Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5
Enjoyability: 4 of 5
I had to get to this book eventually. In apologetics circles, it's considered a classic. Strong-worded enough to be assertive, and yet still vague enough that it can be used by both Catholics and protestants alike to defend their faith.
I have to say straight-out that I consider most of this book to be a masterpiece, even though I generally balk at anything even the slightest bit vague. I had a few issues with the book from time to time, but none of them is anything major, and I can deal with them quickly in just a few paragraphs, while also covering the stuff I particularly liked.
Lewis is as much of, if not more of a popularizer than he is a theologian, so his prose and patterns of speech are nice and casual; usually easy to read, even when dealing with very complex subjects.
He first talks about natural law, the difference between right and wrong, and the reason for that difference. No disagreements here. Next, he discusses conceptions of God and our relationship with him. Still no complaints. Lewis is frequently amusing throughout these parts, as well as edifying. Many of his comparisons are obviously intended to be humorous, while still being entirely true and correct.
Next, he gets into the meat of morality, and several key sins, such as sins against the virtues, social morality, sexual morality, offenses against marraige and so forth. All good and important topics. The one problem I have here is that he describes sexual immorality as one of the "least bad" sins. It's not. In fact, it can be one of the most dangerous mortal sins, not because of its inherent severity, but because of its inherent draw, and the complexity of the issue, which often makes it hard to comprehend why it's wrong. The problem, of course, is that sexual immorality devalues another person for your own pleasure, and when you start devaluing people for pleasure, it's -very- hard to stop, until eventually, you devalue everyone, and the only person you care about is yourself. Sexual immorality, in other words, can lead to the mentality that other people exist only to give you pleasure or satisfaction, which is as far removed from Christian charity as you can get.
Next, the book gets into more of the virtues, as well as the vice of pride. I didn't think Lewis sufficiently pinned down just what exactly the sin of pride -is,- what makes it a sin and when, but I'm always looking for greater specificity in things like this.
Book four of Mere Christianity gave me, I think, the most problems. Let me see if I can outline them.
1. Lewis seems to think being nice is an inherently good thing. I can think of many situations where this wouldn't be the case, like a drill instructor, or a parish priest during his homilies. I'd have defined the difference between "nice" and "good" a bit more closely first.
2. There's something of a division within Christianity on the subject of whether the resurrected saints are completely different people, or whether they're the same people; just resurrected with a better chance to live their lives well. I'm of the latter school of thought. Lewis, it seems, is not. Related to that...
3. Lewis seems to imply that we need to sacrifice everything we've ever known, including our personhood, permanently, in order to make room for God. This is a misunderstanding. God is infinite. If we needed to "make room" for him, we could only do it by ceasing to exist. He seems to go back on this somewhat in the final chapter, but there's still the sense that the sacrifices of Christian life are permanent, not temporary, and that's not how I read Romans 8:11. I've always taken that verse to mean that all the things we have to give up in this life; "kill" here on Earth for the sake of doing right, will be restored to the saints in paradise, once the risk of sin is past.
Still, as I said, none of these issues is too major, and none really tells too badly against this book. Additionally, there's an analogy near the end of the book which, in my view, is potentially better than even the book's author seems to realize. He describes the Christian faith is a sort of seed of evolution, like lumps on the back of a horse, which will eventually turn into wings, and give it the power to outstrip all the other horses in its ability to leap over barriers. However, until they become functional wings, you won't notice much difference in its ability to leap barriers.
Now, the reason I say this is an even better analogy than he may have realized is that really, if a horse had incomplete, wing-like lumps on its back, it would, for the moment, be -less- capable of leaping over barriers, since it would be weighed down by those lumps. We often feel ourselves weighed down by the burden of having to do right; the difficulty of moral values in the face of an enemy who cheats repeatedly, and the realization that we can't achieve victory on these terms. We may even blame our faith for it. However, if we stick it out, if we wait a while, those burdensome lumps will become beautiful wings, and will become, not a hindrance, but an advantage. This, I think, shows some of the potential of this analogy. It's beautiful.
If you want a basic grounding in Christianity, you could do a lot worse that to pick this book up and leaf through it. It's got a lot of good answers, which you might just need someday when your kids start asking you big questions about life and the faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment