Mere Christianity – Review

Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis

Published in 1952

Pages: 227

Genre: Apologetics, theology, Christianity

“Every one has heard people quarreling.”

Many people are familiar with C. S. Lewis through his science fiction and fantasy novels, but the author was much more than a fiction writer. A war veteran, an academic, a close friend of J. R. R. Tolkien (for a time) and a former atheist, Lewis converted to the Church of England and became what is known as a Christian apologist; those who seek to defend the faith using reason and logic. In Mere Christianity, Lewis attempts to filter the basic beliefs of Christians and present them in a way that is palatable.

The contents of Mere Christianity were not, in fact, originally created to be read as a book. The messages were first broadcast in three parts – Broadcast Talks (1942), Christian Behaviour (1943), and Beyond Personality (1944). These speeches were given during the blitz in World War II, so it is important to have this context in order to understand why there are many war metaphors; comparing the world in general as belonging to the Devil and that Christians are living in occupied territory in a civil war are just two that Lewis uses. The introduction of this version also explains the reason the book was published and the differences in this edition; for example, it was edited to maintain the conversational tone of the broadcasts, but written more like a traditional book on theology would be.

Lewis begins with the Law of Nature, which he argues is inherent in all humans; though there are some variations due to time period or culture. He decries those who insist scientists try to prove God created the universe; instead positing that, though science can show how something was created, it cannot tell us why. Lewis argues that it isn’t a scientific question, but is a religious one. He describes the different ways that people believe in deities; some see them as being beyond good and evil (Pantheism) vs. the existence of only one righteous God (Christianity). He says that evil is not something original; it is a perversion of good, and he goes on to discuss virtues and the difference between acting charitable and being charitable.

Though possibly taboo for any time (let alone the 1940s) Christianity and sex has a chapter in the book. Lewis argues that the religion doesn’t have issues with sex as long as it is within marriage. He compares pre-marital sex to overindulgence in food and says that the sexual revolution hasn’t made perversions any better, so he doesn’t see how can people say that getting rid of sexual hang-ups is a good thing. Lewis describes marriage in Christianity, (second-hand, but he readily admits this) and the difference between being in love (a feeling) and loving (a continual state). He argues that men must be the heads of the household for two reasons: 1. someone must cast the deciding vote in a disagreement by default and 2. a woman would feel embarrassed for her husband if she had to tell him what to do, so it should be the man.

He moves on to state that the greatest sin is Pride and Christians should seek humility, which is its opposite. They mustn’t actively try to be humble, however, but acknowledge that they are proud and want to change that. It appears that the important thing is to sort of fake it ‘til you make it – act as a good person would, and you will become good through the practice. In the final part of the book, Lewis does tackle some theology, but does so by comparing the act of knowing God to seeing the Ocean and theology to a map of the ocean.

Lewis writes in a very formal, proper, and educated voice; it is easy to see the influence of academia since he uses a lot of comparisons in order to better illustrate ideas. He begins the book with the broad foundation of a Being behind the universe; Lewis doesn’t start out calling it God, but rather eases into the subject with logical arguments built upon previous evidence. It is noticeable that he always talks of “men” with little to no mention of women. As noted earlier, he wasn’t married and was a friend of J. R. R. Tolkien, who also preferred the company of men when dealing with more masculine subjects and academic discussion, so it may be attributed to this boy’s club mentality.

I don’t agree with Lewis on all of his opinions/views on relationships and vernacular, but there is a lot of content in this book that would aid someone who doesn’t really know much about Christianity, its practices, or the reasons behind them. Lewis’s voice and writing ability make his arguments easy to follow and allows the reader to ponder on the points he puts forward. I would have given this a higher score, but I just have some fundamental differences of opinion that lowered his credibility in my mind (which, again, may be chalked up to living in different decades/centuries). There is no doubt that he had an interesting perspective as someone who came into Christianity as an adult; this is a great book for those who wish to dip their toes into Christian theology, but are intimidated by the more academic and high-brow texts.

Verdict: 3 quasi-theological comparisons out of 5

Recommended for: People looking to read about Christianity from the perspective of a convert to the religion, those who enjoy apologetics, fans of C. S. Lewis, and those who want a layman’s version of theology.

Not recommended for: More progressive thinkers when it comes to relationships in marriage, militant Atheists, or those who would prefer an expert’s version of theology.

21 thoughts on “Mere Christianity – Review

  1. I really enjoyed reading your review! While I haven’t read Mere Christianity, as someone who is a Christian, I know of a lot of people who absolutely love this book for the mere fact that CS Lewis is such an iconic Christian author. Then on the flip side, the atheists I know who have read it are sure to tell me how it’s horrible. So, it was really nice to read a very neutral and honest review. ☺️

    Liked by 1 person

  2. bookheathen

    A good review of difficult subject matter!
    An old friend of mine, sadly gone now, was a great fan of Lewis’s NF. As a former science student, I used to argue science vs religion with him. But I don’t think we ever found a way to conflate the two.
    In respect of Lewis’s fiction, much as I like reading it, I always sense his stories are allegories, even parables. Though I agree with you that incorporating one’s beliefs into fiction isn’t specific to Lewis, I do feel he overdoes it somewhat.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I definitely know what you mean about his writing of allegory; it is definitely what defines his fiction, which differentiates him from Tolkien, whose beliefs inherently entered his writing but never through conscious intent (which is also why I prefer to read the latter).


  3. Excellent review. Like you, (even though a christian myself), I don’t quite agree 100% with him, what I love it’s that great capacity for logical arguing, and his portrayal of some of the christian qualities, virtues, and defense of the christian faith. (I, however, prefer his Screwtape Letters. Have you read them? They are literary more interesting, I believe, even to non christians. His portrayal of Screwtape and Worm, -devils uncle and nephew, and their letters are humorous. It’s been made into a play, -though I have not seen it.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Great review. The brief bio on Lewis at the beginning was very helpful. I’ve heard about this book before (though never with much detail) and some of his other stuff, but the only thing I’ve read by him was the Chronicles of Narnia, which I appreciated for what they were, but couldn’t make myself finish reading them. I think I don’t do so well with such overt symbolism.
    He was definitely a very intelligent man. I’m not positive that his views would have been radically different were he alive today, but I do think he’d have to take a different approach to explaining them. The way they’re presented (at least in your review, which I’m sure are fair) are quite antiquated, to say the absolute least.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you. I only read the first Narnia book and don’t plan on continuing for a similar reason to the one you gave. I agree with your statement about his views remaining if he were alive today, albeit explained a bit more delicately. The book is definitely a product of its time and, as it’s introduction states, it is important to keep this context in mind.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It certainly is. I get sad (not super sad, just a bit sad) when people judge good men and women in the past by the standards of today. Everything must be in its context, if you want to understand and evaluate it.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. PaperTigerMaddy

    I read this book when I was 14, when I was still a definite theist but was already moving away from Christianity a bit. I loved the first half because I thought he was so convincing on explaining how innate morality proves there must be a higher power, which is still an argument I’m very fond of. BUT THEN he starts talking about how women must submit to men because the Bible says so??? And I was like WHAT THE HECK!!??? SCREW YOU! anyway after that I decided well okay I still love C S Lewis but WHAT. A moron. And sadly it pushed me further away from Christianity in the long run. 😂

    Liked by 1 person

    1. PaperTigerMaddy

      Ah I forgot to add that I’m a huge obsessive fan of Narnia and still cry if I even think about those books too hard tbh! But sadly his sexism and racism comes out in them pretty strongly as well.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Pingback: Reading Tally for 2018 – Perpetually Past Due

  7. Nicholas Maync

    When I read a book like this I look for the essence. The essence is what holds beyond temporal mores and conditions. Lewis could not but write out of the time he lived in, he could not write apart from the person he was, he could not step out of his spot in the chronology of humankind. So be it. It’s hardly worth mentioning though it seems to feature prominently on the scale of chronological snobbery. The essence of Lewis is great and hardly so well defined by anyone else. The natural law, goodness, evil as a perversion of the good, how to embrace Christianity from its foundations. In my view very highly recommended to those who want to step through the litter of timely and perfectly forgotten criticisms and concentrate on what really matters. Generations of readers do prove the point.


    1. I’m not sure where the origin of your offence first began, nor why you chose my review to be the target for your frustration, but I freely acknowledge that I’m not a huge fan of Lewis’ work. Despite this, I did my best to give the benefit of the doubt and judge the book on its merits. I even pointed out at the end of my review that my response to the book (which is inherently subjective) was, in part, due to the difference in time between its writing and my reading.

      I’m nowhere near as famous or talented as Lewis, but I would ask that you do me the same courtesy you request for him since I also cannot but write out of the time I live in.

      Regardless of your disagreement, thank you for reading and taking the time to comment 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s