Customer Reviews

Mere Christianity

5 star:		(121)
4 star:		(23)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(10)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

CS Lewis outlines the basics of Christianity with great understanding both on a spiritual and intellectual level. As an English literature professor at Oxford University in the UK, he converted to Christianity in his 30s after much contemplation and struggle.

He discovered the rich depths of faith that can only be uncovered by those courageous enough to honestly look at the scriptures and see who Jesus really was. He walks the reader through this journey.

He argues that meaning in this life must certainly exist. God must certainly exist. He also points out that there are far too many questions unanswered by the atheists and Lewis demands an answer. His reasoning is sharp and flawless. He understanding of the issues is as relevant today as when he first put pen to page.

He is a delight to read; he is pure genius. You will find few authors with such a keen mind and a gift for clarity. Lewis does not waste a word.

He addresses critical questions with profoundly sound logic. This book is a landmark in exploring the Christian faith through intelligent thought. I recommend it highly !!

In the foreword it is explained that this book is not one of philosophical musings but a work of oral literature addressed to a people at war. It was originally broadcast by the BBC from 1942 to 1944, hence the gripping metaphors like the image of the earth as enemy-occupied territory. Mere Christianity is a book of plain but moving language.

In Book One: Right and Wrong As a Clue To the Meaning Of The Universe, Lewis looks at the law of human nature (inherent knowledge of right and wrong), certain objections, the reality of the law and that which lies behind the law. Here he discusses the materialist, the life-force and the religious views of life.

Book Two is a discussion on what Christians believe, in terms of the aforementioned occupied territory, a coming invasion, the penitent, and the practical conclusion. This section also deals with pantheism, dualism, free will, the divinity of Christ and God's intentions with the world.

Book Three investigates Christian behaviour, in terms of the cardinal virtues, social and personal morality, morality and psychology, marriage, forgiveness, the great sin (narcissistic pride; in this regard, please also read People Of The Lie by M Scott Peck), and what charity, hope and faith really mean.

Book 4 is a captivating explanation of the doctrine of the trinity. I found this part very interesting and sometimes deeply moving. Lewis speculates on the nature of time, the nature of man and the nature of God, as the Father the source, the Son an emanation of the source and the Holy Spirit as the spirit of love between Father and Son. Lewis explains what he thinks is the process whereby the individual receives a higher nature. This change in consciousness (infusion of the Holy Spirit) leads to a transcendence of the mortal nature by transforming the individual into a child of the divine.

He argues convincingly for personalities in God and God as the ultimate personality. I found this very illuminating, also in light of having recently read the books by Deborah Whitehouse and Alan Anderson on Process New Thought, especially their view of the personhood of God and panentheism as it emerges from the work of Alfred North Whitehead.

Mere Christianity is a most memorable work that expresses ideas that are relevant to our times. It is a very refreshing expression of a personal Christian belief system that could serve as a strong antidote to the dictatorship of dogma or the staid boredom often associated with 20th century religion in the West. Deeply illuminating, I am sure Lewis' words make many people reconsider many ideas that they had taken for granted.

I am not sure how close Lewis came to the truth in every respect, but much in his vision is inspiring, noble and infused with a sense of logic and common sense. Lewis' writing has an uplifting effect on the spirit. I recommend Mere Christianity to all people of faith and those in search of meaning. One might not ultimately agree with everything, but the ideas expressed here certainly make you think.

I was an atheist who wanted to know how intelligent people (like Lewis) could believe. Lewis' Mere Christianity is at once elegant and simple, a foundation for a rational belief in God that does not require acceptance of any particular religion -- thus, one can progress in any direction from its premises. It has the additional advantage of being divided into short, highly readable chapters so that the reader can spend fifteen minutes before bedtime digesting the ideas in each chapter at an unhurried pace. Lewis' ability to capture absolutely stunning concepts through everyday analogies really helps someone not trained in reading philosophy to follow his arguments.

Who is God? How do I come to know Him? Are we God's descendants?

These questions are but a few of the questions that C.S. Lewis addresses in "Mere Christianity". This book contains short chapters that can be read in under 10 minutes. However, Lewis has managed to zero in on the question and explore it in such detail that no one can walk away without fully understanding the issues and his position on them.

Lewis relies not on quoting scripture to illustrate the core principles of his beliefs, but rather on logic and the observation of humanity.

"Mere Christianity" is highly recommended for both the Christian searching to answer questions about his faith and the non-Christian who is wondering what all the fuss is about.

I feel out of my league critiquing Mr. Lewis. I certainly recognize he is a gifted writer. All I am trying to do is say why, at least for me, he didn't prove his case.

The book is divided into four books, and at this time I'm only intending on commenting on the first two. The reason being that the latter two books are for Christians. The first two are for those that are contemplating Christianity.

Lewis starts out his argument for the existence of God by first attempting to prove the existence of what he calls "The Moral Law". It seems that a reader's perception of the strength of Lewis' argument for the existence of God completely stands or falls based on whether said reader is convinced by the argument of the existence of this purported Law. Lewis argues that it seems that everybody has some innate understanding of a proper, moral behavior. He says that if we didn't, it would make no sense to say that Nazi's behaved "badly". Saying they behaved "badly" only makes sense if you have a fundamental understanding of what it would mean to behave well.

My first complaint is that I feel he trivializes the differences of morality amongst different cultures. He agrees that there are differences but says "these have never amounted to anything of a total difference... Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you should not simply have any woman you liked." Considering how much to do Christians (including Lewis himself) usually make of the properness of the biblical "one man, one woman" concept, it seems odd to have him say that isn't a real difference. Lewis neglects to mention that some cultures have found it acceptable for men to kill their wives if they find them displeasing. This isn't a real difference?

However, I do agree that at least most cultures have had some form of "The Golden Rule". In fact, Lewis himself later refers to "The Golden Rule of the New Testament (do as you would be done by)". So, if I accept that at least most cultures have had some form of this, the question then becomes, where did it come from? Lewis discusses two naturalistic possibilities, instinct and learned behavior. Lewis dismisses these. To dismiss instinct, Lewis discusses the scenario where somebody sees someone in trouble. They may have the instinct to run away to protect themselves. And he says they may have the instinct to help the other person. Yet somehow the person must make a choice between the two instincts, and the means that one employs to make that choice must be The Moral Law. It seems to me that it is more likely to be learned behavior even though Lewis dismisses that possibility.

I shouldn't say that Lewis completely dismisses that The Moral Law as being learned behavior. In fact, he agree that it is, much like the multiplication tables are something that you learn. But we couldn't have arbitrarily made up the multiplication tables. Nor, he argues, could we have arbitrarily decided The Moral Law. For evidence of this, he again reiterates his claim that all cultures have had similar morality; and if morality were arbitrary then that wouldn't be so. As I've said, I'm not convinced this is the case. But I have agreed that most cultures have had some form of The Golden Rule. So Lewis would say that I'm agreeing with him. Well, not really. Is there any other possible explanation for the universitality of The Golden Rule? I think there is. For my own self preservation, it seems obvious that I would want other people to not to decide to arbitrarily kill me. It also seems obvious that I would have no reason to have such expectation of other people, if I won't likewise arbitrarily go kill them. It doesn't seem to me that it requires a God to have told me this. Granted, in today's society, the concept of treating others as you would have them treat you sometimes seems to be in amazingly short supply. Yet I'd still say that it really shouldn't take a rocket scientist, let alone God, to figure this out.

Lewis accepts some desire to help others is instinct. He calls it the "herd instinct". I'd prefer to call it "empathy". Many Christians ask why would this evolve? If we evolved, wouldn't we evolve primarily the instinct to save ourselves? However, Lewis doesn't ask this question and accepts that we do in fact have such an instinct. But he believes that the self-preservation is a stronger instinct and that therefore if someone chooses to help someone instead of saving themselves, it must be because of The Moral Law. However, he doesn't seem to offer any proof that the self-preservation instinct would be stronger than empathy. But even if he is correct and self-preservation is the stronger instinct, the combination of learned behavior plus the "herd instinct" seems to me to be quite capable of being stronger than the self-preservation instinct, at least in some individuals in some situations. Maybe I can't prove that my explanation is correct. But I assert that Lewis has not proven it to be wrong.

Judging from earlier reviews, you'll either love this one or you'll hate it. A quick scan of the ratings reveals that Christians love it while agnostics and atheists pan it. From 129 ratings out there, only four readers provided on-the-fence "3 star" reviews. By joining this lonely (objective?) crowd, I'm hoping to convince myself that writing review number 130 is not purely an exercise in conceit but can provide a different perspective on the work.

First, let's recognize that this book is really a combination of three prior, separate essays comprising two distinct topics. These topics are an apologetic of the Christian faith and a high-level review of fundamental Christian beliefs held across denominations. Those who offer blanket criticism appear to miss this distinction and view the entire work as an apologetic. In my view, these distinct components differ sharply in intent and quality and therefore deserve separate reviews.

As to the common threads throughout the work, they are largely positive. Readers of other Lewis works will be familiar with his wonderful ability to write in clear, concise, conversational prose and these gifts are on display throughout the book. His capacity for using metaphors and analogies if rightfully renowned and is particularly helpful in explaining complex beliefs and doctrine.

Unfortunately, the pure apologetic section of the work falls far short of it's target of providing a rational justification for the faith. Lewis attempts to structure logical deductive and inductive reasoning arguments to support his conclusion that there is a single God and that Jesus was his only Son. Surprisingly for one of Lewis' obvious intellect, his logic if rife with serious flaws. Two quick examples are symptomatic. First, Lewis states that "Reality is something you could not have guessed. This is one of the reason's I believe in Christianity. It is a religion you could not have guessed." What he means is that the world is complex and therefore a religion that accurately explains the world must be complex. Thus, because Christianity is complex, it accurately explains the world. This logic leaves seekers of religion free to accept any "complicated" belief system (in fact, the more complicated the better). Second, Lewis argues that Jesus must be the Son of God because the Bible makes it clear that he was "neither a lunatic nor a fiend" and that he must be either a lunatic/fiend or the Son of God. In addition to several deductive logic holes, the argument faces an obvious circularity problem (i.e. one believes what the New Testament says because Jesus is the Son of God and one believes He is the Son of God because of the Bible's description of his life). These and other similar examples of poor logic lead me to give a "2 star" rating to this section of the work.

For all the issues with Lewis' apologetic efforts, his attempt to provide an easily understandable, concise summary of the major cross-denominational Christian beliefs is outstanding. One can take issue with the lack of depth and breadth of coverage, but only if one does not clearly understand Lewis' objectives. His discussion of the cardinal virtues, the sin of pride and the trinity are among the most clearly articulated explanations I have seen. While the passage of time has exposed several of his points (e.g. the Christian wife's obligation to "obey" her husband) as no longer falling within the common Christian belief set, on the whole he clearly succeeds in his goals. Thus, I give a "4 star" rating to this section of the work.

The 2 and 4 stars equate to an overall 3 star rating. C.S. Lewis fans should read the book for an interesting perspective on his personal beliefs. Those looking for a clear explanation of those common beliefs that Christians hold dear would get great value from the work. Those looking for a compelling, rational defense of the faith would be better served looking elsewhere.

It took me a few tries to get past the first couple of chapters in this book--see, I already believe in Christ and the first few chapters seem to address concerns for non-Christians. I almost gave up on it, but I'm really glad I didn't. Once I got into it, it really made sense and came to occupy a place close to my heart. C.S. Lewis' perspective really brought together much of what I believed, but was unable to but into thought or phrase (this is probably why he's a writer, and not me). It filled in a lot of gaps in my faith, and now it's one of my all-time favorite books of any genre ever. It's not just a good read, it can save your life--it did mine. I can't recommend it highly enough for you if you're a Christian, as well as a gift for people on the fence.

I first read this book in my early 20's. I must have now read it at least 5 times. I try to re-read it every January if possible. There is simply no other Christian apologetic work that comes close to Lewis' masterpiece. This book and Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton really cemented my faith.

Hard to believe that this book is the result of war-time BBC talks on Christianity... hard to believe that the BBC, or a similar organization, would actually want someone to air such information about God, Christianity and the philosophical and historical underpinnings of this radical faith. I have to admit that I was constantly surprised as I went through the book at how Lewis referred to preoccupations and concerns that are still part of the basic questions that we ask about the meaning of life (differences in faith through cultures; men-women issues; good and bad across contexts) - these seem to be valid across time and contexts. Lewis does betray his period with some of the stereotypes that come out in his writing. But I have read more stereotypy in books that were published last month, last week.

This is a must read for Christians who struggle to find common beliefs across denominations. This is a must read for those who are curious about Christianity and who wonder what some of the basics are about, how it is similar to other faiths but so radically different. This is a must read for anyone who wonders what is really going on.

A Classic piece! One of the best books I have had the opportunity to read - a masterpiece that combines Christian doctrines with intellectual reasoning to advance - or rather demonstrate - the case for the authenticity of Christianity; and the simplicity with which it can be shared successfully with those with open minds.