嚇人的另面選擇The Shocking Alternative

Mere Christianity

C. S. Lewis

1943

Bill Lin 譯

Book II. What Christians Believe

3. The Shocking Alternative

嚇人的另面選擇

基督徒們相信，目前有個邪惡的力量，自立為這個世界的王。當然，那個說法就帶出了問題：這種情況是不是出於神的旨意？如果是的話，你會說：祂是個怪異的神；如果不是的話，怎麼會有違反具有絕對權力的神的旨意的事情發生呢？

不過，任一位掌過權柄的人都知道，這種陽奉陰違的，到底是怎麼一回事。一位母親對子女們說：「我不會每個晚上都替你們收拾，你們必須學習把自己的房間保持整潔。」這可能是是很明智的做法；然後有一晚，她上去看，發現小熊、墨水瓶和書本都塞在璧爐裡；她希望孩子們整潔，但事與願違。不過從另一面看來，也是因為她的意願，使得孩子們得以懶散。同樣的事發生在軍隊裡，工會或學校裡。你把一件事要他們自動自發去做，就有一半不去做，這不是你要看到的，但是你的意願，讓它有可能產生這種結果。

在這個宇宙裡，可能也是如此。神創造了有自由意願的東西；意味著這些被造物有可能走對路或走錯路。有些人認為，會有一種被造物是自由而不犯錯的；我無法認同。假如一個東西能自由的選擇向善，它也會自由的選擇向惡；所以自由的意願使得邪惡趁虛而入。然而為什麼，神還是給了他們自由意願？因為雖然自由的意願使得邪惡有機可乘，但也只有自由意願才能使任何的愛或美善或喜樂有可能值得擁有。一個全是像機器般的自動控制的被造物的世界幾乎是不值得神的創造。神為祂的高等生物所設計的幸福，是能夠自由地、自發地和祂和同胞們在一種忘我的愛和喜樂中，相比於地球上一個男人和一個女人最銷魂的愛，只能說是牛奶和白水的對應罷了。這是他們必須自由的原因。

當然，神知道，假如他們誤用了他們的自由，會有什麼後果：很明顯，祂認為冒這個險是值得的。或許我們會傾向於不同意祂，但是不同意神有個困難，因為祂是我們所有推理能力的來源：你不可能是對的而祂是錯的，如同一條河流不能高漲過它的源頭。當你反對祂時，你是正在反對那唯一使你能夠爭辯的大能：就像要鋸斷你正跨坐的樹枝。假如神認為在宇宙中的爭戰狀態是為了自由意願而值得付出的代價——也就是說，在一個活生生的世界裡，那裡的生物可以做出真正美善或危害的事，而且能做出某些真正偉大的事；而不像一個玩偶世界，祂拉一下，我們才動一下——到時我們或許會明白，自由意願是值得這個代價的。

以前有人問過我：「為什麼神用這種爛東西造了會犯錯的被造物？」當我們了解了自由意願以後，就知道問這種問題是很不聰明的。用越好的材質造出的生物——牠就越聰明越強壯也越自由——然後假如牠走上正道，牠會更好；反之，牠就更壞。一頭牛不會太好也不會太壞；一隻狗會更好或更壞；一個小孩還是更好或更壞；一個平凡人也還是如此；一個天才也還是如此；但是一個超人的靈造出的，就是極端的好或極端的壞。

黑暗的勢力是怎麼出差錯的呢？毫無疑問的，在這裡我們問了一個人們都沒有任何確切答案的問題；不過，根據我們自己出錯的經驗，我們可以提出一個合理(和傳統) 的揣測：當我們一有了自我的當下，就有可能把你的自我擺到第一位——要成為萬事萬物的中心——事實上，要成為神。

那就是撒但Satan的罪：也是他傳授給人類的罪。有些人以為人類的墮落是跟性有關，不過那是個錯誤。(創世紀裡更是暗示在墮落以後，我們一些性的本質的放蕩是墮落的結果，而不是墮落的原因。) 撒但注入到我們遙遠的祖先的腦子裡的，就是他們可以“像神那樣”的想法——好像是他們創造了自己，可以自立自主——當他們自己的主人——創造他們自己的福祉而不受神的管轄，遠離神。

出於這個無望的追求，產生了幾乎所有我們所謂的人類的歷史——金錢、貧窮、貪婪、戰爭、淫蕩、階級、帝國、奴隸——人類嘗試去尋求一些不靠神而能使他們幸福的一長串的恐怖的故事。

這個想法無法成功的理由是這樣的：神造了我們，發明我們如同一個人發明了一部汽車。一部車子被造成靠著汽油運轉，它就無法靠著其他的東西正常運轉。神設計這部人類機器，要靠祂來運轉。神設計了我們的靈所燒的燃料，或者所需要的食糧，就是神祂自己。沒有其他的替代品。這就是為什麼求神讓我們用自己的方式而不涉及宗教來使我們幸福是沒用的。神不會給我們沒有祂自己的幸福和平安，因為沒這個東西。沒有這種缺了神的幸福和平安。

那就是歷史的關鍵。浩大的能量花費下去——人類文明建立起來——優秀的典章制度籌建了；但是一再的出了差錯。一些致命的缺點總是把自私殘酷的人送上寶座，使得這一切都滑落回苦難和廢墟。其實機器是故障了，看來啟動得好好的，跑了一小段就報銷了。他們試著讓它使用錯的燃料油。那就是撒但帶給人類的貢獻。

所以神怎麼辦？首先，祂賜給我們良知，分辨對錯的意識：自有歷史以來，總是有人試著(有些人非常努力的)要遵循它。但沒有一個很成功的。接著，祂賜給人類我所謂的美夢：我是指散佈在所有的異教裡的那些古怪的故事裡，有關一個死而復活的神，藉著他的死，而給了人們新生命。最後，祂選了一個特別的民族，花費了好幾個世紀，把祂是個什麼樣的神的觀念，錘打進他們的腦子裡——祂是唯一的神，祂重視對的行為。那個民族就是猶太人，而舊約聖經記載了這些錘打的過程。

接下來是真正的震撼。在這些猶太人之間，突然出現了一個人，到處傳講，好像祂就是神。祂要赦免人的罪；祂總是說祂是永存的；祂說祂將在末日審判世人。

現在讓我們把這個弄清楚：在泛神論者裡，像印度人，任何人都可以說他是神的一部分，或與神同行：那一點也不奇怪。但是這個人，祂既是個猶太人，就不可能是指那種神。在他們的用語中，神是指那存在世界以外的個體，創造了這世界而且和任何其他東西有無窮盡的不同。所以你一旦領會了這點，你會看見，這個人所說的很單純，卻是人口中所說過最震撼的事情。

我們經常會不注意到祂的宣稱裡的某一部分，因為聽過太多次了而不再想知道它是怎麼一回事。我指的是祂所說的要饒恕眾人的所有的罪。除非說這話的是神，要不，說這話是真的荒誕到可笑。我們都能夠理解，一個人如何的原諒別人對他自己的冒犯：你踩了我的腳趾頭，不過我原諒你；你偷了我的錢，但是我原諒你。現在我們假設有一個人，他自己沒被搶、沒被踩，卻公開說，為著別人的被踩被搶而原諒你，我們認為他是個什麼樣的人？對他的行為，我們最厚道的形容只能是愚蠢昏庸。

然而，這就是耶穌所做的。他從不等到諮詢所有那些真正為罪所傷的被害人以後，才告訴人們，他們的罪被赦免了。祂毫不遲疑的動作，好像祂就是這群受害者裡主要的被害者，被所有的冒犯都傷害到的主要的個體。只有假設祂真正是這位神，在每一個罪裡，祂的律法被破壞，祂的愛被傷害；這個說法才合理。從每一位不是神的嘴裡，說出這樣的話，暗示著我只能把它當成是有史以來無可倫比的一個愚蠢的自大狂。

然而(這是個奇怪的重點)甚至連祂的敵人，當他們讀到福音書時，通常不會對祂有愚蠢的自大狂的印象；對於比較沒有偏見的讀者也是如此。耶穌基督說祂自己是“謙卑恭順”，我們也相信祂；假如祂只是個人而不是神，根據祂的某些說法，我們卻找不出一點謙卑和恭順的特徵。

在這兒，我試著阻止任何人再說過去人們經常說的，真是愚蠢的，有關於祂的說法：「我可以接受耶穌是一個偉大的道德宗師，但是我不同意祂自稱是神的說法。」我們不應該說這樣的話。一個凡人說了像耶穌所說的話，他不會是個偉大的道德宗師；他或許是個瘋子——和一個自稱是個荷包蛋的人同等級——或是地獄裡的魔鬼。

你必須做個選擇；或許這個人過去是，現在也是神的兒子；或者是個瘋子或更糟糕的。你可以要祂這個笨蛋閉嘴，或是唾棄祂，把祂當成是魔鬼給殺了；或者你可以跪在祂腳前，稱呼祂是你的主和神。但是讓我們不要搞出無聊的恩寵，把祂當成是一位人類偉大的宗師。祂不留餘地讓我們那樣做，也不希望我們那樣子做。

Christians, then, believe that an evil power has made himself for the present the Prince of this World. And, of course, that raises problems. Is this state of affairs in accordance with God's will or not? If it is, He is a strange God, you will say: and if it is not, how can anything happen contrary to the will of a being with absolute power?

But anyone who has been in authority knows how a thing can be in accordance with your will in one way and not in another. It may be quite sensible for a mother to say to the children, "I'm not going to go and make you tidy the schoolroom every night. You've got to learn to keep it tidy on your own." Then she goes up one night and finds the Teddy bear and the ink and the French Grammar all lying in the grate. That is against her will. She would prefer the children to be tidy. But on the other hand, it is her will which has left the children free to be untidy. The same thing arises in any regiment, or trade union, or school. You make a thing voluntary and then half the people do not do it. That is not what you willed, but your will has made it possible.

It is probably the same in the universe. God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that worked like machines would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.

Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk. Perhaps we feel inclined to disagree with Him. But there is a difficulty about disagreeing with God. He is the source from which all your reasoning power comes: you could not be right and He wrong any more than a stream can rise higher than its own source. When you are arguing against Him you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on. If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will — that is, for making a live world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings — then we may take it, it is worth paying.

When we have understood about free will, we shall see how silly it is to ask, as somebody once asked me: "Why did God make a creature of such rotten stuff that it went wrong?" The better stuff a creature is made of—the cleverer and stronger and freer it is—then the better it will be if it goes right, but also the worse it will be if it goes wrong. A cow cannot be very good or very bad; a dog can be both better and worse; a child better and worse still; an ordinary man, still more so; a man of genius, still more so; a superhuman spirit best—or worst—of all.

How did the Dark Power go wrong? Here, no doubt, we ask a question to which human beings cannot give an answer with any certainty. A reasonable (and traditional) guess, based on our own experiences of going wrong, can, however, be offered. The moment you have a self at all, there is a possibility of putting Yourself first—wanting to be the centre—wanting to be God, in fact. That was the sin of Satan: and that was the sin he taught the human race. Some people think the fall of man had something to do with sex, but that is a mistake. (The story in the Book of Genesis rather suggests that some corruption in our sexual nature followed the fall and was its result, not its cause.) What Satan put into the heads of our remote ancestors was the idea that they could "be like gods"—could set up on their own as if they had created themselves—be their own masters—invent some sort of happiness for themselves outside God, apart from God. And out of that hopeless attempt has come nearly all that we call human history—money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery—the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy.

The reason why it can never succeed is this. God made us: invented us as a man invents an engine. A car is made to run on gasoline, and it would not run properly on anything else. Now God designed the human machine to run on Himself. He Himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other. That is why it is just no good asking God to make us happy in our own way without bothering about religion. God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.

That is the key to history. Terrific energy is expended—civilizations are built up—excellent institutions devised; but each time something goes wrong. Some fatal flaw always brings the selfish and cruel people to the top and it all slides back into misery and ruin. In fact, the machine conks. It seems to start up all right and runs a few yards, and then it breaks down. They are trying to run it on the wrong juice. That is what Satan has done to us humans.

And what did God do? First of all He left us conscience, the sense of right and wrong: and all through history there have been people trying (some of them very hard) to obey it. None of them ever quite succeeded. Secondly, He sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again and, by his death, has somehow given new life to men. Thirdly, He selected one particular people and spent several centuries hammering into their heads the sort of God He was—that there was only one of Him and that He cared about right conduct. Those people were the Jews, and the Old Testament gives an account of the hammering process.

Then comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world Who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.

One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toe and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men's toes and stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history.

Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing) even His enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and conceit. Still less do unprejudiced readers. Christ says that He is "humble and meek" and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings.

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.