About the author
This paper was written by John G. West, Jr..
Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute
Included with the gracious permission of "Dr. Zeus", creator of "Into the Wardrobe", a popular website devoted to C.S. Lewis. The original online copy of this paper can be found here.cslewis.drzeus.net
These archives are open to the public for free. If you would like to contribute
something for the editor's efforts, however, there are several ways you can donate
online, helping him conquer some more of his reading list!
||Articles > The C.S. Lewis Archive > Finding the Permanent in the Political: C. S. Lewis as a Political Thinker
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Footnotes
Viewed in this way, it does not matter that Romans is the only place where
Paul explicitly delineates the natural law for the Gentiles, because the
need for a natural law is presupposed by the very preaching of the gospel
of repentance to anyone who is not a Jew. As Lewis noted in his essay on
ethics: "The convert accept[s]
forgiveness of sins. But of sins
against what Law? Some new law promulgated by the Christians? But that is
nonsensical. It would be the mockery of a tyrant to forgive a man for doing
what had never been forbidden until the very moment at which the forgiveness
Essentially, Christianity is not the promulgation of
a moral discovery. It is addressed only to penitents, only to those who
admit their disobedience to the known moral law."
Lewis made this same argument somewhat more fully in The Problem of Pain.
Lest one think that I am overstating the case for natural law, let me present
a caveat: Natural law provides a basis for Christians to enter politics,
but it does not provide simple--minded solutions to specific political problems.
Nor did Lewis claim that it would--nor for that matter has any other thinker
within the natural law tradition. As Lewis more than once explained (echoing
Aristotle's Ethics): "[M]oral decisions do not admit of mathematical
certainty." Natural law only supplies general moral precepts;
prudence is required to correctly apply those precepts in particular situations.
Hence there is always the chance that one's political decision will be wrong.
Contrary to those Christians who reject natural law, however, this problem
of uncertainty cannot be solved by replacing the law of nature with the
law of revelation as expressed in the Bible. The Bible rarely gives particular
advice on specific political issues. It does not tell us whether to build
nuclear missiles or invade Panama; it does not inform us what type of social
programs to enact, if any; it does not guide us in our choice of the best
tax system. The Bible invariably requires interpretation if it is to be
used as a political guidebook, and interpretation opens the door for misconstruction.
The Bible is infallible; but its interpreters are not. So the Bible can
be abused and misused as much as natural law.
Now I am not arguing--and I know Lewis would not argue--that the Bible has
no role in the area of morality. But in a society that is not a theocracy
the Bible can never be the only standard of morality. The Christians who
lived during the American Founding recognized this fact, and their political
rhetoric was fashioned accordingly. They spoke regularly of the "Laws
of Nature and Nature's God" and of acting in accord with both "reason
and revelation." They saw natural law as the necessary meeting point
for citizens of all religious beliefs. Like the early American
Christians, Lewis recognized the inescapable need for natural law. Christians
today would do well to heed his advice.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | FootnotesDisplay full article
Powered by Your Comments.