Journal on Mere Christianity

Journal of Reflections from a Reading of Mere Christianity
David Price

Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis. New York: Macmillan, 1960 (3rd printing, 1963).

28 August 2004
Preface
I thought it might be interesting to compare the preface of this edition to that in my copy of The Case for Christianity (Macmillan, 1944, 1st American edition. The first binding of Lewis’ work was called Broadcast Talks and was published in July,1942, by Geoffrey Bles. Bles released Christian Behaviour: A Further Series of Broadcast Talks in 1943, followed by Beyond Personality in 1944. Bles had a publishing agreement with Macmillan to release Lewis’ works in the US and the Macmillan editions were delayed by a year or more. Finally, Lewis was persuaded to combine the three works into the one book, Mere Christianity, which was published by Macmillan.). Here is the preface to The Case for Christianity:
“I GAVE these talks, not because I am anyone in particular,
but because I was asked to do so. I think they asked me
chiefly for two reasons: firstly, because I am a layman, not
a clergyman; and secondly, because I had been a non-
Christian for many years. It was thought that both these
facts might enable me to understand the difficulties that ordi-
nary people feel about the subject. I am Church of England
now myself, but I have tried to put nothing into the second
series of talks which all Christians of all Churches do not
agree with. With this in view, I sent the script to four clergy-
men (one Church of England, one Roman Catholic, one
Presbyterian, and one Methodist) before they were given on
the air. The Church of England man and the Presbyterian
agreed with me throughout. The Roman Catholic thought I
went too far about the comparative unimportance of theories
of the “Atonement” in the fourth talk of the second series,
and the Methodist would have liked more about Faith in the
fifth talk of that series. Both these differences you will find
noted when you come to the place. Apart from those, I
believe you can take what is said in the second series as plain
Christianity which no Christian disagrees with. The first
series, of course, does not get as far as Christian doctrines; it
is more what might be called philosophy.”
(Lewis, C.S. The Case for Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1944, v.)

The writing is terse. Lewis gave these talks in August, 1941, (“Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe”) and January/February, 1942 (What Christians Believe), and this period in his life was tremendously busy as he preached (e.g. The Weight of Glory on 8 June 1941) and traveled extensively to preach to RAF personnel around England. By the time he came to write the Preface, the US had entered the war and Hitler had turned against Russia. England was still in a desperate state and there was little time for frills or relaxation. Lewis stated the purpose for the book and how it came to be published. He briefly described the fact that he had consulted a diverse group of clergy and had very little opposition to his work.

When I turn to the Preface of Mere Christianity, I am face to face with a man whose circumstances are radically different. The war is over and his many books are gaining wide acceptance throughout the English speaking world. The tone is relaxed and genial. Lewis sense of humor is evident in small things that he says: the list of clergymen in the 1942 edition has become a disclaimer that, “You will not learn from me whether you ought to become and Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian or a Roman Catholic.” Though eloquent, Lewis is humble. He explains that he is unwilling to enter into areas that are best handled by real experts. Mostly, he wants to give a gift to the Christian world of the things we agree upon and have to acknowledge as the ground of our faith.

The amazing thing to consider in all of this is that Lewis’ original work was conceived during wartime and his assertions could have easily been skewed to favor mother England and disparage Germany. There is no hint of apology in Lewis’ new Preface and there is no major revision to make the book palatable to the defeated Axis citizens. Anglican, Lutheran or Roman, all are acceptable to God through his son, Jesus Christ.

29 August 2004
Preface
Lewis’ use of the word “gentleman” as a comparative to the term “Christian” is prophetic. It has become impossible to classify any belief system as non-Christian when its adherents are obviously heretical. I am thinking of the very recent campaigns of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons to be recognized as “Christian.” These campaigns are capitalizing on the fading condition of “Christian” as a descriptive term and its common use as a term of approval.

30 August 2004
Book I RIGHT AND WRONG AS A CLUE TO THE MEANING OF THE UNIVERSE

1. The Law of Human Nature
I am immediately reminded of practical issues when Lewis begins with an appeal to standards and his observation that excuses are often the human product of denying the applicability of a standard. The practical maxim of which I am thinking is one that was taught in a management course, “No Results + Excuses is not = Results.” Results are results and they speak for themselves.
Today, I have held a double standard.

31 August 2004
2. Some Objections
Moral Law establishes priorities in our “instincts.”
Setting up any one impulse is dangerous as a guide to behavior. Is this analogous to elevating one spiritual gift in church? Is preaching the most important thing?
You wouldn’t call someone unspiritual because he doesn’t bother about things that don’t confront him on a daily basis—like Open Theism.

1 September 2004
3. The Reality of the Law
Evolutionists have been forced to give up the use of “morally loaded” terminology such as “good” or “bad.” Having substituted “negative” and “positive” for these terms, they have helped to destroy meaning in language and gained converts to their way of expressing ideas from among believers in Jesus.

2 September 2004
4 What Lies Behind the Law
Science can provide answers to the functions of reality but not to its meaning.
Basic Human question = “Who is the mind behind the Universe?”
Is “Purpose Driven” Christianity really Bergsonian?

3 September 2004
5. We Have Cause to Be Uneasy
Progress may have to begin with repentance!
Is our evangelism selling a false Christianity? A Christianity that does not offer Forgiveness of Sins?

Book II WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE

4 September 2004
1. The Rival Conceptions of God
The Righteous God would never do or declare anything evil and mandate its goodness by divine fiat.

5 September 2004
2. The Invasion
Real things are not simple. Is fundamentalism real? Is omniscience real? Omnipotence? Omnipresence? Is the “Simplicity of God” unreal –the “Eternal Now?”
Evil borrows goodness and misuses it. Righteousness stands on its own.
6 September 2004
3 The Shocking Alternative
Free will has made evil possible. In the open theism argument, God knows some absolutes regarding the future and all the possibilities. However, if the fixed things He knows are mandated by Him, then there is nothing left but evil possibilities. When they come to pass, is God responsible? Shabby theodicy.
Rotten stuff: The higher the physical order the worse it smells.
Rotting grass–not unpleasant
Rotting tomatoes–disgusting
Rotten eggs–nasty
Rotten meat–horrible
Gangrene–hideous
God’s Love is wounded in every sin. Such an idea is a more powerful modifier to behavior than any forensic approach.

7 September 2004
4. The Perfect Penitent
Thank God we don’t have to know how the atonement works as though it were a subject we would be tested on when the books are opened. 70% or better gets you a Heavenly Home!!
Was it always God’s plan (before the foundation of the world) to die–even without the aspect of sin and evil?

8 September 2004
5. The Practical Conclusion
Lewis betrays the indoctrination of his era: that evolution, on some level, is valid. Similar to the liberal taint in Barth–built in and not rooted out. What taints our generation??
Lewis fully rejects Gnostic concepts of the fullness evil in the flesh. Spiritual life is imparted to us and spread among us by physical things like baptism and the Bread and Wine of communion. God likes matter.
Interesting prophetic redaction here! Originally, Lewis says, “…you and I would think much of a Frenchman who waited till the Allies were marching into Berlin…” The present tense takes us back to the Broadcast Talks of 1941 — “Berlin” is specific and a reminder that Lewis made this prophetic remark in 1941 when German bombs were still falling on London every night!
Book III CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOUR

9 September 2004
1. The Three Parts of Morality
The notion that we can vote a good society into being by electing the”right” people is naive. The “right” people are corruptible, too.

10 September 2004
2. The “Cardinal Virtues”
We are willing to be happy with less than what will make us fit for God’s Kingdom. Our level of love is often no greater than what can be found in any natural man.

11 September 2004
3. Social Morality
Where, O Lord, are those places in my life where I want to shirk? Want to be a slacker? Want to blame others for why I am no farther along than I know I should be?
How many churches have had their ranks swollen by the fact that the pastor is now an “in” guy with the governor or senator or president? What about African-American pastors who become politicians? Was Martin Luther King misleading his people to demand civil rights?
Pride hinders charity while tipping and hospitality may be selfishly motivated.

12 September 2004
4. Morality and Psychoanalysis
Is psychology and psychoanalysis good but tainted by their associations with Freudian philosophy? How valid are Jungian observations? The pragmatism of Viktor Frankl?
Am I, at the heart of it all, no more than a fiendish creature? How depraved is depravity?
Our natural condition is being ENEMY to God–not merely ambivalent. We are in the wrong army until we are in Christ.
Knowledge of good and evil implies an inherent goodness–not an inherent depravity.

13 September 2004
5. Sexual Morality
How do I manage to be chaste and modest together in my social setting?
Being chaste is not impossible except to those who won’t try at all—the issue is in the individual will.

14 September 2004
6. Christian Marriage
“…unchastity is not improved by adding perjury.” A sound principle–One cannot become financially sound by adding covetousness.
The idea that “The Passion” (2004 Mel Gibson movie) should be portrayed to thrill us is like falling in love–the thrill does not last–the excitement, with no depth of soul to accept it, will be supplanted by another thrill; perhaps a diabolical one.
From a 21st century perspective, Lewis’ notion of “state sanctioned” marriage is naive since he would not, at that time, have factored in homosexual marriage.
So the church, as bride and wed to Christ, must beware, in political circles, not to have its own way or it will move into a mode of inquisition that Jesus would not condone.

15 September 2004
7. Forgiveness
Lewis’ dictum, “hate the sin but not the sinner,” differs from the modern restatement along materialist lines: “Love the sinner but not the sin.” The latter implies ambivalence toward sin instead of the rejection of it found in the former.

16 September 2004
8. The Great Sin
My level of self-conceit is proportional to my hatred of prideful actions in others…snobbery and exclusion and patronizing.
Pride places me at enmity with God.
Being proud of the work my church does can turn into being proud of myself for being a member there.

17 September 2004
9. Charity
Lewis’ ability to use a simple concept (and a timely one, in those days saving money at a bank was more common) such as “…good increases at compound interest,” and apply it to life is amazing.

18 September 2004
10. Hope
Christian “cranks” (cranky people) would be those who are preoccupied with their goodness or sinlessness or piety.
Symbolism has great power to represent things other than what is obviously stated–but also leaves openings for misunderstanding.

19 September 2004
11. Faith
Imagination and Emotions are at war with Faith. Faith, itself, depends on Reason. Peter’s imagination and emotions overwhelmed him as he walked on water (did the work of faith)…imagination and emotions are attached to this world.
The name of the band…Sixpence None the Richer…derived from this picture Lewis uses about God’s providence.

20 September 2004
12. Faith
Is the doctrine of “OMNI’s” fit stuff for children but something that maturity has to see differently?

Lewis betrays his anti-Calvinist perspective here. However, he is talking at a level that does not include the true complexity of the issue of “who initiates the movement toward God?”

Book IV BEYOND PERSONALITY: OR FIRST STEPS IN THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

21 September 2004
1. Making and Begetting
Jesus as a great moral teacher is only important to those who are beyond the scope of the lesser moral teachers…Plato, Aristotle, Confucius…
Corruption from Adam’s sin and fall works with less immediate impact on the things that resemble God in a less complex fashion. The highest does not stand without the lowest.
Psalm 42:5 Our spiritual life is merely the exhalation of God…not essentially like Him.

22 September 2004
2. The Three-Personal God
Lewis’ picture of the levels or dimensions that are not left behind as complexity increases is important–its fundamental basis is that the highest does not stand without the lowest.
Lewis says that theology began with Jesus. It was worked out by the Holy Spirit directing the men who wrote the Scriptures.
Islam, then, is the product of the Dirty God Syndrome. That is, God is viewed through a dirty lens…which makes Nazism and Communism Dirty God Doctrines.

23 September 2004
3. Time and Beyond Time
Lewis, if he has read Bevan at this point, has not chosen to agree with his denouncement of nunc stans.
Timeless life is not the same as Eternal now.
It appears that God allows time lapse to dictate events to some degree…otherwise, why use supernatural means (angels, e.g.) on occasion. Lewis is simplifying too much, here.
If I am the only one for whom Christ died, I am the only one who hammered the nails.
Lewis, here, is not true to his dimensional illustration. If time, for us, is a line, then time, for God, is a plane (or solid). A moment is a point, regardless to whom.
The end of this chapter reads a bit like Greg Boyd and open theism. How did Lewis arrive there when he was taking the classical position?
It’s interesting that Lewis’ Narnia tales offer a more mature treatment of time–reflection of Bevan?

24 September 2004
4. Good Infection
The picture of trinity here is somewhat helpful but does not wrestle with Jesus who laid aside his divine prerogative.
Lewis acknowledges the primacy of scriptural expression as opposed to those we may want to substitute.
Excellent description of the confessional statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

25 September 2004
5. The Obstinate Toy Soldiers
First paragraph–Lewis points to “in Christ” that makes it a direct parallel to the idea of “in God’s image” instead of in Adam’s image.
Lewis expresses a connection between the various ways that different confessions describe being rightly related to Jesus.

26 September 2004
6. Two Notes
Lewis makes a jump here in assuming that “the process of being turned from a creature into a son would not have been difficult or painful if the human had not turned away…” The difficulty and pain would have been commensurate with Christ’s own… There was evil in the universe already.
Very important point that Lewis makes here regarding the way we imagine (make images) and use those to explain reality…especially eternal reality.

27 September 2004
7. Let’s Pretend
Morality is not able to turn us into sons and daughters of God. The least attempt at dress-up is better than keeping rules.
Lord, help me to carry this good infection and pass it on and not merely pass around the common cold of sinfulness.
Our reading is to inform us on how Christ wants us “dress us up” and not on how he wants us to learn Him as a subject.
I must pay close attention to what I am which is reflected in what I do.

28 September 2004
8. Is Christianity Hard or Easy
This brilliant man who could describe the precise nature of literary influences on history in the 16th century uses the word “pest” in its exact slang meaning–perfectly describing some busybody.
“The Coward and the Lazy Man: each gets the thing he avoids!” Lewis
Church exists for no other purpose that to draw men into Christ…the only purpose that should drive us.
“Jolly sight harder for it to learn to fly while remaining an egg.” Amazing use of language that presents an image of the absurd thing alongside the things demanded.

29 September 2004
9. Counting the Cost
Interesting that Lewis lists “masturbation” as a sin but modern Christian ethicists who are pragmatic fundamentalists would disagree. Maybe masturbation is a sin to middle-aged moralists but not to erudite libertines molded from perfection.

30 September 2004
10. Nice People or New Men
There’s no difficulty seeing that Lewis expanded the concepts in this chapter into his novel, That Hideous Strength.

1 October 2004
11. The New Men
Lewis’ idea of transformation disagrees with Calvinist ideas of restoration–i.e. return to Eden. That creation is spoiled and new creation needs new raw material. The Dirt of Sin is to be transformed into a new body.
The rejection of “brainier men” is part of That Hideous Strength.
One needs to know Lewis to see how his argument runs contra to materialism.
The more we get “ourselves” out of the way…but Lewis would never agree that mere negation will do—unselfishness is NOT charity.