The Screwtape Letters

I remember first reading The Screwtape Letters when I was in high school. I was fascinated by the general concept of the book (a demon writing letters to another demon), but at that time, I wasn’t able to fully appreciate the genius of C. S. Lewis’s writing. For me personally, it was just a little too tough to read.

I’ve recently started re-reading the book, and so far I’ve loved every minute of it. There are still some segments that shoot right over my head, but whatever. (My guess is that geniuses have a difficult time distinguishing between what’s lofty and what’s accessible.) But whenever things go over my head, it doesn’t discourage me from continuing to read. Instead it just has a way of making me want to learn more.

It seems to me that our tendency is to think of demons (and spiritual beings in general) as having a vague and nebulous existence. So one of the most immediate practical benefits of a book like Screwtape, for me anyway, is that it evokes a palpable sense of the realness of the spiritual realm. Hell is real. The enemy is real. Demons are real. They’re personal, thoughtful, intelligent, and crafty — more crafty than even Lewis can portray them to be, which is saying a lot.

Of course, the notions of demons writing letters to each other, or graduating from a “Tempter’s College,” or having familial relationships with each other (“your affectionate uncle Screwtape”), are fictitious. But these are just Lewis’s creative way of putting flesh and bones on evil spirits and the work that they do. They may not look and speak exactly like this, but they’re at least as real and cunning as this.

I recently had the opportunity to see a theatrical performance of The Screwtape Letters, put on by the Fellowship for Performing Arts, and I was very impressed with it. Initially I wasn’t sure how Screwtape could even be adapted to the stage. But they did it, and they did it masterfully. In my opinion, the show was very true to the spirit of Lewis’s work.

Some people commented on the comedy of the performance. It was a pretty funny show, and the audience was routinely laughing throughout. Does that minimize the seriousness of the material? I don’t think so. Lewis created, as far as I’m concerned, one of the most brilliant characters of all time in Screwtape, who is genuinely wicked and genuinely funny simultaneously, and the stage performance skillfully captured that same dynamic.

So watching the show felt very much like reading the book, which regularly makes me laugh as I read it. Sometimes I’m laughing at the hysteria of Screwtape as he tries to keep things under control, but I’m just as often laughing at the ridiculousness of our own sin. Because Lewis has an incredible way of helping us realize that sin is stupid.

Calvin on the Image of God

I used to think Calvin might have believed that unbelievers did not bear the image of God, because of something he says in Institutes 1.14.18: “For as believers are recognized to be the sons of God by bearing his image, so the wicked are properly regarded as the children of Satan, from having degenerated into his image.”

But that needs to be taken along with 3.7.6, where Calvin speaks of “the image of God, which exists in all, and to which we owe all honor and love.” He then contrasts “all” in general with “those who are of the household of faith” for whom “that image is renewed and restored in them by the Spirit of Christ.” So basically, for Calvin, all human beings bear the image of God, but believers bear it more distinctly.

A Note on Free Will

At the beginning of The Freedom of the Will, Jonathan Edwards mentions that the will is a concept taken for granted by most people. It doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that needs a lot of rigorous thinking in order to understand. But since philosophers have said so much about it, he feels compelled to make his own contribution to the topic.

I’d like to mention something else along those lines: Arminians often take the term “free will” for granted, as if it’s clear to everyone what that means. But I think the notion of free will is actually quite nebulous, and difficult to define on its own terms. I say this because free will is so often defined with reference to determinism. That’s curious to me. It’s as if definitions of free will depend on a counter notion of determinism.

To illustrate, let’s look at a few basic definitions of free will. I realize that some of these aren’t from philosophically sophisticated sources, but I think they still represent the standard way in which most people would define free will. This first one is from Dictionary.com:

Free will: “the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.”

If this definition were limited to only the first half, then Calvinists could accept such a notion of free will: “the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice.” But then the definition goes on to further define free will in a way that explicitly precludes any notion of determinism: “and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.”

Here’s another definition from The Oxford Dictionary of English:

Free will: “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion”

We can say basically the exact same things about this definition of free will. Calvinists could agree with one half: “the ability to act at one’s own discretion.” But the other half explicitly precludes determinism: “acting without the constraint of necessity or fate” (or providence, we might add).

Now look at a definition from a source that is more philosophical in nature – William Reese’s Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion:

Freedom: “The quality of not being constrained by fate, necessity, or circumstance in one’s decisions and actions.”

Wow. Here’s a definition that is totally dependent on determinism. Freedom might as well have been defined as “the thing that makes all forms of determinism not true.” Isn’t this a little bit odd? Why is it that free will must be defined with reference to determinism, rather than on its own terms? Can it be adequately defined any other way? If this kind of definition is insisted on, it means that when a person says “I believe in free will” all they’re really saying is “I don’t believe in determinism.” They’re not positively affirming anything; they’re just denying something else.

Book Brief: Crazy Busy

“Eyes For Me”

Anxious souls will hope for crazy things
When no one sees the phantoms they can see
And I’d be chief among them to believe
That a day will come when she has eyes for me

But daylight burns and I’ll write stupid songs
Camouflage the writing on the wall
And wonder just what I would have to be
For a day to come when she has eyes for me

See in the dark the memory of the light
Another face, another aimless fight
And I get the feeling the last thing that I need
Is a day to come when she has eyes for me

But I don’t walk in my sleep; just wake and dream
I don’t walk in my sleep; just wake and dream

Several things that I don’t understand
Eagles, snakes, a woman’s way with man
Or what it takes to wake up from the dream
Of a day to come when she has eyes

For me

Book Brief: God Rest Ye Merry

God Rest Ye Merry: Why Christmas Is the Foundation for Everything by Douglas Wilson
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Enjoyed it. As usual, Wilson has a lot of good thoughts. I've heard that his books these days tend to be compilations of stuff from his blog, and I can see that here. It reads like a series of loosely-connected essays about different topics related to Christmas. Which isn't a bad thing, it's just different.

#vtReadingChallenge (2/52) "A Book Of Your Choice"


View all my reviews

Book Brief: Portraits of a Pastor

Portraits of a Pastor: The 9 Essential Roles of a Church Leader by Jason K. Allen
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Pretty good. #vtReadingChallenge (One down, fifty-one to go.)


View all my reviews