Between Heaven & Hell

Three men died on the same day in November, 1963: JFK, Aldous Huxley, and CS Lewis. The book is a fictional recreation of how their meeting might take place. I would like to write my review in the form of a pros/cons list with the following premise: I really liked this book. Cons: I think there are fewer than the pros by far, but my own view includes- 1.) Though I actually agree with Kreeft's portrayal of Kennedy overall as a philosophical dilletante compared to Lewis and Huxley, Kreeft could have been a little more generous to JFK. 2.) Kreeft is a little more philosophically specific than Lewis who wrote to more of a "lay" crowd. Pros: 1.) I disagree with previous reviews that say that the book misrepresented Lewis. Few people know the ins and outs of Lewis better than Kreeft. Consider these parallels as proof: A.) the aut deus aut homo malus argument is a direct recapitulation of the lunatic, liar, or Lord argument present in Mere Christianity and some of Lewis' other works. B.) Those who say that Lewis believed that all cultures and religions were equal is not exactly correct. Lewis believed that pieces of truth were lodged in other religions, but did not believe that all religions were created equal. Again a close reading of the opening in Mere Christianity makes it clear that Lewis is an adamant Christian. C.) The way in which Lewis believed that all people were equal was in their imperfection when confronting the holy reality of God. Huxley, on the other hand, adhered to a more pantheistic view of human nature that lumped the good and the bad in one ubiquitous whole. The glaring metaphysical differences between pantheism and theism disclose the deduction that Huxley and Lewis were proponents of two profoundly different worldviews and thus had fewer mental/philosophical "overlaps" than might appear prima facie. Reading the Lewis book, "Miracles," makes that demarcation even clearer. Pro #2: There are times when Huxley really comes on strong. If you read some of Kreeft's other works, you'll see he has a healthy respect of Aldous;in BHAH Lewis has read "Brave New World," and in other nonfictional works Kreeft actually praises the insights in the aforementioned book. I think the critique that Huxley is misrepresented is a bit unwarranted. Pro #3: It is a cool re-enactment of what is much like a Socratic dialogue. Pro #4: Kreeft isn't psychic, but seems to articulate the biggest differences between the three ideological camps of Christianity, modernism, and perennial philosophy/pantheism pretty well. I highly recommend this book.

This is a very clever book. C.S. Lewis, Aldous Huxley (representing New Age thinking), and JFK (representing the basic modern humanist) meet up somewhere "between Heaven and Hell." Why these three? They all died on the same day. Huxley *was* pretty new age-y and JFK *was* basically a humanist, but these tendencies are exaggerated for effect here. Still, what they say is totally believable and not much different than what I hear on a daily basis. Of course, as might be expected, specialists and fans of both will complain, but oh well. This book is short and light and the pure dialog format makes for quick and easy reading. I read this book for the first time in High School and even now as a graduate student in Philosophy at a Big 12 school I am still using the same basic arguments only infused with years of study, experience, and meditation. I can't think of a better introduction to the art of Apologetics. The central argument is the Lord, Liar, Lunatic one from Lewis's _Mere Christianity_. However, they also discuss the nature of true religion, the historical reliability of the NT, the nature of hope and morality. Just over 100 pages, you can read this in one setting and will want to read it over and over again.

Between Heaven & Hell has a subtitle which reads, "A Dialog Somewhere Beyond Death with John F. Kennedy, C.S. Lewis & Aldous Huxley". Yes, this is a fictional trialog in "limbo" of the most important question in human history - Who is Jesus Christ? Many people are unaware that JFK, Lewis and Huxley all died within hours of each other on November 22, 1963. It seems the assassination of President Kennedy from either the grassy knoll or from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository somehow managed to overshadow the deaths of the other two men. Go figure! Much of the fictional discussion between these three characters revolves around their own writings although Kreeft employs a bit of literary license for the sake of argument. The fact that Kreeft is a Catholic doesn't affect the content of this book since the argument is essentially Lewis' straight, or "mere" Christianity. The position of JFK is that of a humanistic Christian in the sense of emphasizing "horizontal" social activity rather than "vertical" religious experience...religion without revelation. Kennedy portrays his view of Christ as that of a man become god. Huxley doesn't get the air time that Lewis and JFK get, but his contribution is significant. He represents the eastern pantheist position and reinterprets Christianity as a form of the universal philosophy of pantheism. In this view, Jesus was one of the great sages of history along with Buddha, Socrates, Confucius, Mohammed and the rest. Employing the Socratic method of question and answer, Kreeft slowly but surely uses Lewis' arguments to refute the views of Jesus being a lunatic, liar or just a great moral teacher. Once this is done, He argues that Jesus was God in the flesh, just as He claimed to be. Approximately the last third of the book focuses on the reliability of the gospel accounts which record the claims of Christ.I found this book to be a very enjoyable read, especially the Socratic method that Kreeft employs. Although I don't criticize Kreeft for making the most out of the historical situation, I'll just say that the only theological disagreement I had with this book was the immediate destiny of the three men being "limbo" which I'm sure is only used by Kreeft as a setting for the discussion. The argument from Lewis was very thought-provoking and required honesty with the end result being much clearer thinking concerning the person of Christ, not to mention his inescapable conclusions which were drawn. I found it very interesting how he would ask of the opposition very pointed, yet fair questions. I was glad to find that the rabbit trails were quickly discounted so the reader can follow the arguments more easily. Throughout the discussion, Kreeft continually reminds the reader that as Christians, we don't try to win arguments for ourselves (I use "argument" in the technical sense of presenting evidence in favor of one's position). It doesn't matter who wins or loses. Truth is what we a

Kreeft portrays a clear, logical and exciting discussion that taught me very much about Christianity and Pantheism. First, Lewis and Kennedy discuss Lewis's argument that Jesus was either God or a bad or crazy man. Then Lewis and Huxley discuss Huxley's pantheistic objections to Lewis's beliefs. I am very familiar with C.S. Lewis's writings, and I was very impressed with how well and accurately he is portrayed here. I couldn't put this book down.

Kreeft is quite good at this ancient art of the socartic dialog! Lewis takes the role of the classic Christian, Huxley the classic pantheist (fancy word for what we now call "newage"), and Kennedy the classic humanist.Interesting side note: Lewis died peacefully in his sleep. Huxley died while on LSD. Kennedy was shot by a political enemy.Bill