MY DEAR WORMWOOD,
Through this girl and her disgusting family the patient is now getting to know
more Christians every day, and very intelligent Christians too. For a long time
it will be quite impossible to remove spirituality from his life. Very well
then; we must corrupt it. No doubt you have often practised transforming
yourself into an angel of light as a parade-ground exercise. Now is the time to
do it in the face of the Enemy. The World and the Flesh have failed us; a third
Power remains. And success of this third kind is the most glorious of all. A
spoiled saint, a Pharisee, an inquisitor, or a magician, makes better sport in
Hell than a mere common tyrant or debauchee.
Looking round your patient's new friends I find that the best point of attack
would be the border-line between theology and politics. Several of his new
friends are very much alive to the social implications of their religion. That,
in itself, is a bad thing; but good can be made out of it.
You will find that a good many Christian-political writers think that
Christianity began going wrong, and departing from the doctrine of its Founder,
at a very early stage. Now this idea must be used by us to encourage once again
the conception of a "historical Jesus" to be found by clearing away later
"accretions and perversions" and then to be contrasted with the whole Christian
tradition. In the last generation we promoted the construction of such a
"historical Jesus" on liberal and humanitarian lines; we are now putting forward
a new "historical Jesus" on Marxian, catastrophic, and revolutionary lines. The
advantages of these constructions, which we intend to change every thirty years
or so, are manifold. In the first place they all tend to direct men's devotion
to something which does not exist, for each "historical Jesus" is unhistorical.
The documents say what they say and cannot be added to; each new "historical
Jesus" therefore has to be got out of them by suppression at one point and
exaggeration at another, and by that sort of guessing (brilliant is the
adjective we teach humans to apply to it) on which no one would risk ten
shillings in ordinary life, but which is enough to produce a crop of new
Napoleons, new Shakespeares, and new Swifts, in every publisher's autumn list.
In the second place, all such constructions place the importance of their
Historical Jesus in some peculiar theory He is supposed to have promulgated.
He has to be a "great man" in the modern sense of the word—one standing at the
terminus of some centrifugal and unbalanced line of thought—a crank vending a
panacea. We thus distract men's minds from Who He is, and what He did. We first
make Him solely a teacher, and then conceal the very substantial agreement
between His teachings and those of all other great moral teachers. For humans
must not be allowed to notice that all great moralists are sent by the Enemy not
to inform men but to remind them, to restate the primeval moral platitudes
against our continual concealment of them. We make the Sophists: He raises up a
Socrates to answer them. Our third aim is, by these constructions, to destroy
the devotional life. For the real presence of the Enemy, otherwise experienced
by men in prayer and sacrament, we substitute a merely probable, remote,
shadowy, and uncouth figure, one who spoke a strange language and died a long
time ago. Such an object cannot in fact be worshipped. Instead of the Creator
adored by its creature, you soon have merely a leader acclaimed by a partisan,
and finally a distinguished character approved by a judicious historian. And
fourthly, besides being unhistorical in the Jesus it depicts, religion of this
kind is false to history in another sense.
No nation, and few individuals, are really brought into the Enemy's camp by the
historical study of the biography of Jesus, simply as biography. Indeed
materials for a full biography have been withheld from men. The earliest
converts were converted by a single historical fact (the Resurrection) and a
single theological doctrine (the Redemption) operating on a sense of sin which
they already had—and sin, not against some new fancy-dress law produced as a
novelty by a "great man", but against the old, platitudinous, universal moral
law which they had been taught by their nurses and mothers. The "Gospels" come
later and were written not to make Christians but to edify Christians already
made.
The "Historical Jesus" then, however dangerous he may seem to be to us at some
particular point, is always to be encouraged. About the general connection
between Christianity and politics, our position is more delicate. Certainly we
do not want men to allow their Christianity to flow over into their political
life, for the establishment of anything like a really just society would be a
major disaster. On the other hand we do want, and want very much, to make men
treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own
advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything—even to social justice.
The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing
which the Enemy demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values
Christianity because it may produce social justice. For the Enemy will not be
used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in
order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of
Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist's shop. Fortunately it is quite
easy to coax humans round this little corner. Only today I have found a passage
in a Christian writer where he recommends his own version of Christianity on the
ground that "only such a faith can outlast the death of old cultures and the
birth of new civilisations". You see the little rift? "Believe this, not because
it is true, but for some other reason." That's the game,
Your affectionate uncle,
Letter TWENTYTHREE
SCREWTAPE