Mere Christianity

“It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house.” 

Earlier in this book, Lewis argues that there exists a universal law of morality. However, given that witchcraft trials used to take place but are now abolished, one might argue that this moral law has changed. In response, Lewis highlights a distinction between morality and beliefs about what is/is not possible. People are not put to trial and punished for witchcraft anymore, because people largely no longer believe in the existence of witchcraft; presumably, if we thought there was good reason to think some people were harming others through supernatural means, we would view those people as engaging in immoral acts and hold them accountable. It’s important for Lewis to demonstrate that people’s basic moral principles have remained the same over time because his arguments about the existence of God primarily rest on the existence of objective and universal morality. 

“The laws of nature, as applied to stones or trees, may only mean ‘what Nature, in fact, does’. But if you turn to the Law of Human Nature, the Law of Decent Behaviour, it is a different matter. That law certainly does not mean ‘what human beings, in fact, do’; for as I said before, many of them do not obey this law at all, and none of them obey it completely. 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.”

The distinction Lewis draws in this passage is important not just for his argument in favor of theism, but also for his argument in favor of Christianity in particular. As Lewis notes, most forces in the natural world are binding; when we call something like gravity a “law,” we mean that it functions in a particular way. Our moral sense is different, however, in that we’re free to disobey it; it is not a question of what is but what ought to be. Lewis suggests that our very sense that things “ought to be” other than the way they are is hard to account for given a purely materialist account of the world. More specifically, he argues that it is a function of the fact that humanity and the world we live in is a fallen one—that is, a world that, through our own missteps, has deviated from God’s intention.

“But in real life people are cruel for one of two reasons— either because they are sadists, that is, because they have a sexual perversion which makes cruelty a cause of sensual pleasure to them, or else for the sake of something they are going to get out of it—money, or power, or safety. But pleasure, money, power, and safety are all, as far as they go, good things. The badness consists in pursuing them by the wrong method, or in the wrong way, or too much.” 

Here, Lewis suggests that people do not typically embrace badness for its own sake; more often, they are seeking something that is desirable (be it power, pleasure, or money) and are willing to eschew moral codes in order to get it. Lewis’s broader point is that badness does not exist in a vacuum but is instead the perversion of something good; evil, in other words, depends on the existence of good in a way that is not true in reverse. This ultimately leads Lewis to conclude that religious Dualism is an insufficient account of the nature of good and evil, because it posits these things as two distinct and equally powerful forces. By contrast, Christianity views evil as arising out of good (e.g. the transformation of the angel Lucifer into Satan).

“There is no good trying to be more spiritual than God. God never meant man to be a purely spiritual creature. That is why He uses material things like bread and wine to put the new life into us. We may think this rather crude and unspiritual. God does not: He invented eating. He likes matter. He invented it.”

Though Lewis emphasizes the importance of the spiritual life, readers should not infer that God meant humans to be utterly spiritual; indeed, Lewis states that any attempt to be more spiritual than God is futile. Lewis also highlights that the Christian religion involves numerous practices that feature physical components such as bread and wine. One should not assume that physicality is crude and in opposition to spirituality. As Lewis points out, God invented matter. That alone indicates its validity from a Christian perspective. On that note, it’s likely significant that Lewis himself relies so heavily on physical analogies involving food, birth, etc. to explain points of religious importance.

“God is going to invade, all right: but what is the good of saying you are on His side then, when you see the whole natural universe melting away like a dream and something else—something it never entered your head to conceive—comes crashing in; something so beautiful to some of us and so terrible to others that none of us will have any choice left? For this time it will be God without disguise; something so overwhelming that it will strike either irresistible love or irresistible horror into every creature.”

In this dramatic statement, Lewis looks ahead to the end of days when God finally reveals Himself. Lewis emphasizes throughout this book that a Christian life must be one of utter devotion, and, here, he reaffirms that it is no good to merely say that one is on God’s side; rather, they must strive to become the kinds of human beings God intended, because if they do not, then God’s very nature will be “horrifying” to them when they discover it. The passage is also notable for its use of militaristic language (e.g. “invade”). Much of Mere Christianity is based on radio addresses Lewis had delivered during WWII, while Britain itself was worried about the threat of invasion from Nazi Germany; in borrowing this kind of rhetoric, Lewis seeks to make Christianity immediately relevant to people’s lives.

“He wants us to be simple, single-minded, affectionate, and teachable, as good children are; but He also wants every bit of intelligence we have to be alert at its job, and in first-class fighting trim. The fact that you are giving money to a charity does not mean that you need not try to find out whether that charity is a fraud or not. The fact that what you are thinking about is God Himself (for example, when you are praying) does not mean that you can be content with the same babyish ideas which you had when you were a five-year-old.”

In this passage, Lewis clarifies that God does not intend people to be like children in the sense of being “babyish” in their ideas. People sometimes interpreted God’s aim wrongly, as He wants us to be like children in some respects, e.g. to be affectionate and open to teaching. This does not, however, mean being gullible or childlike in intellect. Rather, God wants us to be both innocent and wise; in fact, Prudence is one of the Cardinal virtues.

“We might think that the ‘virtues’ were necessary only for this present life. Now it is quite true that there will probably be no occasion for just or courageous acts in the next world, but there will be every occasion for being the sort of people that we can become only as the result of doing such acts here. The point is not that God will refuse you admission to His eternal world if you have not got certain qualities of character: the point is that if people have not got at least the beginnings of those qualities inside them, then no possible external conditions could make a ‘Heaven’ for them.” 

One of the recurring ideas in Mere Christianity is that Christian morality is not so much about doing the right things as it is about becoming the “right” sort of person. Thus, the virtues that Christianity encourages are important in large part because of the way in which they shape one’s character. Lewis makes the significance of that clear in this passage, as he seeks to disabuse readers of any unsophisticated ideas they might have about Heaven and Hell as places of reward and punishment, respectively. It is not the case that God refuses admission to those who have not behaved in particular ways; rather, it is that a person’s qualities help shape the life that awaits them. If that person does not already have some semblance of virtue, nothing could ever seem like Heaven to them. 

“We have all departed from that total plan in different ways, and each of us wants to make out that his own modification of the original plan is the plan itself. You will find this again and again about anything that is really Christian: everyone is attracted by bits of it and wants to pick out those bits and leave the rest. That is why we do not get much further: and that is why people who are fighting for quite opposite things can both say they are fighting for Christianity.” 

As is the case with many things in life, people are often drawn to some aspects of Christianity more than others. People might want to modify Christianity in a way that suits them, or to embrace some parts while leaving out others. This is not how Christianity works, though, and Lewis emphasizes that we need to obey and put our trust in Christianity’s teachings. Trying to do otherwise hampers progress and results in quarrelling and confusion. It also speaks to a fundamental lack of faith that God knows what’s best for us (or, on the flip side, an excess of pride—a belief that we have the wisdom and authority to pick and choose rules for ourselves).

“You may get some marks for a very imperfect answer: you will certainly get none for leaving the question alone. Not only in examinations but in war, in mountain climbing, in learning to skate, or swim, or ride a bicycle, even in fastening a stiff collar with cold fingers, people quite often do what seemed impossible before they did it. It is wonderful what you can do when you have to.” 

Lewis recognizes that people may regard the Christian virtue of chastity as impossible. Christianity demands that people either be married and faithful or else abstain for sexual relations altogether; there is no middle ground. However, Lewis argues that deeming chastity impossible is a kneejerk reaction; people often think that swimming or riding a bicycle is impossible, and Lewis applies the same logic here. Even more to the point, what ultimately matters is not perfection—no human can be morally perfect—but rather the effort itself, which fosters the spiritual life within us. This being the case, Lewis advises that people attempt a life of chastity rather than just dismissing it outright. 

“People get from books the idea that if you have married the right person you may expect to go on ‘being in love’ forever. As a result, when they find they are not, they think this proves they have made a mistake and are entitled to a change—not realising that, when they have changed, the glamour will presently go out of the new love just as it went out of the old one. In this department of life, as in every other, thrills come at the beginning and do not last.” 

Discussing Christian views on marriage, Lewis believes that one reason why people are unfaithful or abandon their marriages is because they no longer feel the thrill of “being in love.” This prompts them to seek out this thrill elsewhere, but Lewis argues that it is natural for this thrill to dissipate; indeed, this very idea forms the basis for Lewis’s later chapter on hope, in which he argues that no worldly pleasure ultimately lives up to our expectations precisely because these pleasures are meant to focus our attention on the enduring joy of the next world. Lewis therefore argues that it is pointless trying to maintain such thrills, and encourages people to embrace the quieter contentment of marriage. 

“It is no good quoting ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ There are two Greek words: the ordinary word to kill and the word to murder. And when Christ quotes that commandment He uses the murder one in all three accounts, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And I am told there is the same distinction in Hebrew. All killing is not murder any more than all sexual intercourse is adultery.” 

This passage follows on from Lewis’s statement that it is not un-Christian for a judge to sentence someone to death or for a soldier to kill the enemy. People might quote the Christian commandment “Though shalt not kill,” but Lewis points out that, as used in the Bible, this quote refers to acts of murder. It should be noted that some Christians do disagree with Lewis on this point; the Catholic Church, for instance, is opposed to capital punishment in all instances. Given the context in which he was first writing, however, it would have been virtually impossible for Lewis to take any other position, even if he weren’t predisposed to; it would not have boosted wartime morale to hear that killing an enemy soldier might be morally questionable.

“It is hard work, but the attempt is not impossible. Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves—to wish that he were not bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good. That is what is meant in the Bible by loving him: wishing his good, not feeling fond of him nor saying he is nice when he is not.” 

While he does not regard killing as a sin in all circumstances, or as something that people should necessarily be ashamed of, Lewis warns that we should not feel anger and bitterness towards an enemy. One of Christianity’s teachings is to love one’s enemy, and Lewis recognizes that this can be difficult. Lewis clarifies, however, that this does not mean liking one’s enemy or feeling affection for them. Rather, it entails wishing that they were not bad and hoping for them to be cured; as Lewis will elaborate on later, every human ultimately has the potential to become a true “child of God,” so it is always a tragedy when someone’s actions work to stifle their spiritual life instead of nourishing it. 

“You may remember, when I was talking about sexual morality, I warned you that the centre of Christian morals did not lie there. Well, now, we have come to the centre. According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind.” 

Lewis discusses a range of vices throughout this book, but, here, he comes to the ultimate vice: pride, which by its very nature involves a sense of superiority and a desire to wield power over others. From a Christian point of view, it is pride that is the root of all other vices, because it is pride that encourages us to think we can find happiness in something other than God (money, sex, power, etc.).

Furthermore, as Lewis notes above, it was pride that led to the devil’s fall, as well as to humankind’s. The idea that humanity’s “original sin” had something to do with sex stems from a misreading of the story of Adam and Eve (which Lewis in any case reads allegorically rather than literally); Adam and Eve become ashamed of their nakedness after eating from the Tree of Knowledge—as Lewis puts it, “the Book of Genesis rather suggests that some corruption in our sexual nature followed the fall” (49)—but the fall itself stemmed from pride.

“Health is a great blessing, but the moment you make health one of your main, direct objects you start becoming a crank and imagining there is something wrong with you. You are only likely to get health provided you want other things more —food, games, work, fun, open air. In the same way, we shall never save civilisation as long as civilisation is our main object. We must learn to want something else even more.”

In this quote, Lewis is referring to the need to look towards Heaven rather than focus all of our attention on the here and now. Lewis believes that, paradoxically, focusing on something beyond this realm is the only way of being fully present in this current life, because it allows us to see our worldly happiness as what it is and be satisfied with it, knowing that it is a preview of things to come. The passage also echoes Lewis’s general wariness of trying to develop a politics out of Christianity; although he believes that improving society is worthwhile, he suggests that it is something that must happen as a byproduct of Christianity rather than as its end goal.

“Now we cannot, in that sense, discover our failure to keep God's law except by trying our very hardest (and then failing). Unless we really try, whatever we say there will always be at the back of our minds the idea that if we try harder next time we shall succeed in being completely good. Thus, in one sense, the road back to God is a road of moral effort, of trying harder and harder. But in another sense it is not trying that is ever going to bring us home. All this trying leads up to the vital moment at which you turn to God and say, ‘You must do this. I can't.’” 

Here, Lewis discusses the “second” kind of faith, which is harder to define than the first. Faith in its most basic sense means belief in Christian doctrines, but the second type of faith involves striving for perfection but realizing and accepting that one cannot achieve this without God—in other words, putting oneself in God’s hands. The passage is in this way one of many pointing to the often paradoxical nature of Christian belief and practice; it is only by failing in our attempts to be perfect that we have any hope of actually becoming perfect. This is why, as Lewis will later note, Christianity is in some sense “easier” for those struggling with vices, addictions, mental illness, etc. than it is for those who seem happy and well-balanced. 

“Theology is like the map. Merely learning and thinking about the Christian doctrines, if you stop there, is less real and less exciting than the sort of thing my friend got in the desert. Doctrines are not God: they are only a kind of map. But that map is based on the experience of hundreds of people who really were in touch with God—experiences compared with which any thrills or pious feelings you and I are likely to get on our own are very elementary and very confused. And secondly, if you want to get any further, you must use the map.” 

Lewis recognizes that theology may seem like a dry subject—particularly in comparison to the sense of the divine may people feel (for example) in nature. However, he argues that it is useful in the same way that a map is useful; it helps give us direction and has been created as a result of shared experience. It cannot compete with the real thing, but, without it, all we would have are our own individual feelings. Such feelings may be preliminary and jumbled whereas theology is made up of the experiences of hundreds of people; hence, it provides us with something clearer and more concrete, while also immersing us in the kind of community that Lewis argues best fosters our spiritual development.

“Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God.” 

Lewis often uses his training as a literary scholar to build arguments based on a close reading of particular words or phrases. In this passage, for example, he explains the distinction between begetting something and creating something in order to illuminate not only the difference between ordinary humans and Christ, but also the difference between humanity in its fallen state and humanity in its intended state. Ultimately, Lewis will argue that the project of Christianity is to transform us into “begotten” children of God.

“God is the thing to which he is praying—the goal he is trying to reach. God is also the thing inside him which is pushing him on—the motive power. God is also the road or bridge along which he is being pushed to that goal. So that the whole threefold life of the three-personal Being is actually going on in that ordinary little bedroom where an ordinary man is saying his prayers. The man is being caught up into the higher kind of life—what I called Zoe or spiritual life: he is being pulled into God, by God, while still remaining himself.” 

Having specified that God is a threefold being (i.e. the Trinity), Lewis outlines these three facets and how they manifest themselves. If someone is saying a prayer, for instance, they are not only praying to God the Father but are motivated by God the Son as an inner force. In addition, God the Holy Spirit serves as the bridge transporting them to their goal. Here, then, we see that prayer is not a case of merely reciting lines but can be three-dimensional experience wherein a person is lifted up into a higher, spiritual life without losing their self in the process.  

“He shows much more of Himself to some people than to others—not because He has favourites, but because it is impossible for Him to show Himself to a man whose whole mind and character are in the wrong condition. Just as sunlight, though it has no favourites, cannot be reflected in a dusty mirror as clearly as a clean one.” 

This quote sums up why it is that God shows more of Himself to some individuals than others. This is not a matter of favoritism but depends on the conditions of the person in question: specifically, their mind and character. If these are not of the right disposition, then they will not be receptive to God. As Lewis remarks, sunlight is reflected more clearly in a clean mirror than a dusty one.

“If you picture Time as a straight line along which we have to travel, then you must picture God as the whole page on which the line is drawn. We come to the parts of the line one by one: we have to leave A behind before we get to B, and cannot reach C until we leave B behind. God, from above or outside or all round, contains the whole line, and sees it all.” 

While we are subject to time as a linear process (past-present-future), God is subject to no such constrictions. This is clearly difficult for most people to conceptualize, so Lewis relies heavily on analogies like the one above in an attempt to explain it. He ultimately does so because he believes that much of people’s confusion about Christianity stems from their inability to imagine God as existing outside of time, as when they wonder “how the whole universe [kept] going while He was a baby” (169).

“Christianity thinks of human individuals not as mere members of a group or items in a list, but as organs in a body—different from one another and each contributing what no other could. When you find yourself wanting to turn your children, or pupils, or even your neighbours, into people exactly like yourself, remember that God probably never meant them to be that. You and they are different organs, intended to do different things.” 

Lewis realizes that, in arguing all humans should strive to become “children of God,” he may mislead readers into thinking that God intends everyone to be alike, when this is not the case. He uses the analogy of organs that work together to ensure the proper functioning of the body, with each individual organ having its own unique role. So, wherever a person wishes for other individuals to mirror himself/herself, they should remember that God probably never intended people to be utterly uniform. The passage is also closely related to Lewis’s disapproval of attempts to impose a Christian lifestyle on non-believers; besides being counterproductive (a Christian life is about more than simply a set of rules or actions), it is possible that God is working through and in these people in ways that we (and even they) are unaware of.

“Very often the only way to get a quality in reality is to start behaving as if you had it already. That is why children's games are so important. They are always pretending to be grown-ups—playing soldiers, playing shop. But all the time, they are hardening their muscles and sharpening their wits, so that the pretence of being grown-up helps them to grow up in earnest.” 

Having established that God intends humans to be “sons of God,” Lewis recognizes that human beings are not the Son of God (i.e. Christ) and that they have human failings. He consequently suggests that acting as though we already have a quality is a good way of getting closer to it. In the same way that pretending to be grown-ups helps children mature, pretending to be a son of God (e.g. positioning ourselves as such in reciting the Lord’s Prayer) may help bring us closer to that reality. 

“Of course we never wanted, and never asked, to be made into the sort of creatures He is going to make us into. But the question is not what we intended ourselves to be, but what He intended us to be when He made us. He is the inventor, we are only the machine. He is the painter, we are only the picture.” 

Lewis reiterates the need to obey and trust in God’s word throughout this book, including in the passage above. Lewis recognizes that we might not always understand God’s workings, but this is because of the limitations of our own fallen nature, which is inherently predisposed to reject God’s plan for us.