If you know anything about me, you know how much I despise the teachings of Freud and how much I adore the writings of C.S. Lewis. As a biblical counseling minor in college, I got to learn a lot about modern psychology and its relation to biblical principles and counseling. I could write a whole post on that in of itself, but I digress. Through my studies I was introduced to Freud's Last Session, a play imagining what a conversation between C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud would have looked like. Although the two men lived around the same time, age differences, war, and personal circumstances made it near impossible for the men to meet in person. Nevertheless, we do have records of Lewis combatting Freud's arguments. The following personal analysis was for my Theatre and Culture class, but what better place to share my analysis than on the blog as exclusive content! I have edited a bit for your reading pleasure, adding extra thoughts.
“There are only two types of men: the righteous who think they are sinners and the sinners who think they are righteous.” Such a broad yet telling statement appears in many circles: in a Sunday school discussion group, in a bustling classroom, with co-workers in the office, or with friends on a Friday night restaurant date. However, the analysis of the contrasting believers against unbelievers remains more profound than a simple acceptance or rejection of one’s moral state. Today, culture oozes with a rejection of God and a broad acceptance of self. Freud’s Last Session by Mark St. Germaine explores the deconstruction and reconstruction of faith and whether its rightful place resides in God or self.
The theme of faith appears within a few lines of Lewis entering Freud’s study. The two converse about sin and its effects amidst one of the most devastating periods of history. In England during the Second World War, both men know of the imminent evil lurking in the world. However, the intellects present different worldviews surrounding the evil and in what, or whom, they ultimately place faith. While Freud and Lewis do not share all the same beliefs, the two find a commonhold in the reality of suffering and death. The men discuss their interactions with death, losing loved ones from mothers, children, and later spouses. They discuss the “evil things… brute force, bad faith, injustice, oppression, and persecution” (12). While the two scholars agree on the detrimental influence these evils have on humanity, they disagree on their purpose. Lewis looks at sin in life and death with a bittersweet mix of despair and hope. Freud pessimistically comments on the pain of life and humanity’s inevitable demise. When Lewis suggests they postpone their meeting, Freud remarks, “Until when professor? Do you count on your tomorrows? I do not” (8). The self-proclaimed atheist, intentionally or not, alludes to Proverbs 27:1, “Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring.” Such an allusion, first of many for Freud throughout the play, reveals his biblical knowledge but rejects its wisdom.
F reud comments on his deteriorating state at the age of eighty-three. The rapidly progressing oral cancer with a “clearly hideous” smell, his “Monster” prosthesis, and the excruciating pain when moving or talking, the old man speaks bitterly towards personal suffering (8). “I thank your God who ‘blesses me with cancer I won’t be here to see another [war]’” he retorts (12). The elderly psychoanalyst’s contentment in fatalism seems concrete, claiming “no fear of death” as he touts his desire for euthanasia (12). However, Freud’s reaction to the air raid sirens reveals a different, and ironically subconscious, view. Lewis notes Freud’s fight for life with the same body he wishes to destroy before cancer.
FREUD. You know nothing.
LEWIS. I know that when the siren sounded you didn’t behave like a man who took comfort this was his last day.
FREUD. As did you! What did you believe in that moment, God or death? (St. Germain 29)
Lewis’s rebuttal to Freud does not make him an optimist concerning death. He knows of the pain and suffering. “If pain is his whisper, pain is his megaphone,” states the English professor. “What if God wants to perfect us through suffering?” (24). Amid sin, Lewis chooses to believe God can use evil for good, even when he remains uncertain.
LEWIS: It’s men, not God, not Lucifer, who created prisons, slavery, bombs. Man’s suffering is the fault of man.
FREUD: Is that your excuse for pain and suffering? Did I bring about my own cancer? Or is killing me God’s revenge?
LEWIS: I don’t know.
FREUD: You don’t know?
LEWIS: And I don’t pretend to. It’s the most difficult question of all, isn’t it? (St. Germain 23)
As the two continue their conversation, these same questions and debates concerning the purpose of death, destruction, and chaos echo into the present world. While Freud revels in the uncertainty and hope within himself concerning life and death, Lewis rejoices in a longing for a home beyond this present world. Both men exemplify Tim Keller’s words in his book, Walking with God Through the Pain and Suffering. “While other worldviews lead us to sit in the midst of life’s joys, foreseeing the coming sorrows, Christianity empowers its people to sit in the midst of this world’s sorrows, tasting the coming joy” (35).
Faith also appears as Freud and Lewis speak of salvation and truth. The psychoanalyst reveals why he called the Oxford professor to his home in the first place. “I want to learn why a man of your intellect, one who shared my conviction, could suddenly abandon truth and embrace an insidious lie,” he states (12). To Freud, Christianity easily crumbles at the foot of his questions, his studies, his sufferings, and his creation of relative truth. The Gospels appear literal but contain “myths and legends” (18). According to a 2017 study conducted by the Gallup Center, “Fewer than one in four Americans (24%) now believe the Bible is ‘the actual word of God, and is to be taken literally, word for word,’ similar to the 26% who view it as a book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man’…the lowest in Gallup’s 40-year trend.” Freud’s beliefs concerning the Bible reveal not an unthinkable perspective but rather a common worldview. His worldview does not reflect his knowledge of the Scriptures despite his Christian and Jewish upbringing. Freud alludes to the Bible and its accounts throughout the play, from the laws of Moses in the Old Testament to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament.
Freud uses his knowledge in his arguments, saying, “Which of Christ’s ‘teachings’ are even realistic? Love your neighbor as yourself? It’s a foolish impossibility. Turn the other cheek? Should Poland turn the other cheek to Hitler? Should they love their neighbors as Germans crush their homes? Or maybe they should follow Christ’s example and martyr themselves since the meek will inherit the earth” (21). No matter how much Freud attempts to deconstruct his faith, his reality circles back to an upbringing steeped in the Scriptures. His reconstructed worldview without God trembles without a clear foundation to place his numerous religious trinkets.
Lewis does not use the Bible as mere intellectual evidence but as personal wisdom for his own life. Lewis claims status as “the most reluctant convert in all of England,” comparing his story to the life of Paul (16). The Englishman recounts his days as a devout atheism content upon objective, human truths. But his ongoing studies, personal experiences, and conversations with believing friends persuaded him to pursue the truth of Christ. The infamous “Lord, Lunatic, or Liar” dilemma permeates the text as Lewis questions Freud about the validity of the Gospel and Christ. After going through his arguments, Lewis concludes, “So if the man was neither a lunatic nor a sham, it forced me to consider the only choice I was left with….I accepted that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (20). Lewis’s personal relationship with Christ is most evident as his worldview not only sees sin, humanity, and the afterlife differently, but he also sees Freud differently. Although Lewis disagrees with Freud on numerous issues, he still treats the suffering doctor with care and respect. While Freud admits he has not read Lewis’s book, Lewis apologizes for his offense and exaggeration (11). At the end of the play, Lewis cares for the dying man in his pain and smiles at him, although the two have not reached a consensus in their worldviews. From his atheism to his faith in Christ, Lewis experiences a deconstruction process but with a drastically different reconstruction result.
Finally, faith weaves itself into the production as the two academics comment on their view of self. Lewis places faith in God, while Freud places faith in himself. Lewis satirizes Freud full of “bombastic self-importance… a vain, ignorant old man” (9). Freud acts upon this characterization, making decisions based upon himself only. He refuses care from everyone but his busy daughter and physician and wants to die his way. Lewis comments, “I also think you’re terribly selfish, putting your own pain above the pain of those you love. You lie to yourself, thinking you can control death like you control your world and your daughter” (29). Lewis, while not perfect, recognizes “mankind has never rewarded selfishness,” and it only leads to destruction (14). Lewis reconstructs a humbled view of his Creator through joys and pain while Freud deconstructs his faith, making himself his God. Freud’s Last Session reveals the paths so often observed today concerning Christianity and what changes may or may not occur.
Works Cited
Keller, Timothy. Walking with God through Pain and Suffering. Penguin Books, 2016.
Germain, Mark St, and Armand M. Nicholi. Freud’s Last Session. Dramatists Play Service, 2010.
Saad, Lydia. “Record Few Americans Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God.” Gallup.com, Gallup, 23 Mar. 2021, news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx.
Commentaires