Page
3
of 7
The Great Divorce: Lessons from Three Ghostly Encounters
Kyle D. Panchot
APOL 330: C.S. Lewis and the Apologetic Imagination
Professor Seth Johnson
11 August 2025
Introduction
C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce offers a view of the afterlife through the stories of the
narrator, who is a ghost himself, as well as his observation of various encounters of his
fellow ghosts with those who have been sent to help them.
In each case, these helpers try to persuade them to give up the various things that they
cling to from their previous life, making it clear that they cannot progress any further
while clinging to these distorted desires.
➢ "But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor anyone who practices abomination or
falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life." (Revelation
21:27)1
In the following, we will consider three cases: the Big Man who is still angry over the
murder of his foreman, the Episcopal Bishop who refuses to yield to God’s revealed
truth, and the grieving mother who cannot let go of her grief for her son.
1 Rev 21:27, RSV–2CE.Introduction
C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce offers a view of the afterlife through the stories of the
narrator, who is a ghost himself, as well as his observation of various encounters of his
fellow ghosts with those who have been sent to help them.
In each case, these helpers try to persuade them to give up the various things that they
cling to from their previous life, making it clear that they cannot progress any further
while clinging to these distorted desires.
➢ "But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor anyone who practices abomination or
falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life." (Revelation
21:27)1
In the following, we will consider three cases: the Big Man who is still angry over the
murder of his foreman, the Episcopal Bishop who refuses to yield to God’s revealed
truth, and the grieving mother who cannot let go of her grief for her son.
1 Rev 21:27, RSV–2CE.
Ghost One: The Big Self-Righteous Man
➢ "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom 3:23)2
It seems that the bright spirits who are sent to encounter, the ghosts are the very ones who
are likely to provoke them. We see this in Len, the former employee of the Big Ghost,
who in life had murdered his foreman, Jack.3
Where at first it seems that the bright spirits are chosen simply because they were known
to the ghosts in life, it quickly becomes apparent that they have been chosen because they
are the ones most likely to get at the heart of the sin which is holding the ghost back from
embracing God.
Like Jesus’ words to the Rich Young Man, who claimed to have kept the commandments
since childhood, our Lord tells him to go and sell everything he owns foreseeing the one
thing which he was unwilling to do.4
So Len is sent to the Big Man, and not only has the Big Man not forgiven him for
murdering Jack, but he is shocked to see him in heaven. Like the Rich Young Man, the
Big Man fancies himself as always having done what was right. He makes the mistake of
assuming that he can earn his way into heaven and does not understand how Len, who
was in life a murderer, could be so easily forgiven. He assumes if Len is there, it must be
an act of charity which he wants no part of. But Len points out, “All is charity here: there
is no earning.”5
The Big Ghost’s primary sin is one of pride. Pride is the queen of vices the one from
which all other vices flow. At the root of pride is loving oneself above others. As St.
Augustine warns, “the root of evil is love of self to the point of contempt for God.”6
2 Rom 3:23, RSV–2CE.
3 C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce (New York: HarperOne, 2015), 32.
4 Mk 10:17–22, RSV–2CE.
5 Lewis, The Great Divorce, 28.
6 Augustine, City of God, trans. Marcus Dods (New York: Modern Library, 1950), 14.28.
Ghost Two: The Episcopal Bishop
➢ "Claiming to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:22)7
In the Episcopal Ghost, we see a different kind of pride type of intellectual pride which
seems to be all too common today.
In the story, we meet a ghost who in life was an Episcopal Bishop and who seems to have
always been more interested in intellectualizing the faith than putting it into practice.8
When the bright Spirit offers to bring him deeper into the heavenly realm, the Bishop
replies that he thinks he would be more helpful where he currently is, with his meetings
and classes.
When the bright Spirit objects, the Bishop responds: “My dear boy, we mustn’t be
narrow. We must keep an open mind.” He continues, “But of course, to the enlightened
mind, the Eternal Being is not something so crude as you seem to suppose. There are
many ways up the mountain, you know.”9
Little does he realize that by rejecting anything as absolute truth, he is having the ultimate
closed mind. Finally, after stating his desire to read a particularly blasphemous paper and
saying, “I must refuse. I believe in keeping all questions open. We mustn’t
dogmatise...We mustn’t settle down in any final position, not even in Heaven,” it
becomes clear that he rejects divine revelation itself.10
The Bishop’s sin is a type of pride in his own intellectual prowess. Unwilling to yield to
what God has revealed and take it at face value, he assumes that he knows better.
"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching
ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings." (2 Timothy
4:3)11
7 Rom 1:22, RSV–2CE.
8 Lewis, The Great Divorce, 66.
9 Ibid., 67.
10 Ibid., 68.
11 2 Tim 4:3, RSV–2CE.
Ghost Three: The Grieving Mother
➢ “He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who
loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10:37)12
In the book, Pam is a grieving mother who lost her son Michael. In the afterlife, she
expected to be greeted by her son Michael, but instead is greeted by her brother
Reginald.13
If only she would surrender herself to God, then she would be able to see Michael. But
unwilling to give up her grief, which has taken on a possessive nature, she first insists on
seeing Michael before she is willing to submit to God.
She says, “I must have Michael and I can’t and won’t come without him...If Michael is
not mine, if he is not the centre of my life, what is the good of Heaven to me?”14
Her love for her child has become distorted, being both idolatrous and self-centered.
Whereas if it were properly ordered, she would love God first, and through her love for
God she would have greater love for her son Michael. But by putting Michael above God,
her love has become corrupted neither loving God nor Michael but primarily loving
herself. Through her possessiveness of her son, she not only rejects God, she makes it
clear that as long as she is reunited with him, she is willing to drag Michael down to hell
with her.
True love is willing the good of the other, and the ultimate good for any creature is to be
united with the Creator.15 Her brother Reginald makes this point by saying, “You cannot
have that boy without God. There is no other way. It is only the weaker part of your love
that wants Michael for your own, apart from God. The stronger part of your love desires
Michael’s good and that is God.”16
Pam’s primary sin was one of idolatry choosing to put her love for her son above her love
for God and ultimately, by doing so, ending up not loving either.
As St. Thomas Aquinas writes: “To love is to will the good of another; therefore, to love
is an act of the will.”17
12 Mt 10:37, RSV–2CE.
13 Lewis, The Great Divorce, 103.
14 Ibid., 104.
15 Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I–II, q. 26, a. 4.
16 Lewis, The Great Divorce, 105.
17 Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I–II, q. 26, a. 4.
Conclusion
Evil does not exist in and of itself; all sin is the twisting of that which is good, by taking
it out of the context for which it was designed.18
➢ “God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.” (Genesis
1:31)19
Because Satan, being a creature, has no creative power, he can only take that which is
created by God and twist it by using it for a purpose it was not intended for.
God heals us by reordering our disordered desires back to their original intent. However,
He will not force this process upon us; He will only do so if we yield ourselves to His
greater design.
C.S. Lewis makes it clear that God does not choose anyone for hell, but that we choose to
separate ourselves from Him, and ultimately, God respects our choice.
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be
done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell,
choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and
constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is
opened.”20
18 Lewis, The Great Divorce, 118.
19 Gen 1:31, RSV–2CE.
20 Lewis, The Great Divorce, 72.
Bibliography
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican
Province. New York: Benzinger Bros., 1947.
Augustine. The City of God. Translated by Marcus Dods. New York: Modern Library,
1950.
Holy Bible. Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius
Press, 2006.
Lewis, C.S. The Great Divorce. New York: HarperCollins, 2001.Bibliography
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican
Province. New York: Benzinger Bros., 1947.
Augustine. The City of God. Translated by Marcus Dods. New York: Modern Library,
1950.
Holy Bible. Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius
Press, 2006.
Lewis, C.S. The Great Divorce. New York: HarperCollins, 2001.
No comments:
Post a Comment