Customer Reviews

Mere Christianity

5 star:		(117)
4 star:		(22)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(10)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

This book was not written in an attempt to convince the staunch non-believer. It was written for those who believe and those who doubt their non-belief. I felt that his opening chapters regarding the moral argument presented a strong point in a weak way.

Lewis used very little scripture in this book, but I do not see that as a weakness. If Christ genuinely is the Word, then his message should make perfect sense even apart from the written word.

One of the things Lewis demonstrated very well was the fact that if you look at man's dilemma as being fallen, and consider how he came to be in this dilemma, then the solution that Christianity offers makes perfect sense.

The concept of the trinity is also covered very well.

Finally, the chapter on God and Time sheds light on a few misconceptions about God's nature, and introduces a number of different ways of thinking about time that make it easier to see how God can hear everyone's prayers, or how the fact that God knows my future doesn't mean that I have no choice over the matter.

With no starting assumptions or preconceived notions, C.S. Lewis takes his readers through a comprehensive and compelling explanation of what Christians believe and why the Christian faith makes sense. Lewis uses powerful arguments to build to inescapable conclusions about morality, the existence of God and the nature of Jesus Christ. The appeal of Mere Christianity is that it focus on those common elements of Christianity which are believed by all Christian everywhere and steers clear of the peculiarities of the different denominations (hence the title "mere"). This is not a book that you can quickly breeze through. Every sentence, paragraph and chapter is full of deep meaning, and you will want to stop and re-read parts of it frequently.

This is the book that lit the spark of my own ministry. Lewis showed me that it was acceptable to ask the tough questions and that those questions have fulfilling and meaningful answers. Lewis showed me that we don't need to shy away whenever we have doubts, or whenever why want to know why things are the way they are. Asking these questions and finding the answers has significantly strengthened my faith.

There is the story told of a teacher instructing a martial arts class. 2 of the class mates are squaring off. The one boy doesn't have the training as the other does, although he's giving it everything he has. He's pretty much throwing every bit of technique at the advanced student as he can, and yet he still continues to get beat. The teacher finally pulls the less of the 2 students off to the the sides and says, "I know that you are as tough as nails. I know what you know. Perhaps if you went back to the basics, it might not be so difficult." The boys line up and square off. They circle each other. The lesser student finds his opening, BOOM!!! The other kid is sprawled out on the mat.

C.S. Lewis takes us through the basic points, and BOOM!! He floors us with what we thought was just going to be, "Mere Christianity." He wrote this back in the 1940's, yet he used a language that we can all understand, yet you have to take the time to comprehend what he's saying. I looked at this as a complex book on simple issues, and it constantly hit me between the eyes! There are places where you see God in a whole new light. It is like you've never seen it in such a perspective, yet now you find yourself amazed. His illustrations are very simple, yet sometimes you might want to read it again to get the full understanding of what he is saying. Then read it again, and smile, and praise God for this wonderful work! People have labeled this as "The most important book next to the Word of God." It just might be. And it is just the beginning.

C.S. Lewis used to be an atheist, and when he gave his talent to God, he became one of the most influencial writers that Christianity has ever seen! Folks, this is what happens when people might say, "God can't use that." And then God looks at what appears to be impossible and says, "Let's see what I can do!" Did people back then think that a former atheist could pull something like this off? This is just 1 of many wonderful works that Lewis has accomplished for the Kingdom of God! And it is so beautiful. Hats off to a legend!!!

As another reviewer pointed out, Christians seem to rate this book highly while atheists and agnostics tend to give it low ratings. Assuming that orpington is not an atheist or agnostic (from his objections that Lewis does not tow the Scripture line as he would demand of such a work), I guess fundamentalists (at least this one in particular) are not impressed with this work from Lewis either. THE BIBLE may say that once a person is saved they are never lost, but Lewis points out that giving our lives to God is a decision, and who among us hasn't seen someone make that decision and then change it?
As for the idea that people could come to Christ from other traditions, I can attest to this myself. I was raised in the Methodist denomination and then pursued the Bahai faith and Buddhism seeking to determine if I really believed in Christianity or followed it merely from conditioning in childhood. Lewis has helped bring me back into the Christian fold, with a much clearer idea of what I believe and why. As Mike Scott of The Waterboys wrote in one of his songs, it's "been a long way to the Light." Who is to judge how we get there, so long as we answer God's call?

Lewis makes a solid case for Christianity in this highly readable series of talks he delivered on the BBC. Lewis' common-sense approach, and easy-to-understand analogies catch the reader unawares. One finds him or herself agreeing with Lewis, even when one is unsure what it is one has agreed to.

In Book 1 Lewis makes the case for morality, or what he terms "the law of human nature" written upon men's hearts. In Book 2, he examines the competing conceptions of God and makes the case for Christ. Here he states that all Christian denominations tend to hold 3 things in common - these being baptism, belief (faith), and Holy Communion. In Book 3, he examines the Cardinal virtues, the theological virtues, and the importance of living virtuously. And in Book 4 he leads the reader into the doctrine of the Trinity and what this means for the believer.

An Anglican himself, who avoided speaking of Catholicism, contrary to the direction many have taken this book, Lewis argues against a kind of non-denominationalism. He says that if Christianity is viewed as a hallway inside of a mansion, his job is merely to bring us into the hallway. Which room we enter, he says, is up to us, but he does argue that the worst room is still better than remaining in the hallway.

Readers desiring to learn more about what led to Lewis' conversion to Christianity should read G.K. Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man," as Lewis has said that this book greatly influenced his belief in Christ.

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.

Lewis was a master of language. This book is written in a style that is both easy to read and beautifully constructed. He was Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge, and his works are widely recognised as masterpieces of literature.

In the book, his description and characterisation of mainstream Christianity is thorough. He covers the faith at a basic level, but it is more comprehensive and comprehensible than most non-Christians and even many Christians have ever heard before. This book taught me a lot about mainstream Christianity, not in a dogmatic sense, but in a spiritual sense. Too many authors rely on discussion of theology and dogma; Lewis covers the spiritual, and this is what sets his book apart.

His coverage of the faith is non-denominational, and he deals with the subject in a frank, conversational manner. It is an extremely easy read, but at the same time both interesting and involving.

With that said, many of his arguments lack force. While his apologetics make use of many good analogies, his logic will be unconvincing to most non-believers.

On a side note, Lewis died on the same day as Aldous Huxley and JFK. Funny how life works!

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.