Mere Christianity

Referring to his radio talks, Lewis notes that dividing morality up into three parts had been in the interests of brevity. Now, he would like to discuss another beneficial way in which others have divided up this subject. Within this framework, there are seven virtues: four are “cardinal” virtues and are recognized by all “civilised” people (76), and three are “theological” virtues that only Christians know about.

The cardinal virtues are prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude. Prudence means common sense, which he suggests some Christians have lost sight of. For instance, before we give money to a charity, we should research whether or not it is a fraud. However, Lewis also clarifies that God does not love anyone less because they are lacking in intelligence: what matters is using what sense they do have.

Lewis next discusses temperance, which he explains encompasses much more than its modern meaning of teetotalism; in its Christian sense, it refers to all pleasures, and involves moderation rather than abstention. What this means varies depending on context and individual temperament; it may in fact be a good idea for certain individuals to abstain from drink. However, it’s just as possible to be “intemperate” in the pursuit of pleasures we normally see as benign (sports, shopping, etc.). In any case, regardless of whatever particular temptations we face, it is not the Christian way to condemn others for enjoying pleasure we have given up.

Lewis similarly clarifies that by “justice” and “fortitude,” he means something beyond the everyday sense of the words. Justice encompasses everything that we would include under the heading “fairness,” such as honestly and keeping promises. Fortitude, meanwhile, includes both the courage to face danger and the ability to endure pain.

Finally, Lewis cautions that displaying one of these virtues with a particular action is not the same as having that virtue (although practicing a virtue routinely can help us develop it). To focus only on the former encourages three misconceptions. One is that, as long as you do the right thing, your reasoning does not matter. Another is that God simply wants obedience, rather than for people to become good. Lastly, we might think that virtues only apply to the present life. Lewis admits that there will probably be no need for just or courageous acts in the next world, but there will be a need for people whose character has been shaped by such acts. It is not that God will refuse admission; it is that, if someone does not have the grain of such qualities, no external conditions can create a “Heaven” for them.

Discussing social morality, Lewis states that Christ did not preach any new morality in this area. Rather, the New Testament sums up what everyone should already know to be correct. In fact, Lewis argues that it is only quacks that claim to offer a new system of morality.

Also, Christianity does not elucidate “do as you would be done by” as it applies to individual contexts. It could not do so, as this ethos is designed to work on a broad level whereas specific details may differ depending on time/place. Besides which, Christianity is not about covering every situation or replacing the human arts and sciences. When people say “The Church ought to give us a lead,” they often mean that they want the clergy to put out a political program. However, the application of Christian principles should come from Christian trade unionists, schoolteachers, etc. rather than bishops.

Despite this, the New Testament gives a clear idea about what a Christian society would be like. It states, for instance, that if people are to eat then they should be prepared to work. In addition, people should work with their own hands to produce something beneficial. In this sense, a Christian society can be termed “leftist.” However, it insists on obedience, whether that be from all of us to appointed magistrates, from children to parents, or from wives to husbands. It is also a cheerful, courteous society that deplores “busybodies.”

Were such a society to exist and were we to visit it, we might find it curious: it would seem to have an old-fashioned code of manners, yet be socialist and economically “advanced”. We might like individual aspects of it, but few of us would find it ideal as a whole. Lewis sees this as characteristic of responses to Christianity, in that people want to pick and choose.

Lewis mentions advice given by Christian teachers of the Middle Ages telling us not to lend money at interest. Now, however, this practice is the basis of our whole system and is known as investment. Some people argue that these earlier Christians might not have foreseen its positive use among companies and were only thinking of private moneylenders; thus, we do not need to concern ourselves with what they said. Lewis is unsure whether the investment system is responsible for the current state of affairs.

Lewis’s last point refers to the New Testament passage stating that everyone should work in order to give to the needy. Some people state that we should work towards a society in which there are no poor people, and Lewis agrees that this is ideal; still, he argues that we should not avoid giving in the meantime. As to how much we should give, Lewis states that the safe rule is to give more than we can spare, as we should not live a life of comfort and luxury while others are suffering. Moreover, when people friends, relatives, neighbors, or employees are suffering, we may need to give even more. As to what hinders us from giving, Lewis suggests that our fear of insecurity can play a role, as can pride.

Lewis rounds up this chapter by considering the effect that it may have had on readers. He suspects that some leftists might wish that it had gone further in that direction, while others might feel that it has gone too far in this respect. This reaffirms that many people are looking for support for their own views rather than seeking to find out what Christianity says. Lewis adds that there is no easy way out: to want to be fully Christian, we need to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, and we cannot do so until we learn to love God. However, we cannot learn to love God without learning to obey Him. 

Lewis states that, while we may not yet live in a Christian society, this does not mean that we should rest on our laurels. Rather, we should focus on how “Do as you would be done by” can be applied to modern society, while also striving to become the kind of people who act upon this knowledge. This prompts Lewis to think about the Christian ideal of a good human being. However, before getting into such details, he points to a commonality between Christian morality and psychoanalysis; namely, that both claim the ability to “put the human machine right” (88).

Here, Lewis distinguishes between psychoanalysis as it’s practiced and the more general philosophies expounded by notable psychoanalysts (most prominently Freud). Although Lewis notes that some of Freud’s ideas stand in contradiction to Christianity, he draws a distinction between Freud’s writings as a specialist in his field and his philosophical speculations. Lewis argues that Freud can be very ignorant in some of his more generalized ideas, but psychoanalysis itself overlaps with Christianity in some respects.

Next, Lewis notes that making a moral choice involves not only choices but the feelings and impulses that inform this choice. In some cases, these underlying feelings are common to essentially all humans, but in others, the feelings may result from something unique and “abnormal” in an individual’s subconscious (for instance, a phobia of spiders). The goal of psychoanalysis is to deal with these “abnormal” elements of a person’s psychology so they can make better choices, but it does not guarantee that they will; in fact, this is often the moment that really reveals a person’s moral character, since there’s no longer any sort of psychological problem influencing their decisions.

Similarly, Lewis emphasizes that, while humans can only judge one another by external actions, God judges people by their moral choices, which are often influenced by invisible psychological or environmental factors: “When a neurotic who has a pathological horror of cats forces himself to pick up a cat for some good reason, it is quite possible that in God’s eyes he has shown more courage than a healthy man may have shown in winning the V.C.” (91). On that note, Lewis asks if we can be certain how we would have behaved if we had shared the Nazi general Himmler’s psychological constitution, upbringing, and level of power. This, Lewis explains, is why Christians are told not to judge.

People often see Christian morality as a bargain wherein God rewards adherence to rules. Lewis, however, prefers to see life as being made up of a series of choices that gradually shape one into either a more harmonious or more disagreeable person. This helps explain something Lewis used to find puzzling: the emphasis Christian writers place on sinful thoughts while simultaneously deeming repentance sufficient to gain forgiveness for heinous acts. What matters in each case is the effect the thought or action leaves on a person’s soul, not its real-world effects.

Lewis’s final point is that moral behavior brings not only peace but knowledge. As a person improves, they start to look within themselves to understand their shortcomings. As Lewis states, a good person knows about both good and evil but, where someone is thoroughly bad, they do not know either.