Man Or Rabbit?人或兔子

 

作者：C. S. Lewis              

譯者：DeepSeek & Bill Lin

    「不信基督教就不能過好生活嗎？」這就是他們給我的題目。只是在回答之前，我必須先說幾句。

    這個問題聽起來像是提問者在對自己說：「我不在乎基督教是否真實。我也不關心真實的宇宙究竟更符合基督徒說的還是唯物論者說的。我只關心如何過上好生活。我選擇信仰不是因為它真不真，而在於它有用。」

    坦白說，我很難體諒這種心態。人類有別於其他動物的一點在於：人想要知道事物，想要找出現實究竟是什麼樣的──只是為了求知本身。當求知慾在一個人身上完全熄滅時，我認為他已經變得不那麼像人了。

    事實上，我不認為你們當中有人真正失去了那種渴望。更有可能的是，那些愚蠢的傳道人總是告訴你們基督教將如何幫助你們，對社會有多好，這反而讓你們忘記了基督教並不是一種特效藥。

    基督教聲稱要陳述事實——告訴你真實的宇宙是什麼樣子。它對宇宙的描述可能是真的，也可能不是。一旦這個問題真正擺在你面前，你天生的好奇心必定會驅使你去找答案。

    如果基督教是不真實的，不管它多有用，任一誠實的人都不會想要相信它；如果它是真的，那麼每個誠實的人都會願意相信它，即使它根本無法給他帶來任何助益。我們一認識到這一點，也就認識了另一點。如果基督教碰巧是真實的，那麼，知曉這真理的人和不知曉的人，在過好生活的裝備上，絕不可能相同。

    對事實的認識必然會對人的行為產生影響。假設你知道一個人快餓死，你想去做對的事。如果你沒有醫學知識，你很可能給他一頓豐盛的正式大餐；以至於這個人被撐死。這就是在黑暗中行事的結果。

    同樣地，一個基督徒和一個非基督徒可能都希望對自己的同胞行善。前者相信人類將永遠活下去，上帝對人類的創造，使得他們只有與上帝聯合才能找到真正而持久的幸福；他們已嚴重偏離軌道，只有藉著對基督的順服信仰才是回歸之路。

    後者相信人類是物質盲目運轉的偶然產物，他們始於純粹的動物，加上或多或少的穩定進化；他們大約能活七十年，他們的幸福完全可以透過良好的社會服務和政治組織來實現；其他一切（例如，活體解剖、生育控制、司法系統、教育）之被稱為"好"或"壞"，僅僅取決於它是幫助還是阻礙了那種“幸福"。

    這兩人為同胞做事時，確實有許多方面能達成一致。兩者都會贊成建造高效的排污水系統、醫院和健康的飲食。但遲早，他們信念的差異會導致具體建議的分歧。例如，兩者可能都非常熱衷於教育：但他們希望人們接受的教育類型顯然會大不相同。再者，面對一個擬議的行動，唯物論者可能只會問：「這會增加大多數人的幸福嗎？」而基督徒可能不得不說：「即使這會增加大多數人的幸福，我們也不能這麼做。這是不公正的。」

    並且，一個巨大的差異將貫穿他們所有的政策。對唯物論者而言，像國家、階級、文明這類東西，必然比個體更重要，因為每個個體只活大約七十多年，而群體可能延續數百年。但對基督徒來說，個體更為重要，因為他們永遠活著；而種族、文明之類的東西，相較之下不過是朝生暮死的生物。

    基督徒和唯物論者對宇宙有不同的信念。他們不可能都對。那個錯了的人，行事方式還是與真實的宇宙格格不入。結果是，即便懷著世界上最好的意願，他是在幫助他的同胞走向毀滅。

    懷著世界上最好的意願……那就不是他的錯了。當然，上帝（如果有上帝的話）不會因為一個人誠實的錯誤而懲罰他吧？但你思考的僅限於此嗎？我們願不願意冒這樣的風險：終其一生在黑暗中摸索，造成無窮的傷害，只要有人向我們保證我們不會被波及，不會有人懲罰或指責我們？我不相信讀者您會這樣想。但即便您是這樣，我還是有些話要對您說。

    我們面對的問題，並非"沒有基督教，人能否過上好生活？"問題在於："我能否？"我們都知道，歷史上有些好人並非基督徒：比如從未聽說過基督教的蘇格拉底和孔子，或者像 J.S. 穆勒那樣確實無法真誠相信它的人。假設基督教是真實的，那麼這些人是處於一種誠實的無知或誠實的錯誤狀態。如果他們的意圖如我所想的那樣良善（因為我當然無法窺視他們隱密的內心），我希望並相信，上帝的智慧和憐憫會彌補他們的無知（若任其自然發展）本會給他們自己及其影響者帶來的惡果。

    但是，那個問我：「"不信基督教就不能過好生活嗎？」的人，顯然不屬於同一情況。如果他從未聽過基督教，他就不會提出這個問題。如果他聽說過，並且認真考慮過後認定它是假的，那麼他同樣也不會提出這個問題。提出這個問題的人，是聽說過基督教，並且遠遠不能肯定它可能是假的。他其實是在問：「我非得費心去考慮這事嗎？難道我就不能迴避這個問題，不去招惹是非，只管繼續做個'好人'嗎？難道只要有良好的意圖，就足以讓我安全無虞、無可指責，而不必去敲那扇可怕的門，確認裡面到底有沒有人嗎？」

    對於這樣的人，也許只需這樣回應就足夠了：他實際上是在要求，在還沒有盡力去弄明白"好"究竟意味著什麼之前，被允許繼續做個"好人"。但這還不是事情的全貌。我們無需探究上帝是否會因他的懦弱和懶惰而懲罰他；那些事本身就會懲罰他。

    這個人正在逃避。他故意試圖不去弄清楚基督教是真是假，因為他預見到，如果它結果是真的，那將會帶來無盡的麻煩。他就像一個故意"忘記"去看佈告欄的人，因為如果看了，可能會發現自己的名字被列在某項不愉快的任務下面。他像個不敢看銀行帳單的人，因為害怕看到裡面的數字。他也像一個初次感到莫名疼痛卻不願去看醫生的人，因為害怕醫生可能會告訴他真話。

    出於這種原因而堅持不信的人，並非無辜的。他處於一種不誠實的錯誤狀態，而這種不誠實將會滲透到他所有的思想和行動中：其結果將是某種程度的閃避、內心深處隱隱的不安，以及他整個思維敏銳度的遲鈍。他失去了心靈上的純真（ intellectual virginity）。誠實地拒絕基督，無論多麼錯誤，都會被寬恕和療癒——"凡說話干犯人子的，還可得赦免。"(马太福音12:32) 

    但是逃避人子，看向別處，假裝你沒注意到，突然全神貫注於街對面的事情；把電話聽筒擱下，因為可能正是祂打來的電話；不拆開某些字跡奇怪的信件，因為它們可能是祂寫的——這可就不一樣了。你或許還不能確定自己是否該成為基督徒；但你肯定知道自己應該做個人，而不是一隻把頭埋進沙子裡的鴕鳥。

    但是——由於在我們這個時代，知識分子的榮譽感已經不值錢——我仍然聽見有人哽咽著繼續提問：「這會幫助我嗎？會讓我快樂嗎？你真的覺得我成為基督徒會變得更好嗎？」好吧，如果你非要知道不可，我的答案是：「是的。」不過，我實在不喜歡這時給出任何答案。

    這裡有一扇門，據說門後藏著宇宙的秘密。要嘛是真的，要嘛不是。如果不是真的，那麼門後實際隱藏的不過是有史以來最大的騙局、最龐大的"兜售"。難道每個人（這裡指的是真正的人，而不是兔子）的職責不就是去探尋真相，然後傾盡全力去守護這個驚天秘密，或者揭露並摧毀這個彌天大謊嗎？面對這樣的問題，你還能完全沉浸在自己那可憐的「道德修養」中嗎？

    好吧，基督教確實會對你有益——比你想要或期待的益處多得多。而它帶給你的第一個好處，就是讓你明白（這滋味你可不會喜歡）：你以前所謂的"好"——那些關於"過體面生活"、"與人為善"之類的東西——並非你所想的那樣了不起和至關重要。它會教導你，事實上，憑你自己的道德努力，你根本無法做到"好"（連二十四小時都做不到）。然後它會教導你，即使你做到了，你仍然沒有達到你被造的目的。僅僅有道德，並非生命的終點。你被造是為了完全不同的目的。 J. S. 穆勒和孔子（蘇格拉底則更接近真相）根本不明白生命是怎麼回事。

    那些不斷追問沒有基督能否過體面生活的人，不明白生命是怎麼回事；如果他們明白，就會知道，與我們人類真正被造的目的相比，"體面的生活"不過是機械的運作。道德固然不可或缺，但那賜給我們、呼召我們成為神的眾子的神聖生命，為我們預備的，是某種將道德吞沒的東西。我們將被重塑。我們裡面所有屬於兔子的成分都會消失──不只是懦弱、感性的兔子，還有那焦慮、謹小慎微、講求道德的兔子。當一把把兔毛被扯下時，我們會流血、會尖叫；然後，令人驚奇的是，我們會在那一切之下發現一個從未想像過的東西：一個真正的人，一個永不衰老的神之子（a son of God），強壯、光輝、智慧、美麗，並且浸透在喜樂之中。

    "等那完全的來到，這有限的必歸於無有。"(哥林多前书13:10) 那種沒有基督也能達成"好生活"的想法，基於一個雙重錯誤。第一，我們做不到；第二，把"好生活"設定為最終目標，我們恰恰錯失了自身存在的意義。

    道德是我們無法憑己力攀登的高山；即使我們能登上頂峰，也只會凍斃於峰頂的冰雪與稀薄空氣中，因為我們缺少完成剩餘旅程所必需的雙翼。因為真正的攀登正是從那裡開始。繩索和冰鎬都"沒用了"，接下來的正是展翅高飛。

    “Can't you lead a good life without believing in Christianity?" This is the question on which I have been asked to write, and straight away, before I begin trying to answer it, I have a comment to make. The question sounds as if it were asked by a person who said to himself, "I don't care whether Christianity is in fact true or not. I'm not interested in finding out whether the real universe is more like what the Christians say than what the materialists say. All I'm interested in is leading a good life. I'm going to choose beliefs not because I think them true but because I find them helpful." Now frankly, I find it hard to sympathize with this state of mind. One of the things that distinguishes man from the other animals is that he wants to know things, wants to find out what reality is like, simply for the sake of knowing. When that desire is completely quenched in anyone, I think he has become something less than human. As a matter of fact, I don't believe any of you have really lost that desire. More probably, foolish preachers, by always telling you how much Christianity will help you and how good it is for society, have actually led you to forget that Christianity is not a patent medicine. Christianity claims to give an account of facts—to tell you what the real universe is like. Its account of the universe may be true, or it may not, and once the question is really before you, then your natural inquisitiveness must make you want to know the answer. If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be: if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all.

    As soon as we have realized this, we realize something else. If Christianity should happen to be true, then it is quite impossible that those who know this truth and those who don't should be equally well equipped for leading a good life. Knowledge of the facts must make a difference to one's actions. Suppose you found a man on the point of starvation and wanted to do the right thing. If you had no knowledge of medical science, you would probably give him a large solid meal; and as a result your man would die. That is what comes of working in the dark. In the same way a Christian and a non-Christian may both wish to do good to their fellow men. The one believes that men are going to live forever, that they were created by God and so built that they can find their true and lasting happiness only by being united to God, that they have gone badly off the rails, and that obedient faith in Christ is the only way back. The other believes that men are an accidental result of the blind workings of matter, that they started as mere animals and have more or less steadily improved, that they are going to live for about seventy years, that their happiness is fully attainable by good social services and political organizations, and that everything else (e.g., vivisection, birth control, the judicial system, education) is to be judged to be "good" or "bad" simply insofar as it helps or hinders that kind of "happiness."

    Now there are quite a lot of things which these two men could agree in doing for their fellow citizens. Both would approve of efficient sewers and hospitals and a healthy diet. But sooner or later the difference of their beliefs would produce differences in their practical proposals. Both, for example, might be very keen about education: but the kinds of education they wanted people to have would obviously be very different. Again, where the materialist would simply ask about a proposed action, "Will it increase the happiness of the majority?" the Christian might have to say, "Even if it does increase the happiness of the majority, we can't do it. It is unjust." And all the time, one great difference would run through their whole policy. To the materialist things like nations, classes, civilizations must be more important than individuals, because the individuals live only seventy-odd years each and the group may last for centuries. But to the Christian, individuals are more important, for they live eternally; and races, civilizations and the like, are in comparison the creatures of a day.

     The Christian and the materialist hold different beliefs about the universe. They can't both be right. The one who is wrong will act in a way which simply doesn't fit the real universe. Consequently, with the best will in the world, he will be helping his fellow creatures to their destruction.

    With the best will in the world... then it won't be his fault. Surely God (if there is a God) will not punish a man for honest mistakes? But was that all you were thinking about? Are we ready to run the risk of working in the dark all our lives and doing infinite harm, provided only someone will assure us that our own skins will be safe, that no one will punish us or blame us? I will not believe that the reader is quite on that level. But even if he were, there is something to be said to him.

    The question before each of us is not, "Can someone lead a good life without Christianity?" The question is, "Can I?" We all know there have been good men who were not Christians; men like Socrates and Confucius who had never heard of it, or men like J.S. Mill who quite honestly couldn't believe it. Supposing Christianity to be true, these men were in a state of honest ignorance or honest err6r. If their intentions were as good as I suppose them to have been (for of course I can't read their secret hearts), I hope and believe that the skill and mercy of God will remedy the evils which their ignorance, left to itself, would naturally produce both for them and for those whom they influenced. But the man who asks me, "Can't I lead a good life without believing in Christianity?" is clearly not in the same position. If he hadn't heard of Christianity he would not be asking this question. If, having heard of it, and having seriously considered it, he had decided that it was untrue, then once more he would not be asking the question. The man who asks this question has heard of Christianity and is by no means certain that it may not be true. He is really asking, "Need I bother about it? Mayn't I just evade the issue, just let sleeping dogs lie, and get on with being 'good'? Aren't good intentions enough to keep me safe and blameless without knocking at that dreadful door and making sure whether there is, or isn't someone inside?"

    To such a man it might be enough to reply that he is really asking to be allowed to get on with being "good" before he has done his best to discover what good means. But that is not the whole story. We need not inquire whether God will punish him for his cowardice and laziness; they will punish themselves. The man is shirking. He is deliberately trying not to know whether Christianity is true or false, because he foresees endless trouble if it should turn out to be true. He is like the man who deliberately "forgets" to look at the notice board because, if he did, he might find his name down for some unpleasant duty. He is like the man who won't look at his bank account because he's afraid of what he might find there. He is like the man who won't go to the doctor when he first feels a mysterious pain, because he is afraid of what the doctor may tell him.

    The man who remains an unbeliever for such reasons is not in a state of honest error. He is in a state of dishonest error, and that dishonesty will spread through all his thoughts and actions: a certain shiftiness, a vague worry in the background, a blunting of his whole mental edge, will result. He has lost his intellectual virginity. Honest rejection of Christ, however mistaken, will be forgiven and healed—"Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him." But to evade the Son of man, to look the other way, to pretend you haven't noticed, to become suddenly absorbed in something on the other side of the street, to leave the receiver off the telephone because it might be He who was ringing up, to leave unopened certain letters in a strange handwriting because they might be from Him—this is a different matter. You may not be certain yet whether you ought to be a Christian; but you do know you ought to be a man, not an ostrich, hiding its head in the sand.

    But still—for intellectual honor has sunk very low in our age—I hear someone whimpering on with his question, "Will it help me? Will it make me happy? Do you really think I'd be better if I became a Christian?" Well, if you must have it, my answer is "Yes." But I don't like giving an answer at all at this stage. Here is a door, behind which, according to some people, the secret of the universe is waiting for you. Either that's true, or it isn't. And if it isn't, then what the door really conceals is simply the greatest fraud, the most colossal "sell" on record. Isn't it obviously the job of every man (that is a man and not a rabbit) to try to find out which, and then to devote his full energies either to serving this tremendous secret or to exposing and destroying this gigantic humbug? Faced with such an issue, can you really remain wholly absorbed in your own blessed "moral development"?

    All right, Christianity will do you good—a great deal more good than you ever wanted or expected. And the first bit of good it will do you is to hammer into your head (you won't enjoy that!) the fact that what you have hitherto called "good"-all that about "leading a decent life" and "being kind"—isn't quite the magnificent and all-important affair you supposed. It will teach you that in fact you can't be "good" (not for twenty-four hours) on your own moral efforts. And then it will teach you that even if you were, you still wouldn't have achieved the purpose for which you were created. Mere morality is not the end of life. You were made for something quite different from that. J. S. Mill and Confucius (Socrates was much nearer the reality) simply didn't know what life is about. The people who keep on asking if they can't lead a decent life without Christ, don't know what life is about; if they did they would know that "a decent life" is mere machinery compared with the thing we men are really made for. Morality is indispensable: but the Divine Life, which gives itself to us and which calls us to be gods, intends for us something in which morality will be swallowed up. We are to be remade. All the rabbit in us is to disappear—the worried, conscientious, ethical rabbit as well as the cowardly and sensual rabbit. We shall bleed and squeal as the handfuls of fur come out; and then, surprisingly, we shall find underneath it all a thing we have never yet imagined: a real man, an ageless god, a son of God, strong, radiant, wise, beautiful, and drenched in joy.

    "When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." The idea of reaching "a good life" without Christ is based on a double error. Firstly, we cannot do it; and secondly, in setting up "a good life" as our final goal, we have missed the very point of our existence. Morality is a mountain which we cannot climb by our own efforts; and if we could we should only perish in the ice and unbreathable air of the summit, lacking those wings with which the rest of the journey has to be accomplished. For it is from there that the real ascent begins. The ropes and axes are "done away" and the rest is a matter of flying.

Work And Prayer工作與祈禱

 作者：C. S. Lewis

譯者：DeepSeek & Bill Lin

    就算我同意你的觀點，承認祈禱蒙回應在理論上是可能的，我仍然會認為這種可能性微乎其微。我壓根兒就不覺得，上帝需要我們人類提供資訊不足（甚至相互矛盾）的建議，來告訴祂該如何管理這個世界。如果祂像你所說的那樣，是無所不知的，難道祂不知道什麼是最好的嗎？如果祂既是全善的，祂不會在我們祈禱之前就行那善事嗎？

    這就是反對祈禱的論點，它在過去一百年間，已經讓很多人卻步不前。對此，常見的回應是：這個論點只適用於最低級的那種祈禱，也就是那種祈求事情發生的祈禱。我們被告知，更高級的祈禱，並不向神提供建議；它只包含與祂的"交流"或溝通。而持這種觀點的人，似乎暗示那種低級的祈禱確實是荒謬的，只有小孩子或不文明人才會使用它。

    我對這種觀點從未感到滿意。區分這兩種祈禱是合理的；而且我大體上認為（雖然不十分確定），那種不祈求任何事物的祈禱是更高級或更進階的。能夠處於一種與神的旨意如此合一，以至於即使你能改變事件的進程卻想都不想改變的心態，確實是一種非常高超或進階的境界。

    但是，如果只簡單地排除低級祈禱，會產生兩個困難。首先，我們就不得不說，整個基督教祈禱的歷史傳統（包括主禱文本身）一直都是錯誤的；因為它歷來都包含了為我們日用的飲食、為病人的康復、為脫離仇敵的保護、為外部世界的歸信等等而做的祈禱。其次，儘管另一種祈禱可能"更高級"，但如果你僅僅因為認為祈求式的祈禱沒用而避開它，並以此來限制自己，這本身並沒有什麼特別"高尚"或"屬靈"之處。如果一個小男孩因為心胸開闊、思想脫俗，不想要蛋糕，所以從不索要蛋糕，那可能是一件很美好的事（但同樣，我不完全確定）。如果一個小男孩因為知道要蛋糕也沒用而不再開口，那就沒什麼特別美好的了。

    我認為，整件事需要重新審視。反對（我指的是"低級"或老式的那種）祈禱的論點是這樣的：你所祈求的事，要麼是好的——對你和整個世界都好——要麼是不好的。如果是好的，那麼一位良善而智慧的神無論如何都會去做。如果是不好的，那祂就不會去做。在這兩種情況下，你的祈禱都不會造成任何差別。

    但是，如果這個論點成立的話，那麼它無疑不僅僅是反對祈禱，也是反對做任何事情，不是嗎？

    每一個行動，就像每一次祈禱一樣，你都試圖達成某種結果；而這個結果必然是好或壞。那麼，我們為什麼不按照反對祈禱者的邏輯來論證，說如果預期的結果是好的，上帝不用你干預也會讓它發生；如果結果是壞的，無論你做什麼祂都會阻止它發生呢？為什麼要洗手？如果上帝想讓它們乾淨，不用你洗它們也會乾淨。如果祂不想，如此，無論你用多少肥皂，手還是會髒（就像麥克白夫人發現的那樣）。為什麼要人把鹽遞過來？為什麼要穿上靴子？為什麼要做任何事？

    我們知道自己可以行動，行動會產生結果。因此，每個相信上帝的人都必須承認（撇開祈禱的問題不談），上帝並未選擇親手書寫全部的歷史。宇宙中發生的大部分事件確實是我們無法控制的，但並非所有事件都是如此。這就像一齣戲，場景和故事的總體大綱是由作者決定的，但某些具體的細節留給演員去即興發揮。祂為何允許我們左右現實，這或許是個奧秘；但祂允許我們透過祈禱而非其他任何方式來促成這些事件，並不奇怪。

    帕斯卡說，上帝"設立祈禱，是為了讓祂的受造物擁有成為動因的尊嚴"。或許更確切地說，祂為了這個目的，既發明了祈禱，也發明了身體行動。祂賦予我們這些渺小的受造物一種尊嚴，即能夠以兩種不同的方式為事件的進程做出貢獻。祂將宇宙的物质造成為我們能夠（在某種限度內）對其施加影響；這就是為什麼我們能洗自己的手，能餵養或殺害我們的同類。同樣地，祂所制定的祂自己的計劃或是歷史的劇本，也允許一定程度的自由發揮，並且可以因應我們的祈禱而有所調整。

    如果在戰爭中祈求勝利是愚蠢和無禮的（理由是上帝應該最清楚什麼是好的），那麼穿上雨衣也同樣是愚蠢和無禮的——難道上帝不清楚你該淋濕還是該乾爽嗎？

    我們被允許用來產生事件的兩種方法，可以稱之為工作與祈禱。在這一方面，兩者是相似的——即我們在兩者中都試圖達成某種事態，而這個事態是上帝尚未（或至少目前尚未）看為合適要"主動"提供的。從這個角度來看，那句古老的格言laborare est orare（工作即祈禱）便有了一層新的含義。我們在田地裡除草時所做的，與我們祈求豐收的行為並無本質差異。但仍然有一個重要的區別。

    無論你對一塊田地做什麼，都無法保證豐收。但你可以肯定，拔掉一棵雜草，那根雜草就不在那裡了。你可以肯定，飲酒過量會損害健康；也可以肯定，繼續浪費地球資源進行戰爭和奢侈消費，幾個世紀下來，將會縮短全人類的壽命。我們透過工作所行使的那種因果關係，可以說是神聖的必然，因此是無情的。

    憑藉著這種自由，我們可以隨心所欲地傷害自己。但我們透過祈禱所行使的這種自由並非如此；上帝給自己留下了酌情決定的權力。如果祂沒有這樣做，祈禱對人類來說將過於危險，我們就會面臨尤維納利斯所設想的可怕境地："上天在憤怒中准許的那些龐大的祈禱。"

    祈禱並非總是——就其粗淺、客觀的意義而言——"蒙應允"。這不是因為祈禱是一種較弱的因果關係，而是因為它是一種更強的因果關係。當它確實"生效"時，它的作用不受時空的限制。正因如此，上帝才保留了准許或拒絕祈禱的裁量權；否則，祈禱將會毀滅我們。一位校長這樣說並非不合情理：「按照學校既定的規章制度，你可以做某些事情。但有些事情太過危險，不能僅憑一般的規章制度來處理。如果你們想做這些事，必須來我的辦公室提出申請，和我詳細討論。然後——我們看著辦。」

    Even if I grant your point and admit that answers to prayer are theoretically possible, I shall still think they are infinitely improbable. I don't think it at all likely that God requires the ill-informed (and contradictory) advice of us humans as to how to run the world. If He is all-wise, as you say He is, doesn't He know already what is best? And if He is all-good won't He do it whether we pray or not?" This is the case against prayer which has, in the last hundred years, intimidated thousands of people. The usual answer is that it applies only to the lowest sort of prayer, the sort that consists in asking for things to happen. The higher sort, we are told, offers no advice to God; it consists only of "Communion" or intercourse with Him; and those who take this line seem to suggest that the lower kind of prayer really is an absurdity and that only children or savages would use it. I have never been satisfied with this view. The distinction between the two sorts of prayer is a sound one; and I think on the whole (I am not quite certain) that the sort which asks for nothing is the higher or more advanced. To be in the state in which you are so at one with the will of God that you wouldn't want to alter the course of events even if you could is certainly a very high or advanced condition.

    But if one simply rules out the lower kind, two difficulties follow. In the first place, one has to say that the whole historical tradition of Christian prayer (including the Lord's Prayer itself) has been wrong; for it has always admitted prayers for our daily bread, for the recovery of the sick, for protection from enemies, for the conversion of the outside world, and the like. In the second place, though the other kind of prayer may be "higher," if you restrict yourself to it because you have got beyond the desire to use any other, there is nothing specially "high" or "spiritual" about abstaining from prayers that make requests simply because you think they're no good. It might be a very pretty thing (but, again, I'm not absolutely certain) if a little boy never asked for cake because he was so high-minded and spiritual that he didn't want any cake. But there's nothing specially pretty about a little boy who doesn't ask because he has learned that it is no use asking. I think that the whole matter needs reconsideration.  The case against prayer (I mean the "low" or old-fashioned kind) is this. The thing you ask for is either good—for you and for the world in general—or else it is not. If it is, then a good and wise God will do it anyway. If it is not, then He won't. In neither case can your prayer make any difference. But if this argument is sound, surely it is an argument not only against praying, but against doing anything whatever?

    In every action, just as in every prayer, you are trying to bring about a certain result; and this result must be good or bad. Why, then, do we not argue as the opponents of prayer argue, and say that if the intended result is good, God will bring it to pass without your interference, and that if it is bad, He will prevent it happening whatever you do? Why wash your hands? If God intends them to be clean, they'll come clean without your washing them. If He doesn't, they'll remain dirty (as Lady Macbeth found) however much soap you use. Why ask for the salt? Why put on your boots? Why do anything?

    We know that we can act and that our actions produce results. Everyone who believes in God must therefore admit (quite apart from the question of prayer) that God has not chosen to write the whole of history with His own hand. Most of the events that go on in the universe are indeed out of our control, but not all. It is like a play in which the scene and the general outline of the story is fixed by the author, but certain minor details are left for the actors to improvise. It may be a mystery why He should have allowed us to cause real events at all; but it is no odder that He should allow us to cause them by praying than by any other method.

    Pascal says that God "instituted prayer in order to allow His creatures the dignity of causality." It would perhaps be truer to say that He invented both prayer and physical action for that purpose. He gave us small creatures the dignity of being able to contribute to the course of events in two different ways. He made the matter of the universe such that we can (in those limits) do things to it; that is why we can wash our own hands and feed or murder our fellow creatures. Similarly, He made His own plan or plot of history such that it admits a certain amount of free play and can be modified in response to our prayers. If it is foolish and impudent to ask for victory in a war (on the ground that God might be expected to know best), it would be equally foolish and impudent to put on a mackintosh—does not God know best whether you ought to be wet or dry?

    The two methods by which we are allowed to produce events may be called work and prayer. Both are alike in this respect—that in both we try to produce a state of affairs which God has not (or at any rate not yet) seen fit to provide "on His own." And from this point of view the old maxim laborare est orare (work is prayer) takes on a new meaning. What we do when we weed a field is not quite different from what we do when we pray for a good harvest. But there is an important difference all the same.

    You cannot be sure of a good harvest whatever you do to a field. But you can be sure that if you pull up one weed that one weed will no longer be there. You can be sure that if you drink more than a certain amount of alcohol you will ruin your health or that if you go on for a few centuries more wasting the resources of the planet on wars and luxuries you will shorten the life of the whole human race. The kind of causality we exercise by work is, so to speak, divinely guaranteed, and therefore ruthless. By it we are free to do ourselves as much harm as we please. But the kind which we exercise by prayer is not like that; God has left Himself a discretionary power. Had He not done so, prayer would be an activity too dangerous for man and we should have the horrible state of things envisaged by Juvenal: "Enormous prayers which Heaven in anger grants."

    Prayers are not always—in the crude, factual sense of the word—"granted." This is not because prayer is a weaker kind of causality, but because it is a stronger kind. When it "works" at all it works unlimited by space and time. That is why God has retained a discretionary power of granting or refusing it; except on that condition prayer would destroy us. It is not unreasonable for a headmaster to say, "Such and such things you may do according to the fixed rules of this school. But such and such other things are too dangerous to be left to general rules. If you want to do them you must come and make a request and talk over the whole matter with me in my study. And then—we'll see."