Mere Christianity

Lewis notes that while it’s true that God begets Christ in the sense of making “something of the same kind as Himself” (160), there is nevertheless a difference between this scenario and a human father begetting a son. To illustrate the difference, Lewis points to some misconceptions: first, that a God who is more than human must be impersonal, and then that human souls might somehow be “absorbed” into this impersonal force after death. Lewis clarifies that Christians believe it’s possible to be both at one with God and a distinct (in fact, more distinct than ever) human personality.

Lewis suggests an analogy to the three dimensions of space: in the first dimension, there are only straight lines, but in the second and third these straight lines, while continuing to exist as lines, also combine to form more complex shapes. The Christian notion of God as a Trinity works in a similar way, as does the human experience of God in the next life: “On the Divine level you still find personalities; but up there you find them combined in new ways which we, who do not live on that level, cannot imagine” (162). Nevertheless, Lewis suggests it’s possible for us even in this life to enter somewhat into this “three-personal life”; in prayer, for instance, we are speaking to God, being motivated by God, and acting through God.

Lewis Clarifies that the fact that some people have much more profound spiritual experiences is not a sign of favoritism; rather, it’s a reflection of the fact that we must be in a particular state to see God clearly. Whereas science uses instruments to discover truths about the world, in Christianity, the human self is the instrument through which we come to know God. Furthermore, because God intended human beings to live and work in harmony with one another, we can only truly know God as part of the broader Christian community. 

Lewis begins with the topic of prayer, noting that many people find it hard to grasp how God can attend to the simultaneous prayers of so many different individuals. This reveals a fundamental difficulty many of us have when it comes to understanding God’s nature—namely, that we are bound by our own experience of time as a sequence of linear events. God, however, exists outside of time and in eternity: “If a million people are praying to Him at ten-thirty tonight, He need not listen to them all in that one little snippet which we call ten-thirty. Ten-thirty—and every other moment from the beginning of the world—is always the Present for Him” (167).

Lewis acknowledges that it’s difficult to conceptualize anything outside of time, but argues that it’s precisely our experience of time that often leads people to object to Christianity. He himself once struggled to understand who was acting as God while God was on Earth as Jesus, but this assumes that God is subject to sequential time. Now, Lewis realizes that, “You cannot fit Christ's earthly life in Palestine into any time-relations with His life as God beyond all space and time” (169).

That God is beyond our notions of time also helps reconcile another dilemma: if He knows what each individual is going to do the next day, how can we be free to do otherwise? This question about free will stems from the idea that God foresees our acts, but Lewis suggests that God does not “foresee” or “remember.” He is outside of time and all days are “Now” for Him.

Finally, Lewis clarifies that while he has found this idea helpful, and while many Christian theologians have held it, it isn’t strictly speaking Christian doctrine; therefore, readers do not have to take note in order to be good Christians. 

As humans, we usually imagine that results follow causes, and some of the language used in Christianity reflects this understanding of the world (e.g. the terms “Father” and “beget”). Lewis, however, cautions against oversimplification; a human father exists before his son, but there is no before or after where God is concerned. Lewis suggests that “we must think of the Son [. . .] streaming forth from the Father, like light from a lamp” (173).

Lewis also emphasizes that this is a “relation of love” whereby “[t]he Father delights in His Son [and] the Son looks up to His Father” (174). This helps clarify the Christian understanding of God as love—a feeling that can only take place between at least two people. In fact, Lewis suggests that both love and God are better understood as an activity that is vital and ongoing.

Lewis then refers to a third presence that, along with the Father and Son, makes up God; that is, the Holy Ghost or “spirit,” which the interplay between Father and Son produces. Lewis proposes seeing this presence as something inside us, or as love as we humans experience it, whereas the Father is in front of us and the Son at our side.

Lewis stresses that each of us needs to enter into this relationship in order to find happiness. This means moving beyond our merely “created,” biological life to the spiritual life that is begotten and eternal, and becoming true sons of God.