Skip to content

My Easter 2016 Post, Featuring C.S. Lewis

March 27, 2016

C.S. Lewis is a favorite author of mine because he was such a fine intellect. That is one reason I appreciate his writings on Christianity so much. No fluff. Just a beautiful web of logic.

I first read Lewis’ book, Mere Christianity, when I was around twenty years old. I could only manage it a few pages at a time. It made my head hurt; his logic is so rich, I could only manage it in small doses. However, I did appreciate the book then, and I still do. I am reading it again, and at 48 years old, I can manage it much better.

Lewis wrote the book based upon a number of radio broadcasts he gave during World War II, at first to the Royal Air Force when the bombing of Britain began in 1940 and later by invitation of the BBC from 1942 to 1945. He built upon these speeches to create his book.

Lewis’ intention when he began studying Christianity was to soundly disprove it. So much for that. (As he notes in Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life“Really, a young Atheist cannot guard his faith too carefully. Dangers lie in wait for him on every side.”)

For my Easter post, I wanted to offer from Mere Christianity an excerpt that was intriguing and enticing yet able to stand on its own in this brief post. I settled on one that corresponds to pages 72 – 75 in the edition linked above.

So, my readers, by way of wishing you a Happy Easter, I offer you a few minutes with C.S. Lewis and his Mere Christianity:

Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or harmonising the things inside each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for: what course the whole fleet ought to be on: what tune the conductor of the band wants it to play.

You may have noticed that modern people are nearly always thinking about the first thing and forgetting the other two. When people say in the newspapers that we are striving for Christian moral standards, they usually mean that we are striving for kindness and fair play between nations, and classes, and individuals; that is, they are thinking only of the first thing. When a man says about something he wants to do, “It can’t be wrong because it doesn’t do anyone else any harm,” he is thinking only of the first thing. He is thinking it does not matter what his ship is like inside provided that he does not run into the next ship. And it is quite natural, when we start thinking about morality, to begin with the first thing, with social relations. For one thing, the results of bad morality in that sphere are so obvious and press on us every day: war and poverty and graft and lies and shoddy work. And also, as long as you stick to the first thing, there is very little disagreement about morality. Almost all people at all times have agreed (in theory) that human beings ought to be honest and kind and helpful to one another. But though it is natural to begin with all that, if our thinking about morality stops there, we might just as well not have thought at all. Unless we go on to the second thing—the tidying up inside each human being—we are only deceiving ourselves.

What is the good of telling the ships how to steer so as to avoid collisions if, in fact, they are such crazy old tubs that they cannot be steered at all? What is the good of drawing up, on paper, rules for social behaviour, if we know that, in fact, our greed, cowardice, ill temper, and self-conceit are going to prevent us from keeping them? I do not mean for a moment that we ought not to think, and think hard, about improvements in our social and economic system. What I do mean is that all that thinking will be mere moonshine unless we realise that nothing but the courage and unselfishness of individuals is ever going to make any system work properly. It is easy enough to remove the particular kinds of graft or bullying that go on under the present system: but as long as men are twisters or bullies they will find some new way of carrying on the old game under the new system. You cannot make men good by law: and without good men you cannot have a good society. That is why we must go on to think of the second thing: of morality inside the individual.

But I do not think we can stop there either. We are now getting to the point at which different beliefs about the universe lead to different behaviour. And it would seem, at first sight, very sensible to stop before we got there, and just carry on with those parts of morality that all sensible people agree about. But can we? Remember that religion involves a series of statements about facts, which must be either true or false. If they are true, one set of conclusions will follow about the right sailing of the human fleet: if they are false, quite a different set. For example, let us go back to the man who says that a thing cannot be wrong unless it hurts some other human being. He quite understands that he must not damage the other ships in the convoy, but he honestly thinks that what he does to his own ship is simply his own business. But does it not make a great difference whether his ship is his own property or not? Does it not make a great difference whether I am, so to speak, the landlord of my own mind and body, or only a tenant, responsible to the real landlord? If somebody else made me, for his own purposes, then I shall have a lot of duties which I should not have if I simply belonged to myself.

Again, Christianity asserts that every individual human being is going to live for ever, and this must be either true or false. Now there are a good many things which would not be worth bothering about if I were going to live only seventy years, but which I had better bother about very seriously if I am going to live for ever. Perhaps my bad temper or my jealousy are gradually getting worse —so gradually that the increase in seventy years will not be very noticeable. But it might be absolute hell in a million years: in fact, if Christianity is true, Hell is the precisely correct technical term for what it would be. And immortality makes this other difference, which, by the by, has a connection with the difference between totalitarianism and democracy. If individuals live only seventy years, then a state, or a nation, or a civilisation, which may last for a thousand years, is more important than an individual. But if Christianity is true, then the individual is not only more important but incomparably more important, for he is everlasting and the life of a state or a civilisation, compared with his, is only a moment.

It seems, then, that if we are to think about morality, we must think of all three departments: relations between man and man: things inside each man: and relations between man and the power that made him. We can all cooperate in the first one. Disagreements begin with the second and become serious with the third. It is in dealing with the third that the main differences between Christian and nonChristian morality come out. For the rest of this book I am going to assume the Christian point of view, and look at the whole picture as it will be if Christianity is true.

I invite you to read the entire book.

mere christianity

__________________________________________________________

8 Comments
  1. Thank you for that. And may you have an excellent Easter.

  2. In my early 30’s I read Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian”. It nearly converted me to Christianity. Since then I have always teetered on the edge.

    • Howard, may you finally topple over.

      Lewis is fantastic for logical. For historical documentation, I suggest a series of talks (on CD) given by medical doctor, Vern Palmisano.

  3. Thank you! Happy Easter!

  4. Scott Draper permalink

    Anyone who finds the Ontological Argument persuasive certainly doesn’t have a fine intellect. I also read “Mere Christianity” when I was in my early 20s, but I threw it across the room because it was so shallow. Only someone who already believes his conclusions would appreciate the book.

  5. Thank you for sharing. I’ve been following your blog for a while and it’s rare to see people in the know about urban education who are also followers of Christ!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: