Mere Christianity - Book Two - The Invasion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Book Two

 

WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE

 

 

2. The Invasion

     Very well then, atheism is too simple. And I will tell you another view
that is also too  simple.  It is the view I call Christianity-and-water, the
view  which simply says there is a good God in Heaven and everything is  all
right-leaving  out all  the difficult and  terrible  doctrines about sin and
hell and the devil, and the redemption. Both these are boys' philosophies.

     It  is no good asking for a simple religion. After all, real things are
not simple. They  look simple, but they are not.  The table I  am sitting at
looks simple: but ask a  scientist to tell you what it is really made of-all
about the atoms and how the light waves rebound from them and hit my eye and
what they do to the optic nerve and what it does to my brain-and, of course,
you find that what  we  call "seeing  a table" lands you  in  mysteries  and
complications  which  you can hardly  get to  the end of. A  child saying  a
child's prayer looks simple.  And if you are content to stop there, well and
good. But if you are  not-and the modern world usually is not-if you want to
go on  and ask  what  is really  happening-  then you  must  be prepared for
something difficult. If  we ask  for something  more than simplicity,  it is
silly then to complain that the something more is not simple.

     Very often, however, this silly procedure is adopted  by people who are
not  silly,  but  who,  consciously  or   unconsciously,   want  to  destroy
Christianity. Such  people  put up a  version of Christianity suitable for a
child  of six and make that  the  object of  their  attack. When you  try to
explain the Christian doctrine as it is really held by an  instructed adult,
they then complain that you are making their heads turn round and that it is
all too  complicated  and that if there really were  a God they are sure  He
would have made "religion" simple, because simplicity  is so beautiful, etc.
You must be  on  your guard  against these people for they will change their
ground every minute and only waste your tune. Notice, too, their idea of God
"making religion simple": as if "religion" were something  God invented, and
not His  statement to us of certain  quite unalterable facts  about His  own
nature.

     Besides  being complicated, reality, in  my experience, is usually odd.
It is not  neat,  not obvious, not what you expect. For instance,  when  you
have grasped that the earth and the other planets all  go round the sun, you
would naturally expect that all the planets were made  to match-all at equal
distances from each other, say,  or  distances that regularly increased,  or
all the same size, or else getting bigger or smaller as you go  farther from
the sun. In fact, you find no rhyme or reason (that we can see) about either
the sizes or  the distances; and  some of them  have one moon, one has four,
one has two, some have none, and one has a ring.

     Reality, in fact, is usually something you could not have guessed. That
is one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It is a religion you could not
have  guessed. If it  offered us  just  the kind  of universe we had  always
expected,  I should feel we were making it up. But, in fact, it is  not  the
sort of thing anyone would have  made up. It has just that queer twist about
it  that  real  things  have.  So  let  us  leave  behind  all  these  boys'
philosophies-these over-simple answers. The problem is  not  simple and  the
answer is not going to be simpler either.

     What  is the  problem? A universe that contains much that  is obviously
bad and apparently meaningless, but containing creatures like  ourselves who
know that it is bad and  meaningless. There are only two views that face all
the facts. one is the Christian view that this is a good world that has gone
wrong, but still retains the memory of what it ought to have been. The other
is  the view  called  Dualism.  Dualism means the belief that there are  two
equal and independent powers at the back of everything, one of them good and
the other bad, and that this universe is the battlefield in which they fight
out an endless war. I personally think that next  to Christianity Dualism is
the manliest and most sensible creed  on the market. But it  has  a catch in
it.

     The two powers, or  spirits, or gods-the good  one  and the bad one-are
supposed  to  be quite  independent. They  both  existed from all  eternity.
Neither of  them made the other, neither of them has any more right than the
other to  call itself God. Each  presumably thinks it is good and thinks the
other  bad. one of them  likes hatred and cruelty, the  other likes love and
mercy, and  each backs its own view. Now what do we mean when we call one of
them the Good Power and the other the Bad Power? Either we are merely saying
that  we  happen to  prefer  the  one  to  the other-like preferring beer to
cider-or else we are saying that,  whatever the two  powers  think about it,
and  whichever we humans,  at the moment,,  happen to like,  one of them  is
actually wrong, actually  mistaken, in  regarding itself as good. Now it  we
mean merely that we happen to prefer the first, then we must give up talking
about good and evil at  all.  For good means what you  ought to prefer quite
regardless of what you happen to like  at any given moment.  If "being good"
meant  simply  joining the  side you happened to  fancy, for no real reason,
then good would not deserve to be called good. So we  must  mean that one of
the two powers is actually wrong and the other actually right.

     But the moment you say that, you are putting  into the universe a third
thing  in addition to the two Powers: some  law or standard or rule of  good
which one of the powers conforms  to and the  other fails to conform to. But
since the two powers are judged by this standard, then this standard, or the
Being who made this  standard, is  farther back and higher up than either of
them, and He will be the real God.  In  fact, what we meant  by calling them
good and bad turns out to be that one of them is  in a right relation to the
real ultimate God and the other in a wrong relation to Him.

     The same point can be made in a different way. If Dualism is true, then
the bad Power must  be a being who likes  badness for  its  own sake. But in
reality we have no experience  of anyone liking  badness just because  it is
bad. The nearest we can get to it is in cruelty. But in real life people are
cruel for one  of two reasons- either  because  they  are  sadists, that is,
because they have a sexual perversion which makes cruelty a cause of sensual
pleasure  to  them, or else for the sake of something  they are going to get
out of it-money, or power, or safety. But pleasure, money, power, and safety
are  all, as  far as they go, good things. The  badness consists in pursuing
them by  the wrong method, or  in the wrong way, or too much. I do not mean,
of course, that the people who do this are not desperately wicked. I do mean
that wickedness, when you examine  it, turns  out to  be the pursuit of some
good  in  the wrong way. You can be good for the mere sake of goodness:  you
cannot be bad for the mere sake of badness. You can do  a  kind  action when
you are not feeling  kind and when it gives you no pleasure, simply  because
kindness is right; but no one ever did a cruel action simply because cruelty
is  wrong-only because cruelty was pleasant or useful to him. In other words
badness cannot succeed even in being bad  in the same  way in which goodness
is good. Goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness.
And  there must be something good first before it can be  spoiled. We called
sadism  a  sexual perversion;  but you must first have the idea of a  normal
sexuality  before you can talk of its being perverted; and you can see which
is the perversion, because  you  can explain  the perverted from the normal,
and cannot explain the normal  from the perverted. It follows that this  Bad
Power, who is supposed to be on an equal footing with the Good Power, and to
love badness  in the same  way as  the Good Power loves goodness, is a  mere
bogy. In order to be bad he must have good things to want and then to pursue
in the wrong way: he  must have impulses which were originally good in order
to be able to pervert them. But if he is bad he cannot supply himself either
with good  things to  desire or with good  impulses to pervert.  He  must be
getting both from the Good  Power. And if so, then he is not independent. He
is part  of the Good Power's world: he was made either  by the Good Power or
by some power above them both.

     Put  it  more  simply  still.  To  be  bad,  he  must  exist  and  have
intelligence  and   will.  But  existence,  intelligence  and  will  are  in
themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the Good Power: even
to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent. And do you now begin to
see why Christianity has always said that the devil is a fallen angel?  That
is not a mere story  for the children. It is a real recognition of  the fact
that evil is a parasite, not an original thing. The powers which enable evil
to carry on are powers given it by goodness. All  the things which  enable a
bad man to  be  effectively  bad  are in themselves  good things-resolution,
cleverness, good  looks, existence  itself. That is why Dualism, in a strict
sense, will not work.

     But  I  freely  admit  that   real  Christianity  (as   distinct   from
Christianity-and-water)  goes much nearer  to Dualism than people think. one
of the  things  that  surprised  me when  I  first  read  the  New Testament
seriously was that it talked so  much about  a Dark  Power in the universe-a
mighty evil spirit who was held to be the  Power behind  death  and disease,
and  sin.  The difference  is that Christianity thinks  this Dark Power  was
created  by  God, and  was  good  when  he  was  created,  and  went  wrong.
Christianity agrees with Dualism that this universe is at  war. But  it does
not think this is a war between  independent powers. It thinks it is a civil
war,  a rebellion, and that we are living in a part of the universe occupied
by the rebel.

     Enemy-occupied  territory-that is what this world  is.  Christianity is
the  story  of  how the rightful king has  landed,  you might say  landed in
disguise,  and  is  calling  us  all to  take part in a  great  campaign  of
sabotage. When you  go to church you  are  really listening-in to the secret
wireless from our friends: that is why the enemy is so anxious to prevent us
from  going. He  does  it  by  playing  on  our  conceit  and  laziness  and
intellectual snobbery.  I know someone will ask me, "Do you really  mean, at
this  time  of day,  to reintroduce our old friend the devil-hoofs and horns
and all?" Well, what the time of  day has to do with it I do not know. And I
am not particular about the hoofs and horns. But in other respects my answer
is  "Yes,  I  do."  I do  not  claim  to know  anything  about  his personal
appearance. If anybody really wants  to know  him better I would say to that
person, "Don't worry. If you really want to, you will Whether you'll like it
when you do is another question."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lewis discusses what he calls Christianity-and-water.

1. There are many people who reject Christian doctrine because it is not simple. What is Lewis' answer to this criticism?
2. There are two views of good and evil that are discussed by Lewis, what are they?
3. Why does Lewis reject dualism?
4. According to Lewis' analogy of being in enemy territory, we go to church in order to...?

 

 

 

• Atheism is too simple
• Another view that is too simple, “Christianity-and-water”
  • Says “there is a good God in heaven and everything is alright”
  • Leaves out all of the “difficult and terrible doctrines about sin and hell and the devil, and the redemption.”
• “Both these are boys' philosophies.
• No point in asking for “a simple religion.” Real things are not simple. Real things have the appearance of simplicity, but nothing is truly simple.
  • “this table.”
  • “A child saying a child's prayer looks simple. And if you are content to stop there, well and good. But if you are not – and the modern would usually is not – if you want to go on and ask what is really happening – then you must be prepared for something difficult. If we ask for something more than simplicity, it is sully then to complain that the something more is not simple.”
  • This “silly procedure” is very often used by people who are not silly, but who want to destroy Christianity.
  • These people will set up a child's version of Christianity and attack it. (straw man.)
  • When you try to explain adult Christian doctrine, they complain that you are “making their heads turn round and that it is all too complicated and that if there really were a God they are sure He would have made 'religion' simple, because simplicity is beautiful, etc.”
  • Beware of these people, “for they will change their ground every minute and only waste your time.”
  • Their idea of 'making religion simple' is “as if 'religion' were something God invented, and not His statement to us of certain quite unalterable facts about His nature.”
• Reality is also usually odd. “It is not neat, not obvious, not what you expect.” Christianity is like that. “[Christianity] is a religion you should not have guessed.”
• The problem:
  • The universe is full of things that are obviously bad, and apparently meaningless
  • The universe contains creatures (ourselves) “who know that is is bad and meaningless.”
• Two views:
  • Dualism: Two powers/spirits/gods. one “good,” one “bad/evil.” ....
    • “If Dualism is true, then the bad Power must be a being who likes badness for its own sake. But in reality we have no experience of anyone liking badness just because it is bad.”
    • “Goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness. And there must be something good first before it can be spoiled.”
  • Christianity is very near Dualism at this point -- “Christianity thinks this Dark power was created by God, and was good when he was created, and went wrong.”

Enemy-occupied territory – that is what this world is. Christianity is the story of how the rightful kind has landed, you might say landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage. When you go to church you are really listening-in to the secret wireless from our friends: that is why the enemy is so anxious to prevent us from going. He does it by playing on our conceit and laziness and intellectual snobbery. I know someone will ask me, 'Do you really mean, at this time of day, to re-introduce our old friend the devil – hoofs and horns and all?' Well, what the time of day has to do with it I do not know. And I am not particular about hoofs and horns. But in other respects my answer is “Yes, I do.” I do not claim to know anything about his personal appearance. If anybody really wants to know him better I would say to that person, 'Don't worry. If you really want to. you will. Whether you'll like it when you do is another question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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