Latest / Reformed Thinking / Social Morality | C. S. Lewis

Transcript

Social Morality | C. S. Lewis · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to Reformed Thinking, the deep dive where we take
0:03
dense ideas and make them compellingly clear.
0:06
Today we're getting into a really fascinating part of CS
0:08
Lewis's work. We are.
0:10
We're undertaking a deep dive into his analysis of Christian
0:13
social morality, and we're pulling this specifically from
0:16
the final section of Mere Christianity.
0:20
And this isn't just about, you know, personal piety.
0:23
It's about the staggering implications of Christian belief
0:26
for public life, for politics, for economics.
0:29
This is such a vital discussion, especially for the listener who,
0:32
you know, needs quick yet thorough insight into how
0:36
eternal truth applies to our day-to-day affairs, right?
0:39
Our mission today is really to analyze Lewis's claim about how
0:43
Christian principle ought to operate in the public square,
0:45
and we have to confront this tension he highlights.
0:47
What's the main tension? It's the gap between the
0:50
universal, timeless moral requirements and, well, the
0:54
specific, constantly shifting landscape of social programs and
0:57
technical policy. And what we find in Lewis, it's
1:01
definitely not a political manifesto.
1:03
It's more a set of guiding principles and a pretty strong
1:07
warning against intellectual dishonesty.
1:09
And it gives us this fascinating kind of blended picture of what
1:14
a fully Christian society might actually look like.
1:17
This discussion it quickly forces you, the listener, to
1:21
stop asking what political party does my faith support and to
1:25
confront a much more personal question.
1:27
The harder question. Are we seeking an ally to
1:29
confirm our existing biases, or are we ready for a master who
1:33
insists on defining our morality entirely?
1:36
That's our mission today. Let's get into it.
1:38
So Lewis starts with the most basic building block of man to
1:41
man behavior. Let's unpack his assertion that
1:44
Christ did not come to introduce a brand new morality.
1:48
I mean, that really flies in the face of the popular modern idea
1:51
that ethical systems are constantly evolving, that we're
1:54
always getting better. It's the essential starting
1:56
point for Lewis. It really is.
1:57
If you look at the Christian faith as a spiritual system, you
2:00
might expect, you know, completely new social codes.
2:03
But Lewis says no. The foundation for human
2:06
interaction was already there. The Golden Rule, Do as you would
2:10
be done by. He presents it not as some
2:12
radical innovation, but as a perfect summary of what every
2:16
person, deep down, has always known to be right.
2:19
So Lewis is basically arguing for a doctrine of natural law
2:22
here, isn't he? I think he is.
2:24
He's affirming that this moral knowledge is inherent.
2:27
The Golden Rule just gives words to the law that's already
2:30
written on the human heart, which is a concept that's, you
2:32
know, central to the historic understanding of Christian
2:35
anthropology. It means the non believer and
2:38
the Christian. They're starting from the same
2:39
knowledge base when it comes to what's fair.
2:42
That's exactly right, and he uses that observation to make a
2:44
very sharp distinction between genuine moral teaching and what
2:49
he just dismisses as novelty. Right.
2:51
Really great moral teachers, Lewis says.
2:54
They never introduce a new morality.
2:56
If someone comes along claiming to have invented an entirely new
2:59
ethical system for how we should treat each other, Lewis just
3:02
puts them squarely in the camp of quacks and cranks.
3:05
Quacks and cranks. They're not building on reality,
3:08
they're trying to redesign the universe.
3:09
That distinction is so important because it reframes the whole
3:13
task of the Church in the social.
3:14
Sphere it does. If morality isn't new, then the
3:18
job of the teacher isn't instruction in the sense of, you
3:22
know, delivering unfamiliar information.
3:24
We aren't developing new commandments, we're just
3:26
enforcing old ones. And that shifts the focus from
3:29
an intellectual problem to a moral 1.
3:32
A failure of the will. Exactly a moral failure.
3:35
Lewis quotes Doctor Johnson, who observed that people need to be
3:38
reminded more often than they need to be instructed.
3:41
We have the knowledge of what's good.
3:43
Our problem is we forget, or more accurately, we willfully
3:48
avoid it. I think we need to spend some
3:50
time on the analogies he uses for this.
3:52
Because they're so vivid, they capture this constant human
3:55
tendency to just avoid moral difficulty.
3:58
They're great. The whole effort of Christian
4:00
social teaching, as he frames it, is about dragging us back
4:03
again and again to those simple principles we're so anxious to
4:06
get around. Yes, he gives 2 fantastic images
4:10
of what this difficult, repetitive work looks like.
4:13
The first is the analogy of bringing a horse back time after
4:17
time to a fence it refused to jump.
4:20
The horse knows the fence is there, it knows what's required,
4:23
but every single time it tries to veer off looking for an
4:27
easier path around the obstacle, the fence isn't moving and the
4:31
riders command isn't changing. And the rider, the moral
4:34
teacher, doesn't say, well, you know, if you won't jump the
4:37
fence, I guess I'll design a nice ramp for you.
4:39
The instruction stays the same. And the second analogy is the
4:43
child trying to shirk the most difficult part of a lesson.
4:47
The teacher doesn't change the curriculum or simplify the math
4:50
just because the student finds it hard.
4:52
The teacher insists the child returned to that point
4:54
affliction until the obstacle is overcome.
4:57
In both of those cases, the difficulty is not cognitive,
5:00
it's volitional. It's about the will.
5:02
We understand the golden rule instantly.
5:04
We know what do as you would be done by means when our neighbor
5:08
is deciding something that affects our welfare, the
5:10
difficulty is and doing it when it cuts directly against our
5:13
financial interests or our professional ambition or just
5:16
our sense of personal comfort. So if the foundation of Lewis
5:21
social thought is that the source of our conflict is a
5:24
failure of the will, that we already know the moral law and
5:28
just refuse to obey it, that dramatically changes what we
5:31
should expect Christianity to provide in the way of solutions.
5:35
Absolutely. The implication is huge.
5:37
It means social morality isn't going to be solved by some
5:40
ingenious new political theory or a flawless economic model.
5:44
It requires A fundamental submission to what we already
5:47
know is right, something we keep trying to get away with,
5:49
avoiding a problem of the heart, not a problem of the
5:52
spreadsheet. OK, so if Christianity isn't
5:55
introducing a new moral code and its core social teaching is just
5:58
the universally recognized Golden rule, then the next
6:01
logical question is what role does it play in shaping the
6:04
specific mechanics of society? You know, things like government
6:08
budgets or trade agreements. Does Lewis offer a detailed
6:11
blueprint for a Christian state? And he answers that question
6:15
with a very strong no. And the reason for that no is
6:19
really crucial. Lewis states very clearly that
6:23
Christianity does not profess to have a detailed political
6:26
program. No action.
6:27
Plan. No specific actionable plan for
6:30
applying the Golden Rule to a specific society at a specific
6:33
time. And why is that deliberate
6:36
omission so necessary for the faith?
6:38
I mean, if we believe it's the universal truth, why shouldn't
6:41
it come with universal legislation that solves all our
6:44
political problems? Because the nature of
6:46
Christianity is that it's meant for all people at all times.
6:49
OK, just think about the span of human history and culture it has
6:52
to cover. You've got nomadic tribes in the
6:54
desert 2 millennia go and then you have highly specialized
6:58
industrialized economies today. Worlds apart.
7:01
Completely. A specific policy or a detailed
7:03
program that was suited for, say, 1st century Roman law or
7:07
16th century feudalism would be utterly unsuited and probably
7:11
destructive to 21st century global markets.
7:14
So it's universality, the fact that it's perpetual, that
7:17
quality actually stops it from providing the technical details
7:20
of human governance or economics.
7:21
If the Bible mandated, for instance, a specific form of
7:24
land ownership or a detailed income tax calculation, it would
7:29
anchor the faith to one single, fleeting, political awful
7:31
moment. Precisely.
7:33
And Lewis frames this by drawing a critical boundary between
7:37
theology and specialized human knowledge, what he calls the
7:40
ordinary human Arts and Sciences.
7:42
Christianity was never intended to replace or supersede those
7:45
things. It operates on a different,
7:47
higher level. Can you elaborate on that
7:49
distinction? It sounds like he's trying to
7:50
protect the domain of human ingenuity while still keeping it
7:54
subject to a moral compass. Well, look at the examples he
7:57
provides. When the faith tells you to feed
7:59
the hungry, that's a core moral command.
8:01
It does not, and it cannot give you lessons in cookery.
8:04
The command is divine, the execution is technical.
8:08
The techniques for nutrition, for food safety, for large scale
8:11
preparation and supply chain management, those are all still
8:14
the province of human culinary arts, agriculture and logistics.
8:19
And if it tells you to read Scripture for your spiritual
8:21
benefit, it doesn't then give you lessons in the nuances of
8:25
Hebrew conjugation, or coin Greek syntax, or even English
8:28
grammar. No, those are distinct fields of
8:31
knowledge, and they're necessary for the command to be carried
8:33
out effectively. But they're separate from the
8:35
command itself. The divine call requires human
8:39
expertise to implement it. Therefore, the faith's function
8:43
is dual, and this is where we really need to differentiate the
8:45
roles. First, Christianity acts as a.
8:48
Director. A director.
8:50
It sets all those human Arts and Sciences, cookery, economics,
8:53
law, engineering to the right jobs.
8:56
It defines the moral ends they have to pursue.
8:58
OK, so a secular economist might define success as, say, abstract
9:03
GDP growth, right? Whereas a Christian director
9:06
insists that economic policy has to prioritize justice and the
9:10
welfare of the weakest members of society.
9:12
So that sets the moral boundary, but what about the practical
9:16
motivation? That's where the second function
9:17
comes in, the source of energy. Yes, the energy source.
9:21
Once the faith has told the human art what goal it must
9:24
pursue, it then provides the motivation and the moral stamina
9:28
to pursue it honestly. It gives those arts new life,
9:31
new motivation, new clarity if they submit to its direction.
9:36
Let's try to make this concrete for the listener.
9:38
Imagine a scenario. Take a medical researcher
9:41
working on, say, genetics. A secular ethical system might
9:45
prioritize efficiency or national gain.
9:48
A Christian framework acting as the director sets the moral
9:52
goal. This research must respect the
9:54
inherent dignity of the human person, no exceptions.
9:58
And then, acting as the source of energy, it gives that
10:00
research of the commitment to resist the temptation to cut
10:02
corners, or fudge data, or pursue prestige over truth, or
10:06
prioritize profitable outcomes over genuinely charitable
10:08
applications. So the researcher still uses
10:11
human science genetics, but the motive force and the ultimate
10:14
moral boundary are dictated by the faith.
10:16
And without that energy, Lewis suggests, even the best policy
10:19
directed toward the right goal will eventually just collapse
10:22
into self-interest and corruption.
10:23
So Christianity provides the moral engine and the navigation
10:27
system, but it insists that the actual vehicle, the expertise,
10:30
the policy, the technical know how that has to be provided by
10:34
dedicated human experts. Exactly.
10:37
It governs the why and the what, but it leaves the how to the
10:40
domain of professional skill. And this distinction between
10:43
director, energy and policy maker brings us directly to a
10:47
very common criticism. 1 Lewis heard a lot, which is often
10:51
phrased as the Church ought to give us a lead.
10:55
You know, if the world is falling apart, people look to
10:57
the visible organized institution, the clergy, for the
11:00
detailed solutions. And Lewis is pretty dismissive
11:03
of this demand. He actually calls the
11:05
expectations silly. Strong word.
11:07
It is, he argues, that when people say they want the church
11:10
to give a lead, they almost always mean they want the
11:12
ordained clergy to come up with a detailed political, economic
11:16
or social program. A budget.
11:17
A healthcare. Plan a set of Labor laws?
11:19
Yeah. And this, he says, reveals a
11:22
misunderstanding of both what the church means in this context
11:25
and what the clergy are actually trained to do.
11:27
So we need to clarify his terms. If we are asking for the Church
11:33
to give a lead in society, who should we actually be referring
11:37
to? He says we should mean the whole
11:39
body of practicing Christians. The laity.
11:42
Yes, the lead should come from believers who happened to
11:46
possess the right secular talents and expertise.
11:49
This means the Christians who are trained as economists, the
11:53
Christians who are magistrates or statesman, the Christian
11:56
schoolmasters, the Christian union organizers.
11:59
They are the ones responsible for directing their professional
12:02
efforts toward applying the Golden Rule in their specific
12:05
domains. This is a radical pushback
12:08
against clericalism, isn't it? It's huge.
12:10
It suggests that the lay professional can't just
12:12
outsource their ethical responsibility to the Sunday
12:15
sermon. The job of application rests
12:17
squarely on the layman. Absolutely, and Lewis defines
12:20
the clergy's role quite specifically.
12:22
They are the people who have been specially trained and set
12:24
aside within the whole church to look after matters concerning us
12:27
as creatures who are going to live forever.
12:29
An eternal focus. Their training is focused on
12:32
eternal realities, on salvation doctrine and pastoral care,
12:37
asking them to analyze the complexities of bond markets or
12:40
draft detailed legislation on minimum wage.
12:44
It's asking them to do a different job, a job for which
12:47
they are not. Trained, and it distracts them
12:50
from their primary eternal duty. It does.
12:52
It becomes an abdication of responsibility by the lay
12:55
professional. They're seeking spiritual
12:57
sanction for technical solutions rather than applying their own
13:01
expertise under spiritual guidance.
13:03
The spiritual guidance the director has already been given
13:07
apply the Golden Rule. He uses that wonderful cultural
13:09
analogy to drive the point home. The one about literature.
13:12
Yes, if you want Christian literature, where does it come
13:14
from? It comes from Christian
13:15
novelists and Christian dramatists.
13:17
Right. It does not come from the bench
13:19
of bishops trying to write plays in their spare time, which is a
13:22
job they are not trained for. So if we apply that to
13:25
economics, a Christian economic policy must come from Christian
13:30
economists. Let's consider a Christian trade
13:32
unionist, Lewis suggests. This person doesn't just lobby
13:36
for higher wages. How would their Christian
13:39
principles change their approach compared to a purely secular
13:42
union organizer? The change would be in the core
13:45
philosophical approach. A secular unionist might focus
13:48
solely on acquiring rights and compensation based on market
13:51
leverage. Just power dynamics, right?
13:54
But a Christian trade unionist directed by Lewis's principles
13:58
would approach the whole issue through the lens of vocation,
14:01
justice and the common good. So they'd still insist on fair
14:04
wages. Oh yes, but they would also
14:07
insist that the worker produce something good, condemn the
14:10
creation of silly luxuries, and focus on the moral dignity of
14:14
necessary labor rather than just maximizing rights irrespective
14:17
of duty. The principles redefine the
14:19
negotiation itself. It's not just about a moral
14:22
person negotiating. It's about a Christian
14:24
professional trying to restructure the system according
14:27
to the commands of the master. That is the essential insight.
14:31
Lewis concludes that if practicing Christians took this
14:33
charge seriously, if the lay professionals integrated their
14:37
faith with their daily work, and if society were ready to receive
14:40
it, you know, if the moral will was there, then what the
14:43
Christian social solution would appear quickly.
14:46
The lag isn't theological. It's professional apathy and
14:50
moral cowardice among those who have the required technical
14:52
skills. We wait for a blueprint from the
14:55
clergy, when the blueprint should be drawn on the desks of
14:58
the Christian professionals themselves.
15:00
So we've established that Louis won't give us a detailed
15:02
blueprint, but he does offer a sketch summary, a summary of
15:07
what a fully Christian society would be like, and it's drawn
15:10
directly from hints in the New Testament.
15:12
And the impression this sketch leaves is, as you said, curious,
15:16
because it resists any easy political labeling.
15:19
This is Louis actively challenging anyone who wants to
15:22
claim Christianity is solely supporting their current
15:25
political party. He lays out two very distinct
15:28
sets of characteristics. Let's start with the economic
15:31
elements, which to a modern mind, definitely sound like what
15:35
we would classify as leftist or communitarian ideals.
15:38
Tell us about those features. What is Lewis's picture of the
15:41
economic engine of this society? 1st The absolute rejection of
15:45
idleness. There would be no passengers or
15:48
parasites. Wow.
15:49
This is based on the Pauline principle.
15:51
If a man does not work, he ought not to eat.
15:54
This establishes a very stern universal vocational requirement
15:58
for every single citizen, regardless of their inherited
16:01
wealth or status. That's a serious indictment of a
16:03
leisure class that produces nothing of value.
16:06
And he also specifies that everyone must work with their
16:08
own hands and the work has to produce something good.
16:11
That qualification, something good, is so key.
16:15
It means that work cannot just be profitable, it has to be
16:18
morally and socially productive. OK, and this leads to the second
16:22
major point, the immediate censure of industries that are
16:25
just dedicated to feeding vanity.
16:28
Lewis specifically says there would be no manufacturer of
16:30
silly luxuries followed by sillier advertisements designed
16:34
to persuade people to buy them. So it's an economic system
16:36
driven by necessity and moral production, not by manufactured
16:40
desire and status signalling. It rejects the manipulation
16:44
that's inherent in modern consumer culture, which is built
16:46
on envy and manufactured obsolescence.
16:50
And finally, on the social interaction within the
16:52
marketplace, he says there is to be no swanker side, no putting
16:55
on airs, no arrogance, no class consciousness that divides
16:58
people based on their wealth or their pedigree.
17:02
To this degree, Lewis acknowledges, a Christian
17:04
society would be what we now call leftist because it demands
17:08
an economic equality of effort and universal participation, and
17:12
it rejects economic snobbery. That sounds like a radical
17:15
flattening of the economic hierarchy.
17:17
But then he pivots, and he pivots sharply to the social and
17:20
familial side. He does, and this sounds almost
17:23
medieval in its commitment to hierarchy and formality.
17:26
This is where the contradiction comes in.
17:27
Exactly. The New Testament sketch he's
17:29
drawing insists on obedience and outward marks of respect.
17:33
And this is not just being polite, it's a structural
17:36
ordered code of deference. And this obedience is demanded
17:39
universally, right? Universally from all citizens to
17:43
properly appointed magistrates and governing authorities.
17:46
It insists on the respect due to authority, even when that
17:49
authority might be inconvenient. And that obedience moves into
17:52
the personal sphere too. It moves right into the bedrock
17:55
of society, the family. There is an insistence on
17:57
respect from children to parents, and then Lewis,
18:00
acknowledging how unpopular this would sound even in the 1940s,
18:04
notes the expectation of deference from wives to
18:06
husbands. And that is the structural
18:09
hierarchical element that the modern equality focused mind
18:13
often tries to just cut out of the faith.
18:16
It insists on a recognition of ordered authority and defined
18:19
roles in the public sphere, in the family.
18:21
And that directly clashes with a radical anti snobbery of the
18:25
economic principles. And the sketch continues, moving
18:28
beyond just structure to disposition.
18:30
This society is meant to be intensely cheerful, full of
18:34
singing and rejoicing. Worry or anxiety is given the
18:37
status of a moral failure. It's regarded as wrong.
18:41
This suggests that a lack of trust in Providence is a
18:44
spiritual deficiency that manifests socially.
18:46
And courtesy is elevated far beyond just social custom.
18:49
It's a Christian virtue. And my favorite detail maybe is
18:53
Lewis's note that the New Testament has a deep seated
18:56
hatred for what he calls busy bodies.
18:58
That avoidance of busyness or intrusive meddling suggests a
19:03
strong respect for personal boundaries and the duty to mind
19:06
your own affairs. But that's coupled with a deep
19:09
responsibility for the welfare of others.
19:11
A very difficult. Balance intense charity without
19:14
intrusive control. So if you or I were to visit
19:17
this fully Christian society, Lewis concludes, we'd leave with
19:20
a truly curious, almost paradoxical impression.
19:24
The economic life would feel very socialistic, advanced and
19:27
radically egalitarian. And it's work ethic.
19:29
But at the same time, the family life in the code of manners
19:32
would feel rather old fashioned, perhaps even formal, ceremonious
19:36
and aristocratic in its respect for inherited roles and
19:39
appointed authority. It's the total plan for the
19:41
human machine, a blend that absolutely refuses to align with
19:45
any existing partisan platform. And this blend reveals what he
19:49
calls the snare of partiality. We have all Lewis's departed
19:54
from the total plan, and our human nature leads us to want to
19:57
claim that our preferred modification the part we still
20:00
like. Is the original plan itself.
20:03
So people fighting for entirely opposite social programs can
20:07
both claim Christianity. Right, because they're attracted
20:09
by bits of it, maybe the economic justice or maybe the
20:12
traditional authority, and they feel entitled to just throw out
20:16
the parts that make them uncomfortable.
20:17
Lewis's sketch reminds us that you can't simply choose to serve
20:21
the master on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
20:23
Submission requires accepting the whole, often contradictory
20:27
sounding package. It does so moving from that
20:29
general social sketch to some specific thorny economic
20:33
problems. Lewis raises an issue that
20:35
connects historical moral teaching directly to the
20:37
foundation of our entire modern financial system.
20:40
Yes, the ancient consistent condemnation of usury or lending
20:44
money at interest. This is one of the most
20:46
intellectually honest moments in his social discussion, I think,
20:49
because he highlights a deep tension without offering a
20:52
simple answer. He really does.
20:54
He reminds us that 3 distinct and great civilizations, the
20:58
ancient heathen Greeks like Aristotle, the Jews in the Old
21:00
Testament, and the great Christian teachers in the Middle
21:03
Ages, they all agreed in condemning the practice of
21:06
lending money for profit. And that practice, what we now
21:09
call investment or bonds or even just savings accounts, is the
21:13
absolute foundation of modern capitalism.
21:16
It's what drives growth and retirement planning.
21:19
So why was the condemnation so consistent across such diverse
21:22
cultures and eras? The historical condemnation
21:25
often rested on the idea of money being sterile.
21:27
Sterile. The early view held that money
21:30
itself didn't produce anything. Only labor or land could produce
21:34
value. Therefore, charging interest for
21:37
money lent for consumption like a starving man borrowing for
21:40
bread was seen as exploiting necessity.
21:43
That makes perfect sense for private loans of necessity in a
21:46
low growth agrarian society. But what about the modern
21:49
argument against applying this condemnation?
21:52
Well, modern economists argue that those prohibitions only
21:55
applied to the private exploitative moneylender, the
21:59
loan shark, and that these ancient thinkers could never
22:02
have conceived of the joint stock company or corporate bonds
22:04
or productive capital investment designed to fund new factories
22:08
and create wealth, right? Modern interest, they argue, is
22:11
compensation for risk, not exploitation of the poor.
22:14
But Lewis refuses to settle this.
22:16
He states clearly that he is not an economist and he can't decide
22:20
the question. He doesn't.
22:21
But he doesn't let the reader just dismiss the problem either.
22:25
He highlights the necessity of a Christian economist to settle
22:28
whether the modern investment system, which depends entirely
22:31
on interest, is truly productive and moral, or if it is at its
22:35
root responsible for the persistent state of injustice.
22:38
And the weight of his observation is significant. 3
22:42
great civilizations agreed in condemning the very thing upon
22:46
which our whole life is based. This is a call to the Christian
22:49
professional to take up their duty.
22:51
What we talked about in Section 3 and apply their technical
22:54
expertise to resolve this ancient moral conflict instead
22:58
of just assuming that modern practice has somehow invalidated
23:01
a historical moral consensus. So Lewis presents the issue of
23:05
usury as an unresolved technical moral challenge that requires
23:08
specialized Christian wisdom. But then he pivots immediately
23:12
to the non negotiable imperative that has to govern all economic
23:15
activity, resolved or not. Charity.
23:18
Exactly charity. This is the absolute center of
23:21
Christian economic thought, Lewis notes the specific reason
23:25
the New Testament commands everyone to work in order that
23:28
he may have something to give to those in need.
23:31
So labor isn't just for self-sufficiency or for profit.
23:34
Its purpose is fundamentally philanthropic.
23:37
And the weight of this is underscored by his reference to
23:40
the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25.
23:42
A terrifying passage. It is, in that passage, charity
23:47
feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and
23:50
imprisoned. It's presented as the very hinge
23:53
upon which eternal judgement turns.
23:55
It's not an optional extra. It's the vital sign of genuine
23:59
faith. This leads Lewis to confront a
24:01
common modern viewpoint. A lot of people today argue that
24:04
charity ought to be unnecessary, right?
24:06
The focus, they say, should be purely on creating a flawless
24:10
society through social reform and universal welfare systems,
24:14
where no poor person exists to receive charity in the first
24:18
place. And Lewis agrees that Christians
24:20
should absolutely seek that poverty free society.
24:24
But he issues a very strong warning against using the
24:26
pursuit of systemic reform as an excuse for personal inaction.
24:31
If anyone thinks that pursuing systemic change means they can
24:33
stop giving in the meantime, he says, they have parted company
24:36
with all Christian morality. The pursuit of the perfect
24:39
system does not exempt us from immediate personal sacrificial
24:43
giving. So this moves the discussion
24:45
into the practical challenge How much should we give?
24:49
Lewis admits this is difficult, but he offers what he calls the
24:52
only safe rule, which is radical in its implications, to give
24:56
more than we can spare. Let's just pause there, because
25:00
that changes the entire mental framework.
25:03
Giving is no longer about balancing a budget or
25:06
calculating A tithe percentage. It's about operating outside the
25:10
boundaries of personal comfort, and he provides A litmus test
25:14
for you, the listener, to examine your own giving habits.
25:18
The test is comparative and exeriential.
25:21
If you're spending on comforts, luxuries and amusements is
25:24
essentially the same as everyone else in your income bracket,
25:27
Lewis says. You are probably giving too
25:29
little. You're just conforming to the
25:30
world standard, not the masters. And the truly difficult part is
25:34
the experiential measure. If our charities do not pinch or
25:37
hamper us, they are too small. True Christian giving, Lewis
25:40
argues, should exclude things we would genuinely like to do.
25:44
We should be able to point specific luxuries or trips or
25:48
acquisitions we want but can't afford because that money has
25:51
already been dedicated to charitable expenditure.
25:54
The pinch has to be felt. We need to acknowledge the real
25:57
world obstacles here. Why do people fare this test?
26:00
Luce is so perceptive. He says.
26:01
The greatest obstacle is often not extravagant living, but a
26:05
more subtle internal force. What is it?
26:08
Fear. The fear of insecurity.
26:10
The anxiety that if we give away what we can spare, we won't have
26:14
the buffer needed for the unforeseen crisis of the job
26:17
loss, the health emergency, the expense of repair.
26:20
And that fear is, in theological terms, a temptation.
26:23
It's a lack of trust and Providence that has to be
26:25
recognized and fought against. But he identifies another subtle
26:29
hindrance to pride. Pride tempts us to spend more on
26:32
visible, showy forms of generosity, like over tipping or
26:35
hosting lavish parties with the generosity is immediately
26:38
acknowledged and it reinforces our social standing.
26:41
Meanwhile, we spend less on those who genuinely need help in
26:44
quiet, unacknowledged ways where our personal vanity gets no
26:48
immediate reward. And Luce ends this section with
26:51
an important qualification about immediate urgent distress.
26:55
He specifies that particular cases among relatives, friends,
26:59
neighbors, or employees, those specific needs that God forces
27:03
upon our notice, they may demand much more, potentially even
27:07
crippling and endangering our own financial position.
27:10
And that is the ultimate test of the Golden Rule, applying it
27:14
when it truly costs us something vital.
27:16
And that brings us to his conclusion.
27:18
Yes, we come to Louis's conclusion on social morality
27:21
and he anticipates the immediate frustration of his audience.
27:24
He knows that the listener on the political left will be angry
27:26
he didn't go far enough and advocating for specific social
27:29
programs. And he knows the listener on the
27:31
right will be angry he went too far and condemning luxury and
27:34
demanding that economic equality of effort.
27:36
This anticipated anger, which he just accepts as inevitable,
27:40
brings us to what he calls the real snag.
27:42
Most of us, he says, approach the subject not with a desire to
27:46
find out what Christianity actually says, but with the hope
27:49
of finding support for the views of our own chosen party.
27:53
We are looking for that ally. We want a spiritual
27:56
justification for the political platform we already prefer.
27:59
We want God to be on our side. But Lewis insists that what
28:03
Christianity actually offers is either a master or a judge.
28:07
It doesn't join our faction. It demands to govern our entire
28:10
life and conscience. And that realization pushes the
28:13
whole discussion inward, away from external policy debates and
28:16
toward internal personal submission.
28:19
Right? Lewis concludes that no external
28:21
blueprint, no amount of social or political discussion is going
28:24
to succeed unless we take a much longer way around.
28:27
What does he mean by taking the longer way around?
28:29
He means we have to start with the premise that societal
28:32
blueprints will inevitably fail unless the majority of people
28:35
truly want a Christian society. And here's the chain of
28:38
causality he lays out. OK, we will not want a genuinely
28:41
Christian society until we become fully Christian
28:43
ourselves. Our flawed wills are always
28:45
going to corrupt the best systems.
28:47
And the chain continues inward, moving deeper into theological
28:51
territory. You can't truly carry out the
28:54
core social command. Do as you would be done by until
28:58
you learn to love your neighbor as you love yourself.
29:00
And this requires the greatest step of all.
29:03
You cannot learn to love your neighbor as yourself until you
29:06
learn to love God supremely. The horizontal duty is entirely
29:10
dependent on the vertical relationship.
29:11
And the final, most fundamental link in that chain?
29:14
You cannot learn to love God except by learning to obey, obey
29:17
him. Lewis argues that this drives us
29:20
inevitably away from social matters, away from economic
29:23
policy and toward religious matters, to something far more
29:27
inward, personal, and concerned with submission.
29:30
And this structure aligns perfectly with a theological
29:32
tradition that emphasizes order, duty, what we sometimes call the
29:35
2 Tables of the Law. The Westminster Confession, for
29:38
instance, organizes our duties first toward God, the first
29:42
table, love, obedience, worship, right, and only then toward our
29:46
neighbor. The second table Social
29:47
morality, justice, love. That structural connection is
29:51
the ultimate take away here. Our ability to execute the
29:54
second table of the law, our social morality, our ability to
29:59
genuinely apply the Golden Rule, is completely contingent on our
30:03
obedience to the first table. Exactly.
30:05
If we are disobedient to the master, we will inevitably fail
30:08
the neighbor. That's the key synthesis if we
30:11
try to take the shortcut, spending all our time drafting
30:14
flawless policy and arguing for external reform without
30:18
achieving internal consistent obedience, which is the long
30:21
way. The policy will fail.
30:23
It will be instantly corrupted by our pride, our fear and our
30:26
self-interest. Lewis's final verdict is that
30:29
the longest way round is the shortest way home.
30:32
The only path to a genuinely Christian society starts inward,
30:36
with personal submission and obedience to the Master, not
30:39
outward, with seeking a political ally.
30:42
The ultimate success of our social efforts, whether we
30:44
achieve that curious blend of economic radicalism and
30:47
traditional courtesy, depends entirely on the spiritual
30:50
starting point, submission and obedience to the whole of the
30:53
divine command, not just the comfortable bits we currently
30:55
endorse. So what CS Lewis forces us to
30:58
confront in this deep dive is that the effectiveness of our
31:01
social effort in the world relies entirely on the depth of
31:05
our inward obedience to God. He provides that surprising
31:09
sketch of a Christian society, one that intentionally
31:12
frustrates easy political classification, that makes it
31:15
absolutely clear that we will never arrive there by external
31:19
reform alone. And that critical call for
31:21
application falls back, ultimately, on the lay
31:24
professional. We have to stop asking the
31:27
clergy for economic or political answers.
31:29
If you are a Christian statesman or a Christian teacher or a
31:32
Christian economist, the specific responsibility to apply
31:36
the Golden Rule ethically within your technical field is yours
31:39
alone. Lewis reminds us that
31:41
specialized knowledge is required, but it must be set to
31:44
the right job by the director, which is the faith itself.
31:48
Lewis suggested that the greatest obstacle to charity is
31:50
often not luxury, but the fear of insecurity, the anxiety that
31:54
we won't have enough if we give too much.
31:56
We were reminded that the only safe rule is to give more than
31:59
we can spare, ensuring that our charities pinch or hamper us.
32:03
This means taking charity out of the realm of budgeting and into
32:05
the realm of genuine sacrifice. We leave you with this
32:09
provocative thought to consider this week.
32:11
What specific practical action, if taken, would cause your own
32:15
charitable giving to genuinely pinch or hamper your current
32:18
standard of living? And if you find yourself
32:20
resisting that action, is that resistance a measure of your
32:23
trust in Providence?