1. The Nature of Lewis’ Project
Before jumping into
the theological content of The Great
Divorce, it is important to first examine Lewis’ stated approach to his
methodology and aims as found in the preface. At the end of the preface, Lewis
clearly gives readers context for their reading experience (pp. x):
I beg readers to remember
that this is a fantasy. It has of course – or I intend it to have – a moral.
But the transmortal conditions are solely an imaginative supposal: they are not
even a guess or a speculation at what may actually await us. The last thing I
wish is to arouse factual curiosity about the details of the after-world.
Lewis is not aiming at a literal description of heaven and
the afterlife, but rather giving readers a fantastical setting to enrich the
moral and theological threads he weaves through the book. Readers then should
not waste their time engaging with the minute and descriptive details of Heaven
and Hell as places (whether physical or ethereal), but rather engage with the
sort of described character that governs each location respectively. With this
clarification in mind, readers are prepared to enter the rich fantasy setting
Lewis has created.
2. The Relationship between Life on Earth, Heaven, and
Hell
2.1 Hell
Before we can say much about the relationship between life
on earth, heaven, and hell, I think it is important for us to get a good
picture of the character of these locations (for lack of a better word to
describe them) as Lewis displays them. Looking at Hell, as the narrator sees it
in his brief time there, one sees a very bleak, depressing setting. In some
ways though, this picture given is quite different than many Christians’ usual
conceptions of hell. Rather than a dramatic, extreme setting of fire and terror,
readers are given a setting that more closely mirrors abandoned, downtown
regions of cities that are commonly seen today. While the narrator’s experience
of Hell is rather short, readers are given a fuller description through his
interactions with other individuals on the departing bus he boards.
Individuals departing Hell seem to all share in a dissatisfaction,
prompting their departures. One man seeks intellectual fulfillment, another
seeks recognition and appreciation, while yet another seeks to bring something
real – “that you could really bite or drink or sit on” (pp. 13). The list goes
on, but what can be seen here is the sort of deficient character that defines
what Hell is for Lewis. In particular, the man noting the absence of “real”
things in Hell, although seeing the problem from a business perspective, sums
up what all of the characters bear witness to: Hell doesn’t immediately strike
one as a terrible place, but when glimpses of the real (Heaven) are had,
Hell’s deficiencies immediately makes themselves known. Hell is deficient, lacking
the qualities that make individuals truly human. Hell accommodates a complacent
contentedness (in the absolute weakest sense of the word), stripping
individuals of the goodness God has created them with.
Moving forward with these ideas, we should also examine another
thing the man (who wants to bring something “real” back to Hell) says: “The
trouble is they (the people of Hell) have no Needs” (pp. 13). People in hell
can get what they want by simply imaging it; however, the sort of things they
get model the deficiency of Hell due to the lack of quality they exhibit. Here it
seems Lewis is touching on a very interesting aspect of the relationship
between Hell and humanity. Humanity, as created good by God, is dependent on
him. This dependence is a positive aspect of humanity as it helps us to be in
proper relationship with God. However in Hell, which Lewis has already
described as having a sort of dehumanizing effect on individuals, individuals
are separated from God, and thus can’t have a proper dependent relationship
with him. This is an almost paradoxical problem for readers to think about
however, as most individuals take dependence to be a sort of reduction of
independence. If Hell’s character makes things deficient, then how should one think
about something most individuals already consider a deficiency? Lewis seems to
answer this question by turning dependence back towards independence. However,
this resulting independence is certainly not really a true independence in that
individuals aren’t free. Rather, individuals are helplessly dependent on
themselves, having chosen to rely on themselves but unable to provide for
themselves. So, while individuals have no needs in the sense that they can get
what they think they want by
imagining it, they are unable to get what they
really desire and need due to the nature of their twisted independent
dependence.
This idea of a chosen independent dependence shows itself later
on in the book when MacDonald comments on the narrator’s description of Hell as
a state of mind (pp. 70):
Hell is a state of mind
- ye never said a truer word. And every state of mind, left to itself, every
shutting up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind-is, in the end,
Hell.
One can see the rejection of God in favor of embracing a
reduced version of oneself as characterizing Hell. This self-absorbed state of
mind contributes to and, in a sense, is Hell. With Lewis’ description of Hell
developed (although certainly not exhaustively), it is time to turn and look at
the character of Heaven.
2.2 Heaven
The light and coolness
that drenched me were like those of summer morning, early morning a minute or
to before the sunrise, only that there was a certain difference. I had the
sense of being in a larger space, perhaps even a larger sort of space, than I
had ever known before: as if the sky were further off and the extent of the
green plain wider than they could be on this little ball of earth. I had got
“out” in some sense which made the Solar System itself seem an indoor affair.
It gave me a feeling of freedom, but also of exposure, possibly of danger,
which continued to accompany me through all that followed. It is the inducing
you to remember it as I proceeded, which makes me despair of conveying the real
quality of what I saw and heard. (pp. 19)
The above is the narrator’s initial description of
witnessing Heaven. Already, one can see a sharp and profound distinction from
the prior description of Hell. Whereas Hell seemed dark, suffocating, and
deficient, Heaven in contrast seems bright, open, and real in a sense that we
can’t even fully comprehend in our present state. While this welcome contrast
likely won’t seem too out of place for most readers, Heaven doesn’t seem to
fully fit into the conception that many individuals have of it. This idea is
witnessed in many of the encounters between the not-fully real ghosts
(individuals coming from Hell/Purgatory[these are distinguished in section 2.3])
and the fully real spirits (citizens of Heaven).
In these ghost-spirit interactions readers witness
individuals hung up on various aspects of themselves, preventing them from
entering into heaven. For one man it is his sense of moral superiority over a
murder (pp. 28), for another it is his obsession with abstract intellect as an
end in itself (pp.40), and for yet another man it is his unwillingness to trust
in God coupled with his expectations of God handing him everything on a silver
platter (figuratively speaking) (pp. 54-55). The point being driven at in these
ghost-spirit interactions is that individuals need to let go of their self-made
identities and images if they are to enter into heaven. As one spirit says,
"Friend, could you, only for a moment, fix your mind on something not
yourself?" (pp. 62).
This self-obsessed state of mind, as previously touched on
as leading to Hell, needs to be eliminated through the choice of an individual.
This choice between self and God is what Lewis sees as ultimately determining
the residency of individuals in either Heaven or Hell. MacDonald addresses this
issue in response to the narrator’s concern that not everyone gets a fair
chance at Heaven (pp. 75):
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.
Individuals need to allow their own selves to die so that
they can become fully real in and through God. It is through having an identity
completely in God that individuals can move forward into their final and full
purpose. This fulfillment in choosing God over oneself is witnessed in a female
spirit’s interaction with her former friend/partner, Frank (pp. 126):
What needs could I
have," she said, "now that I have all? I am full now, not empty. I am
in Love Himself, not lonely. Strong, not weak. You shall be the same. Come and
see. We shall have no need for one another now: we can begin to love
truly."
Lewis has outlined the reverse trajectory of the sort of twisted
independent dependence found in Hell. Rather than the deficiency of choosing to
depend on oneself, citizens of Heaven have complete fulfillment by freely
choosing to fully submit to and depend on God, realizing their true potential
in him. Heaven is thus characterized by a sort of hyper-realness (a true
realness not possible on earth) which is only made possible by fully embracing
and choosing God.
2.3 Heaven and Hell as Determining the Totality of
Experience
Before evaluating Lewis’ conception of Heaven and Hell,
there is a bit more to their relationship that should be touched upon. Lewis
spends a considerable amount of time later on into the book elaborating on an
individual’s path to his/her ultimate destination, be it Heaven or Hell.
MacDonald speaks for Lewis while answering some of the narrator’s questions
about a possible departure from Hell into Heaven (pp. 68):
“But I don't understand.
Is judgment not final? Is there really a way out of Hell into Heaven?"
"It depends on the way you're using the words. If they leave that grey town behind it will not have been Hell. To any that leaves it, it is Purgatory. And perhaps ye had better not call this country Heaven. Not Deep Heaven, ye understand." (Here he smiled at me). "Ye can call it the Valley of the Shadow of Life. And yet to those who stay here it will have been Heaven from the first. And ye can call those sad streets in the town yonder the Valley of the Shadow of Death: but to those who remain there they will have been Hell even from the beginning.”
"It depends on the way you're using the words. If they leave that grey town behind it will not have been Hell. To any that leaves it, it is Purgatory. And perhaps ye had better not call this country Heaven. Not Deep Heaven, ye understand." (Here he smiled at me). "Ye can call it the Valley of the Shadow of Life. And yet to those who stay here it will have been Heaven from the first. And ye can call those sad streets in the town yonder the Valley of the Shadow of Death: but to those who remain there they will have been Hell even from the beginning.”
Here one sees glimpses of what some individuals may assert
to be Universalist traits in Lewis’ description. The description given here of
a possible move from Hell to Heaven fits into Lewis’ fantastical writing well
as it doesn’t seem to quite make sense to readers who bring with them their
traditional understanding of space and temporality. What ultimately defines
each location for each individual seems to be the permanence of each
individual’s residency. Those who end up in Heaven will have been in Heaven
from the moment they entered what is described as not quite Heaven (“The Valley
of the Shadow of Life”). Individuals who started off on the dark city streets
of what is seemingly Hell will have only been in Purgatory if they wind up
residing in Heaven, while those who permanently remain there (the dark city
streets) will be and have been in Hell all along. For Lewis, it seems as if the
final destination dictates what the entire experience has been. Lewis uses
MacDonald again to clarify and work out this idea further: (pp. 69)
Not only this valley
but all this earthly past will have been Heaven to those who are saved. Not
only the twilight in that town, but all their life on earth too, will then be
seen by the damned to have been Hell. That is what mortals misunderstand. They
say of some temporal suffering, 'No future bliss can make up for it,' not
knowing that Heaven, once attained, will work backwards and turn even that
agony into a glory. And of some sinful pleasure they say 'Let me but have this
and I'll take the consequences': little dreaming how damnation will spread back
and back into their past and contaminate the pleasure of the sin. Both
processes begin even before death. The good man's past begins to change so that
his forgiven sins and remembered sorrows take on the quality of Heaven: the bad
man's past already conforms to his badness and is filled only with dreariness.
And that is why, at the end of all things, when the sun rises here and the
twilight turns to blackness down there, the Blessed will say, 'We have never
lived anywhere except in Heaven,' and the Lost, 'We were always in Hell.' And
both will speak truly.
Lewis is affirming this idea of individuals’ final
destinations determining the totality of their experiences, not just of the
afterlife, but of earthly life as well. Heaven and Hell can be seen then as the
only two complete, possible experiences for individuals. Each works back
throughout a person’s life based on the eventual choice that person makes in
regards to choosing his/her self or choosing God. This process of
reverse-operation is beyond our given and apparent conception of space and
temporality.
3. Evaluating Lewis’ Views
With views of Heaven and Hell explained as they are
described in The Great Divorce, I will now (admittedly, subjectively) evaluate
said views. To begin with, and perhaps most importantly, I believe it necessary
to comment on Lewis’ approach to the book. While I typically appreciate a
straightforward expository approach to theological issues, I believe that
Lewis’ fantastical approach in his treatment of Heaven and Hell was an
excellent choice. The value of this approach is twofold.
Firstly, Lewis’ admission of a fantasy style keeps readers from
becoming too hung up on trivial and minute details. Lewis isn’t interested in
giving a realist (at least in the physical sense) account of what Heaven and
Hell are quantitatively like. Rather, he is aiming for a description of the
character of each, guiding readers to theological truth rather than any sort of
scientific (if you can call it that) truth. This ties into the second and perhaps
even more significant virtue of this approach in that as a fantasy description,
Lewis’ description actually lies closer to the reality of heaven. To qualify
this, I am by no means calling Heaven a fantasy in the sense of something made
up or imaginary. Rather, I am drawing out the surrealism of fantasy in
describing the surpassing nature of heaven. Heaven transcends human beings’
complete understanding. We may be able to have glimpses of Heaven, but its very
essence is beyond us. By describing Heaven in the style of fantasy, Lewis is
able to simultaneously draw out its other-worldly character and prevent readers
from developing their own individual views of Heaven grounded in who they are
as individuals. We can see this prevention as a valuable action in The Great Divorce itself. Part of many
individuals’ struggles regarding entering Heaven involve their own self-assured
conceptions of Heaven. By emphasizing Heaven as surpassing humanity’s full understanding,
Lewis is suggesting that readers hold an openness to what God has in store.
Overall, I generally agree with the
descriptions Lewis has given both Heaven and Hell. I think both are necessarily
dependent on the relationship of individuals’ own dependence with God. I don’t
believe that God simply has humans run through life as a sort of obstacle
course, but rather gives humans life and freedom so that they can develop
character which will ultimately decide whether to fully accept God or to fully
be absorbed in one’s own self. Any sort of Universalist elements which pop up
in The Great Divorce don’t really bother me. I think most, if not all
Christians, hope in their innermost beings that the all-loving God they know
will allow anyone (at any time) to choose him and enter into Heaven. However, this deep hope
is something which is hard to wrestle with as the Bible (in its canonical form)
doesn’t seem to clearly assert such an idea anywhere in its pages. Christians
must then explore how to deal with this tension between the (literally) stated
and the seemingly implied. Practically, from my skeptical/conservative
epistemic platform, I think in our everyday interactions we as Christians need
to err away from Universalist tendencies in respect for and submission to the
concepts we see regarding salvation as found in the Bible. However, knowing God
to be beyond our own full understanding, I see no problem in hoping that he may
yet find another way in which to shatter our expectations and ultimately fulfill our deepest
hopes.
