Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Our Price: $6.00 You Save: $7.99 (57%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.93 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Mere Christianity
Book Review: A Classic
Summary: 5 Stars
This book needs no introduction. Originally published more than 60 years ago during World War II, Mere Christianity remains relevant on every level today. C.S. Lewis provides not only a strong and well-reasoned defense of the Christian faith, but gives the reader plenty of wise advice on leading the Christian life. This is a book that should be read and re-read.Book Review: A Classic That Is Becoming Out-Dated
Summary: 3 Stars
I read this book twice, about four years apart. While I did enjoy many points that C.S. Lewis makes, and I understand that he is a highly respected author, but I have to disagree with some of the reviewers. I feel that Mere Christianity is becoming out-dated.Since many people may already know what the book is about, I want to focus on some areas where I feel that C. S. Lewis is becoming out-dated. I feel that Mere Christianity may have been a revolutionary book for its time and helped spark some discussion about Christianity. But as apologists have to update their arguments when new responses have been made, this book has to keep up with new developments in the discussion about Christianity.
C. S. Lewis' argument against Duality seems to fail. He writes, "Then good would not deserve to be called good." (p. 43) Lewis tries to see the eastern philosophy through a western standpoint. But people who hold the eastern viewpoint do not see any dividing line between good and evil. They would state that reality is completely "beyond" good and evil, and thus there only appears to be a distinction to our culturally conditioned minds, but in actuality, there is no distinction between good and evil, and therefore one cannot even use the words "good" and "evil."
I disagree with Lewis on the idea that everybody lives forever, on a theological basis. Even though he never uses the Bible to support his claims, he writes, "Again, Christianity asserts that every individual human being is going to live for ever, and this must be either true or false." (p. 74) The Bible states that God "alone has immortality." (1 Timothy 6:16) and that the wicked will be completely wiped out of existence in the last days.
Also, C. S. Lewis' watered-down approach to charity, "If our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc., is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little," (p. 86) would be an understatement for the wealthy.
I also disagree with Lewis' definition of temperance. He writes, "Temperance referred not specially to drink, but to all pleasures; and it meant not abstaining, but going the right length and no further." (p. 78) Temperance actually does mean abstaining from anything that is bad-alcohol, drugs, and smoking are all bad. It also means moderation in anything that is good-Yes, you can get too much of a good thing-but the Bible does not tell us to be "moderate" in our destructive behavior. The Bible calls us to abstain, to separate from evil, and to be pure. Where is Lewis' scriptural support? None, because he does not have scriptural support.
But then again, maybe this is because C. S. Lewis likes drinking alcohol. He admits, "At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine." (p. 112) Lewis also states that Christians "may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons-marriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who do use them, he has then the wrong turning." (p. 79) I disagree because beer and marriage are not on the same level. Alcohol really is bad. It is not the same as eating meat. Discouraging others from refraining from alcohol does not necessarily mean looking down one's nose at others.
I personally feel that C. S. Lewis puts too much emphasis on social morality, and I will explain. On page 84, Lewis writes about Christian literature, Christian novelists, Christian dramatists, Christian society, Christian economists, Christian this, and Christian that. Next thing you know, we might be deciding between Christian toothpaste and non-Christian toothpaste when we shop at the grocery store. Is the point of Christianity to make society Christian or to make Christian products? Personal life-changing seems to be second priority to social change, but Christ's priority was personal life-changing. I don't think the Good News was meant to be a "social gospel."
Next, C. S. Lewis does not use any Scripture to support why the man should be the head of the household, besides just saying that it is the "Christian" way. He describes decision-making in marriage as "voting" and saying that somebody has to have the final say. What about both submitting to each other, which is actually what the Bible calls for, rather than fighting against each other? But rather, Lewis writes, "There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half-ashamed of it and despise the husbands of whom they rule." (p. 113) This is a culturally determined generalization, and since it is not based in logic, cannot serve as the basis of a theological reasoning.
Finally, the biggest contradiction is that C. S. Lewis is a Christian that believes in evolution. He writes, "Everyone now knows about Evolution... everyone has been told that man has evolved from lower types of life." (p. 218)
And this statement is bizarre: "There was a time before sex had appeared; development used to go on by different methods." (p. 220) This seems like it would be hard to believe for an evolutionist, but this man supposedly believes in a supernatural God.
Nevertheless, I do believe that there are some fundamental questions that can be answered in this book, such as "Why does evil exist?" or "Are there absolute truths?" Lewis nails these questions. There were some points that he brought out that affected me spiritually. One statement about pride hit home with me: "The more pride one had, the more one disliked pride in others." (p. 122) But, in my humble opinion, I felt that C. S. Lewis rambled a lot, and failed to use good logic or good illustrations for most of his book.
Book Review: A Decent, well-paced introduction to the Christian faith
Summary: 4 Stars
Some statements: @ the time of writing this short review there are nearly 80 reviews, and rarely do I usually think that I have something to add when so many have already given their opinion. Still, I think I have some important statements for readers out there who have not yet encountered this book.The title, Mere Christiantiy, is really key. While many conservative evangelicals, who often lack a real encounter with the deeper Christian theological tradition present in works by such men as Niebuhr, Tillich & Barth, may present this book to you as THE definitive argument for Christianity, he/she would be in error. Indeed, this is not the author's intent whatsoever. Rather, this book is to serve as a mere cursory introduction to what he sees as Christian orthodoxy, or gestalt if you will ---being the elements present and preserved throughout the faith's history. In some way, he fails @ this task showing that he himself was not immmune to the prejudices of his time (e.g., passages that present the man as 'head of the household').
Also, Lewis was neither too liberal nor too conservative, though he was certainly traditional. He certainly was NOT fundamentalist or evangelical (e.g., he did not adhere to the plenary, verbal inspiration of Scripture). Thus, to read him as being an adherent to this flavor of Christianity is to MISread him.
Of course, this book has its apologetic elements, and of course, it is not exhaustive. Lewis is not trying to subjugate all of our doubts to the mastery of his arguments. He rarely was so arrogant. One must read this with his attention in mind--- to explain mere Christianity will simultaneously showing it to be reasonable. And, he attempts to soften some of what to outsiders may seem as rough edges and succeeds quite often with amazing fecundity.
Despite the impression some may get from the strong recommendations given for this book (and it is indeed a classic), it is best not to assume that this will be the end all to searching. Mere Christianity serves best to introduce an ignorant person of the beliefs of Christianity when knowledge is lacking and to aid the believer in understanding his own faith. For those who would want to encounter more developed, firm arguments and/or have travelled further down the path of intellectual development, this book can't harm, but there is much more to be sought out. For a strong apologetic work, which is more contemporary yet still becoming dated itself, I recommend Hans Küng's ON BEING A CHRISTIAN. This work is rather large, so for a smaller volume, try Keith Ward's GOD, FAITH & THE NEW MILLENIUM.
Book Review: A Disappointing Defense
Summary: 2 Stars
C.S. Lewis presents a disappointing defense of Christianity and Christian Ethics. The primary advantage of this work is that it is clearly written, and uses many analogies to help illustrate its points to the reader. The major disadvantage, however, is that these analogies and analysis are far too simplistic. By introducing an analogy Lewis merely assumes it as proof of the very thing he is trying to argue. Page after page is filled with analogy and reasoning which seems to rest on an undefended assumption. His argument that Christ was either "Divine or a Madman" for calling himself the Son of God, and that therefore we must believe the former is really ludicrous. Any number of persons have been false prophets and made false claims, but because the claims are outrageous doesn't mean we must accept them. If Christ is any different, he has not shown how Christ's ideas were different, which is where he should have gone. I write this from the perspective of one friendly to the Christian religion and its ethics, and simply don't think Lewis has done a very good job in arguing for the Christian religion. Too many of his arguments are really thinly veiled theological assumptions that are uncritically presented in two-dimensional depth.Book Review: A Former Minister's Brief Critique
Summary: 2 Stars
Having spent nine years of my life as a Christian minister, I understand how Christians think. I read this book as a Christian in the early 1990's. I was never that impressed with it. Lewis makes what Christians consider to be good points. I once thought so too, but the more I matured in life, the more I grew away from faith and away from the silliness of this work.
Lewis's "conversion story" is a complete joke. He was just another downhearted, unchurched atheist who got tired of materialism and decided Christianity's take on things was good enough for him. He was not what most materialists would consider to have been an enlightened atheist, just a smart guy who came to believe in Christianity. This is not at all uncommon. There are plenty of conversions and de-conversions every which way - into and out of all religions and philosophies.
This is the type of book where if you are a believer, it sounds good because it's what you want to hear. But if you're not a believer, it is utterly laughable and ridiculous.
Lewis just doesn't deal with apologetics. He doesn't define this god of his, just asserts him, and then tries to psychoanalyze why people reject him. He talks about Christians sinning and falling short of God, pride, and other human pitfalls, most of them unrelated to the existence of God altogether, but can't appeal to a knowledgeable atheist who understands that these things are natural characteristics, not divine.
Lewis is content to believe that mankind is a sinful race, conceived in sin and headed to Hell. I repudiate this doctrine with all of my being. It is wrong altogether in this writer's opinion.
The book is boring and essentially says nothing about why we should believe in the existence of some god, only why he thinks people don't. Like all god-believers, Lewis starts with an assumption and works backwards to prove it. I only gave this book 2 stars because thinking like a minister, some of the points once sounded good to me. In all honesty, it is barely worth that!
(JH)
www.ministerturnsatheist.org