Occasionally, I read a book. Less frequently, I write a review about the book because it was polarizing. Nobody needs a reason to give Harry Potter books five stars. It is obvious why.
On the other hand, sometimes I feel the need to explain myself when I only partially advocate a book, especially one written by Charles Staples. I admit I'm not a huge C.S. Lewis fan, but reading his stuff is still a good look at someone else's opinion. That is to say, the YFR Calvinist in me would like to butt his head against all things he sees as theological error. Hence, my copy of the book is littered with underlined sentences and phrases and notes on the margins of certain pages with certain errors I found untenable. The fact that I kept on reading should indicate that in this case, mine and Lewis's disagreement was philosophical and not theological. Yes, his mind was wracked with inconsistency when he wrote this book, and I wrote a note about how he apparently hated Total Depravity yet upheld its distinctions. Thus Douglas Wilson may call him a Calvinist of sorts. I can rejoice in Lewis's inconsistency because it is that inconsistency that made the book more palatable. Let's not call it "total depravity" if you want to get stuck in the etymology and the details. He still asserts the doctrine, but refuses to name it and explains it in different terms.
A lot of good, and some sifting of the bad to make when you read this book.
Anyway, here's the review:
__
Reading this book is frustrating. Lewis shows a great contempt for his caricaturized form of Total Depravity and has a fitting description of his objections to it: If it were true that we are totally depraved, we would have no reason to trust that we could ever be totally deprived. Maybe he would be correct if scripture taught "utter depravity", the distinction being that total depravity gives the possibility that all men are capable of more evil than they have expressed at any moment. Utter depravity would say that all men do all evil all the time, which we know not to be true. A tyrant can love his mother and at the same time be totally depraved because he doesn't not love his mother fully in the way God has intended. We could also say this is "no real love at all", because the sum of that love is so small compared to the commandment that requires it. Lewis sets up his straw men to burn them when he refutes total depravity. His disagreement is philosophical and not theological, so he misses the mark.
All that being said, Lewis has done some measure of justice to describing some of the effects of the human fall, suffering and pain included.
Interesting is his commitment to the idea of free will. But even libertarian free will is subjected to the effects of sin and is made a slave. Yes, we have wills. And we have free choices, but the freedom of those choices depend on that to which it is bound. Lewis presupposes a libertarian free will but that is inconsistent with scripture. A libertarian will is free to choices of its nature. Lewis appears to forget this when he talks all about free will, mistaking wills which proceed from essence to wills which proceed from existence. The essence of will is the nature which gives it rise. Hence, sin nature gives us sinful wills. We need to be new men because apart from being given a new nature which seeks to love God, we do choose to love the self. Lewis can't account for that with his view of free will.
Also problematic is his conception of hell. While clever, the idea that Hell is simply giving a man what he wants is not supported by scripture. Men are thrown into hell because they do not want to be there. They desire their sins, but not so the consequences.
His chapter on animals is a bit bewildering but holds some nuggets of truth within. All creation was created to glorify God, and all nature reflects some facet of God's nature, hence the prospect of Lionhood being maintained and glorified in a new heaven and earth seems applicable and likely.
All in all, a solid read for fans of Lewis. I do wish he had stuck to the accidental allegories of Narnia rather than delving into theological thought, as now his cognitive dissonance shows when he speaks of men being used by God to glorify him, even in their evils. But in Narnia, worship to Tash in the style of Aslan means their goods to Tash could not be received by Tash. Lewis breaks his own rules but I think this book shows that it is sometimes for the better.
Nick
