MereChristianity: We Have Cause to Be Uneasy

5. We Have Cause to Be Uneasy

 

 

 

     I ended my last chapter with the idea that in the Moral Law somebody or

something from  beyond the material universe was actually getting at us. And

I expect when I reached that point some of you felt a certain annoyance. You

may  even  have thought  that I had  played  a trick on you-that I  had been

carefully wrapping up to look like  philosophy what turns out to be one more

"religious jaw." You may have felt you were ready to listen to me as long as

you  thought  I  had anything  new to say;  but if it  turns out to be  only

religion, well, the world has tried that and you cannot put the clock  back.

If anyone is feeling that way I should like to say three things to him.

   

  First, as to putting the clock  back. Would you think I was joking if I

said that you can put a  clock back, and that if the  clock is  wrong it  is

often a very sensible thing to do?  But I  would rather  get away from  that

whole idea  of clocks. We  all want  progress.  But  progress  means getting

nearer to the  place where you want to  be. And  if you  have  taken a wrong

turning, then to go forward does not  get you any nearer. If you are  on the

wrong road, progress means doing an about turn and walking back to the right

road;  and  in  that  case  the  man who  turns  back  soonest  is  the most

progressive man.

 

We have all  seen this when doing arithmetic. When  I  have

started a sum the wrong way,  the sooner I admit this and go back and  start

over again,  the faster I shall get on. There  is nothing progressive  about

being pigheaded  and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at

the  present state of the world, it  is  pretty plain that humanity has been

making some big  mistake. We are on  the  wrong road. And if  that is so, we

must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.

    

Then, secondly, this has not yet turned exactly into a "religious jaw."

We have not yet got as far as the God of any actual religion, still less the

God of that particular religion called Christianity. We have only got as far

as a Somebody or Something behind the  Moral Law. We are not taking anything

from the Bible or the  Churches, we are trying to see  what we can  find out

about this Somebody on our own steam. And I want to make it quite clear that

what  we find out on our own  steam  is something that gives us a shock.  We

have  two  bits  of evidence about  the Somebody. One is the universe He has

made. If  we  used  that as our  only clue, then I  think we should  have to

conclude  that He was a  great artist  (for the universe is a very beautiful

place),  but  also that He is quite merciless  and no friend to man (for the

universe is a  very dangerous  and  terrifying  place).  The  other  bit  of

evidence is that Moral  Law which He  has put  into our minds. And this is a

better bit of evidence than the other, because it is inside information. You

find out more about God from the Moral Law than from the universe in general

just as you find out more about a man by listening to his conversation  than

by looking at a house he has built. Now, from this second bit of evidence we

conclude that the Being behind the universe is intensely interested in right

conduct -in  fair  play,  unselfishness,  courage,  good faith, honesty  and

truthfulness.  In  that  sense  we  should agree with the  account given  by

Christianity and some other religions, that God is "good." But do not let us

go too fast here. The Moral Law does not give  us any  grounds for  thinking

that God is "good" in the sense of being indulgent, or soft, or sympathetic.

There is nothing indulgent about the  Moral Law. It is as  hard as nails. It

tells you to do the straight thing and it does not seem to care how painful,

or dangerous,  or difficult it is to do. If God  is like the Moral Law, then

He is not soft. It is no use, at this stage, saying that what  you mean by a

"good"  God is  a God who  can forgive.  You  are going too quickly. Only  a

Person can forgive. And we have not yet got as far as a personal God-only as

far as a power, behind the Moral Law, and more  like a mind than it is  like

anything  else. But  it  may  still be very  unlike a Person.  If it is pure

impersonal mind, there may be no  tense in asking it  to make allowances for

you  or let you off, just as there is no sense in  asking the multiplication

table to let you off when  you do your sums wrong.  You are bound to get the

wrong answer. And it is no use either saying that if there is a God of  that

sort-an  impersonal  absolute goodness-then  you do not like Him and are not

going to bother about Him. For the trouble is that one part of you is on His

side and really agrees with  His disapproval of human greed and trickery and

exploitation. You may want Him to make an exception in your own case, to let

you off  this one time; but you know at bottom  that unless the power behind

the  world really  and unalterably detests that sort of behaviour,  then  He

cannot be  good.

 

On  the other hand, we  know  that  if there does exist  an

absolute goodness  it must hate most of what we do. That is the terrible fix

we are in. If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all

our efforts are in the long run hopeless. But  if it is, then we  are making

ourselves  enemies  to  that  goodness every day, and are not  in  the least

likely to do  any  better tomorrow,  and  so our  case is hopeless again. We

cannot do without it. and we cannot do with it. God  is the only comfort, He

is also the  supreme terror:  the thing we  most need and  the thing we most

want to hide from. He is our only possible-ally, and we  have made ourselves

His enemies. Some people talk  as  if  meeting the gaze of absolute goodness

would be  fun.  They need to think  again. They are  still only playing with

religion. Goodness is either the great safety or  the great danger-according

to the way you react to it.  And we have reacted the wrong way. Now my third

point. When I  chose to get to my real subject in this roundabout way, I was

not trying to play any kind of  trick  on you. I had  a different reason. My

reason was that Christianity simply does not make sense until you have faced

the  sort  of  facts  I have  been describing.  Christianity tells people to

repent and promises them forgiveness. It therefore has  nothing (as far as I

know) to say to people who do not know they  have done anything to repent of

and  who do  not feel that they need any forgiveness.  It is after you  have

realised  that there is a real  Moral Law, and a  Power  behind the law, and

that you have  broken  that law and put yourself wrong with that Power-it is

after all this,  and not a moment sooner, that  Christianity begins to talk.

 

When you  know you are sick, you will listen, to. the doctor.  When you have

realised that our position is nearly  desperate you will begin to understand

what the Christians are talking about. They offer  an explanation of how  we

got into our present state of both hating goodness and loving it. They offer

an explanation of  how  God  can be this impersonal mind  at the back of the

Moral Law and yet also a  Person. They tell you how the demands of this law,

which you and I cannot meet,  have been met  on  our behalf, how God Himself

becomes a man to save man from the disapproval  of God. It  is an old  story

and if you want to go into it you will no doubt consult people who have more

authority to talk  about it than I  have. All I am doing is to ask people to

face  the  facts-to understand  the  questions which Christianity  claims to

answer. And  they are very  terrifying facts. I wish it  was possible to say

something  more agreeable. But  I must say what I think  true. Of course,  I

quite agree  that the  Christian religion is,  in  the long run, a  thing of

unspeakable comfort. But it  does not  begin  in comfort; it begins  in  the

dismay  I have been describing, and it is no use at  all trying to go  on to

that comfort without first going through that dismay. In religion, as in war

and everything else, comfort is the one  thing you cannot get by looking for

it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look  for

comfort you will not get either comfort or truth- only soft soap and wishful

thinking to  begin with and, in the end,  despair. Most of us  have got over

the prewar wishful thinking about international politics. It is time we  did

the same about religion.