But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law. – Galatians 4:4

“We are a nation of laws, not of men…” – John Adams

“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” – first complaint in The Declaration of Independence

This past week I watched with interest as my May 5th C.S. Lewis post (The Proof is in the Longing) picked up an unusual number of unique hits/visits. Additionally, I got a huge kick out of it when something I wrote was reposted and attributed to Lewis himself!

It is with some caution, then, that I write about this Sunday’s lesson, where I tried to teach – or at least introduce – the first part of Lewis’s most excellent The Case for Christianity (TCFC). I can only hope I did not complicate the straightforward arguments via poor teaching.

What I enjoy about Lewis is how much sense his writing makes when I am reading it. What drives me crazy about Lewis is how difficult it is to sound like I am anywhere near on the same page when I am teaching!

What’s in The Case for Christianity?

TCFC begins with the broad (intentionally) argument that all human beings – regardless of faith or culture or nationality – hold to what are essentially the same convictions when it comes to ideas such as “fairness,” “right conduct,” and what C.S. Lewis refers to as “The Law of Nature.”

By Law of Nature Lewis means ideas about right and wrong that almost all people understand instinctually. This, he argues, is why people disagree and quarrel: their appeal is not to the written law of the land so much as it is to something beyond. This “something” – Lewis contends – is essentially universal.

Having established this foundational truth, Lewis then makes the simple (and impossible to disagree with) assertion that all – ALL – people fail to consistently follow this Law of Nature.

People are unlike a stone, Lewis points out, which does not choose to fall in accordance with the law of gravity – it just does, much as a tree grows or a river flows. This is not so much how a stone “ought to” behave as it is a description of what stones/trees/rivers always do. The difference with human behavior is that we do not “always” follow the Law of Nature as it applies to us. This, Lewis argues, suggests that the human condition is not only problematic, it signals clues regarding our origin, our meaning, and our relationship to a power that exists outside the natural order.

Humanity, then, is connected to and influence by something beyond this world. Humanity, then, is subject to laws that – although we have the option to reject them – are just as immutable and essential as gravity or mathematics or photosynthesis….

Thanks for hanging with me!

So, if you have read this much, this far, and I have not communicated effectively, then I am sorry. I really am trying my best.

But here is a large part of my reason for writing: I believe that we are at a dangerous moment in our history as the United States of America. I believe that what Lewis understood as universal truth is increasingly presented – increasingly lived – as irrelevant in today’s political climate.

C.S. Lewis helped fortify the soul of the United Kingdom when it was at its darkest hour. Today an alarming number of politicians seem to be working hard to undermine exactly what Lewis was advocating: the faith of common people in universal values such as decency, trust, honesty, fairness, truth and the rule of law.

Today an alarming number of politicians seem to be working hard to undermine exactly what Lewis was advocating: the faith of common people in universal values such as decency, trust, honesty, fairness, truth and the rule of law.

I believe – with C.S. Lewis – that ideals such as these, along with what founding father John Adams referred to as “A Nation Under Laws” are critical markers and evidences in the precarious balance we currently walk between freedom and the threat of tyranny.

If we reject ideals such as One Nation and E Pluribus Unum, and our historic trust in free and fair elections, then what do we have left other than anti-democracy and power grabs by sore losers? Who then can possibly be the arbiters of truth, other than those with the most guns and ammunition?

All this was at play in my mind when I tried my best to teach my class on the foundational and deeply important logic that is currently under siege by cynical and undemocratic currents within these fragile United States.

Cautiously, and with much prayer – DEREK