Mere Christianity

C. S. Lewis

Intro: If one wanted to write a defense of the Christian faith, there are several approaches he or she could
take, all of which would be effective.

- One could present scientific evidence for the existence of God

- One might share his or her personal experience with Christ
- One might show OT prophecy and its fulfillment in the NT
- One might describe all the good the Christian faith has accomplished

C. S. Lewis passes over all of these and builds his case on human behavior. The effectiveness of his approach
over those above is huge. Here are some of the benefits:

- Starts with a presentation of philosophy, not religion

- The notion of God is not addressed until the 5th chapter
- Lewis relies on logical arguments rather than citing religious writings
- He eliminates all worldviews except Christianity, including:
o Atheism o Agnosticism
o Pantheism o Materialism
o Dualism o Darwinism
o Judaism o Islam

FILTERS: At the ends of Book 1 and 2 Lewis has placed a natural filter which requires the reader’s buy-in
before proceeding to subsequent ideas.

- Book 1 Filter: “Christianity only speaks to a person who realizes that there is a Moral Law, there is a
Power behind the Law, he has broken the Law and put himself wrong with that Power.”
- Book 2 Filter: “Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He
disabled death itself.” This is what Lewis claims is Christianity; this is what has to be believed in order
for one to be a Christian. This is mere Christianity.

Book 1. Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe

1. The Law of Human Nature

- There is a law of Human Nature or Right and Wrong. (Moral Law)
- None of us are keeping the law of Human Nature.

2. Some Objections
- The law of Human Nature or Right is not just our herd instinct.
- The law of Human Nature or Right is not just social convention.

3. The Reality of the Law

- There is a different kind of reality apart from the facts of men’s behavior.
- There is a real law of decent behavior which is pressing in on all of us.
Book 1 – Chapter 3: The Reality of the Law
The Law Applied
Two point from Chapter 1 are worth reviewing at this point:
 People are haunted by the idea of a sort of behavior that they ought to practice, we call this law fair
play or decency or morality.
 No one is really keeping the Law of Human Nature.

Now, what exactly does it mean to break the Law?

 You might say that breaking the law only means that people are not perfect, and this is true, but not
very helpful.
 What are the consequences of something being imperfect, of its not being what it ought to be?

The answer to this depends on the “something” we are thinking about:

 If we are speaking of stones or trees, they are what they are, and it is senseless to say that they ought
to have been otherwise. The laws of nature applied to stones or trees only means what nature does.
We call these results facts.
 The Law of Human Nature applied to humans does not mean “what human beings do,” but what they
ought to and not do. And when we are dealing with humans, something else is in play beyond the
actual facts.
So in the case of humans, we have the facts (how men do behave) and we have something else (how they
ought to behave).

Explanations
This phenomenon is so peculiar that we are tempted to explain it. Lewis gives the following illustration to
help; a man who gets a choice seat on the train because he got there first and a man who got the seat because
he slipped in while Lewis had turned away for a moment. Lewis says, and we would all agree, that he blames
the second man and does not blame the first. This leads Lewis to ponder the nature of behavior; what makes
behavior good or bad?
 Sometimes the behavior we call bad is not inconvenient to us – it does not necessarily harm us. So we
cannot say the behavior we call decent is only that which is useful to us.
 And as for decent behavior in ourselves, it should be obvious that we’re not talking about behavior
that pays. Some examples:
o Being content with making 50k on a deal when we might have gotten 75k
o Being honest on our taxes when it would be easy to cut corners.
o Staying in a dangerous place when we’d rather go to a safer place.
 Some say that though decent conduct does not mean what pays each particular person at a particular
moment, it means what pays the human race as a whole.
o Humans know that you cannot have any real safety or happiness except in a society where
everyone plays fair.
o Because most people understand this, they try to behave decently.

But this notion really missed the point – according to Lewis, it is circular reasoning. So he concludes by saying
that men ought to be unselfish, ought to be fair, period. The Law of Human Nature then can be said to have
these characteristics:
 It is not simply a fact about human behavior.
 It is not a mere fancy – we can’t get rid of the idea.
 It is not how we would like others to behave for our own convenience.
 It is a real thing, not something we invented.
QUESTIONS:

1. Give us an example of anyone who is not bothered by the fact that they are not keeping the Law of
Human Nature? Can you give an example of anyone, apart from Jesus of Nazareth, who is keeping the
Law or who kept it perfectly?

2. Do you understand the difference between the facts of how we behave and the something else, the
how we ought to behave? Do you see that these are clearly different things altogether?

3. Give an example of bad behavior on the part of someone else that is not harmful or inconvenient to
you. Do you understand why we would label this as bad behavior? What should be your response in
the face of this bad behavior?

4. Give an example of good behavior on your part that affects you adversely. Do you see why we
wouldn’t call this bad behavior just because it affected you negatively?

5. Lewis’ complaint with the argument explaining that people act decently because it is in the best
interests of society as a whole is a subtle one indeed. Can you explain why this is a circular statement?

6. Lewis makes the very important point that the Law of Human Nature is a real thing. What does he
mean by this? Do you believe this – that this law is a real construct, that it isn’t just something we
imagine?