guymwilliams.net

Mere Christianity 5

I’d like to follow up on something in the last post, which was a summary of Lewis’presentation in chapter two of book one in Mere Christianity.

In one of his answers to potential objections, he offers the following illustration to prove their is something in our minds in addition to our instincts toward certain kinds of actions.

He writes: “If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature’s mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses.”

A paragraph earlier, Lewis gave the example of hearing a cry for help. When we quickly survey the scene, it turns out that the man is drowning. Lewis says that we feel two instincts–one to help him and another for self-preservation. Those instincts are both good instincts. Whether they are right or wrong to follow depends on the situation. Something must judge which should win out in the particulars of that situation. Which ought to be elevated, strengthened, and acted upon? Which should be suppressed and denied?

Lewis continues: “But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away.”

Perhaps in that moment the stronger impulse is the one to help. Perhaps it is the one to run away. If we’re truthful, I think we would find that we have had both experiences ourselves.

We know the experience of having known the good we ought to have done. But we found that the impulse we ought to follow in that moment of decision was the weaker one. And it needed an extra voice advocating for it when we were tempted to ignore it and go with the other.

Lewis contends that the Moral Law is not an impulse because it is the judge between our impulses at times of situational application. It is the advocate for the impulse in that moment that represents the right, but finds itself weaker than the other impulse.

In Lewis’example, when we act with sacrificial courage and give help, we feel good in the end that we “rose to the occasion” and acted with courage and conviction (does this common phrase not indicate the struggle of the weaker impulse to exercise itself?). But if we succumb to allowing the stronger of the two impulses, self-preservation in our example, we are filled with regret and feelings of guilt that we didn’t do what we should/could have. We’re even tempted to hide our inaction and keep it a secret because we feel shame.

There’s more that the Christian gospel has to say about this latter situation, but Lewis delays speaking to that and so will I. The point here is to underscore the reality and toughness of the Moral Law. It only mediates and tells you which impulse you should follow, and reminds you of it if you fail to do so. If we are to understand the Christian gospel fully, we must reckon with this aspect of the Moral Law.

Mere Christianity 4

In the first chapter, Lewis begins his argument for God from morality by establishing two summary points:

• “First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it.”
• “Secondly, that they do not in fact behave that way.”

Objection 1: Isn’t the Moral Law just a “herd instinct” we’ve developed like all the others? By “herd instinct,” Lewis is referring to what comes to us through evolutionary biology as a species.

Mere Christianity 3

Mere Christianity is divided into four books. The first one consists of five chapters and is a logical argument from morality for the existence of God. We’ll begin with chapter one today.

Remember two bits of background. First, that each chapter began as a short talk on BBC radio. Second, that Lewis himself made the journey to Christian faith from the position of being a committed atheist. He first convert to theism (belief in god), then a little later to Christianity, which was in his early 30s. These talks are given in the early to mid 1940s when Lewis is himself in his early 40s. So he has made this precise faith journey only ten years or so removed from contending for the faith in the radio talks that would become the classic book.

This is just to say that Lewis knows what it means not to believe from experience, and relatively recent experience at that, at the time of these talks. So he takes nothing for granted and assumes he must start at belief’s ground floor.

In chapter 1, Lewis is making two points to begin advancing his case, which he summarizes at the end of the chapter:

1. “First, human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way”
2. “Secondly, that they do not in fact behave that way”

The first point claims that a standard for human behavior exists, what Lewis calls “the Moral Law.”

This is demonstrated when persons argue. We argue based on the premise that we are nearer to, or aligned with, the True Standard than the other person. We assume that someone or something is acting as the judge between the two of us as to what the right really is. We do not assume that “might makes right,” that is, if I can whip you physically or intellectually or emotionally, that I get to create the Standard (popularly stated, “the one with the gold makes the rules”).

And he buttresses that claim by pointing out that some persons claims to disagree that there is a universal Moral Law, disbelieving in a “real Right and Wrong.” But try lying to him, or treating him unfairly. You’ll soon see what he really believes about a real right and wrong.

The second point claims that the Moral Law, though universally acknowledged, is not universally followed.

The Moral Law may be just as universal as the Law of Gravity, but is a description of what we know we ought to do, not a description of what we do.

A stone doesn’t have to think about and then obey the Law of Gravity. The “Law” of Gravity simply describes what a stone does when you hold it in the air and let go. But the “Moral Law,” which Lewis also calls the “Law of Decent Behavior,” makes claims on our behavior that we choose to obey or not.

And we find that none of us obeys perfectly. Even looking only at my standards for myself, I don’t measure up.

Lewis states: “These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.”

Mere Christianity 2

Continuing in the preface to Mere Christianity…

As I said last time, the preface establishes a few helpful details at the outset.

1. The background
2. He aims to contend only for “mere” Christianity
3. How he will use the term “Christian,” especially in reference to Book Three, on Christian Morality

Use of the Term “Christian” 

After telling us that he is trying to take a similar “mere” sort of approach to morality or ethics, and that he does not write on areas that he has little experience with or pastoral authority (and therefore obligation)  to address, he discusses his use of the term “Christian.” He writes: “Far deeper objections may be felt—and have been expressed—against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: ‘Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?”

Lewis acknowledges that he understands the reason for the objection on the one hand. But on the other hand, he denies the usefulness of loosening up the definition of the word “Christian” to include people who act “in the spirit of Jesus” even if they don’t believe the Christian doctrines about him. But, Lewis objects, “We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it.”

He explains the problem with the example of the term “gentleman.” Originally, the term “gentleman” meant something concrete and observable—a man with “a coat of arms and some landed property.” You were neither complimenting a man by calling him a gentlemen, nor were you insulting him by saying he was not. You were only describing him (coat of arms? landed property?). It was a description of fact. Once it was transitioned into the realm of designating a subjective value or quality, it became just one more word that showed one person’s approval for another.

Lewis points out that using the word “Christian” as a way of making judgments about who is living nearer in the spirit of Christ may smack of arrogance. And using it as a way to describe someone as “good,” robs the term of its particular meaning. We would do better to say someone is not a very good Christian, or quite a good Christian, rather than claim they are not a Christian at all.

Next up: Book One, “Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe” 

Mere Christianity 1

I’m finally getting to a project I’ve long talked about, namely blogging through CS Lewis’classic book Mere Christianity. I plan to go more-or-less straight through, chapter by chapter. But I will also vary the pace and take an extra post here and there to expand on something in the book from time to time, so the numbers on the post titles will not correlate with the chapters themselves. So I’ll make note of where I am at the top of each post.

If you’re wanting to read along, now is a good time to pick up a copy wherever fine books are sold, either at a store or online. If you’ve never read Mere Christianity, I think you’re in for a treat.

For my part, I’m certainly no expert. I have read Mere Christianity many times and once had the immense blessing of teaching through it weekly—just about chapter by chapter—with a great small group of guys, which took us about eight months to do. But I’ve not reached the point of having read through, much less studied well the whole Lewis canon. Still, I think I can be helpful for those who’ve got a little less time with it than I, so I offer these posts for that purpose.

Preface

The preface establishes a few helpful details at the outset.

1. The background
2. He aims to contend only for “mere” Christianity
3. How he will use the term “Christian,” especially in reference to Book Three, on Christian Morality

These are the collection of what where originally radio addresses on BBC radio. They had been previously collected into three books, and are here collected into one, with some editing to help the transition from spoken language to written language.

“Mere” Christianity 

Lewis aims not to weigh in on a doctrinal distinctive of a particular denomination, though he says of himself, “There is no mystery about my own position. I am a very ordinary layman of the Church of England, not especially ‘high,’nor especially ‘low,’nor especially anything else.”

He helpfully reminds us that not only is it true that the finer points of doctrine that separate one branch of Christianity from another are fewer and less weighty than those points of agreement that bind the whole faith together. In my own context, this is clearly seen around the beliefs and practices associated with baptism. Baptism is certainly an important thing, and our theology of baptism is far from insignificant. But it is also not so great a point as to overshadow the centrality of Jesus Christ as Divine Son of God, Savior of the world, and Lord of all creation, for example. That is far greater a thing to have in common, that particular theologies about and practices for baptism that differ, important as those may be.

And Lewis points out that conversations, even arguments, about doctrinal distinctives are conversations for the already converted: “I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold.” Let’s stick to the stuff at the absolute center, the core.

Here’s the best definition of “mere Christianity”: “Ever since I became a Christian, I have though that the best, perhaps the only, service I could do for my unbelieving neighbors was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times” (emphasis mine).

I’ll get to the use of the term “Christian” in my next post.