C.S. Lewis and Mere Christianity: We Have Cause to be Uneasy

In Book 1:5 of Mere Christianity, in his chapter entitled, “We Have Cause to be Uneasy,” Lewis wraps up the main argument of Book One. He begins by anticipating what no doubt people back then, and people today, would be saying at this point: “Oh here we go! We’ve broken the Law! We need Jesus! Geez, Lewis, I thought you were supposed to be smart! Are we really going back to Sunday School lessons?”

Lewis addresses this complaint with a very obvious fact regarding the 20^th Century—just look at it. Although he doesn’t specifically address “Enlightenment philosophy,” he does address the “progressive” worldview that was so popular in the first part of the 20^th Century, which directly stemmed from the “Enlightenment philosophy” of the 19^th Century. Lewis states that of course we all want “progress”—but if you’re on the wrong road, trudging further forward is actually going to veer you off course even more. Real “progress” would entail going back to the fork in the road where you made the wrong turn.

Therefore, what Lewis was saying was that the “progressivism” of the modern age had taken society down the wrong road. It was about time to admit it, go back, and see where society went wrong. We must remember that at the time he was giving his radio talks on “Mere Christianity,” the world had already witnessed two world wars, the eugenics movement, Nazism, the rise of Communism, the list could go on. Simply put, Lewis was stating the obvious: the optimistic progressivism stemming from the Enlightenment worldview had actually led to the worst atrocities in history. Perhaps the “enlightened” dismal of any kind of “God” wasn’t a good idea after all.

That being said, Lewis speculates about who or what this “Somebody” or “Something” behind the Moral Law might be like. If we look at nature, we can conclude (a) he is a great artist, because the universe is very beautiful, and (b) he is quite merciless, because the universe is also a very dangerous place. If we look inside ourselves, though, we can also conclude (due to our sense of right and wrong) that he is quite interested in moral conduct.

And there’s the rub. If you are like me, you’ve probably grown up just assuming that if there is a God, that he is “good,” “kind,” and “forgiving.” You might have said, “I’m not that bad of a person, if there’s a God, I’m sure he’ll let me into heaven.” Put aside for a moment all the assumptions in that statement, and just focus on one: where is there any indication in nature or within ourselves that “God” is kind and forgiving? Lewis points that very thing out: from what we can observe, there is nothing that would indicate that—and that is the reason for the title of the chapter: “We have cause to be uneasy.”

Lewis puts it this way: “If there does exist an absolute goodness, it must hate most of what we do.” He also says, “God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme terror….. Goodness is either the great safety or the great danger—according to the way you react to it. And we have reacted the wrong way.”

Notice, nothing in this first book has really talked about “religion” or “Christianity” for that matter. All Lewis has done is, if you will, do a little bit of Aristotelian philosophical analysis (I bet you didn’t know you were doing philosophy!): by looking at the world around us, what can we deduce and speculate about anything that might be beyond nature. And his conclusion is spot on…and scary. To put it bluntly, if there is a God who is interested in moral conduct, then we’re potentially screwed.

The reason why Lewis took this route in the first book was because he wanted to make sure people knew the dilemma that Christianity addresses. Most people don’t think this through, and therefore even most religious people tend to have a sanitized and neutered view of God and faith: a senile old grandpa in the sky who just wants to give you a big hug, because gee whiz, you did the best you could!

Lewis won’t let that stand. He ends the chapter with a quote that I was so impressed with in high school, that I put part of it as my senior quote in the yearbook:

“The Christian religion is, in the long run, a thing of unspeakable comfort. But it does not begin in comfort; it begins in the dismay I have been describing, and it is no use at all trying to go on to that comfort without first going through that dismay. In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort, you will not get either comfort or truth—only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair.”

Conclusion

I want to share two thoughts at the conclusion of Book One of Mere Christianity. First, that final quote still rings true today as it did when I first read it in 1986. Unfortunately, most people it seems really are more interested in finding comfort than finding truth. I found this to be particularly true in many Christian circles actually. There is a fear of “doubting” and questioning anything. The world is a dangerous place and there are challenges everywhere, and for some reason, at least in the Christian circles I’ve grown up in, there is this mentality that says, “Don’t ask questions, don’t rock the boat…that could lead to doubt, and doubt is scary! Just smile, pretend you have everything figured out, and go with the religious flow.

Inside, many people are confronted with despair and doubt—yet they are afraid to voice those things, for fear of being labeled “backslidden,” “compromising,” or whatever. Well I say, ask those hard questions, admit your doubts and fears. You’ll never find answers if you’re too afraid to ask. In one of my favorite novels, A Prayer for Owen Meany, the topic of doubt comes up quite a bit. In one particular scene, the minister talks about doubt, and says that contrary to what many may think, “doubt” is not the opposite of faith. In fact, doubt is the beginning of faith. This is what Lewis is getting at: own up to the dismay and doubt you have; that is the first step in a life of faith.

The second thought I want to share is this. I’ve found that when it comes to coming to the truth about God, and about purpose and meaning in general, the best ways are through art and through morality. What draws me most to God, and what drew me ultimately to the Orthodox Church, wasn’t simply logical, convincing arguments—it was art, and poetry, and beauty. Systematic theology bores me to tears, because it carves God up into categories and sterile compartments that be “objectively analyzed,” but it leaves you with a void.

Don’t get me wrong, we need to think logically and have correct ideas about God, but without the element of beauty and wonder, all our theology will just be lifeless. I hear Zeppelin and Clapton, and Sting in the liturgy—I know that sounds strange, but it’s true. I learn more about God, Christ, and the Gospel through movies like The Matrix, The Spitfire Grill, and The Mission than I would ever do by reading Wayne Gruden’s Systematic Theology (no offense to Mr. Gruden).

God expresses himself through creative means—he is the Creator, and we are creatures in his image. It shouldn’t be surprising that we respond best through art, poetry, and music.

The other thing is through our sense of morality—that is the main issue Lewis addresses in Book One. Our sense of morality cannot be explained through science—it comes from some other place, and I think Lewis is right on target.