from
God in the Dock:
Essays on Theology and Ethics

by
C. S. Lewis
edited by Walter Hooper

C. S. Lewis

These pages:
quick index to selections
Part I, 1-9
Part I, 10-23 (this page)
Part II
Parts III and IV

Editor:

Walter Hooper

Categories:

the Inklings

Christianity

index pages:
authors
titles
categories
topics
translators

quick index to quoted selections from God in the Dock
Part I   1:   Evil and God
  2:   Miracles
  3:   Dogma and the Universe
  4:   Answers to Questions on Christianity
  5:   Myth Became Fact
  6:   ‘Horrid Red Things’
  7:   Religion and Science
  9:   The Grand Miracle
10:   Christian Apologetics
11:   Work and Prayer
13:   On the Transmission of Christianity
15:   The Founding of the Oxford Socratic Club
16:   Religion Without Dogma?
17:   Some Thoughts
18:   ‘The Trouble With “X”...’
23:   Must Our Image of God Go?
Part II   1:   Dangers of National Repentance
  2:   Two Ways With the Self
  3:   Meditation on the Third Commandment
  4:   On the Reading of Old Books
  6:   Meditation in a Tool Shed
  8:   The Decline of Religion
11:   Priestesses in the Church?
12:   God in the Dock
14:   Revival or Decay?
16:   Cross-Examination
Part III  1:   ‘Bulverism’ or, The Foundation of 20th Century Thought
  2:   First and Second Things
  4:   The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
  7:   Delinquents in the Snow
  8:   Is Progress Possible? Willing Slaves of the Welfare State
  9:   We Have No ‘Right to Happiness’
Part IV
(Letters)
  4:   Mr. C. S. Lewis on Christianity
  7:   The Church’s Liturgy, Invocation, and Invocation of Saints
  8:   The Holy Name
11:   Pittenger-Lewis and Version Vernacular

Part I (continued)

Part I: 10

Christian Apologetics

1945
Copyright © 1970 by The Trustees of the Estate of C. S. Lewis

The phenomenon which is troublesome, which doesn’t fit in with the current scientific theories, is the phenomenon which compels reconsideration and thus leads to new knowledge. Science progresses because scientists, instead of running away from such troublesome phenomena or hushing them up, are constantly seeking them out. In the same way, there will be progress in Christian knowledge only as long as we accept the challenge of the difficult or repellent doctrines. A ‘liberal’ Christianity which considers itself free to alter the Faith whenever the Faith looks perplexing or repellent must be completely stagnant. Progress is made only into a resisting material.
[...] Theology teaches us what ends are desirable and what means are lawful, while Politics teaches what means are effective. Thus Theology tells us that every man ought to have a decent wage. Politics tells us by what means this is likely to be attained. Theology tells us which of these means are consistent with justice and charity. On the political question guidance comes not from Revelation but from natural prudence, knowledge of complicated facts and ripe experience. If we have these qualifications we may, of course, state our political opinions: but then we must make it quite clear that we are giving our personal judgement and have no command from the Lord. Not many priests have these qualifications. Most political sermons teach the congregation nothing except what newspapers are taken at the Rectory.
The very idea of ‘miracle’ presupposes knowledge of the Laws of Nature; you can’t have the idea of an exception until you have the idea of a rule.
Of course it should be pointed out that, though all salvation is through Jesus, we need not conclude that He cannot save those who have not explicitly accepted Him in this life. And it should (at least in my judgement) be made clear that we are not pronouncing all other religions to be totally false, but rather saying that in Christ whatever is true in all religions is consummated and perfected. But, on the other hand, I think we must attack wherever we meet it the nonsensical idea that mutually exclusive propositions about God can both be true.

text checked (see note) Sep 2020

top of page

Part I: 11

Work and Prayer

The Coventry Evening Telegraph (28 May 1945)

Copyright © 1970 by The Trustees of the Estate of C. S. Lewis

He gave us small creatures the dignity of being able to contribute to the course of events in two different ways. He made the matter of the universe such that we can (in those limits) do things to it; that is why we can wash our own hands and feed or murder our fellow creatures. Similarly, He made His own plan or plot of history such that it admits a certain amount of free play and can be modified in response to our prayers.
The kind of causality we exercise by work is, so to speak, divinely guaranteed, and therefore ruthless. By it we are free to do ourselves as much harm as we please. But the kind which we exercise by prayer is not like that; God has left Himself a discretionary power.

Prayers are not always — in the crude, factual sense of the word — ‘granted’. This is not because prayer is a weaker kind of causality, but because it is a stronger kind. When it ‘works’ at all it works unlimited by space and time. That is why God has retained a discretionary power of granting or refusing it; except on that condition prayer would destroy us.

text checked (see note) Sep 2020

top of page

Part I: 13

On the Transmission of Christianity

Preface to B.G. Sandhurst’s How Heathen is Britain? (1946)

Copyright © 1970 by The Trustees of the Estate of C. S. Lewis

If we had noticed that the young men of the present day found it harder and harder to get the right answers to sums, we should consider that this had been adequately explained the moment we discovered that schools had for some years ceased to teach arithmetic. After that discovery we should turn a deaf ear to people who offered explanations of a vaguer and larger kind — people who said that the influence of Einstein had sapped the ancestral belief in fixed numerical relations, or that gangster films had undermined the desire to get right answers, or that the evolution of consciousness was now entering on its post-arithmetical phase. Where a clear and simple explanation completely covers the facts no other explanation is in court. If the younger generation have never been told what the Christians say and never heard any arguments in defence of it, then their agnosticism or indifference is fully explained. There is no need to look any further: no need to talk about the general intellectual climate of the age, the influence of mechanistic civilization on the character of urban life. And having discovered that the cause of their ignorance is lack of instruction, we have also discovered the remedy.

This very obvious fact — that each generation is taught by an earlier generation — must be kept very firmly in mind. [...] The moment we forget this we begin to talk nonsense about education. We talk of the views of contemporary adolescence as if some peculiarity in contemporary adolescence had produced them out of itself. In reality, they are usually a delayed result — for the mental world also has its time-bombs — of obsolete adolescence, now middle-aged and dominating its form room. Hence the futility of many schemes for education. None can give to another what he does not possess himself. No generation can bequeath to its successor what it has not got. [...] We shall all admit that a man who knows no Greek himself cannot teach Greek to his form: but it is equally certain that a man whose mind was formed in a period of cynicism and disillusion, cannot teach hope or fortitude.

text checked (see note) Sep 2020

top of page

Part I: 15

The Founding of the Oxford Socratic Club

Preface to The Socratic Digest, No. 1 (1942-1943)

Copyright © 1970 by The Trustees of the Estate of C. S. Lewis

In any fairly large and talkative community such as a university there is always the danger that those who think alike should gravitate together into coteries where they will henceforth encounter opposition only in the emasculated form of rumour that the outsiders say thus and thus. The absent are easily refuted, complacent dogmatism thrives, and differences of opinion are embittered by group hostility. Each group hears not the best, but the worst, that the other group can say.
Christianity is not merely what a man does with his solitude. It is not even what God does with His solitude. It tells of God descending into the coarse publicity of history and there enacting what can — and must — be talked about.

text checked (see note) Sep 2020

top of page

Part I: 16

Religion Without Dogma?

’A Christian Reply to Professor Price’, The Phoenix Quarterly, vol. I, No. 1 (Autumn 1946)

reprinted in The Socratic Digest, No. 4 [1948]

Copyright © 1970 by The Trustees of the Estate of C. S. Lewis

From my own point of view, the example of Judaism and Buddhism is of immense importance. The system, which is meaningless without a doctrine of immortality, regards immortality as a nightmare, not as a prize. The religion which, of all ancient religions, is most specifically religious, that is, at once most ethical and most numinous, is hardly interested in the question. [...] Until a certain spiritual level has been reached, the promise of immortality will always operate as a bribe which vitiates the whole religion and infinitely inflames those very self-regards which religion must cut down and uproot. For the essence of religion, in my view, is the thirst for an end higher than natural ends; the finite self’s desire for, and acquiescence in, and self-rejection in favor of, an object wholly good and wholly good for it.

What is the use of saying that all events are subject to laws if you also say that every event which befalls the individual unit of matter is not subject to laws. Indeed, if we define nature as the system of events in space-time governed by interlocking laws, then the new physics has really admitted that something other than nature exists. For if nature means the interlocking system, then the behaviour of the individual unit is outside nature. We have admitted what may be called the sub-natural. After that admission what confidence is left us that there may not be a supernatural as well? It may be true that the lawlessness of the little events fed into nature from the sub-natural is alwyas ironed out by the law of averages. It does not follow that great events could not be fed into her by the supernatural: nor that they also would allow themselves to be ironed out.
If a miracle occurs it is by definition an interruption of regularity. To discover a regularity is by definition not to discover its interruptions, even if they occur. You cannot discover a railway accident by studying Bradshaw: only by being there when it happens or hearing about it afterwards from someone who was. [...] But surely this does not mean that a student of Bradshaw is logically forced to deny the possibility of railway accidents. This point of scientific method merely shows (what no one to my knowledge ever denied) that if miracles did occur, science, as science, could not prove, or disprove, their occurrence.
Every particular thought (whether it is a judgment of fact or a judgment of value) is always and by all men discounted the moment they believe that it can be explained, without remainder, as the result of irrational causes. Whenever you know what the other man is saying is wholly due to his complexes or to a bit of bone pressing on his brain, you cease to attach any importance to it. But if naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes. Therefore, all thoughts would be equally worthless. Therefore, naturalism is worthless. If it is true, then we can know no truths. It cuts its own throat.
The god of whom no dogmas are believed is a mere shadow. He will not produce that fear of the Lord in which wisdom begins, and, therefore, will not produce that love in which it is consummated. [...] There is in this minimal religion nothing that can convince, convert, or (in the higher sense) console; nothing, therefore, which can restore vitality to our civilization. It is not costly enough.

text checked (see note) Sep 2020

top of page

Part I: 17

Some Thoughts

published in The First Decade: Ten Years of Work of the Medical Missionaries of Mary, 1948

Copyright © 1970 by The Trustees of the Estate of C. S. Lewis

Of all men, we hope most of death; yet nothing will reconcile us to — well, its unnaturalness. We know that we were not made for it; we know how it crept into our destiny as an intruder; and we know Who has defeated it. Because Our Lord is risen we know that on one level it is an enemy already disarmed; but because we know that the natural level also is God’s creation we cannot cease to fight against the death which mars it, as against all those other blemishes upon it, against pain and poverty, barbarism and ignorance. Because we love something else more than this world we love even this world better than those who know no other.

text checked (see note) Sep 2020

top of page

Part I: 18

‘The Trouble With “X”...’

Bristol Diocesan Gazette, vol. XXVII (August 1948)

Copyright © 1970 by The Trustees of the Estate of C. S. Lewis

God has made it a rule for Himself that He won’t alter people’s character by force. He can and will alter them — but only if the people will let Him. In that way He has really and truly limited His power. Sometimes we wonder why He has done so, or even wish that He hadn’t. But apparently He thinks it worth doing. He would rather have a world of free beings, with all its risks, than a world of people who did right like machines because they couldn’t do anything else.

He sees all the characters: I see all except my own. But the second difference is this. He loves the people in spite of their faults. He goes on loving. He does not let go. Don’t say, ‘It’s all very well for Him; He hasn’t got to live with them.’ He has. He is inside them as well as outside them. He is with them far more intimately and closely and incessantly than we can ever be. Every vile thought within their minds (and ours), every moment of spite, envy, arrogance, greed and self-conceit comes right up against His patient and longing love, and grieves His spirit more than it grieves ours.

The more we can imitate God in both these respects, the more progress we shall make. We must love ‘X’ more; and we must learn to see ourselves as a person of exactly the same kind.

It’s not a question of God ‘sending’ us to Hell. In each of us there is something growing up which will of itself be Hell unless it is nipped in the bud.

text checked (see note) Sep 2020

top of page

Part I: 23

Must Our Image of God Go?

The Observer (24 March 1963)

Copyright © 1970 by The Trustees of the Estate of C. S. Lewis

If I said God is ‘outside’ or ‘beyond’ space-time, I should mean ‘as Shakespeare is outside The Tempest’; i.e. its scenes and persons do not exhaust his being. We have always thought of God as being not only ‘in’ ‘above’, but also ‘below’ us: as the depth of ground. We can imaginatively speak of Father ‘in heaven’ yet also of the everlasting arms that are ‘beneath’. We do not understand why the Bishop is so anxious to canonize the one image and forbid the other. We admit his freedom to use which he prefers. We claim our freedom to use both.

text checked (see note) Sep 2020

top of page

Quotes from writings in God in the Dock continue here.


Background graphic copyright © 2003 by Hal Keen