Mere Christianity - Book One - We Have Cause to Be Uneasy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Book One

 

RIGHT AND WRONG

AS A CLUE TO THE

MEANING OF THE UNIVERSE

 

 

 

5. We Have Cause to Be Uneasy

     I ended my last chapter with the idea that in the Moral Law somebody or
something from  beyond the material universe was actually getting at us. And
I expect when I reached that point some of you felt a certain annoyance. You
may  even  have thought  that I had  played  a trick on you-that I  had been
carefully wrapping up to look like  philosophy what turns out to be one more
"religious jaw." You may have felt you were ready to listen to me as long as
you  thought  I  had anything  new to say;  but if it  turns out to be  only
religion, well, the world has tried that and you cannot put the clock  back.
If anyone is feeling that way I should like to say three things to him.

     First, as to putting the clock  back. Would you think I was joking if I
said that you can put a  clock back, and that if the  clock is  wrong it  is
often a very sensible thing to do?  But I  would rather  get away from  that
whole idea  of clocks. We  all want  progress.  But  progress  means getting
nearer to the  place where you want to  be. And  if you  have  taken a wrong
turning, then to go forward does not  get you any nearer. If you are  on the
wrong road, progress means doing an about turn and walking back to the right
road;  and  in  that  case  the  man who  turns  back  soonest  is  the most
progressive man. We have all  seen this when doing arithmetic. When  I  have
started a sum the wrong way,  the sooner I admit this and go back and  start
over again,  the faster I shall get on. There  is nothing progressive  about
being pigheaded  and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at
the  present state of the world, it  is  pretty plain that humanity has been
making some big  mistake. We are on  the  wrong road. And if  that is so, we
must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.

     Then, secondly, this has not yet turned exactly into a "religious jaw."
We have not yet got as far as the God of any actual religion, still less the
God of that particular religion called Christianity. We have only got as far
as a Somebody or Something behind the  Moral Law. We are not taking anything
from the Bible or the  Churches, we are trying to see  what we can  find out
about this Somebody on our own steam. And I want to make it quite clear that
what  we find out on our own  steam  is something that gives us a shock.  We
have  two  bits  of evidence about  the Somebody. one is the universe He has
made. If  we  used  that as our  only clue, then I  think we should  have to
conclude  that He was a  great artist  (for the universe is a very beautiful
place),  but  also that He is quite merciless  and no friend to man (for the
universe is a  very dangerous  and  terrifying  place).  The  other  bit  of
evidence is that Moral  Law which He  has put  into our minds. And this is a
better bit of evidence than the other, because it is inside information. You
find out more about God from the Moral Law than from the universe in general
just as you find out more about a man by listening to his conversation  than
by looking at a house he has built. Now, from this second bit of evidence we
conclude that the Being behind the universe is intensely interested in right
conduct -in  fair  play,  unselfishness,  courage,  good faith, honesty  and
truthfulness.  In  that  sense  we  should agree with the  account given  by
Christianity and some other religions, that God is "good." But do not let us
go too fast here. The Moral Law does not give  us any  grounds for  thinking
that God is "good" in the sense of being indulgent, or soft, or sympathetic.
There is nothing indulgent about the  Moral Law. It is as  hard as nails. It
tells you to do the straight thing and it does not seem to care how painful,
or dangerous,  or difficult it is to do. If God  is like the Moral Law, then
He is not soft. It is no use, at this stage, saying that what  you mean by a
"good"  God is  a God who  can forgive.  You  are going too quickly. only  a
Person can forgive. And we have not yet got as far as a personal God-only as
far as a power, behind the Moral Law, and more  like a mind than it is  like
anything  else. But  it  may  still be very  unlike a Person.  If it is pure
impersonal mind, there may be no  tense in asking it  to make allowances for
you  or let you off, just as there is no sense in  asking the multiplication
table to let you off when  you do your sums wrong.  You are bound to get the
wrong answer. And it is no use either saying that if there is a God of  that
sort-an  impersonal  absolute goodness-then  you do not like Him and are not
going to bother about Him. For the trouble is that one part of you is on His
side and really agrees with  His disapproval of human greed and trickery and
exploitation. You may want Him to make an exception in your own case, to let
you off  this one time; but you know at bottom  that unless the power behind
the  world really  and unalterably detests that sort of behaviour,  then  He
cannot be  good. on  the other hand, we  know  that  if there does exist  an
absolute goodness  it must hate most of what we do. That is the terrible fix
we are in. If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all
our efforts are in the long run hopeless. But  if it is, then we  are making
ourselves  enemies  to  that  goodness every day, and are not  in  the least
likely to do  any  better tomorrow,  and  so our  case is hopeless again. We
cannot do without it. and we cannot do with it. God  is the only comfort, He
is also the  supreme terror:  the thing we  most need and  the thing we most
want to hide from. He is our only possible-ally, and we  have made ourselves
His enemies. Some people talk  as  if  meeting the gaze of absolute goodness
would be  fun.  They need to think  again. They are  still only playing with
religion. Goodness is either the great safety or  the great danger-according
to the way you react to it.  And we have reacted the wrong way. Now my third
point. When I  chose to get to my real subject in this roundabout way, I was
not trying to play any kind of  trick  on you. I had  a different reason. My
reason was that Christianity simply does not make sense until you have faced
the  sort  of  facts  I have  been describing.  Christianity tells people to
repent and promises them forgiveness. It therefore has  nothing (as far as I
know) to say to people who do not know they  have done anything to repent of
and  who do  not feel that they need any forgiveness.  It is after you  have
realised  that there is a real  Moral Law, and a  Power  behind the law, and
that you have  broken  that law and put yourself wrong with that Power-it is
after all this,  and not a moment sooner, that  Christianity begins to talk.
When you  know you are sick, you will listen, to. the doctor.  When you have
realised that our position is nearly  desperate you will begin to understand
what the Christians are talking about. They offer  an explanation of how  we
got into our present state of both hating goodness and loving it. They offer
an explanation of  how  God  can be this impersonal mind  at the back of the
Moral Law and yet also a  Person. They tell you how the demands of this law,
which you and I cannot meet,  have been met  on  our behalf, how God Himself
becomes a man to save man from the disapproval  of God. It  is an old  story
and if you want to go into it you will no doubt consult people who have more
authority to talk  about it than I  have. All I am doing is to ask people to
face  the  facts-to understand  the  questions which Christianity  claims to
answer. And  they are very  terrifying facts. I wish it  was possible to say
something  more agreeable. But  I must say what I think  true. Of course,  I
quite agree  that the  Christian religion is,  in  the long run, a  thing of
unspeakable comfort. But it  does not  begin  in comfort; it begins  in  the
dismay  I have been describing, and it is no use at  all trying to go  on to
that comfort without first going through that dismay. In religion, as in war
and everything else, comfort is the one  thing you cannot get by looking for
it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look  for
comfort you will not get either comfort or truth- only soft soap and wishful
thinking to  begin with and, in the end,  despair. Most of us  have got over
the prewar wishful thinking about international politics. It is time we  did
the same about religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lewis gives three reasons to consider religion as a means to satisfy the guilt imposed by the moral law.

1. Lewis suggests that one reason to reconsider religion is that humanity is on the wrong road. Do you think humanity is still on the wrong road?
2. Lewis states that if God is like the moral law, he is not soft or sentimental. Why is this shocking? What else points to the existence of God apart from the moral law?
3. According to Lewis, Christianity will not make sense to anyone until they realize...?

 

 

 

• Summary to this point: You may be annoyed with Lewis' conclusion that something or someone from beyond the universe is “getting at us.” “You may have felt you were ready to listen to me as long as you thought I had anything to say; but it it turns out to be only religion, well, the world has tried that and you cannot put the clocks back.”
  • [1] “Putting the clock back:”
    • if the clock is wrong, “putting it back” is the only sensible thing to do.
    • “progress” means movement toward where you want to be. If you've taken a wrong turn, the first one to turn back (and return to the right road) first is the most progressive.
    • In mathematics, if you've started the wrong way, the sooner you admit the mistake and start again, the sooner you'll get the problem done.
    • In computers, it is the same. If you've used the wrong algorithm or programming language, or database, or file structure or whatever, the sooner to admit the mistake and go back, the sooner you'll get good results.
    • “There is nothing progressive about being pigheaded and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world, it is pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We are on the wrong road. And if that is so, we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.”
  • [2] This is not “religion.” “We have only got as far as Somebody or Something behind the Moral Law.”
    • We're not taking anything from any religion or church or holy book, “we are trying to see what we can find out about this Somebody on our own steam.”
    • What we find is quite shocking:
      • We find the universe this Somebody has made:
        • He is a great artist (the beauty of the universe)
        • He is merciless and “no friend to man.” (The universe is an extremely dangerous and “terrifying” place.)
          • more dangerous that even Lewis knew at his time.
          • radiation dangers (Earth's magnetic field shield, Sun's magnetic field shield)
          • comet and asteroidal impact dangers (Saturn and Jupiter for impactor shields)
          • ad infinitum
        • The Moral Law, which we find encoded in our minds. Inside information.
          • “You find out more about God from the Moral Law than from the universe in general just as you find out more about a man by listening to his conversation than by looking at a house he has built.”
          • We learn that his being is “intensely interested in right conduct – in fair play, unselfishness, courage, good faith, honesty and truthfulness.
          • So far, we have found things that agree with Christianity, but let's not get in a hurry here...
          • “The Moral Law does not give us any grounds for thinking that God is 'good' in the sense of being indulgent, or soft, or sympathetic. There is nothing indulgent about the Moral Law. It is hard as nails. It tells you to do the straight thing and it does not seem to care how painful, or dangerous, or difficult it is to do.”
        • If we find that God is like his Moral Law... we find that he is by no means “soft.”
        • [Lewis goes into an interesting discussion of “goodness” and “forgiveness” here, pointing out that that we have only established a power that is like a mind, not a person behind the Moral Law. If this power is an impersonal mind, there is not forgiveness – it's not possible. Analogy to mathematics again – it's either right, or it wrong, but it's not something that can be pleaded or bargained.]
        • Discussion: Our terrifying situation:
          • If this power is perfectly good, it can onLY hate the less than perfect things we do.
          • If it accepts any of our failures, it is not good.
          • We can't help but be imperfect.
          • “If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our efforts are hopeless. But if it is, then we are making ourselves enemies to that goodness every day, and are not in the least likely to do any better tomorrow, and so our case is hopeless again.”
    • “We cannot do without it, and we cannot do with it. God is the only comfort,He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from. He is our only possible ally, and we have made ourselves His enemies.”
      • “Some people talk as if meeting the gaze of absolute goodness would be fun. They need to think again. They are still only playing with religion. Goodness is either the great safety or the great danger – according to the way you react to it. And we have reacted the wrong way.”
  • [3] “Christianity simply does not make sense until you have faced the sort of facts...” listed in the first two points.
    • We've taken a round-about path to get to this point in the discussion, but it was not as a trick, it was a means to make us think clearly about those things.
    • “Christianity tells people to repent and promises forgiveness.” It does not speak to people who do not know they have anything to be repentant for and do not feel a need for forgiveness.
    • It is only after you have realized that there is a Moral Law, that there is a power behind the Moral Law, that you have broken the Moral Law and put yourself at odds with this Power – only at this point does Christianity start to have meaning.
• Now, we are to a place where Christianity starts to make sense. Christianity explains:
  • how we got into the present state of loving goodness and hating it.
  • an explanation of how God can be an impersonal mind behind the universe AND a Person.
  • how the demands of the law, which we cannot meet, have been met on our behalf.
  • how “God becomes a man to save man from the disapproval of God.”

 

 

“All I am doing is to ask people to face the facts – to understand the questions which Christianity claims to answer. And they are very terrifying facts.”

“... the Christian religion is, in the long run, a thing of unspeakable comfort. But it does not begin in comfort; it begins in the dismay I have been describing, and it is no use at all trying to go on to that comfort without first going through that dismay.”

“In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth – only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt 

http://www.opendiscipleship.org/Mere_Christianity_leaders_notes

http://www.gordy-stith.com/Mere%20Christianity/mere_christianity_study_guide.htm