As in Great Divorce, Lewis here looks at the forces that pull people away from the gospel. This is, however, a different kind of book, and a book that Lewis said was extraordinarily hard to write.
What are your impressions? Is Lewis' approach here as effective as the more traditional approach to apologetics he takes in Mere Christianity?
I found the Screwtape Letters interesting to say the least. It could be used at a handbook to gain an understanding of how to manipulate people. It teaches that a gentle push works better than a hard shove to change a person’s perspectives. You must use the subject’s fear to entice them to make their own choices but of course their choice is in reality your choice.
ReplyDeleteNormally the term manipulation is used in an unfavorable context but it is just a tool. Any tool can be used for good or bad, but the choice always rests in the user. When we raise our children we manipulate them – hopefully in a good way.
I think the Screwtape Letters were probably effective in some ways to show how people could be pulled from the correct path but I don’t see it as apologetic, it was more religious story written for religious people. The imagery of the demons would have been familiar to any who read religion based stories and it reinforced the concept that people are manipulated by outside forces instead of internal desires.
Jerry Taylor
This particular book was of no great joy to read as it truly makes you realize the ability of the human mind and the enemy to play tricks on our minds. It would have been even more challenging for a figure of that time to do this type of writing. Nowadays, some method actors try to get into the depraved minds of who they are acting. However, now at least, there is a type of art to this performing with professionals to aid them in returning to a usual mindset. C.S. Lewis would not have had these advantages after writing these letters. Many of these actors will tell you it can leave scars on you that are hard to get rid of. I believe this is what C.S. Lewis talks about at the end of these letters when he says it was challenging to write.
ReplyDeleteHis approach is rather phenomenal, even if it is an atypical type of approach. In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis writes something like, "A bad man needs repentance, a good man does not, the worse you are, the more you need to repent, yet all the harder it is to repent." This quote is why this book is phenomenal; I believe this is likely the type of person C.S. Lewis was after in this apologetic work. He was after people who may not recognize the spiritual forces or a lousy individual who may feel he is in control of himself. An evil individual may go on like that for a long time or life, so to feel condemned by too many bad choices.
If these letters provide any truth, it may change the heart of a believer like this. The reasoning is it gives the individual hope for change, which, as Screwtape would likely say, would be very bad for the evil forces at work. In a roundabout way, it can lead one who has lived a life of sin to understand while, yes, their actions were wrong and likely caused pain. This individual is still not without hope because their efforts, while chosen by them, may have been led by something rather evil surrounding them. One of the most challenging things about sin is not necessarily the action but being tormented by sin. So this book speaks to believers and non-believers alike, reminding us of the evil around us and showing that one choice can take you from death to life at any moment.
Tanner Simon
What are your impressions? This book is a good manual about how to manipulate people. It brings up the fact that small pushes over a long period of time can make them irritated enough to do the thing. In doing so, it will change the persons view over time.
ReplyDeleteIs Lewis' approach here as effective as the more traditional approach to apologetics he takes in Mere Christianity? I don't think so. I feel like the traditional way apologists in the olden days took the time to make their arguments and if they didn't, they talked with logic, whereas Lewis doesn't really seem to make a lot of logical arguments in this book. Yes, I know it took a long time to write, but I feel like the arguments are shallow compared to some of the primary and secondary readings in this course.