Andrew's Analysis of "What Christians Believe"

Yep! That’s What Christians Believe: A Critical Analysis
Andrew Powley
Dr. Swilua
Honors Writing 150

If there was one 20th century author that truly captured the essence of God, it would have to be C.S. Lewis. In his essay entitled “What Christians Believe”, Lewis rejects his past atheistic discipline and embraces the idea that God exists both literally and as constant force of goodness. The author effectively appeals to two audiences: the atheist, by token of his tangential structure that systematically appeals to logic; also the ideal Christian, by the invigorating pathos established by literary devices such as paradox, analogy and tone.

The power of Lewis’ essay centers on a unique structure somewhat similar to a Plinko board. As a Plinko disc unpredictably zigzags down a vertical array of pins, Lewis’ ideas tend to jump around. In effect, he keeps that same sense of suspense by allowing his thoughts to suddenly sway from one train of thought to another, and finally settle with a bottom-line conclusion. One example of this Plinko-structure occurs half way through the passage when Lewis plants the idea of Dualism. He goes on to state in one paragraph transition that “Dualism, in a strict sense will not work…but that real Christianity goes much nearer to Dualism than people think”. Lewis’ logic does a complete turnaround thrusting the reader into a sense of pleasant disquietude. Finally, his argument, or disk so to speak, settles on one overall idea: “enemy occupied-territory—that is what the world is”. The conciseness cements Lewis’ argument into an epic and logical insight pertaining to the world God has created.

The author incorporates other instances of tangential structure that appeal to logos. At the start of the essay, he ironically states that he will “begin by telling one thing Christians do not believe”. Though strange, the effect of this strategy grabs the reader’s attention by abruptly switching context from the supposed topic of the article. Lewis purges any bias misconceptions that the reader possesses; particularly if atheists are assumed to be a large part of his intended audience. Lewis continues on to describe the religious school of thought known as Pantheism which he deliberately points out has nothing to do with the Christian belief in God. Why then would he mention it? The purpose is to establish a logic chain that will eventually lead into his final justification for a god.

That justification occurs structurally at a climatic point in his essay’s introduction. Lewis sets up convincing if-then statements that lead the reader into a vulnerable frame of mind open to the existence of God. In one memorable instance, he declares “if the whole universe had no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there was no light… we should never know it was dark.” The logic behind his statement implies that because there is opposition, good verses bad, that there must be some complex organization in the universe. Because there is complexity, the world has meaning and is not simply existential. If the world has meaning, then there must be a Divine figure conducting the world. Aha! Point made, and Lewis did it by creating a complicated yet intrinsic logic chain that resolves with the belief that the world is not simply random.
Apart from logic, Lewis appeals to the Christian reader’s pathos by using paradox and analogy. There is one major paradox that occurs in the essay adding to the significance of the wisdom of God. Evidently, Lewis states that “wickedness…turns out to be the pursuit of something good” and that “badness is only spoiled goodness” implying that in fact the evil forces in this world come from righteous forces—in other words the Devil stems from God. The irony is rich with thematic elements such as religion not simply being black and white. This paradox appeals to the reader’s sense of morality and ethos. If men try and cheat the commandments of God, they exhibit rebellion and sin of disobedience.

Lewis then implicates two brilliant metaphors to further emphasize the state of the world. First, he proclaims that the world is “enemy-occupied territory” since Christians evidently believe that the Devil has dominion over the earth. This analogy heavily charms the reader’s pathos in that the words “enemy-occupied” connote to a spiritual battlefield in which good and evil are caught in an everlasting duel. The connotation inspires noble resolve as if the reader is in the midst of an epic battle for Narnia! Christians must fight every day in order to secure salvation.

However exciting the battle, Lewis uses another metaphor to appease those that find fault with this idea of God allowing the Devil to run amuck. Consequently, he likens God to a mother who strangely allows her child to be untidy though it is against her will. However, it is her will to leave the children “free to be untidy”. Lewis then goes on the mention that logically free agency “makes evil possible, [and] is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having” which again reaffirms the need to have opposition in all things. Reapplying themes in thought-provoking metaphors contributes to the overall meaning of the essay that God is wise. Also, by using the mother analogy, he brings up an (insert formal adjective) idea—that God is literally a Heavenly Father to mankind. He loves his creations. Appeal to pathos? Oh yeah.

In the end, the emotion behind this essay is cemented by the author’s sincere and impassioned tone. Lewis achieves this tone through his choice to talk of God and Jesus in the past tense as if they really lived and walked this earth. In a few instances, he states that “God knew what would happen… God made us” and implies that God’s actions are in fact historical. He didn’t say God supposedly ¬created man, which would have been a pragmatic approach to appeal to non-Christians, but that he did! The power of concise confidence truly has a more profound effect on persuasion than lengthy sentences that try to cover every possible outcome. While talking of Christ, Lewis takes up an even more deliberate tone in insisting that “either [He] was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman” placing the reader on the spot. Choose now after all the evidence and logic that has been presented. The author’s tone exhibits an unwillingness to portray Christ any less than what he believes Him to be. This confidence and religious reverence effectively stirs emotion in the reader.

Obviously, Christians would find this essay true without a doubt. Therefore, the question that arises is this: did Lewis effectively convince the atheist of God’s existence? Compelling evidence, educated logic, passionate voice, one would assume that Lewis succeeded. Yet, he most likely did not. Religious conversion does not come from the logical rhetoric spectrum, but from personal revelation. The essay’s power cannot come from logic. That’s not to detract from anything C.S. Lewis wrote: his argument indefinitely inspires curiosity. However, personal conversion only comes through one medium, and it’s not structure, metaphor or rhetoric—it’s prayer.