Страница:
on Himself. He Himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the
food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other. That is why it
is just no good asking God to make us happy in our own way without bothering
about religion. God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself,
because it is not there. There is no such thing.
That is the key to history. Terrific energy is expended-civilisations
are built up-excellent institutions devised; but each time something goes
wrong. Some fatal flaw always brings the selfish and cruel people to the top
and it all slides back into misery and ruin. In fact, the machine conks. It
seems to start up all right and runs a Jew yards, and then it breaks down.
They are trying to run it on the wrong juice. That is what Satan has done to
us humans.
And what did God do? First of all He left us conscience, the sense of
right and wrong: and all through history there have been people trying (some
of them very hard) to obey it. None of them ever quite succeeded. Secondly,
He sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories
scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes
to life again and, by his death, has somehow given new life to men. Thirdly,
He selected one particular people and spent several centuries hammering into
their heads the sort of God He was -that there was only one of Him and that
He cared about right conduct. Those people were the Jews, and the Old
Testament gives an account of the hammering process.
Then comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a
man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He
says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the
end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians,
anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would be
nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean
that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world
Who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when
you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite
simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.
One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have
heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim
to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so
preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives
offences against himself. You tread on my toe and I forgive you, you steal
my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself
unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on
other men's toes and stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the
kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus
did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to
consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He
unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person
chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was the
God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the
mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only
regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in
history.
Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing) even His enemies, when
they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and
conceit. Still less do unprejudiced readers. Christ says that He is "humble
and meek" and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man,
humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute
to some of His sayings.
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that
people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral
teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we
must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus
said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a
level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the
Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the
Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a
fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His
feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising
nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to
us. He did not intend to.
We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are
talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or
something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic
nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it
may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God has landed
on this enemy-occupied world in human form.
And now, what was the purpose of it all? What did He come to do? Well,
to teach, of course; but as soon as you look into the New Testament or any
other Christian writing you will find they are constantly talking about
something different-about His death and His coming to life again. It is
obvious that Christians think the chief point of the story lies here. They
think the main thing He came to earth to do was to suffer and be killed.
Now before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the
first thing Christians had to believe was one particular theory as to what
the point of this dying was. According to that theory God wanted to punish
men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered
to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this
theory does not seem to me quite so immoral and so silly as it used to; but
that is not the point I want to make. What I came to see later on was that
neither this theory nor any other is Christianity. The central Christian
belief is that Christ's death has somehow put us right with God and given us
a fresh start Theories as to how it did this are another matter. A good many
different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians
are agreed on is that it does work. I will tell you what I think it is like.
All sensible people know that if you are tired and hungry a meal will do you
good. But the modern theory of nourishment-all about the vitamins and
proteins-is a different thing. People ate their dinners and felt better long
before the theory of vitamins was ever heard of: and if the theory of
vitamins is some day abandoned they will go on eating their dinners just the
same. Theories about Christ's death are not Christianity: they are
explanations about how it works. Christians would not all agree as to how
important these theories are. My own church-the Church of England-does not
lay down any one of them as the right one. The Church of Rome goes a bit
further. But I think they will all agree that the thing itself is infinitely
more important than any explanations that theologians have produced. I think
they would probably admit that no explanation will ever be quite adequate to
the reality. But as I said in the preface to this book, I am only a layman,
and at this point we are getting into deep water. I can only tell you, for
what it is worth, how I, personally, look at the matter.
On my view the theories are not themselves the thing you are asked to
accept. Many of you no doubt have read Jeans or Eddington. What they do when
they want to explain the atom, or something of that sort, is to give you a
description out of which you can make a mental picture. But then they warn
you that this picture is not what the scientists actually believe. What the
scientists believe is a mathematical formula. The pictures are there only to
help you to understand the formula. They are not really true in the way the
formula is; they do not give you the real thing but only something more or
less like it. They are only meant to help, and if they do not help you can
drop them. The thing itself cannot be pictured, it can only be expressed
mathematically. We are in the same boat here. We believe that the death of
Christ is just that point in history at which something absolutely
unimaginable from outside shows through into our own world. And if we cannot
picture even the atoms of which our own world is built, of course we are not
going to be able to picture this. Indeed, if we found that we could fully
understand it, that very fact would show it was not what it professes to
be-the inconceivable, the uncreated, the thing from beyond nature, striking
down into nature like lightning. You may ask what good will it be to us if
we do not understand it. But that is easily answered. A man can eat his
dinner without understanding exactly how food nourishes him. A man can
accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works: indeed, he
certainly would not know how it works until he has accepted it.
We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed
out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the
formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories
we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite
secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us,
and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself. All
the same, some of these theories are worth looking at.
The one most people have heard is the one I mentioned before -the one
about our being let off because Christ had volunteered to bear a punishment
instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was
prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible
point could there be in punishing an innocent person instead? None at all
that I can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense.
On the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a
person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not. Or if
you take "paying the penalty," not in the sense of being punished, but in
the more general sense of "standing the racket" or "footing the bill," then,
of course, it is a matter of common experience that, when one person has got
himself into a hole, the trouble of getting him out usually falls on a kind
friend. Now what was the sort of "hole" man had got himself into? He had
tried to set up on his own, to behave as if he belonged to himself. In other
words, fallen man is not simply an imperfect creature who needs improvement:
he is a rebel who must lay down his arms. Laying down your arms,
surrendering, saying you are sorry, realising that you have been on the
wrong track and getting ready to start life over again from the ground
floor-that is the only way out of a "hole." This process of surrender-this
movement full speed astern-is what Christians call repentance. Now
repentance is no fun at all. It is something much harder than merely eating
humble pie. It means unlearning all the self-conceit and self-will that we
have been training ourselves into for thousands of years. It means killing
part of yourself, undergoing a kind of death. In fact, it needs a good man
to repent. And here comes the catch. 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.
Remember, this repentance, this willing submission to humiliation and a
kind of death, is not something God demands of you before He will take you
back and which He could let you off if He chose: it is simply a description
of what going back to Him is like. If you ask God to take you back without
it, you are really asking Him to let you go back without going back. It
cannot hap pen. Very well, then, we must go through with it. But the same
badness which makes us need it, makes us unable to do it. Can we do it if
God helps us? Yes, but what do we mean when we talk of God helping us? We
mean God putting into us a bit of Himself, so to speak. He lends us a little
of His reasoning powers and that is how we think: He puts a little of His
love into us and that is how we love one another. When you teach a child
writing, you hold its hand while it forms the letters: that is, it forms the
letters because you are forming them. We love and reason because God loves
and reasons and holds our hand while we do it. Now if we had not fallen,
that would be all plain sailing. But unfortunately we now need God's help in
order to do something which God, in His own nature, never does at all-to
surrender, to suffer, to submit, to die. Nothing in God's nature corresponds
to this process at all. So that the one road for which we now need God's
leadership most of all is a road God, in His own nature, has never walked.
God can share only what He has: this thing, in His own nature, He has not.
But supposing God became a man-suppose our human nature which can
suffer and die was amalgamated with God's nature in one person-then that
person could help us. He could surrender His will, and suffer and die,
because He was man; and He could do it perfectly because He was God. You and
I can go through this process only if God does it in us; but God can do it
only if He becomes man. Our attempts at this dying will succeed only if we
men share in God's dying, just as our thinking can succeed only because it
is a drop out of the ocean of His intelligence: but we cannot share God's
dying unless God dies; and He cannot die except by being a man. That is the
sense in which He pays our debt, and suffers for us what He Himself need not
suffer at all.
I have heard some people complain that if Jesus was God as well as man,
then His sufferings and death lose all value in their eyes, "because it must
have been so easy for him." Others may (very rightly) rebuke the ingratitude
and ungraciousness of this objection; what staggers me is the
misunderstanding it betrays. In one sense, of course, those who make it are
right. They have even understated their own case. The perfect submission,
the perfect suffering, the perfect death were not only easier to Jesus
because He was God, but were possible only because He was God. But surely
that is a very odd reason for not accepting them? The teacher is able to
form the letters for the child because the teacher is grown-up and knows how
to write. That, of course, makes it easier for the teacher, and only because
it is easier for him can he help the child. If it rejected him because "it's
easy for grown-ups" and waited to learn writing from another child who could
not write itself (and so had no "unfair" advantage), it would not get on
very quickly. If I am drowning in a rapid river, a man who still has one
foot on the bank may give me a hand which saves my life. Ought I to shout
back (between my gasps) "No, it's not fair! You have an advantage! You're
keeping one foot on the bank"? That advantage-call it "unfair" if you
like-is the only reason why he can be of any use to me. To what will you
look for help if you will not look to that which is stronger than yourself?
Such is my own way of looking at what Christians call the Atonement.
But remember this is only one more picture. Do not mistake it for the thing
itself: and if it does not help you, drop it
The perfect surrender and humiliation were undergone by Christ: perfect
because He was God, surrender and humiliation because He was man. Now the
Christian belief is that if we somehow share the humility and suffering of
Christ we shall also share in His conquest for death and find a new life
after we have died and in it become perfect, and perfectly happy, creatures.
This means something much more than our trying to follow His teaching.
People often ask when the next step in evolution-the step to something
beyond man-will happen. But on the Christian view, it has happened already.
In Christ a new kind of man appeared: and the new kind of life which began
in Him is to be put into us. How is this to be done? Now, please remember
how we acquired the old, ordinary kind of life. We derived it from others,
from our father and mother and all our ancestors, without our consent-and by
a very curious process, involving pleasure, pain, and danger. A process you
would never have guessed. Most of us spend a good many years in childhood
trying to guess it: and some children, when they are first told, do not
believe it-and I am not sure that I blame them, for it is very odd. Now the
God who arranged that process is the same God who arranges how the new kind
of life-the Christ life-is to be spread. We must be prepared for it being
odd too. He did not consult us when He invented sex: He has not consulted us
either when He invented this.
There are three things that spread the Christ life to us: baptism,
belief, and that mysterious action which different Christians call by
different names-Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord's Supper. At least, those
are the three ordinary methods. I am not saying there may not be special
cases where it is spread without one or more of these. I have not time to go
into special cases, and I do not know enough. If you are trying in a few
minutes to tell a man how to get to Edinburgh you will tell him the trains:
he can, it is true, get there by boat or by a plane, but you will hardly
bring that in. And I am not saying anything about which of these three
things is the most essential. My Methodist friend would like me to say more
about belief and less (in proportion) about the other two. But I am not
going into that. Anyone who professes to teach you Christian doctrine will,
in fact, tell you to use all three, and that is enough for our present
purpose.
I cannot myself see why these things should be the conductors of the
new kind of life. But then, if one did not happen to know, I should never
have seen any connection between a particular physical pleasure and the
appearance of a new human being in the world. We have to take reality as it
comes to us: there is no good jabbering about what it ought to be like or
what we should have expected it to be like. But though I cannot see why it
should be so, I can tell you why I believe it is so. I have explained why I
have to believe that Jesus was (and is) God. And it seems plain as a matter
of history that He taught His followers that the new life was communicated
in this way. In other words, I believe it on His authority. Do not be scared
by the word authority. Believing things on authority only means believing
them because you have been told them by someone you think trustworthy.
Ninety-nine per cent of the things you believe are believed on authority. I
believe there is such a place as New York. I have not seen it myself. I
could not prove by abstract reasoning that there must be such a place. I
believe it because reliable people have told me so. The ordinary man
believes in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of the
blood on authority-because the scientists say so. Every historical statement
in the world is believed on authority. None of us has seen the Norman
Conquest or the defeat of the Armada. None of us could prove them by pure
logic as you prove a thing in mathematics. We believe them simply because
people who did see them have left writings that tell us about them: in fact,
on authority. A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people
do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life.
Do not think I am setting up baptism and belief and the Holy Communion
as things that will do instead of your own attempts to copy Christ. Your
natural life is derived from your parents; that does not mean it will stay
there if you do nothing about it. You can lose it by neglect, or you can
drive it away by committing suicide. You have to feed it and look after it:
but always remember you are not making it, you are only keeping up a life
you got from someone else. In the same way a Christian can lose the
Christ-life which has been put into him, and he has to make efforts to keep
it. But even the best Christian that ever lived is not acting on his own
steam-he is only nourishing or protecting a life he could never have
acquired by his own efforts. And that has practical consequences. As long as
the natural life is in your body, it will do a lot towards repairing that
body. Cut it, and up to a point it will heal, as a dead body would not. A
live body is not one that never gets hurt, but one that can to some extent
repair itself. In the same way a Christian is not a man who never goes
wrong, but a man who is enabled to repent and pick himself up and begin over
again after each stumble-because the Christ-life is inside him, repairing
him all the time, enabling him to repeat (in some degree) the kind of
voluntary death which Christ Himself carried out.
That is why the Christian is in a different position from other people
who are trying to be good. They hope, by being good, to please God if there
is one; or-if they think there is not-at least they hope to deserve approval
from good men. But the Christian thinks any good he does comes from the
Christ-life inside him. He 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.
And let me make it quite clear that when Christians say the Christ-life
is in them, they do not mean simply something mental or moral. When they
speak of being "in Christ" or of Christ being "in them," this is not simply
a way of saying that they are thinking about Christ or copying Him. They
mean that Christ is actually operating through them; that the whole mass of
Christians are the physical organism through which Christ acts-that we are.
His fingers and muscles, the cells of His body. And perhaps that explains
one or two things. It explains why this new life is spread not only by
purely mental acts like belief, but by bodily acts like baptism and Holy
Communion. It is not merely the spreading of an idea; it is more like
evolution-a biological or super-biological fact. There is no good trying to
be more spiritual than God. God never meant man to be a purely spiritual
creature. That is why He uses material things like bread and wine to put the
new life into us. We may think this rather crude and unspiritual. God does
not: He invented eating. He likes matter. He invented it.
Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully
unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of
Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us
what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can
be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him
can be saved through Him, But in the meantime, if you are worried about the
people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is to remain outside
yourself. Christians are Christ's body, the organism through which He works.
Every addition to that body enables Him to do more. If you want to help
those outside you must add your own little cell to the body of Christ who
alone can help them. Cutting off a man's fingers would be an odd way of
getting him to do more work.
Another possible objection is this. Why is God landing in this
enemy-occupied world in disguise and starting a sort of secret society to
undermine the devil? Why is He not landing in force, invading it? Is it dial
He is not strong enough? Well, Christians think He is going to land in
force; we do not know when. But we can guess why He is delaying. He wants to
give us the chance of joining His side freely. I do not suppose you and I
would have thought much of a Frenchman who waited till the Allies were
marching into Germany and then announced he was on our side. God will
invade. But I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere openly and
directly in our world quite realise what it will be like when He does. When
that happens, it is the end of the world. 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 are on His side then, when you see the whole natural
universe melting away like a dream and something else-something it never
entered your head to conceive-comes crashing in; something so beautiful to
some of us and so terrible to others that none of us will have any choice
left? For this time it will be God without disguise; something so
overwhelming that it will strike either irresistible love or irresistible
horror into every creature. It will be too late then to choose your side.
There is no use saying you choose to lie down when it has become impossible
to stand up. That will not be the time for choosing: it will be the time
when we discover which side we really have chosen, whether we realised it
before or not. Now, today, this moment, is our chance to choose the right
side. God is holding back to give us that chance. It will not last for ever.
We must take it or leave it.
There is a story about a schoolboy who was asked what he thought God
was like. He replied that, as far as he could make out, God was "The sort of
person who is always snooping round to see if anyone is enjoying himself and
then trying to stop it." And I am afraid that is the sort of idea that the
word Morality raises in a good many people's minds: something that
interferes, something that stops you having a good time. In reality, moral
rules are directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule is
there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of
that machine. That is why these rules at first seem to be constantly
interfering with our natural inclinations. When you are being taught how to
use any machine, the instructor keeps on saying, "No, don't do it like
that," because, of course, there are all sorts of things that look all right
and seem to you the natural way of treating the machine, but do not really
work.
Some people prefer to talk about moral "ideals" rather than moral rules
and about moral "idealism" rather than moral obedience. Now it is, of
course, quite true that moral perfection is an "ideal" in the sense that we
cannot achieve it. In that sense every kind of perfection is, for us humans,
an ideal; we cannot succeed in being perfect car drivers or perfect tennis
players or in drawing perfectly straight lines. But there is another sense
in which it is very misleading to call moral perfection an ideal. When a man
says that a certain woman, or house, or ship, or garden is "his ideal" he
does not mean (unless he is rather a fool) that everyone else ought to have
the same ideal. In such matters we are entitled to have different tastes
and, therefore, different ideals. But it is dangerous to describe a man who
tries very hard to keep the moral law as a "man of high ideals," because
this might lead you to think that moral perfection was a private taste of
his own and that the rest of us were not called on to share it. This would
be a disastrous mistake. Perfect behaviour may be as unattainable as perfect
gear-changing when we drive; but it is a necessary ideal prescribed for all
men by the very nature of the human machine just as perfect gear-changing is
an ideal prescribed for all drivers by the very nature of cars. And it would
be even more dangerous to think of oneself as a person "of high ideals"
because one is trying to tell no lies at all (instead of only a few lies) or
never to commit adultery (instead of committing it only seldom) or not to be
a bully (instead of being only a moderate bully). It might lead you to
become a prig and to think you were rather a special person who deserved to
be congratulated on his "idealism." In reality you might just as well expect
to be congratulated because, whenever you do a sum, you try to get it quite
right. To be sure, perfect arithmetic is "an ideal"; you will certainly make
some mistakes in some calculations. But there is nothing very fine about
trying to be quite accurate at each step in each sum. It would be idiotic
not to try; for every mistake is going to cause you trouble later on. In the
same way every moral failure is going to cause trouble, probably to others
and certainly to yourself. By talking about rules and obedience instead of
"ideals" and "idealism" we help to remind ourselves of these facts.
Now let us go a step further. There are two ways in which the human
machine goes wrong. One is when human individuals drift apart from one
another, or else collide with one another and do one another damage, by
cheating or bullying. The other is when things go wrong inside the
individual-when the different parts of him (his different faculties and
desires and so on) either drift apart or interfere with one another. You can
get the idea plain if you think of us as a fleet of ships sailing in
formation. The voyage will be a success only, in the first place, if the
ships do not collide and get in one another's way; and, secondly, if each
ship is seaworthy and has her engines in good order. As a matter of fact,
you cannot have either of these two things without the other. If the ships
keep on having collisions they will not remain seaworthy very long. On the
other hand, if their steering gears are out of order they will not be able
to avoid collisions. Or, if you like, think of humanity as a band playing a
tune. To get a good result, you need two things. Each player's individual
instrument must be in tune and also each must come in at the right moment so
as to combine with all the others.
But there is one thing we have not yet taken into account. We have not
asked where the fleet is trying to get to, or what piece of music the band
is trying to play. The instruments might be all in tune and might all come
in at the right moment, but even so the performance would not be a success
if they had been engaged to provide dance music and actually played nothing
but Dead Marches. And however well the fleet sailed, its voyage would be a
failure if it were meant to reach New York and actually arrived at Calcutta.
Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with
fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be
called tidying up or harmonising the things inside each individual. Thirdly,
with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for:
what course the whole fleet ought to be on: what tune the conductor of the
band wants it to play.
You may have noticed that modern people are nearly always thinking
about the first thing and forgetting the other two. When people say in the
newspapers that we are striving for Christian moral standards, they usually
mean that we are striving for kindness and fair play between nations, and
classes, and individuals; that is, they are thinking only of the first
thing. When a man says about something he wants to do, "It can't be wrong
because it doesn't do anyone else any harm," he is thinking only of the
first thing. He is thinking it does not matter what his ship is like inside
provided that he does not run into the next ship. And it is quite natural,
when we start thinking about morality, to begin with the first thing, with
social relations. For one thing, the results of bad morality in that sphere
are so obvious and press on us every day: war and poverty and graft and lies
and shoddy work. And also, as long as you stick to the first thing, there is
very little disagreement about morality. Almost all people at all times have
agreed (in theory) that human beings ought to be honest and kind and helpful
to one another. But though it is natural to begin with all that, if our
thinking about morality stops there, we might just as well not have thought
at all. Unless we go on to the second thing-the tidying up inside each human
being-we are only deceiving ourselves.
What is the good of telling the ships how to steer so as to avoid
collisions if, in fact, they are such crazy old tubs that they cannot be
steered at all? What is the good of drawing up, on paper, rules for social
behaviour, if we know that, in fact, our greed, cowardice, ill temper, and
self-conceit are going to prevent us from keeping them? I do not mean for a
moment that we ought not to think, and think hard, about improvements in our
social and economic system. What I do mean is that all that thinking will be
mere moonshine unless we realise that nothing but the courage and
unselfishness of individuals is ever going to make any system work properly.
It is easy enough to remove the particular kinds of graft or bullying that
go on under the present system: but as long as men are twisters or bullies
they will find some new way of carrying on the old game under the new
system. You cannot make men good by law: and without good men you cannot
have a good society. That is why we must go on to think of the second thing:
of morality inside the individual.
But I do not think we can stop there either. We are now getting to the
point at which different beliefs about the universe lead to different
behaviour. And it would seem, at first sight, very sensible to stop before
we got there, and just carry on with those parts of morality that all
sensible people agree about. But can we? Remember that religion involves a
series of statements about facts, which must be either true or false. If
they are true, one set of conclusions will follow about the right sailing of
the human fleet: if they are false, quite a different set. For example, let
us go back to the man who says that a thing cannot be wrong unless it hurts
some other human being. He quite understands that he must not damage the
other ships in the convoy, but he honestly thinks that what he does to his
own ship is simply his own business. But does it not make a great difference
whether his ship is his own property or not? Does it not make a great
difference whether I am, so to speak, the landlord of my own mind and body,
or only a tenant, responsible to the real landlord? 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.
Again, Christianity asserts that every individual human being is going
to live for ever, and this must be either true or false. Now there are a
good many things which would not be worth bothering about if I were going to
live only seventy years, but which I had better bother about very seriously
if I am going to live for ever. Perhaps my bad temper or my jealousy are
gradually getting worse -so gradually that the increase in seventy years
will not be very noticeable. But it might be absolute hell in a million
years: in fact, if Christianity is true, Hell is the precisely correct
technical term for what it would be. And immortality makes this other
difference, which, by the by, has a connection with the difference between
totalitarianism and democracy. If individuals live only seventy years, then
a state, or a nation, or a civilisation, which may last for a thousand
years, is more important than an individual. But if Christianity is true,
then the individual is not only more important but incomparably more
important, for he is everlasting and the life of a state or a civilisation,
compared with his, is only a moment.
It seems, then, that if we are to think about morality, we must think
of all three departments: relations between man and man: things inside each
man: and relations between man and the power that made him. We can all
cooperate in the first one. Disagreements begin with the second and become
serious with the third. It is in dealing with the third that the main
differences between Christian and non-Christian morality come out. For the
rest of this book I am going to assume the Christian point of view, and look
at the whole picture as it will be if Christianity is true.
The previous section was originally composed to be given as a short
talk on the air.
If you are allowed to talk for only ten minutes, pretty well everything
else has to be sacrificed to brevity. One of my chief reasons for dividing
morality up into three parts (with my picture of the ships sailing in
convoy) was that this seemed the shortest way of covering the ground. Here I
want to give some idea of another way in which the subject has been divided
by old writers, which was too long to use in my talk, but which is a very
good one.
According to this longer scheme there are seven "virtues." Four of them
are called "Cardinal" virtues, and the remaining three are called
"Theological" virtues. The "Cardinal" ones are those which all civilised
people recognise: the "Theological" are those which, as a rule, only
Christians know about. I shall deal with the Theological ones later on: at
present I am talking about the four Cardinal virtues. (The word "cardinal"
has nothing to do with "Cardinals" in the Roman Church. It comes from a
Latin word meaning "the hinge of a door." These were called "cardinal"
virtues because they are, as we should say, "pivotal.") They are PRUDENCE,
TEMPERANCE, JUSTICE, and FORTITUDE.
Prudence means practical common sense, taking the trouble to think out
what you are doing and what is likely to come of it. Nowadays most people
hardly think of Prudence as one of the "virtues." In fact, because Christ
said we could only get into His world by being like children, many
Christians have the idea that, provided you are "good," it does not matter
being a fool. But that is a misunderstanding. In the first place, most
children show plenty of "prudence" about doing the things they are really
interested in, and think them out quite sensibly. In the second place, as
St, Paul points out, Christ never meant that we were to remain children in
intelligence: on the contrary, He told us to be not only "as harmless as
doves," but also "as wise as serpents." He wants a child's heart, but a
grown-up's head. He wants us to be simple, single-minded, affectionate, and
teachable, as good children are; but He also wants every bit of intelligence
we have to be alert at its job, and in first-class fighting trim. The fact
that you are giving money to a charity does not mean that you need not try
to find out whether that charity is a fraud or not. The fact that what you
are thinking about is God Himself (for example, when you are praying) does
not mean that you can be content with the same babyish ideas which you had
when you were a five-year-old. It is, of course, quite true that God will
not love you any the less, or have less use for you, if you happen to have
been born with a very second-rate brain. He has room for people with very
little sense, but He wants every one to use what sense they have. The proper
motto is not "Be good, sweet maid, and let who can be clever," but "Be good,
sweet maid, and don't forget that this involves being as clever as you can."
God is no fonder of intellectual slackers than of any other slackers. If you
are thinking of becoming a Christian, I warn you you are embarking on
something which is going to take the whole of you, brains and all. But,
fortunately, it works the other way round. Anyone who is honestly trying to
be a Christian will soon find his intelligence being sharpened: one of the
reasons why it needs no special education to be a Christian is that
Christianity is an education itself. That is why an uneducated believer like
Bunyan was able to write a book that has astonished the whole world.
Temperance is, unfortunately, one of those words that has changed its
meaning. It now usually means teetotalism. But in the days when the second
Cardinal virtue was christened "Temperance," it meant nothing of the sort.
Temperance referred not specially to drink, but to all pleasures; and it
meant not abstaining, but going the right length and no further. It is a
mistake to think that Christians ought all to be teetotallers;
Mohammedanism, not Christianity, is the teetotal religion. Of course it may
be the duty of a particular Christian, or of any Christian, at a particular
time, to abstain from strong drink, either because he is the sort of man who
cannot drink at all without drinking too much, or because he wants to give
the money to the poor, or because he is with people who are inclined to
drunkenness and must not encourage them by drinking himself. But the whole
point is that he is abstaining, for a good reason, from something which he
does not condemn and which he likes to see other people enjoying. One of the
marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself
without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way.
An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for
special reasons-marriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he
starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at
other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning.
One great piece of mischief has been done by the modern restriction of
the word Temperance to the question of drink. It helps people to forget that
you can be just as intemperate about lots of other things. A man who makes
his golf or his motor-bicycle the centre of his life, or a woman who devotes
all her thoughts to clothes or bridge or her dog, is being just as
"intemperate" as someone who gets drunk every evening. Of course, it does
not show on the outside so easily: bridge-mania or golf-mania do not make
you fall down in the middle of the road. But God is not deceived by
externals.
Justice means much more than the sort of thing that goes on in law
courts. It is the old name for everything we should now call "fairness"; it
includes honesty, give and take, truthfulness, keeping promises, and all
that side of life. And Fortitude includes both kinds of courage-the kind
that faces danger as well as the kind that "sticks it" under pain. "Guts" is
perhaps the nearest modern English. You will notice, of course, that you
cannot practise any of the other virtues very long without bringing this one
into play.
There is one further point about the virtues that ought to be noticed.
There is a difference between doing some particular just or temperate action
and being a just or temperate man. Someone who is not a good tennis player
may now and then make a good shot. What you mean by a good player is the man
whose eye and muscles and nerves have been so trained by making innumerable
good shots that they can now be relied on. They have a certain tone or
quality which is there even when he is not playing, just as a
mathematician's mind has a certain habit and outlook which is there even
when he is not doing mathematics. In the same way a man who perseveres in
doing just actions gets in the end a certain quality of character. Now it is
that quality rather than the particular actions which we mean when we talk
of "virtue."
This distinction is important for the following reason. If we thought
only of the particular actions we might encourage three wrong ideas.
(1) We might think that, provided you did the right thing, it did not
matter how or why you did it-whether you did it willingly or unwillingly,
sulkily or cheerfully, through fear of public opinion or for its own sake.
But the truth is that right actions done for the wrong reason do not help to
build the internal quality or character called a "virtue," and it is this
quality or character that really matters. (If the bad tennis player hits
very hard, not because he sees that a very hard stroke is required, but
because he has lost his temper, his stroke might possibly, by luck, help him
food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other. That is why it
is just no good asking God to make us happy in our own way without bothering
about religion. God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself,
because it is not there. There is no such thing.
That is the key to history. Terrific energy is expended-civilisations
are built up-excellent institutions devised; but each time something goes
wrong. Some fatal flaw always brings the selfish and cruel people to the top
and it all slides back into misery and ruin. In fact, the machine conks. It
seems to start up all right and runs a Jew yards, and then it breaks down.
They are trying to run it on the wrong juice. That is what Satan has done to
us humans.
And what did God do? First of all He left us conscience, the sense of
right and wrong: and all through history there have been people trying (some
of them very hard) to obey it. None of them ever quite succeeded. Secondly,
He sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories
scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes
to life again and, by his death, has somehow given new life to men. Thirdly,
He selected one particular people and spent several centuries hammering into
their heads the sort of God He was -that there was only one of Him and that
He cared about right conduct. Those people were the Jews, and the Old
Testament gives an account of the hammering process.
Then comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a
man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He
says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the
end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians,
anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would be
nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean
that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world
Who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when
you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite
simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.
One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have
heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim
to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so
preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives
offences against himself. You tread on my toe and I forgive you, you steal
my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself
unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on
other men's toes and stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the
kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus
did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to
consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He
unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person
chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was the
God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the
mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only
regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in
history.
Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing) even His enemies, when
they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and
conceit. Still less do unprejudiced readers. Christ says that He is "humble
and meek" and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man,
humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute
to some of His sayings.
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that
people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral
teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we
must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus
said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic-on a
level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the
Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the
Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a
fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His
feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising
nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to
us. He did not intend to.
We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are
talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or
something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic
nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it
may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God has landed
on this enemy-occupied world in human form.
And now, what was the purpose of it all? What did He come to do? Well,
to teach, of course; but as soon as you look into the New Testament or any
other Christian writing you will find they are constantly talking about
something different-about His death and His coming to life again. It is
obvious that Christians think the chief point of the story lies here. They
think the main thing He came to earth to do was to suffer and be killed.
Now before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the
first thing Christians had to believe was one particular theory as to what
the point of this dying was. According to that theory God wanted to punish
men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered
to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this
theory does not seem to me quite so immoral and so silly as it used to; but
that is not the point I want to make. What I came to see later on was that
neither this theory nor any other is Christianity. The central Christian
belief is that Christ's death has somehow put us right with God and given us
a fresh start Theories as to how it did this are another matter. A good many
different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians
are agreed on is that it does work. I will tell you what I think it is like.
All sensible people know that if you are tired and hungry a meal will do you
good. But the modern theory of nourishment-all about the vitamins and
proteins-is a different thing. People ate their dinners and felt better long
before the theory of vitamins was ever heard of: and if the theory of
vitamins is some day abandoned they will go on eating their dinners just the
same. Theories about Christ's death are not Christianity: they are
explanations about how it works. Christians would not all agree as to how
important these theories are. My own church-the Church of England-does not
lay down any one of them as the right one. The Church of Rome goes a bit
further. But I think they will all agree that the thing itself is infinitely
more important than any explanations that theologians have produced. I think
they would probably admit that no explanation will ever be quite adequate to
the reality. But as I said in the preface to this book, I am only a layman,
and at this point we are getting into deep water. I can only tell you, for
what it is worth, how I, personally, look at the matter.
On my view the theories are not themselves the thing you are asked to
accept. Many of you no doubt have read Jeans or Eddington. What they do when
they want to explain the atom, or something of that sort, is to give you a
description out of which you can make a mental picture. But then they warn
you that this picture is not what the scientists actually believe. What the
scientists believe is a mathematical formula. The pictures are there only to
help you to understand the formula. They are not really true in the way the
formula is; they do not give you the real thing but only something more or
less like it. They are only meant to help, and if they do not help you can
drop them. The thing itself cannot be pictured, it can only be expressed
mathematically. We are in the same boat here. We believe that the death of
Christ is just that point in history at which something absolutely
unimaginable from outside shows through into our own world. And if we cannot
picture even the atoms of which our own world is built, of course we are not
going to be able to picture this. Indeed, if we found that we could fully
understand it, that very fact would show it was not what it professes to
be-the inconceivable, the uncreated, the thing from beyond nature, striking
down into nature like lightning. You may ask what good will it be to us if
we do not understand it. But that is easily answered. A man can eat his
dinner without understanding exactly how food nourishes him. A man can
accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works: indeed, he
certainly would not know how it works until he has accepted it.
We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed
out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the
formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories
we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite
secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us,
and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself. All
the same, some of these theories are worth looking at.
The one most people have heard is the one I mentioned before -the one
about our being let off because Christ had volunteered to bear a punishment
instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was
prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible
point could there be in punishing an innocent person instead? None at all
that I can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense.
On the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a
person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not. Or if
you take "paying the penalty," not in the sense of being punished, but in
the more general sense of "standing the racket" or "footing the bill," then,
of course, it is a matter of common experience that, when one person has got
himself into a hole, the trouble of getting him out usually falls on a kind
friend. Now what was the sort of "hole" man had got himself into? He had
tried to set up on his own, to behave as if he belonged to himself. In other
words, fallen man is not simply an imperfect creature who needs improvement:
he is a rebel who must lay down his arms. Laying down your arms,
surrendering, saying you are sorry, realising that you have been on the
wrong track and getting ready to start life over again from the ground
floor-that is the only way out of a "hole." This process of surrender-this
movement full speed astern-is what Christians call repentance. Now
repentance is no fun at all. It is something much harder than merely eating
humble pie. It means unlearning all the self-conceit and self-will that we
have been training ourselves into for thousands of years. It means killing
part of yourself, undergoing a kind of death. In fact, it needs a good man
to repent. And here comes the catch. 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.
Remember, this repentance, this willing submission to humiliation and a
kind of death, is not something God demands of you before He will take you
back and which He could let you off if He chose: it is simply a description
of what going back to Him is like. If you ask God to take you back without
it, you are really asking Him to let you go back without going back. It
cannot hap pen. Very well, then, we must go through with it. But the same
badness which makes us need it, makes us unable to do it. Can we do it if
God helps us? Yes, but what do we mean when we talk of God helping us? We
mean God putting into us a bit of Himself, so to speak. He lends us a little
of His reasoning powers and that is how we think: He puts a little of His
love into us and that is how we love one another. When you teach a child
writing, you hold its hand while it forms the letters: that is, it forms the
letters because you are forming them. We love and reason because God loves
and reasons and holds our hand while we do it. Now if we had not fallen,
that would be all plain sailing. But unfortunately we now need God's help in
order to do something which God, in His own nature, never does at all-to
surrender, to suffer, to submit, to die. Nothing in God's nature corresponds
to this process at all. So that the one road for which we now need God's
leadership most of all is a road God, in His own nature, has never walked.
God can share only what He has: this thing, in His own nature, He has not.
But supposing God became a man-suppose our human nature which can
suffer and die was amalgamated with God's nature in one person-then that
person could help us. He could surrender His will, and suffer and die,
because He was man; and He could do it perfectly because He was God. You and
I can go through this process only if God does it in us; but God can do it
only if He becomes man. Our attempts at this dying will succeed only if we
men share in God's dying, just as our thinking can succeed only because it
is a drop out of the ocean of His intelligence: but we cannot share God's
dying unless God dies; and He cannot die except by being a man. That is the
sense in which He pays our debt, and suffers for us what He Himself need not
suffer at all.
I have heard some people complain that if Jesus was God as well as man,
then His sufferings and death lose all value in their eyes, "because it must
have been so easy for him." Others may (very rightly) rebuke the ingratitude
and ungraciousness of this objection; what staggers me is the
misunderstanding it betrays. In one sense, of course, those who make it are
right. They have even understated their own case. The perfect submission,
the perfect suffering, the perfect death were not only easier to Jesus
because He was God, but were possible only because He was God. But surely
that is a very odd reason for not accepting them? The teacher is able to
form the letters for the child because the teacher is grown-up and knows how
to write. That, of course, makes it easier for the teacher, and only because
it is easier for him can he help the child. If it rejected him because "it's
easy for grown-ups" and waited to learn writing from another child who could
not write itself (and so had no "unfair" advantage), it would not get on
very quickly. If I am drowning in a rapid river, a man who still has one
foot on the bank may give me a hand which saves my life. Ought I to shout
back (between my gasps) "No, it's not fair! You have an advantage! You're
keeping one foot on the bank"? That advantage-call it "unfair" if you
like-is the only reason why he can be of any use to me. To what will you
look for help if you will not look to that which is stronger than yourself?
Such is my own way of looking at what Christians call the Atonement.
But remember this is only one more picture. Do not mistake it for the thing
itself: and if it does not help you, drop it
The perfect surrender and humiliation were undergone by Christ: perfect
because He was God, surrender and humiliation because He was man. Now the
Christian belief is that if we somehow share the humility and suffering of
Christ we shall also share in His conquest for death and find a new life
after we have died and in it become perfect, and perfectly happy, creatures.
This means something much more than our trying to follow His teaching.
People often ask when the next step in evolution-the step to something
beyond man-will happen. But on the Christian view, it has happened already.
In Christ a new kind of man appeared: and the new kind of life which began
in Him is to be put into us. How is this to be done? Now, please remember
how we acquired the old, ordinary kind of life. We derived it from others,
from our father and mother and all our ancestors, without our consent-and by
a very curious process, involving pleasure, pain, and danger. A process you
would never have guessed. Most of us spend a good many years in childhood
trying to guess it: and some children, when they are first told, do not
believe it-and I am not sure that I blame them, for it is very odd. Now the
God who arranged that process is the same God who arranges how the new kind
of life-the Christ life-is to be spread. We must be prepared for it being
odd too. He did not consult us when He invented sex: He has not consulted us
either when He invented this.
There are three things that spread the Christ life to us: baptism,
belief, and that mysterious action which different Christians call by
different names-Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord's Supper. At least, those
are the three ordinary methods. I am not saying there may not be special
cases where it is spread without one or more of these. I have not time to go
into special cases, and I do not know enough. If you are trying in a few
minutes to tell a man how to get to Edinburgh you will tell him the trains:
he can, it is true, get there by boat or by a plane, but you will hardly
bring that in. And I am not saying anything about which of these three
things is the most essential. My Methodist friend would like me to say more
about belief and less (in proportion) about the other two. But I am not
going into that. Anyone who professes to teach you Christian doctrine will,
in fact, tell you to use all three, and that is enough for our present
purpose.
I cannot myself see why these things should be the conductors of the
new kind of life. But then, if one did not happen to know, I should never
have seen any connection between a particular physical pleasure and the
appearance of a new human being in the world. We have to take reality as it
comes to us: there is no good jabbering about what it ought to be like or
what we should have expected it to be like. But though I cannot see why it
should be so, I can tell you why I believe it is so. I have explained why I
have to believe that Jesus was (and is) God. And it seems plain as a matter
of history that He taught His followers that the new life was communicated
in this way. In other words, I believe it on His authority. Do not be scared
by the word authority. Believing things on authority only means believing
them because you have been told them by someone you think trustworthy.
Ninety-nine per cent of the things you believe are believed on authority. I
believe there is such a place as New York. I have not seen it myself. I
could not prove by abstract reasoning that there must be such a place. I
believe it because reliable people have told me so. The ordinary man
believes in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of the
blood on authority-because the scientists say so. Every historical statement
in the world is believed on authority. None of us has seen the Norman
Conquest or the defeat of the Armada. None of us could prove them by pure
logic as you prove a thing in mathematics. We believe them simply because
people who did see them have left writings that tell us about them: in fact,
on authority. A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people
do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life.
Do not think I am setting up baptism and belief and the Holy Communion
as things that will do instead of your own attempts to copy Christ. Your
natural life is derived from your parents; that does not mean it will stay
there if you do nothing about it. You can lose it by neglect, or you can
drive it away by committing suicide. You have to feed it and look after it:
but always remember you are not making it, you are only keeping up a life
you got from someone else. In the same way a Christian can lose the
Christ-life which has been put into him, and he has to make efforts to keep
it. But even the best Christian that ever lived is not acting on his own
steam-he is only nourishing or protecting a life he could never have
acquired by his own efforts. And that has practical consequences. As long as
the natural life is in your body, it will do a lot towards repairing that
body. Cut it, and up to a point it will heal, as a dead body would not. A
live body is not one that never gets hurt, but one that can to some extent
repair itself. In the same way a Christian is not a man who never goes
wrong, but a man who is enabled to repent and pick himself up and begin over
again after each stumble-because the Christ-life is inside him, repairing
him all the time, enabling him to repeat (in some degree) the kind of
voluntary death which Christ Himself carried out.
That is why the Christian is in a different position from other people
who are trying to be good. They hope, by being good, to please God if there
is one; or-if they think there is not-at least they hope to deserve approval
from good men. But the Christian thinks any good he does comes from the
Christ-life inside him. He 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.
And let me make it quite clear that when Christians say the Christ-life
is in them, they do not mean simply something mental or moral. When they
speak of being "in Christ" or of Christ being "in them," this is not simply
a way of saying that they are thinking about Christ or copying Him. They
mean that Christ is actually operating through them; that the whole mass of
Christians are the physical organism through which Christ acts-that we are.
His fingers and muscles, the cells of His body. And perhaps that explains
one or two things. It explains why this new life is spread not only by
purely mental acts like belief, but by bodily acts like baptism and Holy
Communion. It is not merely the spreading of an idea; it is more like
evolution-a biological or super-biological fact. There is no good trying to
be more spiritual than God. God never meant man to be a purely spiritual
creature. That is why He uses material things like bread and wine to put the
new life into us. We may think this rather crude and unspiritual. God does
not: He invented eating. He likes matter. He invented it.
Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully
unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of
Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us
what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can
be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him
can be saved through Him, But in the meantime, if you are worried about the
people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is to remain outside
yourself. Christians are Christ's body, the organism through which He works.
Every addition to that body enables Him to do more. If you want to help
those outside you must add your own little cell to the body of Christ who
alone can help them. Cutting off a man's fingers would be an odd way of
getting him to do more work.
Another possible objection is this. Why is God landing in this
enemy-occupied world in disguise and starting a sort of secret society to
undermine the devil? Why is He not landing in force, invading it? Is it dial
He is not strong enough? Well, Christians think He is going to land in
force; we do not know when. But we can guess why He is delaying. He wants to
give us the chance of joining His side freely. I do not suppose you and I
would have thought much of a Frenchman who waited till the Allies were
marching into Germany and then announced he was on our side. God will
invade. But I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere openly and
directly in our world quite realise what it will be like when He does. When
that happens, it is the end of the world. 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 are on His side then, when you see the whole natural
universe melting away like a dream and something else-something it never
entered your head to conceive-comes crashing in; something so beautiful to
some of us and so terrible to others that none of us will have any choice
left? For this time it will be God without disguise; something so
overwhelming that it will strike either irresistible love or irresistible
horror into every creature. It will be too late then to choose your side.
There is no use saying you choose to lie down when it has become impossible
to stand up. That will not be the time for choosing: it will be the time
when we discover which side we really have chosen, whether we realised it
before or not. Now, today, this moment, is our chance to choose the right
side. God is holding back to give us that chance. It will not last for ever.
We must take it or leave it.
There is a story about a schoolboy who was asked what he thought God
was like. He replied that, as far as he could make out, God was "The sort of
person who is always snooping round to see if anyone is enjoying himself and
then trying to stop it." And I am afraid that is the sort of idea that the
word Morality raises in a good many people's minds: something that
interferes, something that stops you having a good time. In reality, moral
rules are directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule is
there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of
that machine. That is why these rules at first seem to be constantly
interfering with our natural inclinations. When you are being taught how to
use any machine, the instructor keeps on saying, "No, don't do it like
that," because, of course, there are all sorts of things that look all right
and seem to you the natural way of treating the machine, but do not really
work.
Some people prefer to talk about moral "ideals" rather than moral rules
and about moral "idealism" rather than moral obedience. Now it is, of
course, quite true that moral perfection is an "ideal" in the sense that we
cannot achieve it. In that sense every kind of perfection is, for us humans,
an ideal; we cannot succeed in being perfect car drivers or perfect tennis
players or in drawing perfectly straight lines. But there is another sense
in which it is very misleading to call moral perfection an ideal. When a man
says that a certain woman, or house, or ship, or garden is "his ideal" he
does not mean (unless he is rather a fool) that everyone else ought to have
the same ideal. In such matters we are entitled to have different tastes
and, therefore, different ideals. But it is dangerous to describe a man who
tries very hard to keep the moral law as a "man of high ideals," because
this might lead you to think that moral perfection was a private taste of
his own and that the rest of us were not called on to share it. This would
be a disastrous mistake. Perfect behaviour may be as unattainable as perfect
gear-changing when we drive; but it is a necessary ideal prescribed for all
men by the very nature of the human machine just as perfect gear-changing is
an ideal prescribed for all drivers by the very nature of cars. And it would
be even more dangerous to think of oneself as a person "of high ideals"
because one is trying to tell no lies at all (instead of only a few lies) or
never to commit adultery (instead of committing it only seldom) or not to be
a bully (instead of being only a moderate bully). It might lead you to
become a prig and to think you were rather a special person who deserved to
be congratulated on his "idealism." In reality you might just as well expect
to be congratulated because, whenever you do a sum, you try to get it quite
right. To be sure, perfect arithmetic is "an ideal"; you will certainly make
some mistakes in some calculations. But there is nothing very fine about
trying to be quite accurate at each step in each sum. It would be idiotic
not to try; for every mistake is going to cause you trouble later on. In the
same way every moral failure is going to cause trouble, probably to others
and certainly to yourself. By talking about rules and obedience instead of
"ideals" and "idealism" we help to remind ourselves of these facts.
Now let us go a step further. There are two ways in which the human
machine goes wrong. One is when human individuals drift apart from one
another, or else collide with one another and do one another damage, by
cheating or bullying. The other is when things go wrong inside the
individual-when the different parts of him (his different faculties and
desires and so on) either drift apart or interfere with one another. You can
get the idea plain if you think of us as a fleet of ships sailing in
formation. The voyage will be a success only, in the first place, if the
ships do not collide and get in one another's way; and, secondly, if each
ship is seaworthy and has her engines in good order. As a matter of fact,
you cannot have either of these two things without the other. If the ships
keep on having collisions they will not remain seaworthy very long. On the
other hand, if their steering gears are out of order they will not be able
to avoid collisions. Or, if you like, think of humanity as a band playing a
tune. To get a good result, you need two things. Each player's individual
instrument must be in tune and also each must come in at the right moment so
as to combine with all the others.
But there is one thing we have not yet taken into account. We have not
asked where the fleet is trying to get to, or what piece of music the band
is trying to play. The instruments might be all in tune and might all come
in at the right moment, but even so the performance would not be a success
if they had been engaged to provide dance music and actually played nothing
but Dead Marches. And however well the fleet sailed, its voyage would be a
failure if it were meant to reach New York and actually arrived at Calcutta.
Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with
fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be
called tidying up or harmonising the things inside each individual. Thirdly,
with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for:
what course the whole fleet ought to be on: what tune the conductor of the
band wants it to play.
You may have noticed that modern people are nearly always thinking
about the first thing and forgetting the other two. When people say in the
newspapers that we are striving for Christian moral standards, they usually
mean that we are striving for kindness and fair play between nations, and
classes, and individuals; that is, they are thinking only of the first
thing. When a man says about something he wants to do, "It can't be wrong
because it doesn't do anyone else any harm," he is thinking only of the
first thing. He is thinking it does not matter what his ship is like inside
provided that he does not run into the next ship. And it is quite natural,
when we start thinking about morality, to begin with the first thing, with
social relations. For one thing, the results of bad morality in that sphere
are so obvious and press on us every day: war and poverty and graft and lies
and shoddy work. And also, as long as you stick to the first thing, there is
very little disagreement about morality. Almost all people at all times have
agreed (in theory) that human beings ought to be honest and kind and helpful
to one another. But though it is natural to begin with all that, if our
thinking about morality stops there, we might just as well not have thought
at all. Unless we go on to the second thing-the tidying up inside each human
being-we are only deceiving ourselves.
What is the good of telling the ships how to steer so as to avoid
collisions if, in fact, they are such crazy old tubs that they cannot be
steered at all? What is the good of drawing up, on paper, rules for social
behaviour, if we know that, in fact, our greed, cowardice, ill temper, and
self-conceit are going to prevent us from keeping them? I do not mean for a
moment that we ought not to think, and think hard, about improvements in our
social and economic system. What I do mean is that all that thinking will be
mere moonshine unless we realise that nothing but the courage and
unselfishness of individuals is ever going to make any system work properly.
It is easy enough to remove the particular kinds of graft or bullying that
go on under the present system: but as long as men are twisters or bullies
they will find some new way of carrying on the old game under the new
system. You cannot make men good by law: and without good men you cannot
have a good society. That is why we must go on to think of the second thing:
of morality inside the individual.
But I do not think we can stop there either. We are now getting to the
point at which different beliefs about the universe lead to different
behaviour. And it would seem, at first sight, very sensible to stop before
we got there, and just carry on with those parts of morality that all
sensible people agree about. But can we? Remember that religion involves a
series of statements about facts, which must be either true or false. If
they are true, one set of conclusions will follow about the right sailing of
the human fleet: if they are false, quite a different set. For example, let
us go back to the man who says that a thing cannot be wrong unless it hurts
some other human being. He quite understands that he must not damage the
other ships in the convoy, but he honestly thinks that what he does to his
own ship is simply his own business. But does it not make a great difference
whether his ship is his own property or not? Does it not make a great
difference whether I am, so to speak, the landlord of my own mind and body,
or only a tenant, responsible to the real landlord? 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.
Again, Christianity asserts that every individual human being is going
to live for ever, and this must be either true or false. Now there are a
good many things which would not be worth bothering about if I were going to
live only seventy years, but which I had better bother about very seriously
if I am going to live for ever. Perhaps my bad temper or my jealousy are
gradually getting worse -so gradually that the increase in seventy years
will not be very noticeable. But it might be absolute hell in a million
years: in fact, if Christianity is true, Hell is the precisely correct
technical term for what it would be. And immortality makes this other
difference, which, by the by, has a connection with the difference between
totalitarianism and democracy. If individuals live only seventy years, then
a state, or a nation, or a civilisation, which may last for a thousand
years, is more important than an individual. But if Christianity is true,
then the individual is not only more important but incomparably more
important, for he is everlasting and the life of a state or a civilisation,
compared with his, is only a moment.
It seems, then, that if we are to think about morality, we must think
of all three departments: relations between man and man: things inside each
man: and relations between man and the power that made him. We can all
cooperate in the first one. Disagreements begin with the second and become
serious with the third. It is in dealing with the third that the main
differences between Christian and non-Christian morality come out. For the
rest of this book I am going to assume the Christian point of view, and look
at the whole picture as it will be if Christianity is true.
The previous section was originally composed to be given as a short
talk on the air.
If you are allowed to talk for only ten minutes, pretty well everything
else has to be sacrificed to brevity. One of my chief reasons for dividing
morality up into three parts (with my picture of the ships sailing in
convoy) was that this seemed the shortest way of covering the ground. Here I
want to give some idea of another way in which the subject has been divided
by old writers, which was too long to use in my talk, but which is a very
good one.
According to this longer scheme there are seven "virtues." Four of them
are called "Cardinal" virtues, and the remaining three are called
"Theological" virtues. The "Cardinal" ones are those which all civilised
people recognise: the "Theological" are those which, as a rule, only
Christians know about. I shall deal with the Theological ones later on: at
present I am talking about the four Cardinal virtues. (The word "cardinal"
has nothing to do with "Cardinals" in the Roman Church. It comes from a
Latin word meaning "the hinge of a door." These were called "cardinal"
virtues because they are, as we should say, "pivotal.") They are PRUDENCE,
TEMPERANCE, JUSTICE, and FORTITUDE.
Prudence means practical common sense, taking the trouble to think out
what you are doing and what is likely to come of it. Nowadays most people
hardly think of Prudence as one of the "virtues." In fact, because Christ
said we could only get into His world by being like children, many
Christians have the idea that, provided you are "good," it does not matter
being a fool. But that is a misunderstanding. In the first place, most
children show plenty of "prudence" about doing the things they are really
interested in, and think them out quite sensibly. In the second place, as
St, Paul points out, Christ never meant that we were to remain children in
intelligence: on the contrary, He told us to be not only "as harmless as
doves," but also "as wise as serpents." He wants a child's heart, but a
grown-up's head. He wants us to be simple, single-minded, affectionate, and
teachable, as good children are; but He also wants every bit of intelligence
we have to be alert at its job, and in first-class fighting trim. The fact
that you are giving money to a charity does not mean that you need not try
to find out whether that charity is a fraud or not. The fact that what you
are thinking about is God Himself (for example, when you are praying) does
not mean that you can be content with the same babyish ideas which you had
when you were a five-year-old. It is, of course, quite true that God will
not love you any the less, or have less use for you, if you happen to have
been born with a very second-rate brain. He has room for people with very
little sense, but He wants every one to use what sense they have. The proper
motto is not "Be good, sweet maid, and let who can be clever," but "Be good,
sweet maid, and don't forget that this involves being as clever as you can."
God is no fonder of intellectual slackers than of any other slackers. If you
are thinking of becoming a Christian, I warn you you are embarking on
something which is going to take the whole of you, brains and all. But,
fortunately, it works the other way round. Anyone who is honestly trying to
be a Christian will soon find his intelligence being sharpened: one of the
reasons why it needs no special education to be a Christian is that
Christianity is an education itself. That is why an uneducated believer like
Bunyan was able to write a book that has astonished the whole world.
Temperance is, unfortunately, one of those words that has changed its
meaning. It now usually means teetotalism. But in the days when the second
Cardinal virtue was christened "Temperance," it meant nothing of the sort.
Temperance referred not specially to drink, but to all pleasures; and it
meant not abstaining, but going the right length and no further. It is a
mistake to think that Christians ought all to be teetotallers;
Mohammedanism, not Christianity, is the teetotal religion. Of course it may
be the duty of a particular Christian, or of any Christian, at a particular
time, to abstain from strong drink, either because he is the sort of man who
cannot drink at all without drinking too much, or because he wants to give
the money to the poor, or because he is with people who are inclined to
drunkenness and must not encourage them by drinking himself. But the whole
point is that he is abstaining, for a good reason, from something which he
does not condemn and which he likes to see other people enjoying. One of the
marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself
without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way.
An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for
special reasons-marriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he
starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at
other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning.
One great piece of mischief has been done by the modern restriction of
the word Temperance to the question of drink. It helps people to forget that
you can be just as intemperate about lots of other things. A man who makes
his golf or his motor-bicycle the centre of his life, or a woman who devotes
all her thoughts to clothes or bridge or her dog, is being just as
"intemperate" as someone who gets drunk every evening. Of course, it does
not show on the outside so easily: bridge-mania or golf-mania do not make
you fall down in the middle of the road. But God is not deceived by
externals.
Justice means much more than the sort of thing that goes on in law
courts. It is the old name for everything we should now call "fairness"; it
includes honesty, give and take, truthfulness, keeping promises, and all
that side of life. And Fortitude includes both kinds of courage-the kind
that faces danger as well as the kind that "sticks it" under pain. "Guts" is
perhaps the nearest modern English. You will notice, of course, that you
cannot practise any of the other virtues very long without bringing this one
into play.
There is one further point about the virtues that ought to be noticed.
There is a difference between doing some particular just or temperate action
and being a just or temperate man. Someone who is not a good tennis player
may now and then make a good shot. What you mean by a good player is the man
whose eye and muscles and nerves have been so trained by making innumerable
good shots that they can now be relied on. They have a certain tone or
quality which is there even when he is not playing, just as a
mathematician's mind has a certain habit and outlook which is there even
when he is not doing mathematics. In the same way a man who perseveres in
doing just actions gets in the end a certain quality of character. Now it is
that quality rather than the particular actions which we mean when we talk
of "virtue."
This distinction is important for the following reason. If we thought
only of the particular actions we might encourage three wrong ideas.
(1) We might think that, provided you did the right thing, it did not
matter how or why you did it-whether you did it willingly or unwillingly,
sulkily or cheerfully, through fear of public opinion or for its own sake.
But the truth is that right actions done for the wrong reason do not help to
build the internal quality or character called a "virtue," and it is this
quality or character that really matters. (If the bad tennis player hits
very hard, not because he sees that a very hard stroke is required, but
because he has lost his temper, his stroke might possibly, by luck, help him