Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BOOK REVIEWS
Finally, Lewis claims that "With every advance in our thought the
unity of the creative act, and the impossibility of tinkering
with the creation as though this or that element of it could
have been removed, will become more apparent" (p.26). This
seems to be the opposite of the truth. Human beings have
removed several elements of the creation - polio and
smallpox, for example. By his logic this should have been
impossible. If we can remove these things from the world,
why could not God have created a world without them in the
first place?
To further explain this, Lewis writes that "Love, in its own nature,
demands the perfecting of the beloved" (p.38). The obvious
reply is that love demands no such thing; rather, love means
viewing the other person (and their faults) realistically, and
accepting them for who they are. Only an irrational and
Lewis says that these people could have committed - the sin
of pride, which he takes to be the belief that one owns and
controls one's life, rather than directing it all towards God.
As a result of this, the book continues, the power of perfect selfcontrol which the first humans possessed by God's authority
was lost; their bodies became subject to the laws of nature,
leading to suffering, death, and the diminishing of the
rational mind in favor of subconscious drives and
temptations, "so that though [the soul] could still turn back
to God, it could do so only by painful effort, and its
inclination was self-ward. Hence pride and ambition, the
desire to be lovely in its own eyes and to depress and
humiliate all rivals... were now the attitudes that came easiest
to it" (p.79). This alteration was transmitted by heredity to all
later generations, Lewis concludes, leading to the world as it
now exists.
The first thing to be said about this doctrine is this: Since Lewis
regards the fall as a specifically individual sin, why did every
human being commit it? Should not some of these unspoiled
humans have observed the effect of this sin on their peers
and taken it as a warning, and if so, should there not be
"unfallen" family lines alive today? If humanity was made
such that everyone fell prey to this sin, we may well question
whether the decision to do so was free at all, or if it was the
inexorable result of something God built into our character. A
defect in one or a few products may be the result of chance,
Also, why would God not have undone the effects of this sin
rather than allowing humanity to fall into a state where it
would be much harder to return to him? (As "That Fateful
Apple" asks, instead of original sin, why not original virtue?)
Rather than punishing all human beings for the sins of their
ancestors - because this is exactly what Lewis' theology
amounts to, despite his protests that he does not believe in
transferrence of guilt - a benevolent deity could have
arranged things so that every person, regardless of the state
of grace of their parents, would start off in the paradisal
state, instead of giving them a handicap and then demanding
that they overcome it. Assuming God's desire is that the
maximum number of people be saved, this makes far more
sense than Christianity's irrational alternative.
Lewis goes on to claim that his theodicy explains why the world
contains much "joy, pleasure, and merriment" but little or no
"settled happiness and security", because "The security we
crave would teach us to rest our hearts in this world and
oppose... our return to God" (p.116). If this is so, it is only
because God chooses not to be present in this world!
He also makes the bizarre claim that two (or three or any
number) people suffering is no worse a situation, morally
speaking, than one person suffering. "There is no such thing
as a sum of suffering, for no one suffers it. When we have
reached the maximum that a single person can suffer, we
have, no doubt, reached something very horrible, but we
have reached all the suffering there ever can be in the
universe. The addition of a million fellow-sufferers adds no
The next section of the book is about Hell. Lewis himself admits
at the outset that "There is no doctrine which I would more
willingly remove from Christianity than this, if it lay in my
power" (p.119) and that "I too detest it from the bottom of my
heart" (p.120). Again, Lewis is the one who believes humans
have an innate moral sense or conscience that tells them
what is right and wrong, so it is puzzling why he puts great
weight on it when it points him to a conclusion he wants to
reach, and yet disregards it when it tells against a conclusion
he does not want to reach. It would seem that a double
standard is being applied here.
but those who do not share his beliefs can easily perceive
the problems with it.
that is, with total respect for man's freedom. Let Lewis
speak. "In the fallen and partially redeemed universe we
may distinguish (1) the simple good descending from God,
(2) the simple evil produced by rebellious creatures, and (3)
the exploitation of that evil by God for His redemptive
purpose, which produces (4) the complex good to which
accepted suffering and repented sin contribute. [] A
merciful man aims at his neighbour's good as so does 'God's'
will, consciously co-operating with 'the simple good'. A cruel
man oppresses his neighbour and so does simple evil. But in
doing such evil he is used by God, without his knowledge or
consent, to produce the complex good so that the first
man serves God as a son, and the second as a tool. For you
will certainly carry out God's purpose, however you act, but
it makes a difference to you whether you serve like Judas or
like John". For Lewis, this divine design is a "tribulation
system", and he explains how pain operates within it.
The proper good of a creature is to surrender to its Creator.
However, the human spirit, hardened through "millennia of
usurpation", will not "even begin to try to surrender self-will
as long as all seems to be well with it." Thus, the function of
pain, on the lowest level, is to shatter the illusion that "all is
well", to plant "the flag of truth within the fortress of a rebel
soul". "We may rest contentedly in our sins and in our
stupidities", but "pain insists on being attended to"; and, if
Lewis was writing today he might add: "it cannot be
deconstructed".
On a higher level, pain shatters yet another illusion: that we
are self-sufficient; that all we have is our own doing. This is
perhaps where pain, when it afflicts "honest and decent
people", seems most cruel and undeserved. But Lewis calls it
a sign of "divine humility": it is "a poor thing to come to
[God] as a last resort, to offer up 'our own' when it is no
longer worth keeping. [] If God were a Kantian, who would
not have us till we came to Him from the purest and best
motives, who could be saved?" On the highest level, pain,
Endnotes:
1. C. S. Lewis: Surprised by Joy.
2. Ibid.
3. For a Christian analysis of suffering as mystery, see
Peter Kreeft: Making Sense out of Suffering.
4. Unreferenced quotations are from C. S. Lewis: The
Problem of Pain.
5. G. K. Chesterton: The Everlasting Man.
6. For a systematic development of Lewis's argument see
Peter Kreeft: Between Heaven and Hell. The souls of C.
S. Lewis, J. F. Kennedy and Aldous Huxley, who all died
on the same day of November 22nd 1963, argue about
Jesus' divinity while awaiting judgment.
7. For a dramatization of the narrative of the Fall and an
insight into the psyche of the unfallen creature see C.
S. Lewis's novel Perelandra.
8. Walter Hooper: C. S. Lewis, A Companion and Guide.
9. C. S. Lewis: A Grief Observed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Bacz, Jacek. C.S. Lewis: The Problem of Pain. The Newman
Rambler (Spring 1999): 23-28.
Reprinted with permission of The Newman Rambler.