In C. S. Lewis’ book, Perelandra, the Green Lady says, “to walk out of God’s will is to walk into nowhere.” This is a statement worth meditating on because it communicates a timeless truth about God’s relationship with humanity. In Deuteronomy 10:12 we find the words, “what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways.” From the beginning of time, God has desired for his people to walk with him in accordance with his will. People often question what the will of God is as it relates to life decisions and the future. Theologians and others turn to a more complex discussion about the God’s will as it relates to soteriology. Despite their diverse interests in God’s plan for humanity and salvation, both the average Christian and the highly educated theologian can agree on one thing about God’s will. The point on which all Christians must agree is that God’s desire is for his people to walk with him in obedience and holiness. Leviticus 20:25 says, “You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine.” A holy life that demonstrates obedience to God can primarily be classified as a moral life. People in every culture have a sense of morality, which Lewis says comes from God. He writes, “First of all [God] 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.” The question raised here is twofold. First, how does one live a moral life? It is true that only Christ can perfectly live a moral life, but we are able to implement practices and behaviors that demonstrate our moral values. And secondly, what is the interplay between cultural practices and universal truths in the ways that people live out their morals? Did a moral life manifest itself the same way in Victorian England as it does in present day Africa? Lewis, in his writings (primarily in Mere Christianity through the example of chastity) indicates that while practices and traditions of moral behavior may vary between cultures and generations, they will always fall in line with universal moral truths, which are unchanging.
Lewis writes that God wants us to have, “a child’s heart, but a grown-up’s head.” To live the moral life we must submit to the simple childlike standards of behavior written on our hearts, but we have to use our minds to discern the exact manner of our behavior. An example of this is the idea of modesty. Everyone understands the principle of dressing modesty but disagrees on what it looks like. If modesty is a moral behavior linked to God’s natural law, shouldn’t it look the same for all people? This is not the case. Lewis explains that modesty is not universal, but what is universal is chastity. He writes that, “The Christian rule of chastity must not be confused with the social rule of ‘modesty’ (in one sense of that word); i.e. propriety, or decency.” Lewis views modesty, or rather propriety, as a sociocultural rule. It is therefore local to a people group’s place and time and not a universal standard. It is helpful to further define propriety to see the difference. Lewis says, “The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and in what words, according to the customs of a given social circle.” In other words, the specific behaviors and practices of propriety are different in various social circles, while the Christian rule of chastity is still the overarching motivator of their behavior.
The difference between standards of propriety is very evident between cultures. Lewis highlights the difference in appearance between a woman in the Victorian era who would be completely covered, and a woman from the Pacific Island who hardly wears anything. If the uniting factor of these standards is the virtue of chastity, then it is necessary to define what chastity is, and what in fact a virtue is.
Chastity, according to the Oxford Dictionary of English, comes from a word meaning “morally pure” in reference to sexuality. It is usually thought of in reference to refraining from sexual activity outside of marriage, but can be applied more broadly to refraining from anything sexual in general. Lewis summarizes it simply as, “either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.” Thus far, there seems to be little link between the idea of propriety and chastity, but they are united where virtue is concerned. The concept of virtue has largely been lost in our society, so it is helpful to give a brief explanation of what it is and how it works. N. T. Wright explains it like this:
You could call it the power of right habits. You might say it was the result of many years of training and experience. You could call it “character,” as we have done so far in this book. Ancient writers had a word for it: virtue. Virtue, in this sense, isn’t simply another way of saying “goodness.” The word has sometimes been flattened out like that (perhaps because we instinctively want to escape its challenge), but that isn’t its strict meaning. Virtue, in this strict sense, is what happens when someone has made a thousand small choices, requiring effort and concentration, to do something which is good and right but which doesn’t “come naturally”— and then, on the thousand and first time, when it really matters, they find that they do what’s required “automatically,” as we say.
This explanation paves the way for understanding how propriety and chastity are connected. For Wright, virtue is a succession of small decisions all pointing to one ideal of goodness. If chastity, as previously defined, is sexual purity and more specifically marital fidelity in the highest sense, then there are a number of small decisions which have to be made in order be chaste. To be chaste is not simply to avoid having an affair, but to make many smaller decisions that protect against lust and sexual deviances.
Propriety then is simply a small decision that leads towards chastity. Dressing modestly, avoids inciting lust in others and in us, and therefore helps avoid a path towards eventual marital unfaithfulness. The overarching standard God gives is one of faithfulness and purity of heart. He does not give universal rules for how we are to dress in order to be modest. 1 Timothy 1:5 says, “The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.” How we achieve a pure heart through our specific actions is up to each culture and social group. The specifics of propriety vary from culture to culture as seen in the difference between England and the Pacific Islands, and also from time to time, as seen in the difference between England today and England one hundred years ago. Indeed, from generation to generation modesty looks different. Youths always seem to push the boundaries of their parent’s generation. When this reality is combined with an ever-increasing over-sexualized culture, the need for the virtue of chastity seems to be more pressing than ever. Lewis, however, may not agree with that statement because he said, “If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supremevice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins.” Lewis viewed cruelty to others as a far worse sin and said that, “we attack this vice [sexual immorality] not because it is the worst but because it is, by adult standards, the most reputable and unmentionable.” It is true that sexual immorality is far more unmentionable and therefore far more controversial when it is discovered. Theologically all sin is the same in that it renders us sinners and guilty of death, but culturally and practically, different sins carry different stigmas and consequences. Just as practices of morality and propriety vary from one social group to another, so do practices of immorality and impropriety. What’s considered socially unacceptable in our culture might be different from another culture and yet any form of sexual immorality (no matter how socially acceptable by Christians) violates God’s higher standard of chastity. One group’s sense of morality is not better than another’s but may appear to better when based on the information we have at hand. Lewis writes, “The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other.”
Leaving the topic of chastity, Lewis further illustrates this difference between cultural practice and God’s absolute moral truth with a poignant example from history. He uses the example of people executing witches in the past. One might look at the era in history and think that their society was somehow less moral in their practices than we are at present. Lewis makes the point that, “the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things.” Our implementation of right behavior is limited by the facts available and a desire to fulfill the higher standard of God’s truth. For the people back then, their assumption that witches were real led them to make a moral judgment that seemed good to them, but by our standards seems wrong. The sociocultural framework dictates how we implement everyday standards of behavior based on God’s ideal.
Lewis is able to make a strong case for his point. Further study would be required to determine is his principle can be applied to every virtue and moral standard. For example, are there varied cultural practices that point to the overarching idea of not murdering? Perhaps there is, but at least when looking at the interplay between propriety and chastity his point is justified. If I were to challenge him on one point it is the idea that sexual sin is the least of all sins. Perhaps I am biased because of the culture we live in today, but it seems to be the most rampant and destructive sin of our time. 1 Corinthians 6:18 says to flee from it and Paul lists it among other sins committed by those who will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Ephesians 5:5). It seems far to serious to take so lightly. But with that exception, I think Lewis helps us understand the cultural differences in morality and how they fit together.
Bibliography
Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1980.
—. Perelandra. New York, New York: HarperCollins, 1943.
—. Surprised by Joy. New York, New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 1966.
Wright, N. T. After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters. New York, New York: HarperCollins, 2010.