27 January 2009

Finished "Mere Christianity"

It was a good read. What I liked most about it, and that you don't often see in 'religious' books, is that he frequently refers to the feedback he got from the radio talks and from sending the text to friends in the clergy to be critiqued before publishing it. Many authors would just read the notes and feedback, and either edit the book accordingly, or ignore them altogether. Lewis handles it in a way that lends to the conversational tone of the book.

As an atheist-turned-christian Lewis has a different perspective than most christian authors, especially with respect to explaining our faith. His goal was to present the barest essentials of christianity in a manner that would be accessible to non-believers, in the hope that their interest would be piqued and that they may become believers themselves. To that end, he relies less on scripture than parable and logic to make his points. It reminds me of Plato's "Dialogs".

While his intended audience was the non-believer, there is much there for christians of any denomination. His approach to the how and why of what we believe gives everyone a lot to think about.

05 January 2009

Started Mere Christianity

I started reading "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis tonight. If you're unfamiliar with it, it is a collection of books he wrote on what it means to be a Christian. The first book was adapted from radio talks he gave over BBC radio during WWII. His goal in the three collected books, is to explain the core of Christian belief. Those things to which all Christian faiths adhere. Going so far as to have the second book reviewed by four clergymen: an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, and a Roman Catholic. Other than some critique of his presentation of a couple of ideas, they were all in agreement. He presents his books as a way to introduce to a non-believer what all Christian faiths have in common, instead of trying to seel his particular 'brand' of faith.

It makes me wonder how he would feel about the trend in 'relevent' churches, and branding, advertising, and marketing of churches. Was he trying to make Christianity 'relevant' to 1940's Great Britain? Or, would he find the even further fragmenting of our faith into so many nearly indiscriminate gatherings of people professing practically identical beliefs troubling?