Lewis Fundamentals of Christianity. III social norms of behavior

Clive Staples Lewis

Just Christianity

FOREWORD

What is said in this book was the material for a series of radio broadcasts, and subsequently was published in three separate parts called Radio Talks (1942), Christian Conduct (1943) and Beyond the Personality (1944). In the printed version, I made a few additions to what I said into the microphone, but otherwise left the text unchanged. A conversation on the radio should not, in my opinion, sound like a literary essay read aloud, it should be just a conversation filled with sincerity. Therefore, in my conversations, I used all the abbreviations and colloquial expressions that I usually use in conversation. In the printed version, I reproduced these abbreviations and colloquial turns. And all those places where in a conversation on the radio I emphasized the significance of a particular word with a tone of voice, in the printed version I highlighted in italics. Now I am inclined to believe that this was a mistake on my part - an undesirable hybrid of art. oral speech with the art of writing. The narrator should use the tones of his voice to underline and highlight certain passages, because the genre of conversation itself requires it, but the writer should not use italics for the same purpose. He has other own funds and should use these tools to highlight keywords.

In this edition, I have eliminated abbreviations and replaced all italics, reworking the sentences in which these italics appeared, without damaging, I hope, the "familiar" and simple tone that was characteristic of radio conversations. Here and there I have made additions or crossed out certain places; in doing so, I proceeded from the fact that the original version, as I found out, was misunderstood by others, and I myself, in my opinion, began to understand the subject of the conversation better now than I did ten years ago.

I want to warn readers that I am not offering any help to those who vacillate between two Christian "denominations". You will not receive advice from me as to whether you should become an Anglican or a Methodist, a Presbyterian or a Roman Catholic. I deliberately omitted this question (I even gave the above list simply in alphabetical order). I make no secrets from my own position. I am a perfectly ordinary member of the Church of England, not too "tall", not too "short", and not too much of anything at all. But in this book I am not trying to lure anyone into my position.

From the moment I became a Christian, I have always believed that the best and perhaps the only service I could render to my unbelieving neighbors was to explain and defend the faith that has been common and one for almost all Christians throughout of all time. I have enough reasons for this point of view.

First of all, the issues that divide Christians (into different denominations) often concern particular issues of high theology or even church history, and these issues should be left to the experts, the professionals. I would drown in such depths and would rather need help myself than be able to give it to others.

Secondly, I think we must recognize that discussions on these contentious issues are hardly capable of attracting an outsider into the Christian family. By discussing them in writing and orally, we scare him away from the Christian community rather than attract him to us. Our differences of opinion should only be discussed in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son.

Finally, I have the impression that far more talented writers have been involved in discussing these controversial issues than in defending the essence of Christianity, or "mere" Christianity, as Baxter calls it. The area in which I thought I could serve with the greatest success was the one most in need of such a service. Naturally, that's where I went.

As far as I remember, my motives and motives amounted to only this, and I would be very glad if people did not draw far-reaching conclusions from my silence on some controversial issues.

For example, such silence does not necessarily mean that I take a wait-and-see attitude. Although sometimes it really is. Christians sometimes have questions that I don't think we have the answers to. There are also those to which I will most likely never get an answer: even if I ask them in better world, then perhaps (as far as I know) I will get the same answer that another, much greater questioner has already received once: “What do you care about this? Follow me!" However, there are other issues on which I take a very definite position, but on these issues I remain silent. Because I am not writing to state something that I could call "my religion", but to clarify the essence of Christianity, which is what it is, has been so long before my birth and does not depend on whether you like it or not. it to me or not.

Some people draw unwarranted conclusions from the fact that I only speak of the Blessed Virgin Mary in relation to immaculate conception and the birth of Christ. But the reason for this is obvious. If I said a little more, it would immediately lead me into the realm of highly controversial points of view. Meanwhile, no other controversial issue in Christianity needs such a delicate approach as this one. The Roman Catholic Church defends its views on this subject not only with the usual fervor of all sincere religious beliefs, but (quite naturally) all the more fervently because it shows the chivalrous sensitivity with which a person defends the honor of his mother or beloved from the danger that threatens her. . It is very difficult to disagree with them in these views just enough so as not to seem to them an ignoramus, or even a heretic. Conversely, the opposing beliefs of Protestants on this issue are evoked by sentiments that are rooted in the very foundations of monotheism. It seems to radical Protestants that the very distinction between Creator and creation (however holy it may be) is being threatened; that again, thus, polytheism is revived. However, it is very difficult to disagree with them just enough so as not to be in their eyes something worse than a heretic, namely a pagan. If there is such a topic that can ruin a book about the essence of Christianity, if some topic can result in absolutely useless reading for those who have not yet believed that the Son of the Virgin is God, then this is precisely this topic.

Clive Staples Lewis

Just Christianity

FOREWORD

What is said in this book was the material for a series of radio broadcasts, and subsequently was published in three separate parts called Radio Talks (1942), Christian Conduct (1943) and Beyond the Personality (1944). In the printed version, I made a few additions to what I said into the microphone, but otherwise left the text unchanged. A conversation on the radio should not, in my opinion, sound like a literary essay read aloud, it should be just a conversation filled with sincerity. Therefore, in my conversations, I used all the abbreviations and colloquial expressions that I usually use in conversation. In the printed version, I reproduced these abbreviations and colloquial turns. And all those places where in a conversation on the radio I emphasized the significance of a particular word with a tone of voice, in the printed version I highlighted in italics. Now I am inclined to believe that this was a mistake on my part - an undesirable hybrid of the art of speaking with the art of writing. The narrator should use the tones of his voice to underline and highlight certain passages, because the genre of conversation itself requires it, but the writer should not use italics for the same purpose. He has other, his own means at his disposal and must use these means in order to isolate the keywords.

As far as I remember, my motives and motives amounted to only this, and I would be very glad if people did not draw far-reaching conclusions from my silence on some controversial issues.

For example, such silence does not necessarily mean that I take a wait-and-see attitude. Although sometimes it really is. Christians sometimes have questions that I don't think we have the answers to. There are also those to which I most likely will never receive an answer: even if I ask them in a better world, then perhaps (as far as I know) I will receive the same answer as another, much greater questioner has already received once: " What do you care about this? Follow me!" However, there are other issues on which I take a very definite position, but on these issues I remain silent. Because I am not writing to state something that I could call "my religion", but to clarify the essence of Christianity, which is what it is, has been so long before my birth and does not depend on whether you like it or not. it to me or not.

Some people draw unwarranted conclusions from the fact that I only speak of the Blessed Virgin Mary in connection with the Immaculate Conception and the birth of Christ. But the reason for this is obvious. If I said a little more, it would immediately lead me into the realm of highly controversial points of view. Meanwhile, no other controversial issue in Christianity needs such a delicate approach as this one. The Roman Catholic Church defends its views on this subject not only with the usual fervor of all sincere religious beliefs, but (quite naturally) all the more fervently because it shows the chivalrous sensitivity with which a person defends the honor of his mother or beloved from the danger that threatens her. . It is very difficult to disagree with them in these views just enough so as not to seem to them an ignoramus, or even a heretic. Conversely, the opposing beliefs of Protestants on this issue are evoked by sentiments that are rooted in the very foundations of monotheism. It seems to radical Protestants that the very distinction between Creator and creation (however holy it may be) is being threatened; that again, thus, polytheism is revived. However, it is very difficult to disagree with them just enough so as not to be in their eyes something worse than a heretic, namely a pagan. If there is such a topic that can ruin a book about the essence of Christianity, if some topic can result in absolutely useless reading for those who have not yet believed that the Son of the Virgin is God, then this is precisely this topic.

A strange situation arises: from my silence on these issues, you cannot even draw conclusions whether I consider them important or not. The fact is that the very question of their significance is also controversial. One of the points on which Christians disagree is whether their differences matter. When two Christians from different denominations start arguing, soon, as a rule, one of them asks if this issue is so important; to which the other replies, “Does it matter? Of course, it matters the most!”

All this was said only to explain the kind of book I was trying to write, and not at all to hide my beliefs or avoid responsibility for them. As I said before, I don't keep them a secret. In the words of Uncle Toby: "They are written in the prayer book."

The danger was that, under the guise of Christianity as such, I might present something unique to the Anglican Church or (worse still) to myself. To avoid this, I sent the original draft of what became Book Two here to four different clergy (Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic), asking for their critical comments. The Methodist decided that I had not said enough about faith, and the Catholic that I had gone too far on the comparative unimportance of theories explaining the atonement. Otherwise, the five of us agreed with each other. Other books I did not subject to such scrutiny, because if they did cause differences of opinion among Christians, they would be differences between individuals and schools, and not between different denominations.

As far as I can judge from these critical reviews, or from the many letters I have received, this book, however erroneous in other respects, has succeeded in at least one thing - to give an idea of Christianity as it is generally accepted. Thus, this book may be of some assistance in overcoming the view that if we leave out all disputed questions, then we will be left with only an indefinite and bloodless Holy Christian Faith. In fact, the Holy Christian Faith turns out to be not only something positive, but also categorical, separated from all non-Christian denominations by an abyss that cannot be compared even with the most serious cases of division within Christianity. If I have not helped the cause of reunification directly, I hope I have made it clear why we must unite. Admittedly, I have rarely encountered legendary theological intolerance from hardened members of communities who disagree with my own. Hostility comes mainly from people who belong to intermediate groups, both within the Church of England and other denominations, that is, from those who do not really consider the opinion of any community. And I found this state of affairs comforting. Because it is the centers of each community, where its true children are concentrated, that are truly close to each other - in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this testifies that at the center of every community there is something or Someone Who, despite all differences of opinion, all differences in temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.

"Mere Christianity" reveals the fundamental tenets of Christianity common to all churches. The book is considered a classic of Christian apologetics.

Clive Staples Lewis

Just Christianity

FOREWORD

What is said in this book was the material for a series of radio broadcasts, and subsequently was published in three separate parts called Radio Talks (1942), Christian Conduct (1943) and Beyond the Personality (1944). In the printed version, I made a few additions to what I said into the microphone, but otherwise left the text unchanged. A conversation on the radio should not, in my opinion, sound like a literary essay read aloud, it should be just a conversation filled with sincerity. Therefore, in my conversations, I used all the abbreviations and colloquial expressions that I usually use in conversation. In the printed version, I reproduced these abbreviations and colloquial turns. And all those places where in a conversation on the radio I emphasized the significance of a particular word with a tone of voice, in the printed version I highlighted in italics. Now I am inclined to believe that this was a mistake on my part - an undesirable hybrid of the art of speaking with the art of writing. The narrator should use the tones of his voice to underline and highlight certain passages, because the genre of conversation itself requires it, but the writer should not use italics for the same purpose. He has other, his own means at his disposal and must use these means in order to isolate the keywords.

Book I

GOOD AND EVIL AS A KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE UNIVERSE

LAW OF HUMAN NATURE

Everyone has heard people quarreling among themselves. Sometimes it looks funny, sometimes it's just unpleasant; but whatever it looks like, I think we can learn some important lessons for ourselves by listening to what quarreling people say to each other. They say, for example, such things as: “How would you like it if someone did the same to you?”, “This is my place, I took it first”, “Leave him alone, he does not do you any harm ”, “Why should I give in to you?”, “Give me a piece of your orange, I gave you from mine”, “Come on, come on, you promised.” Every day people say the same thing - both educated and uneducated, both children and adults.

With regard to all these and similar remarks, I am only interested in the fact that the person making them does not simply declare that he does not like the behavior of the other person. He appeals to some standard of behavior, which, in his opinion, the other person knows. And the other very rarely answers: “To hell with your standards!” Almost always, he tries to show that what he has done does not really go against this standard of behavior, and if it does, then there are special excusable reasons for this. He pretends that in this particular case he had these special reasons for asking to vacate the seat of the one who took it first, or that he was given a piece of orange under completely different circumstances, or that something unforeseen happened that relieves him of the need to fulfill the promise . In fact, it looks like both parties meant some sort of Law or Rule of Fair Play or good conduct or morality or something of the sort, as to which they both agree. And indeed it is. If they did not have this Law in mind, they could, of course, fight like animals fight, but they could not quarrel and argue like human beings. To quarrel means to try to show that the other person is wrong. And there would be no point in this effort if there were not some kind of agreement between you and him about what is good and what is evil.

In the same way, it would not make sense to say that a football player committed a foul if there was no definite agreement about the rules of football.

This law used to be called "natural", that is, the law of nature. Today, when we talk about "laws of nature," we usually mean things like gravity, or heredity, or chemical laws. But when the thinkers of antiquity called the laws of good and evil "the laws of nature," they meant by this the "law of human nature." Their idea was that, just as all physical bodies are subject to the law of gravity, as all organisms are subject to biological laws, so the being called man has his own law - with the great difference, however, that the physical body cannot choose whether to obey it. the law of gravity or not, while a person has the right to choose whether to obey the law of human nature or violate it.

The same idea can be expressed in a different way. Each person is constantly, every second, under the influence of several different laws. And among them there is only one, which he is free to violate. Being a physical body, a person is subject to the law of gravity and cannot go against it: if you leave a person without support in the air, he will have no more freedom to choose than a stone, to fall to the ground or not to fall. As an organism, a person must obey various biological laws, which he cannot break at will, just as animals cannot break them. That is, a person cannot but obey the laws that he shares with other bodies and organisms. But that law, which is inherent only in human nature, and which does not apply to animals, plants or inorganic bodies - such a law can be violated by a person at his choice. This law has been called "natural" because people think that every person knows it instinctively and therefore no one needs to be taught it.

SOME OBJECTIONS

If these two facts are the basis, then I should pause to establish it before I go any further. Some of the letters I have received indicate that there are many people who find it difficult to understand what natural law, or moral law, or rules of decent behavior are.

In these letters, for example, I read: "Is not what you call the moral law simply our herd instinct, and has it not developed in the same way as all our other instincts?"

Well, I do not deny that we can have a herd instinct; but that is not at all what I mean by the moral law. We all know what it's like to feel the impulses of instinct in ourselves - whether it be motherly love, or sexual instinct, or hunger. This instinct means that you have a strong desire to act in a certain way. And of course, sometimes we have a strong desire to help another person, and there is no doubt that such a desire arises in us due to the herd instinct. But feeling the desire to help is not at all the same as feeling: you have to help, whether you want it or not. Suppose you hear a cry for help from a person in danger. You may feel two desires at the same time: one - to help him (due to your herd instinct) and the other desire - to stay away from danger (due to the instinct of self-preservation). However, in addition to these two impulses, you will find a third one in yourself that tells you that you must follow the impulse that pushes you to help, and that you must suppress the desire to run away. This impulse which judges between two instincts, which decides which instinct to follow and which to suppress, cannot itself be either of them. You could just as well say that the sheet of music that indicates which key you should strike in this moment, itself is one of the keys. The moral law tells us what tune we should play; our instincts are just keys.

There is another way to point out that the moral law is not just one of our instincts. If two instincts are in conflict with each other and in our mind there is nothing but them, then, quite obviously, the instinct that is stronger would win. However, at those moments when we feel the impact of this law most acutely, it seems to prompt us to follow which of the two impulses, which, on the contrary, is weaker. You are probably far more willing to risk your own safety than to help a person who is drowning; but the moral law nevertheless compels you to help a drowning man. And, isn't it true, he often tells us: try to activate your right impulse, make it stronger than it is in its natural manifestation.

I mean by this that we often feel the need to stimulate our herd instinct, for which we awaken in ourselves imagination and a feeling of pity - so that we have the courage to do a good deed. And of course, we do not act instinctively when we stimulate in ourselves this need to do a good deed. The voice within us that says, “Your herd instinct is asleep. Awaken him,” cannot itself belong to the herd instinct.

THE REALITY OF THE LAW

Now I will return to what I said at the end of the first chapter about two curious features inherent in humanity. The first is that people tend to think that they must observe certain rules of conduct, in other words, the rules of fair play, or decency, or morality, or natural law.

The second is that in reality people do not follow these rules. Some may ask why I call this state of affairs strange. It may seem to you the most natural position in the world. Perhaps you think that I am being too hard on the human race. After all, you might say, what I call breaking the law of good and evil is simply evidence of the imperfection of human nature. And in fact, why do I expect perfection from people? Such a reaction would be correct if I tried to calculate exactly how guilty we are of doing things that we don't think others should do. But that is not my intention at all. At the moment, I am not at all interested in the question of guilt: I am trying to find the truth. And from this point of view, the very idea of imperfection, that we are not what we should be, leads to certain consequences.

An object, such as a stone or a tree, is what it is, and it makes no sense to say that it must be different. Of course, you can say that the stone is "wrong" if you were going to use it for decorative purposes in the garden, or that it is a "bad tree" because it does not give you enough shade. But by that you would only mean that this stone or that tree is not suitable for your purposes. You won't, except for fun, blame them for it. You know that because of the weather and the soil, your tree just couldn't be any different. So it is “bad” because it obeys the laws of nature in the same way as a “good” tree.

Have you noticed what follows from this? It follows from this that what we usually call the law of nature, such as the influence natural conditions on the formation of a tree, perhaps, cannot be called a law in the strict sense of the word. After all, when we say that falling stones always obey the law of gravity, we, in essence, mean that "the stones always do this." You don't really think that when the stone is let go, it suddenly remembers that it has an order to fly to the ground. You just mean that the stone actually falls to the ground. In other words, you cannot be sure that behind these facts there is something other than the facts themselves, some kind of law about what should happen, as opposed to what actually happens.

The laws of nature, as applied to stones and trees, only state what actually happens in nature. But when you turn to natural law, to the law of good conduct, you come across something very different. This law certainly does not mean "what human beings actually do" because, as I said before, many of us are not subject to this law at all, and none of us are completely subject to it. The law of gravity tells you what a stone will do if it is dropped; the moral law says what human beings must do and what they must not do. In other words, when you are dealing with people, then, in addition to simple facts to be ascertained, you are faced with something else, with some kind of adventitious driving force that stands above the facts. Here are the facts (people behave this way). But before you and something else (they should behave like this). In everything that concerns the rest of the Universe (apart from man), there is no need for anything other than facts. Electrons and molecules behave in a certain way, from which certain results follow, and this, perhaps, is all. (However, I do not think that this is evidenced by the arguments that we have at this stage). However, people behave in a certain way, and this certainly does not end there, because you know that they should behave differently.

WHAT IS BEHIND THE LAW

Let's summarize what we've found out so far. In the case of stones, trees, and similar things, the so-called law of nature is nothing more than a figure of speech. When you say that nature obeys certain laws, you only mean that it behaves or behaves in a certain way.

So-called laws cannot be laws in the full sense of the word, that is, something above the natural phenomena that we observe. But in the case of man, the situation is different. The law of human nature, or the law of good and evil, must be something that stands above the facts of human behavior. And in this case, besides the facts, we are dealing with something else - with a law that we did not invent, but which we know we must follow.

And now I want to understand what this discovery tells us about the universe in which we live. From the moment when people learned to think, they began to think about what the Universe is and how it came about. In the most general terms, there are two points of view on this matter. The first is the so-called materialistic point of view. People who share it believe that matter and space simply exist, they have always existed and no one knows why; that matter, which behaves in a certain way, fixed once and for all, accidentally contrived to produce creatures like you and me, capable of thinking. By some lucky chance, the probability of which is negligible, something hit our sun, and the planets separated from it, and due to another similar accident, the probability of which is not higher than the probability of the previous one, chemical reactions arose on one of these planets. the elements necessary for life, plus the necessary temperature, and thus some of the matter on this planet came to life, and then, through a long series of accidents, living beings developed into such highly organized things as you and I.

The second point of view is religious. According to her, the source of the origin of the visible universe should be sought in some kind of mind (rather than in anything else). This mind is conscious, has its own goals, and prefers some things over others. From a religious point of view, it was this mind that created the universe, partly for some purpose that we do not know about, and partly in order to produce creatures similar to itself, I mean - endowed like it, with reason. Please do not think that one of these points of view existed a long time ago, and the other has gradually supplanted it. Wherever thinking people have ever lived, they have both existed. And notice one more thing. You cannot determine which of these two theories is correct with scientific point vision. Science works through experiments. It observes how objects, materials, elements, etc. behave. Any scientific statement, no matter how complicated it may seem, ultimately boils down to the following: “I pointed the telescope at such and such part of the sky at 2.20 am on January 15th and I saw this and that." Or: "I put a certain amount of this substance in a vessel, heated it to such and such a temperature, and this and that happened." Don't think that I have anything against science. I'm just explaining how it works. And the more learned a person is, the sooner (I hope) he will agree with me that this is precisely what science consists of, this is precisely its usefulness and necessity. But why all these objects that science will study exist at all and whether there is something completely different from them behind these objects is not at all a question of science. If “something” exists behind all the reality we observe, then it will either remain unknown to people, or will let them know about itself in some special way. Statements that this “something” exists, or, conversely, does not exist, are not within the competence of science. And real scientists usually do not make such statements. More often they are journalists and authors of popular novels who have picked up unverified scientific data from textbooks. Ultimately, simple common sense tells us: suppose one day science becomes so perfect that it comprehends every particle of the universe; Is it not clear that the questions “Why does the Universe exist?”, “Why does it behave this way and not otherwise?” and “Is there any point in her existence?” then, as now, there will be no answer.

The situation would be completely hopeless were it not for one circumstance. There is one being in the universe about whom we know more than we could learn about him only through observations from the outside. This being is a human. We don't just observe people, we ourselves are people. In this case, we have the so-called inside information. And because of this, we know that people feel subject to some moral law, which they did not establish, but which they cannot forget, no matter how hard they try, and which they know should be obeyed. Pay attention to this: anyone who would study a person from the outside, as we study electricity or cabbage, without knowing our language and, therefore, without being able to get inside information from us - from a simple observation of our behavior never came would conclude that we have a moral law. And how could he come to him? After all, his observations would show him only what we do, and the moral law tells what we should do. In the same way, if something were hidden or stood behind the facts accessible to our observation in the case of stones or weather, then we, observing them from the side, and hopefully could not find this “something”.

WE HAVE CAUSE FOR CONCERN

I ended the last chapter with the idea that with the help of the moral law, someone or something outside the material universe is advancing on us. And I suspect that when I got to this point, some of you felt a certain unease. You might even think that I played a cruel joke on you, that I carefully disguised the religious "moral" to make it look like philosophy. Perhaps you were ready to listen to me as long as you thought I was going to say something new; but if this "new" turned out to be just a religion - well, the world has already tried it, and you cannot turn back the clock. If any of you feel this way, I would like to say three things to that person.

The first is about turning back time. Would you think that I was joking if I said that we should turn the clock hands? After all, when the clock goes wrong, such a measure is often reasonable. But let's leave the example with the clock and hands. We all strive for progress. However, progress means getting closer to the place, to the point you want to reach. And if we turned in the wrong direction, then moving forward will not bring us closer to the goal. Progress in this case would be a 180-degree turn and a return to the right road; and the most progressive person will be the one who turns back the soonest. We could all see this when we did arithmetic. If I did my addition wrong from the start, the sooner I admit it and go back to start all over again, the sooner I will find the right answer. There is nothing progressive in donkey stubbornness, in refusing to admit one's mistake.

If you think about state of the art world, it will become quite clear to you that humanity is making a great mistake. We are all on the wrong path. And if so, then we all need to go back. Going back is the fastest way forward.

Second: note that my reasoning is not yet quite a religious "moral". We are still far from the God of any particular religion, especially from the God of the Christian religion. We have only come to someone or something that is behind the moral law. We do not yet resort to either the Bible or what is said in the Church; we try to see if we can't find out anything about this mysterious "Someone" on our own. And here I want to say with all frankness: what we discover affects us like a shock. Two facts testify to this "Someone".

The first is the Universe created by Him. If the Universe were the only evidence of Him, then from observing it, we would have to conclude that He, this mysterious "Someone" is a great artist (because the Universe is truly beautiful). But at the same time, we would be forced to admit that He is ruthless and hostile to people (because the Universe is a very dangerous place that inspires genuine horror).

Book II.

WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE

CONTRADICTORY CONCEPTS ABOUT GOD

I have been asked to tell you what Christians believe. I'll start by talking about what they don't need to believe. If you are a Christian, you do not have to believe that all other religions are wrong from start to finish. If you are an atheist, you have to believe that there is one giant mistake at the heart of all the religions of the world. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all religions, including the strangest ones, contain at least a grain of truth. When I was an atheist, I tried to convince myself that the majority of mankind has always been mistaken in a matter that is of the utmost importance to them; becoming a Christian, I gained the ability to look at things from a more liberal point of view. But of course, to be a Christian means to have no doubt that wherever Christianity disagrees with other religions, Christianity is right and other religions are wrong. As in arithmetic: only one correct answer to the problem is possible, all the rest are incorrect; some of the wrong answers are closer to the right one than others.

Humanity is divided into two main groups: the majority who believe in some kind of God or gods, and the minority who do not believe in God at all. Christianity, of course, belongs to the majority - it is in the same camp with the ancient Romans, modern savages, Stoics, Platonists, Hindus, Mohammedans, etc., against modern Western European materialism.

But there is a division between people who believe in God. I turn to him now. It comes down to what gods people believe in. And here - two very different approaches. Some believe that God is above good and evil. We humans call one thing good and another bad. But, according to some, the concept of "good and bad" exists only from our, human, point of view. Such people say: as you grow in wisdom, you have less and less desire to call something good or bad; you see that everything has good and bad sides, and nothing can be changed here. As a result, these people believe that long before you get to the divine point of view, any distinction between the concepts of good and evil will disappear without a trace. We call cancer evil, they say, because it kills a person; but one might as well call evil the successful intervention of a surgeon, because it kills the cancer. Everything depends on the point of view.

The other, opposite, view is that God is most definitely good and righteous, that He cares which side to take, that He loves love and hates hate, and wants us to behave this way and not otherwise. The first of these two ideas - God is beyond good and evil - is called pantheism. This idea was shared by the great Prussian philosopher Hegel; it is shared, as I understand it, by the Indians. The opposite view of God is inherent in Jews, Mohammedans, Christians.

This difference in ideas about God between pantheism and Christianity is usually followed by another. Pantheists generally believe that God animates the universe, so to speak, as you animate your body; that the Universe is almost the same as God, and therefore, if it did not exist, He would not exist either, and everything that is in the Universe is part of God. Christianity holds a completely different idea. Christians believe that God conceived and created the universe, just as a person creates a picture or a melody. A painting is not the same as an artist, and an artist will not die if his paintings are destroyed. You can say, “He put a part of himself into this picture,” but by saying that, you only imply that all the beauty and meaning of this work originated in his head. His skill, reflected in the picture, does not belong to her to the same extent as it is inherent in his head and hands.

INVASION

So atheism is too primitive. But I will point you to another primitive idea. I call it "Christianity, divorced in water." According to this idea, a good, kind God lives in heaven and everything goes as it should. All the difficult and frightening doctrines of sin and hell, the devil and redemption, are simply ignored.

Searching for a simple religion is pointless. In the end, there are no real things that would be simple. Sometimes they look simple - like the table I'm sitting at; but ask a scientist what this table is made of - about all these atoms, about the light waves that bounce off them and hit my eye, affecting my optic nerve, and how it affects my brain. Then you will see that the process that we describe in a nutshell - "seeing the table" is a web of mysterious and complex phenomena, so complex that you will hardly ever be able to penetrate them completely. When a child says a prayer, it looks very simple. If you are completely satisfied with this and you are ready to put an end to this, fine. However, if you can't stop there... modern world usually stops at nothing or nothing so easily - if you want to continue and ask what is really going on, prepare for difficulties. If we are looking for something more than extremely simple, it is foolish to complain that "more" is not simple.

Very often, however, quite intelligent people indulge in such stupid reasoning out of a desire, consciously or unconsciously, to undermine Christianity. They usually take one of the six-year-old versions of Christianity and attack it. When you try to explain Christian doctrine to them in the form in which educated adults profess it, they begin to complain that your head is spinning, that all this is too complicated, and if God really existed, He would make a religion " simple, because simplicity is so beautiful.

You should be on your guard with such people, they change the subject every minute and only take your time. Note the idea that "God would have made religion simple," as if religion is something God invented and not His revelation to us of perfectly immutable facts and His own nature.

Objective reality is not only complex; She, according to my observations, often looks strange. She is somehow awkward, unclear, in a word - not the way we would like. For example, when you grasp the idea that the Earth and other planets revolve around the Sun, you naturally assume that all the planets are created on the same principle: at an equal distance from each other, for example, or at a distance that increases evenly: or that they are all the same size, either increasing or decreasing as they move away from the Sun. In reality, you find neither rhythm nor meaning (understandable to you) either in the sizes of the planets or in the distances between them; some of them have one satellite each, one has four, another has two, some has none, and one of the planets is surrounded by a ring.

A STUNNING ALTERNATIVE

Christians thus believe that the power of evil has become the prince of this world. And here, of course, there are problems. Is all of this happening in accordance with the will of God? If so, then He is a rather strange God, you will say; if evil reigned in the world against His will, then how can anything happen against the will of Him Who has absolute power?

However, every person who has ever been endowed with power knows how some things can, on the one hand, correspond to your will, and on the other, be contrary to it. A mother, for example, might justifiably say to her children, “I'm not going to tidy your room every night. You have to learn to keep it in order yourself. She walks into the nursery one evening and sees the teddy bear, the inkwell, and the French grammar book piled together. This is against her will. She would prefer her children to be neat. But, on the other hand, this was her will - to instill independence in children, but this entails freedom of choice for them. The same situations arise under any system of government, in the service, at school. You declare some kind of obligation voluntary, and at once half of the people do not fulfill this obligation. This is not in accordance with your will, but it was made possible by your will.

Perhaps the same thing happens in the universe. God has endowed some of His creatures with free will. This means that they can choose the right path or the wrong one. Some people think that it is possible to invent a being that would be free, but deprived of the opportunity to do wrong. I can't imagine such a being. If one is free to do good, one is free to do evil. It was free will that made evil possible. Why, then, did God give His creatures free will? Because without free will, although it causes the appearance of evil, true love, kindness, joy and everything that is of value in the world are impossible.

A world of automata-robots, beings that act like machines, would hardly be worth creating. The happiness that God has prepared for His highest creatures is the happiness of freely uniting with Him and with each other in a burst of love and admiration, in comparison with which the most sublime love between a man and a woman is like watered milk. But for this creation must be free.

God certainly knew what would happen if they misused their freedom. But obviously. He believed that what He had planned was worth the risk. Perhaps we are not inclined to agree with Him. But it's hard to disagree with God. He is the source from which you draw all the strength of your arguments. You cannot be right and He is wrong, just as a stream cannot rise above its source. By challenging the correctness of His decisions, you are opposing the very power that gives you the very ability to argue. In other words, you are cutting the branch you are sitting on. If God believes that the state of war in the universe is not too high a price for free will, and that is why He created a world in which God's creatures can consciously choose between good and evil, and not a toy world of puppets that He would lead by pulling the strings, - so we must agree that free will is worth it. Only in a world based on free choice between good and evil can anything significant happen.

THE PERFECT PENITENT

So we are faced with a frightening alternative. This person is either exactly what He says about Himself, or a madman, a maniac, or something worse. It is quite clear to me that He was neither crazy nor a demon. Therefore, no matter how incredible and terrifying it may seem, I am forced to admit that He was and is God. God descended to this enemy-occupied land in the form of a man.

For what purpose did He do this? What business did you come for? Well, of course, in order to teach. However, when you open New Testament or any Christian book, you will find that they are constantly talking about something else, namely, His death and His resurrection. Clearly, this is what Christians think is the most important thing. They believe that the main purpose of His coming to earth is to suffer and die.

Before I became a Christian, I had the impression that Christians must first of all believe in some theory about the meaning of His death. According to it, God wanted to punish people for leaving Him and taking the side of the great rebel, but Christ volunteered to bear the punishment for people so that God would forgive us. Now I must confess that even this theory no longer seems to me as immoral and stupid as it seemed before. But that's not the point. Later I saw that neither this nor any other similar theory expresses the essence of Christianity.

The central idea of the Christian faith is that the death of Christ somehow justified us in the eyes of God and enabled us to start over. How this was achieved is another question. There are many considerations in this regard. But with the fact that this idea is true, all Christians agree. I'll tell you what I myself think. All reasonable people know that if you are tired and hungry, a good meal will do you good. This lunch is not the same as the modern theory about nutrition, about all these vitamins and proteins. People ate dinners and felt better after them long before theories, and if theories are ever forgotten, this will not stop people from still eating dinner. Theories about the death of Christ are not Christianity. They only try to explain the mechanism of its action. Not all Christians think the same way about their importance. My Anglican Church does not insist on any of them as the only correct one. The Roman Church goes a little further. But I think everyone agrees that the essence is infinitely more important than any explanation, and no explanation can claim to be exhaustive. But as I said in the preface to this book, I am just an ordinary believer, and this question takes us too far. I repeat that I can only give you my personal point of view.

According to her, what you are being asked to accept are not theories. Many of you have no doubt read the works of Jeans or Eddington. When they want to explain an atom or something like that, they just give you a description that creates a mental image in your head. But then they warn you that this image is not really what the scientists really believe; but they believe in the mathematical formula. The illustrations are given to you only so that you understand this formula. In fact, they are wrong in the sense that the formulas are. They do not reflect reality, but only give some approximate idea of it. Their purpose is only to help you, and if they don't help you, you can drop them. The very essence of the atom cannot be conveyed in pictures, it can only be expressed in mathematical formulas.

PRACTICAL CONCLUSION

Christ went through perfect surrender and perfect humility; they were perfect because He is God; they were surrender and humility, because He was a Man. The Christian faith declares that if we somehow share in the humility and suffering of Christ, we will become partners in His victory over death and gain new life after we die. And in this new life we will be perfect and perfectly happy creatures. All this, however, involves much more than our attempts to follow His teachings. People often ask when the next stage of evolution will come, at which a new being will appear, standing much higher than man. But from a Christian point of view, this stage has already arrived. The new kind man arose in Christ; and the new form of life that has begun in him must be planted in us.

How can you get this new life? Remember, first of all, how you and I received our life in its ordinary form. We have inherited it from others, from our father and mother and all our ancestors, without our consent and through a very curious process that involves pleasure, pain and danger. You would never be able to invent such a process yourself. As children, many of us long years trying to figure it out. Some of the children, when they are first told about this process, at first refuse to believe, and I cannot blame them, it is indeed a very strange process. The same God who planned it also planned the process of spreading new life - life in Christ; and we must be prepared for the fact that this is also a strange process. God did not consult with us when he invented sex. He did not consult with us even when he invented ways of salvation.

Three things spread the life of Christ in us: baptism, faith, and the sacrament, which different Christians call differently - Holy Communion, Mass, the breaking of bread. At least these three things apply to conventional methods. I'm not saying that there can't be special cases where Christ and His life are extended without one (or more) of these acts. I do not have enough time to delve into these special cases, and besides, I am not familiar with them to a sufficient extent. When you try to explain to a person how to get to Edinburgh in a few minutes, you will advise him to take the train. It is true that he can get there by boat or plane, but you will hardly mention it. And I don't say anything which of the three things mentioned is the most essential. My Methodist friend would like me to say more about faith and less about the other two. But I won't go into that. Any person who teaches you Christian doctrine will tell you to use all three. And that is enough for us at the moment.

I personally do not see how these three things can be vehicles of new life. But it is also not easy to comprehend a certain connection between physical pleasure and the appearance of a new person in the world. We have to accept reality as it is. There is no point in speculating endlessly about what it should be or what we might expect from it. And while I don't see why it should be, I can tell you why I believe it is. I have already explained why I have to believe that Jesus was (and is) God. And this is a historical fact - He taught His followers that new life transmitted in this way. In other words, I believe it, relying on the authority of Christ. Do not be afraid, please, of the word "authority". Believing on someone else's authority only means that you believe in something because someone you think is absolutely trustworthy has told you about it. Ninety-nine percent of what you believe is based on trust in authority.

I believe there is such a place as New York. I have never seen him myself. I can't prove its existence with abstract arguments. I believe this because I heard about its existence from trustworthy people. The common man believes in solar system, atoms, evolution and blood circulation, relying on the statements of scientists, on their authority. Yes, and all our information is decidedly from the field of history - where do we draw them from, if not from the statements of historians, whose authority we trust? After all, none of us witnessed the Norman conquests or Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo! None of us can prove them purely logically, as theorems are proved in mathematics. We believe these facts simply because the people who witnessed them left us their records; in other words, we believe in them, relying on the authority of these records and their authors. A man who would challenge authority in other areas, as some challenge and reject authority in religion, would have to remain ignorant to the end of his days.

Book III.

CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOR

THREE PARTS OF MORALITY

They tell of a disciple who was asked how he imagines God. He replied that, as far as he understood, God is "such a person who constantly watches if anyone lives for his own pleasure, and when He notices this, He intervenes to stop it." I fear that this is the spirit in which many people understand the word "morality": that which prevents us from enjoying ourselves.

In reality, moral standards are instructions that ensure the correct operation of the human machine. Each of the rules of morality is aimed at preventing breakage, or overstress, or friction. That is why at first glance it seems as if they constantly interfere in our lives and prevent the manifestation of our natural inclinations.

When you learn how to operate a machine, the instructor keeps correcting you: “No, it’s not like that, never do it,” because in handling the machine you are constantly tempted to try something or do something that it seems natural and successful to you, but in fact the car will break down.

Some people prefer to talk about moral "ideals" instead of talking about the rules of morality, and about moral "idealism" instead of obeying the rules of morality. Of course, it is perfectly true that moral perfection is an "ideal" in the sense that we cannot reach it. In this sense, everything that is perfect for us people is an ideal; we cannot become perfect drivers or perfect tennis players, we cannot draw a perfectly straight line. But from another point of view, to call moral perfection an "ideal" is to mislead people. When a man says that some woman, or a house, or a ship, or a garden is his ideal, he does not mean (unless he is quite a fool) that everyone else must have the same ideal. In such matters it is our right to have different tastes and therefore different ideals. But to call an idealist a person who tries his best to comply with the laws of morality would be dangerous. This may suggest that the pursuit of moral perfection is a matter of his taste and we, the rest, are not obliged to share this taste. Such a thought would be a disastrous mistake.

Perfect behavior can be as out of reach as perfect shifting gears in a car; but it is a necessary ideal prescribed to all men by the very nature of the human machine, just as perfect shifting is an ideal for all drivers by virtue of the very nature of the automobile. It is even more dangerous to consider yourself a person of high ideals, because you try to never tell a lie (instead of lying only occasionally), or never commit adultery (instead of committing it extremely rarely), or never get angry (instead of just being moderately irritable). You would risk becoming a pedant and reasoner, believing that he is a special person who deserves congratulations for his idealism. In fact, you have just as much reason to expect congratulations for trying to get the correct answer when adding numbers. There is no doubt that a perfect calculation is an ideal; you certainly make mistakes at times. However, there is no special merit if you try to count carefully. It would be extremely foolish not to try, because any mistake will bring you trouble. In the same way, every moral offense is fraught with trouble, perhaps for others and certainly for you. When we talk about rules and submission instead of "ideals" and "idealism" we are reminding ourselves of these facts.

II MAIN VIRTUES

The previous section was originally composed as a short radio talk.

If you are only allowed to speak for 10 minutes, then you have to sacrifice everything for the sake of brevity. Speaking about morality, I kind of divided it into three parts (by offering an example with ships sailing in convoy), because I wanted to “cover the issue” and at the same time be as concise as possible. Below I want to introduce you to how the authors of the past divided it. They approached this in a very interesting way, but for radio conversations their method is not applicable, as it takes a very long time.

According to this method, there are seven virtues. Four of them are called main (or cardinal), and the remaining three are theological. The cardinal virtues are those that all civilized people recognize. As a rule, only Christians know about theological or theological virtues. I will come to these theological virtues later. At the moment I am concerned only with the four cardinal virtues. By the way, the word "cardinal" has nothing to do with the "cardinals" of the Roman Catholic Church. It comes from the Latin word for door hinge. These virtues are called cardinal because they are, so to speak, the foundation. These include prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude.

Prudence means practical common sense. The person who possesses it always thinks about what he is doing and what can come of it. Most people today hardly regard prudence as a virtue. Christ said that we can enter His world only if we become like children, and Christians have concluded that if you are a “good” person, then the fact that you are stupid does not matter. This is not true. First, most children are reasonable enough in matters that are really interesting to them, and think about them quite carefully. Secondly, as the apostle Paul noted, Christ did not at all mean that we should remain children in mind. Quite the contrary: He urged us to be not only “meek as doves,” but also “wise as serpents.” He wants us, as children, to be simple, not two-faced, loving, receptive. But He also wants every part of our mind to function at full capacity and be in top-notch shape. Just because you give money to charity doesn't mean you shouldn't check to see if your money is going into the hands of scammers. Just because your thoughts are occupied with God Himself (for example, when you pray) does not mean that you should be content with the ideas about Him that you had at the age of five. There is no doubt that God will love and use people with a mind not far from birth no less than those endowed with a brilliant mind. He has a place for them too. But He wants each of us to make full use of the mental faculties that are allotted to us. The goal is not to be good and kind while giving the privilege of being smart to others, but to be good and kind while trying to be as smart as we can. God is disgusted by the laziness of the intellect, like any other.

If you're going to be a Christian, I want to warn you that it will require your total commitment and your mind and everything else. Fortunately, this is fully compensated: anyone who sincerely tries to be a Christian soon begins to notice how his mind is becoming sharper. This is one of the reasons why no special education is required to become a Christian: Christianity is an education in itself. That is why an uneducated believer like Bunyan managed to write a book that astonished the whole world.

III PUBLIC NORMS OF CONDUCT

IV MORAL AND PSYCHOANALYSIS

I said that we will not be able to establish a Christian society until most of us become Christians. This, of course, does not mean that we can refuse to transform society until some imaginary date. On the contrary, we should take on two things at the same time: first, we should look for all possible ways to apply the Golden Rule in modern society; and secondly, we ourselves must strive to become the kind of people who will actually apply this rule if they see how to do it. And now I want to start talking about what is " good man in the Christian sense.

Before I get into the details, I would like to make two more general points.

Firstly, Christian morality claims to be an instrument that can fix the human machine, and I think you are wondering if Christianity has anything in common with psychoanalysis, which is supposedly designed for the same purpose. Here we have to make a sharp distinction between two issues: between the existing medical theories and techniques of psychoanalysis, on the one hand, and the general philosophical view of the world that Freud and others associated with psychoanalysis, on the other. Freud's philosophy directly contradicts Christianity and the philosophy of another great psychologist - Jung. When Freud talks about how to treat neuroses, he talks like an expert in his field. But when he turns to questions of philosophy, he becomes an amateur. Therefore, there is every reason to listen to him in the first case, but not in the second. This is exactly what I do, and with all the more certainty that I am convinced that when Freud leaves his topic and takes on another one that is familiar to me (I mean linguistics), he shows extreme ignorance. However, psychoanalysis itself, regardless of all the philosophical justifications and conclusions that Freud and his followers draw from it, does not in any way contradict Christianity. His methodology echoes Christian morality in many ways. Therefore, it would not be bad if every preacher were introduced - more or less - to psychoanalysis. But it must be remembered at the same time that psychoanalysis and Christian morality do not go hand in hand from beginning to end, since the tasks assigned to them are different.

When a person makes a choice in the field of morality, there are two processes. The first is the act of choice itself. The second is the manifestation of various feelings, impulses, and the like, depending on psychological attitude of a person and, as it were, being the raw material from which the solution is “molded”. There are two types of such raw materials. The first is based on the feelings that we call normal, because they are typical for all people. The second - is determined by a set of more or less unnatural feelings caused by some deviations from the norm at the subconscious level.

Fear of things that are really dangerous would be an example of the first kind: a reckless fear of cats or spiders would be an example of the second kind. The desire of a man for a woman is of the first kind; the perverse desire of one man for another - for the second. What does psychoanalysis do? He tries to rid a person of unnatural feelings in order to provide him with more benign "raw materials" at the moment of moral choice. Morality, on the other hand, deals with the very acts of choice.

MORALITY IN THE FIELD OF GENDER

And now we must consider how Christian morality (morality) relates to the question of sexual relations and what Christians call the virtue of chastity. The Christian rule of chastity should not be confused with the social rules of modesty, propriety, or propriety. The social rules of decency determine to what extent it is permissible to expose the human body, what topics it is decent to touch on in conversation, and what expressions to use in accordance with the customs of a given social circle. Thus, the standards of chastity are the same for all Christians at all times, the rules of decency change. A girl from the Pacific Islands, who is barely covered by clothes, and a Victorian lady, dressed in long dress, closed to the chin, can be equally decent, modest or decent, according to the standards of the society in which they live; and both, regardless of the clothes they wear, can be equally chaste (or, conversely, indiscreet). Some of the words and expressions used by chaste women in Shakespeare's time could only be heard in the nineteenth century from a woman who has lost herself. When people violate the rules of decency accepted in their society in order to kindle passion in themselves or in others, they commit a crime against morality. But if they break these rules through negligence or ignorance, then they are only guilty of bad manners. If, as often happens, they deliberately break these rules to shock or embarrass others, this does not necessarily indicate their indiscretion, but rather their unkindness.

Only an unkind person takes pleasure in embarrassing others. I do not think that excessively high and strict standards of decency serve as a proof of chastity or help it; and therefore a significant simplification and facilitation of these norms in our days I consider as a positive phenomenon.

However, there is also an inconvenience: people different ages and dissimilar types recognize different standards of propriety. There is a big confusion. I think, as long as it remains in force, old people or people with old-fashioned views should be very careful in judging young people. They should not conclude that young or "emancipated" people are corrupt if (by old standards) they behave indecently. Conversely, young people should not be called prudes or puritans by older people because they are not able to easily accept new standards. A genuine desire to see all the good in others, and to do everything possible to make these "others" feel as light and comfortable as possible, would lead to the solution of most of these problems.

Chastity is one of the least popular Christian virtues. There are no exceptions in this matter; the Christian rule says: "Either marry and remain absolutely faithful to your spouse (or spouse), or observe complete abstinence." This is such a difficult rule, and it is so contrary to our instincts, that the conclusion suggests itself: either Christianity is wrong, or something is wrong with our sexual instincts in their present state. Either one or the other. And of course, being a Christian, I think that something is wrong with our sexual instincts.

But I have other reasons to think so. The biological purpose of sexual relations is children, just as the biological purpose of nutrition is the restoration of our body. If we eat when we want and how much we want, then most likely we will eat too much, but still not catastrophically much. One person can eat for two, but not for ten. Appetite goes beyond the biological goal, but not excessively. But if a young man gives free rein to his sexual appetite, and if every act produces a child, then within ten years this young man will be able to populate a small city with his descendants. This kind of appetite disproportionately goes beyond the boundaries of its biological functions. Let's look at it from the other side. You can easily draw a huge crowd to a striptease performance. There will always be enough people willing to watch a woman undress on stage. Suppose we arrive in some country where the theater can be filled with spectators gathered for a rather strange performance: there is a dish covered with a napkin on the stage, then the napkin begins to slowly rise, gradually revealing the contents of the dish; and before the theater lights go out, every spectator can see that on a dish lies a lamb chop or a piece of ham. When you see all this, will it not occur to you that the inhabitants of this country have something wrong with their appetite? Well, if someone who grew up in another world saw a striptease scene, would he think that something was wrong with our sexual instinct?

Book IV.

BEYOND THE PERSON, OR THE FIRST STEPS IN THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

TO CREATE DOES NOT MEAN TO BIRTH

I have been warned many times not to tell you what I am going to tell you in this book. I was told, “The ordinary reader does not want to deal with theology; give him simple, practical religion." I rejected this advice. I don't think the average reader is that stupid. The word "theology" means "the science of God"; and I believe that every person who thinks a little about the Creator of all things, would like, as far as possible, to receive the clearest and most accurate ideas about Him. You are not children, so why treat you like children?

To some extent, I understand why some people would like to bypass theology. I remember that during one of my conversations, an elderly officer, who had apparently been in many alterations, got up and said: “I don’t need all this chatter. But let me tell you, I am also a religious person. I know that there is a God. One night, when I was alone in the desert, I felt His presence. it the greatest secret. That's why I don't believe all your neat little formulas and dogmas about Him. And to anyone who has experienced a real meeting with him, they will seem miserable, dry and unreal.

In a way, I agree with this man. I think that it is quite probable that he actually experienced a meeting with God in that desert. And when from personal experience he turned to Christian doctrine, he apparently took it as a transition from something real to something less significant and real. Probably, something similar would be experienced by a person who saw the Atlantic Ocean from the shore, and now considers it on a map. Are real ocean waves comparable to a piece of colored paper? However, here's the thing. The map is indeed a piece of colored paper, but you have to understand two things. Firstly, it was compiled on the basis of discoveries made by hundreds and thousands of people who sailed on the real Atlantic Ocean, that is, as if absorbing a wealth of experience, no less real than that experienced by a person standing on the ocean shore. With one exception, however. This man saw the ocean only in some one, accessible to him foreshortening. The map, however, concentrated in itself all the various experiences taken together. Secondly, if you want to go somewhere, you will absolutely need a map. As long as you are content with walking along the coast, soaking up the spectacle of the ocean is much more pleasant than looking at a map. But if you wish to go to America, it will be incomparably more useful to you than the experience of your walks.

Theology is like a map. Just thinking about and studying Christian doctrines, if you stop there, is less meaningful and interesting than what that officer experienced in the wilderness. Doctrines are not God. They are like a map. But this map is drawn up on the basis of the experience experienced by hundreds of people who have come into real contact with God. Compared to this experience, any exciting experiences or religious feelings that may have visited you or me look extremely primitive and indistinct.

Then, if you want to move forward, you absolutely need a map. You see, the thrilling experience that struck the officer in the desert, for all its reality, is useless even for him. It leads nowhere, as it is reduced only to an emotional upheaval and does not require any work. It's like watching the waves of the ocean while standing on the shore. You won't get to Newfoundland if your contact with the Atlantic Ocean is limited to that. And you will not gain eternal life just by enjoying the feeling of God's presence in flowers and music. However, you will not get anywhere even if you only look at the map, and do not dare to go out to the open sea. If you go sailing without a map, you will not be able to feel safe.

GOD IN THREE PERSONS

In the previous chapter, we looked at the difference between the concepts of "begetting" and "doing" or "creating". A man gives birth to a child, he makes a statue. God gives birth to Christ, He creates man. Having said this, I have illustrated only one truth about God: that which is born from God the Father is God, a Being of the same nature as He Himself. In a way, this is like the birth of a human son from a human father. However, the similarity is not absolute. I'll try to explain this in a little more detail.

So many people these days say, "I believe God exists, but I can't believe God is a person." They feel that the mysterious something behind all things must be more than just a person. And Christians agree with that. But no one, except Christians, offers any idea whatsoever as to what the being above the personality might be like. All the rest, agreeing that God goes beyond the personality, it is on this basis that they represent Him as something impersonal (and in fact, something less than a person). If you are looking for a superpersonality in God, a certain principle that is higher than the personality, then the choice between Christian and other doctrines is no longer for you. For she, the only one in the world, interprets God in this way.

Some think that after this life or after several lifetimes human souls will be absorbed by God. But if you ask them what they mean by this, you will find that their idea is no different from the absorption of some substances by others. They say that it is like drops falling into the ocean. But when a drop flows into the ocean, it ends. If this happens to us, we will simply cease to exist. Only among Christians do you find the idea of how human souls can find life in God while remaining themselves; moreover, becoming themselves to a much greater extent than they were before.

I warned you that theology is a practical science. The purpose of our existence, then, is our involvement in the life of God. Misconceptions about this life prevent you from reaching your goal.

And now I would ask special attention. You know that in space you can move in three directions: left or right, backward or forward, up or down. Any direction is either one of these three, or some combination of them. We call it three dimensions. Now pay attention. Using only one dimension, you can only draw a straight line. Using two, you can draw a shape, such as a square. A square is made up of four straight lines. Let's take it one step further. If you have three dimensions at your disposal, you can build a three-dimensional figure, such as a cube, similar to dice Or a piece of sugar. The cube is made up of six squares,

TIME AND BEYOND TIME

There is a misconception that when reading a book, we should not miss anything. I think, on the contrary, those sections or chapters which, in our opinion, cannot be of any use to us, should not be read. Throughout this book, I have already addressed my potential readers with similar advice, and since in this chapter I am going to talk about things that may be useful to some, but others will be perceived as a deliberate and unnecessary complication, I repeat my advice: skip this chapter if you don't find it interesting, and move on to the next.

In the previous chapter, I touched on prayer; and while this topic is still fresh in our minds, I would like to talk about the difficulties that some people have. I remember one of these people said to me: "I can believe in God, but the fact that He listens to several hundred million people who turn to Him at the same time does not reach me." I came to the conclusion that a lot of people share this point of view.

Let's try to figure this out. First of all, you should pay attention to the fact that the whole complexity, apparently, is in the word "simultaneously". Many of us can easily imagine that if God has an unlimited amount of time, He is able to listen to an unlimited number of petitioners, if only they come to Him one by one. So the problem is obviously the inability to understand how God can deal with an unimaginable number of problems at the same moment.

Well, this difficulty would probably be insoluble if the matter involved you and me. Our life comes to us moment by moment. One moment disappears before another appears, and each contains very little. That's what time is. Of course, you and I take it for granted that such an order, this sequence - past, present, future - is not something valid only for the Earth and us, its inhabitants, but an objective reality that extends to all that exists. We tend to believe that the entire universe and even the Lord God Himself are in constant motion from the past to the future, just like you and me. Meanwhile, modern science knows that this is not so. Theologians were the first to talk about the fact that some things exist outside of time. Later this idea was picked up by philosophers, and only in our time - by scientists.

Most likely. God exists outside of time. His life does not consist of moments following one another. If a million people pray to Him at ten o'clock at night. He does not need to listen to them all in the same period of time, which we call "ten hours." This moment and every other since the beginning of the world is an infinite present for Him. If you want, He has all eternity at His disposal to listen to the prayer of the pilot, with which he addresses Him while the plane crashes.

BENEFICIENT INFECTION

I begin this chapter by asking you to try to visualize this picture clearly: there are two books on the table, one on top of the other. It is quite obvious that the lower book supports the one on top of it. Only thanks to the bottom book, the top one is five centimeters above the surface of the table, instead of touching this surface. Let's label the bottom book as "A" and the top book as "B". Position "A" determines position "B". It's clear, isn't it? Now let's imagine (this, of course, cannot happen in reality, but to illustrate, let's imagine that both books were in this position forever. In this case, the position "B" always depended on the position "A", but the position " A" did not exist before position "B". In other words, the result in this case does not come after the cause, as usually happens: first you eat a cucumber, and then you have an upset stomach. This principle does not always work. A little more patience, and you you will see why I think this is important.

A few pages earlier I said that God is a Being consisting of three Persons, but nevertheless remaining one Being (and gave an approximate illustration - a cube, which consists of six squares, but remains one figure). But as soon as I try to explain how these Persons are interconnected, it seems that one of them existed before the others. I have to resort to words that are responsible for this impression. The first person in this Trinity is called the Father, the second Person is called the Son. We say that the First gives birth or produces the Second: we call it birth and not creation, because He produces a Being of the same kind as He Himself. In this case, the only appropriate word is "Father". But, unfortunately, this word suggests that He existed before, as the human father exists before the appearance of the son. In fact, this is not so. There is no "before" or "after" here. That is why, I think, it is very important to understand: one thing can be the source or cause of another and not exist before it. The Son exists because the Father exists; but in this existence there was never a moment preceding the birth of the Son.

It's probably best to look at it this way. I asked you to imagine two books. Perhaps most of you have done this, performed some act of imagination, and a mental picture has arisen in front of you. It is quite obvious that he was the cause, she was the effect, or the result. But this does not mean that you first imagined and then got this picture. At the very moment when your imagination began to operate, it appeared before your mind's eye. All this time your will has held it before you. However, the act of will and the picture came into existence at the same moment and ceased at the same time. If there were Someone who lived forever, and if He imagined the same being forever in His imagination, then some mental image would constantly be created that would be just as eternal.

I believe this is how we should think of the Son, who constantly streams from the Father, as light streams from a lamp, or heat from a fire, or a thought from a head. He is the expression of the Father, what the Father wants to say, and there has never been a moment in all eternity when the Father did not speak His Word. Did you notice what's happening? All these examples of light and heat give the impression that the Father and the Son are two substances and not two Persons. Obviously, the image of the Father and the Son that the New Testament gives us is much more accurate than any illustrations that we try to replace it with.

And this happens whenever you deviate from what the Bible says. It is quite justified to step away from the text for a moment in order to better understand this or that. But then you need to return to it. God naturally knows much better how to describe Himself than any of us. He knows that the relationship between the Father and the Son should rather be described as the relationship between the First and Second Persons, and not as something else that we have invented. The most important thing is that this is a relationship of love. The Father finds joy in the Son, the Son faithfully loves the Father. Before we go any further, notice the great importance of these words.

STRONG TIN SOLDIERS

The Son of God became a man in order to endow people with the ability to become God's children. We do not know - at least I do not know - what would have happened if the human race had not rebelled against God and joined the enemy camp. Perhaps then every person would abide in Christ, would be a partner in the life of the Son of God from birth. Perhaps the bios, or natural life, would then rush into the zoe. that is, into the higher, uncreated life, from its very inception, continuously, as it develops. But all this is just conjecture and speculation. And we are concerned about the question of how things are now.

Here's how: the two kinds of life not only differ from each other (and they would be different), but are opposed to each other. The natural life in each of us is self-centered, it requires attention to itself and admiration for itself. It has a tendency to gain advantage at the expense of other lives, to exploit the entire universe. And most of all, this life wants to be left to itself - to stay away from everything that is better, or stronger, or higher than it, in short, away from everything that makes it feel small and insignificant. She is afraid of light and spiritual air, just as people who have grown up in mud are afraid of baths. In a sense, this life is right. She knows that if the spiritual life draws her into its orbit, all her self-centeredness, all her self-will will be killed. And so she is ready to fight not for life, but for death, in order to avoid this.

Did you ever think as a child about how interesting it would be if your toys came to life? Well, let's pretend that you actually brought them to life. Before your eyes, the tin soldier turns into a little man. Tin would have to become flesh; but imagine that the tin soldier doesn't like it. He is not at all attracted to the flesh; he notices that the tin is broken. He thinks you are killing him. He will do everything in his power to hinder you. You wouldn't be able to turn him into a human if it was up to him.

I don't know what you would do with such a tin soldier. But God did this to us: The Second Person of the Divine Trinity, the Son, Himself became a man. He was born into the world as one is born real man - a real man a certain height, with a certain hair color, speaking a certain language, weighing so many kilograms. He. The Eternal One, Who knows everything and Who created the Universe, became not only a man, but a baby, and before that - a fetus in the body of a woman. If you want to understand what that meant to Him, think about how you would like to be a slug or a crab.

As a result of this, in our human family there appeared such a Man who was everything that people were meant to be, a man in whom the created life, inherited from the Mother, allowed itself to be transformed completely and completely into the life born. But the natural human being in Him was completely consumed by the Divine Son. Thus, in one moment humanity reached, so to speak, the point of its destination - it passed into the life of Christ. And because the difficulty for us is in a kind of mortification of natural life. He chose this life path who killed at every turn His human desires. He knew poverty, misunderstanding of the family, the betrayal of one of his close friends; He was persecuted and abused and died under torture. And after He was killed - we kill, in fact, every day - the human being in Him, thanks to His organic unity with God's Son, was again reborn to life. The man in Christ has risen from the dead. Man, not only God! This is the whole point. For the first time we saw a real person. One tin soldier - the same tin soldier as all the others - triumphantly came to life.

Foreword

What is said in this book was the material for a series of radio broadcasts, and subsequently was published in three separate parts called Radio Talks (1942), Christian Conduct (1943) and Beyond the Personality (1944). In the printed version, I made a few additions to what I said into the microphone, but otherwise left the text unchanged. A conversation on the radio should not, in my opinion, sound like a literary essay read aloud, it should be just a conversation filled with sincerity. Therefore, in my conversations, I used all the abbreviations and colloquial expressions that I usually use in conversation. In the printed version, I reproduced these abbreviations and colloquial turns. And all those places where in a conversation on the radio I emphasized the significance of a particular word with a tone of voice, in the printed version I highlighted in italics. Now I am inclined to believe that this was a mistake on my part - an undesirable hybrid of the art of speaking with the art of writing. The narrator should use the tones of his voice to underline and highlight certain passages, because the genre of conversation itself requires it, but the writer should not use italics for the same purpose. He has other, his own means at his disposal and must use these means in order to isolate the keywords.

As far as I remember, my motives and motives amounted to only this, and I would be very glad if people did not draw far-reaching conclusions from my silence on some controversial issues.

For example, such silence does not necessarily mean that I take a wait-and-see attitude. Although sometimes it really is. Christians sometimes have questions that I don't think we have the answers to. There are also those to which I, most likely, will never get an answer: even if I ask them in a better world, then. perhaps (as far as I know) I will get the answer that another, much greater questioner has already received once: “What is it to you? Follow me!" However, there are other issues on which I take a very definite position, but on these issues I remain silent. Because I am not writing to state something that I could call "my religion", but to clarify the essence of Christianity, which is what it is, has been so long before my birth and does not depend on whether you like it or not. it to me or not.

Some people draw unwarranted conclusions from the fact that I only speak of the Blessed Virgin Mary in connection with the Immaculate Conception and the birth of Christ. But the reason for this is obvious. If I were to say a little more, it would immediately lead me into the realm of highly controversial points of view. Meanwhile, no other controversial issue in Christianity needs such a delicate approach as this one. The Roman Catholic Church defends its views on this subject not only with the usual fervor of all sincere religious beliefs, but (quite naturally) all the more fervently because it shows the chivalrous sensitivity with which a person defends the honor of his mother or beloved from the danger that threatens her. . It is very difficult to disagree with them in these views just enough so as not to seem to them an ignoramus, or even a heretic. Conversely, the opposing beliefs of Protestants on this issue are evoked by sentiments that are rooted in the very foundations of monotheism. It seems to radical Protestants that the very distinction between Creator and creation (however holy it may be) is being threatened; that again, thus, polytheism is revived. However, it is very difficult to disagree with them just enough so as not to be in their eyes something worse than a heretic, namely a pagan. If there is such a topic that can ruin a book about the essence of Christianity, if some topic can result in absolutely useless reading for those who have not yet believed that the Son of the Virgin is God, then this is precisely this topic.

All this was said only to explain what kind of book I was trying to write, and not at all to hide my beliefs or avoid responsibility for them. As I said before, I don't keep them a secret. In the words of Uncle Toby: "They are written in the prayer book."

The danger was that, under the guise of Christianity as such, I might present something unique to the Anglican Church or (worse still) to myself. To avoid this, I sent the original draft of what became Book Two here to four different clergy (Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic), asking for their critical comments. The Methodist decided that I had not said enough about faith, and the Catholic that I had gone too far on the comparative unimportance of theories explaining the atonement. Otherwise, the five of us agreed with each other. Other books I have not subjected to such scrutiny, because if they caused differences of opinion among Christians, they would be differences between individuals and schools, not between different denominations.

As far as I can judge from these critical reviews, or from the many letters I have received, this book, however erroneous in other respects, has succeeded in at least one thing - to give an idea of conventional Christianity. Thus, this book may be of some assistance in overcoming the view that if we leave out all disputed questions, then we will be left with only an indefinite and bloodless Holy Christian Faith. In fact, the Holy Christian Faith turns out to be not only something positive, but also categorical, separated from all non-Christian denominations by an abyss that cannot be compared even with the most serious cases of division within Christianity. If I have not helped the cause of reunification directly, I hope I have made it clear why we must unite. Admittedly, I have rarely encountered legendary theological intolerance from hardened members of communities who disagree with my own. Hostility comes mainly from people who belong to intermediate groups, both within the Church of England and other denominations, that is, from those who do not really consider the opinion of any community. And I found this state of affairs comforting. Because it is the centers of each community, where its true children are concentrated, that are truly close to each other - in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this testifies that at the center of every community there is something or Someone Who, despite all differences of opinion, all differences in temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.

That's all for my reticence about doctrine. In Book Three, which deals with questions of morality, I also left out some points, but for different reasons. Even from the time when I served as a private during the First World War, I was imbued with antipathy for people who, sitting in the safety of headquarters, issued appeals and instructions to those who were on the front line. As a result, I am not inclined to talk much about temptations that I have not experienced myself. I believe that there is no such person who would be tempted by all sins. It just so happens that the impulse that makes players out of people was not embedded in me when I was created; and, no doubt, I pay for this by the absence in me of other, useful impulses, which, being exaggerated or distorted, push a person onto the path of gambling. Therefore, I do not feel qualified to give advice on what kind of gambling is legal and what is not: if legal gambling exists at all, I simply do not know about it. I also passed over in silence the issue of contraceptives. I'm not a woman, I'm not even a married man or a priest. Therefore, I do not consider myself entitled to take a decisive position in a matter related to pain, danger and costs, from which I myself am spared; besides, I do not hold a pastoral office that would oblige me to do so.

“Who are you to decide who is a Christian and who is not?” Or: “Might not many people who are unable to believe in these doctrines turn out to be much more true Christians, closer to the spirit of Christ, than those who believe in these doctrines?” This objection is in a sense very true, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. But having all useful properties, it is useless. We simply cannot use linguistic categories with impunity in the way our opponents want us to. I will try to clarify this by using another, much less important word.

The word "gentleman" originally meant something quite definite - a person who had his own coat of arms and landed property. When you called someone a gentleman, you weren't complimenting them, you were simply stating a fact. If you said about someone that he was not a gentleman, it was not an insult, but simple information. In those days, to say that, for example, John is a liar and a gentleman, would not be a contradiction; at least it wouldn't sound more contradictory than if we said today that James is a fool and an M.Sc. But then people appeared who said - they said so truly, kindly, with such deep understanding and sensitivity (and yet their words did not carry useful information): “But for a gentleman, it is not his coat of arms and land that are important, but how he behaves. Of course, a true gentleman is one who behaves like a gentleman, right? So Edward is much more of a gentleman than John." Those who said so had noble intentions. Far better to be honest and polite and brave than to have your own coat of arms. But it's not the same. Worse than that, not everyone wants to agree with this. For the word "gentleman" in this new, ennobled sense ceases to be information about a person, and simply turns into praise for him: to say that such and such a person is not a gentleman is to insult him. When a word ceases to be a means of description, and becomes only a means of praise, it no longer carries factual information: it testifies only to the attitude of the speaker. ("Good" food means only that the speaker likes it.) The word "gentleman", having been "spiritualized" and "purified" from its former, clear and objective sense, hardly means now more than that the speaker likes that person. , which is being discussed. As a result, the word "gentleman" has become a useless word. We already had a monotony of words expressing approval, so we did not need it for this purpose: on the other hand, if someone (for example, in a historical work) wishes to use this word in its old sense, he does not will be able to do this without resorting to explanations, because the word is no longer suitable for expressing its original meaning.

So if one day we allow people to uplift and ennoble, or, as they say, give a deeper meaning to the word "Christian", this word, too, will soon lose its meaning. First, Christians themselves cannot apply it to any person. It is not for us to decide who, in the deepest sense of the word, is close or not to the spirit of Christ. We cannot read in human hearts. We cannot judge, we are not allowed to judge. It would be dangerous arrogance on our part to say that such and such a person is or is not a Christian in the deepest sense of the word. But it is obvious that a word that we cannot use becomes useless. As for unbelievers, they will no doubt readily use the word in its "refined" sense. In their mouths it will become a mere expression of praise. By calling someone a Christian, they will only mean that he is a good person. But such a use of this word will not enrich the language, because we already have the word "good." In the meantime, the word "Christian" will no longer be fit for the really useful purpose it now serves.

We must therefore stick to the original, clear meaning of the word. For the first time, "disciples" in Antioch began to be called Christians, that is, those who accepted the teachings of the apostles (Acts II, 26). Undoubtedly, only those who benefited most from this teaching were so called. Of course, this name extended not to those who hesitated whether to accept the teachings of the apostles, but to those who, precisely in an exalted, spiritual sense, turned out to be “much closer to the spirit of Christ.” This is not a question of theology or morality. It is just a matter of using the words in such a way that it is clear to everyone what is being said. If a person who has accepted the doctrine of Christianity leads a life unworthy of it, it is more correct to call him a bad Christian than to say that he is not a Christian.

I hope that it will not occur to any reader that the "essence" of Christianity is being offered here as some kind of alternative to existing creeds. Christian churches- as if one might prefer it to the teachings of Congregationalism, or Greek Orthodox Church, or anything else. Rather, the "essence" of Christianity can be compared to a hall from which doors open into several rooms. If I manage to bring someone into this hall, my goal will be achieved. But lit fireplaces, chairs and food are in the rooms, not in the hall. This hall is a place of waiting, a place from which one can pass through this or that door, and not a dwelling place. Even the worst of the rooms (whatever) is more suitable for living. Some people will probably feel that it is better for them to stay in this room a little longer, while others will almost immediately choose with certainty the door they need to knock on. I don't know why there is such a difference, but I am sure that God will not keep anyone in the waiting room longer than their interests require. this person. When you finally enter your room, you will see that the long wait has brought you certain benefits that you otherwise would not have received. But you must look at this preliminary stage as a waiting, not as a halt. You must continue to pray for light; and of course, even while in the hall, you must begin to try to follow the rules common to the whole house. And besides, you must ask which door is the true one, no matter which one you like better for its paneling or coloring. To put it simply, you should not be asking yourself, “Do I like this office?” but, “Are these doctrines correct? Is there holiness here? Does my conscience lead me here? Does my reluctance to knock on that door come from my pride, or simply from my taste, or from my personal dislike for this particular gatekeeper?

When you enter your room, be kind to those who have entered through other doors and to those who are still waiting in the hall. If they are your enemies, then remember that you are commanded to pray for them. This is one of the rules common to the whole house.

Book 1: Good and Evil as the Key to Understanding the Universe

Law of human nature

With regard to all these and similar remarks, I am only interested in the fact that the person making them does not simply declare that he does not like the behavior of the other person. He appeals to some standard of behavior, which, in his opinion, the other person knows. And the other very rarely answers: “To hell with your standards!” Almost always, he tries to show that what he has done does not really go against this standard of behavior, and if it does, then there are special excusable reasons for this. He pretends that in this particular case he had these special reasons for asking to vacate the seat of the one who took it first, or that he was given a piece of orange under completely different circumstances, or that something unforeseen happened that relieves him of the need to fulfill the promise . In fact, it looks like both parties meant some kind of Law or Rule of Fair Play or good conduct or morality or something of the sort, as to which they both agree. And indeed it is. If they did not have this Law in mind, they could, of course, fight like animals fight, but they could not quarrel and argue like human beings. To quarrel means to try to show that the other person is wrong. And there would be no point in this effort if there were not some kind of agreement between you and him about what is good and what is evil.

In the same way, it would not make sense to say that a football player committed a foul if there was not a definite agreement about the rules of football.

This, of course, did not mean that from time to time we would not come across individuals who would not know about him, just as from time to time we meet color-blind people or people who are completely deaf to music. But, considering humanity as a whole, people thought that the human idea of decent behavior was obvious to everyone, and I think they were right. If they were wrong, then everything we say about the war, for example, would be meaningless. What is the point of saying that the enemy is wrong if such a thing as goodness would not be a reality? If the Nazis did not know in the depths of their hearts as well as you and I that they had to obey the voice of good, if they had no idea of what we call good, then, although we would have to fight against them we could no more blame them for the evil they did than for the color of their hair.

I know that, according to some people, the law of decent behavior, familiar to all of us, does not have a solid foundation, because in different centuries different civilizations held completely different views on morality. But this is not true. Differences between views on morality did exist, but they always concerned only particulars.

If anyone takes the trouble to compare the moral teachings that dominated, say, ancient Egypt, Babylon, India, China, Greece and Rome, he will be struck by the fact how similar these teachings were to each other and to our today's concept of morality. I have summarized some of the evidence for this in one of my books entitled Man Canceled, but for the moment I would only like to ask the reader to think about what a completely different understanding of morality would lead to. Imagine a country where people are admired for running away from the battlefield, or where a person prides himself on having deceived everyone who has shown him genuine kindness. You might as well imagine a country where two times two equals five. People differed in their views on who should not be selfish towards - whether only to members of their family, or to those who live around, or in general to all people. However, they have always agreed that one should not put oneself first. Selfishness has never been considered a meritorious quality anywhere.

People also held different opinions on the question of how many wives one should have: one or four. But they have always agreed that you have no right to take every woman you like.

However, the most remarkable thing is the following. Whenever you meet a person who claims that he does not believe in the reality of good and evil, in the next moment you will see how this same person himself returns to the principles he rejected. He may break his promise to you, but if you try to break your promise to him, before you can say a word, he will complain, "It's not fair." Representatives of a country may claim that treaties have no meaning, but the next minute they will cross out their own assertion, declaring that the treaty they are about to violate is unjust. However, if contracts have no meaning, and if good and evil do not exist, in other words, if there is no law of human nature, then what difference can there be between just and unjust contracts? I think you can't hide an awl in a sack, and no matter what they say, it's quite clear that they know this law of human nature as well as any other person.

It follows that we are forced to believe in the true existence of good and evil. At times people may be mistaken in defining them, as they are, say, in adding numbers, but the concept of good and evil is no more dependent on one's taste and opinion than the multiplication table. Now, if you agree with me on this point, we'll move on to the next one. It is that none of us truly follows the law of nature. If there are exceptions among you, I apologize to them. I would advise these people to read some other book, because everything that I am going to talk about here has nothing to do with them.

So, back to ordinary human beings. I hope you don't misunderstand what I'm about to say. I'm not preaching here, and God knows I'm not trying to be better than others. I'm just trying to draw your attention to one fact, namely, that this year, or this month, or, more likely, today, you and I have not managed to behave the way we would like other people to behave. . There can be any number of explanations and apologies for this.

For example, you are terribly tired when you were so unfair to children; that not quite clean deal, which you almost forgot about, turned up for you at a moment when you were especially tight with money; and what you promised to do for such and such an old friend of yours (you promised and did not do it) - well, you would never bind yourself with a word if you knew in advance how terribly busy you would be at that time! As for your behavior with your wife (or husband), sister (or brother), then if I knew how they can irritate a person, I would not be surprised - and who am I, after all? I myself am the same. That is, I myself do not manage to properly observe the natural law, and as soon as someone starts telling me that I do not observe it, a whole swarm of apologies and explanations immediately arise in my head. But at the moment we are not interested in how reasonable all these apologies and explanations are. The fact is that they are just one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the law of human nature. If we don't believe in the real value of decent behavior, then why are we so eager to justify our not-quite-decent behavior? The truth is that we believe in decency so deeply - we feel so much pressure from this law or rule - that we cannot bear the fact that we violate it, and as a result we try to write off our responsibility for violating someone. one or the other.

Have you noticed that we only look for explanations for our bad behavior? We only attribute our bad behavior to being tired, or worried, or hungry. We do not explain our good behavior by external reasons: we put it solely in the merit of ourselves. So I want to draw your attention to two points: First, human beings in all parts of the world share the curious idea that they should behave in certain ways. They cannot get rid of this idea. Second, they don't actually behave that way. They know natural law and they break it.

These two facts are the basis of our understanding of ourselves and the universe in which we live.

Some objections

In these letters, for example, I read: "Is not what you call the moral law simply our herd instinct, and has it not developed in the same way as all our other instincts?"

Well, I do not deny that we can have a herd instinct; but that is not at all what I mean by the moral law. We all know what it's like to feel the impulses of instinct in ourselves - whether it be motherly love, or sexual instinct, or hunger. This instinct means that you have a strong desire to act in a certain way. And of course, sometimes we have a strong desire to help another person, and there is no doubt that such a desire arises in us due to the herd instinct. But feeling the desire to help is not at all the same as feeling: you have to help, whether you want it or not. Suppose you hear a cry for help from a person in danger. You may feel two desires at the same time: one - to help him (due to your herd instinct) and the other desire to stay away from danger (due to the instinct of self-preservation). However, in addition to these two impulses, you will find a third one in yourself that tells you that you must follow the impulse that pushes you to help, and that you must suppress the desire to run away. This impulse which judges between two instincts, which decides which instinct to follow and which to suppress, cannot itself be either of them. You could just as well say that the sheet of music, which indicates which key you are currently hitting, is itself one of the keys. The moral law tells us what tune we should play; our instincts are just keys.

“Your herd instinct is asleep. Awaken him,” cannot itself belong to the herd instinct.

This question can be looked at from a third perspective. If the moral law were one of our instincts, we could point to a certain impulse within us that would always be in accordance with the rule of decent behavior. But we do not find such an impulse in ourselves. Among all our impulses, there is not one that the moral law would never have reason to suppress, and none that it would never have to stimulate. It would be a mistake to think that some of our instincts, such as maternal love or patriotism, are right, good, while others, such as the sexual or warlike instinct, are bad. It's just that in life you often come across circumstances when you have to curb the sexual or warlike instinct than those when you have to restrain maternal love or patriotic feeling. However, in certain situations, the duty of a married man is the excitation of the sexual impulse, the duty of a soldier is the excitation of the militant instinct in himself.

On the other hand, there are circumstances when a mother's love for her children and a man's love for his country should be suppressed; otherwise it would lead to injustice towards the children of other parents and towards the peoples of other countries. Strictly speaking, there are no such things as good and bad impulses. Let's go back to the piano example. There are no two on the keyboard various kinds key - true and false. Depending on when a note is played, it will sound right or wrong. The moral law is not some separate instinct or some set of instincts. It is something (call it virtue or right behavior) that guides our instincts, bringing them into line with the life around us.

Incidentally, this has a serious practical value. The most dangerous thing that a person is capable of is to choose one of his natural impulses and follow it always, at any cost. We do not have a single instinct that would not turn us into devils if we began to follow it as some kind of absolute guideline. You might think that the instinct of love for all mankind is always safe. And you'll be wrong. If you neglect justice, you will find yourself breaking treaties and giving false evidence in court "in the interests of mankind", and this will eventually lead to you becoming a cruel and treacherous person.

Some people in their letters ask me this question: “Maybe what you call a moral law is in fact a social agreement that becomes our property thanks to the education received?” I think this question arises from a misunderstanding of some things. The people who ask it proceed from the fact that if we have learned something from parents or teachers, then this “something” is necessarily a human invention. However, this is not at all the case. We all learn the multiplication table in school. A child who grew up alone on an abandoned island will not know this table. But it certainly does not follow from this that the multiplication table is just a human agreement, something people invented for themselves, which they could invent in a different way if they wanted to. I fully agree that we learn the rule of good behavior from parents, teachers, friends, and books, just as we learn everything else. However, only some of these things that we learn are just conventions, and they really could be changed; for example, we are taught to keep to the right side of the road, but we might as well use the left-hand traffic rule. Other business - such rules as mathematical. They cannot be changed, because they are real, objectively existing truths.

The question is what category of rules natural law belongs to. There are two reasons why it belongs to the same category as the multiplication table. The first, as I said in the first chapter, is that, despite the different approaches to morality in different countries and at different times, these differences are insignificant. They are not nearly as big as some people imagine. Always and everywhere ideas of morality proceeded from the same law. Meanwhile, simple (or conditional) agreements, like the rules of the road or the cut of clothes, can differ from each other without limit.

The second reason is as follows. When you think about these differences in the moral ideas of different peoples, does it not occur to you that the morality of one people is better (or worse) than the morality of another people? Wouldn't some changes have contributed to its improvement? If not, then, of course, there could be no moral progress. After all, progress means not just change, but change for the better. If none of the moral codes were truer or better than the other, then there would be no point in preferring the morality of a civilized society to the morality of savages, or the morality of Christians to the morality of the Nazis.

In fact, of course, we all believe that one morality is better, more correct than another. We believe that the people who tried to change the moral ideas of their time, who were the so-called reformers, understood the meaning of moral principles better than their neighbors. Well, that's good. However, at the very moment when you declare that one moral code is better than another, you mentally apply a certain standard to them and conclude that this code is more consistent with it than that one.

However, the standard that serves you as a measure of two things must itself be different from both of them. In this case, you are thus comparing these moral codes with some true morality, thereby recognizing that there really is such a thing as true justice, regardless of what people think, and that the ideas of some are more in line with this true justice than the ideas of others. Or let's look at it the other way. If your moral ideas can be more correct, and the moral ideas of the Nazis less correct, then there must be something - some true moral standard - that can serve as a measure of the correctness or incorrectness of certain views. The reason why your idea of New York may be truer or worse than mine is that New York is a real place and it exists regardless of what any of us think about it. If each of us, when we say "New York," meant simply "the city I imagined," how could one of us have any truer idea of it than the other? Then there could be no question of someone being right or someone wrong. In the same way, if the rule of good conduct simply meant "whatever a given people approves of", there would be no point in claiming that one people is fairer in its assessments than another. It would not make sense to say that the world can improve or deteriorate morally.

So I can conclude that although differences between people's notions of decent behavior often make us doubt whether there is such a thing as a true law of behavior, the fact that we tend to think about these differences proves that it exists. .

Before I finish, let me say a few more words. I have met people who exaggerate the differences mentioned because they did not see the difference between differences in moral conceptions and in understanding or conception of certain facts. For example, one person said to me, “Three hundred years ago, witches were killed in England. Was it a manifestation of what you call natural law, or the law of right conduct? But we don't kill witches today because we don't believe in their existence. If we believed - if we really thought that there are people around us who sold their souls to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return, which they use to kill their neighbors, or drive them crazy, or cause bad weather, - we would all certainly agree that if anyone deserves the death penalty, it's them, these wicked traitors. In this case, there is no difference in moral principles: the difference lies only in the way you look at the fact.

The fact that we do not believe in witches may indicate a great progress in the field of human knowledge: the end of the trials of witches, in whose existence we ceased to believe, cannot be considered as a progress in the field of morality. You wouldn't call a man who stopped setting mousetraps humane if you knew: he just made sure there were no mice in his house.

The Reality of the Law

Have you noticed what follows from this? It follows from this that what we usually call a law of nature, such as the influence of natural conditions on the formation of a tree, may not be called a law in the strict sense of the word. After all, when we say that falling stones always obey the law of gravity, we, in essence, mean that "the stones always do this." You don't really think that when the stone is let go, it suddenly remembers that it has an order to fly to the ground. You just mean that the stone actually falls to the ground. In other words, you cannot be sure that behind these facts there is something other than the facts themselves, some kind of law about what should happen, as opposed to what actually happens.

The laws of nature, as applied to stones and trees, only state what actually happens in nature. But when you turn to natural law, to the law of good conduct, you come across something very different. This law certainly does not mean "what human beings really do" because, as I said before, many of us are not subject to this law at all, and none of us are completely subject to it. The law of gravity tells you what a stone will do if it is dropped; the moral law says what human beings must do and what they must not do. In other words, when you are dealing with people, then, in addition to simple facts to be ascertained, you are faced with something else, with some kind of adventitious driving force that stands above the facts. Here are the facts (people behave this way). But before you and something else (they should behave like this). In everything that concerns the rest of the Universe (apart from man), there is no need for anything other than facts. Electrons and molecules behave in a certain way, from which certain results follow, and this, perhaps, is all. (However, I do not think that this is evidenced by the arguments that we have at this stage). However, people behave in a certain way, and this certainly does not end there, because you know that they should behave differently.

All this is so strange that people try to explain it one way or another. For example, we can come up with the following explanation: when you say that a person should not behave as he behaves, you mean the same thing as in the case of a stone when you say that it has an irregular shape, namely that This person's behavior makes you uncomfortable. However, such an explanation would be completely wrong. The man who took the corner seat on the train because he got there first, and the man who slipped into that corner seat, taking your briefcase off it when you turned your back on him, caused you the same inconvenience. But you blame the second, but not the first. I don't get angry—maybe just for a few moments, until I calm down—when some person accidentally trips me up. But I get indignant when someone wants to set my foot on purpose, even if he fails to do so. Meanwhile, the first gave me an unpleasant moment, and the second did not.

Sometimes the behavior that I consider bad does not harm me personally at all, quite the contrary. During the war, each side is happy to use the services of a traitor on the part of the enemy. But even using his services, even paying for them, both sides look at the traitor as a bastard. Therefore, you cannot define the behavior of other people as decent, guided only by the criterion of the usefulness of this behavior for you personally. As for our own decent behavior, I don't think any of us see it as behavior that benefits us. To behave decently is to be content with thirty shillings when you could get three pounds; it is honest to do your school homework, when it would be easy to deceive the teacher; it is to leave the girl alone instead of taking advantage of her weakness; it is not to flee from a dangerous place, taking care of your own safety; it is to keep your promises when it would be easier to forget about them; it's telling the truth, even if it makes you look like a fool to others.

Some people say that while decent behavior does not necessarily benefit the individual at the moment, it ultimately benefits humanity as a whole. And that, therefore, there is nothing mysterious about it. People, after all, have common sense. They understand that they can only be happy or truly secure in a society where everyone plays a fair game. That is why they try to behave decently. Of course, there is no doubt that the secret of security and happiness is only in an honest, fair and benevolent attitude towards each other on the part of both individuals and groups, and entire nations. This is one of the most important truths in the world. And yet we find in it weakness when we try to explain our approach to the problem of good and evil with it.

If we ask, "Why shouldn't I be selfish?", and get the answer, "Because it's good for society," then a new question may arise: "Why should I think about what is good for society, if it is does not benefit me personally? But there is only one possible answer to this question: "Because you should not be selfish." As you can see, we have come to the same place where we started. We are only stating what is true. If a person asked you why they play football, then the answer “in order to score goals” would hardly be a good one. For scoring goals is the game itself, and not its cause. Your answer would simply mean that "football is football", and this is certainly true, but is it worth talking about?

In the same way, if a person asks what is the point of behaving decently, it is pointless to answer him: "In order to benefit society." Since trying to "benefit society", in other words, not be selfish, selfish (because society, in the end, means "other people"), this is what it means to be a decent, unselfish person.

After all, dishonesty is integral part decent behaviour. So you are effectively saying that decent behavior is decent behavior. You might as well stop at the statement: "People should be selfless."

This is where I want to stop. People should be selfless, should be fair. This does not mean that they are selfless or that they enjoy being selfless; that means they have to be. The moral law, or natural law, does not simply state the fact of human behavior, just as the law of gravity states the fact of the behavior of heavy objects when they fall. On the other hand, this natural law is not just an invention, because we cannot forget about it. And if we forgot about it, then most of what we say and think about people would turn into nonsense. And this is not just a statement about how we would like others to behave for our convenience. Because so-called bad or dishonest behavior does not quite and always correspond to behavior that is uncomfortable for us. Sometimes, on the contrary, it is convenient for us. Therefore, this rule of good and evil, or natural law, or whatever we may call it, must be some kind of reality, something that objectively exists independently of us.

However, this rule or law is not an objective fact in the ordinary sense of the word, such as, for example, the fact of our behavior. And this leads us to the idea of some other reality, that in this particular case, behind the ordinary facts of human behavior, there is something quite definite that reigns over them, a certain law that none of us made and which nevertheless affects everyone. of us.

What's Behind the Law

Let's summarize what we've found out so far. In the case of stones, trees, and the like, the so-called law of nature is nothing more than a figure of speech. When you say that nature obeys certain laws, you only mean that it behaves or behaves in a certain way.

The second point of view is religious. According to her, the source of the origin of the visible universe should be sought in some kind of mind (rather than in anything else). This mind is conscious, has its own goals, and prefers some things over others. From a religious point of view, it was this mind that created the universe, partly for some purpose that we do not know about, and partly in order to produce creatures similar to itself, I mean - endowed like it, with reason. Please do not think that one of these points of view existed a long time ago, and the other has gradually supplanted it. Wherever thinking people have ever lived, they have both existed. And notice one more thing. You cannot establish which of these two theories is scientifically correct. Science works through experiments. She observes how objects, materials, elements, etc. behave. Any scientific statement, no matter how complicated it may seem, ultimately boils down to the following: "I pointed the telescope at such and such a part of the sky at 2.20 am on January 15 and saw such and such." Or: "I put a certain amount of this substance in a vessel, heated it to such and such a temperature, and this and that happened." Don't think that I have anything against science. I'm just explaining how it works. And the more learned a person is, the sooner (I hope) he will agree with me that this is precisely what science consists of, this is precisely its usefulness and necessity. But why all these objects that science will study exist at all and whether there is something completely different from them behind these objects is not at all a question of science. If “something” exists behind all the reality we observe, then it will either remain unknown to people, or will let them know about itself in some special way. Statements that this “something” exists, or, conversely, does not exist, are not within the competence of science. And real scientists usually do not make such statements. More often they are journalists and authors of popular novels who have picked up unverified scientific data from textbooks.

Ultimately, simple common sense tells us: suppose one day science becomes so perfect that it comprehends every particle of the universe; Isn't it clear that the questions "Why does the Universe exist?", "Why does it behave this way and not otherwise?" and “Is there any point in her existence?” then, as now, there will be no answer.

The question, therefore, becomes in another plane. We want to know if the Universe became what it is by chance, on its own, for no reason whatsoever, or if there is some force behind it that makes the Universe the way it is. Since this force, if it exists, cannot be one of the observable facts, but is the reality that creates these facts, mere observation of them will not reveal it. Only one single phenomenon suggests the existence of "something" apart from the observed facts, and that phenomenon is ourselves. Only in our own case do we see that this “something” exists.

Let's look at the situation from the other side. If there were some controlling force outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the internal elements inherent in the universe, as an architect who designed a house could not be a wall, a staircase or a fireplace in this house. . The only thing we could hope for is that this force will manifest itself within us in the form of a certain influence or command, trying to direct our behavior in a certain direction. But it is precisely this influence that we find within ourselves. Wouldn't such a discovery ought to arouse our suspicions? The only time we could hope to get an answer is if it gives us a positive answer; and in other cases where we don't get a response, we see why we can't get one.

Suppose someone asked me, "Why, when you see a man in a blue uniform walking down the street and leaving small paper bags at every house, do you assume that these bags contain letters?" I would say, "Because whenever he leaves a paper bag like this for me, I find a letter in it." And if this person objected: "But you have never seen those letters that you think other people receive," I would answer: "Of course not, because they are not addressed to me, I can guess the contents of the packages, which I am not allowed to open, similar to that package. which I can open.

The same is true of our question. The only package I'm allowed to open is a person. And when I do this, especially when I discover one particular person whom I call "I", I find that I do not exist on my own, that I am subject to some law; something or someone wants me to behave in a certain way. Of course, I don't think that if I could get inside a stone or a tree, I would find exactly the same thing there, just like I don't think that all other people on this street receive the same letters as I. I might, for example, hope to discover that a stone must obey the law of gravity. The "letterer" simply tells me to obey the law of my human nature, while he makes the stone obey the laws of its nature. But I should have expected that in both cases there is a "letter sender" at work, a force behind the facts. The head of life, its leader.

Please don't think that I'm going faster than I'm actually going. I have not yet come a hundred kilometers to God, as Christian theology interprets Him. Everything I have expressed so far boils down to this: there is something that rules the universe and manifests itself in me as a law that prompts me to do good and feel remorse for the evil I have done. I think we should assume that this force is more like mind than anything else, because in the end, the only thing we know besides mind is matter. But one can hardly imagine a piece of matter giving instructions. However, it is unlikely that this force exactly corresponds to the mind in our understanding; perhaps even less does it correspond to the human personality.

Let's see if we can learn a little more about this power in the next chapter. But one word of caution: in the last century, there have been a lot of too free fantasies about God. I am definitely not going to suggest something like that to you.

Note. In order to make this section short enough and suitable for radio broadcasts, I have mentioned only the materialistic and religious points of view. But for the sake of completeness, I should mention an intermediate point of view, the so-called "life force" philosophy, or creative evolution. This philosophy is presented most wittily in Bernard Shaw, but most deeply illuminated in the writings of Bergson. People who adhere to this philosophy believe that the small changes in which life on our planet evolved from its lower forms to man were not accidental, but were directed by the "purposive" force of life.

When people talk about such a power, we have the right to ask them whether this power, in their opinion, has a mind. If so, then "the mind that gave birth to life and leads it to perfection" is simply God. Thus, this point of view is likened to a religious one.

If they think that this force is devoid of reason, then how can they say that "something" that does not have a mind "strives" to something or has some kind of "purpose"? Isn't such logic fatal for their point of view? The idea of creative evolution attracts many people because it does not deprive the pleasure of believing in God, but at the same time frees a person from the not very pleasant consequences arising from His existence. When you are in perfect health, and the sun is shining, and you do not want to think that the whole universe is just a mechanical dance of atoms, it is pleasant to think about the great mysterious force that flows through the centuries, carrying you on itself. If, on the other hand, you want to do something dishonorable, then the force of life, being blind, devoid of reason and moral concepts, will not interfere with your intentions, as that annoying god interferes, about which we were told in childhood. The life force is a kind of tame, tamed god.

You can tune in to his wave when you have a desire, but he himself will not disturb you. In a word, all the pleasures of religion remain with you, and you don’t have to pay for anything. Truly, this theory is the greatest achievement of our tendency to wishful thinking!

We have cause for concern

If you think about the current state of the world, it becomes quite clear to you that humanity is making a great mistake. We are all on the wrong path. And if so, then we all need to go back. Going back is the fastest way forward.

The second fact that points to His existence is the moral law that He put into our minds. And this second evidence is more valuable than the first, because it gives us information of an internal nature. You learn more about God from the moral law than from watching the universe, just as you learn more about a man by listening to what he says and how he says than by looking at the house he built.

Based on this second fact, we conclude that the Being behind the visible Universe is passionately interested in the correct behavior of people, in their "fair play", in their unselfishness, courage, sincere faith, honesty and truthfulness. In light of this, we have to agree with the assertion of Christianity and some other religions that God is good. But let's not rush. The moral law gives us no reason to believe that God is good in the sense that He is indulgent, gentle, benevolent.

There is no indulgence in the moral law. He is hard as a diamond. He orders straight paths and does not seem to care at all about how painful, dangerous or difficult it is to follow this order. If God is like this moral law, then He is hardly soft.

At this stage, it makes no sense for us to say that by a “good” God we mean a God who is able to forgive. After all, only a person can forgive. But we are not yet entitled to assert that God is a person. So far we have come to the conclusion that the power behind the moral law is more like reason than anything else. But this does not mean that this force must be a person. If it's just an impersonal, unfeeling mind, then it probably doesn't make sense to ask for help or indulgence, just as it wouldn't make sense to ask the multiplication table to forgive you for the wrong count. In this case, you cannot avoid the wrong answer. And it is useless to say that if God is like that, if He is an impersonal absolute good, then you do not like Him and you are not going to pay attention to Him. It is useless, because one part of you stands on the side of this God and sincerely agrees with His condemnation of human cruelty, greed, dishonesty and self-interest. You might wish He was more forgiving this time around. But deep down you know that if the power behind the universe does not unequivocally denounce misbehavior, it will cease to be good. On the other hand, we know that if there is an absolute good, it must hate most of what you and I do.

This is the terrible, hopeless situation we find ourselves in. If the universe is not ruled by absolute good, then all our efforts are ultimately in vain. If, however, absolute good still rules the universe, then we daily throw a hostile challenge to it, and it is unlikely that tomorrow we will become any better than today. Thus, in this case, too, our situation is hopeless. We cannot live without this good, and we cannot live in harmony with it.

God is our only consolation, and nothing terrifies us more than He: we need Him the most, and from Him we most want to hide. He is our only possible ally, and we have made ourselves His enemies. To listen to some people, so meeting face to face with absolute goodness is a pleasure. They should have thought carefully; they still play religion. Transcendental kindness brings with it either great relief or the greatest danger, depending on how you respond to it. And we are giving you the wrong answer.

Now I come to the third point. In taking this detour to approach the subject that really interests me, I did not mean to play on you. I have chosen it for the following reason: any talk of Christianity is meaningless to people who have not first become acquainted with the facts that I have described above. Christianity calls on people to repent in order to be forgiven. He has nothing (as far as I know) to say to people who don't know anything about themselves to repent of and who don't feel they need forgiveness. Only after you realize that the moral law really exists, as well as the power behind it, and that you have violated this law and misbehaved in relation to this power - only then, and not a second earlier, will Christianity begin to gain meaning to you.

When you know you are sick, you follow the doctor's advice. When you realize the hopelessness of your situation, you will begin to understand what Christians are talking about, because they offer an explanation for our circumstances: how it happened that we both hate the good and love it. They offer an explanation of how God can be the impersonal intelligence behind the moral law and at the same time a Person. They tell you how the requirements of the law, which are impossible for us, were fulfilled for a reserve, how God Himself became a man in order to save man from God's condemnation. This is an old story, and if you wish to delve into it, you will no doubt turn to those who are more competent than I am. All I ask of you is to face the facts in order to understand the questions to which Christianity offers answers. And these are frightening facts. I would like to say something more rosy; but I must say what I think is true. I certainly wholeheartedly agree that the Christian religion is ultimately a source of unspeakable comfort. But it does not begin with consolation. It begins with the anxiety and confusion that I have described above, and it would not make sense to try to arrive at this comfort without going through the anxiety stage. In religion - as in war, as in other situations: peace (consolation) cannot be found if one seeks only it. Now, if you seek the truth, then perhaps in the end you will find peace; and if all your search is for peace, you will not find it or truth. All that you will find are empty speeches and thoughts that will seem to you the truth at the beginning of the journey, but at the end of it hopeless despair awaits you. For the most part, we have recovered from the pre-war rosy dreams of a coherent international policy. It is time to heal them in religion as well.

The book was written in 1942-43. Translation by N.L.Trauberg (using the translation by I.Cherevata) according to the edition: Lewis C.S. Mere Christianity. L., 1943. Source: Lewis Clive Staples Love. Suffering. Hope: Proverbs. Treatises: Per. from English. - M.: Respublika, 1992. - 432 p.

FOREWORD

What is said in this book was the material for a series of radio broadcasts, and subsequently was published in three separate parts under the title "Radio Talks" (1942), "Christian Conduct" (1943) and "Beyond the Personality" (1944). In the printed version, I made a few additions to what I said into the microphone, but otherwise left the text unchanged. A conversation on the radio should not, in my opinion, sound like a literary essay read aloud, it should be just a conversation filled with sincerity. Therefore, in my conversations, I used all the abbreviations and colloquial expressions that I usually use in conversation. In the printed version, I reproduced these abbreviations and colloquial turns. And all those places where in a conversation on the radio I emphasized the significance of a particular word with a tone of voice, in the printed version I highlighted in italics. Now I am inclined to believe that this was a mistake on my part - an undesirable hybrid of the art of speaking with the art of writing. The narrator should use the tones of his voice to underline and highlight certain passages, because the genre of conversation itself requires it, but the writer should not use italics for the same purpose. He has other, his own means at his disposal and must use these means in order to isolate the keywords.

In this edition, I have eliminated abbreviations and replaced all italics, reworking the sentences in which these italics occurred, without damaging, I hope, the "familiar" and simple tone that was characteristic of radio conversations. Here and there I have made additions or crossed out certain places; in doing so, I proceeded from the fact that the original version, as I found out, was misunderstood by others, and I myself, in my opinion, began to understand the subject of the conversation better now than I did ten years ago.

From the moment I became a Christian, I have always believed that the best and perhaps the only service I could render to my unbelieving neighbors was to explain and defend the faith that was common and the same for almost all Christians on throughout all time. I have enough reasons for this point of view.

Finally, I have the impression that far more talented writers have been involved in discussing these contentious issues than in defending the essence of Christianity, or "just" Christianity, as Baxter calls it. The area in which I thought I could serve with the greatest success was the one most in need of such a service. Naturally, that's where I went.

As far as I remember, my motives and motives amounted to only this, and I would be very glad if people did not draw far-reaching conclusions from my silence on some controversial issues.

For example, such silence does not necessarily mean that I take a wait-and-see attitude. Although sometimes it really is. Christians sometimes have questions that I don't think we have the answers to. There are also those to which I, most likely, will never get an answer: even if I ask them in a better world, then. perhaps (as far as I know) I will get the answer that another, much greater questioner has already received once: "What is it to you? Follow Me!" However, there are other issues on which I take a very definite position, but on these issues I remain silent. Because I am not writing to state something that I could call "my religion", but to explain the essence of Christianity, which is what it is, has been so long before I was born and does not depend on whether you like it or not. it to me or not.

Some people draw unwarranted conclusions from the fact that I only speak of the Blessed Virgin Mary in connection with the Immaculate Conception and the birth of Christ. But the reason for this is obvious. If I were to say a little more, it would immediately lead me into the realm of highly controversial points of view. Meanwhile, no other controversial issue in Christianity needs such a delicate approach as this one. The Roman Catholic Church defends its views on this subject not only with the usual fervor of all sincere religious beliefs, but (quite naturally) all the more fervently because it shows the chivalrous sensitivity with which a person defends the honor of his mother or beloved from the danger that threatens her. . It is very difficult to disagree with them in these views just enough so as not to seem to them an ignoramus, or even a heretic. Conversely, the opposing beliefs of Protestants on this issue are evoked by sentiments that are rooted in the very foundations of monotheism. It seems to radical Protestants that the very distinction between Creator and creation (however holy it may be) is being threatened; that again, thus, polytheism is revived. However, it is very difficult to disagree with them just enough so as not to be in their eyes something worse than a heretic, namely a pagan. If there is such a topic that can ruin a book about the essence of Christianity, if some topic can result in absolutely useless reading for those who have not yet believed that the Son of the Virgin is God, then this is precisely this topic.

A strange situation arises: from my silence on these issues, you cannot even draw conclusions whether I consider them important or not. The fact is that the very question of their significance is also controversial. One of the points on which Christians disagree is whether their differences matter. When two Christians from different denominations start arguing, soon, as a rule, one of them asks if this issue is so important; to which the other replies: "Is it important? Well, of course, it has the most significant value!"

All this was said only to explain the kind of book I was trying to write, and not at all to hide my beliefs or avoid responsibility for them. As I said, I don't keep them a secret. In the words of Uncle Toby: "They are written in the prayer book."

As far as I can judge from these critical reviews, or from the many letters I have received, this book, however erroneous in other respects, has succeeded in at least one thing - to give an idea of conventional Christianity. Thus, this book may be of some assistance in overcoming the view that if we leave out all disputed questions, then we will be left with only an indefinite and bloodless Holy Christian Faith. In fact, the Holy Christian Faith turns out to be not only something positive, but also categorical, separated from all non-Christian denominations by an abyss that cannot be compared even with the most serious cases of division within Christianity. If I have not helped the cause of reunification directly, I hope I have made it clear why we must unite. Admittedly, I have rarely encountered legendary theological intolerance from hardened members of communities who disagree with my own. Hostility comes mainly from people who belong to intermediate groups, both within the Church of England and other denominations, that is, from those who do not really consider the opinion of any community. And I found this state of affairs comforting. Because it is the centers of each community, where its true children are concentrated, that are truly close to each other - in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this testifies that at the center of every community there is something or Someone Who, despite all differences of opinion, all differences in temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.

That's all for my reticence about doctrine. In Book Three, which deals with questions of morality, I also left out some points, but for different reasons. Even from the time when I served as a private during the First World War, I was imbued with antipathy for people who, sitting in the safety of headquarters, issued appeals and instructions to those who were on the front line. As a result, I am not inclined to talk much about temptations that I have not experienced myself. I believe that there is no such person who would be tempted by all sins. It just so happens that the impulse that makes players out of people was not embedded in me when I was created; and, no doubt, I pay for this by the absence in me of other, useful impulses, which, being exaggerated or distorted, push a person onto the path of gambling. Therefore, I do not feel well-versed to give advice on what kind of gambling is legal and what is not: if there is legal gambling at all, I simply do not know about it. I also ignored the question of contraceptives. I'm not a woman, I'm not even a married man or a priest. Therefore, I do not consider myself entitled to take a decisive position in a matter related to pain, danger and costs, from which I myself am spared; besides, I do not hold a pastoral office that would oblige me to do so.

There may be deeper objections - and they were expressed - about my understanding of the word Christian, by which I designate a person who shares the generally accepted doctrines of Christianity. People ask me the question: "Who are you to decide who is a Christian and who is not?" Or, "Might not many who fail to believe in these doctrines turn out to be far more true Christians, closer to the spirit of Christ, than those who believe in these doctrines?" This objection is in a sense very true, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. But having all the useful properties, it is useless. We simply cannot use linguistic categories with impunity in the way our opponents want us to. I will try to clarify this by using another, much less important word.

The word "gentleman" originally meant something quite definite - a person who had his own coat of arms and landed property. When you called someone a gentleman, you weren't complimenting them, you were simply stating a fact. If you said about someone that he was not a gentleman, it was not an insult, but simple information. In those days, to say that, for example, John is a liar and a gentleman, would not be a contradiction; at least it wouldn't sound more contradictory than if we said today that James is a fool and a master of science. But then there were people who said - they said so truly, kindly, with such deep understanding and sensitivity (and yet their words did not carry useful information): "But for a gentleman, it is not his coat of arms and land that are important, but how he behaves. Of course, a true gentleman is one who behaves like a gentleman, isn't he? So Edward is much more a gentleman than John." Those who said so had noble intentions. Far better to be honest and polite and brave than to have your own coat of arms. But it's not the same. Worse, not everyone wants to agree with this. For the word "gentleman" in this new, ennobled sense ceases to be information about a person, and simply turns into praise for him: to say that such and such a person is not a gentleman is to insult him. When a word ceases to be a means of description, and becomes only a means of praise, it no longer carries factual information: it testifies only to the attitude of the speaker. ("Good" food means only that the speaker likes it.) The word "gentleman", having been "spiritualized" and "purified" from its former, clear and objective sense, hardly means now more than that the speaker likes that person. , which is being discussed. As a result, the word "gentleman" has become a useless word. We already had a monotony of words expressing approval, so we did not need it for this purpose: on the other hand, if someone (for example, in a historical work) wishes to use this word in its old sense, he does not will be able to do this without resorting to explanations, because the word is no longer suitable for expressing its original meaning.

So if one day we allow people to uplift and ennoble, or, as they say, to give a deeper meaning to the word "Christian", this word, too, will soon lose its meaning. First, Christians themselves cannot apply it to any person. It is not for us to decide who, in the deepest sense of the word, is close or not to the spirit of Christ. We cannot read in human hearts. We cannot judge, we are not allowed to judge. It would be dangerous arrogance on our part to say that such and such a person is or is not a Christian in the deepest sense of the word. But it is obvious that a word that we cannot use becomes useless. As for unbelievers, they will no doubt readily use the word in its "refined" sense. In their mouths it will become a mere expression of praise. By calling someone a Christian, they will only mean that he is a good person. But such a use of this word will not enrich the language, because we already have the word "good." In the meantime, the word "Christian" will no longer be fit for the really useful purpose it now serves.

We must therefore stick to the original, clear meaning of the word. For the first time, "disciples" in Antioch, that is, those who accepted the teachings of the apostles, began to be called Christians (Acts II, 26). Undoubtedly, only those who benefited most from this teaching were so called. Of course, this name extended not to those who hesitated whether to accept the teachings of the apostles, but to those who, precisely in an exalted, spiritual sense, turned out to be "much closer to the spirit of Christ." This is not a question of theology or morality. It is just a matter of using the words in such a way that it is clear to everyone what is being said. If a person who has accepted the doctrine of Christianity leads a life unworthy of it, it is more correct to call him a bad Christian than to say that he is not a Christian.

I hope it will not occur to any reader that the "essence" of Christianity is offered here as some kind of alternative to the denominations of existing Christian churches - as if one might prefer it to the teachings of Congregationalism, or the Greek Orthodox Church, or whatever. whatever else. Rather, the "essence" of Christianity can be compared to a hall from which doors open into several rooms. If I manage to bring someone into this hall, my goal will be achieved. But lit fireplaces, chairs and food are in the rooms, not in the hall. This hall is a place of waiting, a place from which one can pass through this or that door, and not a dwelling place. Even the worst of the rooms (whatever) is more suitable for living. Some people will probably feel that it is better for them to stay in this room a little longer, while others will almost immediately choose with certainty the door they need to knock on. I don't know what makes this difference, but I'm sure God won't keep anyone in the waiting room longer than the person's interests require. When you finally enter your room, you will see that the long wait has brought you certain benefits that you otherwise would not have received. But you must look at this preliminary stage as a waiting, not as a halt. You must continue to pray for light; and of course, even while in the hall, you must begin to try to follow the rules common to the whole house. And besides, you must ask which door is the true one, no matter which one you like better for its paneling or coloring. To put it simply, you should not ask yourself, "Do I like this service?" , or simply from my taste, or from my personal dislike for this particular gatekeeper?"