- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (12/11)
- Next Post »A La Carte (12/12)
Reading Classics - Mere Christianity (II)
- 12/11/08
- 49
Today we continue reading classics together. We have come to our second reading in C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. We read all of book I, “Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe.”
Discussion
In our reading we covered five short chapters: The Law of Human Nature, Some Objections, The Reality of the Law, What Lies Behind the Law, and We Have Cause to Be Uneasy. In this first book, Lewis sets out to prove the existence of some kind of universal moral law—what he calls the Law of Nature. Looking to how this law was explained in the past, he writes “The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation, and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law—with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose to either obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.” This is a universal law that governs human behavior, telling us all what is wrong and what is right. Though there are some who deny such a law, they cannot do so in good conscience, for the moment they insist the law does not exist, you can outrage their sense of morality by doing something they consider unfair. Fairness can only exist in the presence of some higher moral standard.
Once we admit the existence of this universal law, we can examine ourselves (and others) to see that we do not always behave in the way this law demands. “These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.” A law exists; we do not keep the law.
Lewis is careful to nuance his argument to insist that the existence of this Law of Nature does not necessarily demand the existence of the God of Christianity. He will get to this God soon, but first he wants to have people understand that there is a morality that underlies all human beings. It is only at the very end of this short book that he suggests how the existence of this moral law ought to make us uneasy, for if this law exists and if it exists because of some law-giver and if we have broke this law, well, then there must be some kind of consequence. Lewis wants the reader to know that, properly understood, Christianity ends with comfort, but only if it first begins with terror.
Just a couple of observations I should make. First, I really enjoyed Lewis’ use of metaphor, whether he was discussing mice or pianos or rocks or clocks. He illustrates his points very well. And second, I find his writing style so consistent with The Chronicles of Narnia. This should not be a surprise, I suppose. But I’m enjoying seeing how his distinctive writing style remains so similar even between genres.
Next Week
For next week, let’s read Book II. Again, it’s not as bad as it sounds. As with last week, there are only five short chapters that together come in at 30 pages. I think this section is best read as a unit so we’ll treat it in that fashion. So read those pages and come back here next Thursday! Next week we’ll read a less than a whole book.
Your Turn
The purpose of this program is to read these classics together. So if there is something you’d like to share about what you read, please feel free to do so. You can leave a comment or a link to your blog and we’ll make this a collaborative effort.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (49)
Just going off your summary, I’m not sure Lewis’s points really work.
With regard to the universality of the natural Law, try the “outrage” experiment on someone who’s a true sociopath. It will most likely fail. So, while the vast majority of people are imbued (or conditioned) to have an innate moral compass, apparently it can be “missing” (or destroyed).
The atheist’s response to this innate moral compass is that it’s simply an evolutionarily adaptive trait. If every human were a complete sociopath and had no regard for others of his kind then humanity would be unable to form social groups, and presumably the ability to cooperate and form social groups is an advantageous trait. Hence we’ve developed the moral compass to allow these types of cooperation to happen.
I posted my thoughts here : http://possumbane.livejournal.com/441231.html
Well, J.P.H., I think Lewis grappled adequately with this. He pointed out in the book that the British during WWII had great moral indignation for the madness of the Germans. But why all the fuss and fury if their military aggressiveness is simply a product of their superior genes, like having blond hair and blue eyes? Don’t hate us because we’re superior. We’re ubermenchen!
The point is, DNA and adaptation can explain some things, but simply cannot satisfy us as a final explanation when it comes to the ‘inner compass.’ If we’re ready to follow the sociopath argument, then we’ve got to go easy on pathological liars, womanizers, butchers, etc. They are mere effects of causes.
On a different note, I loved the following passage:
“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.”
I really like this part:”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. This is the terrible fix we are in”I think Christians can also fall into this category if over emphasising God’s forgiveness. It can promote disobediance from a lack of fear in the righteous and just God. True saving faith produces obedience and then we can understand that His Justice makes Him trustworthy.
In response to J.P.H., Lewis does in fact address this very objection in this section:”For example, some people wrote to me saying, ‘Isn’t what you call the Moral Law simply our herd instinct and hasn’t it been developed jus like all our other instincts?’ Now I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by the Moral Law. We all know what it means to be prompted by instinct - by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instince. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you out to help whether you want to or not….Now, this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them.”Further he adds, “If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creatur’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. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning; but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is?…But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you , ‘Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up.’ cannot itself be the herd instinct.”
And then he argues: “There is none of our impulses which the Moral Law may not sometimes tell us to suppress, and none which it may not sometimes tell us to encourage….Strictly speaking, there are no such things as good and bad impulses. Think once again of a piano. It has not got two kinds of notes on it, the ‘right’ notes and the ‘wrong’ ones. Every single note is right at one time and wrong at another. The Moral Law is not any one instinct or any set of instincts; it is something which makes a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing the instincts….The most dangerous thing you can do is to take any on impulse of your own nature and set it up as the tihng you ourt to follow at all costs. There is not one of them which will not make us into devils if we set it up as an absolute guide.”
And there’s more, but I recommend reading it yourself.
I also really enjoyed reading this section and appreciated Lewis’s ability to describe concepts using everyday. ordinary examples.
One thing that confused me a little though, and maybe some of you can help me is when he says ” If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe—no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way.”
I understand this illustration as it relates to the Moral Law, so this illustration is fine for that purpose. My problem comes with the statement “The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way.” How do we reconcile this statement with Romans 1 : 20 which says “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are withoug excuse . . .”
Maybe I am jumping the gun and he will eventually come around to this. Any comments?
JPH, I can’t remember if it was Lewis or someone else who said this, but some people are color blind, some limp, and some have a faulty moral compass. People are sometimes born imperfect, and being a sociopath is just one way that happens.
Jenna,
I agree that analogy does require a double or triple-take.
I don’t think a reconciliation is needed between Romans 1:20 and the architect/house analogy. Romans 1:20 is talking about the physical creation as evidence of God.
The world = the houseGod = the architect
The fact that the house is well designed indicates an external force. A designer. However, the designer is not a physical part of the house. God created the world but is not part of the rocks, trees, etc. (However, there are people that do believe that idolatrous notion)
Moral Law (conscience) as a controlling power is not a physical thing but rather an impulse.
I am not sure I am answering the question to satisfy even myself.
JPH, I recommend reading the book.
Are you a “good news first” person? Or “bad news first”? I picked up that Lewis was saying until we accept the “bad news”—that we are guilty of things we need to repent of—we can’t even begin to understand the “good news” that Christianity offers.
More thoughts on “good news/bad news” here:http://lisanotes.blogspot.com/2008/12/good-or-bad-news-first-thoughts-from.html
I also liked his point that there are certain virtues that all cultures accept as admirable (with exceptions for psychopaths, etc). Here he shows the opposite:
“…think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle…Selfishness has never been admired.”
True, in my estimation, and that helps make the case that humans are created possessing an internal compass, and don’t just pick up a conscience solely from their environmental conditions.
At an add-on to C.S. Lewis. I recommend the works of R.C. Sproul and Jonathan Edward’ concerning the Freedom of the Will as it pertains to the impulse to do one thing verses another.
Deep stuff.
Jenna well its exactly what Roman says…by looking at creation we know there is a Creator but the trees and humans and sky and stars isn’t the Creator…just as well we know there is an Architect by looking at an architecture but the building isn’t or the parts of the building aren’t the architect…does that make sense?
Notice than Romans says His invisible attributes is what is seen…if the architecture is poorly made we can say that some of the attributes of that architect are: (insert here invisible attributes)through creation we see that this Creator is incredibly creative, He is all powerful, He is good, etc..But likewise the Lord has put in us our conscience so that we may know there is a Moral Law and consequently a moral law Giver…The controlling power is not the Moral Law but the moral law Giver who wants us “to behave in a certain way.”
I’ve asked a question I had while reading this bit in a post on my blog.
Laurie:
I personally agree with Lewis that humans are fashioned in the image of God, and that one aspect of that is an innate sense of good and evil. I just don’t consider that truth to be empirically distinguishable from the alternate secular explanation of evolved altruism. Because they’re not distinguishable, I wouldn’t present “humanity’s innate moral compass” to a skeptic as evidence of the existence of a Creator God.
If I were going to seize upon some aspect of humanity that I think bears evidence of a creator, it would probably be our intellect, or possibly our ability to appreciate artistic beauty. Or, for that matter, the fact that we humans feel a need for supernatural belief in the first place. It certainly doesn’t seem necessary from an evolutionary point of view. I mean, yes, for some people religion meets an emotional need, but why would we (as a species) have developed such an emotional need in the first place?
Problem with atheists is that they believe that the human need for a supernatural belief is a mass delusion caused by a chemical imbalance or a Karl Marx “opiate of the people”.
…but of course they are wrong, wrong, wrong.
What atheists need to understand is that genetic mutations or any other chemical process do not add information to the resulting entity. Also, random mutations resulting in higher energy (intelligence) life forms is in direct violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Moral Laws developing from some chemical reaction is scientifically laughable.
Things tend to go from a higher energy state to a lower energy state, From organization to chaos. ( Just look at any 4 year old child’s bedroom when not acted upon by an external agent [the parents] and left to its own devices ;-)) Radiant heat and rust are other examples among many.
While I agree that organisms can change and adapt. No problem there. A canine is still a canine and a feline is still a feline.
..but for some reason Evolution alone (a mere theory at best) is somehow not required to conform to the other established scientific laws.
This is called bad science.
Without an external intelligent force this cannot happen. All experiments in a lab trying to prove these Evolutionary theories have a problem….they have an external, intelligent force (humans) making the reactions happen.
After reading this week’s section in Mere Christianity the first thing I did was get on my knees and ask for forgiveness. I have a tendency for whatever reason to only see God as a source of comfort someone there to help me. But what C.S. Lewis said about realizing that there is a moral law and a power behind the law and that I have broken that law daily and I am in the wrong with God. Then I realized what a Christian really is and that was very powerful. It was like I really did not understand the basics of Christianity and I was more of what Lewis would describe as an Emergent Evolutionist. I think there is a lot of Emergent Evolutionist out there today. Read the last paragraph of chapter 4 if you not sure what I am talking about. I am going through some difficult things in my life. The hardest trial I have ever experienced. I learned in the reading that through this trial I can choose to treat others kindly and treat others the way God would want me too. I can go through it glorifying God or acting like a selfish person. I can choose to follow the moral law as C.S. Lewis would say.
J.P.H.Because it was Lewis’ argument you brought into question, and, of course, since it’s Lewis’ book we’re reading, I simply provided you with a condensed form of his response to your objection. I do not know at this point how he would respond to your objections to his responses. Certainly there are many arguments available for the existence of a creator, and you’ve raised some good ones yourself. And there is likely no argument that will satisfy or convince everyone’s way of thinking. But these are Lewis’.
Now, as to my thoughts on this, I think Lewis’ arguments are good ones, as far as they go. They are definitely a good start, and worth chewing on. But for me, what always brings me to the end of my arguments is the very existence of a “survival instinct” in the first place. The question of why life is so danged determined to perpetuate itself, as though it were preferable to exist rather than to not exist. Why on earth is life so bent on living? Why do we consider it a better state qualitatively? Hopefully that line of reasoning makes sense to someone besides myself. But anyway, that’s my line. It’s not Lewis’, at least not at this point in the reading. And, as I said, his argument is a good one, even though It does not, as you’ve pointed out, answer every possible objection.
Thanks Laurie. That makes sense. I wasn’t trying to pick at you.
Ryan- imho you’re vastly oversimplifying things, and making claims that just don’t follow. Some thoughts:
“they believe that the human need for a supernatural belief is a mass delusion caused by a chemical imbalance”
Mass delusion, yes. Caused by a chemical imbalance? No. No thoughtful atheist I know considers religious belief, in general, to be caused by chemical imbalance. Otherwise upwards of 90% of the world would be “chemically imbalanced”. They typically consider it an emotional crutch.
“…but of course they are wrong, wrong, wrong”
Actually, in a great many cases they’re right, right, right.
“genetic mutations or any other chemical process do not add information to the resulting entity”
What does it even mean to “add information” to an “entity”? Genetic mutations can and do “add information”, depending on how you define “information”.
“random mutations resulting in higher energy life forms is in direct violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics”
Uh. No. While I also have serious problems with “random mutation” as the source of all life, you can’t just dismiss it with a hand-waving argument like, “it violates the second law of thermodynamics”. There are a number of sites that address this misconception.
“but for some reason Evolution alone (a mere theory at best) is somehow not required to conform to the other established scientific laws”
This statement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms “law” and “theory” in their scientific context. Laws can be disproved, just like theories. The difference between the two is outlined here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
“The hardest trial I have ever experienced.” -Rebecca
May our Savior’s Spirit, and His grace be upon your heart and situation. Amen.
This man, Clive Staples is such a fine writer. And God truly had given him the wisdom and humility from His grace to help instruct His people.It’s a difficult read for me, but quite enjoyable.
“I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm.”
My wife said to me the other night to not do such and such. I then told her, “You know, I think I’ll do just that.” She was surprised, and said “Why did you say that?”I told her, “I usually feel that way when you tell me to do something in such a straight forward way, but I usually shrug it off, and simply go ahead and do it. And later on feel fine. You know what Paul said, ‘I do what I don’t want to do, and don’t do what I want to, for the law said to not covet, and I coveted.’
Looking forward to reading this classic.
J.P. H.I did not get the sense that you were picking at all. I’ve enjoyed this interaction. I get the sense that your concern is that if we are to defend our position, we should do so with the most solid of arguments. I agree. Which is why, like Lewis, I avoid arguing too much from science - not because I feel that science does not give evidence of the Creator. (I’m convinced that, as Scripture tells us, it provides glaring evidence, and nothing I learn from science has tended to change my position.) The reason I wouldn’t personally argue from that position is that I have little expertise in that area, and that the argument from science has its limits. For example, I won’t use the argument from the 2nd Law of Thermomdynamics, not because I distrust such an argument, but because I’ve never even studied physics, not even in high school. I don’t want to discredit the message by presenting information that for all I know could be ridiculous to anyone who really knows their scientific stuff. I find it interesting that evolution has come up in this discussion, since Lewis did not take issue with the concept of evolution. It is my understanding that he believed in what some call “theistic evolution” or “guided evolution”. He believed God created all things and used evolution as a means of doing so.
Anyway, I still recommend you grab a copy and read it for yourself. It didn’t become a classic for no reason.
I’ve posted a summary along with a few thoughts on the reading here: http://lauriemo.blogspot.com/2008/12/mere-christianity-book-one.html
I am a little late to the game. I just read the section this morning and thought I would add my two cents. I am happy to read the discussion above and I am glad that people are reading Lewis and thinking hard about these issues.It is important for us to remember the context out of which his radio broadcast came and the reason for many of his particular illustrations. The western world was locked in a world war that stretched to the limit many people’s beliefs about morality and ethics. After reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich I was struck by the moral problems present in the Nazi empire. I was especially challenged by the chapter describing the horrors of the German concentration camps and medical experiments. What caought me off guard was that all through school I had been told, perhaps implicitly, that the evils of the Nazi regime were senseless. It was out of sheer spite and cruelty that the Nazis did these things. But when I read the history I found something quite different at work. The Nazi evil was very reasoned, calculated, and justified if one accepted their starting point, which was the superiority of the German race and the need to acquire new land. Many of their “senseless” cruelties were in fact experiments designed to find ways to keep their pilots alive if they were shot down over freezing waters, etc.This fits precisely into Lewis’s discussion of the Law of Nature. Even the Nazis, who are held out as the epitome of evil and cruelty, held to a standard and had a (perverted) moral compass. It also provides a clear example of his principle that any virtue, in this case patriotism, becomes an evil when it is taken out of measure or practiced at the wrong time or in the wrong measure.
I am scratching my head on this first section. The first thing that I notice, in all these comments, is that there is little talk about my holy Father, who called me into a relationship with himself.
I was dead in my spirit, and through the miraculous gift of regeneration, I was made alive. Then, and only then, did I see.
I see a lot of talk about God existing because we, with our finite minds, believe it so. My faith is not built on Intelligent Design, even though I might agree with it.
Am I missing something here?
I still remember when I was in Grade 13 (I am from Ontario when there was such a thing as a Grade 13) our English Lit teacher gave us copy of a text from a guy name C.S. Lewis. It was called Right and Wrong as a clue to the Meaning of the Universe. I had no idea who Lewis was (even thought I had been raise in a church) but the title alone intrigued me. Upon reading and reflection I was astounded at the thoughts this man had put to paper. I was more astonished that we were reading such material in high school. The ensuing discussion in class was pretty eye opening. Many , myself included, had never given any thought to such ideas and, at least for me, sparked a lifelong interest in thinking critically about my faith. Lewis was a big part of that initially and reading this section again after many years has shown me why.
Sorry for the personal reflections but I just thought I would share how this initial Book in Mere Christianity had impacted my life.
I have posted my review here: http://theist.wordpress.com/2008/12/12/mere-christianity-review-iimere-christianity-review-ii/
I tend to agree with Laurie’s advice to J.P.H to grab the book and interact with Lewis’ argumentation, which is quite good. Disagreement tends to come out of fundamental world-view differences and presuppositions rather than open discussion.
David,
This is just preliminary stuff, the overcoming of certain intellectual obstacles certain people may have, particularly athiests. My husband, Paul, is a former atheist and found this reading very engaging and also a fair reflection of the thought processes that led him away from atheism to being first a theist, then a nominal Christian, and then, by God’s grace he was saved when listening to an explanation of the doctrines of grace.
The tone is definitely different than that of Edwards or Pink, and a lot of other authors we’re used to, but it’s only Book 1of a treatise aimed toward the unconverted, and he’s already managed to bring in the need for repentence and the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ - not too shabby.
J.P.H.
Of course I have to simplify. I am not going to write a treatise on a blog comment.
I understand the definition of laws vs. theories. They are hypothesis, theories, and laws. Laws have been repeatedly proven, however, could be debunked if other evidence shows that they are no longer true as thought.
Evolution is a theory not a factual law.
The atheists I have talked to believe that “everything is chemical” and God does not exist.
What you have not heard stated by them but is is naturally implied by this = “If you believe in a God, then your chemistry must be flawed.”
They may conveniently call it an “emotional coping mechanism”, but there are many scenarios where that reasoning does not make sense. For example, sending money to starving people in another country, thereby making yourself poorer in the process.
Laurie,
I was watching a brilliant scholar debate Christopher Hitchens the other day. I was saddened that it seemed to be a battle of the brilliant minds. People were there to watch the spectacle of these brilliant men debate a controversial issue.
In my mind, I was wishing that the brilliant scholar would simply lay the word of God on him. I was praying that God would open Christopher Hitchens mind, and give him eyes to see.
No amount of debate is going to do that. I suspect if Jonathan Edwards were in a debate with Christopher Hitchens, he would simply, and profoundly lay the word of God on him. From there, it is the Holy Spirits work to do.
Therefore, what use is there for philosophy? Is philosophy merely invented by the Greeks to provide a showplace for their “wisdom”.
Is there any greater wisdom than God’s word?
I’m just asking. I see a great many brilliant minds attracted to philosophy, and eventually many wind up shipwrecked. No different then me putting my faith and trust in my ability to make money.
Ryan,
“Evolution is a theory not a factual law.”
Scientific “laws” are not incontrovertible fact. They can be disproved, just like theories. See Myth #1 on this page for an explanation of the difference:
http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/TenMyths.html
Suffice it to say that labeling evolution a “theory” doesn’t make it any less believable, or easy to discard. A scientific law is not just a “more reliable” version of a scientific theory.
“The atheists I have talked to believe that “everything is chemical” and God does not exist. ”
Oh, I agree that they think “everything is chemical”. Some, at least. I was a hard-core materialist prior to becoming a Christian. That does not, however, mean that the typical atheist believes all religious belief is due to a “chemical imbalance”.
“For example, sending money to starving people in another country, thereby making yourself poorer in the process.”
Do you not see how that could be an emotional crutch? “My children hate me and my husband is indifferent, but at least I support those children in Africa. Ergo I’m a good person, and my life has meaning.”
David asks:
“Therefore, what use is there for philosophy?”
Philosophy is the study of things like meaning, knowledge, truth, man’s place in the universe, etc. It deals with the very stuff of faith. When one discusses the implications of the scriptures, that’s essentially philosophy.
I’m not saying we should all go off and read Plato; I’m saying that there’s more to evangelism than simply reading the scriptures “at” someone. Before I became a believer, I had a number of objections. Some of these were addressed, not through direct reading of scripture, but through discussing them with other believers. The first one was, “Even if all this Christianity stuff were true, it doesn’t seem like something I’d ~want~ to be true, or something I’d enjoy taking part in.” Once I became convinced that the gospel was really “good” news, there was the problem of, “Well, it would be really nice if all this were true, but I just don’t find the evidence for it very convincing.” Then followed some further interaction along those lines.
Now, ultimately, I feel like it took a supernatural “unveiling” on God’s part for me to see the truth. But, prior to that, there was a lot of “ground work” laid by other believers, and it involved more than just quoting scripture at me.
Ok, I must have read and reread this section 10 times, just to be sure I fully understood what I was reading. Lewis is a fairly good writter, comparatively to some other modern authors, so he gets his point accross well. I think he did an excellent job in presenting the concept of a moral law Giver, though his use of imagery and comparison is somewhat lacking as while he is trying to compare eternal concepts to material things, just doesn’t work for me. Furthermore his presuposition of the total freewill of man, in spite of the clear biblical teaching may put him in line with the majority, but takes much away from the sovereignty of God in the revelation of His moral law to all mankind.
When speaking of the “Rule of Decent Behavior” Ch 2 he says we need to learn this, which is right, but we do not need to be taught to sin, as this passage might suggest, we are wicked at heart frrom our mothers womb, we do nothing but sin until the moment God saves us, is that not what scripture teaches?
There are several questionable points he made, but nothing to drastic, however his lack of use of scripture is probably his biggest downfall. As scripture is the only means God has chosen to use to change the hearts and minds of man, Lewis’s lack of scripture reveals his presuppositions. No human wisdom, no human reason will ever cause a man to come to Christ, or believe the God as presented in scripture, he utterly fails in this area. It’s not that we lack something, and just need to understand more, it’s that we lack everything, and can do nothing to draw near to God. He even states that we have a “real law, pressing on us” but fails to take this opportunity to quote scripture,Romans 2:15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.
When discussing evolution vs creation he fails to present the impications on how this idea underminds the entire life and ministry and work of Christ, how it all relates to Adam and incarnate sin. Unfortunately Lewis does not get into doctorinal issues except when it suits him, we will see much of this in the next book, and I will show how some of what he reveals about what he believes actually contrdicts scripture.
Please don’t misunderstand, I think Lewsis makes many good points and can give some great advice to the Christian going to speak to agnostics(not atheists, as there is no such thing) about how the law relates to sin and Christ, but at this point not much more than advice, as his complete lack of using scripture does nothing to help the unbeliever, as this is the means God uses to convert the heart of man.
All in all, continue to filter Lewis through what the scripture says rather than trust mans wisdom. As smart as Lewis is, we should continue to use biblical discernment, as with any human author. Until next time…
David,Philosophy apart from Christ is a futile thing. Philosophy, in the hands of Spirit-filled people, can be a very beautiful and useful thing. In a renewed mind philosophy, the ” love of, or the search for, wisdom or knowledge” reaches its zenith.
I remember my surprise, in college, when I first learned that Logic was a category of philosophy. A little puff would have blown me over. I had no interest in Plato, and so thought I was no philosopher at all. I thought it should be classified along with geometry, in the Mathematics department. I understand that a bit better now. It is a system of thinking, one which helps prevent our thought processes from becoming random and nonsensical. When logic is ignored we stop being sensible and will be called “unreasonable”. We routinely fight philosophy with philosophy without maybe knowing that’s what we’re doing. For instance, when you hear an argument that makes no sense, you will say, “That makes no sense, and here’s why.” That is using the philosophy of logic to combat a wrong-headed philosophy. It is true that the gospel is “foolishness to those who are perishing”, but it is certainly not foolish in any real sense of the word. Any converted person, and many non-converted people could tell you that the gospel makes sense - it is not illogical. However, if it is not shown to be at least logical, to a person’s sense of reason, it will find no place to take root. It will likely be snatched away. As Edwards said in the Fourth Sign, “Knowledge is the key that first opens the hard heart and enlarges the affections, and so opens the way for men into the kingdom of heaven.”
It is true that “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” It is also good to use means to get people to listen to the message of Scripture, who may initially be too resistant,or impatient, to listen. If you can’t get a friend to sit down with a Bible, rather than giving up right then, you might opt to just talk to him instead, using words of your own. That is, I think, what Lewis is doing here. And debate, too, can be a useful tool in the hands of Christians, if handled with gentleness and respect. (Acts 17; 2 Tim: 2:23-26). Anyway, hope that helps.
And, David, I do see where you’re coming from. Keep that passion for the Scriptures alive! I hope you won’t think for a minute I’m trying to dimish the importance of Scripture. God forbid I would ever do that!
“diminish”
Lisa said,”Are you a “good news first” person? Or “bad news first”? I picked up that Lewis was saying until we accept the “bad news”—that we are guilty of things we need to repent of—we can’t even begin to understand the “good news” that Christianity offers. ”
I’d just like to point out that NO ONE can be saved until they see there sin as exceedingly sinful. Why would they come to Christ if they don’t see there need? Any other gospel is no gospel at all.
J.P.H.
I stand corrected on “factual laws”.
I presume we don’t agree on the veracity of Evolution and that’s O.K. by me. I definitely believe in micro-evolution and the adaptation of species. However, the jury is still out for me on the big E. Too many gaps.
As I have never been what you would call a “hard-core materialist”, I cannot relate to your past worldview. However, I have wrestled with many of scientific theories and proposed conflicts with the Bible. I don’t believe that science and the Bible conflict in any way.
I am interested what the compelling arguments were for you to start changing from a “hard-core materialist” to a Christian.
Shalom,
Ryan
It’s been really interesting to read this book again. When I had read it before, I’d only read at it, because in those days I lacked enough of a true understanding of the gospel to fully appreciate the beautiful truths Lewis is trying to illustrate, and I was too shallow and conceited to read humbly enough for it to do me much good.
Reading it now through a reformed understanding, I find myself in a few places growing a little impatient; but then, reading further, my heart is melted by this man’s use of images and words and simplicity of truth. By the end of this section I was humbled at God’s sovereignty at choosing and gifting, and just about weeping for the beautiful truths expressed in such beautiful words.
I know there are difficulties ahead in the book, and with some of C.S. Lewis’ doctrine; but his doctrine now, I expect, is unflawed, as all of ours will someday soon be.
After reading this section I was left with a question: Is the “Law of Nature” our conscience? Is it the working of the Holy Spirit? Is our conscience and the Holy Spirit one in the same?
The conscience, Puritan Richard Sibbes wrote in the seventeenth century, is the soul reflecting upon itself. Conscience is at the heart of what distinguishes the human creature. People, unlike animals, can contemplate their own actions and make moral self-evaluations. That is the very function of conscience.
The conscience has an innate ability to sense right and wrong. Everyone, even the most unspiritual heathen, has a conscience:
When Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their consciences bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.” (Romans 2:14-15, emphasis added)
The conscience entreats you to do what you believe is right and restrains you from doing what you believe is wrong. But don’t equate the conscience with the voice of God or the law of God. It is a human faculty that judges your actions and thoughts by the light of the highest standard you perceive. When you violate your conscience, it condemns you, triggering feelings of shame, anguish, regret, consternation, anxiety, disgrace, and even fear. Conversely, when you follow your conscience, it commends you, bringing joy, serenity, self-respect, well-being, and gladness.
The word conscience is a combination of the Latin words scire (“to know”) and con (“together”). The Greek word for “conscience” is found more than thirty times in the New Testament—suneidesis, which also literally means “co-knowledge.”
Conscience is knowledge together with oneself. That is to say, your conscience knows your inner motives and true thoughts. It is above reason and beyond intellect. You can rationalize, trying to justify yourself in your own mind, but a violated conscience will not be easily convinced.
The Hebrew word for conscience is leb, usually translated “heart” in the Old Testament. The conscience is so much at the core of the human soul that the Hebrew mind did not draw a distinction between conscience and the rest of the inner person. Thus when Moses recorded that Pharaoh “hardened his heart” (Exodus 8:15), he was saying that Pharaoh had steeled his conscience against God’s will.
When Scripture speaks of a tender heart (cf. 2 Chronicles 34:27), it refers to a sensitive conscience. The “upright in heart” (Psalm 7:10) are those with pure consciences. And when David prayed, “Create in me a clean heart, O God” (Psalm 51:10), he was seeking to have his life and his conscience cleansed.
Multitudes today respond to their conscience by attempting to suppress it, overrule it, or silence it. They conclude that the real blame for their wrong behavior lies in some childhood trauma, the way their parents raised them, societal pressures, or other causes beyond their control.
For the complete article, http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/35
I still don’t understand Lewis’ complete absence of scripture to make his point to lost and dead sinners. That’s like trying to raise a dead man back to life by use of human reasoning and talking the life back into him. It just doesn’t make sense, the only answer I can come up with at this point is a low view of scripture. Any other thoughts on this matter?
Curtis, I don’t claim to be able to climb into Lewis’ heart, nor do I want to make excuses for him in regard to his flaws; but I don’t think Lewis has a low view of Scripture. I think he has a different view of it how is to be used. I would take into consideration his time, his place, and his background. He was a layman, an Anglican, a man of literature, not a professional theologian. He was doctrinally Arminian (as are the majority of Christians in our day), as becomes very clear in Book 2. Though, as I said such things do not excuse us, it is fair to remember that it is only by God’s grace that we surpass these barriers, and none of us surpass them completely this side of eternity. None of us will reach doctrinal perfection in this life. We have easy access to excellent and diverse sound doctrinal resources and teaching, as well as the example of great biblical teachers who routinely exposite the Scriptures, and encourage us to do the same. I say all that for the sake of fairness to Lewis. I’ve no reason to think I’d have had the view of Scripture I have now were I in his circumstances.
I would also add, if you’ll bear with me just a bit more, that at this point he is speaking on secular radio, answering questions he’s been asked to address to particular issues. He’s first attempting to prove, by means man will regard seriously, the existence of a Being that at the moment is not being taken seriously at all - whose existence is in fact being denied. Once he has showed that their arguments against His existence won’t stand up to scrutiny, then He may go forward and tell us what this God has to say. (I’m trying to speak from Lewis’ perspective.) It would not do to say to folks, “This figment of my imagination says thus and so in this book I have here” - which is what it sounds like when we spout Scripture to folks who don’t believe in God at all. Lewis is laying groundwork.
All that said, Lewis does not use Scripture the way we are accustomed to using it, nor the way I wish he would . I would expect that as the argument progresses in earnest to actual discussion of the Christian faith that Scripture would become increasingly prevalent. From what I’ve read so far, and through glances ahead through the text, that does not seem to be his direction. Though he does make arguments that are in line with Scripture (and some that are not), he seldom quotes it directly, and does appear to rely more heavily on the reasonableness of his argumentsthan on the authority of Scripture. (I must reiterate here that no argument from Scripture is unreasonable - it may overwhelm our reason, but it will not insult it). I think it is likely this mis-emphasis is responsible for many of his doctrinal missteps. As much as I admire Lewis, I’m not blind to his errors. I object vehemently to much of what he has to say in Book 2. But I try to remember that many dear brothers and sisters in the faith hold his views, many having never heard things taught in any different way, and that it is only by God’s grace I’ve come to accept a different view.
Laurie, I thank you for your response, you are far more gracious than I, so I may have to refrain from commenting on the next book, as it appears what is presented is pushing the envelope away from sound doctorine. This book has definately put Lewis in a new light for me.
Ryan writes:
“I presume we don’t agree on the veracity of Evolution and that’s O.K. by me.”
Maybe this is a character flaw, but when it comes to this issue I usually find myself playing devil’s advocate no matter who I’m talking to. Basically I disagree with both extreme points of view. When someone on the anti-evolution side says something like, “Evolution is bad science,” or that it should be “obvious” to anyone who examines the origins of life objectively that this physical world is the handiwork of a creator, I tend to disagree with them. That doesn’t mean I necessarily buy into evolutionary theory; it just means I reject those particular criticisms of it.
On the other hand, I tend to disagree with the pro-evolution folks, usually nonbelievers, for whom the evolutionary explanation for the origins of life is a scientific “slam dunk”. In the absence of supernatural intervention, I agree with them that evolution is the most likely explanation for life on earth.
That’s probably way more info than you wanted, but there you go.
“As I have never been what you would call a “hard-core materialist”, I cannot relate to your past world view.”
The “hard-core” part may have been exaggeration on my part. I became a believer when I was 16, and it’s hard to be a “hard-core” anything when you’re that young. Basically, I didn’t see any evidence that God existed, so I rejected things like absolute moral authority, free will, etc. It’s my opinion that if one is honest with one’s self, in the absence of some supernatural reality, the only logically consistent world view is a sort of materialistic nihilism. Not very cheery.
“I am interested what the compelling arguments were for you to start changing from a “hard-core materialist” to a Christian.”
It wasn’t really “arguments” per se. A lot of it was people just caring for me. Being willing to discuss things with me “where I was at” without beating me over the head with the Bible 24/7. The first step was for me to get the point where I actually agreed that the gospel was “good news”. This involved dealing with some negative preconceptions I had about God. Then I had to get to the point where I thought the gospel was ~plausible~. Not that I believed it; just that I no longer thought it was obviously untrue.
Eventually I got to where I: a) acknowledged that the whole Christianity thing ~might~ be true, b) very much ~wanted~ it to be true, but c) couldn’t bring myself to ~believe~ it was true because I just didn’t have any reason to think it was. It was here that I think God intervened. It was like a switch flipped on in my head. I would observe the people I knew who were believers, look at the sincerity of their faith, and instead of coming to the conclusion that they were all just deceived, somehow I “knew” it was for real.
That’s it in a nutshell.
Does anyone have any response to the list of people who say Lewis was a heretic? Or that his Chronicles series was evil and satanic? That stuff really bugs me, as I love his series.
I’ve honestly never heard anyone call him an heretic, or say that his Narnia books were satanic. But, some people can be pretty careless in their use of the word ‘heretic’ - using it to mean anyone they don’t agree with. There are those in a church I used to attend who think I’m a heretic for being doctrinally Reformed. I understand that he holds to the main tenets of the faith (ie. the Trinity, the virgin birth, the substitutionary nature of the atonement, salvation by faith alone, and the like.)
There’s several websites out there. One’s run by a guy called Rick Miesel, who also tries to expose many of the mainstream preachers.I dunno, it just bugs me because Lewis’s book series really captivated me. It helped me in my walk of faith.
I’m sorry to hear that. I’ve listened to a dozen lectures from Reformed Theological Seminary on Lewis’s Life and Theology. I heard nothing to suggest that he was anything but a devout Anglican Christian. Also John Piper regards him very highly, speaking often of what a positive influence he’s been for him, and quoting him frequently. Even Bob Jones after meeting Lewis admitted, rather grudgingly it seemed to me, that he believed the man to be a true Christian. Perhaps someone else in the group will have a bit of wisdom for you. I’m at a loss here.
Personally, I loved the Narnia books, I plan on having my children use them as part of their schooling when they get up to that reading level. I wouldn’t call Lewis a heretic, I would say though that some of his statements are not supported by scripture, though much of what he says is. He’s a hard one to read/follow, just as you are about to say amen to a point he’s making, he throws in some aborant statement, such as,
“There are three things that spread the Christ life to us: baptism, belief, and that mysterious action which different Christians call by different names—Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord’s Supper.”Do I have wrong understanding of this? And is that how we get,”the Christ-life”, through baptism & communion/mass?
Then a paragraph later he begins speaking of possibly losing salvation? Am I misunderstanding something?
“Do not think I am setting up baptism and belief and the Holy Communion as things that will do instead of your own attempts to copy Christ. Your natural life is derived from your parents; that does not mean it will stay there if you do nothing about it. You can lose it by neglect, or you can drive it away by committing suicide. You have to feed it and look after it: but always remember you are not making it, you are only keeping up a life you got from someone else. In the same way a Christian can lose the Christ-life which has been put into him, and he has to make efforts to keep it.”
Before I started reading this book, I loved what I new of Lewis, some of the greatest quotes I’ve heard came from his pen/mouth. If I misunderstand or am wrong about what he has said, I appologize. I’ve read and reread these two books now at least 10-15 times just to be sure I’m not misreading whats he’s saying, Am I just not getting it, it seems every chapter he says something that just doesn’t line up with scripture, any help in explaining some of this would be great.
J.P.H.
Keep seeking. Eventually, if you keep seeking, you will find that “God intervened” on your behalf before the beginning of the world.
That is mind-blowing, Biblical truth.
Ryan
I would like to respond to the question by Curtis as to why some say that C.S. Lewis is a heretic. He teaches that service offered to Satan will be accepted as service offered to the Lord. That man’s “good works” will make him acceptable to the Lord even if he was intentionally working against the Lord.
One specific instance is in his book The Last Battle, from the Chronicles of Narnia series. In the chapter “Farther Up, and Further In”, Emeth, a young Calormene who has worshipped and served Tash, the false god, all his life meets Aslan, the true god.
“Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honor) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him.”…”But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me….”
Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. … ”
My children did read the Chronicles of Narnia series but if I could do it over, I would have never introduced them to it.
Berean Wife