Mere Christianity - Bk 2 - Ch 4 - The Perfect Penitent

On February 8, 1942, Lewis gave this talk on the BBC Radio as the 4th talk in his second round of talks.  Later, in 1942, Lewis published this talk in "Broadcast Talks," and in 1943 as "The Case for Christianity.  Later, in 1952, Lewis republished it as the 4th Chapter of Book 2 in Mere Christianity, and added the title, "The Perfect Penitent."

Lewis begins by presenting the frightening alternatives he presented thus far.  Either Jesus was and is God, or he was a lunatic or something worse.  Lewis accepts Jesus as God who has landed in enemy-occupied territory in human form.

But why did Jesus so come?  Lewis points out Christians believe, besides teaching, He primarily came to suffer, die, and come back to life.  Lewis admits at first he had troubles with the idea that God let us off because he took out His punishment on Christ, who volunteered to take the punishment.  (If God was going to let us off, why didn't He simply just do so.)  Later, he came to see that the death of Christ somehow put us right with God and gave us a fresh start.  How this works is not nearly as important.

Lewis gives the analogy of the atom.  Scientists describe it in such a way as to help you develop a mental picture of it.  But they point
out the mental picture is not the reality, it's only meant to help you understand the reality expressed in mathematical formulas about the atom.  In a similar manner, the death of Christ presents an unimaginable reality - descriptions of how it works only presents a picture of that reality.

The formula of the reality all Christians accept is Christ was killed for us - his death washes away our sins - and Christ's death disabled death itself.  Theories as to how this works are helpful and worth looking into, but should not be confused with the reality itself.

Lewis also rethought the whole notion of God "letting us off."  He came to see fallen man as a rebel who must lay down his arms, surrender, say he is sorry, admit he has been on the wrong track, and be

ready to start life over again - what Christians call repentance - no fun at all - and actually much harder than eating humble pie.  You must be ready to unlearn self-conceit and self-will (which we have been training for all our lives).  It even means killing part of yourself.  Only a good man can repent perfectly - and that's the catch - since only a bad person needs to repent.  "The worse you are, the more you need it, and the less you can do it."  Only a perfect person can do it perfectly - and he would not need it.

According to Lewis, God does not demand this.  But if you ask God to take you back without it, it means you really do not want to go back to God, and so, it can't happen.  People simply must go through it.  "But the same badness which makes us need it makes us unable to do it."  We need God's help.  He must put something of Himself into us, lend us some of His reasoning, lend us a little of His love, give us some of His grace.  Just as we hold the hand of a little child as we teach it, God has to hold our hand while we repent, which involves surrender, suffering, and death.

God can do this because Jesus went through this as a man - He surrendered - He suffered - He died - and Jesus did it perfectly because he was God - but did so on a human level because he was fully man.  Though tempted like us, he never sinned, but he took on our punishment out of love so he could fully identify with us and help us in our weakness and especially with repentance.  He was the perfect penitent that not only provides the example for us, but helps us in our repentance and weakness.

Bk 2 - Ch 3 - The Shocking Alternative

Overview

Mere Christianity - Bk 2 - Ch 3 - The Shocking Alternative

Lewis gave this talk on the BBC on Feb. 1, 1942 as the third talk of the second round of talks he delivered.  When later published in "What Christians Believe" (and as "The Case for Christianity" in America, it bore the simple title, "3."  When republished within "Mere Christianity" in 1952, Lewis gave it a new title, "The Shocking alternative.

Lewis begins by asserting that Christians believe an evil power made himself the Prince of this World.  How can this state of affairs align with God - who has absolute power?  Is it part of God's will?

Lewis gives an example of a mother who tells her children they must learn to keep their room tidy, but does not accompany them every moment making sure they keep it tidy.  She wills tidiness, but allows her children some freedom to learn it on their own.  When her children leave the room untidy, it goes against her will, yet her will allowed them to do this.

Lewis applies this analogy to God.  He created us with free will so we can go either wrong or right.  If we had no possibility of going bad, we would not be free, or have free will.  We would simply be automatons - machines - incapable of love, goodness, or joy - incapable of the happiness of being united to Him or to each other - never reaching the ecstasy of love and delight best found in the love between a man and a woman.

How did the Dark Power go wrong?  Lewis guesses, based on our common experience, that Satan wanted to put himself first - wanted to be at the center - wanted to be God.  When Satan tempted Eve, he suggested she could be like gods - a basis for all the sins that followed.

Then God sends a shocker.  He sends to the Jews a man who talks about being God and who claims to forgive sins.  To Jews, trained to think about God as the all-powerful Creator and only God utterly different than humans, his statements amounted to the most shocking thing they ever heard.

Jesus claim to forgive sins only makes sense if he was God.  Otherwise it amounts to unrivaled silliness and conceit.  Yet the Gospels do not give this impression.  When Jesus says he is humble and meek - we believe Him - even though his claims of being God and forgiving sin hardly sound meek and humble.

Lewis says we cannot simply say Jesus was a great moral teacher, just not God.  A great moral teacher cannot be so if he falsely claims to be God and forgive sins.  Such a man would amount to either (1) a lunatic ["madman"], (2) a liar ["the Devil of Hell"], or (3) whom he claims to be ["the Son of God"].  Jesus simply did not leave us the option to simply regard him as a great moral teacher.

Bk 2 - Ch 2 - The Invasion

Bk 2 - Ch 4 - The Perfect Penitent

Overview

Mere Christianity - Bk 2 - Ch 2 - The Invasion

Lewis gave this talk over the BBC on Jan. 18, 1942.  It was the second talk in the second set of five talks he delivered.  It simply became "2" when it was later published as "What Christians Believe" ("The Case for Christianity" in America).  When "Mere Christianity was compiled in 1952, it became "The Invasion" as Chapter 2 in Book 2.

Lewis begins by explaining that reality betrays the simple explanations we tend to want to give things.  Thus, if you want to find out what is really happening, you must be prepared for something that may turn out difficult and somewhat odd.  So many people give a version of Christianity suitable for a child - and then attack that.  But if you try to explain how Christianity - how actual Christian doctrine - really explains such things, those same people often complain you are making it too complicated - and that God would have made it much more simpler.

So, for example, we all know the universe has much in it, and about it, that is obviously bad.  How do we explain that?  Lewis boils down the answers to two.  The Christian view holds that a good world has gone bad, but retains a memory what it ought to be.

Dualism holds there are two equal powers behind everything - one good - the other bad - which battle it out in the universe in endless warfare.

However, Lewis then asks dualism - how do we know which power is good and which bad, unless we admit to a third thing over and above them, a standard, law, or rule of good?  If no third thing exists, then all discussion of good or bad gets reduced to personal preference.  Yet, as soon as we admit of such a third thing, we not only negate dualism, we begin to talk about the real God.

Lewis admits Christianity approaches closer to dualism than most people think.  The New Testament talks about a Dark Power behind sin, disease, and death.  However, Christianity asserts this Dark Power was created by God as something good who went terribly wrong - which left the universe at war - a civil war - where we find ourselves in rebel occupied territory.  The rightful king has landed in disguise in this enemy occupied territory, and calls us to engage in sabotage.  When we go to church, we listen in on the secret broadcasts from our friends.  So the enemy worries when we gather there at church.

Lewis firmly believes in the devil, though he is not sure if the devil has hoofs and horns, or otherwise knows about the devil's personal appearance.  For those who want to know the devil better, Lewis replies, "Don't worry.  If you really want to know, you will.  Whether you'll like it when you do is another question."

Bk. 2 - Ch. 1 - The Rival Conceptions of God

Bk 3 Ch 3 - The Shocking Alternatives

Overview

Mere Christianity - Bk 2 - Ch 1 - The Rival Conceptions of God

As I mentioned before, the BBC engaged Lewis initially for a set of four broadcast talks on Wednesday nights.  They expanded it to a fifth talk on a Saturday so Lewis could respond to the tremendous amount of mail the first four talks generated.  All those talks took place in 1941, during the midst of the London Blitz in WWII.  Those first set of five talks were so successful, the BBC asked Lewis to return to give an additional five talks, simply entitled, "What Christians Believe."  Lewis gave the first of those talks, moved to Sunday night, on Jan. 11, 1942.  Initially, Lewis gave this talk no name, so it has simply been called the First Talk.  When first published as Book 2 of "What Christians Believe" (later as Book 2 of "The Case for Christianity" in the U. S.), it was simply titled "1."

However, when it was compiled into "Mere Christianity" in 1952, Lewis and the publisher gave it a
new title, "The Rival Conceptions of God."

Lewis begins with a profound statement.  "If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that that all other religions are simply wrong all through."  Sadly, many Christians think otherwise.  Christians line up with the majority of humanity who believe in some kind of God.

In stark contrast, Lewis, asserts atheists have to believe "the main point in all religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake.  Lewis says that when he was an atheist, "I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most."  Atheist align with the small minority of humanity who do not believe in some kind of God.

However, Christians believe where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and other religions are wrong.  Lewis gives the analogy of arithmetic - where only one answer is right, but some answers are closer to being right than others.

Lewis outlines the big division between those who believe in some kind of God as between Pantheism (usually held by Hindus and other Eastern religions and Hegel)  and the Christian idea of God (usually shared by the Jews and Muslims).  Lewis describes Pantheism as reflecting that God is beyond good and evil.  Since, in Pantheism, God is in everything, all good and evil is part of God.  Morality thus simply becomes a point of view - what is evil to one is good to another.  Christianity stands apart from Pantheistic religion. It asserts, with other religions, that God created the world, like a painter painting a picture, who has put a lot of himself into that work of art.

Lewis gives an example.  When confronted by cancer or a slum, a Pantheist tends to say - From the divine point of view - this is also God.  According to Lewis, the Christian responds, "Don't talk damned nonsense."  Though Christianity believes God made the world, it also believes a good many things have gone wrong and God insists on our putting them right again.

Of course, that raises the big question - why has it gone wrong?  Lewis says for many years he rejected the Christian answer.  He rejected the concept that any intelligent power had created this cruel and unjust world.  But then he began to wonder where he got the idea that the world was unjust and cruel - by what standard did he measure the universe against?

Lewis gives the analogy of falling into water.  A man, not a water animal, feels wet when he falls into water.  However, a fish, a water animal, does not feel wet when it falls into water (in fact it feels at home again).  Then Lewis thought his idea of justice was just a private idea.  But then, he couldn't really say the world was unjust, if it was just a private idea of justice.  In that case, his whole argument against God fell apart.  Eventually, Lewis realized that atheism was too simple.  If the universe has no meaning, then we could never discover it had no meaning.  Lewis gives another analogy.  If the whole world was dark, we would never know it was dark - in fact, we would have no eyes since there would have been no need to develop (evolve) eyes.  The whole concept of dark would be a word without meaning to us.  In a similar manner, if the universe has no meaning, we could never know it has no meaning.  It has to have meaning for us to even consider the possibility it has no meaning.

Bk 1 - Ch 5 - We Have Cause to be Uneasy

Bk. 2 - Ch. 2 - The Invasion

Overview - Mere Christianity

Mere Christianity - Bk 1 - Ch 5 - We Have Cause to be Uneasy

On August 27, 1945, C.S. Lewis gave his 4th BBC talk entitled, "What Can We Do About It?  This was supposed to be the last of his first series of talks, but an extra talk was added so he could answer some of the many questions his talks generated (which we covered in a previous post).

Later, when his talks were first published in book form, this talk became chapter 5 under the same title.  When it was later republished in the compilation in 1952 under the title of "Mere Christianity," this chapter was renamed "We Have Cause to be Uneasy."

Lewis begins by reviewing the last chapter ("What Lies Behind the Law).  Somebody or something beyond the material world actually gets at us.  Lewis quickly responds to those who feel he simply tries to turn back the clock to reintroduce religion, something they lack interest in.  Lewis responds with three points.

1. If the clock is wrong, it only makes sense to correct the clock, and if that means turning the clock back, then so be it.  Or if you are on the wrong road, you may well have to go back and get on the right road.  Or if your arithmetic goes wrong, you may need to go back to where you went wrong and start again.  Refusing to admit your mistake will not help.
2. Lewis points out he still has not yet got to the God of any particular religion.  All he has done thus far is to say there is Somebody or Something behind the Moral Law, quite apart from anything in the Bible or the churches.  We have two bits of information about this Somebody.  First, we can see He is a great artist from what we observe from the universe.  Second, the Moral Law He put in our minds gives us inside information about Him - it tells us He is interested in right conduct.  He is not soft about this.
3. Christianity tells people to repent and promises forgiveness.  It makes no sense to those who do not feel they have done anything to repent of and thus do not feel they need forgiveness.  It only speaks to people who realize there is a real Moral Law, a Power behind that Law, that they have broken that Law, that they are now wrong before that Power behind the Law.  Christianity only speaks to those who realize all this.  Only those who know they are sick listen to the doctor.

Only those who realize their position is nearly desperate will be open to understand what Christians are talking about.   Christians offer an explanation of how we got to a position of hating goodness while yet loving it.  Only Christians offer an explanation about the force behind the law who is also a Person.  Only Christianity explain how the demands of the law, which we cannot meet on our own, has been satisfied on our behalf by God - how God became man to save man from God's disapproval.  All Lewis claims is to try to explain the old story so they can face the facts, and help them understand the questions Christianity claims to answer.

Lewis admits the facts Christianity tries to explain are terrifying facts.  So while Christianity offers unspeakable comfort, it begins with dismaying facts.  He says he avoid soft soap and wishful thinking, which can only lead to despair.  He draws an analogy to the current war time situation in England.  Lewis refers to the wishful thinking about international politics before the war - and says most of us (speaking to an audience in England in the midst of WWII) have gotten over that.  He says it's time to get over wishful thinking about religion.

This ends Book 1 in Mere Christianity (since it ended the first set of BBC talks Lewis gave).  So we will next go to the first chapter of Book 2.

Bk 1 - Ch 4 - What Lies Behind the Law

Bk 2 - Ch 1 - Rival Conceptions About God

Mere Christianity - Overview

Mere Christianity - Bk. I - Ch. 4 - What Lies Behind the Law

On August 20, 1941, C.S. Lewis delivered his third talk on the BBC then entitled, "Materialism or Religion."  It became the fourth chapter of Broadcast Talks published in England in 1942, and The Case for Christianity published in the United States in 1943.  When published as Mere Christianity in 1952, Lewis changed the title to "What Lies Behind the Law."

Lewis begins by summarizing the previous chapter about the reality of the moral law, something we cannot explain, something we expect everyone to follow, even though we realize we often fall short of this standard.

So Lewis moves on to what this means.  He explains two basic views about the universe.  First the materialist view which explains the universe just happens to exist by chance.

By one chance in a thousand, something hit our sun and produced the planets.  By another chance in a thousand, some matter on this earth came alive, and eventually by another very long series of chances, those living creatures turned into something like us.

The second view Lewis calls the religious view.  Behind the universe is something more like a mind, being conscious, with purpose, and definite preferences.  This mind produced creatures like itself - with minds.  Both views have been held for a long time throughout human history.


Now Lewis wants to make it quite clear that science simply cannot resolve this issue.  He says science has a very proper role within its limitations - that which can be tested by experiments.  Those who try to use science to answer this issue usually do not understand the limitations of science.

Lewis also points out that we do not just observe mankind, we are men (or women) - we have inside information.  We know the moral law does not just describe just what we do - instead it strongly informs and pushes us towards what we ought to do.  This inside information gives us a clue - points the way to a mind outside of the observable facts - which strongly influences us to behave in a certain way - the moral law.  If we look at a house or building, we can't see the architect, but we can see how that mind shaped the design of the edifice.  When we see the postman delivering mail, we have some idea of what he delivers to others based on the inside information we derive from what we receive when the postman delivers the mail to us.  Otherwise, if we just saw a postman delivering mail without this inside information - we would likely have no idea what he was doing.  Lewis compares God with a sender of letters who tells us to obey the law of human nature.

Lewis cautions the reader - he has not yet started to describe the God of Christianity.  All he has done thus far is to describe Something which directs the universe, who urges us to follow a basic law of right and wrong - something more like a mind rather than matter - since it would be difficult to imagine matter giving us instruction.

Bk. 1 - Ch. 3 - The Reality of the Law

Bk 1 - Ch 5 - We Have Cause to be Uneasy

Overview of Mere Christianity

Mere Christianity - Bk 1 - Ch. 3 - The Reality of the Law

On August 13, 1941, in the midst of the London blitz, C.S. Lewis delivered his second BBC talk, which he called "Scientific Law and Moral Law.  Later, when those talks were published as "Broadcast Talks" in England, and as "The Case for Christianity" in America, it became Chapter 3 with the same name, but when it was republished as "Mere Christianity" in 1952, the name of this chapter was renamed, "The Reality of the Law."

Lewis begins by recalling the first chapter, that though people thought they behave a certain way - fair play, morality, or some other name, they in fact did not not.  Lewis points out this state of affairs has certain consequences.

Inanimate objects, like trees and rocks, observe the laws of nature, but not by choice.  In stark contrast, humans choose whether or not to follow the moral law, the law of human nature.  Thus, while the law of nature simply describes how rocks and trees behave in nature, the Law of Human Nature tells human beings what they ought to do or not do.  While the law of nature simply describes the facts with regard to the rocks and trees, the Law of Human Nature deals with something above and beyond the facts.

Some try to explain this as simply a matter of inconvenience - that if someone behaves in a manner

you think he ought not, this simply means it's inconvenient to you.  Lewis objects.  If a man takes a seat you want on a train because he got there first - you don't object.  However, if a man slips into the same seat while my back was momentarily turned, and removed the bag I placed there - I strongly object.  Both cases involve inconvenience to me, but the first man I do not blame while the second man I blame.  There are other examples whether the behavior of others might be very convenient to me, yet I still recognize their behavior is quite wrong, such as a traitor during war.

Others say what we call the moral law simply amounts to what's best for the entire society instead of the individual.  Though Lewis agrees in part, he argues this misses the point -  it's circular.  The argument basically says you ought to do what is right because it's right.  It simply doesn't go any further.  Lewis compares this to saying you ought to play soccer in order to score goals.  However, scoring goals is the whole point of soccer - it's not the reason for the game.  By saying this - Lewis says you are basically saying you should play soccer to play soccer - something not worth saying.  Same as if you said you should behave decently in order to behave decently.  Circular.

We have a basic sense, derived from somewhere other than just nature, that we ought to behave a certain way, and we cannot get rid of that notion.  It must be a real thing - not something we made up.  It's not simply a fact - not simply our behavior - since we know we ourselves do not follow this standard of behavior.  Lewis points to a real law, pressing in upon us, which we did not make up.

Bk. 1 - Ch. 2 - Some Objections

Bk 1 Ch 4 - What Lies Behind the Law

Overview

Mere Christianity - Bk. 1 - Ch. 2 - Some Objections

Lewis gave this as the firth BBC talk on Sept. 6, 1941, originally called "Answers to Listeners' Questions.  Originally, the BBC scheduled him for four talks, but his talks not only generated much interest, but many listeners asked questions, or raised objections, so a fifth talk was added to allow Lewis to respond to them.  Later, Lewis simply called this "Some Objections," in the book forms.

Some asked if the Moral Law Lewis referred to in the first talk was not simply herd instincts.  Lewis did not deny human instincts - such as mother love, food instincts, or even sexual instincts.  However, he distinguished them from the feeling you ought to help someone, whether you wanted to or not.  When someone cries for help, you feel two desires - first, a desire to help - and second, a desire to stay and keep yourself out of danger - the instinct for self- preservation.  However, you find a third thing that tells you to follow your instinct to help, and suppresses the instinct to run away.  Lewis argues by comparison that third thing is the moral law, which is like a sheet of music which tells us which notes (which instincts) to play.  .  (BTW, Lewis does not care what you call the Moral Law.)

Lewis gives another way of looking at this.  If two instincts are in conflict, all things being equal, the stronger instinct should win out.  Instead, we find when two instincts conflict, we often choose the weaker one.  The instinct to be safe should overrule out instinct to help others, but we feel a stronger tug to help others because of the Moral Law.  Lewis points out since instinct cannot instruct us which instinct to follow - it must be something outside of instinct itself.  Instead, we find the moral law is the thing which tells you which note to play on the piano - which instincts to follow.

Lewis compares the Moral Law to a music sheet which tells you which notes (which instincts) to play.  Just as there are no right or wrong notes - only right or wrongs notes depending on the sheet of music - so there are no good or bad instincts - only good notes - good instincts - depending on what the sheet music calls for at one time or another - and thus only good or bad instincts depending upon the situation we face and what that situation calls for in order to adhere to to the Moral Law.

Other people wrote saying what he called the Moral Law was only moral convention - merely put into us by education?  Lewis responds this usually involves a misunderstanding.  Many think everything we are taught involves mere human invention.  Lewis disagrees.  Though we learn the multiplication tables  from others, it's not a mere human invention. In a similar manner, though we learn the Rules of Decent Behavior from others, it does not follow that all of them are human inventions.  Some are, such as which side of the road to drive on, which can differ in other countries.  However, others are like mathematics - not mere human inventions.

Lewis argues that the Moral Law belongs in the same class as mathematics for two reasons.  First, most societies, people, and cultures throughout history largely agree upon the Moral Law, with some relatively minor exceptions.  Second, we deeply believe the moralities of one society, people, or culture, is far better that others.  Otherwise, it would make no sense when we condemn the moralities of others - such, as for example, many condemned the moralities of the Nazis in the midst of the war when Lewis originally gave these talks (and as most do to this day).  Lewis points out such talk strongly indicates we ardently believe in a standard of right and wrong beyond the reality of our lives, and thereby admit, sometimes inadvertently, of that reality.

As an example, Lewis talks about New York City.  He reasons why your idea of it might be better than his is because there is a real New York City to compare those ideas to.  If instead, we just meant the New York City in our mind, then there would be no way to compare them to.  In that case, each of our ideas of New York City would be equally valid.  In a similar manner, Lewis argues that the Moral Law only existed in our minds, then we could never condemn anyone.  But we in fact do condemn others because we strongly believe in a real, objective moral code.

Finally, Lewis talks about an objection by someone who points out that three hundred years ago, people put witches to death, and who thus object to the notion of an objective moral law.  However, Lewis points out that the reason we do not do the same is because we no longer believe in real witches.  If we did, if we actually still believed in persons who had sold themselves to the devil, received from the devil supernatural powers and used those powers to kill our neighbors, drive them mad, or bring devastating weather upon them to destroy our crops - we would naturally want to stop or destroy them - but we no longer believe this.  We simply don't put out mousetraps if we no longer believe there no longer exists mice in the house.

Overview

Bk. 1 - Ch. 1 - The Law of Human Nature

Bk. 1 Ch. 3 - The Reality of the Law

Mere Christianity - Bk 1 - Ch 1 - The Law of Human Nature

On August 6, 1941, C.S. Lewis broadcast his first BBC talk.  He called it "Common Decency." When Mere Christianity was published in 1952, it was called "The Law of Human Nature."

Though Lewis began to explain Christianity, he opened with the common experience of people quarreling.  According to one account, a bartender, upon hearing this, suddenly stopped in the process of serving a drink,  in order to hear this out.  Lewis wanted to point out that the common experience of quarreling indicated a that people used a usually common standard of right and wrong - of morality - to support their arguments.

Lewis said that while this higher standard used to be called the Law of Nature, he thought it should be called the Law of Human Nature, so as not to confuse it with natural laws such as gravity, etc. While we have no choice whether to observe gravity, or other natural laws, we do have a choice whether to follow the Law of Human Nature, the common morality most observed  for ages.

Lewis said some said different civilizations and ages had different moralities.  Lewis responded that a

true comparison showed most had very similar moralities.  He asked readers to imagine what vast differences would mean - a country where a soldier was admired for running away - or where another was admired for double-crossing those kindest to him.  He compared it to a country where two and two made five.

Lewis acknowledged that not everyone agreed with this view.  But he noticed that those who disagreed usually tended to insist the next moment on a standard of right and wrong to call attention that they had been wronged on some matter or other.

Next, Lewis pointed out that we all know we don't keep the moral law, whatever you might call it.  We know we have not completely kept the moral law we expect others to observe, and tend to accuse others of not keeping.

Lewis summarizes this as the basis for all clear thinking.  First, almost everyone believes others ought to behave in a certain way - the Law of Human Nature - and Second, that everyone who faces the truth has to admit they do not completely observe this standard - and, in fact, have disobeyed it.

Mere Christianity - Preface
Mere Christianity - Overview
Bk. 1 - Ch. 2 - Some Objections

Mere Christianity - Preface

Lewis added a Preface when Mere Christianity was published in 1952.  It wasn't part of the original BBC broadcasts during WWII, nor part of the original three books based upon those broadcasts.

Up front, Lewis discusses the radio broadcasts and the three books it generated, which I discussed in the Overview.  He also discusses the difference between giving a radio address and the modifications he made for book publishing.

More importantly, Lewis describes what he means by "Mere Christianity," a term he had not used during the radio broadcasts, nor in any of the three books initially published from those broadcasts, and only introduced in bringing those 3 books together afterwards in 1952.  He freely admits to borrowing the phrase from someone else.

Lewis makes it clear that he is no help to someone who is trying to decide between any Christian denomination.  While an Anglican, he disavows trying to persuade anyone to that position.  In addition, he freely admits he is no expert about the points which tends to divide denominations.  In addition, he observes such discussions tend to deter those who might want to enter into Christian communion.

He describes Christianity as a hallway with several rooms.  He says he is only attempting to describe the hallway.  The rooms, an analogy of various Christian traditions, is where you go to get warm and comfy by the fireplace, something you cannot do in the hallway.  He wants to describe the hallway, and invite people there, but he hopes they find their way into the rooms, the various Christian traditions, where they will get warm and cozy by the fireplace with tea and all.  But its up to them to find their way from the hallway to those cozy rooms.

Lewis also talks about the word "Christian," and compares it with the word "gentleman."  At one time, "gentleman" meant a man who owned land and had a coat of arms.  Later, the word gentleman came to mean a good man.  For Lewis, when this occurred, the word gentleman lost all meaning, since you could always just say a good man as a description of a good man.  For Lewis, the word Christian means someone who accepts the teachings, the doctrines, of the apostle.  If it is instead used to simply describe a good man, then it has lost its meaning to describe something other than simply a good man, a phrase that already has a good descriptive meaning.

Mere Christianity - Overview
Bk. 1 - Ch. 1 - The Law of Human Nature
Bk. 1 - Ch. 2 - Some Objections

Mere Christianity - Overview

In 1941, during WWII, in the midst of the London Blitz, the BBC asked C.S. Lewis, an Oxford don, to deliver a set set of broadcasts.  He agreed.  His talks riveted Britain, and the BBC expanded them.  His talks later formed the basis for the 1952 book, Mere Christianity, which combined three books already published based upon those talks.  The first book was published in Britain in 1942, simply called, Broadcast Talks. It contained his first 10 talks.  A year later it was published in the United States under the title, The Case for Christianity.  In Mere Christianity, the first five broadcast talks became Book I. Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe.  The second five talks became, Book 2. What Christians Believe.

The second book based on the BBC talks was published in Britain in 1943, called Christian Behavior.  It included eight more talks Lewis delivered in 1942, and expanded into 12 chapters in the book.  In Mere Christianity, those 12 chapters became Book 3. Christians Behavior.

Lewis delivered the third set of seven talk in 1944 - and the BBC first published them in its weekly magazine, The Listner.   It was then published in 1944 as 11 chapters in a book called Beyond Personality.  In Mere Christianity, it became Book 4. Beyond Personality: or First Steps in the Doctrine of the Trinity.

In 2006, Christianity Today, considered evangelicalism's flagship by the Washington Post, placed Mere Christianity third on its list of most influential books among evangelicals since 1945.  While many books tend to decline in sales over time, Mere Christianity increased in sales over time.  Many non-Christians tend to read it.

I am currently leading a group of men in studying this book.  I plan to post a separate blog post summarizing one chapter of this book, and provide a link to each summary of each chapter in this post.  I hope this helps you if you decide to read the book (or already have read the book).  If you have not read it, and plan not to, I hope this will help you in understand the book.

The links below will lead you to each post on each chapter (at least as far as I have gotten).  Below that, I will provided a link to some other books where I posted a chapter by chapter summary. (The link will lead to the Overview post, which contains links to the chapter postings.)

Preface
Bk.1 Ch. 1 - The Law of Human Nature 
Bk 1 Ch 2 - Some Objections
Bk 1 Ch 3 - The Reality of the Law
Bk 1 Ch 4 - What Lies Behind the Law
Bk 1 Ch 5 - We Have Cause to be Uneasy

Bk 2 Ch 1 - The Rival Conceptions of God
Bk 2 Ch 2 - The Invasion
Bk 3 Ch 3 - The Shocking Alternative
Bk 3 Ch 4 - The Perfect Penitent

That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis

The Confessions by St. Augustine

That Hideous Strength - Character List

This lists many (not all) of the characters which appear in That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis.

• Mark (Gainsby) Studdock - A Fellow in Sociology for 5 years at Bracton College.  He talks with Sub-Warden Curry and discovers, to his delight, he is now part of the inner circle.  He married his wife Jane six months ago, and they are drifting apart.  Lord Feverstone recruits Mark to join the NICE, where Mark delights in reaching another inner circle before discovering how horrendous it is.  He has to pretend to go along before he can finally leave it.
• Jane (Tudor) Studdock - Jane Tudor married Mark 6 months ago, and left the job she enjoyed.  Since then, she works on her doctoral thesis, but makes no progress.  Before marriage, they had endless talks, but since marriage, she feels alone in solitary confinement.  She has nightmares of a man beheaded by having his head twisted off.  A picture in a newspaper reminds her of this dream.  Out shopping, she runs into Mrs. Dimble, who invites her home to lunch with her husband, Dr. Dimble.  She eventually joins a fellowship at St. Anne's where she plays a key role in overturning the evil forces assembled at the NICE.  She continues to have strange and scary dreams, which eventually turn out to be true since she has a gift for seeing the future in her dreams.
• Dr. Cecil Dimble - used to be Jane's tutor at Northumberland College.  Knows a lot about Arthurian scholarship and pre-Norman Britain.  He notices Jane does not look well, and she tells the Dimble's about her dream.  They send her to see Grace Ironwood at St. Anne's, where Dr. Dimble plays a central role in the fellowship there, especially after the Dimbles move in full time after losing their home to the expansion of the NICE.
• Margaret "Mother" Dimble - Married to Dr. Dimble, she takes on a motherly role to all his current and former students, like Jane, as well as to everyone in the fellowship at St. Anne's.
• Grace Ironwood - A psychologist.  Jane tells her her dreams, and worries if anything is wrong with her.  Grace, who is kind, but tough, tells Jane nothing is wrong with her - instead, Jane is a visionary who sees things in her dreams ahead of time, a gift she inherited from a Tudor ancestor who wrote about it in his autobiographical book.  She urges Jane to use her gift in service for the fellowship at St. Anne's, and warns others will want to use her gift for subversive purposes.
• Sub-Warden Curry - Curry serves as the effective head of Bracton College, who thinks the NICE "marks the beginning of a new era - the really scientific era."  Curry wants Mark to support the sale of of Bragdon Woods to the NICE.  At dinner, he introduces Mark to Lord Feverstone.
• James Busby - the Bursar at Bracton College.  Busby is also enthusiastic about the NICE.
• Lord Feverstone - His real name is Dick Divine, who has appeared in the prior stories of the Space Trilogy as a villain. At the dinner, Mark discovers Feverstone as the person responsible for getting his position at Bracton College over another prospect, Denniston.  Once Curry and Busby, the Bursar, leave, Mark discovers Feverstone holds them in disdain, but finds them useful in running Bracton College for the benefit of the NICE.  He believes Mark would fit in well at the NICE and invites him to meet the leaders there, which Mark accepts with some reservation.
• John Withers - the Deputy Director of the NICE, who masters double-talk.  He says a lot without saying anything, or says something while meaning something else.  Mark can never seem to get a a straight answer out of him.
• Bill Hingest - also known as "Bill the Blizzard."  A prominent chemist at Bracton, he left to work at the NICE, but now informs Mark he plans to leave it immediately, and advises Mark to do the same.  Bill winds up dead later that evening.  Later, Mark is falsely accused of murdering Bill.
• Professor Filastro - advises Mark to stay with the NICE and not worry about a job title - the work of the NICE is too important to pass up.  Later, Filastro reveals he would like to do away with the messiness of organic life.  He only wants to preserve the mind and clean metal.  He likes to talk about the cleanness of the moon.  He believes the real purpose of the NICE is the conquest of organic life.  He tells Mark the real head of the NICE is Francois Alcasan.
• Francois Alcasam - An Arabian radiologist who poisoned his wife.  He was beheaded for this crime.  However, before his execution, Jane sees him in a dream being beheaded by twisting his head off.  Somehow, Filastro has obtained his head, attached it to a machine with many tubes and dials, and believes he is keeping it alive, and it speaks.  To see it, select visitors must strip to their underclothes, wash, put on white clothes, gloves, and a surgical mask, and go through an air lock.  Jane saw in a dream, three of them, including her husband Mark, approach him, speak with him in French (which she did not understand).  
• "Fairy" Hardcastle - head of the internal police of the NICE.  She also later advises Mark how to get along at the NICE, by not bothering Withers (the Deputy Director) about his position. Later she gives Mark an assignment which gains him passage into an inner circle.  Still later, she attempts to arrest Mark's wife, Jane, and does torture her in the process, though Jane manages to get away and goes back to St. Anne's.
• Reverend Straik (also known as the "Mad Parson).  He believes the NICE program must be carried out with violence - as the means of bringing about the Kingdom of God through science.  He believes himself a prophet (who actually reveals the nature of the NICE).
• Professor Frost - A member of the inner circle at the NICE, who has nez-pierce glasses and a pointed beard.  He works closely with the Deputy Director, Withers, in managing the NICE.
• Mr. Denniston - an old friend of Mark (who now lives at St. Anne's).
• Camilla Denniston - wife of Mr. Denniston.  They reveal they live at St. Anne's in a society run by a Mr. Fisher-King, who recently received an injury to his foot which won't heal (which ties into Arthurian legends - Mr. Denniston also refers to him as the Pendragon - another Arthurian reference.  They urge Jane to join the society at St. Anne's and use her gift for good before the forces of evil force her to use on their side.  (Which goes against Jane's independence - so she resists.)
• Pendragon (Fisher-King - Dr. Ransom) - A title held by Arthur's uncle, which passed to Arthur's father,Uther, and then which passed to Arthur.  In Welsh it roughly means the dragon-head - the leader.  This title has passed from person to person down through the years, and now applies to the Director (Dr. Ransom) at St. Anne's.  When Jane met him, "her world was unmade."  Though he appeared as a 20 year old golden boy, his beard and strength made it clear he was much older.  One of his foot bore a bandaged wound, so that pain came and went on his face.  His voice seemed like sunlight and gold.  The Director wants Jane to join the fellowship, but she hesitates while Mark belongs to the NICE.  Dr. Ransom was a philologist before he began his adventures in outer space.
• Mr. Bultitude - a bear who peacefully lives in St. Anne's.
• Mr. McPhee - Part of the fellowship at St. Anne's who insists on empirical evidence to support any belief.  (The resident skeptic.)
• Logres - a name for ancient England, which recalls a more romantic and earthy past.
• Merlin - from Arthurian days, yet we find that though Merlin has a pagan past - he is much more aligned with Christianity than we knew.  He has been asleep for many years and has now awakened.  Both sides seek him and his assistance, though he finds his way to the Pendragon to whom he offers his assistance and loyalty.
• Macrobes - Frost reveals they are the true source of direction for the NICE.  He says they exist above animal life, including humans.  Apparently, through their influence, Frost believes most of the human population is dead weight, and only about ten percent need survive.
• The tramp - a street person whom the NICE mistake for Merlin.