[Stealth3si]

I would choose between "Reflections on the Psalms" and "God In the Dock."

The former deals with the mystery of Psalms by illuminating the meanings behind the songs, in a spiritual lyrical poetry as opposed to theological message, while the latter accounts a collection of his essays and letters that address historical theological and cultural ethical issues.

I'm very interested in the defense of my faith and Psalms, though I sometimes find elusive, betray gems I did not see before.

Both look interesting to me, which would any of you prefer and why?

[Nate]

Neither are favorites of mine.

What have you read of his?

Why are you drawn to Lewis?

[dtaylorl]

I'm surprised that I've never heard of either. They both do look quite interesting, I'll have to read them sometime. So, my recommendation is: read both - Lewis is a great writer.

[luvinjesus]

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

I would choose between "Reflections on the Psalms" and "God In the Dock."

The former deals with the mystery of Psalms by illuminating the meanings behind the songs, in a spiritual lyrical poetry as opposed to theological message, while the latter accounts a collection of his essays and letters that address historical theological and cultural ethical issues.

I'm very interested in the defense of my faith and Psalms, though I sometimes find elusive, betray gems I did not see before.

Both look interesting to me, which would any of you prefer and why?

I've never read either either of those. I agree with dtaylorl, read both.

Personally, I enjoy the Screwtape Letters and the Great Divorce probably the most of anything Lewis ever wrote.

[OiBoyz]

Read God In The Dock first. It's the book that got me into Lewis. If you've got access to both, read both.

Reflections On The Psalms... dunno if I've read that one. (D'oh, never mind... it's the one I read last year. Don't remember what I thought of it.) With Lewis, be prepared for a tough read (but worth it.) One of the things I like about him, is if there's a concept you're just not getting in his non-fiction stuff, it's illustrated somewhere in his fictional stuff. Example: there's an article called Men Without Chests. I was having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around the point he was making. Later, as I was reading the last of the Space trilogy, there's a section that really opened my eyes. I had an "AHA" moment, as I finally got his point from the earlier work.

I love C.S. Lewis. He's one of my favorite authors.

[BenWahrman]

Screwtape Letters, For The Win.

And his Space Trilogy, too.

[OiBoyz]

I never cared for The Screwtape Letters. The space trilogy, a must read.

[dtaylorl]

Mere Christianity is my favourite so far. Screwtape letters is second. I'm not sure why but I couldn't get through even the first book in the space trilogy, it just felt to dry. Maybe I'll have to try again.

[OiBoyz]

The Space Trilogy is a little harder to read than, say Narnia. Actually, the second one "Perelandra" was the hardest one for me. The temptation scene just went on and on and on and on...

Mere Christianity is da bomb.

[redbaron]

screwtape letters & mere christianity, definitely.

[OiBoyz]

Hmmm..... I may have to go back and read the Screwtape Letters again. I was a pretty young Christian when I read it. It was years later that I really got into Lewis.

[Stealth3si]

Originally Posted by Nate

Neither are favorites of mine.

What are and why?

Originally Posted by Nate

What have you read of his?

I've heard about some of his other notable (non-)fictional works and these two seem to be interesting additions to my collection but I have read nothing from C.S. Lewis.

Originally Posted by Nate

Why are you drawn to Lewis?

He was a better writer than a debator.

And intriguing is his articulation of his viewpoints via 'debatical arguments' and then onto concrete demonstrations.

[Stealth3si]

Thanks everyone.

I will pick both, God in the Dock and then Reflections On the Psalms, and the others too.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Stealth3si

What are and why?

To me, The Abolition of Man is probably the most important thing he ever wrote.

Abolition deals with postmodernism / relativism in a unique way, that is relateable to the common (but educated and thoughtful) man.

Rather than take a theological / philosophical perspective, Lewis adopts an anthropological / philological one, which suits his education and his writing style much better. This is a much better approach.

The theological response to relativism is simply unconvincing to most people. The philosophical response to postmodernism is so shrouded in metaphysical ramblings that it's impossible for most people to understand. Lewis' approach is relevant to the ordinary man wondering "How now should I live?"

Lewis asks basically two questions in the book: How do, in fact, men behave and believe? And, how would they behave and believe differently under the absence of an absolute [at least to some degree] moral law?

He then contrasts what we know of human history to what we can guess of human future to see whether it is better to continue the old beliefs.

Personally, I find his argument compelling. Some don't. It's still worth reading.

I've heard about some of his other notable (non-)fictional works and these two seem to be interesting additions to my collection but I have read nothing from C.S. Lewis.

If you have never read anything from Lewis, then you should certainly read Mere Christianity, not because it is his best work, but because you will understand where he comes from as an author.

Mere Christianity, being a series of lectures rather than a cohesive unit, has strong points and weak points. The strongest are probably the first few and the last few chapters. You can find these online if you search around.

The topics he introduces in the first chapter (specifically the idea of the moral law being something separate from human consciousness and rationality, not something created by it) are things he expounds on in Abolition.

There is great argument over the strength of his argument in the first chapter. Many people here who I respect greatly have serious problems with his line of reasoning. Again, I find it very compelling, though, and it's worth reading regardless.

The gist of the argument is that man finds within himself an urging to behave in certain ways and, at the same time, rarely behaves in those ways. Lewis dubs this the "natural law" (or "moral law"), and goes on to suppose it as a transcendental being.

And intriguing is his articulation of his viewpoints via 'debatical arguments' and then onto concrete demonstrations.

"Concrete demonstration" is not really something I see a lot of in Lewis. Neither is debate, really.

Lewis rarely addresses alternative viewpoints, either directly or indirectly really. He is content to write what he feels and say "This is how I see it; you may see it otherwise, but here it is."

For a lot of people, that's unsatisfying because they are left saying to themselves "But he doesn't address the issues raised by so-and-so." He is a lousy philosopher, for this method.

On the other hand, he is an essayist without rival. I can't think of anyone more able to eloquently and persuasively express his own opinions. He doesn't move mountains or defeat philosophical enemies, but he does cause you to come to terms with your own beliefs and with his.

A lot of people misunderstand Lewis on this point. He isn't trying to convince anyone of anything, I don't think. He's a strict essayist, writing down his thoughts so that others can slice and dice them as they see fit. He enjoyed debate, it is clear, but his writings aren't debates.

A quote that is on the back of many Lewis publications these days is particularly appropriate:

"The point about reading C. S. Lewis is that he makes you sure, whatever you believe, that religion accepted or rejected means something extremely serious, demanding the entire energy of mind." - Times Literary Supplement

I think that's the whole point of Lewis: To convince you only that religion is worth thinking about.

That's something we really need a lot of these days, which is why I think Abolition is so important. In Abolition, Lewis attacks religious tolerance head on. There is no room for the postmodern "Everything is right as long as you're sincere" motto, which is still as strong as ever.

Go to any modern university religion department and ask them what they think of religion. Most likely, your answer will be "It is something interesting to think about and something important to a lot of people." This is subtly different from "It is something I think about, and important to me."

Typical postmoderns say "There's something valuable in every religion." So does Lewis, especially in Abolition. The difference is Lewis also says "But they aren't all equally valuable."

You can teach religion two ways: From the outside or from the inside. You can be tolerant either way, but you can't be authentic unless you believe religion is as important as it thinks it is.

Postmoderns love religion. They find it fascinating. They secretly distrust it, though. Lewis trusts it wholly.

He was a better writer than a debator.

Moreso, I think he was a better thinker for his inside->out approach. Everything he said he personally believed.

There are a lot (a LOT) of thinkers running around who seem to secretly harbor a distrust in all thinking.

That means that everything they say has an element of deceit in it, because they don't believe it themselves.

Lewis wrote, debated, and thought as if the outcome of thought (that is, belief) was something very important.

The postmodern loves to think about just about everything. When it gets down to believing in it, they shy away.

There are much more coherent writers. There are more rigorous writers. There are many more convincing writers.

I don't think there is a more authentic writer than Lewis. He writes with reckless abandon (a lot like Rich Mullins).

Postmoderns will think and think and think 'til the cows come home. When it's done, they don't believe any of it.

Lewis says "Look, you can think all you want, but it's important that you believe something when the day is done."

The villains in Lewis' fiction often go off on tirades, spewing forth great, eloquent speeches about absolutely nothing.

The heroes, on the other hand, overcome those villains with a simple weapon: Belief that something actually matters.

If I were to recommend a track for reading through Lewis for the first time, it would be something like this:

1) The first few chapters of Mere Christianity. Then, the very last chapter of it.

2) The entirety of The Abolition of Man (repeatedly), until you can see how it relates to Mere Christianity.

3) The Space Trilogy. This is Lewis' greatest fiction (I think his greatest work) and builds on the topics from The Abolition of Man.

4) Return to finish Mere Christianity, and then read some other religious works like The Great Divorce and the ones you selected.

5) Now, read Narnia, because it builds on the religious non-fiction works that you just read.

6) Finally, branch out to his more obscure works, like 'Til We Have Faces, etc.

[toadcuss]

C.S. Lewis is one of my favorites. I love Screwtape Letters, Mere Christianity, but my favorite was written by Lewis but published under the pseudonym N. W. Clerk. The name of the book is A Grief Observed, a collection of C. S. Lewis's reflections on the experience of bereavement following the death of his wife, Joy Gresham, from bone cancer. C.S. Lewis is a thinking person's author. You need to also read the Space Trilogy.