Page 2 (1/1)

THE CONTENTS of this book were first given on the air, and then published in three separate parts as Broadcast Talks (1942), Christian Behaviour 0943), and Beyond Personality (1944) In the printed versions I made a few additions to what I had said at the microphone, but otherwise left the text much as it had been A &039;talk&039; on the radio should, I think, be as like real talk as possible, and should not sound like an essay being read aloud In my talks I had therefore used all the contractions and colloquialisms I ordinarily use in conversation In the printed version I reproduced this, putting don&039;t and we&039;ve for do not and we have And whereever, in the talks, I had made the importance of a word clear by the emphasis of my voice, I printed it in italics I am now inclined to think that this was aand the art of writing A talker ought to use variations of voice for emphasis because his ht not to use italics for the sa out the key words and ought to use them In this edition I have expanded the contractions and replacedof the sentences in which they occurred: but without altering, I hope, the &039;popular&039; or &039;fa intended I have also added and deleted where I thought I understood any part of o or where I knew that the original version had been misunderstood by others

The reader should be warned that I offer no help to anyone who is hesitating between two Christian &039;denoht to becolican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, or a Roman Catholic This oiven the order is alphabetical) There is no mystery about my own position I aland, not especially &039;high&039;, nor especially &039;low&039;, nor especially anything else But in this book I a to convert anyone to ht that the best, perhaps the only, service I could do for hbours was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all ti this In the first place, the questions which divide Christians froy or even of ecclesiastical history, which ought never to be treated except by real experts I should have been out of my depth in such waters: more in need of help myself than able to help others And secondly, I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold So long as rite and talk about the any Christian communion than to draw him into our own Our divisions should never be discussed except 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 got the impression that far ed in such controversial matters than in the defence of what Baxter calls &039;ht I could serve best was also the part that seemed to be thinnest And to it I naturally went

So far as I know, these were lad if people would not draw fanciful inferences from my silence on certain disputed matters

For exa on the fence Sometimes I am There are questions at issue between Christians to which I do not think we have been told the answer There are some to which I may never know the answer: if I asked theht (for all I know) be answered as a far greater questioner was answered: &039;What is that to thee? Follow thou Me&039; But there are other questions as to which I a For I aion&039;, but to expound &039;mere&039; Christianity, which is what it is and hat it was long before I was born and whether I like it or not

Some people draarranted conclusions froin Mary than is involved in asserting the Virgin Birth of Christ But surelyso is obvious? To say ions And there is no controversy between Christians which needs to be so delicately touched as this The Roman Catholic beliefs on that subject are held not only with the ordinary fervour that attaches to all sincere religious belief, but (very naturally) with the peculiar and, as it were, chivalrous sensibility that a man feels when the honour of his mother or his beloved is at stake It is very difficult so to dissent from them that you will not appear to them a cad as well as a heretic And contrariwise, the opposed Protestant beliefs on this subject call forth feelings which go down to the very roots of all Monotheism whatever To radical Protestants it seems that the distinction between Creator and creature (however holy) is iain Hence it is hard so to dissent fro worse than a heretic - a Pagan If any topic could be relied upon to wreck a book about &039;mere&039; Christianity - if any topicfor those who do not yet believe that the Virgin&039;s son is God - surely this is it

Oddly enough, you cannot even conclude, from my silence on disputed points, either that I think them important or that I think them unimportant For this is itself one of the disputed points One of the things Christians are disagreed about is the ireements When two Christians of&039; different deno before one asks whether such-and-such a point &039;really matters&039; and the other replies &039;Matter? Why, it&039;s absolutely essential&039;

All this is said si to write not in the least to conceal or evade responsibility for my own beliefs About those, as I said before, there is no secret To quote Uncle Toby: &039;They are written in the Coer clearly was that I should put forward as co that was peculiar to the Church of England or (worse still) tothe original script of what is now Book II to four clergylican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Ro for their criticish about Faith, and the Roone rather too far about the comparative unimportance of theories in explanation of the Atonereed I did not have the re books sih differencesChristians, these would be differences between individuals or schools of thought, not between denoe from reviews and from the numerous letters written to me, the book, however faulty in other respects, did at least succeed in presenting an agreed, or common, or central, or &039;mere&039; Christianity In that way itthe view that, if we oue and bloodless HCF The HCF turns out to be soent; divided from all non-Christian beliefs by a chasm to which the worst divisions inside Christendom are not really comparable at all If I have not directly helped the cause of reunion, I have perhaps ht to be reunited Certainly I have icum from convinced members of communions different from my own Hostility has come land or without it: men not exactly obedient to any co It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if&039; not in doctrine And this suggests that at the centre of each there is a soencies of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice

So much for my omissions on doctrine In Book Ill, which deals with s in silence, but for a different reason Ever since I served as an infantryreat dislike of people who, themselves in ease and safety, issue exhortations to men in the front line As a result I have a reluctance to say much about temptations to which I myself am not exposed No man, I suppose, is tempted to every sin It so happens that the iamble has been left out of ood impulse of which it is the excess or perversion I therefore did not feel ive advice about per: if there is any permissible, for I do not clai about birth-control I am not a woman nor even a married man, nor am I a priest I did not think it ers and expenses froed me to do so

Far deeper objections ainst my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity People ask: &039;Who are you, to lay doho is, and who is not a Christian?&039;: or &039;May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than soht, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive It has every available quality except that of being useful We sie as these objectors want us to use it I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very inally nisable; one who had a coat of arentle hi a fact If you said he was not &039;a gentle infor that John was a liar and a gentle that James is a fool and an MA But then there cahtly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - &039;Ah but surely the ientleman is not the coat of arentleentleentleman than John?&039; They meant well To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of ar Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about To call a entleman&039; in this new, refined sense, beco infor hientle him When a word ceases to be a term of description and becoer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker&039;s attitude to that object (A &039;nice&039; entleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly entleman is now a useless word We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations It has been spoiled for that purpose

Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they &039;, the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ We do not see into e, and are indeed forbidden to judge It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense And obviously a hich we can never apply is not going to he a very useful word As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense It will beco anyone a Christian they willthe ill be no enrichood Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it inal, obvious iven at Antioch (Acts xi 26) to &039;the disciples&039;, to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching asextended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were &039;far closer to the spirit of Christ&039; than the less satisfactory of the disciples The point is not a theological orwords so that we can all understand what is being said When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian

I hope no reader will suppose that &039;mere&039; Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing coationalis else It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several roo anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at I do not knohy there is this difference, but I aood for hiet into your rooood which you would not have had otherwise But youYou ht: and, of course, even in the hall, youto obey the rules which are co which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and panelling In plain language, the question should never be: &039;Do I like that kind of service?&039; but &039;Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular doorkeeper?&039;

When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still In the hall If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them That is one of the rules common to the whole house