Scan barcode
leesmyth's review against another edition
4.0
I think I've read this before, in some collection of essays, but there is a lot of food for thought.
In general, Lewis invites us to take a look at the person in the mirror, to start small and local with learning to understand and practice Christian virtues rather than racing immediately to the Big Theological Questions. For example, when looking to understand forgiveness, he points out (in 1943) that there's no need to start with the Gestapo. "One might start with forgiving one's husband or wife, or parents or children, or the nearest [non-commissioned officer], for something they've said or done in the last week. That will probably keep us busy for the moment." (39)
He also repeatedly invites us to distinguish between emotions (which are inherently changeable) and conscious choices and reason.
Much of what he says has aged well, and even has additional relevance these days as a certain strain of professed Christians have come to prominence in the Republican party in the US. For example:
"A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I don't think that at all. At least I know I'd be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine." (35)
And this resonates in an age of social media memes which stir outrage in one side (seeming to confirm all their worst suspicions of the other side), but often prove to be highly distorted or even outright fabrications: "Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite such devils as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible?" (40-41)
One thing that has not aged as well is his explanation of why men (rather than women) should be head of the household in a Christian marriage - "He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife" (37). His arguments and examples on this particular point, and his appeals to purported common understanding, do not hold up.
In general, Lewis invites us to take a look at the person in the mirror, to start small and local with learning to understand and practice Christian virtues rather than racing immediately to the Big Theological Questions. For example, when looking to understand forgiveness, he points out (in 1943) that there's no need to start with the Gestapo. "One might start with forgiving one's husband or wife, or parents or children, or the nearest [non-commissioned officer], for something they've said or done in the last week. That will probably keep us busy for the moment." (39)
He also repeatedly invites us to distinguish between emotions (which are inherently changeable) and conscious choices and reason.
Much of what he says has aged well, and even has additional relevance these days as a certain strain of professed Christians have come to prominence in the Republican party in the US. For example:
"A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I don't think that at all. At least I know I'd be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine." (35)
And this resonates in an age of social media memes which stir outrage in one side (seeming to confirm all their worst suspicions of the other side), but often prove to be highly distorted or even outright fabrications: "Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite such devils as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible?" (40-41)
One thing that has not aged as well is his explanation of why men (rather than women) should be head of the household in a Christian marriage - "He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife" (37). His arguments and examples on this particular point, and his appeals to purported common understanding, do not hold up.
perilous1's review against another edition
5.0
My second-favorite of the works from the essay collection that makes up Mere Christianity.
"One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up."
In the process of writing something distinctly apologetic, Lewis is decidedly unapologetic in his explanations of the key Christian doctrines and directives regarding social morality. He acknowledges the strident lack of popularity certain teachings have amid the culture of his time without bending to such fickle pressures, and he is quick to denounce the petty points of discord found among so many of the Christian denominations. In short, the man was far more interested in what God thought of him than he was in acquiring the approval of men.
"...We grow up surrounded by propaganda in favor of unchastity. There are people who want to keep our sex instinct inflamed in order to make money out of us. Because, of course, a man with an obsession is a man who has very little sales-resistance."
I actually found it brave of him to address the concept of Christian marriage in one of his essays, as he is up-front with the fact that--at the time that he wrote it--he'd yet to experience marriage for himself. (He would of course marry late in life to a cancer-inflicted woman to whom he was deeply devoted--having precious few years to put his convictions into practice.)
"And, of course, the promise, made when I am in love and because I am in love, to be true to the beloved as long as I live, commits me to being true even if I cease to be in love. A promise must be about things I can do, about actions: no one can promise to go on feeling a certain way. He might as well promise never to have a headache or always to feel hungry."
storymi's review against another edition
4.0
+
~ Het interessante onderwerp: over karakterontwikkeling en moraal.
~ Eerste non-fictie boek dat ik van C.S. Lewis lees buiten Narnia
~ Het zien van parallellen tussen Narnia en zijn visie op moraal/ethiek en de wereld
~ Het einde leek ook een beetje op het einde van het laatste boek van Narnia (en was ook mooi!)
~ Sommige stukken zijn verrassend actueel.
~ Er stonden mooie quotes en doordenkertjes in.
~ Vond het hoofdstuk over 'Pride' ook best wel een eye-opener.
~ Hij gebruikt goede voorbeelden om zijn visie uit te leggen.
~ Hij schrijft nuchter, heel down-to-earth.
-:
~ Het origineel komt uit 1954 geloof ik. Sommige stukken zijn gedateerd.
~Het zijn losse essays, die bij elkaar zijn gevoegd. Er had iets meer aandacht besteed kunnen worden aan de structuur en samenhang.
~ Hij is niet altijd even duidelijk over zijn bronnen. Hij filosofeert ook veel zelf bij elkaar. Kritisch blijven lezen dus.
~ En als laatste: de titel is wel een beetje suf :).
Eindoordeel: Interessant en hij had een fijne schrijfstijl. Ik ga meer non-fictie van hem lezen. 4 sterren.
~ Het interessante onderwerp: over karakterontwikkeling en moraal.
~ Eerste non-fictie boek dat ik van C.S. Lewis lees buiten Narnia
~ Het zien van parallellen tussen Narnia en zijn visie op moraal/ethiek en de wereld
~ Het einde leek ook een beetje op het einde van het laatste boek van Narnia (en was ook mooi!)
~ Sommige stukken zijn verrassend actueel.
~ Er stonden mooie quotes en doordenkertjes in.
~ Vond het hoofdstuk over 'Pride' ook best wel een eye-opener.
~ Hij gebruikt goede voorbeelden om zijn visie uit te leggen.
~ Hij schrijft nuchter, heel down-to-earth.
-:
~ Het origineel komt uit 1954 geloof ik. Sommige stukken zijn gedateerd.
~Het zijn losse essays, die bij elkaar zijn gevoegd. Er had iets meer aandacht besteed kunnen worden aan de structuur en samenhang.
~ Hij is niet altijd even duidelijk over zijn bronnen. Hij filosofeert ook veel zelf bij elkaar. Kritisch blijven lezen dus.
~ En als laatste: de titel is wel een beetje suf :).
Eindoordeel: Interessant en hij had een fijne schrijfstijl. Ik ga meer non-fictie van hem lezen. 4 sterren.
More...