Overview
I have a plethora of C. S. Lewis books lying around the house (quite literally, as I am currently without bookshelves for my library of several hundred books). Among the stacks of my “green”[1] books was this thin tome, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer.
While Lewis is known for his Chronicles of Narnia series, he’s also know as an epistemologist, his letters having been collected in countless tomes. In this book, though, the letters aren’t real. Much akin to the Screwtape Letters, Letters to Malcolm features letters to a guy named Malcolm regarding theological issues and concerns.
I was interested to read this, as while at times Lewis can be an annoying writer, he also makes some excellent points and traverses territory where most Christian authors tend to avoid.
Be mindful that in the discussion that follows, I am most likely going to address some theological issues from the perspective of a theist. If that sort of thing doesn’t appeal to you, you have been warned.
Synopsis
As I mentioned above, this book takes place in a series of letters to a fictional person named Malcolm, and old school chum of the author’s (presumed to be Lewis himself for the purpose of this discussion). While we only see Lewis’ responses, we get a picture of them having a lively discussion of prayer, including the big questions like “Why bother if God already knows what you need?”.
The discussion drifts from speculative to real as one of their close friends suffers a malady, for which they pray.
In the end, Lewis presents Malcolm a wonderful overview of the whys and wherefores of prayer, even if he sometimes ventures into territory that some (i.e., protestants) might consider against what they believe (including an interesting support of the concept of purgatory).
Analysis
I was going to write out an analysis of each chapter, but let’s face it: I’m too busy. Instead, I’ll do my best to cover the things I found interesting and noteworthy in the book.
In one letter, Lewis balances the importance of living a Godly and Christlike life versus observing all the sacraments. While some may see these as mutual things, his point is not to stop observing communion, but instead to not let the observation of communion from getting in the way of making you a good Christian.
In his discussion of “canned” prayer, he made a wonderful allusion to marriage. If you’re no good at writing poems, reading poems to your spouse can be just as romantic. Likewise, in your relationship with God, a canned prayer may be just as sweet to God’s ears as one you laboriously piece together. However, Lewis points out later that this does not mean that prayers are recipes or incantations that get God to give you what you want.
In the Bible, there is a passage about prayer, and how you should lock yourself in your closet and be alone when you pray. Lewis, though, points out something that I too struggle with when I’m alone with myself doing anything: all that silence and solitude is distracting. We need “the right amount of distraction” to help us stay focused. This part really intrigued me, as I could totally relate.
Lewis also covers other aspects, like the Lord’s Prayer (though, unlike Phillip Keller, he does so in a single letter). Things that I thought were interesting were Lewis’ take on the temporal nature of God (That is, the general belief is that God knows the future, and therefore, why do we even pray? God knows what’s going to happen, etc., etc.), as well as Lewis’ claim that we should pray for the dead (something Protestants really don’t do).
The argument for this, as well as for purgatory, were rather interesting, and a little complex. They deal mostly with the difference between “Heaven” and “New Heaven”.
All in all, I enjoyed this book, even if Lewis can be stodgy at times, telling jokes that, let’s face it, only he finds are funny. In the end, though I find epistolary works to be one of the least interesting forms of writing, I found Lewis had a lot interesting and informative things to say.
[1] This is my attempt at humor, to distinguish unread books from read (“red”) books.
No comments:
Post a Comment