Why Mere Christianity Still Works: An Analysis

You’re expected to review current books online, and this review is therefore 60 years too late. However, John Stackhouse has saved the best wine (so to speak) for the last (of the year) with a landmark analysis of the continuing popularity of the C. S. Lewis bestseller Mere Christianity.

I know not everybody clicks through, so I’ll include a few highlights here, but if you treasure good writing, you need to read the article now, because it is every bit as delightful as the book itself. 

Still here? Okay, those highlights include:

• A somewhat disjointed set of C. S. Lewis’s views on a wide range of theological, philosophical, and ethical matters, the book became the most important and effective defense of the Christian faith in its century.
• The first reason why MC should not have worked is rather basic: It doesn’t deliver what its title promises. It does not do even what John Stott’s classic Basic Christianity does—namely, outline at least the basics of evangelicalism’s understanding of the gospel.
• A second reason why… it is, after all, an extended set of philosophical and theological arguments. Even worse, it is front-loaded with its densest material, a reworking of the moral argument for the existence of God…
• MC works because Lewis was a master at two rhetorical arts, which he combined fluently: argument and depiction.
• Lewis can both show and tell. He can tell us what he thinks we should think, and then make it appear for us in an image that usually lasts long after the middle steps of the argument have vanished from memory.
• What seems effortless for Lewis is actually extraordinarily difficult to emulate. The market is now flooded with books by Ph.D.s who cannot write an interesting and intelligible paragraph, and by wannabe pop apologists who just aren’t very smart.
• People today do want arguments, but they want them the way Lewis delivered them: in plain language, about issues that matter, in a methodical step-by-step fashion, and with illustrations that literally illustrate and commend the point being made. For scholars to write this way today is at least as much of a challenge as it was in Lewis’s day.

Okay, that’s enough bullet points (aka spoon-feeding!) You really do need to read the article.

But then, if you haven’t already had the pleasure, you need to read Mere Christianity. I would suggest taking a chapter at a time; no more than one per day and don’t try to rush through it. Even better, if you can find an interested friend or relative, read it out loud to them daily for several days. (It was, after all, originally a radio broadcast.)

It may also whet your appetite for apologetics, a subject frequently discussed here, that is simply too foreign to too many Christ-followers. I encourage you to develop a taste for it.

---

If you make it through MC and do indeed find yourself wanting more, I would suggest your next stop be Classic Christianity by Bob George, a man who also knows the power of a good illustration.  Review here.  Excerpt here.

Images: I figured it rather obvious which one is John Stackhouse, Jr. and which one is C. S. Lewis, but, for the record, they appear in that order.  (Actually, the first image is the book in its most recent North American paperback edition from HarperCollins.)

Wednesday Link List

If you missed it, be sure to check out the special-edition link list that appeared here on Saturday.

• When President Obama time-shifted the Hanukkah celebrations at the White House to fit his Christmas vacation, one observer notes something also shifted with the Menorah that he used.
  
• Ivar at News That Matters reports on the implications of the appointment of the first Hindu chaplain in the U.S. military.
  
• If you purchase the 2012 Masterpeace Calendar, you might notice a painting by Pennsylvania artist C. Michael Dudash.  If art is your thing, take some time to check out his blog.
• Donald Miller quotes a letter Beethoven wrote to his brothers …which of course reminded me of this classic “you decide the ending” story.
• For the third week in a row, a Rachel Held Evans link.  This one suggests that while some stop women from become preachers, they might instead become prophets.
  
• How about a link list within a link list? Brian LePort assembles a collection of Christian writers reflecting on the death of Christopher Hitchens.
• Scott Hilburn’s comic, The Argyle Sweater is new to me, but I spotted the panel at right over at the blog A Different Story and couldn’t resist.
  
• Not so amusing to people in New Zealand is this billboard showing Mary reading the results of a home pregnancy test.  Worse, the large sign was erected by a “progressive Anglican church known for its provocative advertisements.”
  
• Michael Hyatt believes that our vocabulary shapes our attitude. Sample: “I don’t have to stop by the grocery store on my way home; I get to stop by the grocery store. What a privilege to live in a place and at a time where we don’t have to forage for food.”
  
• In Saturday’s list there was a reference to a forthcoming book by author Matt Mikalatos. Here’s a review at Mark Braye’s blog of one that’s available right now: Night of the Living Dead Christian.
  
• In the last decade the definition of church has been rocked.  Check out the Kansas City Boiler Room, a community of artists, a community of prayer, a community of the disadvantaged.
  
• Christmas can be a painful time if you’ve lost a loved one; especially when that loved one is the very person you want to tell how you’re feeling.
  
• After 9.5 years at Blogger, Joe Boyd of Rebel Pilgrim joins us here at WordPress.  Here’s a good one to start with, where Joe looks at Christianity as improv.
  
• Canadian singer/songwriter Ali Matthews has a huge following, but this is the first time I’ve seen a trailer for a music video.  Guess we’ll have to wait 24 hours for the finished product.
  
• Some people claim to have seen an image of Jesus or Mary in food, but others are deliberately burning an image of Jesus on their toast, as CBS News reports.
  

Blogging in a Vacuum; Or Thinking You Are

Bradley J. Moore from the blog Shrinking The Camel — give it a few seconds, it’ll kick in — feels he has a “micro following” and isn’t sure why he should bother.  Of course this from a guy who got over 50 comments to the post in question.  So I thought, “What the heck.  If it’s visibility he wants, it’s visibility he’s going to get.”

I am convinced I have more than a “micro following,” but alas, I say that from a populationally challenged perspective.  Anyway, he was just begging me to steal this post, wasn’t he?

So here’s what happens:

I’m dreaming up my next brilliant blog post while driving into work, say, or taking a shower or what have you, and suddenly this surreptitious little voice in my head interrupts, saying: “Who do you think you are? No one cares about your stupid blog! Look at you pathetic people, pretending to be so clever with your advice and wisdom and deep thoughts. What a load of crap! Let me tell you, the only two bloggers who matter out there are Seth Godin and Michael Hyatt - that’s it! Oh, and also that guy from Stuff Christians Like who got the book deal with Zondervan. That was impressive. Wait – and the girl who got the movie deal about Julia Child. That was a pretty good movie. But the rest of you are just stupid, stupid, stupid.”

And I’ll think to myself, “My God, what if he’s right?” I’ve been blogging for three years, and you would think by now I should be enjoying a burgeoning audience of thousands. Instead, I have barely scratched together what one might call a micro-following, numbered perhaps in the dozens.

Maybe I haven’t worked at it hard enough?

There is this coy little demotivational slogan I saw once that says,

“Blogging:
Never has so much been written
by so many people,
and read by so few.”

This is funny to me now – not like “ha ha” funny, but in a scarily recognizable way.

When reading and commenting on other blogs, I confess that at times it can all seem so – I want to say – desperate. Here we are, pouring out our hearts and minds to the world, desperate for acknowledgement or attention or some meager crumb of validity to our creative output.

And sometimes, well, it does feel stupid. Like this whole blogging enterprise is some ridiculous pyramid scheme, where we’re all just propping each other up on some flimsy stack of digital cards to give the illusion that we are more significant than we really are.

There is so much talk about the power of social networking, but no one really mentions the more common situation: the online ghetto existence; words fed out to almost-empty space; the virtual echo chamber.

But here’s the thing: That little voice doesn’t stop me – I’ll go and write that next brilliant blog post anyway, and I’ll hit “publish,” and say to myself, “Well. I really like that post. Good job today, Brad.”

Then I’ll go read the next person’s blog and think, “Hey, this is good. I like the way they said that.” And then someone will send me a little email asking for my advice on something. Then I’ll get all thrilled to see that 42 people clicked on my post today, even if it was only for a three-second scan of the title, and – hey look! Some even took the time to say something nice.

So what if it’s stupid. Who cares if we’re all just making this up for each other’s delusional benefit. Because even if it’s just a couple dozen of us out there propping each other up, well, that’s something.

Bradley J. Moore

Disclaimers:

1. Closed course, professional driver.
2. You should never steal blog posts from people unless you have pages and pages of statistical data showing that people just read the excerpts but don’t click; or if the author of the post in question complains about readership and is thereby begging you to steal the article in question.
3. “Populationally” is an interesting word because if you try to look it up in any search engine or online dictionary, it immediately fries your hard drive.  So just trust me on this one.
4. How can a guy complain that he only gets 42 clicks on an article when he gets 50+ comments.  I’ve never had 50 comments on anything here unless you’re thinking of that article about that Bible teacher and author.
5. His blog took my comment but not my link.  So he owes me.

The Place for Christian Critique

If anything characterized the Christian publishing market during the first decade of this new century, it was the glut of books falling under the general category of ecclesiology.     Once the domain of pastors and seminary students, suddenly every Tom, Dick and Harriet was interested in church growth strategy, church planting, home church, organic church, postmodern ministry, et al.

And many of these books were very critical of church as we know it.   Some writers believed it was better to light a candle than to curse the darkness, but others, spared nothing to launch their complaint against the irrelevance of church in the previous century including even tearing down more recent models which were attempting to remedy that very situation.

Can you imagine an author walking into a publishers agent’s office today with a manuscript about church life?   It would be a hard sell with the titles already available.

So what of this particular genre?

I chose the word critique over the word criticism, because most writers self-justified their efforts that they weren’t trying to be “critical,” but were attempting to simply put the church under the microscope in light of contemporary culture and statistical surveys.    But some of the books left you more pessimistic than encouraged.

I also chose this topic in light of the discussion that began Saturday here (two posts back) on the place for Christian humor.   Humor is, in many ways, a form of critique, and the humorists and the critics have a lot in common.   It’s my opinion that we need both, and that overall, the discussions in various books published from 2000 – 2009 have been helpful for refocusing and re-visioning the role of the local church moving forward.

But I learned on the weekend that not everyone is going to agree.

I guess a fuller title for this would be, “The Place for Critique in Christian Writing;” since it’s not Christianity — the doctrine and theology — that’s being reconsidered.   Hopefully.   Although it’s often the doctrine and theology as we came to understand it, or as it was taught to us, or as it was impressed on us that can be the issue.

So here’s what I want you do:   Check out both Saturday’s post and the comments; and then answer the following question which is similar, but different.

What’s your take on books or online media — such as blogs — that are highly critical of traditional church?

And let’s add a question about the issue that was raised on the weekend.

What controls should exist regarding the possibility of new believers or even seekers stumbling over material that was meant for church veterans?

The difference is that here we’re looking at writers who aren’t trying to be funny, though maybe humor might have softened their blows!