This post is the first in a short series on book 1 of Mere Christianity. Today’s goal is to summarize Lewis’s arguments in the first chapter. In particular, I hope to define natural law, but more importantly to follow and Lewis’s argument on the natural law to the existence of God, Himself. Lewis is tapping into the great Western tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas. We will eventually get to Aquinas and the depths of natural law, but we will be going through it as Lewis goes through it.
Briefly for those not familiar with Mere Christianity, it began as series of broadcast talks on the BBC from 1941 to 1944 during World War II (those were incredibly dark and trying times, but can you imagine the likes of C.S. Lewis, King George VI, and Prime Minister Winston Churchill coming to you via the radio). These talks were soon published into three different volumes. Eventually those volumes were combined into a single book with a preface by Lewis under the now familiar title, Mere Christianity. For my thoughts on his wonderful preface, you may view them at the link below. In this series I will alter between Moral Law, Natural Law, and the Law of Human Nature, as these all are regarding the same concept, and I wish the reader to make similar conclusions.
Lewis begins his first chapter with the simple example of “everyone has heard quarrelling.” Indeed, this schoolteacher and parent of three young boys has heard plenty of quarrelling. Often it is more of a humorous nature but sometimes it is more of a serious matter. Either way, every argument involves an appeal to some standard according to Lewis. Rarely does someone reject that standard, though perhaps that occurs more now than in Lewis’s day. Instead, the other person appeals to the same standard and that they were only misunderstood or misrepresented. A frequent appeal I hear made in my own house by quarreling children is, “I am right, you are wrong.” That appeal is to a shared standard. Lewis in his opening chapter calls this the Natural Law, the standard of Right and Wrong.
Lewis is not referring to Newtonian Laws of Nature, but to the Law of Human Nature. While gravity cannot reject the laws by which it operates, the Law of Human Nature can be rejected and ignored by people. It is rejected and ignored all the time. Lewis argues that across human history and cultures there has been a shared sense of Right and Wrong (there may be a few individuals here and there that disagree).
There is indeed such a standard. Lewis argues that if there weren’t then his own context of World War II would be nonsense. He clarifies that the absence of an accepted standard would allow the views of Nazi Germany to be equal to all other views. The war would have not been allowed the use of right and wrong. If I may put it this way, not all ideas are created equal. This is our takeaway from this first chapter. There are better ideas and beliefs and there are worse ideas and beliefs. And they are judged on a scale to a standard. A state of equality or relativity cannot exist between all ideas.
Lewis continues that this truth of Right and Wrong was suppressed by the Nazi regime. Might I add that their own covering and hiding of their actions reveal a conscience that is aware of morality and a natural right and wrong (Hermann Goring’s own grandstanding at the Nuremberg Trials reveals a mind that knew his actions, if found out, would be punishable by conscience and law). Lewis mentions his book, The Abolition of Man, where he discusses a common moral law throughout many ancient civilizations. Consider that there is no culture in world history that has celebrated cowardice. My mind always thinks of George Costanza from the show, “Seinfeld”, or Michael Scott from “The Office” leaving a building they believe to be on fire before everyone else (for George that everyone else is mainly women and young children). The audience is not supposed to see these characters as exemplary men. They are to be laughed at and rightfully so. They left the vulnerable behind. No culture applauds “men” like that. No culture ever has. We are holding such examples to a universal standard. This standard that transcends history and cultures has required no agreement but has been accepted (though not always practiced). This standard is the Moral Law. It is a natural law that has been ingrained within humanity.
That is the focus of this first post to argue alongside C.S. Lewis that there is such a standard, and that you and I know and accept that standard. We do. Just wait until you have been wronged. Lewis rightly argues that we lean into this standard especially when we are the ones that have been wronged. Justice and the law become much more important when we are the victim. It is a weighty standard. One that all people struggle to uphold. It is nevertheless there. No excuse can keep us from it.
We have an accepted and known moral law. It is often used whether we realize it or not. There are different ideas out there concerning morality. However, not all ideas on morality are created equal. There is where Lewis leaves us after his first talk, and where we will end this first post. I’ve avoided turning to Scripture just yet. First, because Lewis operates the same way in his book. Second, because I want to establish the moral law through its own natural language before turning to Scripture.
One final note. As we continue in this short series, my hope is for you to read Lewis. This post is the beginning, not the end. Spend much more time reading Lewis than reading about Lewis. And he will send you onto other greats. You will be sent into the depths of Scripture, Homer, Plato, Aquinas, Austen, etc. The teacher in me hopes and longs for that. Cheers.