Mere Christianity is taken from a series of radio lectures Lewis gave in the 1940s, and was originally published in three volumes. Here, Lewis lays out the basics of Christian doctrine, focusing on those things we can agree on rather than on issues that run toward the controversial. This is not a scholarly work; it was written by a layperson for laypeople, and is based more in logic and rhetoric than anything else.

Lewis is able to pick and choose between what is fundamentally important and what is not foundational to true Christianity. He addresses human nature, the nature of God, common sense, faith and reason, and morality, and on the whole uses great illustrations to do so. Lewis also sticks to his guns on the more unpopular tenets of Christianity.

The book is highly readable; Lewis has a humorous, engaging style, and while the chapters flow together in sequence, they are relatively self-contained.

There are gaps in Lewis's logic here and there, and at times he is slightly off the doctrinal mark (on love for enemies, for example), but on the whole he provides new and refreshing ways to look at Christianity. Anyone who is a Christian or who is seriously considering Christianity can benefit from it.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

"Mere Christianity" is an excellent defense of Christianity for the average Joe. More than a few scholars of religion and theology will be disappointed in C.S. Lewis' simplistic analogies, explanations and theory (though readers of all ages will love them). His attack of the notion that Christ was not more than a great moral teacher is top-notch and memorable. Post-feminist readings of the chapters on marriage and sexuality will surely produce numerous critiques, but Lewis anticipates and effectively knocks down most of their contentions by explaining that Christianity was never meant to be popular or easy because it was not invented for quick, mass acceptance--it is what it is, not what every generation would have it. Popular fashions come and go, God is eternal.

Lewis is unafraid to tell the reader what he cannot know, either because of personal limitations or those of man in general. Still, this rarely softens the cogency of his larger points. His prose is a model for writers everywhere. I whole-heartedly recommend "Mere Christianity" for believers, skeptics and everything in between.

This classic work contains the response of popular Christian apologetist C. S. Lewis to three fundamental questions:

1. Is there a God?
2. Is God a good and loving God, or is he indifferent to us?
3. Is Christ what he says he is (Savior of mankind)?

Lewis gives skillful, entertaining and relatively brief responses, but an atheist once pointed out to me that Lewis left a gigantic hole in the third argument - how do we know that the quotations of Christ in the Bible that we read today are accurate? So, the journey starts here, but it does not end here. I next turned to The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig L. Blomberg, and The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus by Lee Strobel. In the interest of staying on point, I'll discuss those books elsewhere and conclude by highly recommending this book to those new to Christianity or Christian apologetics, but with the caveat that it takes the answer to one crucial question completely for granted.

Originally a series of radio broadcasts that were transcribed into book form with the author's help, C. S. Lewis' witty and systematically logical defense of Christianity still endures as a favorite today. Although intellectual works of this caliber can seem intimidating, his conversational style of communication makes the book approachable and thoroughly enjoyable. He not only addresses the common sense of Christianity, but also thoughtfully doesn't neglect the practical need, the heartfelt void, that Christ alone can fill. All in all, this book is an all-around, solid work that consistently covers all the bases of thought and makes for a great read.

The problem I've always had with Christianity (among other religions) is that it tells you what's wrong with you without asking for any feedback from you (unless your feedback agrees with Christian theology), then offers the "only possible way" to fix you. And should you feel that "the way" honestly doesn't make sense to you, you're told that's part of your problem. And further, that if you don't come around to "the truth," the worst tortures await you.

Does that tactic sound familiar? Think fascism, communism and every other flavor of totalitarianism. The tragedy of Christianity (and, again, of quite a few other religions) is that it turns the Source of Life and Love into just another dictator, and turns us into that dictator's eternally cringing underlings. That may be Christianity's idea of God, but it certainly isn't mine. And somehow I suspect it isn't God's idea of God either.

I found "Mere Christianity" to be an excellent representation of Christianity. Other Amazon reviewers have already given examples of Mr. Lewis's convuluted logic in presenting his case. So I'll just add two more.

Mr. Lewis says the one thing we must never do is see Jesus as merely a highly enlightened teacher. According to Mr. Lewis, we have only three choices, based on Jesus's life: that Jesus was either Lord, liar or lunatic.

I honestly don't see why I can't have that fourth choice: to see Jesus as a highly enlightened teacher. But that's because I don't consider the Bible the inerrant word of God. I believe the gospels were written by very human beings who shaped a lot of it to put across their own agendas. Thus I don't see these recordings of Jesus's life as inerrant either--though I do see many, many examples of high-enlightenment in them.

In Mr. Lewis's argument for Jesus being one of the "three L's," he assumes that we've accepted--or must accept--the Bible as the inerrant word of God. But before you make a logical argument, you must be sure the people you're addressing are in agreement with the assumptions behind that argument--in this case, that the Bible IS the "inerrant word of God."

Mr. Lewis never bothers to do that legwork. What he does (as do, from my experience, most other Christians) is make assumptions FOR us, and then argue from there. Naturally, the arguments fall flat if we haven't accepted those assumptions in the first place. And because I haven't, the fourth choice opens wide and invitingly for me: that Jesus was a highly enlightened teacher.

In the second example, Mr. Lewis extols the Christian doctrine of having sex only within marriage, and being completely chaste otherwise. To justify this, Mr. Lewis points out our sex-fixated culture and claims that this is the result of letting our animal drives take the lead in our lives. He asks us how we would view a culture that fixated on food (assuming the people of that culture weren't starving)--a culture which, for example, had the food equivalent of strip shows: audiences gaping lustily as a plate of food was shown on stage. Isn't our own culture's focus on sex just as pathetic?

What Mr. Lewis overlooks is the fact that when we fixate on anything (again, assuming we're not starving for it), it's never about the thing itself but about OTHER issues going on inside us. People who continually overeat don't do it because they're biologically hungry. And people who continually focus on sex, even though they might already be having sex on a regular basis, are not doing it because they're biologically in need of sex. Again, there are other things going on which have nothing to do with sex.

Thus, Mr. Lewis makes the following assumptions (as always, without consulting us beforehand on whether we agree with those assumptions): (1) Any focus on sex outside of the context of marriage is purely a matter of our sexual drive and has nothing to do with anything else going on inside us; and (2) the way we experience our sexual drive now is part of the consequences we suffered after our Fall.

And with these assumptions, Mr. Lewis arrives at his "logical" conclusion: that the (as usual) "only way" to live happily and healthily with such a sex drive as ours is to observe the doctrine of absolute chastity outside of marriage.

I suggest there are other ways. For example: to learn to be very conscious of what's really going on with you, and decline from using sex to act out your issues. Further, to resolve to always treat your intimate partner with honesty, consideration and affection, and never ever use him or her for merely your own gratification. For the result of using another person is invariably not only alienation from that person, but from ourselves.

In any case, there's absolutely no truly logical argument that can be made for only having sex within the context of marriage, and being totally chaste outside of it. If you choose to accept that theology for your own life, fine. But don't ever try to make it seem logical, when it's really a matter of private faith.

Several reviewers have stated that they began Mr. Lewis's book as a non-Christian and finished it as a Christian. I began Mr. Lewis's book as a non-Christian, and finished it absolutely affirmed in my faith, which is highly spiritual and sees God in the most unconditionally loving terms. I thank Mr. Lewis for that.