Book Review: The Abolition of Man, by C.S. Lewis

The first thing I learned while reading The Abolition of Man was to remember that most contemporary issues in American thought are able to be traced back to the philosophers and theologians of our parents' and grandparents' generations. Lewis’ critique of “The Green Book” reminds me of the historical context of contemporary postmodernism. Language games are not new to our day. Postmodernism is a new label, but its contents are not that different than what previous generations have encountered. Lewis skillfully highlights the faulty philosophical presuppositions of “The Green Book” for the purpose of showing his readers how “Amateur philosophers” have begun representing themselves as “professional grammarians” (23). By his example, I learn that courage, correct thought and clarity of expression are required to proclaim God’s truth in our culture.

I found it helpful to reflect upon Lewis’ experience as a teacher: “For every one pupil who needs to be guarded from the weak excess of sensibility there are three who need to be awakened from the slumber of cold vulgarity. The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts.” (24) I find the same to be true in my work as a pastor, especially in my teaching ministry at South Boulder’s Southern Sun Pub, at Superior’s Panera Bread store, and at the adult Christian education groups I oversee at Cornerstone Church. It’s not as if my people’s passions are too great. Rather, they come to our meetings burdened with half-hearted desires for many unsatisfying things and need help to see and become more passionate about the truth, goodness and beauty of our truly satisfying God.
Lewis critiques the textbook writers’ inability to show students the difference between good and bad writing. This obliviousness to standards in written art reminds me of the denial of objective standards of beauty so prevalent in American evangelicalism and postmodernism. Perhaps it is somewhat more effective for one of Oxford’s professors of English to elucidate the qualities of good English writing than it might be for a contemporary art fan to explain to his friends why he observes one piece to be objectively and aesthetically superior to another, but it is no less reflective of a Christian’s call to truth, goodness and beauty. Lewis reminds me that God is true, good and beautiful and that the good life is to be found when we reject lies, evil and ugliness.

I confess that I was a bit shocked when I read Lewis using the term “Tao” as a major point in his argument for the reality of universal moral standards and the existence of the conscience. As an American evangelical pastor, I don’t often find myself choosing terms from other religious cultures and then using them for my own communicative purposes. Most often, I find myself explaining the difference between words like justification and sanctification to people who identify themselves with Jesus somehow but don’t give much evidence of actually having been converted. But again I learned from Lewis’ example that one can improve communication to those of another worldview by strategically adopting a truth existing in the other culture for use in making a point within the Christian worldview. Once again, I learn from an historical example of a minister following Paul’s example in Acts 17 when he adopts the language of the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers.

Another learning point for me was Lewis’ helpful analysis of how the authors of "The Green Book" see the world of facts and the world of feelings confronting one another with no rapprochement possible. Lewis forces them to the logical conclusions of this philosophical position. There are no moral ought to’s, should not’s or appropriate responses unless there is a Tao/Truth. The ultimate effects of the unacknowledged philosophical and moral presuppositions expressed in "The Green Book" (and illuminated by Lewis) are the dehumanization of people who have been made in the image of God.

A rhetorical lesson I learned from Lewis was his effective use of language. His phrase “Men without chests” powerfully describes those who are not truly intellectuals, rather devoid of right emotional responses to truth as it is made known to them. “We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings to be fruitful.” (37) I want to learn how to communicate like that in my teaching and writing. Again, I am thankful for Lewis’ example.

Another lesson that I learned in reading this book was the apologetic effectiveness of leading people to the perilous logical conclusions of their worldview and then offering hope of rescue with the gospel of Jesus. In the last chapter/lecture, Lewis persuades his readers that the ultimate outcome of the progressive humanistic worldview is the denial of conscience, the rejection of truth and goodness and beauty, and ultimately the abolition of everything that it means to be human. “Either we are rational spirit obliged for ever to obey the absolute values of the Tao, or else we are mere nature to be kneaded and cut into new shapes for the pleasures of masters who must, by hypothesis, have no motive but their own ‘natural’ impulses…a dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery.” (84-85) This apologetic is grounded upon the existence of a mind and conscience and taste. While it does not quote scripture, it is consistent with the biblical message of the gospel of Jesus. I would have liked to have read more of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus as the solution to these problems, but with Lewis’ extensive writings and lectures elsewhere, this great gospel can and should certainly be assumed by his readers.