C.S. Lewis on Compelling People to Do Good; C. Carson

experiencing some exotic flavor that may be thrust upon them by shar ers. Having to look at and appreci ate someone else's vacation pictures is notoriously unpopular with many people. Wise sharers select their sharees with care. There are those, however, who are not content with merely sharing what they conceive to be good with willing recipients. Indeed, there are those who go beyond sharing with reluctant recipients. If they decide that something is good, or would be good for us, they are determined we must have it or do it whether we want it or not. In short, they force it upon us. But they go beyond that even; they do not stop with forcing others to share what is theirs. They use the powers of taxation to take from all of us what they are deter mined to force upon at least some of us. In brief, they would compel all of us to be good,do good-what is "good" 657 658 THE FREEMAN November by their lights, of course-or to pro vide goods for those whom they judge to have an inadequate supply.

AncientPractices Ours is not the only age in which those with a bent to such compul sions have gained the upper hand. Peoples in other times have differed with us about what goods should be imposed or dispensed but have been equally moved to provide them for everyone. In some lands, clergymen have been paid at public expense to insure that the populace would have the benefits of their message. The American Puritans thought that lis tening to sermons was such a great good that attendance should be re quired. In the late Middle Ages, there were countries in which orthodox religious belief was reckoned to be so important that failure to profess the approved beliefs could lead to torture and death. Quite often, in the course of history, people have been compelled by those in power to do what was thought would be good for their bodies, their minds, their souls, their rulers, their countries, or what have you.

But it has remained for our age to systematize, regularize, and gener alize the compulsions to do "good." The Internal Revenue Service has made the inquest an annual affair for everyone, with computers to fer ret out the most likely candidates for fullfledged inquisition. Nor did the Puritans increase their ser monic benefits based on a cost of sin ning index. As I say, we have systematized both taxation and the modes for the bestowal of goods.Compulsory "doing good" is the largest and most expen sive enterprise in the United States. People are compelled to pay taxes, much of which are set aside for doing "good works." These "good works" run the gamut from providing free lunches for some school children to giving foreign aid to whole coun tries. Compulsion is also used more directly to make people do "good," as when parents are compelled to send their children to school or employers are compelled to adopt safety mea sures imposed by OSHA. But it is as taxpayers that we are most univer sally made to join in "doing good."

The Propriety of Force Much can be and has been said for and against many of the programs themselves. That good has been and can be done in these ways can be questioned. But I wish to examine some more basic questions here. I want to focus on the matter of the use of force itself, and of its propri ety for Christians. Granted, this subject may be of primary interest only for Christians, but, as I hope to show, it concerns others as well. Apparently, many people assume that because Christian teaching en joins giving help to those who are in 1981 C. S. LEWIS ON COMPELLING PEOPLE TO DO GOOD 659 need it is, therefore, in keeping with Christianity to use the force of gov ernment to do good works. Social gospellers, for example, advanced this notion with considerable fer vor.! There have been Christian so cialists who favored the redistribu tion of wealth by government as being in accord with Christian prin ciples. Indeed, the argument has even been made, though not very actively of late, that Marxism or Commu nism is nothing more nor less than putting the teachings of Jesus into practice. At any rate, many profess ing Christians are not averse to us ing government in myriad ways that are supposed to do good, and a goodly number of non-Christians incline to accept the notion that their attitude is in keeping with Christianity.

There should be no doubt that Christians are enjoined to do acts of helpfulness, kindness, and works of charity for the helpless and those in. need. Nowhere is this made more emphatic than in the description by Jesus of the Last Judgment. There, the distinction between the righ teous and the damned is precisely between those who have fed the hungry, given water to the thirsty, shown hospitality to strangers, clothed the naked, and visited those who were sick or in prison and those who have not. For, he said, "Inas much as ye did it not to the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." (Matthew 25:45-46.) But it does not follow that Chris tians are to use force in doing these good works or give their approval to government use of force in doing so. The Bible is not, of course, a text book in political science or political economy. It is not surprising, then, that the subject does not come up directly in the New Testament. But even if there were much more polit ical commentary than is the case, the subject of government compel ling people to do good might not have arisen. Governments in those days were not greatly addicted to doing good deeds.

Voluntary Giving Even so, it is possible to infer a Christian position from Scripture. The impetus of New Testament teaching is in the direction of the voluntary, loving, and concerned doing of good, not in that of forced acts. There is a large body of evi dence pointing to the conclusion that voluntary giving is what is com mended, but there is also some evi dence that government and force are not directly a part of the Christian endeavor. For example, in an effort to trap Jesus, the chief priests and scribes sent agents who asked him if it were lawful to pay taxes. Jesus requested a coin and asked them whose likeness was on it. They an swered that it was Caesar's. "And 660 THE FREEMAN November he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." (Luke 20:25) One of the inferences to be drawn from this is that God and Caesar (govern ment) operate in different realms and, undoubtedly, in different ways.

On the use of force, Jesus had something quite pointed to say. When he was being arrested to be put on trial, one of the disciples, Peter, ac cording to one version, drew his sword and cut off the ear of a man who had laid hands upon Jesus. "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matthew 26:52) Again and again, Jesus said that he came to bring life. The sword (force) is an instrument of death, hence, proscribed in Christian un dertakings. The Gospelon Government, Accordingto 51. Paul The Apostle Paul dealt with gov ernment in some detail in the 13th chapter of Romans. In essence, what he had to say is this: the powers that be are ordained of God to punish wrongdoers. It is for your good that wrongdoers should be punished; therefore, you should obey the pow ers over you and pay that tribute to them which is their due for the office they perform. In the conclusion of the chapter which just precedes that one, however, he had urged the avoiding of the use of force: Recompense to no man evil for evil. ...

If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not your selves.... Therefore, if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:17-21. It is clear to me, at least, that there is no warrant in the teachings ofJesus and his disciples for compel ling people to do good works or to be good. Voluntary aid is commended; force is eschewed. But the late C. S. Lewis had some illuminating thoughts on these matters, and I should like now to call attention to some of them. I do so the more gladly because it provides me with the op portunity to talk about one of my favorite writers. Also, it adds the weight of one of the leading Chris tian apologists of the twentieth cen tury to the case against compulsion. As I noted, however, even the in nocent offer to share is not always welcome, and I have had occasion to learn that Clive Staples Lewis (1898 1963) does not appeal to all readers.

A lady to whom I loaned one of his books assured me that he was too difficult. A minister gave it as his 1981 C. S. LEWIS ON COMPELLING PEOPLE TO DO GOOD 661 opinion that his work was tedious, or, at least, that he went on and on about things that might be better handled briefly. Another thought him rather too bold in choosing his sub jects. Thus, although my enthusi asm for his work is undiminished by any adverse criticism I have en countered, my determination to share him with others is tempered by the realization that not everyone will be as taken by his wit, his wisdom, his tenacious reasoning, and his candor as I have been. He has not lacked readers, of course. For example, his little book, Mere Christianity, was published in the United States as a paperback in 1960. By 1970, it was in its twelfth printing. I recommend him, rather, because each new reader may, perchance, be Surprised by Joy, as he titled his autobiography.

A Scholarly Mission C. S. Lewis was nothing less than a Christian missionary to the twen tieth-century intellect. He perceived that the modern temper makes it unusually difficult to accept the claims to truth of Christian teach .. ing. Yet, he set himself the task of demonstrating the intellectual pos sibility of their truth and, that done, to assert those claims boldly and without compromise with the spirit of our times, or any other. He was superbly equipped for the undertak ing. He was a scholar, an Oxford don, a professor of English literature, a man at home in the classics, a poet, a novelist, a satirist, a writer of children's stories, yet a man who did not shrink from debates with atheists, nor count himself too high to bring his thoughts to unlearned soldiers. Appropriately enough, Lewis was a convert to Christianity, for he had that zeal about it often associated with converts. A convert from what?

From modern intellectualism, no doubt, from its relativism, from its tendency to reductionism, from its sophistries, and, ultimately, from its world-weariness. For C. S. Lewis, becoming a Christian was a jarring awake, a coming alive, so to speak, a coming alive to possibilities, to choices, to the perils of the soul, to the poten tialities of the mind, and, above all, to the more-than-ness of everything about him. As Paul Holmer has said, "He wanted to be tasteful, to live with relish, to be a master of daily life not its victim, to be upright and just, to be holy and pure .... He put his academic training and skills un der the sovereignty of those more fundamental aspirations."2 If he had been a more sensual man, it might have been more appropriate to say that he lived life with gusto; as it was, he lived the life ofthe mind and spirit with more than a little gusto. Christianity provided C. S. Lewis with a perspective on life, not a the ory. It was a perspective from which 662 THE FREEMAN November everything mattered, but some things matter much more than oth ers. What matters most in this world is the individual, he thought. That is, if Christianity is true, it is indi viduals that matter most. Lewis said, "If individuals live only seventy years, then a state, or a nation, or a civilisation, which may last for a thousand years, is more important than an individual. But if Christi anity is true, then the individual is not only more important but incom parably more important, for he is everlasting and the life of a state or a civilisation, compared with his, is only a moment."3 The Human Potential The ultimate importance of the individual, Lewis believed, lies in the potentiality he has for growing, maturing, and developing as far as may be into man as he could be. In other words, it is to become as fully human as possible. Only as he has prepared as fully as he can by real izing the human in him will he be ready for the Divine in the here after. It is this perspective on man that informed Lewis's outlook on the use of compulsion. That spiritual growth and development which he held to be the end of man can only occur significantly as it is chosen and willed. Even God only stands at the door and knocks; it is hardly ap propriate for man to do more.

Lewis was an Englishman, and many of his remarks about govern ment were penned amidst the growth of government control during World War II and under the Labour Party. However, they were not partisan ei ther in tone or words. He declared that the "modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good-anyway, to do something to us or to make us some thing. Hence the new name 'leaders' for those who were once 'rulers.' We are less their subjects than their wards, pupils, or domestic animals. There is nothing left of which we can say to them, 'Mind your own business.' Our whole lives are their business."4 Lewis denied either that govern ment could make men good or that it was its office to attempt it. "You cannot make men good by law," he said, "and without good men you cannot have a good society."5 Good people, he thought, were an individ ual matter, not something achieved in the mass. The basic business of government is to punish wrong doers, Lewis believed, not to make men good.6 He explored the notion of compel ling people to do or be good in an essay titled, "Lilies that Fester."

There he identified two different types of rule in which it may be at tempted. One is a theocracy, of course, which means, simply, rule in the name of God. The other he called "charientocracy." As best I can make 1981 C. S. LEWIS ON COMPELLING PEOPLE TO DO GOOD 663 out, a "charientocracy" is rule by in tellectuals, the "cultured," techno crats, scientists, or, in short, a hu manistic elite under the sway of the notion that they know what is best for us. TheocracyDeplored Lewis left no doubt about his low estimate of the merits of a theo cracy. He said, "Theocracy is the worst of all possible governments. All political power is at best a nec essary evil; but it is least evil when its sanctions are most modest and commonplace, when it claims no more than to be useful or convenient and sets itself strictly limited objec tives. Anything transcendental or spiritual, or even anything very strongly ethical encourages it to meddle with our private lives. Let the shoemaker stick to his last."7 Along the same lines, he declared elsewhere, "I do not like the preten sions of Government-the grounds on which it demands my obedience to be pitched too high .... I believe in God, but I detest theocracy. For every government consists of mere men and is, strictly viewed, a make shift; if it adds to its commands 'Thus saith the Lord,' it lies, and lies dan gerously. "8 On the matter of Christians im posing their view on society at large, he had these things to say. Even if Christians were in the majority in a society, he said, "our rulers would still be fallen men, and therefore, neither very wise nor very good. As it is, they will usually be unbeliev ers. And since wisdom and virtue are not the only or the commonest qualifications for a place in the gov ernment, they will not often be even the best unbelievers."9 He doubted that even the Christian concept of the durability of marriage should be forced upon the society generally.

"A great many people seem to think," he pointed out, "that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for everyone. I do not think that. At least I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recog nize that the majority of the British people are not Christians, and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives."lO But Lewis doubted that England, or any other country, was in much danger of a fullfledged theocracy. There have been some changes of mood since the days when he was writing. Israel has elements of both theocracy and socialism in its prac tices. So do several of the Moslem countries. There are even distant rumblings of theocratic impositions in the United States, though I sus pect there is more sound than fury behind them. In any case, Lewis understood rightly that what we are up against is both the prospect and 664 THE FREEMAN November reality of government compelling people to do good on humanitarian, scientific, elitist, and welfare-statist grounds rather than theocratic.

While he must have been aware that there is often an admixture of the social gospel underlying the thrust of these, he was not inclined to as cribe it to Christianity. He went into the humanitarian and scientific arguments most thor oughly in connection with capital punishment. Lewis did not profess to know whether there should be capital punishment or not. But he objected strenuously to the line of arguments used by opponents of it. Opponents of capital punishment and, by extension, any kind of pun ishment, per se-usually attempt to maintain that it could only be justi fied on either one or both these grounds: that it would deter others from committing crimes or that it would reform or improve the crimi nal. But if these were the only grounds for punishment, Lewis pointed out, they remove "from Pun ishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only con necting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust."ll Lewis noted, too, that the tendency to interpret crime as being the result of a pathological condition tends to shift the empha sis from reforming the criminal to healing him. Thus, his contention "that this doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law [is arrested, would be bet ter], is deprived of the rights of a human being."12 Morality and Choice Although it may not appear to be the case on first glance, it seems to me that Lewis came to the heart of the matter of compelling people to do good in his case against what he called "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment." Between the lines, Lewis tells us that to do or be good is a human possibility, that it is moral, and that it becomes so by choice. Remove the element of choice, attempt to impose it as therapy, and man is reduced to the level of an an imal, the mentally incompetent, or a small child. Goodness is bereft of its moral character.

Although there is much more to the essay that it would be worth while for any to read, the crux of the matter is reached in these words: "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sin cerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppres sive.... Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of rea son or those who never will.... But to be punished, however severely, 1981 C. S. LEWIS ON COMPELLING PEOPLE TO DO GOOD 665 because we deserved it, because we 'ought to have known better,' is to be treated as a human person made in God's image."13 In short, and as I interpret what Lewis has said, compelling people to do good not only takes away their freedom but their responsibility as well. Its tendency is to childrenize the race or produce a sub-human species.

"Lastly," Lewis said, "I reach the point where my objections to Theo cracy and to Charientocracy are al most identical. 'Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.' The higher the pretensions of our rulers are, the more meddlesome and im pertinent their rule is likely to be and the more the thing in whose name they rule will be defiled. . .. Let our masters ... leave us some region where the spontaneous, the unmarketable, the utterly private, can still exist. "l4 WelfareWeakensRecipients C. S. Lewis was in his prime at the time when the welfare state, or socialism, seemed to be most firmly fixed upon the United Kingdom. He never professed to know much about economics, indeed, denied even suf ficient knowledge to make any sig nificant comments on the subject. This was almost certainly the case. He suspected that the modern ob trusive state had become a perma nent fixture, at least for this age.

His objections to the compelling of people to do good might well have made him an out and out opponent of the welfare state. It did not do so mainly for two reasons, I suspect. First, his main effort was increas ingly devoted to the defense and ex position of Christianity, and any partisan effort would have drawn him away from this work. Second, lacking the economic understand ing, he was less than certain that he would be right in opposing the ame liorative efforts of the state. Even so, he had this to say about its ten dencies and dangers: The question about progress has be come the question whether we can dis cover any way of submitting to the world wide paternalism of a technocracy with out losing all personal privacy and inde pendence. Is there any possibility of get ting the super Welfare State's honey and avoiding the sting? Let us make no mistake about the sting. The Swedish sadness is only a foretaste.

To live his life in his own way, to call his house his castle, to enjoy the fruits of his own labour, to educate his children as his conscience directs, to save for their prosperity after his death-these are wishes deeply ingrained in white and civilized man. Their realization is almost as necessary to our virtues as to our hap piness. From their total frustration di sastrous results both moral and psycho logical might follow. All this threatens us even if the form of society which our needs point to should prove an unparalleled success. But is 666 THE FREEMAN that certain? What assurance have we that our masters will or can keep the promise which induced us to sell our selves? Let us not be deceived by phrases about "Man taking charge of his own destiny." All that can really mean is that some men will take charge of the destiny of others. They will be simply men; none perfect; some greedy, cruel and dishon est. The more completely we are planned the more powerful they will be. Have we discovered some new reason why, this time, power should not corrupt as it has done before?15 In sum, the willingness to share what is ours with others is an ami able and attractive trait. Christians are enjoined to offer help to those whom they encounter in need. But even in willing sharing it is well to keep in mind the wishes of others before thrusting one's goods upon them. To force one's own goods upon others would be an unwarranted im position. But tyranny is waiting in the wings, if it is not already upon the stage, when the power of gov ernment is used to force people to do or be good. And, if Lewis is correct, the higher the motive for attemptAn Awesome Power ing it the more vicious the tyranny.

Or, as he put it, in the words ofJohn Bunyan: "It came burning hot into my mind, whatever he said, and however he flattered, when he got me home to his House, he would sell me for a Slave."la W -FOOTNOTESISee my discussion of them in The Flight from Reality (Irvington,N. Y.: FEE, 1969),pp. 254-74. 2Paul L. Holmer, C. S. Lewis: The Shape of His Life ard Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1976),pp. 110-11. 3C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan,1960),p. 73. 4C. S. Lewis,God in the Dock, editedby Wal ter Hooper (Grand Rapids, Michigan:William B. Eerdmans, 1970),p. 314. 5Lewis,Mere Christianity, p. 72. 6See Lewis,God in the Dock, p. 292. 7C. S. Lewis, The World's Last Night (New York: Harcourt, Brace& World, 1960),p. 40. 8Lewis,God in the Dock, p. 315. 9/bid., p. 292. IOLewis,Mere Christianity, pp. 101-02. llLewis,God in the Dock, p. 288. 12/bid. 13/bid.,p.292. 14Lewis,The World'sLast Night.

15Lewis,God in the Dock, p. 316. 16Quotedin ibid., p. 294. IDEAS ON LIBERTY TODAY we have empowered people in our own government to do things for us without realizing the fearful extent of that power. We don't yet realize it because the people who now hold it have generally not chosen to exercise it in all the awfulness implicit in it. When they do, we will wonder how we could ever have been foolish enough to have given that power to anyone. JAMES M. ROGERS, "Two Ways to Slavery"