God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics

Note: this essay was first published in the Coventry Evening Telegraph in May 1945.

Lewis identifies a common argument against prayer: If God is all-knowing, then he already knows our prayers, and if God is infinitely good, then he’ll grant them without prayer. The common counterargument is that direct, specific prayers are superstition, and that real prayer is communion with God. Lewis argues that direct prayer is real, noting that Christianity’s foundational prayer, the Lord’s Prayer, asks for small, personal things. He argues that God has given humans two ways to influence events: Work and prayer. God does not interfere with our work, and we must face the consequences of those actions. Lewis argues that God only grants some prayers in order to protect us from the consequences of our desires, suggesting that a world in which all prayers are granted would be dangerous.

Note: this essay was first published as a pamphlet by the Student Christian Movement in Schools in 1946.

Lewis addresses the question of whether it is necessary to accept Christianity as true in order to live a good life. He argues that it is possible for people to be good without being Christian: Socrates and Confucius were good men who lived before Christ, while the philosopher John Stuart Mill earnestly wrestled with Christianity before rejecting it. Lewis claims that God has the skill and mercy to correct the “ignorance” (110) of these good men. 

He argues that people who ask whether they must accept Christianity know that it will be inconvenient to do so, and want permission not to. He suggests that wanting a “good life” is missing the point, as Christianity is about transformative change in this world and everlasting life in the next.

Note: this essay was first published as the introduction to B.G. Sandhurst’s How Heathen is Britain? in 1946.

Lewis argues that Sandhurst’s most important finding is that most young men in England have not heard the case for Christianity, and that they are often convinced when they do. He argues that this should stop debate about the content of their character. Their beliefs come from their teachers, who were educated in a time of skepticism and fear in the years after the first World War. Lewis argues that these teachers did not understand Christianity themselves, and so could not pass it on. 

He acknowledges that effective Christian teachers can make significant change in the lives of their students, and argues that they have a moral obligation to do so. He suggests that a more practical method is to focus on young men out of school, and to convince them to be involved in education.

Note: Lewis preached this essay at St. Matthew’s Church in Northampton in April 1946. It was published by the Church in a booklet called Five Sermons by Laymen the same month.

Lewis acknowledges that some people struggle with the language of Lent prayers, which describe congregants as “miserable offenders” with an “intolerable burden” of sin. He argues that this language is not about individual feelings: Humans are deserving of pity, regardless of their circumstances, and all sins are unsustainable if they result in eternal damnation. 

Lewis asks the reader to imagine a person in their life who has some fatal flaw they cannot change, despite the reader’s urging. He suggests that God sees all people—including the reader—in that way. Lewis argues that understanding the language of these prayers requires an honest admission of sin. Having admitted these sins, the prayers become illuminating and freeing rather than gloomy or depressing.

Note: this essay was first published as the Preface to the Socratic Digest, No. 1 in 1942. Lewis was President of the Club from its founding in 1941 until 1954.

The Oxford Socratic Club was founded as a forum for intellectual debate between believers and nonbelievers about the “pros and cons” (126) of Christianity. Lewis argues that the Club allowed both sides to hear opposing arguments directly, which sharpened arguments on both sides. He acknowledges that the Club, established by Christians, is not neutral. However, he argues that arguments have a life of their own, and that Christian speakers have as much to lose as their invited atheist guests. Although some believe Christianity is too sacred for such a public forum, Lewis counters that it must be argued for in public because Jesus lived a public life.

Note: this essay was read to the Oxford Socratic Club in May 1946 and reprinted in the Socratic Digest, No. 4 in 1946. It is a response to H.H. Price’s paper “The Grounds of Modern Agnosticism,” which was presented at the Socratic Club in October 1944.

Lewis points to Judaism and Buddhism as evidence against Price’s opening claim that belief in God and immortality is the essence of religion. Lewis accepts Price’s argument that all religion is mythology, claiming that Christianity is the actualization of all earlier mythologies. 

However, he rejects the idea that a belief in miracles or myths is contradicted by modern science, arguing that quantum physics shows that it is possible for matter to act outside known laws. Since they are rare and remarkable, miracles cannot be subject to the scientific method in the same way as ordinary activities. He rejects Price’s materialist arguments that modern biology disproves the existence of the soul, using the argument from reason: If Price is right, then his own thoughts are a meaningless bodily function, the result of mechanical processes. Lewis claims Christianity does not need to refute materialism because the philosophy refutes itself.

Lewis dedicates most of the essay to disputing Price’s argument that it might be possible for a simplified religion to exist without any mythology. He argues that the specific dogmas that define individual religions—like Jesus Christ’s incarnation or the cycle of reincarnation in Hinduism—are rooted in mythology, and because they are culturally ingrained, cannot be removed. Lewis claims that a religion without mythology could not move hearts to action.

Note: this essay was commissioned for The First Decade: Ten Years of Work of the Medical Missionaries of Mary in 1948.

Lewis argues that Christianity is a paradox, simultaneously life-affirming, with a long history of charitable care and a desire for good, and violent, with the symbol of the faith being an instrument of torture. He suggests that this paradox explains why religious hospitals are so successful. Christians fight relentlessly against death and physical suffering because they believe it is a departure from God’s desires.

Note: this essay was first published in the Bristol Diocesan Gazette, a religious newsletter, in August 1948.

Lewis suggests that most readers have a person who makes their life difficult as a result of some singular flaw, such as laziness, drunkenness, or cruelty. Despite the reader’s best efforts, and even under perfect circumstances, the person cannot overcome this central flaw. Lewis argues that this is how God feels about humanity. Despite God’s best efforts, humans cannot overcome their little flaws, and God cannot force humanity to change. 

Lewis reminds readers that they, too, have a fatal flaw, and that God loves humanity despite these flaws. He urges readers to focus on correcting their own flaws, rather than judging others.

Note: this essay was first published in the edited collection Asking Them Questions in 1950.

Lewis argues that the figure of Jesus is contradictory: Although his moral teachings are usually accepted by non-believers, his repeated claims to be God of the universe would be absurd if proven to be false. He notes that Jesus is unique among moral leaders in claiming to be God, and that no one who encountered him saw him as a mere teacher. 

Lewis rejects the idea that legends about Godliness grew around a mortal man, arguing from his experience as a literature professor that the Bible is not artistic enough to be legend. He concludes that the most logical explanation was that Jesus was being truthful when he claimed to be God. Rather than trying to make sense of Jesus’s teachings, Lewis urges readers to let Jesus remake them.

Note: this chapter contains an essay by C.E.M. Joad, written in response to Lewis’s book The Problem of Pain (1940), and Lewis’s response to Joad. Lewis’s essay was first published in The Month, a magazine run by English Jesuits, in February 1950.

Joad rejects Lewis’s argument, introduced in The Problem of Pain, that animals experience pain, rather than feel it, because they lack sentience. Joad argues that many animals demonstrate fear of pain, and insists that the traditional Christian argument—that pain is a consequence of sin—cannot be applied to animals, even if they do have souls.

Lewis’s response frames Joad’s reading as a mistake rooted in Lewis’s lack of clarity in The Problem of Pain. He regrets that his writing caused Joad to misunderstand the point. Lewis restates his central argument: That if God is good, then the appearance of immense pain and suffering in the animal world must be an illusion. He insists that his speculations about the reality behind this illusion are only speculations, and not established doctrine. Lewis concludes that the very fact of human resistance to animal pain is evidence of God in humanity.

Note: this essay was first published in the Socratic Digest in 1952. It is a reply to a paper by H.H. Price read to the Oxford Socratic Club.

Lewis distinguishes between intellectual faith, which he compares to an acceptance of the laws of gravity, and true faith, which he defines as trust in a living God. He accepts Price’s argument that intellectual or philosophical arguments can never lead to religious conversion. He contends that God placed a desire to believe in the hearts of all people, and that intellectual arguments remove the inhibitions preventing true belief. 

Despite Price’s objections, Lewis reaffirms his invocation of the term “numinous” to describe the uniquely awe-inducing power of supernatural experiences. He argues that these experiences require a willingness to accept a single supreme being, and that true faith is a desire to sustain those experiences at all times.

Note: this essay was first published in The Christian Century, an American magazine, in November 1958, in response to a negative review by Norman Pittenger of Lewis’s book Miracles (1947).

Lewis argues that Pittenger fundamentally and uncharitably misunderstood Lewis’s Miracles. Lewis insists that his book defines miracles as new additions to existing patterns in nature, rather than violations of the laws of nature itself. He argues that Price misread the book’s arguments about the Gospels, and identifies logical fallacies in Price’s own works. Lewis suggests that Pittenger’s academic criticisms of the book are rooted in his misunderstanding of its audience (laypeople) and its purpose (evangelism). He challenges Pittenger to reveal his own methods in evangelism and whether they have been successful.

Note: this essay was first published in the Observer in March 1963. It is a reply to an article by J.A.T. Robinson, then Bishop of Woolwich.

In response to an article claiming that the traditional image of God must be changed, Lewis insists that Christians already have an expansive view of God. He accuses Robinson of being unspecific in his theology, and of approaching bigotry in his distinction between men and women. Lewis claims that he could imagine a charitable reading of the article, but that he could not defend it.