I am currently in a class at Kennesaw State University with a liberal professor who has launched a not-so-subtle attack on the idea of truth. I, of course, want to humbly and courageously speak the words God would have me to speak to her and to our class as a whole. For any who read this, prayer would be greatly appreciated.
There are a couple of ways I want to work on protecting and preparing my mind, especially within such a skeptical, humanist atmosphere. I want to, first and foremost, keep myself tethered to Scripture, letting its words shape me, flatten me, and transform me. Second, I want to read from great defenders of truth. In my readings I find few greater or more creative or more insightful defenders of truth than CS Lewis.
When I visited Nicole (my fiance) most recently, I retrieved a collection I had lent her, "The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics", and I began re-reading "Mere Christianity". This is one of those books that I started reading a while back, would get through a couple of chapters, and would then put it down for six months. I'd then pick it up again, read back to that point, and go a few chapters further. This happened several times, as I chipped away, bit by bit. For those unfamiliar with him, C.S. Lewis is not exactly light reading. He is not as dense as some, like John Owen or Edwards in places, but he requires concentration. That concentration pays off, though.
I finished "Mere Christianity" finally a couple of summers ago and have not picked it back up until this last week. I was struck even in the first few chapters by how influenced I have been by his thought. Some of my gut reactions to things being said in class I could trace back directly to things written in the early chapters of this book. I did not directly recall the origin of these reactions as I had them, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that my sustained concentration years earlier was bearing fruit.
C.S. Lewis is like an acquired taste, but I heartily commend his writings. They are worth whatever it takes to get into them and benefit from them. (The same can be said of the Bible, only infinitely more so. It may be difficult to read, but to understand it is worth whatever effort needs to be made.) "Mere Christianity" is perhaps his most well known work, next to the "Chronicles of Narnia". It is a classic, and I recommend it as a superb explanation and defense of the core meaning of Christianity. I plan, beginning with this entry, to take this book and others in his compilation chapter by chapter.
The first chapter, entitled "The Law of Human Nature", is a defense of the concept of natural law, that we all have a sense of universal right and wrong that we expect each other to know about, but which we fail to keep.
Lewis begins by directing our attention to the fact that all humans argue. We say things like, "That's my seat, I was there first," or "Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine." These sorts of statements cut across age, gender, and culture; they are universal. What can we learn from them?
Lewis writes, "the man [who says these things] is not merely saying that the other man's behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about." If we listen closely to these quarrels, we do not find a denial that there is a common standard; rather, we see excuses. Yes, I see your standard, but it doesn't apply to me because of this particular extenuating circumstance. "Quarreling 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 an agreement as to what Right and Wrong are."
This sense of Right and Wrong may be referred to as the Law of Human Nature. Human beings and other things are governed by other Laws of Nature, such as gravitation or biological laws. The distinct difference between them is that the Law of Human Nature, which is the only law that humans do not share with the other creatures and objects, seems to be the only law that can be disobeyed. If I step off a bridge, I do not have a choice whether or not my body obeys the law of gravity. I do have a choice whether or not I come to the rescue of the lady being mugged underneath the bridge.
In the past it was commonly accepted that there exists an objective morality that presses itself upon us. That idea is less popular in today's age of tolerance. However, objectors to the idea of a real Right and Wrong run into some significant problems. Everyone, unless they have muted their consciences, feels moral outrage at some things, and this is always because we feel there has been some injustice, some Wrong done. Lewis uses the example of Nazi Germany. "What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced? If they had no notion of what we mean by right, then though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair."
But wait. Is this moral law really universal, or does it differ with cultures?
There are differences within cultures, but Lewis asserts that if one actually studies and compares the moralities of different cultures, they will look strikingly similar - more similar than different. Selfishness has never been admired, he asserts, but the way that works itself out looks somewhat different among diverse cultures. "Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked."
Those who would argue this point - everything is cultural and there is no real Right and Wrong - cannot be consistent with themselves. Break a promise to this person, and he will be complaining in no time that "It's not fair!" Oh really? Says who? However much they deny it, when wronged, their first instinct will be to appeal that which they expect everyone to know, the rules of fair play, Right and Wrong. This seems to be less a matter of taste or opinion and much more a matter of discovering something about our universe, like the multiplication tables; they are discovered, not created.
After facing the existence of this Law, we realize almost at once that none of us keep it. In fact, we break it quite often. When we are accused of breaking it, it is almost unbearable, and we make up a long list of excuses. We want out from under the blame and the shame of having done wrong. The fact that we make excuses confirms our belief in an objective morality. If we did not believe it, we would not feel the need to make excuses.
Lewis concludes the chapter: "These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
No comments:
Post a Comment