Francois Ntone

C. S. Lewis an Inspiration to Many Christians

I have a great deal of respect for C. S. Lewis, and I believe he has been an inspiration to many Christians.  I have read several of his books that aim at explaining the basics of Christian thought to a wide audience.  Many years ago, I read his book Mere Christianity and was quite impressed by his ability to explain in simple terms what makes a Christian different. However, I never forgot the instinctive disagreement I had with some statements he made in Chapter 7 of the book, which discusses forgiveness.  At the time, I had no interest in finding any justification for my disagreement with this learned and highly influential Christian.  But lately, I have been a lot more disturbed by the violence that is a permanent feature of world events, and at the same time, I think I have somewhat sharpened my own understanding of biblical teaching on such matters.  My writing is motivated by the feeling I have that Christians must, more than others, promote the pursuit of world peace in true conformity with the teaching of Christ.

A Quick Review of Chapter 7 of Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis

In Chapter 7 of Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis correctly points out that the idea of forgiveness, as presented in the New Testament, is a divine requirement that cannot be circumvented:

“There is no slightest suggestion that we are offered forgiveness on any other terms.  It is made perfectly clear that if we do not forgive we shall not be forgiven.  There are no two ways about it.”

He is also right in linking forgiveness to the command “love your neighbor as yourself”, which is naturally extended to loving enemies as well as friends.  He then explains at length that there is something about humans that makes them love themselves even though they are aware of their own imperfections.  In a similar manner, Christians are urged to love even people whose behavior may appear repugnant, a requirement that is summarized in the Christian saying: “Hate sin but not the sinner”.  According to C. S. Lewis, loving such people means wishing that they are not as evil as they may appear, or that they will be transformed into better human beings, rather than delighting in the thought that they are irreversibly evil and doomed.

Capital Punishment and Other Christian Violence

My objection to C. S. Lewis’ thinking begins when he makes the following statement:

“Now a step further.  Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him?  No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment – even to death.  If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged.  It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy.  I always have thought so, ever since I became a Christian, and long before the war, and I still think so now that we are at peace.”

This statement is generally in agreement with the biblical teaching that righteousness leads to rewards and wickedness leads to punishment.  In the Old Testament, the Law of Moses sets up a system of rules and regulations to guide behavior in the Promised Land, and a system of penalties associated with violations of those rules and regulations.  In particular, capital punishment is a big part of the system of penalties.  However, the prophets have visions of a future, more enlightened era.  In this new era, God himself will transform his people so that they will be more naturally inclined to please him and the Law of Moses will become obsolete.  Jeremiah, for example, has the following pronouncements about a new covenant:

“’This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,’ declares the Lord.
‘I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘’Know the Lord,”
because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,’ declares the Lord.” (Jeremiah 31-33-34)

Isaiah goes as far as saying that the coming Servant of the Lord will himself be the new covenant (Isaiah 42:6).  In fulfillment of these ideas, the New Testament presents a picture where the Christ defines the new morality associated with the new covenant, where those who follow him are led to do what is right by God himself through the power of the Holy Spirit.  Does the Christ maintain the system of rules and penalties proposed by Moses? The answer is that some rules remain valid because they are consistent with what we might call the “Law of Christ”, but there is no indication whatsoever that the Christ maintains the penalties.  In fact, the only instance where he makes a clear statement on the penalty system is in the story of the prostitute about to be stoned in John 8:1-11.  His answer is well known, and suggests that sinners have no authority to inflict capital punishment on other sinners, which obviously contradicts the Law of Moses (remember everybody is a sinner).  On the other hand, the Christ constantly reminds his audience about a coming judgment which leads to eternal life for those who do the Father’s will, and some form of damnation for those who do not. This puts him in agreement with Old Testament prophets who announced the coming of the Day of the Lord, where God will judge the righteous and the wicked.  In the New Testament, that Day of the Lord simply becomes the Second Coming of Christ.  However, the main idea remains that judgment belongs to the Lord, not to man.

Jesus’ main focus was to transform the world into what he calls the kingdom of God.  That transformation starts with the transformation of individuals into “sons of God” who, in essence, think and act like him.  In a very real sense, they are above the law of the land because they live by the Spirit.  As the apostle Paul puts it,

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.  Against such things there is no law.” Galatians 5:22-23)

Human behavior in the kingdom of God is shaped by the self-regulating  influence of the Holy Spirit, and there is no need for a punishment system designed for life in the world.  I am afraid Lewis was not accounting for that basic fact when he wrote the above statement.  New Testament teaching presents the kingdom of God and the world as two incompatible systems, and Jesus and his apostles intended to replace one with the other.  It is true that during the transitional period, Christians are called to obey the rules of the land and submit to authorities.  But that in itself does not meet Christian objectives: if Christians are content with merely obeying the law of the land, then the kingdom of God stops advancing.  Indeed, progress towards establishing the kingdom of God on earth only occurs because Jesus’ followers are uncompromisingly committed to his rules, no matter what the cost is.  The judge in Lewis’ example does have a dilemma: if he is truly a Christian, then he must acknowledge that he is a sinner and, according to Jesus, has no authority to impose the death penalty.  However, because he happens to be a judge by profession, he must pronounce the sentence that is dictated by the law of the land.  Frankly, I would not want to be in his shoes.  That Lewis was comfortable with that situation surprises me.

Lewis further explains that Jesus condemns murder, not all killing (Matthew 5:21). In reality, we know that Jesus states that mere anger at one’s brother is about as serious as full blown murder, which, I think, substantially raises the bar (Matthew 5:22).  Continuing to use Scripture to validate his view, Lewis then refers to incidents in the New Testament where, according to him, some forms of killing are acceptable simply because they are not explicitly condemned.  For example, when soldiers came to John the Baptist, he told them not to extort money or accuse people falsely, but did not say anything about their profession (Luke 3:14).  Similarly, when a Roman centurion came to him, Jesus healed his servant without asking him to leave the army (Matthew 8:5-13).

Healing as an Act of Grace

The New Testament presents John the Baptist as a very important prophet who announced the coming of the Christ.  However we have to conclude from Jesus’ words that he is not the one we should turn to if we truly want to understand the kingdom of God (Matthew 11:11).  At the same time, his handling of the soldiers is fairly consistent with Jesus’ handling of the centurion.  Therefore, I will only address Jesus’ response.  It is clear that Jesus healed all kinds of people, including sinners and tax collectors.  The only thing he asked of them was faith in the fact that he actually had the power to heal them.  He was responding to a need and did not, in any way, ask them to show proof of righteousness before he healed them.  In other words, Jesus’ response to sickness was an act of grace. Also, his approach to building the kingdom of God was to transform individuals from the inside, beginning with his disciples and later moving to the general public. The story of the centurion in Matthew 8:5-13 does not indicate that Jesus sat with him and taught him everything about the kingdom of God as a precondition for the healing.  On the contrary, the centurion showed his faith and declared that Jesus was capable of healing his servant without even coming to his home, where the servant was at the time. The servant himself was healed without even coming in contact with Jesus.

Lewis’ conclusion is a careless one because the appropriate question is whether Jesus taught his disciples to embrace some form of violence and warfare as an acceptable tool for the building of the kingdom of God.  The New Testament evidence is that he unequivocally condemned that approach when he said “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).  Like the “Christian” judge discussed above, the centurion, after getting fully exposed to the message of the kingdom of God, would have had to face a dilemma since true Christians are, by definition, peacemakers.

Medieval Knights as Models of Christian Behavior?

C. S. Lewis makes the following interesting statement: “The idea of the knight – the Christian in arms for the defense of a good cause – is one of the great Christian ideas.” I suppose he made such a statement because he felt he had adequately demonstrated from Scripture that these were actually Christian ideas.  But Christian ideas have to be consistent with the teaching of Christ and his apostles, and Lewis’ arguments, as shown above, are rather weak.  Neither Christ nor his apostles behaved like knights, and the idea of the knight is merely a misguided adaptation of Christian teaching by the Roman Empire and by Medieval Europe, where violence was a way of life.

I must admit that I have always been quite fascinated by the world of the medieval knights.  Even today, I watch movies about the so-called Dark Ages with interest, and root for the knights, even though I find the shedding of blood more repulsive than I used to.  I do not claim that I am perfect in any way, but hopefully, I am able to separate the entertainment value of the movies from my actual beliefs about Christianity.

Lewis wrote the Chronicles of Narnia book series, which has been very successful and, to a certain extent, represents his views on the issues we have been discussing.  The renowned New Testament scholar John Dominic Crossan, in his 2015 book How to Read the Bible & Still Be a Christian, wrote the following about the series:

“Both the Narnia series and the Left Behind Series go beyond Revelation by having humans – children in the former case and adults in the latter – participate fully in the divine violence of apocalyptic cleansing.”

The Left Behind series is another very successful series that presents violence as an acceptable tool in the Christian arsenal.  Crossan, on the other hand, is a strong advocate of the idea that the Jesus movement was one of non-violent resistance, and this form of resistance is the only one that is consistent with God’s character.  He worries about both human violence and divine violence as depicted in some parts of the Bible.  But he is aware that even the Book of Revelation, with its rather violent images of divine retribution carried out by celestial beings, does not suggest that human followers of Christ are to join in the violence.  It is in that sense that the Narnia series and the Left Behind series “go beyond Revelation”.  I agree with him, but since I am not a theologian, I worry much more about human violence than divine violence.