Although I have been reasonably active in church work for most of my life, after listening to (I used audio tapes, it was a radio broadcast first, after all) and reading Mere Christianity I realized that my understanding of Christian doctrine was very shallow and immature. For example, I did not know the differences between pantheism and dualism. I did not know that earning interest on investments was unchristian. Lewis's lengthy description of Christ as the "perfect penitent" helped me understand the great significance of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross from a different perspective. Some of his ideas clarified some misunderstandings I had. For example, I have always had trouble accepting the notion that heaven is only accessible if people take Jesus as their personal saviour. What about all those people who have not had the opportunity to learn and accept Christ? I found comfort in Lewis's explanation that "we know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know him can be saved through Him." God has not revealed what happens to the others, according to Lewis.
Knowing the biblical direction about Christian marriage and divorce, I was interested in hearing his discussion of them. In my opinion, Lewis's explanation of why a man should be the head of household in a Christian marriage was very weak and insulting to both men and women. It denies the God-given gifts men and women possess. However, I did agree with his suggestion that there should be two distinct types of marriages: one governed by the state, which applies to all marriages, and another that is religious, which applies only to those in a specific community. It sounds to me that this approach has merit for the current discussions of same-sex marriage.
Lewis uses analogies to amplify his points, of which many are grounded in the experience of wartime. Further, some of his explanations are clearly out of date. For example, he talks about homosexuality as a "perversion." This was the wisdom of Lewis's day but inaccurate according to current findings in human biology. Also, he has a chapter entitled Christianity And Psychoanalysis, which was interesting to read, but surely a reflection of the times in which he wrote. Lastly, words like prudence, temperance, fortitude are not commonly used today and may send the message to a younger reader that these notions are out of date.
Although it was not an easy read, when I took the time to study it and think about the ideas, it gave me a good grounding. I feel better prepared to understand the arguments presented by contemporary authors who advocate reforms to Christian practices and church doctrine. Having said that, I think it would not be a book that I would recommend to someone who had little or no previous background in the life of the Christian church.
