“My dear L.,” Tolkien writes in a draft letter from 1943. “I have been reading your booklet Christian Behavior. I have never felt happy about your view of Christian ‘policy’ with regard to divorce.” Tolkien did not send this letter to his friend, C.S. Lewis, but it was found and published after his death.
[Y]ou observe that you are really committed (with the Christian Church as a whole) to the view that Christian marriage—monogamous, permanent, rigidly “faithful”—is in fact the truth about sexual behavior for all humanity: this is the only road of total health (including sex in its proper place) for all men and women. That it is dissonant with men’s present sex-psychology does not disprove this, as you see: “I think it is the instinct that has gone wrong,” you say. Indeed if this were not so, it would be an intolerable injustice to impose permanent monogamy even on Christians.
…
Toleration of divorce—if a Christian does tolerate it—is toleration of a human abuse, which it requires special local and temporary circumstances to justify (as does the toleration of usury)—if indeed either divorce or genuine usury should be tolerated at all, as a matter of expedient policy.
Jake Meador discusses this disagreement more in his article for Christianity Today.
The question is what is the purpose of state power, as formalized in laws. Is it to require us to behave in the best way (which a Catholic would interpret to mean “no divorce” and a Muslim as “no wine”)? Or is it to set a minimum level required for us to live together?
That’s a good observation. We should note for the readers at home that laws are written from someone’s moral context, so we can’t argue that morality cannot be legislated, because every law is declaring something moral or acceptable and others immoral.
Close. Laws declare that something is illegal, which implies it is normally immoral. But usually there are things that are legal but not moral. Judaism calls this “naval birshut hatora” – a villain with the Torah’s permission.
Speaking of Lewis, I don’t think this is personal, so much as a reflection of his view of the relation of Christianity to coercive versus persuasive (i.e. military or governmental power versus voluntary associations that Christians are allowed to leave.)
One can, as Lewis seems to, say that Christian marriage is the ideal for all people, while also saying (as his life did) that secular marriage has nothing to do with it. (By his life, I of course refer to his first (secular) marriage to Joy, which made a mockery of state marriage laws but not Church laws, since he did not consider it a Christian marriage.)
I don’t tolerate (if by “tolerate” you mean “approve of tacitly”) lying, except in perhaps exceptional circumstances (as seen in, say, Scriptures). I don’t tolerate the sort of emotional bullying common in many social circumstances. As a Christian, I can’t approve of Scroogelike selfishness, and I feel that an unselfish attitude is, as Tolkien might put it, compulsory for all Christians. By and large, the Church has been good at condemning all these things.
But of course, the Christian community doesn’t vote to make any of these things illegal.
So I don’t necessarily see Lewis as “giving away” the “foundation of Christian behavior.” I do think him as responding to the questions of multicultural democracy. If we claim (as Christians ought) that monogamous lifelong marriage is the ideal for human beings (we can bicker, perhaps, over exceptions), and others in our society don’t, then what should our response be?
Tolkien’s attitude seems to have been that we should seek to maintain those secular regulations that insist on behavior proper to humans in all cases. Lewis seems to argue that we should rather make our insistances on Christian morality from the pulpit. Neither of them seems to have been entirely consistent on the point; but neither is taking the stand of a true moral relativist, either.
In Matthew 19 the Pharisees challenge Jesus to assist them in splitting hairs regarding the Mosaic divorce laws. Jesus refuses to be drawn into their controversy. Rather, He reiterates the ideal of monogamous lifelong marriage. In that light he presents divorce regulations, not as a standard to be achieved, but as a concession to the hardheartedness of mankind.
Here we see the law, not only as an encouragement to live up to an ideal standard, but also as a protection to the innocent when some choose to reject the ideal standard and choose another course. In this way a distinction forms between that which is legal (divorce) and that which is moral (monogamy).
I have a hunch that part of the dissent between Tolkien and Lewis was rooted in these sometimes paradoxical cross purposes of the law – To define the ideal while at the same time protecting the innocent when the ideal is not met.
If God Himself, in His Own Law, allows suboptimal behaviors because of human frailty, shouldn’t purely human legislature, written by beings infinitely less intelligent, do the same?
ChestertonianRambler, may I strengthen your point with a quote from Chesterton? “The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.”
Each of you make good points, and Tolkien seems to be arguing against divorce altogether, but when Lewis says he doesn’t think divorce should be made difficult for non-believers, I don’t understand. He says, “My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christian and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives.” But laws should still uphold Christian morality, if we believe the Bible gives us moral principles for everyone. If we are willing to say that only those who want to worship the living God should live this way, then we don’t have to work on good civil laws, and if the State didn’t regulate marriage at all, perhaps that would be a good thing. But the State does regulate marriage. It sees the family as a societal good, a natural good for all people, so it attempts to govern it to a limited degree. If the law allows for divorce without consequence, is that not tolerance of or permission for the abuse Tolkien is arguing against? Shouldn’t the State, recognizing the validity of Christian morality, challenge those who wish to be married or to dissolve their marriage with proper questions or regulations?
Shouldn’t the State, recognizing the validity of Christian morality
This is the issue. Does the State exist to teach people morality, or to regulate their behavior to the minimal extent required to reduce violence?
Fair question, but can any law be written outside a moral context? Do legislators not argue in moral terms for the passage of their bills, whatever their bills may be?
Do legislators not argue in moral terms for the passage of their bills, whatever their bills may be?
There are two factors here, IMAO:
1. It is a moral argument: “The police and courts SHOULD stop people from doing X”. But that statement is different from “people SHOULDN’T do X”.
2. Being the teacher of morality has appealed to politicians at least since the days of Plato. It gives them extra power. Politicians, by definition, want power.