C.S. Lewis has already made a variety of major errors in the first 90 pages of Mere Christianity, at which point the subject at hand has shifted to sexual morality as the Bible describes it. After coming unnaturally close to a purely rationalistic understanding of "modesty," Lewis writes as if the first half of the 1900s was dominated by a fixation on sexual openness, but this is not necessarily the case today, much less many decades ago! Sexual legalism, which Lewis knowingly or unknowingly endorses in the book at times, is very closely connected to exaggerations of how sexually open a society is:
"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. 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 . . . Modern people are always saying, 'Sex is nothing to be ashamed of.' . . . 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." (98)
It is very ironic that Lewis alludes to the supposed lack of prudery in his era when even the current time is not consistently, thoroughly free of prudery in any sense! Even today, there is a widespread horror at the thought of children seeing healthy sexual behaviors in entertainment, and there is a general reluctance for many people to openly talk about specific aspects of Biblically valid forms of sexual expression like whether or not they masturbate, even when they are willing to discuss other ways they do or do not sexually express themselves more openly. Prudery is certainly declining, but it still has a very thorough stronghold in Western culture. Opposition to forms of sexual expression helps keep evangelicals feeling as if struggles against sin are hopeless, as sexual feelings are natural for many people. In turn, this might lead people to conclude that since they cannot avoid sexual feelings, they cannot avoid sinning:
"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." (101)
Logically and Biblically, it is not at all impossible for any individual human to reach moral perfection. Only if there is some specific sin that all people or each individual is incapable of avoiding would the claim made by Lewis here be true, and yet there is no such sin. Jesus even commands people to be morally perfect in Matthew 5:48, and there are clear examples of Old Testament figures the Bible describes as morally blameless (like Job). No one needs God's help to morally better themselves, although divine revelation is necessary for moral epistemology because morality hinges on God's nature and conscience cannot establish moral obligations. Of course, the reconciliation of sinful beings to God requires God's help to absolve the guilt of past sins, but moral betterment does not require salvation or divine assistance.
Lewis soon makes another set of statements that merit refutation:
"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 Christianity regards 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 pleasures of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and back-biting, the pleasures of power, of hatred." (102-103)
Premarital sex that is noncommittal is hardly one of the graver sins, but many other sexual sins involving interpersonal acts are capital offenses according to the Bible. God cannot therefore be validly said to endorse the idea that interpersonal sexual behaviors that are sinful are the "least bad of all sins." Even the examples Lewis provides of the worst sins are pathetic: sins that occur on a purely mental level cannot be the worst! Rape and certain forms of torture are the only sins that can legitimately be said to have a greater depravity than others, for they are the ultimate disregard for the only beings the Bible says are made in God's image. Sexual sin is not automatically the worst category of evil, but it can be far worse than mere pride or "back-biting."
Moreover, hatred is not even sinful in itself. The motive of hatred, the object of hatred, and whether or not the person doing the hating treats whoever they despise unjustly or wishes for them to be abused or slandered are the only things that can make hatred evil on the Christian worldview. Hate is only a passionate dislike, and God himself is said to hate those who love violence (Psalm 5:5). Since the aforementioned types of assault (such as rape) and torture can be the most violent kinds of actions possible, hating the people who commit such sins cannot be sinful if God's nature defines morality. As he is wrong on so many other points, Lewis fails here yet again.
No comments:
Post a Comment