Book 3, Chapter 4: Morality and Psychoanalysis

Don’t be too hard on Lewis’s favorable assessment of Jung and psychology. We have been given 65 years more than Lewis had to evaluate the offspring conceived in the illicit affair between the Church and psychology. The real point, anyway, is that there is something fundamentally wrong in us that needs changing. Even secularists agree on that point. The difference is not in diagnosing a problem but finding a cure. Lewis is, I think, doing the same thing in this chapter that Paul did in Romans 1-3. He is classifying the covetous Sunday Schoolers with the pagan thieves; the lustful preachers with the premeditated rapists. Some of us have our fundamental wrong-ness coming out in socially destructive ways. That segment of society may end up in prison or dying prematurely. Others of us contain the ticking time bomb of pride or anger or lust that permits us to kill and commit adultery in our hearts innumerable times and never be “caught.” Where does that leave you and me? Can you see why this brings us to a “Cross-Centered Life”?

Book 3, Chapter 3: Social Morality

Which presidential candidate do you support? Would you consider it morally wrong to support certain candidates from either major party? With those thoughts in mind, consider the two things Lewis says we need to get clear about “Christian morality.”

1. Christ did not come to preach any brand-new morality.
2. Christianity has not, and does not profess to have, a detailed political program.

Rather than staking out his political positions (I have my guess as to how C. S. Lewis would vote these days), Lewis reminds us that our Savior did not die to set up a kingdom that is “of this world.”

Okay. Most of us conservative evangelicals vote the same way these days. But the way conservative evangelicals apply obedience to the gospel in this decade is very different than the way our parents applied it or how our children (if by God’s grace they still care) will apply it. I think Lewis is trying to say that Christianity is timeless. Rather than trying to find the Christian party or the Christian candidate we should first be living as Christian people.

The party that appears very compassionate today may have policies that will one day encourage sloth and dependency. The party today that calls people to take personal responsibility may have policies that will one day victimize middle-class working people. But Jesus never changes. The first and second great commandments transcend political systems.

The challenge here is not to become apathetic toward public affairs. It is to shun the idea that you are pleasing God when you step over the top of the homeless guy in the street to get into the polling place to vote for Righteous Ralph.

What do you think?

Corner Blitzer Wannabee

Book 3, Chapter 2: The “Cardinal Virtues"

Do you have to be a great defensive player to steal the football from Brett Favre's hand? During an unsuccessful Packer attempt to defeat Cincinnati on October 30, 2005, the Bengals defense picked off Brett five times. In the Packers’ final drive a fan rushed the field, prompting officials’ whistles and the unwitting number four to hand the ball over to a crazed Bengals fan (Brett thinking he was a referee). The guy danced toward the endzone with the ball and a confidence that would make Al Harris envious.

The difference between this athlete wannabee and a real football player illustrates the difference between someone who can act virtuous and a virtuous person. I think this is what C. S. Lewis is saying in this chapter. The question at hand is: are you virtuous or merely offering a cheap, public imitation of virtue? Take a look at the four virtues:

· Prudence tells even the mass murderer to take his finger off the trigger and run for cover. It is not morally neutral. You need not have advanced intelligence in order to be prudent, but you cannot be prudent without thinking good thoughts.
· Temperance calls the drunk to be "responsible," step away from the bar and call for a designated driver. Even pagans recognize the need to say no to yourself. Lewis's comments may disturb you if you are a "teetotaler," but you cannot argue with him as he compares intemperance with alcohol to intemperance with golf or your dog (or Halo or the next episode of 24).
· Justice moves crackheads and other criminals to take to the streets and riot when a jury fails to condemn an officer accused of racial profiling and using excessive force.
· Fortitude allows a basketball star who cannot control his gambling habit to lead his team to victory, scoring 38 points even though he is terribly sick with the flu.

Maybe the real issue in all of this is that recognizing the virtues and having the capacity to display them are two different things. Our sinfulness moves us to muster enough flesh to display one or two of the virtues so we can condemn others who haven't arrived. Condemnation serves as camouflage for the lack of virtue in other areas.

What do you think? How does a person know whether he or she is in the “game” and not just putting on a show?

Book 3, Chapter 1: The Three Parts of Morality

C.S. Lewis compares directing human behavior to directing a fleet of ships. In the first place, the ships must get along with one another. In the second place, the ships must be mechanically operable. Finally, they must be directed by a noble commander.
We see how profound this illustration is when we apply it to our lives in God's world. The civilized world spends most of its time trying to get the first part in order. We point the ships in the direction we want them to go and assume all is well. For instance, organizations like the United Nations would have us lay down our arms and just be nice. Since most of us do not like killing, this purpose seems noble. Lining the ships up so they don't collide seems sufficient until we see that people continue to kill each other even after they have promised not to. This is what takes us to the second part of Lewis's illustration.
People get along well with each other when they share a common purpose—that is—the internal driving force is a shared one. If you want the ships in your fleet to stop running into each other, their engine rooms and steering mechanisms must be properly tuned. When working with people we might agree with Paul and say that they need to be "one in spirit and purpose."
But more information shows us why this stool needs a third leg. What if you successfully keep the ships from colliding by uniting them in purpose (parts one and two) but find that their purpose is directed by an evil leader intent on destroying every other fleet of ships in the ocean? It really does make a difference who owns the ships. We wrongly assume that our vessels are independent of all the others and that our own behavior makes no difference as long as we allow the other ships to stay afloat. But this is not the case if we are owned by another. Lewis puts it this way: "If somebody else made me, for his own purposes, then I shall have a lot of duties which I should not have if I simply belonged to myself."
Here is why I think this chapter is very relevant you. You are at the point in your life when you are making decisions about relationships with the opposite sex, establishing standards for your personal entertainment and setting priorities for the use of your time, treasure and talents. It is very difficult to have other people tell you what kind of standards to set, but you must remember that you are not your own. Be patient with parents and institutions who apparently want to control your life. Is it possible that they have a better picture than you of where the Admiral wants his ships to go (or not go)? Our Great Commander designed the ships and not only knows how they should run, he knows where the mission will take them. As I told a friend who was destroying his life: "You were built for better purposes."

What do you think?

Book 2, Chapter 5: The Practical Conclusion

This may be one chapter in which you will find disagreement with C. S. Lewis (sacramental view of baptism and communion). Please don't throw the rest of the chapter out, however. He roars back like a fiery, Calvinistic evangelist and says this: "[The Christian] does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us; just as the roof of a greenhouse does not attract the sun because it is bright, but becomes bright because the sun shines on it." Notice the warning Lewis gives at the end of the chapter: "When the author walks on to the stage the play is over. God is going to invade, all right: but what is the good of saying you're on His side then, when you see the whole natural universe melting away like a dream..." The question for discussion: When, in our desire to win a person to Christ, does it become necessary to warn them about hell?

Book 2, Chapter 4: The Perfect Penitent

In this chapter Lewis is answering the two crucial questions answered first in the Gospels: "Who is Jesus Christ?" and "What did he do?" On the first reading it looks like Lewis is downplaying theology. Quite the opposite is true. While he is hesitant to dig deep (remember his target audience), his bare-bones presentation calls the reader to embrace the death of Christ on his own behalf. That is theology. A chapter summary would have to be what Lewis calls "the catch." He says: "Only a bad person needs to repent: only a good person can repent perfectly. The worse you are the more you need it and the less you can do it. The only person who could do it perfectly would be a perfect person—and he would not need it.” Two questions for you: First, how does this knowledge that we are calling sinners to do what they have no power to do affect our theology? And, second, how does this affect our attitude when we seek to evangelize lost people?