The Great Divorce by CS Lewis

[iepuras]

When I read The Great Divorce many years ago, I understood it as describing the things that keep us from embracing God and and His love. Basically, that God does not keep us out of Heaven, we do that to ourselves because we refuse to give up our favorite sins and embrace His love and forgiveness. Those of us who do that because we love God will reach heaven. My religious views have changed since I last read C.S. Lewis. I should crack open his books again.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I think it has absolutely nothing to do with the afterlife. It seems to be almost wholly concerned with desire and how it is handled - whether in love or selfishness. Lewis repeatedly focuses on the difference between a self-absorbed “love” and true love. If you want to extend his statements past his meaning, that is up to you, but I think he is fencing it with the above statement. Perhaps he should have been more guarded, but then the book would not be as fun. Or powerful. So I argue it should not be stretched beyond its limits. And Lewis was not a professional theologian, nor a scientist. Perhaps we should discuss whether he wrote from the head or the heart? In the prologue to Screwtape he makes some statements about that.

And for Lewis, real desire is the desire for God. Not sex, money, power, personal glory or anything else, examples of which are paraded before the reader in the souls of the damned. And real love is shown in a number of self-sacrificing individuals. Fleshly desire can consume one, and the morality of the story is how we should live now, not what is coming.

Personally, I am all in favor of getting the sanctifying bit done here and not postponing it.

I like your take. Thanks for the insight. Very helpful.

 

[steido01]

He implies it is Blakes’ Marriage of Heaven and Hell.

GKC

A response and opposition to Blake’s Marriage, if I remember correctly? There’s a particular quote from his introduction that’s sticking in my mind… Can’t remember the exact wording. I’ll post it later.

Lewis wanted people to truly ponder the majesty of heaven, and not to confuse His coming Kingdom with the meager kingdoms we men attempt to build (depicted by the infinite “shadow buildings” that the dead built in the GD purgatory/hell). Man has no ability to save himself - in this life or the next. We are entirely reliant upon God for salvation.

At least, that was what I took from it.

 

[steido01]

A response and opposition to Blake’s Marriage, if I remember correctly? There’s a particular quote from his introduction that’s sticking in my mind… Can’t remember the exact wording. I’ll post it later.

Found it!

If we insist on keeping Hell (or even earth) we shall not see Heaven: if we accept Heaven we shall not be able to retain even the smallest and most intimate souvenirs of Hell.

Seems to be a rather direct refutation of Blake. Doesn’t look like Lewis thought we could ever “build Jerusalem in England’s green and pleasant land.” (But Parry’s hymn is still beautiful.)

 

[Bob_Crowley]

What do you think of Lews’ “The Great Divorce” and his theology of Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory expressed therein? Specifically what do you make of his plot device wherein the damned have the opportunity to be saved after death? His conflation of Hell and Purgatory? And what seems to be his near endorsement of Universalism in the speech given by George MacDonald towards the book’s conclusion? These teachings seem to run counter to Catholic doctrine, but the book has many other keen insights. Overall, do you like the book? Would you recommend it to others?

I first read it as a Protestant, and I’ve reread it as a Catholic.

I’d recommend it anytime. Lewis never pretended to be a theologian, and said so in at least one of his apologetic writings.

He was using allegory, as he did in the Narnia series, the Dr. Ransom SF series, the Screwtape Letters and other writings, to get across Christian ideas. He didn’t pretend to have all the answers, and if I remember rightly, there’s a line in the book itself where Lewis, using his imaginary George MacDonald as the mouthpiece, states that he’s not in a position to make assured statements about the fate of others.

Sometimes I think we over-analyse writers. CS Lewis wrote a work of fiction and years later we try to work out whether his work was in line with Catholic or some other teaching, depending on our own tradition. It was probably never his intention to comply with Catholic or even Anglican teaching, but merely to put across the Christian message in fictional form, as he understood it.

To me, he’s the outstanding apologist of the 20th century, bar none. And he had the ability not only to write conventional apologetics, but also put his arguments in allegorical and entertaining form, something very few apologists have been able to do.

People like stories, and story telling is one of the most effective methods of communicationg a message. What would you rather watch - a dry as dust documentary on church treachings about heaven, purgatory and hell? Or a movie based on “The Great Divorce”, complete with special effects (eg. a heraldically coloured bus which expanded as it escaped through a crack from Hell into Heaven), a waterfall which speaks and crystallises into an angel pouring out the water of life, with characters like the liberal Bishop, the Lustful Stallion, the earthly tyrant Napoleon striding up and down the dismal leaky halls of a hellish mansion blaming everybody else for his failures, or the virtuous uknown lady from the uknown village of Golders Green, completely unknown by the world, yet who is now a great hero in heaven.

Christ always taught in parables, aka stories. If it was good enough for Him, it should be good enough for us.

 

[Peter_J]

Certainly, but does that disclaimer make up for the serious theological problems with some parts of the book?

A part of me wants to take this comment as comical … but another part of me thinks it would be impolite to do so b/c you didn’t intend it to be.

 

[Alizarin]

It doesn’t really touch the heart, though. Lewis, as I’ve stated before, was more of a cerebral Christian that an affected one. By that I mean what he could grasp in his mind held his attention more than what moved his heart, although he no doubt had such inspired moments in his life and attempted to relay them in “Surprised by Joy”. Still, he simply didn’t have to capacity to access that part of himself in such a way that others could share in it.

Yes, he was definitely more cerebral than affected, if we use for an example of affective love for God someone like St. Therese in her Story of a Soul.

But as someone like yourself, who has read and re-read Lewis many times over the years, I have to heartily disagree about this perceived lack of ability to access and share effectively what moved his heart. If he lacked that capacity, I don’t think he’d have such a huge following; he’d be more like Scott Hahn – popular in the small circle of apologetics, but lacking any reach to the public beyond it.

 

[PietroPaolo]

A part of me wants to take this comment as comical … but another part of me thinks it would be impolite to do so b/c you didn’t intend it to be.

You’re not thinking my comment through, perhaps your too amused by it. The question is whether a line in a preface of a book stating that said book isn’t theological is carte blanche to make any number of theological errors and, more importantly, whether such a book ought to be recommended to and by Catholics. Perhaps an example will help. Suppose I write a short story (prefaced by the same comment as Lewis used) where Christ is merely a man, the “historical” Jesus of the Jesus Seminar. Now I use this story to tell a moral and admit right up front that I am no theologian. Should my book be recommended reading for Catholics? You might think yes, you might think no - but the question (regardless of how jocose you might find it) is worth considering. Now, I do recommend TGD, and think it worth reading, but with the proviso that it contains plot devices that are counter to known truth. Glad to make you smile though.

 

[GKC]

I first read it as a Protestant, and I’ve reread it as a Catholic.

I’d recommend it anytime. Lewis never pretended to be a theologian, and said so in at least one of his apologetic writing.

He implies it early in the preface to MERE CHRISTIANITY.

GKC

 

[GKC]

You’re not thinking my comment through, perhaps your too amused by it. The question is whether a line in a preface of a book stating that said book isn’t theological is carte blanche to make any number of theological errors and, more importantly, whether such a book ought to be recommended to and by Catholics. Perhaps an example will help. Suppose I write a short story (prefaced by the same comment as Lewis used) where Christ is merely a man, the “historical” Jesus of the Jesus Seminar. Now I use this story to tell a moral and admit right up front that I am no theologian. Should my book be recommended reading for Catholics? You might think yes, you might think no - but the question (regardless of how jocose you might find it) is worth considering. Now, I do recommend TGD, and think it worth reading, but with the proviso that it contains plot devices that are counter to known truth. Glad to make you smile though.

You have a recognizable point, IMO. And Lewis recognizes it (chap IX, p. 65, 1st American printing), when he points out to Macdonald that both RCs and protestants will likely have their own objections to the idea of a “choice after death”. From that standpoint, perhaps no one can read the book, assuming they fit one of those categories. I like Macdonald’s reply.

GKC

 

[benjohnson]

Suppose I write a short story (prefaced by the same comment as Lewis used) where Christ is merely a man, the “historical” Jesus of the Jesus Seminar.

C.S. Lewis should be read in charity, not with the mind but with the heart - for the logical Christian mind rebels at the bad theology. But the wavering heart of the unchurched may be touched.

For your premise, I’ve done exactly that: I have a small story that the preface is that Jesus was just a guy who thought he was God. And then he sacrificed himself willingly anyways.

At that point, even the angry atheist can accept this idea, as we’ve seen throughout history that people do give their own lives to save others.

Then the trap: That others are willing to do good to save others is evidence that we humans intuitively understand that there’s more to this life that blood, sweet, and tears.

Now… theologically it’s all entirely wrong and even horribly embarrassing. But only the hardest of atheists has come back to discount the sacrifices that have been historically made as some mere delusion of biology and physics.

It’s a wedge into the heart.

 

[Peter_J]

  			Originally Posted by **Peter J**

I disagree – and since you’re presumably not a mind-reader, the fact that you said otherwise carries basically no weight.

 

[Della]

I meant no disrespect to Lewis by making my observation that he was more cerebral in his approach than affected. I very much appreciated this when I first read him. I was caught up in a very emotionally-oriented Pentecostal sect at the time in which the “heart” was everything and the mind not to be trusted. This makes for rather bad theology, as I later discovered–mostly due to Lewis’ writings. I’ll be forever grateful to him for helping me disengage myself from the sect’s way of thinking to a more balanced understanding of human nature.

However, when I read Tolkien, it was and is another matter. When I would finish a Lewis book I’d say, now that was enlightening. After I’d read Tolkien it would be like awakening from a black and white world to one of brilliant color and life. I don’t know how else to describe it. Anyway, I deeply appreciate what both men had to give, but their spiritualties were quite different and affected me in quite different ways.

 

[Michael57]

He implies it is Blakes’ Marriage of Heaven and Hell.

GKC

Thanks.

 

[GKC]

Thanks.

You are very welcome.

GKC

 

[Michael57]

He implies it is Blakes’ Marriage of Heaven and Hell.

GKC

Ugh…William Blake. Just skimmed it. :ehh:

Reminds me of the “artsy” friends I had back in school. Not my cup of tea.

No wonder Lewis responded to it. Ghastly, in both senses of the word.

Think I’ll be returning to my reading of Ireneaus’ Against Heresies (though I have been bogged down in book two for weeks )…and all the other ECFs.

 

[Peter_J]

He implies it is Blakes’ Marriage of Heaven and Hell.

At the risk of getting off onto a tangent, I’ve never liked the fact that the cover of the book (one edition anyhow) takes Lewis’ statement “Blake wrote the Marriage of Heaven and Hell. If I have written of their Divorce, this is not because I think myself a fit antagonist for so great a genius, nor even because I feel at all sure that I know what he meant.” and shortens it to “Blake wrote the Marriage of Heaven and Hell … I have written of their Divorce.”

 

[Alizarin]

I meant no disrespect to Lewis by making my observation that he was more cerebral in his approach than affected. I very much appreciated this when I first read him. I was caught up in a very emotionally-oriented Pentecostal sect at the time in which the “heart” was everything and the mind not to be trusted. This makes for rather bad theology, as I later discovered–mostly due to Lewis’ writings. I’ll be forever grateful to him for helping me disengage myself from the sect’s way of thinking to a more balanced understanding of human nature.

However, when I read Tolkien, it was and is another matter. When I would finish a Lewis book I’d say, now that was enlightening. After I’d read Tolkien it would be like awakening from a black and white world to one of brilliant color and life. I don’t know how else to describe it. Anyway, I deeply appreciate what both men had to give, but their spiritualties were quite different and affected me in quite different ways.

I see what you mean. Makes sense

It’s funny, with Lewis and Tolkien, our reactions are opposite. While I can appreciate all Tolkien accomplished, he always left me cold. The Hobbit was okay I thought, but I gave up on LOTR less than 80 pages in. And I’m not in the habit of giving up early on my reading. It’s interesting how these things affect each of us differently.

 

[benjohnson]

The Hobbit was okay I thought, but I gave up on LOTR less than 80 pages in.

It’s a slog until it the story gets moving - give it another try in a few years when your mind has rotted from age.

 

[Alizarin]

It’s a slog until it the story gets moving - give it another try in a few years when your mind has rotted from age.

Maybe I will