Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 113

Harry Potter Is a Danger to Modern Society (In a Good Way)

In his insightful article “Why Harry Potter Is Great Literature,” Brian Brown argues that J.K. Rowling's "Potter books are in the tradition of the great English novels, deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence, and are easily the most morally and socially insightful works of fantasy published in this generation.”

He explains the basis for this claim:

Fantasy appeals to us, to put it crudely, because of the relationship between magic and morality. An alternate world filled with strange and wonderful things, a world defined by imagination, gives us a setting in which to (consciously or not) engage with moral questions free from the complications and biases with which we engage our own setting. This can be blindingly obvious, as with Lewis’s explicitly allegorical Narnia, or more subtle, as with Tolkien’s stubbornly not allegorical Middle Earth. Fantasy, mythology, and fairy tales allow an author to shape our unconscious ideas about what our own world should be like—without beating us over the head with them or even stating them outright. Fantasy stories can tell you a lot about what a civilization values, and the best fantasy stories help a civilization value the right things.

Rowling does both.

Harry Potter is a welcome respite from the Disney story of the boy (or girl) who sacrifices everything to follow his dream, proving his worth and finding fame in the end. Brown argues that the Potter series, contrary to the Disney template, is profoundly countercultural; its characters find their identity in their choices, loyalties, place, prudence, and families—not by pursuing their dreams and “finding themselves.” For example:

Our choices. It is these, mentor Dumbledore tells an insecure Harry, that show who we truly are. No Aladdin-style “his worth lies far within” nonsense here. Over and over in Harry Potter, good triumphs when somebody who has no business being a hero—dim-witted Neville Longbottom, dumpy mother of seven Mrs. Weasley, most of all Harry—makes a choice to be stupid, to “fight the unbeatable foe,” just because it’s the right thing to do.

The full article is worth reading for the rest of the details. Brown concludes:

In short, Rowling (who must clearly be seen as a danger to modern society) seems to think that children find—make, really—their place in the adult world by the strength of their character, by the structures of their connections with the past and with loved ones, and not by “finding themselves.”

Tellingly, Harry never finds a passion in life, nor does he ever have much of an idea of what he wants to do with his life. The very thing most kids today are told to seek—Harry never finds it or even seriously looks for it. He doesn’t need to. Best of all, in almost Austenian fashion, Rowling sets these stories in a school, where parallels with Harry’s day-to-day battles with classmates and teachers make clear that all the virtues that make good triumph over evil are the same virtues that make the difference in real life.

Harry Potter’s is a reactionary world, a real step back in the march of progress. Families and traditional institutions are central, government experts are viewed with distrust, and the celebrity hero doesn’t want to be a celebrity. And likewise unfashionable is the path by which Harry and his friends seek adulthood. They find meaning in responsibility, learn respect for rightful authority, and sacrifice their individuality and even their lives to preserve a very messy world that seems beyond saving.

If you’re anything like me, you tend to feel a little guilty spending time on novels when you have a stack of “serious” non-fiction to get through. This is a grave mistake. Feeding our moral imagination is part of our education (as Joe Rigney argues here). Goodness, truth, and beauty are worth contemplating in story form, so give yourself permission to partake. If Harry Potter, Middle Earth, and Narnia aren’t your thing, find something else beautiful that is. How about one of these? (More ideas here.)

Watership Down
Peace Like a River
The Wind in the Willows
The Hammer of God
Till We Have Faces
Gilead

Why Didn't Jesus Reveal Scientific Facts to Demonstrate His Deity?

Last Wednesday I had the opportunity to defend the reliability of the New Testament Gospels to the students of San Jose State University. Jane Pantig (the director of the local Ratio Christi chapter) invited me, and I was delighted to come. I’ve been working with Ratio Christi across the country to defend the Christian worldview on college campuses. If you aren’t acquainted with the work of this growing apologetics movement, you really ought to familiarize yourself with Ratio Christi and find a way to support their efforts. At the end of my presentation, during the question and answer period, a polite young skeptic asked why Jesus didn’t reveal scientific facts in an effort to demonstrate His Deity. Why didn’t Jesus describe something well beyond the scope and knowledge of His contemporaries as a prophetic proof? He could easily have described the role of DNA, the proper organization of the Solar System, or the biological complexity of cellular structures. The questioner believed this sort of knowledge would have been persuasive to him as a 21st Century skeptic, and without it, he remained unconvinced.

I thought this was a great question, and one I often receive but seldom talk about on the podcast or here on the blog. There are a number of problems with this expectation of superior anachronistic scientific wisdom:

The Nature of the Gospel Accounts
The New Testament authors repeatedly referred to themselves as eyewitnesses. In the last chapter of John’s Gospel, John tells us he is testifying and his testimony is true. Language such as this presumes the author has seen something he is describing as an eyewitness. In addition, John and Peter identify themselves as eyewitnesses who directly observed Jesus, and were not inventing clever stories (1 John 1:1,3 and 2 Peter 1:16). While Luke clearly states he is not an eyewitness to the events in his gospel, he does tell us he is relying on the true eyewitnesses for his information (Luke 1:1). The gospel eyewitness accounts record the life and teaching of Jesus in the context of the 1st Century. They record Jesus’ ministry to 1st Century followers. The gospels are not unhistorical volumes containing proverbial wisdom statements; they are specific eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ historic interaction with a specific group in history.

The Nature of the Ancient Audience
The context of Jesus’ ministry and message were defined by the nature (and limitations) of this ancient audience. Sometimes it’s easy for us to approach the gospels from our 21st Century perspective (bringing our desires, needs and expectations to the text), rather than examining them from the perspective of the first hearers and readers. In order to illustrate this point, imagine yourself as Jesus. You’ve got three years to demonstrate your Divinity to those you live with in the 1st Century. Think about what approach you might take. You could reveal yet unknown scientific facts to your audience, but would this accomplish your goal? If you describe the role of DNA or the anatomy of the solar system, how would your 1st Century audience confirm your statements? Surely claims of this nature would be unimpressive to a world without the ability to assess their veracity. In fact, any combination of such claims with other demonstrations of Deity would only serve to dilute the power of your message. There are ways you could establish your Deity in front of such a 1st Century audience, but obscure, esoteric claims are perhaps the least effective approach.

The Nature of the Miraculous Evidence
Jesus chose instead to demonstrate His Deity through miraculous supernatural behavior. In fact, Jesus spoke openly about the evidential value of the miracles he performed. He said these miracles were intended to prove his Deity so His audience would believe He was who He claimed to be (John 14:11 and John 10:37-38). Miracles of this nature were the perfect tool to reach observers in the 1st Century. They were immediately accessible and verifiable. Unlike obscure statements to be confirmed over the course of two thousand years, these diverse miracles demonstrated the Divine nature of Jesus in a variety of ways available to both contemporary and future audiences. Miracles, unlike anachronistic wisdom statements, have the ability to validate the Divinity of Jesus across time.

The gospels are an account of Jesus’ activity in the 1st Century. They record Jesus’ interaction with an ancient audience, as He provided them with the kind of evidence they would find persuasive. If Jesus performed the miracles recorded in the Gospels, this evidence is still powerful in the 21st Century. If Jesus actually rose from the dead, this reality alone ought to be enough to persuade us.

Employ Yourself in Thanks and Praise

From Jonathan Edwards’s Thanksgiving sermon given on November 7, 1734:

’Tis from the little that the saints have seen of God, and know of him in this world that they are excited to praise him in the degree they do here. But here they see but as in a glass darkly; they have only now and then a little glimpse of God’s excellency. But then they shall have the transcendent glory and divine excellency of God set in their immediate and full view. They shall dwell in his immediate glorious presence and shall see face to face, 1 Cor. 13:12. Now the saints see the glory of God but by a reflected light, as we in the night see the light of the sun reflected from the moon. But in heaven they shall directly behold the Sun of righteousness, and shall look full upon him when shining in all his glory. This being the case, it can be no otherwise, but that they should very much employ themselves in praising God. When they behold the glorious power of God, they cannot but praise that power. When they see God’s wisdom that is so wonderful, and infinitely beyond all created wisdom, they cannot but continually praise that wisdom. When they view the infinitely pure and lovely holiness of God, whereby the heavens themselves are not pure in comparison with him, how can they avoid with an exalted heart to praise that beauty of the divine nature! When they see the infinite grace of God, and see what a boundless ocean of mercy and love he is, how can they but celebrate that grace with the highest praise!

If we’re moved to give thanks and praise even now while we only have fallen, clouded vision, just think how it will be when we see Him. Happy Thanksgiving!

Squanto and God's Purposes

There's more to Squanto's story than most people know. Teaching the Pilgrims what they needed to survive in the new world is just the end of an amazing story. It's an illustration of God working through sinful circumstances to bring His good purpose into action, similar to Joseph's in the Bible. What happened before Squanto met the Pilgrims is dramatic. Watch Eric Metaxes tell the account here.

Greg Expresses Thanks to STR's Supporters

They're Not Mormon?

FairMormon, (formerly the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research—FAIR) is a Mormon apologetics organization. I follow their blog, listen to their podcasts here and there, and have even attended one of their conferences, so I was interested to hear their president, Scott Gordon, interviewed on Issues, Etc. (listen to a response from Bill McKeever here).

When asked, “What is the biggest popular misconception about Mormonism?" Gordon responded:

The biggest one probably is that we’re not Christian. Many times there are books out, and there are many popularists who try to make us as something other than Christian. Granted, I would agree that we’re not traditional Christian in many ways; but as far as, do we believe in Jesus Christ as our savior, do we believe in the Bible, do we believe in the foundational beliefs that other Christians believe in? Yeah, we’re very much Christian.

But then the very next misconception he lists is this one:

One that comes to mind for most people is that Mormons are polygamists—that we have more than one wife. And while it is true that back in the 1800s polygamy was practiced for a select few, currently if someone who is Mormon or LDS currently were to have more than one wife…they’re instantly excommunicated…. So then people say, well what about all those Mormons practicing polygamy in southern Utah and northern Arizona? And my answer is, they’re not Mormon.

Gordon reserves the right to say the polygamists aren’t Mormon because he knows that the word “Mormon” refers to a specific set of doctrines and practices. If the polygamists were to say, “The biggest misconception about us is that we’re not Mormon; we believe in Joseph Smith as the prophet of the Restoration, we believe in the Book of Mormon, we believe in the foundational beliefs that other Mormons believe in, so yeah, we’re very much Mormon,” would Gordon be moved by this?

And were these polygamists to say they believe in the same “foundational beliefs” as Mormons, thereby assuming the exclusion of some beliefs that Mormons actually consider to be foundational (e.g., the revelation ending polygamy), Gordon would rightly see the mistake being made and reject it. In the very same way, he ought to be able to see that the tenets of Christianity Mormons exclude are considered foundational by Christians.

The LDS church distances itself from polygamists, but surely the differences between tri-theism and monotheism, between a gospel of a plan to pay a debt to Jesus and a gospel of grace (which seats us with the Father for eternity only by grace), and between viewing man as the same kind of being as God and viewing him as a creation of God, are far greater and more foundational than the difference between having one wife and having more than one. And contrary to what Gordon claims in the interview, the longer you talk to Mormons (if you take the time to define your terms carefully), the two theologies move farther apart, not closer.

If Mormons won’t allow polygamists to redefine Mormonism in order to include themselves, they ought not demand that Christians accept a redefinition from Mormons as to what’s foundational to Christianity.

None of this is meant to be an insult to Mormons (see “’Mormons Aren’t Christians’ Is Not an Epithet” for more on this); it’s merely a recognition of the very real, very significant differences between our two religions. Joseph Smith himself didn’t shy away from these differences when he said regarding his First Vision:

I asked the Personages [the Father and the Son] who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects [of Christianity] was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight….

As I wrote in the post linked above:

Mormons may believe that they are more truly following Christ and His plan of salvation than we are (since they have the restored priesthood, the temples, the covenants and ordinances, and more scripture) and so, are more deserving of the name Christian; but even if they were correct about this, to appropriate the name Christian now is to imply that they're just another denomination, and that is just confusing and misleading. And to demand that we call them Christian is to ask us to say that the nature of God, man, and salvation—the very heart of Christianity—is unimportant, or at least, less important than mere moral behavior. It's not fair or reasonable to ask this of us.

I have to admit, I don’t understand why a Mormon would want to gloss over the differences between us. Be straightforward, and fight for the truth! We will respect you for it. Gordon said, “[There are] different denominations who are trying to tear down beliefs of others, which I don’t think is ever a good thing.” But this is exactly what lovers of God and the truth do, as modeled by Paul:

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:3-5).

The Church: One Family, One Body, One Temple

Nick Roen, who has same-sex attractions, suggests “An Alternative Script for Same-Sex Attraction” for the church to offer Christians who reject the world’s encouragement to fulfill this desire because of their greater desire to follow Christ:

More Than Prohibitions

Many Christians answer this question [of how the Christian with same-sex attractions ought to live] by appealing to the prohibitions of Scripture. They point to the Bible’s clear teaching that homosexual activity is sinful because it goes against the grain of the created order (Genesis 2:18, 23–24), and is therefore outside the boundaries God has set for acceptable sexual expression (Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9–10).

Christians are right to appeal to the authority of the Bible for the manner in which we should conduct our lives (2 Timothy 3:16). However, if prohibition is the only message that those with homosexual desires (Christian and non-Christian) hear from the church, then our message is incomplete.

Saying Yes to Something Better

What the church needs is an alternative script. And it must be a holistic script that accounts for the real emotions and desires of those with SSA. We can’t live a life of only saying, “No!” to our desires. We need to be able to say “Yes!” to something greater, something better.

The most basic — and the most glorious — thing that I have said “Yes!” to is Jesus. The joys of following Jesus are everlasting and complete (Psalm 16:11; Mark 10:29) and make the temporary promises of sin seem woefully lacking. However, following Jesus does not make my yearnings for human intimacy and companionship magically disappear. What does Christianity have to say to those areas?

God has brought us together as a new “people for God’s own possession, so that [we] may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called [us] out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). We’re siblings adopted into God’s family (Ephesians 1:5). Every person in the church is a needed member of one body (1 Corinthians 12:12-31). We’re living stones being “fitted together” into one building around Christ, the corner stone (Ephesians 2:19-22). These images depict a profound interdependence, which we’re told is necessary “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12-13).

Roen recommends specific “areas of church life to cultivate,” but the bottom line for him is that the church needs to intentionally build the kind of close relationships between its members that reflects this biblical interdependence—for people with same-sex attractions, for singles, for everyone.

What if they heard not simply, “Don’t have that relationship!” but, “You are welcome in the church, and in all these relationships, and we will seek to support you in your walk of faith with community, loving relationships, and hospitality”?

That is the beginnings of a wonderful alternative script.

Read the rest of Nick Roen’s post.

Is Inerrancy Necessary? (Video)

Is belief in the inerrancy of the Bible necessary to be a Christian?

Why Shouldn't We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospels Attributed to Thomas?

We’ve been investigating the late non-canonical gospels to determine why they were rejected by the Christian community even though they often contain nuggets of truth related to Jesus. These elaborate stories, legends and fabrications were written by authors who were motivated to alter the history of Jesus to suit their own purposes. They built these alternative narratives on the foundational truths of the original Gospels, however, and much can be learned about the historic Jesus from these late lies. Today, we’re examining the non-canonical documents falsely attributed to the Apostle Thomas:

The Gospel of Thomas (130-180 AD)
This late non-canonical text was first discovered in 1945 as part of a large collection of papyri excavated near Nag Hammadi in Egypt. It is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus, written in the Coptic language, and attributed to a conversation recorded by "Didymos Judas Thomas."

Why Isn't It Considered Reliable?
While the text claims to have been authored by the Apostle Thomas, scholars reject this attribution. The Gospel of Thomas appears far too late in history to have been written by Thomas or any other reliable eyewitness of the life of Jesus. The oldest manuscript fragments of the text (found at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt) are dated from 130 to 250 AD, and the vast majority of scholars agree that the Gospel of Thomas was written no earlier than the mid-2nd Century. These scholars cite several passages in the text appearing to harmonize verses from the canonical Gospels. This would require the canonical Gospels to be in place before the writing of this text. In addition, scholars believe the Gospel of Thomas borrows from the language of Luke rather than the language of Mark. If this is the case, then this text must have followed Luke, a gospel which is known to have borrowed from Mark (and was, therefore, later than Mark). Some scholars even believe the Gospel of Thomas is dependent on Tatian's "Diatessaron" (an effort to combine and harmonize the four canonical Gospels, written after 172 AD), based on the use of Syriac colloquialisms. Bart Ehrman argues the Gospel of Thomas is a 2nd Century Gnostic text based on the lack of any reference to the coming Kingdom of God and return of Jesus. The earliest leaders of the Church also recognized the Gospel of Thomas was a late, inauthentic, heretical work. Hipploytus identified it as a fake and a heresy in "Refutation of All Heresies" (222-235 AD), Origen referred to it in a similar way in a homily (written around 233 AD), Eusebius resoundingly rejected it as an absurd, impious and heretical "fiction" in the third book of his "Church History" (written prior to 326 AD), Cyril advised his followers to avoid the text as heretical in his "Catechesis" (347-348 AD), and Pope Gelasius included the Gospel of Thomas in his list of heretical books in the 5th century.

How Does It Corroborate the Life of Jesus?
The Gospel of Thomas presents Jesus as a real person in history and affirms Him as a wise teacher. The teachings of Jesus are paramount in this text and nearly half of its sayings are repetitions and confirmations of teachings found in the canonical Gospels. The Gospel of Thomas affirms Jesus had many disciples and mentions Peter, Matthew, Thomas and James by name. Other Biblical characters (Mary and Salome) are also corroborated, and the text also confirms large crowds gathered to hear what Jesus had to say. Even though the text is simply a collection of sayings, the Gospel of Thomas confirms Jesus was, at the very least, a wildly popular travelling teacher in the areas of Samaria and Judea. The text also affirms Jesus had brothers and sisters and mentions John the Baptist by name.

Where (and Why) Does It Differ from the Reliable Accounts?
There are many good reasons to believe the Gospel of Thomas was written by Gnostic believers who allowed their saving trust in hidden, esoteric knowledge to taint their description of Jesus. The text was discovered among other Gnostic works and opens with the words, "These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded." Salvation is found not in the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross (nor in "good works"), but is instead found in the secret, hidden words of Jesus if they are properly and insightfully understood. For this reason, the Gospel of Thomas fails to describe any of Jesus' historic life and focuses instead on His words alone. This connection between hidden knowledge and salvation (or spiritual enlightenment) is characteristic of Gnostic groups of this era.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (150-185 AD)
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, like the Infancy Gospel of James, is an ancient text attempting to provide details missing from the canonical Gospels. In this case, the author describes details that are absent from the childhood narrative of Jesus (particularly as His childhood was described in the Gospel of Luke). It begins when Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt, and describes the activities of Jesus when He was a child in that country. There are few surviving complete manuscripts of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and most date to the 13th century (although there many fragments dating back to as early as the 5th century). Some scholars believe the document was written in Eastern Syria, but the precise origin is unknown. The text was very popular, and the early Church Fathers were certainly aware of its presence and influence.

Why Isn't It Considered Reliable?
Portions of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas claim “Thomas the Israelite” is the author, but this material appears to be a late addition and it is uncertain if it is referring to the Apostle Thomas. In any case, the document simply cannot have been written by the Apostle, given its late authorship and unfamiliarity with Jewish life and customs of the 1st Century. The text presupposes the Gospel of Luke and must, therefore, have been written after Luke’s text was distributed and well known; the author is dependent upon Luke for his information related to the life of Jesus, the Sabbath and the Passover. In addition, the text describes Jesus as a brilliant child, performing a number of miracles in Nazareth, completely contradicting the portrayal of the Nazoraeans as described in Luke Chapter 4. Luke describes the natives of Nazareth responding in shock to Jesus’ initial messianic teaching, seemingly unfamiliar that Jesus was anything more than a poor carpenter’s son. Irenaeus appears to refer to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and include it in his list of unreliable non-canonical documents described in “Against Heresies” (180 AD). Hippolytus and Origen also refer to a Gospel of Thomas in their respective lists of heretical books (although it is unknown if they are referring to this text or the “sayings” Gospel of Thomas mentioned earlier).

How Does It Corroborate the Life of Jesus?
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas attempts to provide details related to the first twelve years of the life of Jesus (details that are unavailable to us through the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 2). While much of the text is highly insulting to the character of Jesus as a boy, many facts related to Jesus are acknowledged here. Mary and Joseph are identified as Jesus’ parents and the narrative begins as they are fleeing to Egypt to escape the persecution of Herod. Jesus is described as a miracle worker, even as a very young boy. The text also describes Jesus performing miracles on the Sabbath and drawing the wrath of those who observed this, just as He often did in the canonical Gospels. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas also describes a scene in which Jesus identifies Himself as “Lord,” claims that He existed “before all worlds” and predicts his death on the cross. Jesus is also described as wiser than the Rabbis, and the text also indicates he was worshipped as God by those who saw His power.

Where (and Why) Does It Differ from the Reliable Accounts?
There are a number of distorted and disturbing characterizations of Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Jesus is often described as quick-tempered, spiteful and disrespectful, almost as if the author was shaping him to resemble other Greek mythological “trickster” gods and pagan “child-gods” from antiquity. Jesus appears to be far more similar to pagan mythological gods than He is to the Christ we know from the canonical Gospels. Some scholars (such as Ron Cameron) believe that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was designed as a piece of “Christian missionary propaganda,” intended to demonstrate the divine nature of Jesus in a manner familiar to the pagans proselytized by the early Christians. These non-believers had their own set of Greco-Roman or Egyptian gods; the Infancy Gospel of Thomas compared Jesus to these gods in a manner designed to impress Hellenistic, Egyptian and pagan sensibilities.

While some skeptical scholars would like to include the Gospel of Thomas as one of five early Gospels describing the life, ministry and statements of Jesus, there were (and still are) good reasons to exclude it from the reliable record (along with the Infancy Gospel of Thomas). These documents are late fictions, written by authors motivated to use the name of Jesus for their own purposes. The four canonical Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) are the earliest record of Jesus, written within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses who knew Jesus personally.

Related posts:

What Motivated Early Non-Canonical Writers to Modify the Story of Jesus?
Why Shouldn't We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospels Attributed to Peter?
Why Shouldn't We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospels Attributed to James?

Remembering C.S. Lewis

Today, on the 50th anniversary of his death, C.S. Lewis will be honored with a memorial stone in Poets’ Corner, Westminster Abbey. (I believe it’s still possible to donate to this cause if you wish to help with this.) Michael Ward, author of Planet Narnia, said of this event:

To be memorialized in Poets’ Corner means you’ve received national recognition for your contribution to the arts. Westminster Abbey has been at the heart of religious and civic life in England for over a thousand years and is known as “the coronation church”. William the Conqueror was crowned there on Christmas Day 1066. Our present monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, was crowned there in 1953. So, for C.S. Lewis to be memorialized in the Abbey is an indication of the respect in which he is held and an acknowledgement of his enduring place in the world of English letters.

It’s rare that I hear an apologist tell the story of how he or she became a Christian and that story doesn’t include reading Mere Christianity. That’s exactly how my story began, as well. Lewis’s impact on this world from just this one book is immeasurable. And he wrote many more.

Chances are, you’ve already read Lewis’s more popular works: Mere Christianity, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce, and The Abolition of Man, so I wanted to recommend three more of his books that you may not have even heard of.

Perelandra : This is the second book in Lewis’s Space Trilogy. If you read all three of these books, you’ll get much of Lewis’s philosophy, along with his warnings about the dangerous trajectory of our culture, in the form of a novel (which turned out to be quite prophetic). But you can also read this one book on it’s own. It’s the story of the devil’s attempt to bring about the fall of the first inhabitants of a planet, and Lewis’s skill in capturing the essence of evil in one of the characters continues to astound me. (I also suspect this book influenced the last season of Lost, but that’s a story for another time.)


Till We Have Faces : This is a retelling of the myth of Cupid and Psyche. What can I say about this book that would do it justice? Lewis knew how to write novels. This one is about selfish love, suffering, and the transforming love of God.


The Pilgrim’s Regress : Lewis tells the story of a man’s spiritual journey through the world’s philosophies to Christianity in the allegorical style of Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. He does this brilliantly, as always.

Thank you, Mr. Lewis.