Rating: 
Summary: The Case for Christianity
Review: This brilliant work by C.S. Lewis is aptly titled 'Mere Christianity.' It may be seen as an attempt to prove that Christianity is true, though I think there is another, deeper level as well. Lewis sought, very successfully I believe, to take away the sectarianism, the various religious dogma and ceremonies, to strip all Christian denominations of their pecularities, and to examine what was left; what can only be called "Mere" Christianity.
Lewis made no attempt to win converts for his own church, nor tried to disprove the theories of any others. He wisely left extremely controversial issues (such as the Virgin Mary) untouched, and focused on the very essence of Christianity. Rather than examining the propriety of all the various doctrines on the subject, he looked at it as a way of life, as a way of being.
Throughout the book there is a message which is dominantly conveyed--that Christ is the means of our salvation, and that there is no other way. You do not need to submit to the bickerings of various denominations as to HOW true discipleship can be acheived, you need only understand that it MUST be acheived, and act accordingly.
Obviously, this book is partial to the Christian mindset, but it's value is incalculable to anyone--Christian or not. The root of the message Lewis so elegantly conveys is that man has the potential to progress to an infinite degree--it just so happens that he believes Jesus Christ to be the medium through which that progress is made possible.
This is not an 'objective' work in the strict sense of the word, for Lewis relies on the faith of the reader, and faith is something which cannot be seen nor proven. Despite and perhaps because of this fact, Lewis presents here one of the best views of Christianity of our time.
Rating:
Summary: A good starting point for Lewis's essays...
Review: C.S. Lewis composed a variety of literature. Poetry, children's fiction, essays, adult fiction, parodies, biographies... This is a great introduction to C.S. Lewis's apologetic essays written to average readers. This is a good book to turn to if you enjoyed some other fictitious work or essay by Lewis. This is also good to try if the last essay you read by Lewis was too abstract or confusing (like A Grief Observed, Pilgrim's Regress). If this book does not appeal to you, then stay clear of his essays, but there is a chance you may still like some of his other works (Narnia, Screwtape or The Great Divorce).
Rating: 
Summary: Mere Stupidity
Review: While this is often held up as a paragon of clear, concise, and convincing apologetics, Mere Christianity is logically weak, filled with antiquated views, and ignorant of some basic social science.To begin with, Lewis likes to raise objections to his arguments, imaging that these are the very things a non-believer might say in response to his claims. However, most of these objections are petty and insignificant, easily refuted and not anything a serious non-Christian would raise as an objection. For example, he likes to use the Lord/Lunatic/Liar argument for the divinity of Jesus (see Book 2 Chapter 3). It goes as follows: Jesus claimed to be God. Either he was indeed God, or he was a lunatic for claiming it, or he was an outright liar. This argument is a non-argument for at least two reasons. As Lewis argues, "It seems obvious to me that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend" (Book 2 Chapter 4). It seems obvious to Lewis, but not to me. To begin with, there are more than three possible explanations here. Perhaps he never did claim to be God. Or perhaps he was misquoted in the Gospels. On the other hand, we can't so easily dismiss the lunatic or liar possibility as Lewis likes to think. We have to remember that Jesus lied at least once. "'Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come.' After saying this, he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had gone to the festival, then he also went, not publicly but as it were in private" (John 7.8-10 RSV). In addition, the lunatic label, while somewhat un-PC, might indeed fit, for Jesus once cursed a fig tree because it wasn?t bearing fruit, though it wasn't in season. He also makes the bizarre argument in Book 2 Chapter 2 that Christianity is real because it's too bizarre to have been made up. In other words, it's true because it's weird. I guess that makes all science fiction stories true as well. In arguing for basic theism, Lewis makes a little linguistic switch and then makes something out of it. He begins by using the word "law" descriptively (i.e., gravity) and the switches to a prescriptive use of "lawê (i.e., morality). He then makes much of this fact without acknowledging that that in fact is all he's done. It's a language trick, not in any way a proof of god. Not only is Lewis book illogical, it is steeped in antiquated ideas. He subscribes to the idea of constant societal, moral progress (i.e., we as a society are becoming more and more morally enlightened) a la Comte even though this claim has widely been disputed by both historians and sociologists. He also shows an ignorance of basic sociology, and seems never to have read a single work of Durkheim (who could easily explain whence comes this internal ?moral law? that Lewis basis so much of his argument on). A good example of his sociological ignorance comes when discussing the nature of Jesus? sacrifice in Book 2 Chapter 4. He makes the analogy that Jesus? sacrifice was not as much receiving punishment as paying a debt we all owe to God. That?s fine and good until we stop to think about what ?debt? is. In short, it is a societal construction. A debt is simply saying ?I owe you money.? What happens if we don?t pay it? According to nature, nothing. We won?t drop dead of a heart attack or break out in a rash. Instead, society allows the person owed to punish the debtor if the debt is not paid. One could easily imagine a society where there was no concept of debt. In this society, you can give money to your friend, but you cannot expect or even desire for the friend to pay it back. Another example of antiquated ideas is his sexism. Describing the Christian marriage, Lewis says, ?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 whom they rule? (Book 3 Chapter 6). Not only is that a sexist statement, but, like most such statements, it is a sweeping generalization that presumes to see into the heart of thousands of women whom Lewis might describe as ruling over their husbands. In short, Mere Christianity is a disappointment. It offers no new insight into Christianity and is in fact chock full of logical fallacies and ignorance. Any educated non-believer will remain unconvinced.
Rating:
Summary: Learn or Re-Learn Christianity
Review: "Mere Christianity" is a great book for those who want to know why people believe in the Christian faith. It is also a great book to remind believers (who may have strayed, or been burned out by big churches and confused denominations) why they believed, and why they should still believe. This book is simple to read, but it's message is not simplistic. It calls us to either believe totally, or to choose not to believe... either way, get off the fence and practice what you say you believe, because there is no middle ground.
Rating: 
Summary: A Tale of Two Reviews
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: A must read
Review: Lewis is the premiere theologian of the twentieth century. He provides us with a lucid and concise commentary on Christianity that could only be conceived after experiencing the horrors of WWI. Anyone who wishes to understand Christianity, the twentieth century, or Narnia, must read this book.
Rating:
Summary: Lewis at his best!
Review: This was the first of Lewis's apologetic works that I read and he has since become one of my favorite Christian authors. His arguements are well thought out, and based in reason. The book is highly accessable and an easy read. Lewis is able to put into words many of my own thoughts about my faith in a much more eloquent manner than I ever could. This book is honest, frank, and a must read for any Christian looking to better understand their faith.
Rating:
Summary: eh
Review: I read this book for an introduction to Christianity class this past term, and despite my high expectations for a wonderful insight into the nature of Christianity, I was sorely disappointed. Although this book is easy to read and approaches humor in some places, this is where the charm of the book ends. C.S Lewis was obviously writing for a war-time audience, addressing his readers to fight evil in the same way that we fight against enemy-occupied territory. Throughout the book, Lewis charges his readers with being separate and apart from the rest of the world to be truly Christian. In addition, this book is not for moral relativists, as Lewis starts with the assumption of absolute morality to deduce the existence of God. He attempts to refute Nietzsche's "herd morality" concept by discussing how morality favors what is good for society, against individual desire, ignoring the fact that the herd morality advocated by Nietzsche does favor the herd, society, not the individual. Lewis continually personifies God (God thinks, God wants, God desires, etc) then tells his readers that God is ineffable and "more of a drama" than anything else. Any Christians who are familiar with the theologies of either Reinhold Niebuhr or Martin Luther will see glimmers of their theories bleeding into Lewis' work, but Lewis taints these theologies by adding his own concepts that only offer contradictions to these works. Bottom line: don't believe the hype. This book disappoints anyone who wants an objective view of Christianity - instead, it is meant to convert the agnostic unbeliever who despretly would like to be Christian. Lewis' assumptions and small contradictions can be easily overlooked by someone who doesn't want to see them.
Rating:
Summary: One of my all-time favorites
Review: C.S. Lewis writes for the masses. This is just one of my all-time favorite books. He puts into words what most of us have felt, but cannot describe.
Rating:
Summary: Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis
Review: This book is by far the best book that I have ever read. Lewis was superior minded and had a special way of portraying excellent examples to convey messages and meanings. I am in awe of this man and his huge intellect, and I feel sure that he will hold a very high place in heaven.
|
