermore, I have to give thanks for this work as it was instrumental in my christian growth in my earlier christian days. Therefore, three stars for its mass popular appeal and layman accesibility, but not so water-tight arguments   hide

This book is an unfortunate classic of modern Christianity. I say "unfortunate" because it is here...more

This book is an unfortunate classic of modern Christianity. I say "unfortunate" because it is here where apologetic education stops for most Christians. I think that is because Lewis is seen as the ultimate in summing up Christian thought, and perhaps this is true, but he was a layman, and never claimed to be anything more. Monumentally brilliant, to be sure, but a layman nonetheless, and we should be careful to hang our hats on his conclusions. I believe Lewis himself would balk at Christians not moving on from milk to solid food, as it were. I owe a massive debt to Lewis; books such as this one spurred me on to study and read as much as I could, and still do. As I've learned more, however, I've found this book to be rather weak in some areas. Lewis' argument for the existence of God based on an "internal" sense of morality inherent in humanity is not very convincing in light of the fact that, culturally, our individualistic guilt and conscience is somewhat of an uncommon phenomenon. Ancient cultures, and even a vast majority of the world today, is driven not by guilt but by honor and shame, which are based on collectivism. This fact puts a wrench in the works, so to speak, along with the fact that our moral precepts are instilled by society from a very early age. Just watch Nickelodeon or The Disney Channel in the mornings and you'll see what I mean. So, it isn't quite so clear that we are born with a sense of right and wrong, at least, I can't see thus. Be that as it may, the other sections admirably sum up orthodox thinking. Books like John Zizioulas' "Being As Communion" or David deSilva's "Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity" expand on Lewis' subject matter, and I highly recommend both books. Overall, "Mere Christianity" is an excellent stepping stone, but hardly A) Lewis' finest work ("Miracles" is much better), or B) the best source for apologetics.   hide

I just finished reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. Its noted as being one of his seminal...more

I just finished reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. Its noted as being one of his seminal works, and probably his most famous adult oriented Christian apologetics work. I've also read his book Faith which I found to be much more abstract and challenging, whereas Mere Christianity was very whitty and down to earth. The latter's accesibility is likely due to the fact that it was first a series of spoken essays given on British radio for wide audiences. At times it reads like a speech, but more often than not it feels like you are listening to a very wise and kind but also serious man. I suggest this book to anyone, Christian or not, that either wants to know what the barebones ideas of Christianity are or what exactly Christianity demands of you. After reading this book I feel less that Christianity is a passive state of beliefs and more of an active engaging and challenging lifestyle that is unfathomably rewarding. At roughly 200 pages and only a partly linear narrative, it can be picked up and read leisurely for those who feel as though they have little time.   hide

The first section of this book is a highly philosophical discussion of Lewis' rational reasons for...more

The first section of this book is a highly philosophical discussion of Lewis' rational reasons for believing in a "mind-like being" (God). Very interesting if you enjoy philosophy but probably boring if you don't. The next section discusses and explains basic Christian beliefs. I really enjoy Lewis' defense of Jesus as the Son of God, suggesting he was either a lunatic, a lying demon, or actually who he claimed to be. The third section deals with "Christian Behaviour". This is my favorite part of the book. Lewis uses brilliant analogies to explain concepts such as "faith", "charity", and "morality". In the final section, Lewis attempts to explain the Trinity and its relation to people. This part is a highly theoretical (yet still insightful) section of the book and Lewis himself urges readers to take what they will from it and move on. Mere Christianity is a still-relevant classic among Christian literature and is a great introduction to the faith for those unfamiliar with the basics.   hide

I am with Dom (below) when pointing out that in your later readings, you might want to be more...more

I am with Dom (below) when pointing out that in your later readings, you might want to be more CSL-critical. I just re-read this having been a Christian for 37 years. This time, as long ago, CSL gives insights as he simply unpacks the complex. And Jesus point in using parables was that the direct route to heaven is indeed along the Theology School bypass. However, I think for most of us the theology and values are not a problem. I was surprised however, when reading about the man being the head of the marriage, and CSL's rationale. Also, you can't help noticing the repeated war-time analogies that seem out of place in today's thinking. Perhaps more than most old books, this one seems to reveal the distance that society has moved in thinking and values in 50 years. And then you realise how much we impose our values in the interpretation of what was written 200 years ago. What would Paul make of our writings today? In short, recommended for the book case.   hide