Страница:
to win that particular game; but it will not be helping him to become a
reliable player.)
(2) We might think that God wanted simply obedience to a set of rules:
whereas He really wants people of a particular sort.
(3) We might think that the "virtues" were necessary only for this
present life-that in the other world we could stop being just because there
is nothing to quarrel about and stop being brave because there is no danger.
Now it is quite true that there will probably be no occasion for just or
courageous acts in the next world, but there will be every occasion for
being the sort of people that we can become only as the result of doing such
acts here. The point is not that God will refuse you admission to His
eternal world if you have not got certain qualities of character: the point
is that if people have not got at least the beginnings of those qualities
inside them, then no possible external conditions could make a "Heaven" for
them-that is, could make them happy with the deep, strong, unshakable kind
of happiness God intends for us.
The first thing to get clear about Christian morality between man and
man is that in this department Christ did not come to preach any brand new
morality. The Golden Rule of the New Testament (Do as you would be done by)
is a summing up of what everyone, at bottom, had always known to be right.
Really great moral teachers never do introduce new moralities: it is quacks
and cranks who do that. As Dr. Johnson said, "People need to be reminded
more often than they need to be instructed." The real job of every moral
teacher is to keep on bringing us back, time after time, to the old simple
principles which we are all so anxious not to see; like bringing a horse
back and back to the fence it has refused to jump or bringing a child back
and back to the bit in its lesson that it wants to shirk.
The second thing to get clear is that Christianity has not, and does
not profess to have, a detailed political programme for applying "Do as you
would be done by" to a particular society at a particular moment. It could
not have. It is meant for all men at all times and the particular programme
which suited one place or time would not suit another. And, anyhow, that is
not how Christianity works. When it tells you to feed the hungry it does not
give you lessons in cookery. When it tells you to read the Scriptures it
does not give you lessons in Hebrew and Greek, or even in English grammar.
It was never intended to replace or supersede the ordinary human arts and
sciences: it is rather a director which will set them all to the right jobs,
and a source of energy which will give them all new life, if only they will
put themselves at its disposal.
People say, "The Church ought to give us a lead." That is true if they
mean it in the right way, but false if they mean it in the wrong way. By the
Church they ought to mean the whole body of practising Christians. And when
they say that the Church should give us a lead, they ought to mean that some
Christians- those who happen to have the right talents- should be economists
and statesmen, and that all economists and statesmen should be Christians,
and that their whole efforts in politics and economics should be directed to
putting "Do as you would be done by" into action. If that happened, and if
we others were really ready to take it, then we should find the Christian
solution for our own social problems pretty quickly. But, of course, when
they ask for a lead from the Church most people mean they want the clergy to
put out a political programme. That is silly. The clergy are those
particular people within the whole Church who have been specially trained
and set aside to look after what concerns us as creatures who are going to
live for ever: and we are asking them to do a quite different job for which
they have not been trained. The job is really on us, on the laymen. The
application of Christian principles, say, to trade unionism or education,
must come from Christian trade unionists and Christian schoolmasters: just
as Christian literature comes from Christian novelists and dramatists -not
from the bench of bishops getting together and trying to write plays and
novels in their spare time.
All the same, the New Testament, without going into details, gives us a
pretty clear hint of what a fully Christian society would be like. Perhaps
it gives us more than we can take. It tells us that there are to be no
passengers or parasites: if man does not work, he ought not to eat. Every
one is to work with his own hands, and what is more, every one's work is to
produce something good: there will be no manufacture of silly luxuries and
then of sillier advertisements to persuade us to buy them. And there is to
be no "swank" or "side," no putting on airs. To that extent a Christian
society would be what we now call Leftist. On the other hand, it is always
insisting on obedience-obedience (and outward marks of respect) from all of
us to properly appointed magistrates, from children to parents, and (I am
afraid this is going to be very unpopular) from wives to husbands. Thirdly,
it is to be a cheerful society: full of singing and rejoicing, and regarding
worry or anxiety as wrong. Courtesy is one of the Christian virtues; and the
New Testament hates what it calls "busybodies."
If there were such a society in existence and you or I visited it, I
think we should come away with a curious impression. We should feel that its
economic life was very socialistic and, in that sense, "advanced," but that
its family life and its code of manners were rather old-fashioned-perhaps
even ceremonious and aristocratic. Each of us would like some bits of it,
but I am afraid very few of us would like the whole thing. That is just what
one would expect if Christianity is the total plan for the human machine. We
have all departed from that total plan in different ways, and each of us
wants to make out that his own modification of the original plan is the plan
itself. You will find this again and again about anything that is really
Christian: every one is attracted by bits of it and wants to pick out those
bits and leave the rest. That is why we do not get much further: and that is
why people who are fighting for quite opposite things can both say they are
fighting for Christianity.
Now another point. There is one bit of advice given to us by the
ancient heathen Greeks, and by the Jews in the Old Testament, and by the
great Christian teachers of the Middle Ages, which the modern economic
system has completely disobeyed. All these people told us not to lend money
at interest: and lending money at interest-what we call investment-is the
basis of our whole system. Now it may not absolutely follow that we are
wrong. Some people say that when Moses and Aristotle and the Christians
agreed in forbidding interest (or "usury" as they called it), they could not
foresee the joint stock company, and were only dunking of the private
moneylender, and that, therefore, we need not bother about what they said.
That is a question I cannot decide on. I am not an economist and I simply do
not know whether the investment system is responsible for the state we are
in or not This is where we want the Christian economist But I should not
have been honest if I had not told you that three great civilisations had
agreed (or so it seems at first sight) in condemning the very thing on which
we have based our whole life.
One more point and I am done. In the passage where the New Testament
says that every one must work, it gives as a reason "in order that he may
have something to give to those in need." Charity-giving to the poor-is an
essential part of Christian morality: in the frightening parable of the
sheep and the goats it seems to be the point on which everything turns. Some
people nowadays say that charity ought to be unnecessary and that instead of
giving to the poor we ought to be producing a society in which there were no
poor to give to. They may be quite right in saying that we ought to produce
that kind of society. But if anyone thinks that, as a consequence, you can
stop giving in the meantime, then he has parted company with all Christian
morality. I do not believe one can settle how much we ought to give. I am
afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words,
if our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc, is up to the
standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably
giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I
should say they are too small There ought to be things we should like to do
and cannot do because our charitable expenditure excludes them. I am
speaking now of "charities" in the common way. Particular cases of distress
among your own relatives, friends, neighbours or employees, which God, as it
were, forces upon your notice, may demand much more: even to the crippling
and endangering of your own position. For many of us the great obstacle to
charity lies not in our luxurious living or desire for more money, but in
our fear-fear of insecurity. This must often be recognised as a temptation.
Sometimes our pride also hinders our charity; we are tempted to spend more
than we ought on the showy forms of generosity (tipping, hospitality) and
less than we ought on those who really need our help.
And now, before I end, I am going to venture on a guess as to how this
section has affected any who have read it My guess is that there are some
Leftist people among them who are very angry that it has not gone further in
that direction, and some people of an opposite sort who are angry because
they think it has gone much too far. If so, that brings us right up against
the real snag in all this drawing up of blueprints for a Christian society.
Most of us are not really approaching the subject in order to find out what
Christianity says: we are approaching it in the hope of finding support from
Christianity for the views of our own party. We are looking for an ally
where we are offered either a Master or-a Judge. I am just the same. There
are bits in this section that I wanted to leave out. And that is why nothing
whatever is going to come of such talks unless we go a much longer way
round. A Christian society is not going to arrive until most of us really
want it: and we are not going to want it until we become fully Christian. I
may repeat "Do as you would be done by" till I am black in the face, but I
cannot really carry it out till I love my neighbour as myself: and I cannot
learn to love my neighbour as myself till I learn to love God: and I cannot
learn to love God except by learning to obey Him. And so, as I warned you,
we are driven on to something more inward -driven on from social matters to
religious matters. For the longest way round is the shortest way home.
I have said that we should never get a Christian society unless most of
us became Christian individuals. That does not mean, of course, that we can
put off doing anything about society until some imaginary date in the far
future. It means that we must begin both jobs at once-(1) the job of seeing
how "Do as you would be done by" can be applied in detail to modern society,
and (2) the job of becoming the sort of people who really would apply it if
we saw how. I now want to begin considering what the Christian idea of a
good man is-the Christian specification for the human machine.
Before I come down to details there are two more general points I
should like to make. First of all, since Christian morality claims to be a
technique for putting the human machine right, I think you would like to
know how it is related to another technique which seems to make a similar
claim-namely, psychoanalysis.
Now you want to distinguish very clearly between two things: between
the actual medical theories and technique of the psychoanalysts, and the
general philosophical view of the world which Freud and some others have
gone on to add to this. The second thing-the philosophy of Freud-is in
direct contradiction to Christianity: and also in direct contradiction to
the other great psychologist, Jung. And furthermore, when Freud is talking
about how to cure neurotics he is speaking as a specialist on his own
subject, but when he goes on to talk general philosophy he is speaking as an
amateur. It is therefore quite sensible to attend to him with respect in the
one case and not in the other-and that is what I do. I am all the readier to
do it because I have found that when he is talking off his own subject and
on a subject I do know something about (namely, languages) he is very
ignorant. But psychoanalysis itself, apart from all the philosophical
additions that Freud and others have made to it, is not in the least
contradictory to Christianity. Its technique overlaps with Christian
morality at some points and it would not be a bad thing if every parson knew
something about it: but it does not run the same course all the way, for the
two techniques are doing rather different things.
When a man makes a moral choice two things are involved. One is the act
of choosing. The other is the various feelings, impulses and so on which his
psychological outfit presents him with, and which are the raw material of
his choice. Now this raw material may be of two kinds. Either it may be what
we would call normal: it may consist of the sort of feelings that are common
to all men. Or else it may consist of quite unnatural feelings due to things
that have gone wrong in his subconscious. Thus fear of things that are
really dangerous would be an example of the first kind: an irrational fear
of cats or spiders would be an example of the second kind. The desire of a
man for a woman would be of the first kind: the perverted desire of a man
for a man would be of the second. Now what psychoanalysis undertakes to do
is to remove the abnormal feelings, that is, to give the man better raw
material for his acts of choice: morality is concerned with the acts of
choice themselves.
Put it this way. Imagine three men who go to war. One has the ordinary
natural fear of danger that any man has and he subdues it by moral effort
and becomes a brave man. Let us suppose that the other two have, as a result
of things in their sub-consciousness, exaggerated, irrational fears, which
no amount of moral effort can do anything about. Now suppose that a
psychoanalyst comes along and cures these two: that is, he puts them both
back in the position of the first man. Well it is just then that the
psychoanalytical problem is over and the moral problem begins. Because, now
that they are cured, these two men might take quite different lines. The
first might say, "Thank goodness I've got rid of all those doodahs. Now at
last I can do what I always wanted to do-my duty to the cause of freedom."
But the other might say, "Well, I'm very glad that I now feel moderately
cool under fire, but, of course, that doesn't alter the fact that I'm still
jolly well determined to look after Number One and let the other chap do the
dangerous job whenever I can. Indeed one of the good things about feeling
less frightened is that I can now look after myself much more efficiently
and can be much cleverer at hiding the fact from the others." Now this
difference is a purely moral one and psychoanalysis cannot do anything about
it. However much you improve the man's raw material, you have still got
something else: the real, free choice of the man, on the material presented
to him, either to put his own advantage first or to put it last And this$
free choice is the only thing that morality is concerned with.
The bad psychological material is not a sin but a disease. It does not
need to be repented of, but to be cured. And by the way, that is very
important. Human beings judge one another by their external actions. God
judges them by their moral choices. When a neurotic who has a pathological
horror of cats forces himself to pick up a cat for some good reason, it is
quite possible that in God's eyes he has shown more courage than a healthy
man may have shown in winning the V.C. When a man who has been perverted
from his youth and taught that cruelty is the right thing, does some tiny
little kindness, or refrains from some cruelty he might have committed, and
thereby, perhaps, risks being sneered at by his companions, he may, in God's
eyes, be doing more than you and I would do if we gave up life itself for a
friend.
It is as well to put this the other way round. Some of us who seem
quite nice people may, in fact, have made so little use of a good heredity
and a good upbringing that we are really worse than those whom we regard as
fiends. Can we be quite certain how we should have behaved if we had been
saddled with the psychological outfit, and then with the bad upbringing, and
then with the power, say, of Himmler? That is why Christians are told not to
judge.
We see only the results which a man's choices make out of his raw
material. But God does not judge him on the raw material at all, but on what
he has done with it. Most of the man's psychological make-up is probably due
to his body: when his body dies all that will fall off him, and the real
central man. the thing that chose, that made the best or the worst out of
this material, will stand naked. All sorts of nice things which we thought
our own, but which were really due to a good digestion, will fall off some
of us: all sorts of nasty things which were due to complexes or bad health
will fall off others. We shall then, for the first tune, see every one as he
really was. There will be surprises.
And that leads on to my second point. People often think of Christian
morality as a kind of bargain in which God says, "If you keep a lot of rules
I'll reward you, and if you don't I'll do the other thing." I do not think
that is the best way of looking at it. I would much rather say that every
time you make a choice you are turning the central part of you, the part of
you that chooses, into something a little different from what it was before.
And taking your life as a whole, with all your innumerable choices, all your
life long you are slowly turning this central thing either into a heavenly
creature or into a hellish creature: either into a creature that is in
harmony with God, and with other creatures, and with itself, or else into
one that is in a state of war and hatred with God, and with its
fellow-creatures, and with itself. To be the one kind of creature is heaven:
that is, it is joy and peace and knowledge and power. To be the other means
madness, horror, idiocy, rage, impotence, and eternal loneliness. Each of us
at each moment is progressing to the one state or the other.
That explains what always used to puzzle me about Christian writers;
they seem to be so very strict at one moment and so very free and easy at
another. They talk about mere sins of thought as if they were immensely
important: and then they talk about the most frightful murders and
treacheries as if you had only got to repent and all would be forgiven. But
I have come to see that they are right. What they are always thinking of is
the mark which the action leaves on that tiny central self which no one sees
in this life but which each of us will have to endure-or enjoy-for ever. One
man may be so placed that his anger sheds the blood of thousands, and
another so placed that however angry he gets he will only be laughed at. But
the little mark on the soul may be much the same in both. Each has done
something to himself which, unless he repents, will make it harder for him
to keep out of the rage next time he is tempted, and will make the rage
worse when he does fall into it. Each of them, if he seriously turns to God,
can have that twist in the central man straightened out again: each is, in
the long run, doomed if he will not. The bigness or smallness of the thing,
seen from the outside, is not what really matters.
One last point. Remember that, as I said, the right direction leads not
only to peace but to knowledge. When a man is getting better he understands
more and more clearly the evil that is still left in him. When a man is
getting worse, he understands his own badness less and less. A moderately
bad man knows he is not very good: a thoroughly bad man thinks he is all
right. This is common sense, really. You understand sleep when you are
awake, not while you are sleeping. You can see mistakes in arithmetic when
your mind is working properly: while you are making them you cannot see
them. You can understand the nature of drunkenness when you are sober, not
when you are drunk. Good people know about both good and evil: bad people do
not know about either.
We must now consider Christian morality as regards sex, what Christians
call the virtue of chastity. The Christian rule of chastity must not be
confused with the social rule of "modesty" (in one sense of that word); i.e.
propriety, or decency. The social rule of propriety lays down how much of
the human body should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and
in what words, according to the customs of a given social circle. Thus,
while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the
rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any
clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be
equally "modest," proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own
societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally
chaste (or equally unchaste). Some of the language which chaste women used
in Shakespeare's time would have been used in the nineteenth century only by
a woman completely abandoned. When people break the rule of propriety
current in their own time and place, if they do so in order to excite lust
in themselves or others, then they are offending against chastity. But if
they break it through ignorance or carelessness they are guilty only of bad
manners. When, as often happens, they break it defiantly in order to shock
or embarrass others, they are not necessarily being unchaste, but they are
being uncharitable: for it is uncharitable to take pleasure in making other
people uncomfortable. I do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of
propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it, and I therefore regard
the great relaxation and simplifying of the rule which has taken place in my
own lifetime as a good thing. At its present stage, however, it has this
inconvenience, that people of different ages and different types do not all
acknowledge the same standard, and we hardly know where we are. While this
confusion lasts I think that old, or old-fashioned, people should be very
careful not to assume that young or "emancipated" people are corrupt
whenever they are (by the old standard) improper; and, in return, that young
people should not call their elders prudes or puritans because they do not
easily adopt the new standard. A real desire to believe all the good you can
of others and to make others as comfortable as you can will solve most of
the problems.
Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. There is no
getting away from it: the old Christian rule is, "Either marriage, with
complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence." Now this
is so difficult and so contrary to our instincts, that obviously either
Christianity is wrong or our sexual instinct, as it now is, has gone wrong.
One or the other. Of course, being a Christian, I think it is the instinct
which has gone wrong.
But I have other reasons for thinking so. The biological purpose of sex
is children, just as the biological purpose of eating is to repair the body.
Now if we eat whenever we feel inclined and just as much as we want, it is
quite true that most of us will eat too much: but not terrifically too much.
One man may eat enough for two, but he does not eat enough for ten. The
appetite goes a little beyond its biological purpose, but not enormously.
But if a healthy young man indulged his sexual appetite whenever he felt
inclined, and if each act produced a baby, then in ten years he might easily
populate a small village. This appetite is in ludicrous and preposterous
excess of its function.
Or take it another way. You can get a large audience together for a
strip-tease act-that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose
you came to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a
covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let
every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton
chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something
had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had
grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about
the state of the sex instinct among us?
One critic said that if he found a country in which such striptease
acts with food were popular, he would conclude that the people of that
country were starving. He meant, of course, to imply that such things as the
strip-tease act resulted not from sexual corruption but from sexual
starvation. I agree with him that if, in some strange land, we found that
similar acts with mutton chops were popular, one of the possible
explanations which would occur to me would be famine. But the next step
would be to test our hypothesis by finding out whether, in fact, much or
little food was being consumed in that country. If the evidence showed that
a good deal was being eaten, then of course we should have to abandon the
hypothesis of starvation and try to think of another one. In the same way,
before accepting sexual starvation as the cause of the strip-tease, we
should have to look for evidence that there is in fact more sexual
abstinence in our age than in those ages when things like the strip-tease
were unknown. But surely there is no such evidence. Contraceptives have made
sexual indulgence far less costly within marriage and far safer outside it
than ever before, and public opinion is less hostile to illicit unions and
even to perversion than it has been since Pagan times. Nor is the hypothesis
of "starvation" the only one we can imagine. Everyone knows that the sexual
appetite, like our other appetites, grows by indulgence. Starving men may
think much about food, but so do gluttons; the gorged, as well as the
famished, like titillations.
Here is a third point. You find very few people who want to eat things
that really are not food or to do other things with food instead of eating
it. In other words, perversions of the food appetite are rare. But
perversions of the sex instinct are numerous, hard to cure, and frightful. I
am sorry to have to go into all these details, but I must. The reason why I
must is that you and I, for the last twenty years, have been fed all day
long on good solid lies about sex. We have been told, till one is sick of
hearing it, that sexual desire is in the same state as any of our other
natural desires and that if only we abandon the silly old Victorian idea of
hushing it up, everything in the garden will be lovely. It is not true. The
moment you look at the facts, and away from the propaganda, you see that it
is not.
They tell you sex has become a mess because it was hushed up. But for
the last twenty years it has not been hushed up. It has been chattered about
all day long. Yet it is still in a mess. If hushing up had been the cause of
the trouble, ventilation would have set it right. But it has not. I think it
is the other way round. I think the human race originally hushed it up
because it had become such a mess. Modern people are always saying, "Sex is
nothing to be ashamed of." They may mean two things. They may mean "There is
nothing to be ashamed of in the fact that the human race reproduces itself
in a certain way, nor in the fact that it gives pleasure." If they mean
that, they are right. Christianity says the same. It is not the thing, nor
the pleasure, that is the trouble. The old Christian teachers said that if
man had never fallen, sexual pleasure, instead of being less than it is now,
would actually have been greater. I know some muddle-headed Christians have
talked as if Christianity thought that sex, or the body, or pleasure, were
bad in themselves. But they were wrong. Christianity is almost the only one
of the great religions which thoroughly approves of the body-which believes
that matter is good, that God Himself once took on a human body, that some
kind of body is going to be given to us even in Heaven and is going to be an
essential part of our happiness, our beauty, and our energy. Christianity
has glorified marriage more than any other religion: and nearly all the
greatest love poetry in the world has been produced by Christians. If anyone
says that sex, in itself, is bad, Christianity contradicts him at once. But,
of course, when people say, "Sex is nothing to be ashamed of," they may mean
"the state into which the sexual instinct has now got is nothing to be
ashamed of."
If they mean that, I think they are wrong. I think it is everything to
be ashamed of. There is nothing to be ashamed of in enjoying your food:
there would be everything to be ashamed of if half the world made food the
main interest of their lives and spent their time looking at pictures of
food and dribbling and smacking their lips. I do not say you and I are
individually responsible for the present situation. Our ancestors have
handed over to us organisms which are warped in this respect: and we grow up
surrounded by propaganda in favour of unchastity. There are people who want
to keep our sex instinct inflamed in order to make money out of us. Because,
of course, a man with an obsession is a man who has very little
sales-resistance. God knows our situation; He will not judge us as if we had
no difficulties to overcome. What matters is the sincerity and perseverance
of our will to overcome them.
Before we can be cured we must want to be cured. Those who really wish
for help will get it; but for many modern people even the wish is difficult.
It is easy to think that we want something when we do not really want it. A
famous Christian long ago told us that when he was a young man he prayed
constantly for chastity; but years later he realised that while his lips had
been saying, "Oh Lord, make me chaste," his heart had been secretly adding,
"But please don't do it just yet." This may happen in prayers for other
virtues too; but there are three reasons why it is now specially difficult
for us to desire-let alone to achieve-complete chastity.
In the first place our warped natures, the devils who tempt us, and all
the contemporary propaganda for lust, combine to make us feel that the
desires we are resisting are so "natural," so "healthy," and so reasonable,
that it is almost perverse and abnormal to resist them. Poster after poster,
film after film, novel after novel, associate the idea of sexual indulgence
with the ideas of health, normality, youth, frankness, and good humour. Now
this association is a lie. Like all powerful lies, it is based on a
truth-the truth, acknowledged above, that sex in itself (apart from the
excesses and obsessions that have grown round it) is "normal" and "healthy,"
and all the rest of it. The lie consists in the suggestion that any sexual
act to which you are tempted at the moment is also healthy and normal. Now
this, on any conceivable view, and quite apart from Christianity, must be
nonsense. Surrender to all our desires obviously leads to impotence,
disease, jealousies, lies, concealment, and everything that is the reverse
of health, good humour, and frankness. For any happiness, even in this
world, quite a lot of restraint is going to be necessary; so the claim made
by every desire, when it is strong, to be healthy and reasonable, counts for
nothing. Every sane and civilised man must have some set of principles by
which he chooses to reject some of his desires and to permit others. One man
does this on Christian principles, another on hygienic principles, another
on sociological principles. The real conflict is not between Christianity
and "nature," but between Christian principle and other principles in the
control of "nature." For "nature" (in the sense of natural desire) will have
to be controlled anyway, unless you are going to ruin your whole life. The
Christian principles are, admittedly, stricter than the others; but then we
think you will get help towards obeying them which you will not get towards
obeying the others.
In the second place, many people are deterred from seriously attempting
Christian chastity because they think (before trying) that it is impossible.
But when a thing has to be attempted, one must never think about possibility
or impossibility. Faced with an optional question in an examination paper,
one considers whether one can do it or not: faced with a compulsory
question, one must do the best one can. You may get some marks for a very
imperfect answer: you will certainly get none for leaving the question
alone. Not only in examinations but in war, in mountain climbing, in
learning to skate, or swim, or ride a bicycle, even in fastening a stiff
collar with cold fingers, people quite often do what seemed impossible
before they did it. It is wonderful what you can do when you have to.
We may, indeed, be sure that perfect chastity-like perfect charity-will
not be attained by any merely human efforts. You must ask for God's help.
Even when you have done so, it may seem to you for a long time that no help,
or less help than you need, is being given. Never mind. After each failure,
ask forgiveness, pick yourself up, and try again. Very often what God first
helps us towards is not the virtue itself but just this power of always
trying again. For however important chastity (or courage, or truthfulness,
or any other virtue) may be, this process trains us in habits of the soul
which are more important still. It cures our illusions about ourselves and
teaches us to depend on God. We learn, on the one hand, that we cannot trust
ourselves even in our best moments, and, on the other, that we need not
despair even in our worst, for our failures are forgiven. The only fatal
thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection.
Thirdly, people often misunderstand what psychology teaches about
"repressions." It teaches us that "repressed" sex is dangerous. But
"repressed" is here a technical term: it does not mean "suppressed" in the
sense of "denied" or "resisted." A repressed desire or thought is one which
has been thrust into the subconscious (usually at a very early age) and can
now come before the mind only in a disguised and unrecognisable form.
Repressed sexuality does not appear to the patient to be sexuality at all.
When an adolescent or an adult is engaged in resisting a conscious desire,
he is not dealing with a repression nor is he in the least danger of
creating a repression. On the contrary, those who are seriously attempting
chastity are more conscious, and soon know a great deal more about their own
sexuality than anyone else. They come to know their desires as Wellington
knew Napoleon, or as Sherlock Holmes knew Moriarty; as a rat-catcher knows
rats or a plumber knows about leaky pipes. Virtue-even attempted
virtue-brings light; indulgence brings fog.
Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to
make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is
not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme
vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the
least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the
pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising
and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For
there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must
try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The
Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous
prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a
prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.
The last chapter was mainly negative. I discussed what was wrong with
the sexual impulse in man, but said very little about its right working-in
other words, about Christian marriage. There are two reasons why I do not
particularly want to deal with marriage. The first is that the Christian
doctrines on this subject are extremely unpopular. The second is that I have
never been married myself, and, therefore, can speak only at second hand.
But in spite of that, I feel I can hardly leave the subject out in an
account of Christian morals. The Christian idea of marriage is based on
Christ's words that a man and wife are to be regarded as a single
organism-for that is what the words "one flesh" would be in modern English.
And the Christians believe that when He said this He was not expressing a
sentiment but stating a fact-just as one is stating a fact when one says
that a lock and its key are one mechanism, or that a violin and a bow are
one musical instrument. The inventor of the human machine was telling us
that its two halves, the male and the female, were made to be combined
together in pairs, not simply on the sexual level, but totally combined. The
monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside marriage is that those who indulge
in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) from all the
other kinds of union which were intended to go along with it and make up the
total union. The Christian attitude does not mean that there is anything
wrong about sexual pleasure, any more than about the pleasure of eating. It
means that you must not isolate that pleasure and try to get it by itself,
any more than you ought to try to get the pleasures of taste without
swallowing and digesting, by chewing things and spitting them out again.
As a consequence, Christianity teaches that marriage is for life. There
is, of course, a difference here between different Churches: some do not
admit divorce at all; some allow it reluctantly in very special cases. It is
a great pity that Christians should disagree about such a question; but for
an ordinary layman the thing to notice is that Churches all agree with one
another about marriage a great deal more than any of them agrees with the
outside world. I mean, they all regard divorce as something like cutting up
a living body, as a kind of surgical operation. Some of them think the
operation so violent that it cannot be done at all; others admit it as a
desperate remedy in extreme cases. They are all agreed that it is more like
having both your legs cut off than it is like dissolving a business
partnership or even deserting a regiment What they all disagree with is the
modern view that it is a simple readjustment of partners, to be made
whenever people feel they are no longer in love with one another, or when
either of them falls in love with someone else.
Before we consider this modern view in its relation to chastity, we
must not forget to consider it in relation to another virtue, namely
justice. Justice, as I said before, includes the keeping of promises. Now
everyone who has been married in a church has made a public, solemn promise
to stick to his (or her) partner till death. The duty of keeping that
promise has no special connection with sexual morality: it is in the same
position as any other promise. If, as modern people are always telling us,
the sexual impulse is just like all our other impulses, then it ought to be
treated like all our other impulses; and as their indulgence is controlled
by our promises, so should its be. If, as I think, it is not like all our
other impulses, but is morbidly inflamed, then we should be especially
careful not to let it lead us into dishonesty.
To this someone may reply that he regarded the promise made in church
as a mere formality and never intended to keep it. Whom, then, was he trying
to deceive when he made it? God? That was really very unwise. Himself? That
was not very much wiser. The bride, or bridegroom, or the "in-laws"? That
was treacherous. Most often, I think, the couple (or one of them) hoped to
deceive the public. They wanted the respectability that is attached to
marriage without intending to pay the price: that is, they were imposters,
they cheated. If they are still contented cheats, I have nothing to say to
them: who would urge the high and hard duty of chastity on people who have
not yet wished to be merely honest? If they have now come to their senses
and want to be honest, their promise, already made, constrains them. And
this, you will see, comes under the heading of justice, not that of
chastity. If people do not believe in permanent marriage, it is perhaps
better that they should live together unmarried than that they should make
vows they do not mean to keep. It is true that by living together without
marriage they will be guilty (in Christian eyes) of fornication. But one
fault is not mended by adding another: unchastity is not improved by adding
perjury.
The idea that "being in love" is the only reason for remaining married
really leaves no room for marriage as a contract or promise at all. If love
is the whole thing, then the promise can add nothing; and if it adds
nothing, then it should not be made. The curious thing is that lovers
themselves, while they remain really in love, know this better than those
who talk about love. As Chesterton pointed out, those who are in love have a
natural inclination to bind themselves by promises. Love songs all over the
world are full of vows of eternal constancy. The Christian law is not
forcing upon the passion of love something which is foreign to that
passion's own nature: it is demanding that lovers should take seriously
something which their passion of itself impels them to do.
And, of course, the promise, made when I am in love and because I am in
love, to be true to the beloved as long as I live, commits one to being true
even if I cease to be in love. A promise must be about things that I can do,
about actions: no one can promise to go on feeling in a certain way. He
might as well promise never to have a headache or always to feel hungry. But
what, it may be asked, is the use of keeping two people together if they are
no longer in love? There are several sound, social reasons; to provide a
home for their children, to protect the woman (who has probably sacrificed
or damaged her own career by getting married) from being dropped whenever
the man is tired of her. But there is also another reason of which I am very
sure, though I find it a little hard to explain.
It is hard because so many people cannot be brought to realise that
when B is better than C, A may be even better than B. They like thinking in
terms of good and bad, not of good, better, and best, or bad, worse and
worst. They want to know whether you think patriotism a good thing: if you
reply that it is, of course, far better than individual selfishness, but
that it is inferior to universal charity and should always give way to
universal charity when the two conflict, they think you are being evasive.
They ask what you think of dueling. If you reply that it is far better to
forgive a man than to fight a duel with him, but that even a duel might be
better than a lifelong enmity which expresses itself in secret efforts to
"do the man down," they go away complaining that you would not give them a
straight answer. I hope no one will make this mistake about what I am now
going to say.
What we call "being in love" is a glorious state, and, in several ways,
good for us. It helps to make us generous and courageous, it opens our eyes
not only to the beauty of the beloved but to all beauty, and it subordinates
(especially at first) our merely animal sexuality; in that sense, love is
the great conqueror of lust. No one in his senses would deny that being in
reliable player.)
(2) We might think that God wanted simply obedience to a set of rules:
whereas He really wants people of a particular sort.
(3) We might think that the "virtues" were necessary only for this
present life-that in the other world we could stop being just because there
is nothing to quarrel about and stop being brave because there is no danger.
Now it is quite true that there will probably be no occasion for just or
courageous acts in the next world, but there will be every occasion for
being the sort of people that we can become only as the result of doing such
acts here. The point is not that God will refuse you admission to His
eternal world if you have not got certain qualities of character: the point
is that if people have not got at least the beginnings of those qualities
inside them, then no possible external conditions could make a "Heaven" for
them-that is, could make them happy with the deep, strong, unshakable kind
of happiness God intends for us.
The first thing to get clear about Christian morality between man and
man is that in this department Christ did not come to preach any brand new
morality. The Golden Rule of the New Testament (Do as you would be done by)
is a summing up of what everyone, at bottom, had always known to be right.
Really great moral teachers never do introduce new moralities: it is quacks
and cranks who do that. As Dr. Johnson said, "People need to be reminded
more often than they need to be instructed." The real job of every moral
teacher is to keep on bringing us back, time after time, to the old simple
principles which we are all so anxious not to see; like bringing a horse
back and back to the fence it has refused to jump or bringing a child back
and back to the bit in its lesson that it wants to shirk.
The second thing to get clear is that Christianity has not, and does
not profess to have, a detailed political programme for applying "Do as you
would be done by" to a particular society at a particular moment. It could
not have. It is meant for all men at all times and the particular programme
which suited one place or time would not suit another. And, anyhow, that is
not how Christianity works. When it tells you to feed the hungry it does not
give you lessons in cookery. When it tells you to read the Scriptures it
does not give you lessons in Hebrew and Greek, or even in English grammar.
It was never intended to replace or supersede the ordinary human arts and
sciences: it is rather a director which will set them all to the right jobs,
and a source of energy which will give them all new life, if only they will
put themselves at its disposal.
People say, "The Church ought to give us a lead." That is true if they
mean it in the right way, but false if they mean it in the wrong way. By the
Church they ought to mean the whole body of practising Christians. And when
they say that the Church should give us a lead, they ought to mean that some
Christians- those who happen to have the right talents- should be economists
and statesmen, and that all economists and statesmen should be Christians,
and that their whole efforts in politics and economics should be directed to
putting "Do as you would be done by" into action. If that happened, and if
we others were really ready to take it, then we should find the Christian
solution for our own social problems pretty quickly. But, of course, when
they ask for a lead from the Church most people mean they want the clergy to
put out a political programme. That is silly. The clergy are those
particular people within the whole Church who have been specially trained
and set aside to look after what concerns us as creatures who are going to
live for ever: and we are asking them to do a quite different job for which
they have not been trained. The job is really on us, on the laymen. The
application of Christian principles, say, to trade unionism or education,
must come from Christian trade unionists and Christian schoolmasters: just
as Christian literature comes from Christian novelists and dramatists -not
from the bench of bishops getting together and trying to write plays and
novels in their spare time.
All the same, the New Testament, without going into details, gives us a
pretty clear hint of what a fully Christian society would be like. Perhaps
it gives us more than we can take. It tells us that there are to be no
passengers or parasites: if man does not work, he ought not to eat. Every
one is to work with his own hands, and what is more, every one's work is to
produce something good: there will be no manufacture of silly luxuries and
then of sillier advertisements to persuade us to buy them. And there is to
be no "swank" or "side," no putting on airs. To that extent a Christian
society would be what we now call Leftist. On the other hand, it is always
insisting on obedience-obedience (and outward marks of respect) from all of
us to properly appointed magistrates, from children to parents, and (I am
afraid this is going to be very unpopular) from wives to husbands. Thirdly,
it is to be a cheerful society: full of singing and rejoicing, and regarding
worry or anxiety as wrong. Courtesy is one of the Christian virtues; and the
New Testament hates what it calls "busybodies."
If there were such a society in existence and you or I visited it, I
think we should come away with a curious impression. We should feel that its
economic life was very socialistic and, in that sense, "advanced," but that
its family life and its code of manners were rather old-fashioned-perhaps
even ceremonious and aristocratic. Each of us would like some bits of it,
but I am afraid very few of us would like the whole thing. That is just what
one would expect if Christianity is the total plan for the human machine. We
have all departed from that total plan in different ways, and each of us
wants to make out that his own modification of the original plan is the plan
itself. You will find this again and again about anything that is really
Christian: every one is attracted by bits of it and wants to pick out those
bits and leave the rest. That is why we do not get much further: and that is
why people who are fighting for quite opposite things can both say they are
fighting for Christianity.
Now another point. There is one bit of advice given to us by the
ancient heathen Greeks, and by the Jews in the Old Testament, and by the
great Christian teachers of the Middle Ages, which the modern economic
system has completely disobeyed. All these people told us not to lend money
at interest: and lending money at interest-what we call investment-is the
basis of our whole system. Now it may not absolutely follow that we are
wrong. Some people say that when Moses and Aristotle and the Christians
agreed in forbidding interest (or "usury" as they called it), they could not
foresee the joint stock company, and were only dunking of the private
moneylender, and that, therefore, we need not bother about what they said.
That is a question I cannot decide on. I am not an economist and I simply do
not know whether the investment system is responsible for the state we are
in or not This is where we want the Christian economist But I should not
have been honest if I had not told you that three great civilisations had
agreed (or so it seems at first sight) in condemning the very thing on which
we have based our whole life.
One more point and I am done. In the passage where the New Testament
says that every one must work, it gives as a reason "in order that he may
have something to give to those in need." Charity-giving to the poor-is an
essential part of Christian morality: in the frightening parable of the
sheep and the goats it seems to be the point on which everything turns. Some
people nowadays say that charity ought to be unnecessary and that instead of
giving to the poor we ought to be producing a society in which there were no
poor to give to. They may be quite right in saying that we ought to produce
that kind of society. But if anyone thinks that, as a consequence, you can
stop giving in the meantime, then he has parted company with all Christian
morality. I do not believe one can settle how much we ought to give. I am
afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words,
if our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc, is up to the
standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably
giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I
should say they are too small There ought to be things we should like to do
and cannot do because our charitable expenditure excludes them. I am
speaking now of "charities" in the common way. Particular cases of distress
among your own relatives, friends, neighbours or employees, which God, as it
were, forces upon your notice, may demand much more: even to the crippling
and endangering of your own position. For many of us the great obstacle to
charity lies not in our luxurious living or desire for more money, but in
our fear-fear of insecurity. This must often be recognised as a temptation.
Sometimes our pride also hinders our charity; we are tempted to spend more
than we ought on the showy forms of generosity (tipping, hospitality) and
less than we ought on those who really need our help.
And now, before I end, I am going to venture on a guess as to how this
section has affected any who have read it My guess is that there are some
Leftist people among them who are very angry that it has not gone further in
that direction, and some people of an opposite sort who are angry because
they think it has gone much too far. If so, that brings us right up against
the real snag in all this drawing up of blueprints for a Christian society.
Most of us are not really approaching the subject in order to find out what
Christianity says: we are approaching it in the hope of finding support from
Christianity for the views of our own party. We are looking for an ally
where we are offered either a Master or-a Judge. I am just the same. There
are bits in this section that I wanted to leave out. And that is why nothing
whatever is going to come of such talks unless we go a much longer way
round. A Christian society is not going to arrive until most of us really
want it: and we are not going to want it until we become fully Christian. I
may repeat "Do as you would be done by" till I am black in the face, but I
cannot really carry it out till I love my neighbour as myself: and I cannot
learn to love my neighbour as myself till I learn to love God: and I cannot
learn to love God except by learning to obey Him. And so, as I warned you,
we are driven on to something more inward -driven on from social matters to
religious matters. For the longest way round is the shortest way home.
I have said that we should never get a Christian society unless most of
us became Christian individuals. That does not mean, of course, that we can
put off doing anything about society until some imaginary date in the far
future. It means that we must begin both jobs at once-(1) the job of seeing
how "Do as you would be done by" can be applied in detail to modern society,
and (2) the job of becoming the sort of people who really would apply it if
we saw how. I now want to begin considering what the Christian idea of a
good man is-the Christian specification for the human machine.
Before I come down to details there are two more general points I
should like to make. First of all, since Christian morality claims to be a
technique for putting the human machine right, I think you would like to
know how it is related to another technique which seems to make a similar
claim-namely, psychoanalysis.
Now you want to distinguish very clearly between two things: between
the actual medical theories and technique of the psychoanalysts, and the
general philosophical view of the world which Freud and some others have
gone on to add to this. The second thing-the philosophy of Freud-is in
direct contradiction to Christianity: and also in direct contradiction to
the other great psychologist, Jung. And furthermore, when Freud is talking
about how to cure neurotics he is speaking as a specialist on his own
subject, but when he goes on to talk general philosophy he is speaking as an
amateur. It is therefore quite sensible to attend to him with respect in the
one case and not in the other-and that is what I do. I am all the readier to
do it because I have found that when he is talking off his own subject and
on a subject I do know something about (namely, languages) he is very
ignorant. But psychoanalysis itself, apart from all the philosophical
additions that Freud and others have made to it, is not in the least
contradictory to Christianity. Its technique overlaps with Christian
morality at some points and it would not be a bad thing if every parson knew
something about it: but it does not run the same course all the way, for the
two techniques are doing rather different things.
When a man makes a moral choice two things are involved. One is the act
of choosing. The other is the various feelings, impulses and so on which his
psychological outfit presents him with, and which are the raw material of
his choice. Now this raw material may be of two kinds. Either it may be what
we would call normal: it may consist of the sort of feelings that are common
to all men. Or else it may consist of quite unnatural feelings due to things
that have gone wrong in his subconscious. Thus fear of things that are
really dangerous would be an example of the first kind: an irrational fear
of cats or spiders would be an example of the second kind. The desire of a
man for a woman would be of the first kind: the perverted desire of a man
for a man would be of the second. Now what psychoanalysis undertakes to do
is to remove the abnormal feelings, that is, to give the man better raw
material for his acts of choice: morality is concerned with the acts of
choice themselves.
Put it this way. Imagine three men who go to war. One has the ordinary
natural fear of danger that any man has and he subdues it by moral effort
and becomes a brave man. Let us suppose that the other two have, as a result
of things in their sub-consciousness, exaggerated, irrational fears, which
no amount of moral effort can do anything about. Now suppose that a
psychoanalyst comes along and cures these two: that is, he puts them both
back in the position of the first man. Well it is just then that the
psychoanalytical problem is over and the moral problem begins. Because, now
that they are cured, these two men might take quite different lines. The
first might say, "Thank goodness I've got rid of all those doodahs. Now at
last I can do what I always wanted to do-my duty to the cause of freedom."
But the other might say, "Well, I'm very glad that I now feel moderately
cool under fire, but, of course, that doesn't alter the fact that I'm still
jolly well determined to look after Number One and let the other chap do the
dangerous job whenever I can. Indeed one of the good things about feeling
less frightened is that I can now look after myself much more efficiently
and can be much cleverer at hiding the fact from the others." Now this
difference is a purely moral one and psychoanalysis cannot do anything about
it. However much you improve the man's raw material, you have still got
something else: the real, free choice of the man, on the material presented
to him, either to put his own advantage first or to put it last And this$
free choice is the only thing that morality is concerned with.
The bad psychological material is not a sin but a disease. It does not
need to be repented of, but to be cured. And by the way, that is very
important. Human beings judge one another by their external actions. God
judges them by their moral choices. When a neurotic who has a pathological
horror of cats forces himself to pick up a cat for some good reason, it is
quite possible that in God's eyes he has shown more courage than a healthy
man may have shown in winning the V.C. When a man who has been perverted
from his youth and taught that cruelty is the right thing, does some tiny
little kindness, or refrains from some cruelty he might have committed, and
thereby, perhaps, risks being sneered at by his companions, he may, in God's
eyes, be doing more than you and I would do if we gave up life itself for a
friend.
It is as well to put this the other way round. Some of us who seem
quite nice people may, in fact, have made so little use of a good heredity
and a good upbringing that we are really worse than those whom we regard as
fiends. Can we be quite certain how we should have behaved if we had been
saddled with the psychological outfit, and then with the bad upbringing, and
then with the power, say, of Himmler? That is why Christians are told not to
judge.
We see only the results which a man's choices make out of his raw
material. But God does not judge him on the raw material at all, but on what
he has done with it. Most of the man's psychological make-up is probably due
to his body: when his body dies all that will fall off him, and the real
central man. the thing that chose, that made the best or the worst out of
this material, will stand naked. All sorts of nice things which we thought
our own, but which were really due to a good digestion, will fall off some
of us: all sorts of nasty things which were due to complexes or bad health
will fall off others. We shall then, for the first tune, see every one as he
really was. There will be surprises.
And that leads on to my second point. People often think of Christian
morality as a kind of bargain in which God says, "If you keep a lot of rules
I'll reward you, and if you don't I'll do the other thing." I do not think
that is the best way of looking at it. I would much rather say that every
time you make a choice you are turning the central part of you, the part of
you that chooses, into something a little different from what it was before.
And taking your life as a whole, with all your innumerable choices, all your
life long you are slowly turning this central thing either into a heavenly
creature or into a hellish creature: either into a creature that is in
harmony with God, and with other creatures, and with itself, or else into
one that is in a state of war and hatred with God, and with its
fellow-creatures, and with itself. To be the one kind of creature is heaven:
that is, it is joy and peace and knowledge and power. To be the other means
madness, horror, idiocy, rage, impotence, and eternal loneliness. Each of us
at each moment is progressing to the one state or the other.
That explains what always used to puzzle me about Christian writers;
they seem to be so very strict at one moment and so very free and easy at
another. They talk about mere sins of thought as if they were immensely
important: and then they talk about the most frightful murders and
treacheries as if you had only got to repent and all would be forgiven. But
I have come to see that they are right. What they are always thinking of is
the mark which the action leaves on that tiny central self which no one sees
in this life but which each of us will have to endure-or enjoy-for ever. One
man may be so placed that his anger sheds the blood of thousands, and
another so placed that however angry he gets he will only be laughed at. But
the little mark on the soul may be much the same in both. Each has done
something to himself which, unless he repents, will make it harder for him
to keep out of the rage next time he is tempted, and will make the rage
worse when he does fall into it. Each of them, if he seriously turns to God,
can have that twist in the central man straightened out again: each is, in
the long run, doomed if he will not. The bigness or smallness of the thing,
seen from the outside, is not what really matters.
One last point. Remember that, as I said, the right direction leads not
only to peace but to knowledge. When a man is getting better he understands
more and more clearly the evil that is still left in him. When a man is
getting worse, he understands his own badness less and less. A moderately
bad man knows he is not very good: a thoroughly bad man thinks he is all
right. This is common sense, really. You understand sleep when you are
awake, not while you are sleeping. You can see mistakes in arithmetic when
your mind is working properly: while you are making them you cannot see
them. You can understand the nature of drunkenness when you are sober, not
when you are drunk. Good people know about both good and evil: bad people do
not know about either.
We must now consider Christian morality as regards sex, what Christians
call the virtue of chastity. The Christian rule of chastity must not be
confused with the social rule of "modesty" (in one sense of that word); i.e.
propriety, or decency. The social rule of propriety lays down how much of
the human body should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and
in what words, according to the customs of a given social circle. Thus,
while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the
rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any
clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be
equally "modest," proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own
societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally
chaste (or equally unchaste). Some of the language which chaste women used
in Shakespeare's time would have been used in the nineteenth century only by
a woman completely abandoned. When people break the rule of propriety
current in their own time and place, if they do so in order to excite lust
in themselves or others, then they are offending against chastity. But if
they break it through ignorance or carelessness they are guilty only of bad
manners. When, as often happens, they break it defiantly in order to shock
or embarrass others, they are not necessarily being unchaste, but they are
being uncharitable: for it is uncharitable to take pleasure in making other
people uncomfortable. I do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of
propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it, and I therefore regard
the great relaxation and simplifying of the rule which has taken place in my
own lifetime as a good thing. At its present stage, however, it has this
inconvenience, that people of different ages and different types do not all
acknowledge the same standard, and we hardly know where we are. While this
confusion lasts I think that old, or old-fashioned, people should be very
careful not to assume that young or "emancipated" people are corrupt
whenever they are (by the old standard) improper; and, in return, that young
people should not call their elders prudes or puritans because they do not
easily adopt the new standard. A real desire to believe all the good you can
of others and to make others as comfortable as you can will solve most of
the problems.
Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. There is no
getting away from it: the old Christian rule is, "Either marriage, with
complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence." Now this
is so difficult and so contrary to our instincts, that obviously either
Christianity is wrong or our sexual instinct, as it now is, has gone wrong.
One or the other. Of course, being a Christian, I think it is the instinct
which has gone wrong.
But I have other reasons for thinking so. The biological purpose of sex
is children, just as the biological purpose of eating is to repair the body.
Now if we eat whenever we feel inclined and just as much as we want, it is
quite true that most of us will eat too much: but not terrifically too much.
One man may eat enough for two, but he does not eat enough for ten. The
appetite goes a little beyond its biological purpose, but not enormously.
But if a healthy young man indulged his sexual appetite whenever he felt
inclined, and if each act produced a baby, then in ten years he might easily
populate a small village. This appetite is in ludicrous and preposterous
excess of its function.
Or take it another way. You can get a large audience together for a
strip-tease act-that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose
you came to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a
covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let
every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton
chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something
had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had
grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about
the state of the sex instinct among us?
One critic said that if he found a country in which such striptease
acts with food were popular, he would conclude that the people of that
country were starving. He meant, of course, to imply that such things as the
strip-tease act resulted not from sexual corruption but from sexual
starvation. I agree with him that if, in some strange land, we found that
similar acts with mutton chops were popular, one of the possible
explanations which would occur to me would be famine. But the next step
would be to test our hypothesis by finding out whether, in fact, much or
little food was being consumed in that country. If the evidence showed that
a good deal was being eaten, then of course we should have to abandon the
hypothesis of starvation and try to think of another one. In the same way,
before accepting sexual starvation as the cause of the strip-tease, we
should have to look for evidence that there is in fact more sexual
abstinence in our age than in those ages when things like the strip-tease
were unknown. But surely there is no such evidence. Contraceptives have made
sexual indulgence far less costly within marriage and far safer outside it
than ever before, and public opinion is less hostile to illicit unions and
even to perversion than it has been since Pagan times. Nor is the hypothesis
of "starvation" the only one we can imagine. Everyone knows that the sexual
appetite, like our other appetites, grows by indulgence. Starving men may
think much about food, but so do gluttons; the gorged, as well as the
famished, like titillations.
Here is a third point. You find very few people who want to eat things
that really are not food or to do other things with food instead of eating
it. In other words, perversions of the food appetite are rare. But
perversions of the sex instinct are numerous, hard to cure, and frightful. I
am sorry to have to go into all these details, but I must. The reason why I
must is that you and I, for the last twenty years, have been fed all day
long on good solid lies about sex. We have been told, till one is sick of
hearing it, that sexual desire is in the same state as any of our other
natural desires and that if only we abandon the silly old Victorian idea of
hushing it up, everything in the garden will be lovely. It is not true. The
moment you look at the facts, and away from the propaganda, you see that it
is not.
They tell you sex has become a mess because it was hushed up. But for
the last twenty years it has not been hushed up. It has been chattered about
all day long. Yet it is still in a mess. If hushing up had been the cause of
the trouble, ventilation would have set it right. But it has not. I think it
is the other way round. I think the human race originally hushed it up
because it had become such a mess. Modern people are always saying, "Sex is
nothing to be ashamed of." They may mean two things. They may mean "There is
nothing to be ashamed of in the fact that the human race reproduces itself
in a certain way, nor in the fact that it gives pleasure." If they mean
that, they are right. Christianity says the same. It is not the thing, nor
the pleasure, that is the trouble. The old Christian teachers said that if
man had never fallen, sexual pleasure, instead of being less than it is now,
would actually have been greater. I know some muddle-headed Christians have
talked as if Christianity thought that sex, or the body, or pleasure, were
bad in themselves. But they were wrong. Christianity is almost the only one
of the great religions which thoroughly approves of the body-which believes
that matter is good, that God Himself once took on a human body, that some
kind of body is going to be given to us even in Heaven and is going to be an
essential part of our happiness, our beauty, and our energy. Christianity
has glorified marriage more than any other religion: and nearly all the
greatest love poetry in the world has been produced by Christians. If anyone
says that sex, in itself, is bad, Christianity contradicts him at once. But,
of course, when people say, "Sex is nothing to be ashamed of," they may mean
"the state into which the sexual instinct has now got is nothing to be
ashamed of."
If they mean that, I think they are wrong. I think it is everything to
be ashamed of. There is nothing to be ashamed of in enjoying your food:
there would be everything to be ashamed of if half the world made food the
main interest of their lives and spent their time looking at pictures of
food and dribbling and smacking their lips. I do not say you and I are
individually responsible for the present situation. Our ancestors have
handed over to us organisms which are warped in this respect: and we grow up
surrounded by propaganda in favour of unchastity. There are people who want
to keep our sex instinct inflamed in order to make money out of us. Because,
of course, a man with an obsession is a man who has very little
sales-resistance. God knows our situation; He will not judge us as if we had
no difficulties to overcome. What matters is the sincerity and perseverance
of our will to overcome them.
Before we can be cured we must want to be cured. Those who really wish
for help will get it; but for many modern people even the wish is difficult.
It is easy to think that we want something when we do not really want it. A
famous Christian long ago told us that when he was a young man he prayed
constantly for chastity; but years later he realised that while his lips had
been saying, "Oh Lord, make me chaste," his heart had been secretly adding,
"But please don't do it just yet." This may happen in prayers for other
virtues too; but there are three reasons why it is now specially difficult
for us to desire-let alone to achieve-complete chastity.
In the first place our warped natures, the devils who tempt us, and all
the contemporary propaganda for lust, combine to make us feel that the
desires we are resisting are so "natural," so "healthy," and so reasonable,
that it is almost perverse and abnormal to resist them. Poster after poster,
film after film, novel after novel, associate the idea of sexual indulgence
with the ideas of health, normality, youth, frankness, and good humour. Now
this association is a lie. Like all powerful lies, it is based on a
truth-the truth, acknowledged above, that sex in itself (apart from the
excesses and obsessions that have grown round it) is "normal" and "healthy,"
and all the rest of it. The lie consists in the suggestion that any sexual
act to which you are tempted at the moment is also healthy and normal. Now
this, on any conceivable view, and quite apart from Christianity, must be
nonsense. Surrender to all our desires obviously leads to impotence,
disease, jealousies, lies, concealment, and everything that is the reverse
of health, good humour, and frankness. For any happiness, even in this
world, quite a lot of restraint is going to be necessary; so the claim made
by every desire, when it is strong, to be healthy and reasonable, counts for
nothing. Every sane and civilised man must have some set of principles by
which he chooses to reject some of his desires and to permit others. One man
does this on Christian principles, another on hygienic principles, another
on sociological principles. The real conflict is not between Christianity
and "nature," but between Christian principle and other principles in the
control of "nature." For "nature" (in the sense of natural desire) will have
to be controlled anyway, unless you are going to ruin your whole life. The
Christian principles are, admittedly, stricter than the others; but then we
think you will get help towards obeying them which you will not get towards
obeying the others.
In the second place, many people are deterred from seriously attempting
Christian chastity because they think (before trying) that it is impossible.
But when a thing has to be attempted, one must never think about possibility
or impossibility. Faced with an optional question in an examination paper,
one considers whether one can do it or not: faced with a compulsory
question, one must do the best one can. You may get some marks for a very
imperfect answer: you will certainly get none for leaving the question
alone. Not only in examinations but in war, in mountain climbing, in
learning to skate, or swim, or ride a bicycle, even in fastening a stiff
collar with cold fingers, people quite often do what seemed impossible
before they did it. It is wonderful what you can do when you have to.
We may, indeed, be sure that perfect chastity-like perfect charity-will
not be attained by any merely human efforts. You must ask for God's help.
Even when you have done so, it may seem to you for a long time that no help,
or less help than you need, is being given. Never mind. After each failure,
ask forgiveness, pick yourself up, and try again. Very often what God first
helps us towards is not the virtue itself but just this power of always
trying again. For however important chastity (or courage, or truthfulness,
or any other virtue) may be, this process trains us in habits of the soul
which are more important still. It cures our illusions about ourselves and
teaches us to depend on God. We learn, on the one hand, that we cannot trust
ourselves even in our best moments, and, on the other, that we need not
despair even in our worst, for our failures are forgiven. The only fatal
thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection.
Thirdly, people often misunderstand what psychology teaches about
"repressions." It teaches us that "repressed" sex is dangerous. But
"repressed" is here a technical term: it does not mean "suppressed" in the
sense of "denied" or "resisted." A repressed desire or thought is one which
has been thrust into the subconscious (usually at a very early age) and can
now come before the mind only in a disguised and unrecognisable form.
Repressed sexuality does not appear to the patient to be sexuality at all.
When an adolescent or an adult is engaged in resisting a conscious desire,
he is not dealing with a repression nor is he in the least danger of
creating a repression. On the contrary, those who are seriously attempting
chastity are more conscious, and soon know a great deal more about their own
sexuality than anyone else. They come to know their desires as Wellington
knew Napoleon, or as Sherlock Holmes knew Moriarty; as a rat-catcher knows
rats or a plumber knows about leaky pipes. Virtue-even attempted
virtue-brings light; indulgence brings fog.
Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to
make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is
not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme
vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the
least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the
pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising
and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For
there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must
try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The
Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous
prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a
prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.
The last chapter was mainly negative. I discussed what was wrong with
the sexual impulse in man, but said very little about its right working-in
other words, about Christian marriage. There are two reasons why I do not
particularly want to deal with marriage. The first is that the Christian
doctrines on this subject are extremely unpopular. The second is that I have
never been married myself, and, therefore, can speak only at second hand.
But in spite of that, I feel I can hardly leave the subject out in an
account of Christian morals. The Christian idea of marriage is based on
Christ's words that a man and wife are to be regarded as a single
organism-for that is what the words "one flesh" would be in modern English.
And the Christians believe that when He said this He was not expressing a
sentiment but stating a fact-just as one is stating a fact when one says
that a lock and its key are one mechanism, or that a violin and a bow are
one musical instrument. The inventor of the human machine was telling us
that its two halves, the male and the female, were made to be combined
together in pairs, not simply on the sexual level, but totally combined. The
monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside marriage is that those who indulge
in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) from all the
other kinds of union which were intended to go along with it and make up the
total union. The Christian attitude does not mean that there is anything
wrong about sexual pleasure, any more than about the pleasure of eating. It
means that you must not isolate that pleasure and try to get it by itself,
any more than you ought to try to get the pleasures of taste without
swallowing and digesting, by chewing things and spitting them out again.
As a consequence, Christianity teaches that marriage is for life. There
is, of course, a difference here between different Churches: some do not
admit divorce at all; some allow it reluctantly in very special cases. It is
a great pity that Christians should disagree about such a question; but for
an ordinary layman the thing to notice is that Churches all agree with one
another about marriage a great deal more than any of them agrees with the
outside world. I mean, they all regard divorce as something like cutting up
a living body, as a kind of surgical operation. Some of them think the
operation so violent that it cannot be done at all; others admit it as a
desperate remedy in extreme cases. They are all agreed that it is more like
having both your legs cut off than it is like dissolving a business
partnership or even deserting a regiment What they all disagree with is the
modern view that it is a simple readjustment of partners, to be made
whenever people feel they are no longer in love with one another, or when
either of them falls in love with someone else.
Before we consider this modern view in its relation to chastity, we
must not forget to consider it in relation to another virtue, namely
justice. Justice, as I said before, includes the keeping of promises. Now
everyone who has been married in a church has made a public, solemn promise
to stick to his (or her) partner till death. The duty of keeping that
promise has no special connection with sexual morality: it is in the same
position as any other promise. If, as modern people are always telling us,
the sexual impulse is just like all our other impulses, then it ought to be
treated like all our other impulses; and as their indulgence is controlled
by our promises, so should its be. If, as I think, it is not like all our
other impulses, but is morbidly inflamed, then we should be especially
careful not to let it lead us into dishonesty.
To this someone may reply that he regarded the promise made in church
as a mere formality and never intended to keep it. Whom, then, was he trying
to deceive when he made it? God? That was really very unwise. Himself? That
was not very much wiser. The bride, or bridegroom, or the "in-laws"? That
was treacherous. Most often, I think, the couple (or one of them) hoped to
deceive the public. They wanted the respectability that is attached to
marriage without intending to pay the price: that is, they were imposters,
they cheated. If they are still contented cheats, I have nothing to say to
them: who would urge the high and hard duty of chastity on people who have
not yet wished to be merely honest? If they have now come to their senses
and want to be honest, their promise, already made, constrains them. And
this, you will see, comes under the heading of justice, not that of
chastity. If people do not believe in permanent marriage, it is perhaps
better that they should live together unmarried than that they should make
vows they do not mean to keep. It is true that by living together without
marriage they will be guilty (in Christian eyes) of fornication. But one
fault is not mended by adding another: unchastity is not improved by adding
perjury.
The idea that "being in love" is the only reason for remaining married
really leaves no room for marriage as a contract or promise at all. If love
is the whole thing, then the promise can add nothing; and if it adds
nothing, then it should not be made. The curious thing is that lovers
themselves, while they remain really in love, know this better than those
who talk about love. As Chesterton pointed out, those who are in love have a
natural inclination to bind themselves by promises. Love songs all over the
world are full of vows of eternal constancy. The Christian law is not
forcing upon the passion of love something which is foreign to that
passion's own nature: it is demanding that lovers should take seriously
something which their passion of itself impels them to do.
And, of course, the promise, made when I am in love and because I am in
love, to be true to the beloved as long as I live, commits one to being true
even if I cease to be in love. A promise must be about things that I can do,
about actions: no one can promise to go on feeling in a certain way. He
might as well promise never to have a headache or always to feel hungry. But
what, it may be asked, is the use of keeping two people together if they are
no longer in love? There are several sound, social reasons; to provide a
home for their children, to protect the woman (who has probably sacrificed
or damaged her own career by getting married) from being dropped whenever
the man is tired of her. But there is also another reason of which I am very
sure, though I find it a little hard to explain.
It is hard because so many people cannot be brought to realise that
when B is better than C, A may be even better than B. They like thinking in
terms of good and bad, not of good, better, and best, or bad, worse and
worst. They want to know whether you think patriotism a good thing: if you
reply that it is, of course, far better than individual selfishness, but
that it is inferior to universal charity and should always give way to
universal charity when the two conflict, they think you are being evasive.
They ask what you think of dueling. If you reply that it is far better to
forgive a man than to fight a duel with him, but that even a duel might be
better than a lifelong enmity which expresses itself in secret efforts to
"do the man down," they go away complaining that you would not give them a
straight answer. I hope no one will make this mistake about what I am now
going to say.
What we call "being in love" is a glorious state, and, in several ways,
good for us. It helps to make us generous and courageous, it opens our eyes
not only to the beauty of the beloved but to all beauty, and it subordinates
(especially at first) our merely animal sexuality; in that sense, love is
the great conqueror of lust. No one in his senses would deny that being in