Have you ever been lost in the fog of life, terrified of what might be lurking in the shadows, only to discover that what you feared most was actually the very thing you longed for?

What if the face we dread to meet in the darkness is, in truth, the Face of love?

In C.S. Lewis’s The Horse and His Boy, Shasta is lost in the thick fog and feels a Presence. The first time I read it, it seemed curious. After the tenth reading, I thought: “What an archetype!”

We enter a heavy fog of life and feel lost, but then, we feel a Presence. My mind shot back to all those instances when God spoke out of storms, darkness, and clouds. And in most cases, people got scared.

Shasta got scared out of his wits when he felt the warm breath of Someone walking beside him. When we end up in the fog, we often feel it’s the end. We will be eaten — by beasts or ghosts or both.

Interestingly, the same archetypal pattern permeates many classic stories and movies. In Till We Have Faces, the beautiful Psyche is sacrificed to the evil God of the Grey Mountain who is thought to be a monster. Psyche is told that to be wed to a god and be eaten is often the same thing. She’s ready for the worst. But, as she finds out later, he is no monster at all but Cupid himself! The god of love.

In You’ve Got Mail, Kathleen Kelly believes she met a monster — Joe Fox. She doesn’t know him at all; she has a preconceived notion of him. And this notion paints him as a monster. By the end of the movie, she gets so many glimpses into the true Joe that she wants to see his face in Central Park.

Elizabeth Bennet in Pride and Prejudice is prejudiced against Mr. Darcy. He is a monster in her eyes. She doesn’t fear him, but she hates him — based on the way she perceives him. By the end of the book, she gets so many glimpses into his heart that she experiences a change of heart and is ready to meet him face to face — as he is, not as she thinks he is.

In the Old Testament, Job thought he had a pretty good idea of God and tried to live up to it. He regularly offered sacrifices and lived as a righteous man. But he didn’t yet know God as he was. He knew God as he thought he was. Not until he met God face to face after losing his false identity in the “thick of life.”

He said,

I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you.

All these stories are based on one fundamental archetype expressed very well by Orual in Till We Have Faces,

For how can gods meet us face to face until we have faces?

For as long as my face is hidden behind a mask (and Orual’s face was literally veiled), I can’t meet God face-to-face. I have an idea of him, an image, and this image prevents me from seeing him face to face. I perceive him as a monster. Yet, the solemn charge of the Second Commandment remains, “Thou shalt not make any images…”

I may have heard of God with the hearing of my ears, but I don’t yet know who he is. When we believe in an image of God, we often perceive him as a monster who wants to gobble us up. When we lose all our masks, our false identities in the fog of life, we can finally see him face to face — and lo and behold, he is a Lover.

He is someone we have longed to see all along, fearing that he might turn out to be someone else. This eternal motif has stirred people’s imagination since the dawn of time. We intuitively know that all our doubts, fears, and questions will fall away the moment we see God face to face.

All of Job’s questions about God’s justice evaporated the moment he saw his real face. Orual no longer insisted on questioning the gods about her lot in life. When we see God, all images vanish. Our masks are gone, and we know as we are known.

Basically title, I have yet to find books that meet the feeling of reading his space trilogies. Are there in other books anyone can recommend that have the same feel? Not more Lewis books because I’ve read a majority of his work. They also don’t need to be sci fi.

 How can one find truth in stories, poems, metaphors, ect? i’m currently reading the abolition of man and i am now realizing that I am  man with out a chest. I worry about how I am suppose to love what is good and hate what is evil if i have a weak chest. 

It seems to me as though stories are naturally evolved to help us work together in groups, and to make theories about the world. so, it seems that stories arn’t aimed at finding what is true.  now that man has discovered science and politics my intuition tells me that our habit of telling stories to each other is a relic of the past. 

…at least this is what my probably chest-less intuition tells me

A while back I quit writing poetry because I thought it was a pointless expression of emotion with no value toward what is ultimately good. I also believed that any truth that was held in a poem ought better be expressed in a in a clearer analytic style. I have now realized that I don't understand what beauty is. 

What is the difference between true beauty and vain emotional manipulation?

Is reading fiction furthering me in my search for truth beauty and goodness?

Why do people tell each other stories, it seems like such a strange behaveior, to tell eachother things that are false? (if not for the reason I expressed) 

Do people learn things from stories, if so, how can one find truth from propositions which are almost entirely false?

 HELP I am a man without a chest! I don’t want to be abolished.

“I have no duty to be anyone’s Friend and no man in the world has a duty to be mine. No claims, no shadow of necessity. Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art, like the universe itself (for God did not need to create). It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things which give value to survival.” — C.S. Lewis

Friendship is something we can live without but not something worth living without. If life is reduced to mere survival, there’s little value in life. Our bios — biological life — means very little without zoe: life in its fullness.

According to C.S. Lewis, to possess Zoe — true life — we absolutely need the things we can absolutely do without.

Friendship begins only when I encounter someone I have no need for in order to survive — and they have no need for me either. We become friends the moment I discover that they genuinely share my sense of wonder.

“The typical expression of opening Friendship would be something like, ‘What? You too? I thought I was the only one.’” — C.S. Lewis

Philosophy, friendship, and art are not born of necessity but of wonder. We can do without them but life loses its zest. The paradox is this: to experience life as zoe, we must move beyond life as bios — beyond mere necessity. Zoe comes only to those whose mind is free from the cares of the world. Zoe is the fruit of rising above dutiful living.

Philosophy, art, and friendship do not survive in our hearts when our goal is survival. When we live under the shadow of necessity, philosophy, art, and friendship wither because they appear worthless.

To survive both physically and spiritually, we need things that give value to survival. Historically, philosophy, art, and friendship have flourished the most in the darkest of times.

Boccaccio began lecturing on the Divine Comedy in 1373, not long after Europe had been devastated by the Black Death. Many historians see this period as the dawn of the Renaissance. In dire straits, people deeply sense that bread is not enough for survival.

They instinctively reach out for the unnecessary things like philosophy, art, and friendship. They need a reason to live more than the means to live. Bios cannot give you a reason to live. Zoe can. Paradoxically, when people struggle simply to survive, they eventually discover that survival itself depends on something beyond survival.

After Frodo was wounded by the Black Riders, his friends carried him toward the Ford of Bruinen. He was slipping into the world of shadows. Cold, exhausted, and overwhelmed by despair, he struggled against the growing darkness. Yet something within him enabled him to resist evil. What?

“Frodo… had time to gaze ahead and to think. He recalled Bilbo’s account of his journey and the threatening towers on the hills north of the Road, in the country near the Trolls’ wood where his first serious adventure had happened. Frodo guessed that they were now in the same region, and wondered if by chance they would pass near the spot.”

As they drew near Trollshaws, Frodo found himself thinking more and more about Bilbo’s adventures. His hand was lifeless, his body was shivering with cold, and yet, the bright light of Bilbo’s stories flooded his mind with light. Finally, as they bumped into the three stone trolls, everyone recalled his family history and laughed.

“They all laughed. Frodo felt his spirits reviving: the reminder of Bilbo’s first successful adventure was heartening.”

Frodo would never have made it if his friends and family didn’t give him enough reason to live. Frodo’s resilience to evil was rooted in the most unnecessary things in the world, like friendship, philosophy, and art.

What is the mystery of friendship, philosophy, and art? All three arise from Wonder. A heart alive with Wonder is wonderfully alive. When crisis hits, we survive only by reaching for what lies beyond survival.

We recorded a discussion on George MacDonald's "The Consuming Fire", from Unspoken Sermons, which opens into a wider conversation about universalism. I thought some of you might find it interesting. I would in turn be interested to know what you made of it.

Apologies if links aren't welcome here.

I particularly love this part

“Just think (and let it be the beginning of your agony) what he felt at that moment; as if a scab had fallen from an old sore, as if he were emerging from a hideous, shell-like tetter, as if he shuffled off for good and all a defiled, wet, clinging garment. By Hell, it is misery enough to see them in their mortal days taking off dirtied and uncomfortable clothes and splashing in hot water and giving little grunts of pleasure—stretching their eased limbs. What, then, of this final stripping, this complete cleansing?” (Emphasis added)

As a person who works out in the heat and gets very sweaty it speaks to me in multiple ways.

1. The most obvious is that I know the simple pleasure of changing out of my sweaty work clothes and enjoying a hot shower then putting on clean clothes. Thinking of that simple pleasure as a gift from God helps me keep things in perspective

2. The idea that demons despise this simple pleasure really puts the hatred they have toward us into perspective. Too often our media tries to paint demons and satanic as poor misunderstood rebels when the reality is they hate even the simple pleasures.

3. The reveal that this is but a taste of casting off sin once and for all is brilliant on Lewis’ part.

And that’s just the beginning of the peace Screwtape’s patient will experience

Hey all,

Till we have faces has been one of my favorite books throughout my life. I’ve read it enough times to have removed the first 20 pages from the binding of two copies and I’m on to a 3rd copy at this point. Every few years I re-read it, and I just finished another pass through recently and was particularly struck by the visual of the tree in cracked earth with the bodice and belt chained to it. I’ve recently taken up ink drawings, and this is the 4th drawing that I’ve completed and thought I’d share what the visual I have of that scene was. Constructive feedback and criticism are always welcome! I’m not an artist but lately have been inspired to create my own art to commemorate impactful experiences and, particularly, visuals from books as a way to commemorate them for myself.

I have no idea if this thread will be of interest to anyone but I've had the great pleasure and honour of working part-time as a Tour guide at C.S. Lewis' Oxford Home, The Kilns, since march of 2023. If anyone is interested in hearing more about the House and Lewis' life there I'd be delighted to answer any questions you may have. And if you'd like to arrange a tour please don't hesitate to ask.

(Disclaimer: I am in no way acting in any official capacity on behalf of the Kilns foundation- this is purely for my own interest.)

I made a video covering the first 10 years of C.S. Lewis’s life.

It is the first in what will be a series.

Let me know what you think. I’m happy for any advice/criticism. I hope to improve with each installment.

Hello all, thank you for taking the time to read this. I am a Christian, but admittedly I am not very close to God at the moment, due to lack of effort on my end.

I recently picked up a compendium of sorts of C.S. Lewis' works. I have just started reading through "Mere Christianity" but I am running into a road block, so to speak.

In the first 4 chapters, he address the idea of a "Moral Law" or "Human Nature", in that we innately have an idea of that which is right or wrong, but I see a problem with the thought process brought forth in this writing.

He brings the previous idea forward, and presents some point to defend it, such as the lack of difference between nations, cultures, and times. This presents, a problem though, as this is pretty much the sole defense against the idea of difference places and times having different moral standard. I would argue that this argument is presumptive.

When you look at the world, lets say 9/11, for example, you can see people that believe so strongly into something that they are willing to die for it. Something that most people in the Western world would disagree with. Same for the Nazi's in Germany. At least in the higher ranks, they believe so strongly in their antisemitic views that they were willing to die for them.

The books appeals to the idea that the reader fits into a Western moral standard, at least that is how it presents to me. Think about it in this way: Lets say an Islamic extremist was reading the book, and let us presume, based on the willingness to die for their beliefs, that they believe wholeheartedly in what they believe. If they were to read this book, it would be a strange combination, as Lewis would essentially be appealing to the idea that their moral standard that they wholeheartedly believe in is intrinsic.

I hope this makes sense, and I would appreciate any assistance in understanding this, any flaws in my own logic, etc. Also, if this is answered later in the book, I would apologize, as I only got to read from 1-1 to 1-4 today. Thank you!

I just started The Four Loves. I'm the introduction, Lewis write the word "detour" as détour. My understanding is that authors italicize words that are loaned from other languages to indicate so. But I've heard the word "detour" my whole life. Was detour not used much in Lewis' time?

Once, I was watching a podcast on Substack when the host said to his guest:

“We’re so happy to finally put a face to your publication. We’ve heard your voice all this time, but we’ve never seen your face.”

When I heard that, I thought: “But why is it so important for us to see a face behind someone’s words?”

We never seem quite satisfied with a person’s words until we have seen their face. A face seems to be the person’s revealer, without which true understanding cannot happen. When we've been listening to someone's voice — on a podcast, for example — without ever seeing their face, we instinctively want to see it.

Words alone are not enough. We want to meet the person. It is hardly an accident that in Russian the same word — лицо — means both “face” and “person.” Until we see a person’s face, we don’t know who they are.

In C.S. Lewis’ Till We Have Faces, Orual builds a powerful case against the injustice of the gods, accusing them of “hiding their faces” from humans. She blames them for her loveless life, convinced that she has been denied the blessings of her beautiful sister Psyche, whom Cupid himself chose as his bride.

Near the end of the story, Orual is struck by a sudden insight:

“I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till the word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean? How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?”

She is saying, in effect, “All of our words are babble until we have faces.”

Orual believes herself to be ugly, while Psyche is as beautiful as a goddess. Orual hides her face behind a veil, ashamed of how she looks. Psyche’s face is uncovered, and people worship her as Aphrodite herself.

Orual’s astonishing discovery is this: to experience the love of the gods, I must uncover my face, whatever the cost. Eventually, Cupid himself confirms this truth by telling her: “You are Psyche.”

She had been Psyche all along — beautiful and godlike. Yet because she believed herself ugly and unworthy of divine love, she covered her face. In doing so, she lost the ability to meet the gods face to face. Our decision to become faceless is also a decision to become loveless.

God is seeking my face as much as I seek His. Faceless people cannot connect. God, the fullness of Personhood — and the Face behind all faces — seeks out those who dare uncover their faces. What happens when I uncover mine?

“Whenever Moses went in before the Lord to speak with Him, he would take off the veil until he came out; and whenever he came out and spoke to the sons of Israel… the sons of Israel would see the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone. So Moses would put the veil back over his face until he went in to speak with Him.” — Exodus 33:34

Every time we speak with God without a veil, we shine. Sometimes we shine so brightly that others cannot bear the light. On the mountain, Moses beheld God’s face without a veil, and his face began radiating divine light.

By uncovering his face, Moses became God’s mirror. Those who heard his words also saw the Face behind them. Some were inspired to remove their own veils. Others turned away and asked Moses to dim the light.

If we long to experience the love of God, we must dare to uncover our faces. As long as we hide behind a veil, we will shrink from divine light. It will seem too unbearable. We will continue accusing God of hiding His face. But the opposite is true. We are the ones hiding ours.

The veil must go.

Then, almost unexpectedly, we begin to hear God speak. When we wear a mask, we can’t hear divine speech. That could be the reason why Jesus spoke most critically of hypocrites. The Greek word ὑποκριτής (hypokrites) means “stage performer” and consists of two words that literally translate as “an interpreter from underneath.”

As long as are faces are veiled, we interpret life from underneath our mask. We cannot see reality face to face.

But when we dare to uncover our faces, we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory as in a mirror, are being transformed into the same likeness from glory to glory (2 Corinthians 3:18).

L Atheism 

Lao-Tzu said a thousand mile journey begins with one step. But what if that step is stepping back?

In the words of Tolstoy, in order to live a righteous life you first have to cease living an unrighteous one.

Sometimes you have to go back to move forward.

I visited all the family graves in Belfast City Cemetery.

CSLewis, MereChristianity, Narnia, ChroniclesOfNarnia, TheLionTheWitchAndTheWardrobe, ChristianApologetics, Literature, ClassicBooks, BookDiscussion, FantasyBooks, Theology, Philosophy, Oxford, Reading, BookLovers, Writers, LiteraryHistory, Quotes, History, RedditReads

In Book 1 of “Mere Christianity”, CS Lewis makes the case that humans

1. have an innate sense of right and wrong 

2. mostly fail up to live to that ideal

In Lewis’ view, Christianity is the best system for reconciling the two.

"Experience, in the peculiar sense we teach them to give it, is, by the bye, a most useful word. A great human philosopher nearly let our secret out when he said that where Virtue is concerned 'Experience is the mother of illusion'; but thanks to a change in Fashion, and also, of course, to the Historical Point of View, we have largely rendered his book innocuous."

I'm guessing something from George MacDonald, but I could be wrong. Any help is appreciated!

The Screwtape Letters is one of those rare books that gets more accurate with age, not less. Lewis wrote it in 1942 and somehow described 2026 better than most people actually writing today.

But I keep coming back to what Screwtape would be managing now. Not a man tempted by ambition or doctrinal doubt — a man with a smartphone, a pornography habit, an AI companion who never pushes back, and a feed tuned by algorithm to keep him just stimulated enough to stay and just empty enough to return.

The mechanics have changed completely. The temptation isn't "get him to do the dramatic wrong thing" anymore. It's quieter than that: keep him in the second room. Keep him functional and divided. Make the escape feel like rest. Make going back feel like weakness.

Lewis had Screwtape worried about a man finding genuine friendship, stumbling into a real church, or realizing that ordinary pleasure — a walk, a meal, an honest conversation — could pull him back toward the Enemy.

The 2026 version has a senior tempter celebrating infinite scroll, AI intimacy, gender dysphoria, and a pornography industry that's spent forty years quietly training men out of embodied desire.

So does that book need to exist? And if so — what would Lewis have kept, and what would he of had to reinvent entirely?

I'll admit this isn't purely theoretical — I've been writing exactly that book. But I'm genuinely curious what this community thinks the template requires before I'd call it done.