Mere Christianity?

I have been slowly reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. (F.Y.I., this book was published in 1952.) Doesn't mere mean simple? I find that I can only read a chapter or two at a time before I have to put it away for a couple of days and digest it all. But anyway, I just finished the 6th chapter, which is on Christian Marriage. There are a couple of things in this chapter that I found particularly interesting.

He talks about how many people, even Christians, enter into marriage without intending to fully keep their vows. And that the promises made were just a “mere formality.” He says people want the “respectability that is attached to marriage without intending to pay the price.” He then goes on to say the thing that really caught me off guard, which is:

“If people do not believe in permanent marriage, it is perhaps better that they should live together unmarried than that they should make vows they do not mean to keep. It is true that by living together without marriage they will be guilty (in Christian eyes) of fornication. But one fault is not mended by adding another: unchastity is not improved by adding perjury.”

I believe that he is absolutely right, but this must have been a very controversial thing to say, especially in the 1950’s. I would be interested to find out how this book and/or the series of radio shows that the book came from went over with the audience at the time.

Another thing he discusses regarding Christian Marriage relates to the man being the “head of the household.”
He asks two questions:
1. Why should there be a head at all – why not equality?
2. Why should it be the man?

Regarding the first question, he basically believes that if a marriage is designed to be permanent, then there must be someone between the two parties that has the deciding vote. “If marriage is permanent, one or other party must, in the last resort, have the power of deciding the family policy.”

So, on to question two, why the man? Here I will kind of summarize, in my own words how he answers part of this question. Bossy, bull-headed women are generally not admired, even by other bossy bull-headed women. Husbands of these kinds of women are usually thought to be spineless wimps. How C.S. Lewis put it is, “There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule.” Also he believes that men are more likely to be just or gracious to people outside their family than women. As a woman, I can attest to this. If someone hurts my child, my home, or Phillip I am much more likely to overreact and be harder on someone than I should have been. For example, if a stranger in public curses in front of Jackson, Phillip would probably not say anything, or just remove Jackson from the situation and not make a scene. I, on the other hand, would and have looked someone in the eye and said, “Don’t you dare use that kind of language in front of MY child!” He believes a husband has the last word to “protect other people from the intense patriotism of the wife.”

I know this blog is pretty long and maybe a little (or a lot) boring. But this is just some stuff from the book that I really liked. I think it would be difficult to briefly discuss anything from this book. I’m only half way through it and it’s pretty crazy how much information is crammed into this little book. It’s like a vitamin. How’d they get all those nutrients into that little pill? Anyway, thanks for reading. Any comments or discussion on any of this stuff would be most welcome.