Roaring River

Mere Christianity 19: Christianity is More like a Box of Chocolates than a Hershey Bar

Simplicity in this world is likely false. Things here are complicated. So complicated that to understand them at all, we have to deconstruct them into parts that are simpler.

But it is the whole thing that matters.

You have to pick all the coconut candies from the box of chocolates.

Lewis called atheism as too simple. For him, it fell apart upon examination.

"It is no good asking for a simple religion. After all, real things are not simple. They look simple, but they are not. People who want to destroy Christianity put up a version of Christianity suitable for a child of six and make that the object of their attack."

He warns that had God did not create a religion. Instead, religion is God's statement to us of certain quite unalterable facts about his own nature.

The fact that we turn it into a religion is Man's making.

"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 around 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 increaseed, 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 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."

Rather than a simple Hershey bar, you get a box of chocolates. Each individual. Some you like more than others.

Mere Christianity 18: Christianity is Not a Simple Religion

Here's where Christianity comes out as a fighting religion. It insists on being right and that insistance brings on people committed to destroying it.

Professor Lewis puts it bluntly. Being a Christian meahs that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is the right religion. "As in arithmetic -- there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong (but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others."

 
 
Jesus did not dodge this either.

"I Am the way, the truth and the life."

Jesus claimed that He is the only way to heaven and that there is no other way that leads to heaven. No matter how hard anybody may try, if he/she wants to go to heaven he/she will have to go through Jesus. If you want to go to London from New York, you need a specific ticket to go to that particular place. But if you think, "I will go to airport and catch any flight", assuming that every flight is going to London, then you will never reach the place because you need to catch the specific flight which is going to London. In the same way if we want to go to heaven, we should determine our way. And Jesus said that He is the way… and that no one can go to the Father except through Him. (See Chapter 3).

Lewis sees God as quite definitely good. "God takes sides, loves love and hates hatred, wants us to behave  in one way and not in another.

Mere Christianity 17: Rival Conceptions of God

There seem to be three big categories that divide humanity by what they believe or don't believe about God. Professor Lewis gets a bit deep here and so this is one of the places where I have tried to simplify and not being a theologian or philosopher, hopefully I did not go wrong in trying to be simple.

My chart is the ultimate in simplification of what are concepts that have fine lines and gather great debates ... just go to Google and you can find yourself reading for hours and understanding less the more you read. But for Professor Lewis these distinctions are important aspects of how he arrives on Christianity's doorstep as the himself sorts these views.

Lewis sees Pantheists as those that call one thing both good and bad. "We call a cancer bade, they would say, because it kills a man; but you might just as well call a successful surgeon bad because he kills a cancer. It all depends upon a point of view. It was professed by the great Prussian philosppher Hegel and describes many of the beliefs of Far Eastern religions.

Lewis sees Christians as those that believe God made the universe. "Space, time, heat and cold, and allthe colors and tastes, and all the animals and vegetables are all things that God made up out of His head as a man makes up a story. He is all good, and worthy of our worship.

Lewis sees Atheists as those who have to reject what all other people on earth believe. He started out as an atheist and long defended his views against his Christian friends, until he actually tried to understand his objections and that is when he became a Christian.

Mere Christianity 16: The Turning Point on Atheism

Picking Daisy Petals

As children we used to peel the petals off a flower, one at a time, saying with each petal falling to the ground: "He loves me. He loves me not. He loves me. He loves me not." The last remaining petal told the story.

C. S. Lewis has a much more logical way of getting to the root of man's biggest question: Does God exist? He has set up one rational approach in disclosing the existence of the Law of Right and Wrong ... we are all bound by this Law, whether we want to or not. It is a universal Law as real as gravity. And this law, being universal, must have come from somewhere other than from our own thinking. Something out there has imposed this Law upon us. The last falling flower petal cannot change the outcome.

As a former atheist, C. S. Lewis shares how logical thinking led him to the answer of where the Law of Right and Wrong comes from.

The Surprising Starting Point

He starts off with a single statement that might actually shock both the Christian and the Atheist.

As he begins Book 2 he tells us that there is one thing Christians do not need to believe.

"If you are a Christian, you do NOT have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If your are an atheist, you do have to believe that the main point of all religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake."

That is kind of seductive. And not something I can readily jump into. As Christians, we can see many other world religions as wrong all through, particularly those that worship Nature rather than a True Creator of Nature. But I will let Lewis talk us down off the chair and see where his logic flows.

"If you are a Christian," he elaborates, "you are free to think of all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist, I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view."

The First Big Divider

"The first big division of humanity is into the majority who believe in some kind of God or gods, and the minority who do not. On that point, Christianity lines up with the majority ... it lines up with the ancient Greeks and Romans, modern savages, Stoics, Platonists, Hindus, Mohammedans against the Atheist."

This logic does show that Atheists are a distinct minority in the world. They have few others to chum up with on the question of God. No matter how loud the Atheist screams or how silently the Agnostic sits, Believers are by far the greater number. Most people today and throughout history have found reason to believe in Something larger than themselves.

Lewis shares with us that for many years his disbelief was based on a single turn: If a good God made the world, why has it gone so wrong? During the rather long period of time he spent as an Atheist, he refused to listen to the Christian answers to this question. Instead his mind told him it was easier to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power. He saw the Christian answers as an attempt to avoid the obvious.

Lewis Stumbles Over the Big Question

and is Left with a Bigger Question

His argument against God was that the universe was so cruel and unjust that it could not possibly have been created by a God that cared one wit about the people living here. The unjustness of the world, he concluded, made believing in a God impossible.

Then he realized this logic left him with an even larger question.

How, he wondered, did he possess this idea of just and unjust?

"A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, why did I who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water because man is not a water animal; a fish would not feel wet."

He was seeing a flaw in his sense of justice. He could tell the difference between right and wrong just as he could see the difference between a straight line and a crooked line. But what told him if a thing was right or wrong?

His argument against God collapsed

"I was forced to assume that one part of reality -- namely my idea of justice -- was full of sense. 

If the whole universe had no meaning, we should never have found out that it had no meaning. It was just as if there were no light in the universe and therefore creatures with eyes, should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. It is no good asking for a simple God or a simple religion. The world looks simple, but it is not. Real things are not simple.

Consequently, Atheism turned out to be too simple. By saying the world was unjust and therefore there could be no God was ignoring that we had a sense of right and wrong. The existence of Justice validates the existence of God; it does not disprove God."

Plucking petals from a daisy to find out if a girlfriend loves you is too simple. God's creation is complex. And His creation of man capable of freely choosing to do good or evil opens up a complexity. People hurt one another. Geographic plates shift and cause devastating earthquakes and tsunamis. Floods happen as does drought. Wheels fall off cars and cause accidents. Things we consider unjust happen. God created daisies for their beauty; not to forecast love. If the world was all simple, if there were no just and unjust, then it would be time to wonder if there were a God. If we have a sense of justness, it came from Someone other than ourselves.

 

 

 

Mere Christianity 15: Back to C. S. Lewis and a Glimmer of Hope

 

My last several posts were my attempts to show in today's world what C. S. Lewis was saying in his brilliant, but sometimes difficult to understand philosophical path to a conclusion that broke the back of his previous life as an atheist and led him to a place he expected not.

Two quotes from his book:

First, All I have got is a Something which is directing the universe and which appears in me as a law urging me to do right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when I do wrong.

Second, There are those who hold the view that the lowest forms to Maqn were not due to chance but to the 'striving' or 'purposiveness' of a Life-Force. When people say this we must ask them whether by Life-Force they mean something with a mind or not. If they do, then "a mind bringing live into existence and leading it to 'perfection' is really a God, ant their view is thus identical with the Religious. If they do not, they what is the sense in saying that something without a mind 'strives' or has 'purpose'?"

Lewis beats you up with his logic. You cannot escape the progressive path his mind takes when reasoning out one of the biggest questions about which men have argued since there were men to argue.

He is moving step by step to his conclusion, but let's stay with his words for awhile and see if he moves us with him, along this path where a Law of Right and Wrong seems to clobber us ... where this law was not our own invention like stopping for a red light, but comes from outside ourselves.

If Man created morality, as many argue, why would we so completely ignore it or even destroy it If from outside ourselves, from where does it originate and for what purpose is there such a law at all?

As Chapter 5 of "Mere Christianity" begins, Lewis admits there must be some doubters who refuse to follow along with him because they smell a skunk in the grass.

He writes:

"I expect when I reached this 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 philosphy what turns out to be one more religious jaw."

In his defense, he reminds us that he is nowhere near defining a God, still less the God of Christianity.

"We have only got so far as a Somebody or a 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 about this Something from our own steam. We have two bits of evidence about that Somebody. One is the universe that He has made. The other is this Moral Law which he put into our minds."

Lewis sees this Moral Law as more revealing and this is perhaps why he spends so much time (Four and a half chapters of his book) exploring the nature of this Law. It is important because it is inside all of us (even inside the bad guys) so it is a huge clue about the Somebody who put it in our minds.

Somebody that puts such a constraint around everyone living on this planet must be a lot bigger than the planet itself. This Somebody is outside of us, but is intensely interested in us. And not just interested like watching a figure skater on ice ... not like watching what hamsters do when a wheel is placed in their cages ... but much more like watching us when we have before us options to do a right thing or a wrong thing.

"From this second bit of evidence, we can conclude that the Being behind the universe is intensely interested in right conduct ... in fair play, in unselfishness, courage, good faith, honesty and truthfulness."

Lewis goes on to clarify that this Being is not going easy on us. The Moral Law is "tough as nails" -- it demands sacrifice, pain, danger, difficulty. This Power behind the Law has told us nothing about forgiveness, but only that we must do the Right Thing. If this Power wants us to do the right thing, we can assume that it does not like it when we do the wrong thing. And if we are honest, even the best of us do a lot of wrong things. You could quickly surmise then that this Power does not like much about us.

Now you are looking into the eyes of a Power that does not have much to like about us.This Power has every reason to be upset with us, angry with us, downright MAD at us.

But if this Power has taken all the time an effort over eons to create life and gradually form it into us, and this Power has given us a Law to follow, then it could follow that this Power sees a greater potential in us that we can see in ourselves. Out of that glimmer, we have hope.

Footnote: this battle rages on, long after Professor Lewis made his case for "Mere Christianity. The image above is from a site where an antheist does his best to outwit Katie, one of the most incredible 17-year old girls in all Christendom. The site author tears at God and Jesus but she battles back until all he has left in him is rants. She's praying for him and I hope we all do.

This ends Book One of Mere Christianity. Professor Lewis moves on next to "What Christians Believe."

 

Mere Christianity 14: The Mouse Tried So Hard, BUT

A mouse looked through the crack in the wall to see the farmer and his wife open a package. The mouse wondered, “What food might this contain?” He was devastated to discover it was a mousetrap.

There is a mousetrap in the house!

Retreating to the farmyard, the mouse proclaimed this warning:  There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!

The chicken clucked and scratched, raised her head and said, “Mr. Mouse, I can tell this is of grave concern to you, but it is of no consequence to me. I cannot be bothered by it.”

The mouse turned to the pig and told him, “There is a mousetrap in the house!” “There is a mousetrap in the house!” The pig sympathized but said, “I am so very sorry, Mr. Mouse, but there is nothing I can do but pray. Be assured you are in my prayers.”

The mouse turned to the cow and said: “There is a mousetrap in the house!” “There is a mousetrap in the house!” The cow said, “Wow, Mr. Mouse, I am very sorry for you but it is no skin off my nose.”

So the mouse returned to his home inside the wall of the farmhouse, head down and dejected – to face alone the farmer’s mousetrap.

Alone that very night, a sound was heard throughout the house …

The sound of a mousetrap catching its prey.

The farmer’s wife rushed to see what was caught. In the darkness, she did not see it was a venomous snake whose tail was caught in the trap. The snake bit the farmer’s wife.

The farmer rushed her to the hospital.

When she returned home she still had a fever. Everyone knows you treat a fever with fresh chicken soup. So the farmer took his hatchet to the farmyard for the soup’s main ingredient. But his wife’s sickness continued. Friends and neighbors came to sit with her around the clock. To feed them, the farmer butchered the pig.

But alas, the farmer’s wife did not get well and died.

So many people came for her funeral that the farmer had the cow slaughtered to provide enough meat for all of them attending the funeral luncheon.

And the mouse looked upon it all from his rack in the wall with great sadness.

So the next time you hear someone is facing a problem and you think it does not concern you, remember when one of us is threatened, we are all at risk. We must keep an eye out for one another and make an extra effort to provide help when someone needs help. It is the right thing to do. God's Law of Right and Wrong tells us so.

Mere Christianity 13: Did He Obey the Law of Right and Wrong?

 

Mere Christianity 12: Would You Like a Pony?

I depart from my usual exploration to link to another post I wrote on another blog. I took my thoughts of right and wrong as stimulated by C. S. Lewis and use them on a business blog that I have edited for 5 years. The blog post is about a girl who was asked if she would like a pony.

Even business people can see truth and untruth in what we do during our daily lives. The posting is about a commercial that validates businesses, like humans, know when we are doing right and when we are doing wrong.

It starts with the Big Bang and concludes with a young girl whose face tells you she knows she was treated unfairly.

Where does all this come from? At this point in my walk through "Mere Christianity" Professor Lewis tells us blatantly that he is building a case, but he is miles yet from linking his observations about human nature with God or with Christianity. But the little girl's face tells you that she knows right from wrong. Read "Would You Like a Pony" and then link over to the video on YouTube.

Where did such a young girl get such a notion?

The Lord Almighty did it, of that I have no doubt. I accept it based on observations that have occurred in my own life. My own story as I look back over the past six decades leaves me convinced that someone is looking after me for some reason that He chooses. The realization that Something outside of me loves me and has the power to make my life better despite myself springs like a lion out of the brush and l am convinced. Yes, He offers us the real pony!

Mere Christianity 11: A Fluke of Nature?

Scientists form theories and then they observe how nature adheres to the theory or they experiment to create recurring results based on the theory. That's what I love so much about science and why I spend so much time to this day (long after my college classes about zoology, anatomy, entomology, mammalogy, physics and, yes, even evolution). I am fascinated with the discovery of water on the moon. I am amazed when astronomers can witness the pulsating death of Chi Cygni, a star some 550 light-years from earth.

Human nature is equally fascinating, but a bit more beyond the grasp of scientists. The fairly dramatic fact that all of us seem to know we ought to act the right way, but often do just the opposite is one of those things that must puzzle all of us.

It is observable that all mankind has this notion of right and wrong.

But where did this really come from? Is this just an animal instinct, a product of what our parents have taught us or is it a fluke of nature? Or are we dealing with something that happens outside the ability of science to explain it?

Scientists know that gravity exists. Scientists know what causes gravity. But scientists cannot explain who put gravity into the universe. They know there was a big bang, but they cannot explain what caused it to go bang, or why. This, as Professor Lewis notes, is not the job of science.

He writes:

Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. Do not think I am saying anything against science; I am only saying what its job is. But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things that science observes ... this is not a scientific question. If there is "Something Behind" it will either have to remain unknown to man or else make itself known in some other way. If scientists came to know every fact there is about the whole universe, it still could not answer why there is a universe, why it does what it does or whether it has any meaning.

Lewis contends that science cannot explain what it cannot see. But there is a clue that there is something behind the universe. The clue happens to be in ourselves ... this notion of right from wrong. We happen to know a fair amount about humans because we are, after all, human. We know that we have put ourselves under a global moral law that we did not legislate or make up. Where did this law come from if we did not invent it? It had to come from somewhere beyond ourselves.

As to the universe and its existence, we know that if there was something that caused it to exist, that "something" would not be part of the universe. That "something" would have to be outside of and preceding the existence of the universe.

Again, I return to Professor Lewis's words:

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. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves.

The only thing we are allowed to observe is ourselves. When we open the thing that we are as individual human beings, we find that we do not exist alone. We find that we are under a common law that somebody or something wants us to follow. Something seems to be directing us and it is not us.

That should arouse some suspicions about the universe. Is there something or somebody outside of the universe that has directed it to follow the laws of physics and chemistry. If so, why?

Mere Christianity 10: The Reality of The Moral Law

Lewis is not yet done with explaining this Law of Right and Wrong as he writes Chapter 3 of "Mere Christianity." This should give all of as readers of "Mere Christianity" the distinct impression of just how important this Law is to his understanding of why he left atheism behind and became a committed Christian. But the religious conversion part of his story is a long way from yet being discussed. Chapter 3 continues building on the real existence of this Moral Law.

He begins by restating: "First, that humans are haunted by the idea of a sort of behavior they ought to practice what you might call fair play or decency or morality, or the Law of Nature. Second, that humans do not in fact adhere to the Law. The law of gravity tells you what stones do if you drop them; but the Law of Human Nature tells you what human beings ought to do and do not."

This is all about what we ought to do.

Again Lewis writes (paraphrased a bit by me): "Why ought I be unselfish?" and you reply "because it is good for society" we may then ask "why should I care what's good for society except when it happens to pay me personally." At this point you have to say "because you ought to be unselfish." And this simply brings us back again to where we started. But we cannot get rid of this idea that we ought to do the right thing and not the wrong thing. Consequently, this Rule of Right and Wrong, or Law of Human Nature,or whatever you call it, must somehow be a real thing -- a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves. None of us made this law but we find it pressing on us."

Can you describe how this law is pressing upon you?

It is important to interrogate ourselves and our fundamental beliefs or we will end up living a superficial meaningless life. Lewis invited such challenges because they enabled him to rethink his position and determine if his conviction remained or had been shaken.

When I look into myself, I find his two statements about the Law of Morality to be real. I know that I should do right and avoid wrong. I need no Supreme Court to tell me this. Regrettably, I find myself often not living up to this standard. I usually try to rationalize my bad behavior, but inside my head, I know I was wrong. Do you find this Law of Morality equally strong in your life?

If you do, then Lewis has another very big question for you.

What Lies Behind this Law?

We move on to Chapter 4 of Mere Christianity -- a small book with a very big picture of life.

Mere Christianity 9: The Moral Law is Quite Different than Social Convention

Lewis also dismisses the idea that the Law of Right and Wrong is a matter of how we are raised by our parents or are taught at school. He sees this Law that we know we should obey comes from a different place than home or school; it is not simply a social convention that humans came up with themselves.

Lewis admits we learn many things from our parents and teachers, including how to behave with other people. But this odd sense that we should do the right thing with other humans is bigger than "let's be nice to each other."

Lewis lived through World War II and so he occasionally uses examples from theis war period to clarify the Law of Human Nature (Law of Morality or Law of Right and Wrong). In this chapter, he shows that people living in Nazi Germany learned to believe an entirely different idea of what right behavior was than the people of other countries.

The people of Poland clearly felt they had been wronged by the Nazi leaders as did the Jews who lived in Germany or who lived in land captured by the Nazi military.

The children in Germany were taught successfully to tell on their parents if they suspected their own parents were not loyal to the Nazi leaders. As the Allied Forces finally crushed the Nazi regime, common German people admitted they knew all along they were doing the wrong and not the right thing.

And the Nazi leaders who tried to escape punishment knew all too well that they were wrong and not right. They tried to rationalize their actions, but knew full well that in pursuit of a perfect Arayan world, they had violated the rights of others.

So, yes, Lewis says, both good and bad behavior can be taught. The fact that we know which is good and which is bad demonstrates there is a Law of Right and Wrong that exists outside of social convention and education. It is very different than being taught to drive a car on the left side or the right side of the road.

The Moral Law that somehow none of us can escape does not come from us humans. It comes from an entirely different place and we all know it when we do something wrong because it did not measure up to this standard that all humans carry inside them.

As a postscript to this story of Nazi abuses, let me point you to an NPR story about agricultural and sexual slaves in America today. Again, these "slave owners" know they are doing wrong because they go to extremes to hide the wrong, very wrong, things they are doing.

They rationalize their behavior but cannot make the knowledge that they are breaking the Law of Human Nature go away ... a Law that comes from a higher place than any laws passed by our States or Nation.

A comment from this NPR story: "They're from - mostly, they're from Mexico and Central America, although, there are many slavery cases that involve U.S. citizens as well. It really runs the spectrum. The common character, though, is power and abuse. And the people who hold these people captives have some way of maintaining their power over them whether it's with debt bondage or ropes or drugs and alcohol. "

Some of these "slave owners" do get caught and are themselves jailed for inhuman behavior. They knowingly violated the most important law in the world -- the Law of Right and Wrong that every human on earth is aware of and knows he or she should follow this law. It is not taught to us; it is ingrained in us by some force outside of who we are just as surely as a stone will fall when dropped or a carbon atom will bond to other atoms to create new kinds of molecules, or that the universe is rapidly expanding.

Mere Christianity 8: Herd Instinct vs. The Moral Law

First, there are doubters who see the Moral Law as merely herd instinct that causes to have a strong desire to act in a certain manner -- like the love a mother has for her child which occurs the moment the child is born.

Other instincts include self protection, finding food, seeking fame and playing to win. These are global, across genders, races, nationalities.

If we see people in trouble, we want to help.

If we hear a baby crying, we want to bring comfort.

If we hear someone screaming for help, we want to save the person.

What happens when two instincts conflict? You hear the plea from a drowning woman and with it comes the choice of placing one's self in danger. The Moral Law tells us which of the two instincts we should act on. The instinct for self-preservation is stronger than helping someone in danger, yet we go to the aid and put ourselves to risk. The “right” action overcomes the instinct.

We also are capable of ignoring the Moral Law. Recent news accounts validate that crowds have actually stood around a woman being beaten without lifting a hand to help her. Everyone in the crowd knew it was the wrong thing to do, but did it anyway.

When such a strong set of instinctual options exist, it is the drumbeat of the Moral Law that tells us what is right or wrong. We may rationalize not doing the right thing, but we still know what the right thing is and we still would feel offended if we were the person in need of help that went unanswered. The instincts are present but they do not replace the reality of what is right or wrong.

There seems to be no instinct to always do the right thing.

Lewis writes:

A piano has not two kinds of notes on it, the “right” notes and the “wrong” notes. Every single note is right at one time and wrong at another. The Moral Law is not any one instinct or set of instincts. It is something which makes a kind of tune by directing the instincts.

Mere Christianity 7: C. S. Lewis Faces Two Objections to his Logic

Professor Lewis has established that among humans there is a law that we all fully understand … that we should do the right thing in our actions with other people. Further, he states that some force outside of ourselves has saddled us with this notion; it is not something we have created. It exists even if we don’t want it to be there. He calls it the Law of Human Nature but I prefer to call it the Law of Right and Wrong since this label gets to the effect this law has on us. We always know what is the right thing and the wrong thing to do.

A law, be it Scientific or Human Nature, must pass the test of proof. There is a rigor that all Laws must pass. There are challengers who look for flaws -- as well they should; otherwise we could be convinced to believe just about any notion is a Law.

Professor Lewis had many critics to whom he had the responsibility to validate or give up his observation that human beings all are subject to the Law of Right and Wrong. That even though we break the rule constantly, the law still exists.

This is a place in “Mere Christianity” where readers have to dig in deeply to Lewis’ thought-process as he responds to the two objections that he most frequently had to answer. 

1. The law is simply herd instinct that creates a strong desire to act in a certain way
2. The law is simply social convention that we are taught from childhood

My next two posts will look at how Lewis responds to each of these challenges.

Mere Christianity 6: Two Realities Guide the Actions of Humans

If we have missed C. S. Lewis' message so far, he makes it quite clear as he closes out Chapter 1. His words are not difficult so I put them forth as he wrote his summation.

These, then, are the two points I wanted to make.

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 this idea.

Second, that we do not in fact behave this way. We know the Law of Human Nature and we break it.

These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

Does the reality of the Law of Human Nature (Right and Wrong) have anything to do with Jesus? Does the existence of this Law change anything about what Jesus did when He was on earth. Does it change anything about your faith or lack of faith in Jesus?

Mere Christianity 5: Just Plain Humans Who Fail to Be Fair?

C. S. Lewis makes his concept for the Law of Human Nature clear when he takes the opposite point of view. His words, simplified a bit by me:

Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. 

Men have differed about who you should be most unselfish to -- whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first.

Selfishness has never been admired.

Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair."

It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table.

Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this:

None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature.

If there are any exceptions among you, I apologize to them. They had much better read some other work, for nothing I am going to say concerns them.  I am only trying to call attention to the fact that this year, or this month or more likely, this very day, we have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behavior we expect from other people.

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.

It seems we cannot avoid the Law of Gravity. or the Law of Heredity, or the Laws of Chemistry and Physics. We are stuck with them. But the one Law we all believe other people should never break is the Law of Treating You Rightly -- and it is precisely this law that we all break consistently. And from this transgression, all sorts of minor and major conflicts emerge.

Was Eve's sin one of just eating an apple? Was this a big failing or a tiny miscue? Whom did she hurt for knowingly doing what she knew was wrong? Was this a true transgression or was she just tricked by the serpent? Or were the serpent's guile words just clever enough for her to rationalize taking something she wanted?

How many times a day are we guilty of such disobedience? What are the repurcussions when we do the same kinds of things -- actions that break the Law of Human Nature? That break trust with family, friends, colleagues, neighbors? How would we react if someone did these same things to us? Is C. S. Lewis right when he says that this Law of Moral Right and Wrong is something we break on a rather consistent basis? Why do we do this when we would hate it if someone deliberately hurt us by lying, cheating -- breaking a bond of trust between us?

The World where Selfishness is admired does not exist.

That is why, the second our failures to adhere to the rule of fair play are uncovered, we go to extremes to justify our bad behavior. White lies, or black lies become our way of covering up what we did wrong. We know intuitively from childhood that selfish behavior is wrong. We know selfishness has never been admired.

The fall from grace hits hard for the mighty.

Has anyone spotted Tiger on his yacht yet?

After making billions of dollars more on a squeaky clean image that also just happened to be perhaps the greatest golfer in history, the news has been especially rough. True confessions of one woman after another, all claiming that Tiger really loved them was one of the most dramatic failures of living The Law of Right and Wrong.

In a pattern of saying one thing to his wife and to the media about the importance of family ... and then doing the opposite, Tiger tarnished the most important thing he had. He will still be one of the sport's greatest players, but the whispers on the golf course will follow him for the rest of his life once he returns to the game.

Is it fair that we are angry with Tiger for breaking this bond. Or was this just some private thing that happened between him and his family? Was his failing of the Law of Human Nature any worse than when we hide a failing of our own by coloring the truth to rationalize our failures? 

C. S. Lewis issued an apology if someone feels he misappropriately accused them of keeping to the Law of Human Nature. Do you think any of us can accept his apology?

Do you agree with C. S. Lewis that there is a universal Law of Human Nature that we should all be fully aware of? Do we really know Right from Wrong?

Right Way and Wrong Way Photo Credit: nicoledanique.wordpress.com/2009/ 

Nordegren and Woods Photo Credit: People Magazine and Getty Images

Cartoon by Sangrea.net

Mere Christianity 3: A Rule of Fair Play

Decent behavior between people, organizations – even countries.

Fights break out between us when one of us breaks the commonly understood Rule of Fair Play. We defend our positions, as if the other party has stepped on our rights. But underneath the quarrel there is a  realization by both that an offense has occurred that is not fair. One feels offended. The other tries to rationalize his behavior. The very fact that people quarrel over behaviors or actions between them validates that both know the rule has been broken. We both know there is a Right and a Wrong behavior.

Consider athletic competitions. Rules of fair play are established. But when two players clash, each feels that the other violated the rule. So we need referees to establish who the real offender is. Even then, however, the player who committed the foul will argue that the other player is the guilty one. But neither will deny that there is a rule that both should adhere to – a Rule of Fair Play, a Rule of Right and Wrong. Either the violator knows that he broke the Rule and agrees with the referee or the violator vigorously defends his actions because he feels he was the wronged party.

Photo Credit: Watchmojo.com

Mere Christianity 2: Rignt? Wrong? Let's Fight!

“That’s my seat, I was there first.”

"It doesn't matter. I got the seat now!"

Or ...

"I thought you wanted to stand so I just sat down. The seat was empty.

How would you like it if someone did that to you?

When we say such things, we are appealing to some sort of expectation of fair play – as if we expect the other person to know the rules. In fact, we appeal to this person to change behavior and to do what both people know is the right thing to do and to give the seat to the person who was actually first.

Rather than admit that “taking someone’s seat” is counter to this rule of fair plan, instead we make an excuse that gives us special permission to do something we would not want others to do to us.

It appears apparent that there is a common understanding of a basic rule that we as humans should follow in our relationships with one another.

Photo Credit: at: theosophical.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/lets-argue/

Mere Christianity 1 -- The Most Original Christian Writer of Our Century

In the early 1940's, about the time I was born, there was a brilliant thinker who went on radio to deliver three broadcasts to describe why he could no longer be an atheist. He had thought his way past atheism -- a position he then declared suitable only for boys.

These talks were then compiled int a book called "Mere Christianity" that the New York Times acclaimed as "ideal for the half-convinced, for the good man who would like to be a Christian but finds his intellect getting in the way." Lewis was a professor of Medieval and Renaissance literature at Cambridge University and may be best known today for his book "The Chronicles of Narnia" -- recently made into a movie.

Lewis wrote about his qualifications (or actually his lack of qualifications) for writing this explanation of the Christian faith:

"It’s not because I’m anybody in particular that I’ve been asked to tell you what Christians believe. In fact it’s just the opposite. [The British Broadcasting Corporation] have asked me, first of all because I’m a layman and not a parson, and consequently they thought I might understand the ordinary person’s point of view a bit better. Secondly, I think they asked mebecause it was known that I’d been an atheist for many years and only became a Christian fairly recently. They thought that would mean I’d be able to see the difficulties – able to remember what Christianity looks like from the outside. So you see the long and the short of it is that I’ve been selected for this job just because I’m an amateur and not a professional, and a beginner not an old hand. Of course this means that you may well ask what right I have to talk on the subject at all. Well, when I’d finished my scripts I sent them round to various people who

were professionals: to one Church of England theologian, one Roman Catholic, one Presbyterian, and one Methodist. The Church of England man and the Presbyterian agreed with the whole thing. The Roman Catholic and the Methodist agreed in the main, but would have liked one or two places altered. So there you’ve got all the cards on the table.What I’m going to say isn’t exactly what all these people would say; but the greater part of it is what all Christians agree on… One thing I can promise you. In spite of all the unfortunate differences between Christians, what they agree on is still something pretty big and pretty solid: big enough to blowany of us sky-high if it happens to be true…"

“Mere Christianity” has been one of the most instrumental books in my walk as a Christian. It is insightful, but Lewis writes in a style not easy to skim and his thinking process is so complex that I found that it had to be studied to get the full power from it.

I have not just underlined key passages, I have even charted them out on legal pad so I could hold the thoughts in mind and make them actionable in my mind. And that means that I have likely read “Mere Christianity” six times, plus many times when I just picked it up and re-read a page or two to clear my head.

I was not surprised at my recent Bible Study Group to learn that most of these quite learned Christians had not read Lewis’ book or some had started and gave up. It is hard work to get to through Lewis' academic writing style ... and there are those who will struggle with the need for a rational treatise on why to be a Christian, when the real reason is simply a statement of faith -- no other explanation needed. But I obviously found Mere Christianity to be incredibly helpful to me personally but not at all easy to read.

So, I am undertaking a daunting task that I am actually looking forward to: I am going to attempt to write a simplified version – kind of like the NIV simplified King James. I hope to create a more approachable version of this classic, without losing the brilliance of C. S. Lewis.

These notes will be from my seventh reading of C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. I hope Professor Lewis does not turn over in his grave, shaking a fist at me. Or you might prefer to follow a study published by the C. S. Lewis Foundation.