Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

Mere Christianity
Mere Christianity
Mere Christianity
Ebook252 pages4 hours

Mere Christianity

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

4.5/5

()

Read preview

About this ebook

The Beloved Classic on What All Christians Believe

One of the most popular introductions to Christian faith ever written, Mere Christianity brings together Lewis’s legendary broadcast talks during World War Two. Here, Lewis provides an unequaled opportunity for believers and nonbelievers alike to hear a powerful, rational case for the Christian faith.

A collection of scintillating brilliance, Mere Christianity remains strikingly fresh for the modern reader and at the same time confirms C.S. Lewis’s reputation as one of the leading writers and thinkers of our age.

LanguageEnglish
PublisherHarperCollins
Release dateJun 2, 2009
ISBN9780061947438
Author

C.S. Lewis

Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963) was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably one of the most influential writers of his day. He was a Fellow and Tutor in English Literature at Oxford University until 1954, when he was unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University, a position he held until his retirement. He wrote more than thirty books, allowing him to reach a vast audience, and his works continue to attract thousands of new readers every year. His most distinguished and popular accomplishments include Out of the Silent Planet, The Great Divorce, The Screwtape Letters, and the universally acknowledged classics The Chronicles of Narnia. To date, the Narnia books have sold over 100 million copies and have been transformed into three major motion pictures. Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963) fue uno de los intelectuales más importantes del siglo veinte y podría decirse que fue el escritor cristiano más influyente de su tiempo. Fue profesor particular de literatura inglesa y miembro de la junta de gobierno en la Universidad Oxford hasta 1954, cuando fue nombrado profesor de literatura medieval y renacentista en la Universidad Cambridge, cargo que desempeñó hasta que se jubiló. Sus contribuciones a la crítica literaria, literatura infantil, literatura fantástica y teología popular le trajeron fama y aclamación a nivel internacional. C. S. Lewis escribió más de treinta libros, lo cual le permitió alcanzar una enorme audiencia, y sus obras aún atraen a miles de nuevos lectores cada año. Sus más distinguidas y populares obras incluyen Las Crónicas de Narnia, Los Cuatro Amores, Cartas del Diablo a Su Sobrino y Mero Cristianismo.

Read more from C.S. Lewis

Related to Mere Christianity

Related ebooks

Christianity For You

View More

Related articles

Related categories

Reviews for Mere Christianity

Rating: 4.43699185203252 out of 5 stars
4.5/5

246 ratings91 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Got better as it went along. Profound but simple truths unpacked in a way only C.S. Lewis can. Will take a second and third read to take it all in.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Enjoyed his arguments in favor of faith and belief.I didn't go for his explanation of the trinity.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Even if we do disagree on a few points I really appreciate and enjoy Lewis' playful style of explaining things.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Truly a masterpiece of Christian literature.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    favorite book
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    The most amazing apologetic work I've ever read! C.S. Lewis is one of those authors who has truly mastered the art of the written word. With a pragmatic touch and an astounding ability to create clear and beautiful images from nothing, Lewis's written version of his radio broadcasts captures the true essence of Christianity in a way that few others have ever managed. Truly inspiring!
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    It almost seems silly to write a review of such a wonderful piece of literature. This is, of course, a fantastic book. Whether you're a Christian or not, the book appeals on an intellectual level. Highly recommended.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    C.S. Lewis leads the reader along with him as he constructs Mere Christianity; reminding me of Jesus' parable in Matthew 7:24–27 in which a wise builder first constructs a solid foundation so that the rest of the structure may be safely laid upon it. Similarly, Lewis works as though he were constructing a house. The foundation is first laid of human nature and our relationship to the law. He builds on top that our relationship to our creator and then to each other. All the while, Lewis draws comparisons between our other options: if we are to think of ourselves as the judge of “good” or if we choose not to accept our creator as God etc., and brings about logic and reason. Having come from an atheist view and later choosing to follow Christ, Lewis brings about some hard truths which may come off as offensive, but for good reason.As Lewis prefaces Mere Christianity, he explains that the work started out as radio broadcasts he later wrote down – scribing them as though he were speaking them out loud. This is a valuable piece to Lewis' structure of the book and an insight to the flow of his work. I had read the book once before finding it difficult to follow and needing to re-read the bulk of it. More recently, I listened to the audio book while following along in the printed copy. I have found this to be tremendously clearer and recommend the method.“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic- on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”He speaks out of the lies we are told regarding sex, the worth-while risk God has taken on us for the sake of free will, and his opposition to imposing Christian morals on the rest of mankind. He finishes it up in the last section by talking about doctrine and reinforcing the “how”s and “why”s of Christianity. Within this book I have found some very meaty bits and amazing quotes which I had to refrain from plastering all over this post. You can most definitely google them or just read the work. Okay, there is one more that I feel is foundational and much on the contrary to the popular misconception of why Christians tend to resemble their Christ:“That is why the Christian is in a different position from other people who are trying to be good. They hope, by being good, to please God if there is one; or- if they think there is not- at least they hope to deserve approval from good men. But the Christian thinks any good he does comes from the Christ-life inside him. He does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us; just as the roof of a greenhouse does not attract the sun because it is bright, but becomes bright because the sun shines on it.”I enjoyed this book a great deal and recommend it to anyone trying to figure out what following Christ is all about – whether from a following perspective or a more inquisitive perspective looking in.To see this review and others like it please visit the Booked and Convicted blog.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    For my C.S. Lewis Class...That's right, a whole class devoted just to the works of C.S. Lewis. Brilliant!
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    I am a long time fan of C.S. Lewis and his master (his words), George MacDonald. I must say that I am a larger fan of both of their masters, Jesus, or Y'shua. Jesus laid into a few simple words immense mystery and simple understanding. Let us understand Mere Christianity is the work of a former Atheist turned Christian apologetic. The Christian and non-Christian alike should read this book so that they may better understand each other. If only the differing beliefs would study one another, en masse.... I find Lewis' prose to be distinctly intelligent and charming. Here for you is a chance to better understand the world in which we share and why many believe Y'shua to be the Creator Incarnate. God Incarnate. The concept shakes one. For anyone interested in theology, I highly recommend this book and along with it, D. James Kennedy's "Why I Believe" and Saint Augustine's "Confessions". The Bible and these 3 make a strong case for a One True Living God with the name of Yaweh.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Sometimes faith needs a little logic. Here you can find some. And, as a bonus, what great history. Think about hearing this on the radio during a most fearful period.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    I really enjoyed this book and it really ministered to me when I read it. Lewis, in my opinion, is spoken of too highly but he is brilliant and should be read. This is basically a radio broadcast he did during WWII I believe. He has some really good thoughts on Christianity. It's more of a dialogue and there is very little Scripture references he uses. His chapter on pride should be read by all Christians everywhere...especially in the USA in the south.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    One of the most "resonating" books I have ever read.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    I absolutely loved this book! Before reading this I'd only read one other nonfiction book of his as well as the Chronicles of Narnia, so I was familiar with him. In this book, Lewis' tone is very conversational and down to earth, the result of part of the book being a transcription of a series of radio addresses Lewis was asked to give in the midst of the disillusion and horror of WWII. I found myself laughing often and really enjoying how simply he states some of the most profound truths of the universe. I was also challenged to open myself even more to the work that the Lord wants to do in my life, even when that means growing pains. Overall I would say that this book serves as a gentle reminder to Believers and as a simple challenge to those that are seeking. This is probably a book that I will read again, and I'll give it more attention than I was able to this time.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    I had read this many years ago and seem to have internalized many of the main points. While each chapter follows flawless logic, the book as a whole (since it was cobbled together from radio talks etc) is not quite so coherent. Lewis is excellent on divorce, how much is expected from those blessed with "niceness", those who follow other religions and pretty dreadful on women (bless him!)I enjoy his brisk, uncompromising tone and wish I had had tutorials with him.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    I first picked up this book because I was intrigued by the title. Mere Christianity? I had never heard Christianity referred to as ‘mere’ before. Silly, perhaps, or all-powerful. But never such a tiny, harmless, powerful word such as ‘mere.’ I guess at first I expected this book to explain to me why I shouldn’t believe in Christianity; but it ended up being the most powerful argument I’ve ever read for why I should believe in Christianity. C.S. Lewis makes a smart move in starting out his book without any mention of Christianity. He begins instead by explaining the basic common morals of mankind, regardless of any religion. He points out that all people are guided by a similar set of internal morals. He argues that the very existence of these morals is proof that a higher power exists. From there, he slowly moves towards talking about Christianity by laying out the common beliefs of religions and compares them. When Lewis does talk about Christianity, it is no single sect of the religion. He clearly points this out in the foreword to the book, and this is where the word ‘mere’ comes from – it is the basic principles of Christianity he is talking about, not differences between, say, Catholics and Baptists. The rest of the book is Lewis stating what he believes to be these common beliefs, explaining them to those who may not be familiar, and then giving strong arguments to those who may not belief.Though this is a book seeped with religion, the parts I loved most about this book were the parts where no specific religion was mentioned. In fact, the only reason I gave the book 4 ½ stars instead of 5 was because of the instances when he did mention religious specifics such as marriage or homosexuality, and I disliked his thoughts out of personal reasons. Most of the book, however, seems less like a guide to Christianity and more like a guide to being a good human being, which is the fundamental point of all religions. Lewis explains things in a straight-forward, relatable and easy to understand matter; I think there are few authors who could handle the complex thought patterns he deals with in such an eloquent way. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who believes in following the morally right way, regardless of their religion or lack thereof.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    This is a really great book, even for those who are already Christian. The analogies Lewis has come up with are often very profound and immensely helpful. This book definitely changed my life.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    One of the most important books I have ever read. Because it was taken from his radio addresses on the BBC during World War II, it is a much easier read than some of Lewis's other books. This is a must read.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    As a young child I fell in love with C.S. Lewis. As an adult, I stumbled upon Mere Christianity. It is a beautiful, but tough read. I was able to re-evaluate my own understandings of faith and belief through the words of someone that had experienced the same doubts about religion. It addresses some the 'basic' principles of Christianity, such as morality.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Mere Christianity is very simply that: a straitforward explanation of what Christianity really is. In an age when philosophical and theological modernism seeks to alter and even destroy the essence of Christ's teaching, Lewis makes plain what are the essential and unchangeable tenets of the Christian faith. To those who argue in favor of updated modernist versions of Christian beliefs, Lewis is telling them by inference, that their versions are not true Christian views. His way of explaining Christian doctrine is so logical as to seem irrefragable. But whether or not one accepts these views as truth, Lewis is declaring that this is what Christianity really is. Each one of us is free to take it or leave it. This treatise of C.S. Lewis is an enormously important book for anyone seeking to understand basic Christianity. It is written in a style that gets to the heart of an idea he is expressing, almost instantly. You don't need to have any sophisticated understanding of theology to grasp the explanations he offers. His treatment of the three Theological Virtues (Faith, Hope and Charity) and the four Cardinal Virtues (Prudence, Temperance, Justice and Fortitude) is very good. And everyone should know what he has to say about the Great Sin (Pride), which is so destructive to the self. The chapter entitled "Let's Pretend" explains how and why we should seek spiritual self-improvement, and I'll bet that there are ideas in this section that you never thought about.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Lewis is considered the great apologist of the 20th century, and this book is his great apologetic work. While I find Chesterton's Orthodoxy to resonate more with my sensibilities, Mere Christianity is well-worth reading (and re-reading.)
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    With this introduction to Christianity, Lewis proves he is one of the greatest Christian writers, and Mere Christianity rightly takes its place as one of the most accessible works both by Lewis and on Christianity. Though not by any means an apologia for Christianity, it reminds its readers of the truly important matters of faith and makes often complex theology attractive and exciting. An essential book for any Christian on any stage of their journey in faith, and for those too who are sincerely inquisitive about the claims of Christianity.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    I found it a breeze to read. He admits his status as a layman, and tries to make the broadest appeal. I doubt he has or will convince anyone of his position not already inclined to take it, and I don't always agree with his reasoning myself (regardless of whether or not I agree or disagree with any conclusion he draws). In full disclosure, I only became aware of this book through Christopher Hitchens, whom I now know only quoted from the beginning chapters of this book. He certainly wasn't convinced, but that's to be expected. I'm glad to have read it for myself.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Kind of preachy, not enough qualiters, he's so sure he's right that he talks down. Interesting though.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Such a good thinker and writer. His description of the core beliefs of Christianity is clear and elegant.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    An excellent book which builds brick upon brick to explain the Christian faith and why we believe as we do. Fabulous, even the third time through...and it may take you that many times to begin to follow C.S. Lewis' logic.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Where do I even start. I haven't read any of Lewis' non-fiction before though I've wanted to for ages. I'm so glad I chose this as my first one. Basically I don't have the words to do the book justice. It is terribly profound. It is logical and oh, so simply deep. At first I found the writing as if I was being talked to like a child but I did have to realise the book was first written in the 1940s and I got used to the style along with realizing that I am a child, a child of God. As I said I do not have the words to do the book justice and that is how I felt throughout reading the whole book. His explanations of why there must be a God ... the God ... Our Father, are so simplistically logical that I was literally stunned and wished I could have thought of that myself. He goes on to describe the whole Christian religion, from the standpoint of an atheist who converted because it was the only sensible answer to his searching. As a Christian, Catholic, myself I didn't need the proof but I found it utterly enlightening the way he explained things so simply. He covers all the points most non-believers raise as he raised them himself on his journey and C.S. Lewis was one of our great modern thinkers. I could have read this book quickly but it took me a while to read as after I had read 1, sometimes 2, chapters I just had to stop because I wanted to remember, muse upon and discuss the next day with my coffee group, the way he had made me look at things from a different angle. This is "the" book to read for those looking, searching and trying to find God, even before you decide upon a denomination. Lewis even talks about this. The book is completely Christian without denominational influence. He was Church of England (Anglican/Episcopal) but he talks of how one should find their own denomination without bias. Now that I've read the book, this is one I'm going to keep by my bedside and read a chapter from now and then to learn his phraseology and allegory to help myself when speaking with non-believers. Truly a classic of the 20th century that should be read by all because even if the book doesn't convert you it will give you the true meaning of Christianity and let you know why these Christians you meet aren't perfect.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    It goes without saying that C. S. Lewis possessed a brilliant mind. This work is no proof of that brilliance, no doubt is the intended audience. Written as radio addresses at a time when Christianity was on the decline in Britain, Mere Christianity abounds with far to many "everyman" analogies and simplified explanations to be intellectually or spiritually engaging. For such one needs to go to the apologias Newman or to the theological works of Tillich, Kung or Weil. Lewis's radio addresses are homely, but not satisfying.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Given as radio talks, these explanations of faith were spoken before and during WWII; here Lewis explains the basics of faith and the journey to faith.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    The problem today with books about religion, whether they be pro- or against it, is that most readers will come to them with an agenda. Those who do not believe in a God will often read them with the aim of confirming to themselves that a deity is a foolish idea and that those who do believe have been duped. Those who do believe in a God will read to prove to themselves that God does exist. As a Christian myself, I admit that I began to read this book with the same prejudice, but quickly realised that this was to miss the point. Lewis was not writing to prove anything to anyone but merely to set out and to explain the main tenets of Christianity as he saw it to believers and non-believers alike. Yes, he does state that to him, Christianity is the only logical belief, but he does not force this down one’s throat. There were, however, in my opinion, several flaws. On the subject of morality, Lewis makes certain assumptions (which are products of his time) which may be somewhat contentious to a modern mindset – namely on homosexual relationships and a woman’s role in a marriage. These views, however, should be taken in the context in which they were written – long before Women’s Lib or Gay Rights – and should not detract from other more reasonable demands which Lewis makes. As an intellectual exercise, I found ‘Mere Christianity’ to be a very interesting, if often uncomfortable read. Because of these flawed arguments, many other readers may strongly disagree, finding the holes which one can find too large to get over. To me, however, his explanations of certain aspects of Christian faith were truly illuminating and perhaps could be a starting-block to improve my own faith. It certainly made me think a lot harder about my own nature and behaviour. But, I underline, this is only my perspective. Another problem with works on religion, especially those with a didactic tone, is that they can be so personal. One reader may gain a lot from them, another may increase in scepticism. In other words, while Reader A may find ‘Mere Christianity’ to be a helpful spiritual aid, Reader B may scoff at its teaching, but find it worth reading for academic reasons. Reader C, on the other hand, may find nothing of worth for him/her in it at all. In many ways, it’s up to you.

Book preview

Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis

Preface

The contents of this book were first given on the air, and then published in three separate parts as Broadcast Talks (1942), Christian Behaviour (1943) and Beyond Personality (1944). In the printed versions I made a few additions to what I had said at the microphone, but otherwise left the text much as it had been. A ‘talk’ on the radio should, I think, be as like real talk as possible, and should not sound like an essay being read aloud. In my talks I had therefore used all the contractions and colloquialisms I ordinarily use in conversation. In the printed version I reproduced this, putting don’t and we’ve for do not and we have. And wherever, in the talks, I had made the importance of a word clear by the emphasis of my voice, I printed it in italics. I am now inclined to think that this was a mistake—an undesirable hybrid between the art of speaking and the art of writing. A talker ought to use variations of voice for emphasis because his medium naturally lends itself to that method: but a writer ought not to use italics for the same purpose. He has his own, different, means of bringing out the key words and ought to use them. In this edition I have expanded the contractions and replaced most of the italics by a recasting of the sentences in which they occurred: but without altering, I hope, the ‘popular’ or ‘familiar’ tone which I had all along intended. I have also added and deleted where I thought I understood any part of my subject better now than ten years ago or where I knew that the original version had been misunderstood by others.

The reader should be warned that I offer no help to anyone who is hesitating between two Christian ‘denominations’. You will not learn from me whether you ought to become an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, or a Roman Catholic. This omission is intentional (even in the list I have just given the order is alphabetical). There is no mystery about my own position. I am a very ordinary layman of the Church of England, not especially ‘high’, nor especially ‘low’, nor especially anything else. But in this book I am not trying to convert anyone to my own position. Ever since I became a Christian I have thought that the best, perhaps the only, service I could do for my unbelieving neighbours was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times. I had more than one reason for thinking this. In the first place, the questions which divide Christians from one another often involve points of high Theology or even of ecclesiastical history, which ought never to be treated except by real experts. I should have been out of my depth in such waters: more in need of help myself than able to help others. And secondly, I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own. Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son. Finally, I got the impression that far more, and more talented, authors were already engaged in such controversial matters than in the defence of what Baxter calls ‘mere’ Christianity. That part of the line where I thought I could serve best was also the part that seemed to be thinnest. And to it I naturally went.

So far as I know, these were my only motives, and I should be very glad if people would not draw fanciful inferences from my silence on certain disputed matters.

For example, such silence need not mean that I myself am sitting on the fence. Sometimes I am. There are questions at issue between Christians to which I do not think we have been told the answer. There are some to which I may never know the answer: if I asked them, even in a better world, I might (for all I know) be answered as a far greater questioner was answered: ‘What is that to thee? Follow thou Me.’ But there are other questions as to which I am definitely on one side of the fence, and yet say nothing. For I am not writing to expound something I could call ‘my religion’, but to expound ‘mere’ Christianity, which is what it is and what it was long before I was born and whether I like it or not.

Some people draw unwarranted conclusions from the fact that I never say more about the Blessed Virgin Mary than is involved in asserting the Virgin Birth of Christ. But surely my reason for not doing so is obvious? To say more would take me at once into highly controversial regions. And there is no controversy between Christians which needs to be so delicately touched as this. The Roman Catholic beliefs on that subject are held not only with the ordinary fervour that attaches to all sincere religious belief, but (very naturally) with the peculiar and, as it were, chivalrous sensibility that a man feels when the honour of his mother or his beloved is at stake. It is very difficult so to dissent from them that you will not appear to them a cad as well as a heretic. And contrariwise, the opposed Protestant beliefs on this subject call forth feelings which go down to the very roots of all Monotheism whatever. To radical Protestants it seems that the distinction between Creator and creature (however holy) is imperilled: that Polytheism is risen again. Hence it is hard so to dissent from them that you will not appear something worse than a heretic—a Pagan. If any topic could be relied upon to wreck a book about ‘mere’ Christianity—if any topic makes utterly unprofitable reading for those who do not yet believe that the Virgin’s son is God—surely this is it.

Oddly enough, you cannot even conclude, from my silence on disputed points, either that I think them important or that I think them unimportant. For this is itself one of the disputed points. One of the things Christians are disagreed about is the importance of their disagreements. When two Christians of different denominations start arguing, it is usually not long before one asks whether such-and-such a point ‘really matters’ and the other replies: ‘Matter? Why, it’s absolutely essential.’

All this is said simply in order to make clear what kind of book I was trying to write; not in the least to conceal or evade responsibility for my own beliefs. About those, as I said before, there is no secret. To quote Uncle Toby: ‘They are written in the Common-Prayer Book.’

The danger clearly was that I should put forward as common Christianity anything that was peculiar to the Church of England or (worse still) to myself. I tried to guard against this by sending the original script of what is now Book II to four clergymen (Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic) and asking for their criticism. The Methodist thought I had not said enough about Faith, and the Roman Catholic thought I had gone rather too far about the comparative unimportance of theories in explanation of the Atonement. Otherwise all five of us were agreed. I did not have the remaining books similarly ‘vetted’ because in them, though differences might arise among Christians, these would be differences between individuals or schools of thought, not between denominations.

So far as I can judge from reviews and from the numerous letters written to me, the book, however faulty in other respects, did at least succeed in presenting an agreed, or common, or central, or ‘mere’ Christianity. In that way it may possibly be of some help in silencing the view that, if we omit the disputed points, we shall have left only a vague and bloodless H.C.F. The H.C.F. turns out to be something not only positive but pungent; divided from all non-Christian beliefs by a chasm to which the worst divisions inside Christendom are not really comparable at all. If I have not directly helped the cause of reunion, I have perhaps made it clear why we ought to be reunited. Certainly I have met with little of the fabled odium theologicum from convinced members of communions different from my own. Hostility has come more from borderline people whether within the Church of England or without it: men not exactly obedient to any communion. This I find curiously consoling. It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each there is a something, or a Someone, who against all divergencies of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.

So much for my omissions on doctrine. In Book III, which deals with morals, I have also passed over some things in silence, but for a different reason. Ever since I served as an infantryman in the First World War I have had a great dislike of people who, themselves in ease and safety, issue exhortations to men in the front line. As a result I have a reluctance to say much about temptations to which I myself am not exposed. No man, I suppose, is tempted to every sin. It so happens that the impulse which makes men gamble has been left out of my make-up; and, no doubt, I pay for this by lacking some good impulse of which it is the excess or perversion. I therefore did not feel myself qualified to give advice about permissible and impermissible gambling: if there is any permissible, for I do not claim to know even that. I have also said nothing about birth-control. I am not a woman nor even a married man, nor am I a priest. I did not think it my place to take a firm line about pains, dangers and expenses from which I am protected; having no pastoral office which obliged me to do so.

Far deeper objections may be felt—and have been expressed—against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: ‘Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?’ or ‘May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?’ Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.

The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone ‘a gentleman’ you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not ‘a gentleman’ you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said—so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully—‘Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?’ They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man ‘a gentleman’ in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is ‘a gentleman’ becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object. (A ‘nice’ meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say ‘deepening’, the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. 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. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.

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. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were ‘far closer to the spirit of Christ’ than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. 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.

I hope no reader will suppose that ‘mere’ Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions—as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable. It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And 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. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.

Book One

Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe

1

The Law of Human Nature

Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: ‘How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?’—‘That’s my seat, I was there first’—‘Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm’—‘Why should you shove in first?’—‘Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine’—‘Come on, you promised.’ People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: ‘To hell with your standard.’ Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the ‘laws of nature’ we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong ‘the Law of Nature’, they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation, and organisms by

Enjoying the preview?
Page 1 of 1