Discussion Thread: Compare and Contrast "The Screwtape Letters" and "The Great Divorce"

The submissions for this assignment are posts in the assignment's discussion. Below are the discussion posts for Kyle Panchot, or you can view the full discussion.

from Discussion Thread: Compare and Contrast "The Screwtape Letters" and "The Great Divorce"

Aug 13, 2025 7:49AM

Kyle Panchot

Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.^1

If one were to read only The Screwtape Letters, they might come away with the impression that C. S. Lewis believes the main obstacle to union with God is demonic activity. On the other hand, if they were to read only The Great Divorce, they might conclude that the main obstacle is human free will. However, these are really just two sides of the same coin.

In The Screwtape Letters, even the demons are concerned about human free will. That is why Wormwood cautions Screwtape not to be overly obvious about his demonic activity:

> “The fact that ‘devils’ are predominantly comic figures in the modern imagination will help you. If any faint suspicion of your existence begins to arise in his mind, suggest to him a picture of something in red tights… persuade him… he therefore cannot believe in you.”^2

I have always thought that one reason why demonic activity is more common in the third world than in the developed West is that in the West we tend to brush off anything supernatural as mere superstition. So long as we do not believe in the supernatural, why would demons show themselves when they already have us right where they want us?

> “We are really faced with a cruel dilemma. When humans disbelieve in our existence we lose all the pleasing results of direct terrorism… On the other hand, when they believe in us, we cannot make them materialists and skeptics.”^3

Demons do not have to possess us to get us to do evil things. Our own inclination toward sin is more than enough for that:

> “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.”^4

 

 

 

 

---

 

Footnotes

 

1. 1 Pet. 5:8 (RSV-2CE).

 

2. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (New York: HarperOne, 2015), 2.

 

3. Ibid., 8.

 

4. Jas. 1:14–15 (RSV-2CE).

 

---

 

Bibliography

 

Lewis, C. S. The Screwtape Letters. New York: HarperOne, 2015.

The Holy Bible. Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006.

The Great Divorce Character Analysis Assignment

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.

Discussion Thread: The Great Divorce

The submissions for this assignment are posts in the assignment's discussion. Below are the discussion posts for Kyle Panchot, or you can view the full discussion.

from Discussion Thread: The Great Divorce

Jul 31, 2025 3:25PM

Kyle Panchot

Here is your formatted Turabian-style paper based on the draft you provided:

 

The Great Divorce is a book by C.S. Lewis which explores the nature of the afterlife. It starts with the narrator waiting in line to get on a bus, leaving what seems to be an empty town—empty, that is, of population, not of furnishings. While the town itself seems to have plenty of things in it, the only people the narrator encounters are those waiting for the bus. While he's waiting in line, various people start mumbling to themselves or arguing with others and leave the line. Where the people go when they leave the line, the book does not make clear.

The Grey Town

The town in which the story begins is referred to as the Grey Town. Soon, while on the bus, we learn why the Grey Town is seemingly empty: the inhabitants cannot get along with each other and quickly move further and further away—to the point where one might travel for many years without encountering anyone. It seems the inhabitants are free to leave at any time by traveling to the bus stop and catching the bus to another location. But as time goes on and the inhabitants move further and further away from both the bus stop and each other, this becomes less and less practical—and they seem less likely to want to.

This Grey Town seems to represent Hell—not Hell as in Gehenna or the Lake of Fire, because we have people who are free to move on to the next realm—but Hell like Sheol or Hades: the abode of the dead, where both the evil and the righteous temporarily go, and for each it is a foreshadowing of things to come.

For a biblical reference, we can look at Revelation 20:13–14 describing the Last Judgment:

“The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.”¹

The Next Realm

Upon the bus arriving at a new location, the inhabitants are transformed into something more ghostlike, where they are transparent, and everyday objects seem to hurt them—for instance, the blades of grass cut their feet as they walk.

This is almost the exact opposite of the modern-day cultural perception of ghosts, where nothing can hurt them because things pass right through them. Here, things hurt them precisely because the world is more solid than they are.

Ultimately, the narrator comes to realize that it is not the people who have changed, but the objects in this world have become so much harder that the people themselves are like ghosts in comparison.

Purgatory

The spirits are terrified at this new situation in which even the smallest things can hurt or gravely injure them. As the ghosts are paralyzed with fear, soon beings of glowing light arrive. These are solid, much like the ghosts once were.

They inform the ghosts that if they would make a journey, they would become like the glowing ones. But because of the state of the ghosts in this realm, it is clear the journey will be a long and painful one. The new arrivals offer their assistance to the ghosts, doing whatever they can to make the journey easier for them. But the ghosts that reject them do so with a myriad of excuses that clearly relate to their spiritual state during life and into the afterlife.

This realm of the book seems to have a direct correlation with the idea of Purgatory—which should not be surprising, since C.S. Lewis makes clear his belief in the doctrine. In Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, he writes:

“Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, ‘It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into joy’? Should we not reply, ‘With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleaned first.’ ‘It may hurt, you know’—‘Even so, sir.’”²

“I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. I am not sure that the suffering of Purgatory is not the joy of being healed.”³

Though there is one important distinction that separates Purgatory as taught by the Catholic Church from that depicted in the book: in the Catholic view, Purgatory is only for those who die in friendship with God and, as such, Heaven is their ultimate destination. That is not to say they couldn't still reject it if they so wanted to, but at that point, no soul would want to—any more than any soul in Heaven would. But in the book, not only are souls able to reject further purification—they often outright do.

Conclusion

Keeping in mind C.S. Lewis’s warning that The Great Divorce is a work of fiction and not theology, after looking at passages from the book as well as his other works, it seems he believes that each individual is given enough grace to respond to God's call—but not forced to answer.

So long as we cooperate with God's grace, He takes us through a process of perfecting, which starts in this life and continues into the next until we are ready and prepared for heavenly glory.

Lewis seems to believe that human free will to choose or reject God is demanded by God's love for us. And that those who end up in Hell do so through their own free will. As Lewis writes:

“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.”⁴

Footnotes

Rev. 20:13–14 (RSVCE).

C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer (New York: Harcourt, 1964), 108.

Ibid.

C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce (New York: HarperOne, 2001), 75.

Bibliography

Lewis, C.S. Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer. New York: Harcourt, 1964.

Lewis, C.S. The Great Divorce. New York: HarperOne, 2001.

The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006.

 

from Discussion Thread: The Great Divorce

Aug 3, 2025 9:48AM

Kyle Panchot

Hello Andrew, thank you for the post. 

I agree that today many people, even those who think that they are worshiping the true God in fact are worshiping a false god. A sort of idol of their own making. Because they worship a God they have created in their own minds. As opposed to worshiping him as he truly is. 

I too have noticed this about Jordan Peterson. Like a lot of people today there seems to be a lot of intellectual pride there. But he does seem to be searching for the truth. Even if for the time being he can't quite rap his head around it. It goes to show that none of us can grasp the truth of God unless the holy Spirit illuminates their mind.

“Who has learned your counsel, unless you have given wisdom and sent your holy Spirit from on high?”

— Wisdom 9:17, RSV-2CE

But it does seem the holy Spirit has planted seeds there. so we should continue to pray for him and others who are seeking. that God might cause the seeds to grow and then it might blum into a full-fledged faith.

from Discussion Thread: The Great Divorce

Aug 3, 2025 11:03AM

Kyle Panchot

Hello Thomas, thank you for this post. It hits kind of close to home for me. Because the big ghost reminds me a lot of my grandfather while he was alive. He was a kind and principled man with a keen sense of right and wrong but he was also very proud. He once asked him about his belief in God, and his basic reply was that he didn't want anything to do with the God that would forgive King David. He was a giant and imposing figure in my life and to my shame that was the last time I had the courage to breach the subject with him. Later on in his life he became terminally ill and the process of the illness noticeably softened him. I hold out hope that he may have come to faith. But one of my greatest regrets is that if he did, that I didn't have the courage to play a greater part in it.

 

The Liar, Lunatic, or Lord Essay Assignment

Page

1

of 7

The Liar, Lunatic, or Lord Essay

Kyle D. Panchot

APOL 330 – C. S. Lewis and the Apologetic Imagination

Professor Seth Johnson

27 July 2025

Seth Johnson

Good title page!

1

Did Jesus Claim to Be God

C.S. Lewis famously puts forth an argument for the divinity of Christ by suggesting that there are

only three conclusions we can draw from what He says in Scripture: that He was either lying, He

was crazy, or He was what He claimed to be—God incarnate. Out of these three, only one makes

sense of the information given to us.

As C.S. Lewis points out, for a Jew to claim to be God was unheard of. Even among the

Gentiles, though some monarchs claimed divinity, none went so far as to claim to be the one true

God. But in Scripture, that seems to be exactly what Jesus does.

Forgiving Sins

“Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark

2:7).i

In the above passage, the Pharisees rightfully point out that only God can forgive sins. But Jesus

claims to be able to do exactly that:

“Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your

pallet and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive

sins"—He said to the paralytic—"‘I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.’” (Mark

2:9–11).ii

And not only does He claim to have this power, which is the prerogative of God alone, He goes

one step further by giving it to His apostles:

“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, even so I send you.’

And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If

you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’”

(John 20:21–23).iii

As Lewis points out, “The claims to forgive sins, unless the proponent is God, is really so

preposterous as to be comic.”iv He also writes, “He told people that their sins were forgiven and

never waited to consult all of the people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He

unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned—the person chiefly offended in

all offenses.”v

Invokes the Divine Name

“The Jews then said to Him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?’

Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.’ So they took up stones

to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple” (John 8:57–59).vi

Seth Johnson

New paragraphs should be indented properly.

2

Here Jesus not only claims to be older than Abraham, but by invoking the divine name given to

Moses by God (Exodus 3:14), He claims to be God Himself, the one through whom all was

created.

Accepted Worship Due to God

“Thomas answered Him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Jesus said to him, ‘Have you believed because

you have seen Me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.’” (John 20:28–29).vii

Here we see Thomas explicitly calling Jesus God, and Jesus makes no attempt to rebuke him. In

the next couple of passages we see that He goes so far as to let the women at the tomb worship

Him:

“So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell His disciples.

And behold, Jesus met them and said, ‘Hail!’ And they came up and took hold of His feet and

worshiped Him.” (Matthew 28:8–9).viii

And He also lets the twelve apostles worship Him:

“While He blessed them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven. And they

worshiped Him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.” (Luke 24:51–52).ix

Liar

Since the time our Lord came claiming to be God, there have been many individuals who have

come claiming to be our Lord. In our own day, there have been several who have claimed to be

Jesus come again. And in each case, except for a very small number of people, far from evoking

belief and devotion, they evoke ridicule and quickly fall into obscurity. Throughout the years,

undoubtedly, there have been many more that we are not aware of, but their names have been

lost to the sands of time.

But with Jesus it is different. Far from mocking Him, even the greatest critics of Christianity

seem to not dare question His integrity, preferring instead to claim that He was just a great moral

teacher. But it is worth asking if a great moral teacher would make the claims that He made and

do the things that He did.

If someone had the audacity to say something like, “He who loves father or mother more than

Me is not worthy of Me... He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My

sake will find it” (Matthew 10:37–39),x would he be considered a great moral teacher?

I think people's reluctance to call into question His integrity has a lot to do with a feeling that He

is not like other men. A man who lies does so for some personal gain, but Jesus did not act in this

way. He spent His time going around preaching and healing and asking for nothing in return. Far

from asking for something in return, He would steadfastly go down a path that would lead to His

gruesome death.

Seth Johnson

A beautiful and powerful quote from the NT.

3

Lunatic

So if Jesus was not lying, was He perhaps insane? I don't think so, nor did His followers seem to

think so. In fact, at any given point it seemed that Jesus was the one with the clearest mind in the

room.

From the time of His childhood into His adult ministry, we're constantly told that people

marveled at His wisdom and His teachings. Just to list a couple: in Luke 2:46–47, we read about

the 12-year-old Jesus in the Temple, and it says, “all who heard Him were amazed at His

understanding and His answers.”xi And in Luke 4:22, while teaching in the synagogue, we are

told, “all spoke well of Him and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of His

mouth.”xii

These are just a couple of the many passages of Jesus being held in high regard. So clearly, the

people of Jesus's day did not think that He was insane.

Would the Argument Be Persuasive Today

Whether Lewis's argument is persuasive today is going to depend largely on whether you accept

that Scripture is reliable or not. For those who accept the reliability of Scripture, then yes, I

believe that Lewis's argument is highly persuasive today.

But much has been done in recent decades by biblical scholars to call into question the reliability

of Scripture. For those who take this view, Lewis's argument will probably be unconvincing.

Though the general reliability of Scripture is beyond the scope of this essay, I believe that

modern biblical scholarship is plagued by a couple of critical flaws. Though there are insights

that we can glean through modern biblical scholarship, a lot of it suffers from an anti-

supernatural bias as well as a certain intellectual snobbery, where they see themselves as

intellectually superior to those in the past and, as such, think they see things more clearly.xiii

C.S. Lewis offers the following critique in his essay "Fern-seed and Elephants": “The idea that

any man or writer should be opaque to those who lived in the same culture, spoke the same

language, shared the same habitual imagery and unconscious assumptions, and yet be transparent

to those who have none of these advantages, is in my opinion preposterous.”

In the opinion of these intellectuals, I can't help seeing a parallel between them and certain

modern theologians who believe that their interpretation of Scripture is more faithful to the

gospel than those who were far closer in time and place to the apostles themselves, and in some

cases even chosen by them. As G.K. Chesterton points out, “Tradition means giving votes to the

most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to

submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.”xiv

Seth Johnson

Interesting quote here by Chesterton.

4

Conclusion

As we have seen above, Lewis's argument as well as his conclusion reflect the teachings of

Scripture in that they draw the same conclusion: that Jesus Christ is both Lord and God, and as

such, we should fall to our knees and worship Him.

Seth Johnson

I remember reading the basic thrust of Lewis' argument years ago. It has stuck with me. The New Testament presents Jesus making certain claims about Himself that someone who is merely a good teacher just couldn't make. How is it that Jesus could say that before Abraham was, "I am"? (John 8:58). As a passage of Scripture, I think the entirety of John 8:48-59 is instructive.

Thank you for your thoughts on this very serious subject matter. I think we have to make a choice about how we view Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament. The Gospel of John is particularly strong on the topic. Thank you for reflecting on this matter.

[...]

5

i Mark 2:7 (RSV-2CE).

ii Mark 2:9–11 (RSV-2CE).

iii John 20:21–23 (RSV-2CE).

iv C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperOne, 2001), 52.

v Ibid., 53.

vi John 8:57–59 (RSV-2CE).

vii John 20:28–29 (RSV-2CE).

viii Matthew 28:8–9 (RSV-2CE).

ix Luke 24:51–52 (RSV-2CE).

x Matthew 10:37–39 (RSV-2CE).

xi Luke 2:46–47 (RSV-2CE).

xii Luke 4:22 (RSV-2CE).

xiii C.S. Lewis, “Fern-seed and Elephants,” in Fern-seed and Elephants and Other Essays on Christianity

(London: Fount Paperbacks, 1975), 106.

xiv G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1908), 85.

Seth Johnson

Research how to use proper Turabian footnotes as opposed to end-notes.

6

Bibliography

Chesterton, G.K. Orthodoxy. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1908.

Lewis, C.S. Fern-seed and Elephants and Other Essays on Christianity. London: Fount

Paperbacks, 1975.

Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperOne, 2001.

The Holy Bible. Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius

Press, 2006.

The Moral Law Reflection Assignment

Page

of 2

Zoom

---

Part 1
Why is the moral law self-evident
The moral law is self-evident because we can’t help but feel it.
When I was a young child, I was staying overnight at my aunt’s house, and my older
cousin suggested that we watch an R-rated movie, which was inappropriate for my age.
At such a young age, I did not know it would be wrong for me to watch it. I had not
expected it to be bad, but afterwards I felt extremely guilty.
The fact that I can find myself in a situation, not even consciously knowing that it’s
wrong, yet still feel guilty about it afterwards, points to the fact that the knowledge that
it’s wrong has come from somewhere beyond myself.
Though we know the law, why don’t we follow it
In future years, I would do far greater wrongs but feel far less guilt about them. The fact
that my feelings of guilt were never as strong as that one instance when I was a child, I
think, highlights an important principle. That is, as we commit sin, it clouds our judgment
and makes us more inclined to sin again, which helps to explain why, though we feel the
moral law in our hearts, we increasingly have the temptation not to follow it.
I believe the extreme guilt I felt was a product of my relative purity, being that I was fairly
young. I was seeing more clearly than I would see in the following years.
Thankfully, the opposite is also true. As we draw close to God, who is the author of all
truth, we start to see reality more clearly; we start to see it as it really is. This is why one
of the hallmarks of the great saints is that, as they grew in holiness, they were more
starkly aware of their own sin.
Why does all of this point to God
This points to God because it reveals a knowledge within us, which we could not have
known by our own power but must have been put there by something beyond ourselves.
This knowledge becomes stronger or weaker, clearer or more unclear, as we draw
closer to or further away from the One who put it there.

Part 1
Why is the moral law self-evident
The moral law is self-evident because we can’t help but feel it.
When I was a young child, I was staying overnight at my aunt’s house, and my older
cousin suggested that we watch an R-rated movie, which was inappropriate for my age.
At such a young age, I did not know it would be wrong for me to watch it. I had not
expected it to be bad, but afterwards I felt extremely guilty.
The fact that I can find myself in a situation, not even consciously knowing that it’s
wrong, yet still feel guilty about it afterwards, points to the fact that the knowledge that
it’s wrong has come from somewhere beyond myself.
Though we know the law, why don’t we follow it
In future years, I would do far greater wrongs but feel far less guilt about them. The fact
that my feelings of guilt were never as strong as that one instance when I was a child, I
think, highlights an important principle. That is, as we commit sin, it clouds our judgment
and makes us more inclined to sin again, which helps to explain why, though we feel the
moral law in our hearts, we increasingly have the temptation not to follow it.
I believe the extreme guilt I felt was a product of my relative purity, being that I was fairly
young. I was seeing more clearly than I would see in the following years.
Thankfully, the opposite is also true. As we draw close to God, who is the author of all
truth, we start to see reality more clearly; we start to see it as it really is. This is why one
of the hallmarks of the great saints is that, as they grew in holiness, they were more
starkly aware of their own sin.
Why does all of this point to God
This points to God because it reveals a knowledge within us, which we could not have
known by our own power but must have been put there by something beyond ourselves.
This knowledge becomes stronger or weaker, clearer or more unclear, as we draw
closer to or further away from the One who put it there.

• Seth Johnson

Part 2
The moral law in my own life
These principles have affected my own life profoundly. Oftentimes, when I have fought
against my own temptations, those temptations have become stronger. Whether this is
due to my own inclination to sin, attacks from the demonic realm, or a combination of
the two, I cannot be sure. But I have learned over the years that I cannot overcome
them on my own; they can only be overcome by drawing close to God and trusting in
His grace to help me.
Oftentimes I have not felt like drawing close to Him, but I have found that if I look upon it
as a sort of duty to be done, whether or not I feel like it, He is faithful to meet me where I
am and bring me the rest of the way.
I’ve also learned that God because he has made us both physical as well as spiritual
beings, that he often works through physical means. This takes the form of my Christian
brothers and sisters praying for me and keeping me accountable, the graces I receive
through the sacraments of the Church, and the beauty of the liturgical year itself, with its
moments throughout the year calling me to stop and reflect on my own walk with God,
examining my life and making changes where needed.

Part 2
The moral law in my own life
These principles have affected my own life profoundly. Oftentimes, when I have fought
against my own temptations, those temptations have become stronger. Whether this is
due to my own inclination to sin, attacks from the demonic realm, or a combination of
the two, I cannot be sure. But I have learned over the years that I cannot overcome
them on my own; they can only be overcome by drawing close to God and trusting in
His grace to help me.
Oftentimes I have not felt like drawing close to Him, but I have found that if I look upon it
as a sort of duty to be done, whether or not I feel like it, He is faithful to meet me where I
am and bring me the rest of the way.
I’ve also learned that God because he has made us both physical as well as spiritual
beings, that he often works through physical means. This takes the form of my Christian
brothers and sisters praying for me and keeping me accountable, the graces I receive
through the sacraments of the Church, and the beauty of the liturgical year itself, with its
moments throughout the year calling me to stop and reflect on my own walk with God,
examining my life and making changes where needed.

• Seth Johnson

• Seth Johnson

Discussion Thread: The Undeniable Moral Law

The submissions for this assignment are posts in the assignment's discussion. Below are the discussion posts for Kyle Panchot, or you can view the full discussion.

from Discussion Thread: The Undeniable Moral Law

Jul 10, 2025 5:23PM

Kyle Panchot

 

What Does Lewis Mean When He Says, “Wherever You Find a Man Who Says He Does Not Believe in a Real Right and Wrong, You Will Find the Same Man Going Back on This a Moment Later”?

He means that, though a man may deny believing in a universal moral law, inwardly he still knows it is true. As soon as he is the one being wronged, he will likely appeal to that law as grounds for why the perceived wrong must be righted. If he is the accused, he will invoke it as the basis for why he did not transgress the law in the first place. Either way, his actions—whether he is conscious of it or not—betray the fact that he is, on some level, aware of that moral law.¹

Romans 2:14–15 — “When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires … they show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness.”²

An example of this would be a man who risks his life to save someone else’s child.

Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene, offers an alternative explanation of the law of human nature, arguing that one’s motivations are governed by whatever is most likely to preserve one’s own genes. While this may explain a father’s inclination to risk his life for the sake of his child, it does not explain the inclination of a man to risk his life for a stranger’s child. If he were placed in that situation and failed to act, he would surely be haunted by his inaction.³

Nor does it explain a man who fulfills his civic duty by leaving his family and going off to war—especially a war far from home.

John 15:13 — “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”⁴

In both cases, if he were to perish, he would be putting his own family in harm’s way by doing so. Yet something inside him tells him he has a responsibility beyond his own family and, if he can reasonably do so, he should act to defend his neighbor’s family as well.

Leviticus 19:18, 34 — “You shall love your neighbor as yourself … the stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native, and you shall love him as yourself.”⁵

The force of this truth can almost be heard in Cain’s defensive reply, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Deep inside, he knows the answer is yes—and that he has failed to keep his brother in the worst possible way.

All of this points to something in the human condition that is external to itself. If there is something within a man that compels him to act not only against his own self-interest but also against the self-interest of those closest to him, then—regardless of whether he chooses to act—that impulse must have its origin in something external to himself. Someone beyond him makes a claim on that man and a claim on his actions, and that Someone can only be God.

“You have made us for Yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in You.”
— Saint Augustine, Confessions, Book I, chapter 1 (1.1.1).⁶

---

Notes

1. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952), 5.
2. Rom. 2:14–15 (RSV-2CE).
3. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 11.
4. John 15:13 (RSV-2CE).
5. Lev. 19:18, 34 (RSV-2CE).
6. Augustine, Confessions, trans. Henry Chadwick (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 3.

---

Bibliography

Augustine. Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.

Holy Bible. Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1952.

 

from Discussion Thread: The Undeniable Moral Law

Jul 12, 2025 4:17PM

Kyle Panchot

Hello Jeri,

That is a very interesting example you give using slavery. It is true that our culture’s universal condemnation of slavery today points to an ultimate moral truth. But what I find interesting about the example is that, in the past, it was exactly the opposite—slavery was almost universally accepted around the world until the values of Christianity gradually persuaded people that slavery was immoral.

Perhaps this is an example of how, though we know the moral law written on our hearts, we often fail to follow it. This certainly applies to individuals, but perhaps it applies to entire societies as well. For example, the Nazis with their treatment of the Jews, or the Aztecs with their human sacrifices. In these societies, these things were largely accepted, though maybe not universally. I imagine that if the roles were reversed and, overnight, those in power became the victims, they would be quick to object on moral grounds that it was unjust.

“Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right…” (Isaiah 10:1–2).¹

---

Citations (Footnotes)

1. Isaiah 10:1–2 (RSV-2CE).

 

---

Bibliography

The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006.

from Discussion Thread: The Undeniable Moral Law

Jul 12, 2025 5:00PM

Kyle Panchot

Hi Jessica, thanks for the post.

 

You wrote that, “one thing that they claim is that there is no ultimate truth and no ultimate right or wrong. Part of this is due to the fact that they believe we're all products of evolution... so it goes to reason for them at least that there shouldn't be any right or wrong.”

 

I completely agree with you on this. I have often in the past expressed my lack of surprise at the increase in mass shootings, because I find there to be a certain logic behind them. If we are all products of a Darwinistic, atheistic type of evolution—where we are here by a cosmic accident, and our continued existence relies on the survival of the fittest—then if I'm tired of my life and I have a beef with you, why should I not take you out with me? I see it as taking their logic to its natural conclusion.

 

Though it is interesting to see that many of those on the left, while holding to the exact same worldview, express a universal moral outcry over such an event. Not only are they being inconsistent with their own worldview, but their outrage is also a reaction that is almost instinctive. Though it goes against their professed beliefs, they almost can't help it—which, as you rightly point out, points to a higher truth, something beyond their own reasoning.

 

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20).¹

 

 

---

 

Citations

 

1. Isaiah 5:20 (RSV-2CE).

 

 

 

 

---

 

Bibliography

 

The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition. San Francisco:

Ignatius Press, 2006.

 

 

 

The Tempter’s Challenge Essay

 

The Tempter’s Challenge Essay

 

Kyle D Panchot
APOL 330: C.S. Lewis and the Apologetic Imagination
July 6, 2025
Professor Seth Johnson

 

Introduction

“Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour”¹

C. S. Lewis’s book The Screwtape Letters is a timeless classic, offering deep insight into the Christian life and the ways the devil may seek to attack it. Though it was written in the 1940s, it remains particularly relevant today. The effectiveness of the methods Lewis describes has only increased over time. In the following, I wish to describe some of these methods.

Distractions

“But the cares of the world, and the delight in riches, and the desire for other things, enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful”²

At first, Screwtape seems content to use the distractions of daily life to keep the client from thinking about God or higher truths. By focusing his attention on the day-to-day grind, he will not have time to stop and ponder deeper matters. When those higher thoughts do creep into the client’s mind, Screwtape advises using practical concerns—like satisfying hunger by breaking for lunch—as a distraction.

This is particularly relevant in our modern world of social media and short videos, where algorithms learn your personal tastes and feed you an endless supply of videos and posts tailored to those tastes.

Cultivating Pride

“God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble”³

Screwtape advises Wormwood to cultivate pride in his patient. Pride is the king of vices; it is the root from which all sin derives. It is pride that turns one inward, seeking to put one’s own needs above all others. It was pride that caused Lucifer to say, “I will not serve,” and it was pride that led our first parents to give in to the temptation of being like God.

The irony is that when, out of love, we set aside our pride and put others’ needs before our own, we are more like God than at any other time. But pride brings a certain blindness, where we often cannot see what is right before our eyes.

Lewis writes, “You must bring him to a condition in which he can practise self-examination for an hour without discovering any of those facts about himself which are perfectly clear to anyone who has ever lived in the same house with him.”⁴

Natural Inclination Toward Sin

“For I know that nothing good dwells within me… For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do”⁵

When the man encounters the living God—whom Screwtape calls “the Enemy”—the demon shifts his strategy. He exploits every person’s natural inclination toward self-centeredness to pit the man against those around him, urging him to notice all the little things people do that annoy him. By focusing on the faults of others and his preconceived notions of them, he is less likely to examine himself seriously.

This becomes especially apparent in his interactions with his mother, whom he is encouraged to think acts deliberately to irritate him.

Alongside social media distractions, the internet has spawned phenomena like the keyboard warrior and the internet troll, both emboldened by anonymity to treat others in ways they never would face to face.

Sexual Desire

“Do not desire her beauty in your heart, and do not let her capture you with her eyelashes; for the price of a harlot is only a loaf of bread, but a married woman hunts down a precious life. Can a man carry fire in his bosom and his clothes not be burned?”⁶

Screwtape urges the client to act on his base desires, viewing the object of his affection as merely that—an object to conquer and use for his own gratification, not someone to be loved and protected. By encouraging him to act on these desires, they hope to bind him to someone with whom he will be unequally yoked, ultimately bringing both pain and suffering.

Today we are bombarded by sexual content from every angle, all designed to inflame passions and manipulate us—whether through overtly sexualized imagery on screens and magazines, fantasies peddled in so-called romance novels, or explicit material online. All of this stems from the sexual revolution, which was fueled by the Church’s compromise on its teaching about the immorality of artificial birth control.

Attacks on the Family

“For I hate divorce, says the Lord the God of Israel”⁷

One of the most effective strategies today is the attack on the family. Lewis notes in The Screwtape Letters that convincing someone the only valid reason for marriage is the initial feeling of love leaves the door open to divorce once that feeling fades.

While this is true—just look at the “love at first sight” trope so famously pushed by Disney—this is far from the devil’s only tactic. I believe that if C. S. Lewis could see our time, he would be shocked by how broken the family has become, with the divorce rate among Christians nearly matching that of non-Christians and many today not even attempting to marry or have children.

In my view, there has been a clear progression: acceptance of artificial birth control → greater sexual promiscuity → perversion of the ideal of love → no-fault divorce → broken families → a generation that does not want marriage.

A New Strategy for the Modern World

“Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind…”⁸

If C. S. Lewis were writing today, I think he would have Screwtape promote isolation—encouraging Wormwood’s client to withdraw from real human contact, relying instead on more frequent yet increasingly superficial online interactions.

This would erode the client’s support structures, leading inevitably to deeper loneliness and despair. Lewis writes, “Aggravate that most useful human characteristic, the horror and neglect of the obvious,” and today we are far too inclined to neglect the most obvious of things: real human interaction in favor of a digital imitation that pales in comparison.⁹

Conclusion

“Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil”¹⁰

Screwtape’s strategy is perfectly suited to today’s world. His timeless tactics, rooted in human nature, have only grown more effective.

The trends Lewis observed in his own day have been magnified by modern technology, especially the internet, providing precisely the kind of gentle slope Screwtape would have wanted: “The safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.”¹¹

 

Citations

 

1. 1 Peter 5:8.

2. Mark 4:19.

3. James 4:6.

4. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, Letter 3.

5. Romans 7:18–19.

6. Proverbs 6:25–27.

7. Malachi 2:16.

8. Romans 12:2.

9. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, Letter 3.

10. Ephesians 6:11.

11. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, Letter 12.

 

Bibliography

 

Lewis, C. S. The Screwtape Letters. New York: Macmillan, 1942.

The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006.