Mere Christianity: The Reality of the Law

As an aside: If you, by chance, are moving and happen to be without internet for a few weeks and have posts planned to auto-post, it pays to double-check that they will actually post themselves for you, rather than leaving your readers hanging for a better part of the month. Sorry for the gap, folks! Regular posting will resume Friday.

In this chapter, Lewis returns to his argument that humans, though they know how they ought to behave, behave differently, which is different than the other laws of nature (such as gravitation). Furthermore, he puts forward the notion that these differences are born not of necessity or personal convenience. For example, "I am not angry...with a man who trips me up by accident; I am angry with a man who tries to trip me up even if he does not succeed." Why should one be different than the other? Lewis points back to the natural law, or Law of Human Behavior as the rule by which we judge the world.

Discussion:

Lewis states: "...the behavior we call bad or unfair is not exactly the same as the behaviour we find inconvenient and may even be the opposite." How do you argue that we should do things that are not always convenient and may even be hurtful in the moment (such as telling the truth)? Do you ever find this hard to do?

Mere Christianity: The Law of Human Nature and Some Objections

Summary

These are the first chapters that truly get into the meat of the book. In chapter 1 (The Law of Human Nature), Lewis argues for the existence of God by stating that we all, when in an argument, appeal to a law greater than ourselves, whether we are conscious of it or not. We appeal to fairness, or, in a greater sense, right over wrong. While we might argue, for instance, that we can cut in line because we have more pressing matters than the person we cut in front of, it is a rare person who argues that the rules of not cutting in line don't matter. 

Lewis argues that this instinct or urge must come from somewhere and that it is similar across all cultures. (He supposedly delves into this more in The Abolition of Man, which I haven't gotten around to reading yet; it sounds like an interesting read). Lewis further points out that, unlike other natural laws (such as gravity), this law of morality is not universally followed, though it is universally acknowledged. We might appeal to fairness, but we try to find ways to get out of being fair when it benefits us. Rather than saying that fairness doesn't matter, we still try to uphold it, even though we know we're going to fail. It's a rather peculiar thing that I'd never thought about much.

 In the second chapter (Some Objections), Lewis addresses some well-thought counterarguments to his position. First, he points out that one might argue that this law of morality is merely a herd instinct. However, what happens when morality comes into conflict with another instinct (such as the need for food)? How does one instinct win out over the other? Mustn't there be a third inclination (the moral law) that judges between the two which is appropriate? Otherwise, why would people rush to someone's aid who is calling for help (or at least feel they ought to go help, even if they don't)?

The other counterargument he addresses is that the law of morality is merely a taught convention. He firstly points out the similarities between moral standards across cultures as compared to other standards (such as dress or which side of the road is appropriate to drive on). Then he argues that, even if morality is taught, it is more akin to mathematics than anything else. Truth about the moral law can be discovered and implemented, judged against one's internal conscience. If you say that many moralities are better than that which the Nazis held, what standard do you judge it against? Your own? Do you merely prefer it, or do you truly think it right? Most people would say they are convinced of their own morality mirroring a true morality--again, a comparison to a "gold" or true standard.

Discussion

Where do you think conscience comes from? What role does it play in our walk with God and does it change if we are Christians? If so, how?

Mere Christianity: Introduction

Welcome to the Mere Christianity read-along. I'll be covering one-two chapters each post, approximately one to two times a week. This week we'll be covering the Preface and discussing the context of the book. In addition to the book, I may occasionally reference The Great Courses: Life and Writings of C.S. Lewis by Professor Louis Markos. 

Preface and Background

Mere Christianity is a bit of a different book. It's heady and theological (don't come into it expecting it to read like The Chronicles of Narnia), but it also has a curiously familiar and conversational quality to it. No doubt this is partly due to the fact that is adapted from C.S. Lewis' audio talks over the BBC radio from 1941-1944, during the height of WWII. The result is a conversational book that tackles tough topics in an understandable way. The times also show through in the book; references to military action and analogies to war are quite common and likely would have struck a chord with listeners (and later, readers).

In the preface, Lewis starts out with a somewhat long summary of how he decided to edit the book--it's obvious he put an extraordinary amount of thought into it, even obsessing over contractions--but he then gives way to a much more intriguing discussion on his reasoning behind the book. He has set out to explain Christianity in its most basic form--something that anyone who calls himself a Christian can agree on. He explains that he has deliberately tried to avoid controversial issues and leave those to the reader to understand. I find it particularly encouraging that he sent the most heavy theological portion of the book to members of other denominations to be reviewed (Lewis himself was an Anglican).

He ends with a fantastic opinion on denominations, which you can find in the discussions below. I have frequently referenced the analogy in discussion with friends and it has helped a couple understand my position (a firm member of a denomination who believes its doctrines are true and correct while also understanding that others must be fully convinced of their own convictions).

Discussion One

Lewis writes: "It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense...We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians  was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to 'the disciples', to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles...When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian."

How does judging a person's salvation differ from judging their actions? When is it acceptable to judge someone's actions if they're a Christian? What if they're not a Christian? How do you address these situations if they think they need to be addressed?

Discussion Two

Lewis writes on denominations: "It (basic or mere Christianity) is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms...The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in...above all, you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and panelling. In plain language, the question should never be: 'Do I like that kind of service?' but 'Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?'...When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall."

What role should denominations play in Christianity? Is there a good reason for them? How should we address differences in the church? How did you choose your personal denomination? Is being non-denominational its own kind of organization, statement, or theology? If Christianity doesn't have denominational organization, how should it be organized?