Mere Christianity

Some thoughts inspired by C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity and mimetic theory

Who is this man who forgives sins? Is he entitled to forgive a woman accused of adultery? Shouldn’t this be up to the husband of this woman?

Who has been hurt by the adultery? The husband, sure, but also Love itself… This man, Jesus of Nazareth, the one who is called the Christ, forgives sins and mistakes committed between human beings… He either is a complete lunatic, or he is who he claims to be – namely: the incarnation of Love himself, violated time and again by our great sin, which is pride…

These thoughts on Jesus of Nazareth are inspired by C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), a former atheist who converted to Christianity because it made more reasonable sense to him than his atheism. Of course Lewis became well-known for his series of seven fantasy novels The Chronicles of Narnia, but the fame of this series sometimes overshadows other work by this fascinating author. And that’s a shame because, up to this day, Lewis remains a surprisingly fresh Christian thinker.

In Mere Christianity, Lewis tries to explain, as a lay-man, what Christianity is essentially about. I’ve tried to summarize some of his main insights on “the fall of the human race” and “the need for salvation” in three sections (paradise – the fall – salvation). References to familiar biblical stories should be clear. Relevant inspirational fragments of Mere Christianity can be read in enclosed pdf. Those familiar with mimetic theory will certainly recognize major themes of Girard’s approximation of Christianity in my summary – reading of The Great Sin (fragment 2 of Mere Christianity in pdf, see below) is highly recommended. Enjoy!



We are social animals.

We are naturally interested in each other.

Experiencing that someone is interested in you as you are, is the fulfillment of a deep human desire. It’s paradise.


Because we are interested in each other, we may also get interested in our neighbor’s peculiar activities and possessions. There’s nothing wrong with that.

But in comes this surreptitious fear, whispering in our ear: “The difference between yourself and the other is not something to be joyful or inspired about. It means that you are less important than the other, that you are less…” And you indeed start asking yourself why you shouldn’t have, for example, a fruit tree of your own like your neighbor. You start wondering why your neighbor should hold more proprietary rights to cultivate a particular kind of fruit, and why you should be less entitled to enjoy that fruit.

Soon after this kind of competitive comparison we become interested in our neighbor because of what he or she seems to represent – an importance because of certain activities and possessions –, and no longer because of him- or herself. Moreover, instead of questioning ourselves on our deepest desires, we get focused on the idea that the other finds pride in “being more important” than ourselves. Like a child who thinks his parents are trying to boss him around, and that responds to this impression in trying to become the boss himself. Of course, in imitating the supposed pride of someone else, we’ll never notice the reality of the situation, namely that the other might as well give us advice because he really cares about us – and not because he’s trying to protect his own interests or prestige…

All too often a supposed pride is imitated: we develop pride ourselves, deceiving ourselves by thinking “we are better than the one who displays pride” – which is of course an utterance of pride itself! That’s why we often desire recognition, not for ourselves, but for the prestige we have constructed in jealously comparing ourselves – not to others, but to what we imagine about others. Blinding ourselves for the attention we do receive (as someone is indeed asking us: “What is bothering you, why are you so angry?”), we find it all the more difficult to live close to a neighbor who seems to receive all the recognition in the world. A destructive, self-fulfilling prophecy…


It’s pride – a mimetic, mutually reinforcing desire for recognition of one another’s prestige –  which poisons human relationships. Because of this poison, we are no longer interested in each other, hell, we’re not even interested in ourselves anymore. The devilish dynamic of pride takes its toll: unable to exist by itself, it parasitizes on our initial interest in each other to pervert this interest. In the end, because of pride, we are no longer capable of respecting ourselves and others, as we are obsessed with the vanity of some prestige

Hell is the twisted opposite of the original heavenly situation between human beings: while we are initially attentive to certain objects, activities and goals because of a natural and basic interest in others, we gradually become interested in others only because of the allegedly weighty importance of certain objects, activities and goals. Others become means to achieve this alleged importance ourselves. They no longer are the alpha and omega (source and destination, origin and goal) of our interest. In other words, we are no longer capable of fulfilling our neighbor’s deepest desire: being interested in our neighbor for his or her own sake. Moreover, we are equally no longer capable of receiving the interest of others in ourselves, because we mainly focus on others who seem to be interested in (and seem to confirm) our prestige.


Christianity is convinced that human beings can only exist fully “in relationships”. It is also convinced that pride always, time and again, threatens to poison human relationships, and alienates men from themselves and each other. Therefore it keeps on visiting this “doctor” (apart from other doctors within and outside the world of religion) who is believed to have revealed the human sickness – the epidemic of pride and jealousy (the original sin) – in all its hidden depths, and who is also believed to have offered an ultimate cure for this. This doctor is known as Jesus of Nazareth, the one who is called the Christ.


Christ is believed to infect humankind – as no other before or after him – with the restoring epidemic of creative Love (understood as genuine interest in others, without ulterior motives).


So Christianity, although aimed at all, is – at the explicit level – not for people:

who don’t believe there’s anything ALIENATING or WRONG with human relationships based on a (jealous) competition for prestige (pride), and based on a fear of others who are mistrusted as potential rivals (“who could take my life and safety away – things I’m entitled to have…”).

who don’t believe there’s a PERFECT VERSION of something like genuine interest in others; who don’t believe in the existence of a kind OF LOVE WITHOUT ULTERIOR MOTIVES, which creates an exemplary, inspiring and redeeming dynamic whenever we “get lost” in the temptations of pride and jealousy.

who don’t believe that SALVATION lies in the cultivation and (otherworldly) fulfillment of the dynamic of “genuine love for or interest in others”.

who don’t believe, in short, that there’s any SICKNESS they themselves and humankind as a whole needs to be CURED or SAVED from.

who don’t believe, even if they agree on the question of our typical “sickness” as human beings, that salvation has been offered to us in Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, Christianity is for people:

who believe we tend to attach importance to prestige and other “things of this world” because we are possessed by a deep and largely hidden FEAR OF DEATH – which makes our life seem of “no importance”, hence we try to give it some “weight” (the weight of vanity that is, of things that will pass just the same).

who believe it is ultimately fear of death which keeps us from developing full and perfect love for one another. Our desire to love one another is crossed by the dynamic of pride and jealousy – THE LOVE AND AMBITION FOR IMAGE, STATUS, PRESTIGE, REPUTATION, CONTROLLING POWER and for recognition because of that… Because we fear death, we tend to look for things which promise “immortal fame” – the PARADOX being that some of us are willing to literally SACRIFICE their own life TO ACHIEVE this kind of IMMORTALITY (examples of this kind of masochistic sacrifice are suicidal terrorist attacks, or suicide because one feels like a loser if one doesn’t achieve what is supposed to be “a worthwhile life by the standards of this world”).

who believe that a being, capable of perfect love, can only be a being that is NOT DEFINED BY DEATH.

who believe that a being, capable of perfect love, is Love in itself, and is “essentially relational” – this idea is expressed symbolically in the idea of the Trinity (“God” or “(Perfect) Love” as the relationship between “Father, Son and Holy Ghost”).


who believe that God, as an immortal being, is other than us humans (who are mortal), but is genuinely concerned with those who are other – because Love is “being interested in the other for the sake of the other”, because Love is “wanting the other to exist and to live in happiness”. Of course the condition for real and full happiness is freedom…

who believe God, this being of Love, offers salvation to the whole of humankind in eventually becoming the incarnated victim of the Pride of the whole of humankind. Expelled as “the common enemy” or forsaken “by all” (including his so-called friends), this victim – Christ – offers “the other cheek” (which is the mystery of the resurrection), challenging and freeing us to include the ones who, time and again, become the victim of our worst fears, of our pride, envy and frustration… To be forgiven by a victim who has every right to “take revenge” because of his total innocence, is an experience of FORGIVENESS and GRACE in its most outspoken form.

who believe that Christ desires to LIBERATE us from the fear of death, so that we can start loving each other more fully and perfectly, creating another basis to build human relationships – the basis or PARADISE we naturally start from (our genuine interest in others) which is all too soon corrupted by our fears and frustrations.

who believe that IMMORTALITY should not be the goal of (or “reward” for) one’s actions, but IS A MEANS to start developing actions of a perfecting love for one’s neighbor…

who believe that Christ shows that a God of Love is not “almighty” in the sense of being “all-controlling”; God is almighty seen from the perspective of a Christ who is not deceived by the temptation of pride and “this-worldly ambition”. By resisting the temptation for some kind of “prestige” (in other words by RESISTING MASOCHISM) Christ is able “to become the Servant of all” and to keep on loving others for the sake of those others… Because Christ is true to the “Spirit” of his “Father”, because Christ remains “the incarnation of Love”, he can resist sacrificing others (in other words RESIST SADISM) for the sake of some pride.


who believe suffering is not the ultimate definition and goal of life, but who are WILLING TO SUFFER BECAUSE OF LOVE FOR ONE’S NEIGHBOR.

who believe they still have A LONG WAY TO GO, but that there’s Someone giving them life, time and again, to GET BACK UP (leaving the ‘dead way of pride’ and choosing the ‘living path of love’), even if they don’t immediately see it or experience it…

who don’t wish to take pride in being CHRISTIANS, knowing that some of the people who call themselves NON-BELIEVERS or NON-CHRISTIANS are much closer to the reality incarnated by Christ than they are themselves…


1 John 3:11-14:

For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death.

Matthew 23:29-39:

Jesus said: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!”

“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation.”

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'”



  1. skylar · May 31, 2012

    Love the Lego illustrations, Erik. Great job!
    It’s been so long since I read Mere Christianity I can’t remember any of it, so thanks for the update.

    I particularly agree with your quote of Matthew 23:29-39:

    Jesus said: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!”

    As Girard explains, the foundation of culture was laid on tombs and graves of sacrificial victims. Nothing has changed as long as we live in a death-centric society. Erich Fromm also speaks of that in Heart of Man, Chapter 3. He does a great job of explaining that mindset.


    • erik buys · June 6, 2012

      I’ll try to get my hands on Heart of Man. Thanks for the tip!

      Maybe this will interest you as well. I came across this truly liberating testimony:

      Made me think I should re-read Girard’s article on eating disorders:

      Click to access contagion03_girard.pdf

      Always, after reading something like Mere Christianity or another work by a great Christian mind, I can’t help but think that Christ really is the future instead of a relic from the past…


      • erik buys · June 7, 2012

        Can I ask you why you post this here? Is it a reaction on my post Mere Christianity? It could be. Sanal Edamaruku seems to be the victim of some pride.

        I’m definitely NOT signing the petition for the reasons given. Sanal Edamaruku seems to misrepresent some things deliberately. He claims to be the victim of charges which were never aimed at him. Indeed other charges were made, but those concerned his false accusations directed at the Catholic Church. All in all, Sanal Edamaruku managed to present and exalt himself somewhat as a “martyr for Reason” against “the evil and manipulative Institution of Superstition (the Catholic Church)”. After doing some research, MNb, I think it’s worth asking if the real deceiver is not Edamaruku himself. “Twisting the truth” is no synonym for “defending rationality and science”. On the contrary. I’d rather trust the Catholic Church’s long (admittedly not always straight) tradition of promoting reason and science.

        Watch the discussion on YouTube between Sanal Edamaruku and bishop Agnelo Gracias; the bishop starts in English from 8:17 (it’s strange Edamaruku continues in Hindi now and then…): CLICK HERE.

        Moreover, it’s worth considering the following before calling Edamaruku a hero (Don Quixote fighting windmills? – CLICK HERE FOR MORE):

        With regards to visiting the site & the Cross, Mr. Sanal had to prove only the statements made by him on air on 5th march to be TRUE – which are: The local priests do tricks to collect money & build Churches / Pope is into exorcism / the Church is against science / adverse comments on Catholicism, the material of the Cross, etc., among others. This was the sole reason for his visit. Even the panel discussion which followed on TV was an opportunity for him to make a public apology as any decent human being who erred would do.

        It is to be noted that:

        • Mr. Sanal’s derogatory statements on the Channel on 5th March were made from Delhi without even visiting the site.

        • The Cross is not owned by the Church. It belongs to Mr. Leander Dias family. The Church & the Cross are on 2 opposite & different sides of the road. Thus his claims that the local priests do these tricks are baseless as the Cross is NOT CHURCH OWNED.

        • When the owner Mr. Leander Dias volunteered to break the base below the Cross (in the presence of Mr. Sanal & the channel’s reporter & camera crew) so he could do a thorough check, he declined the offer for reasons best known to him.

        • Money Collection: None of the Print / Electronic Media including TV9 present at the Venue on the 5th mentioned or showed any money collections being made at the site. Hence his claims from Delhi accusing the local priests of collecting money at the venue to build churches is again TOTALLY FALSE. A defense committee supporting Mr. Sanal has mentioned on its website “if you wish to support us, support the defense fund with a donation” – a statement which appears to speak for itself on collection of funds.

        • Priests present during his visit to Irla: When TV9 agreed to bring Mr. Sanal to Mumbai to prove his statements of 5th March & also agreed to the panel discussion to give him an opportunity on a public platform to prove his statements or to apologize, AOCC had submitted the names of the people on the panel & had mentioned to the channel that the locals, AOCC, members of other groups & the priest would be present at the venue when Mr. Sanal visits the place. Hence his claims that priests were present is irrelevant as the channel was already informed in advance.

        • Regarding prayers at the Cross: Anyone believing in God esp. those living in Mumbai / India are aware & also partake in prayers recited by locals at religious structures. Being the season of Lent, during the 40 days period Catholics recall the Passion of Christ by holding “Stations of the Cross” at Church levels & at the local community levels i.e. at the crosses in the areas. These local prayers are generally held on Sundays so that it is convenient to attend. As 10th march was a Sunday, since the Channel’s & Mr. Sanal’s visit was scheduled for 5pm, not knowing the length of time of the visit, the prayers were conducted by the locals & completed before the visit lest it be delayed. Hence, Mr. Sanal’s claims that “special prayers” were conducted at the Cross are UNTRUE as the prayers were the regular Lenten programme that was on.

        • None of those gathered around nor the TV Channel crew received any picture titled “miracle”. It is therefore strange that only Mr. Sanal received the picture. Even stranger is the fact that the picture contained no details overleaf, be it date, or location which is normally printed on such pictures. In fact the panel on the 10th refuted his claim on air, even questioning whether he brought the picture with him from Delhi as he was the only one who had it.

        • The Associations that have demanded Mr. Sanal’s apology & also filed the FIRs are neither funded by the Church nor use Church premises nor do they take help financial or otherwise from the Church for their activities. Hence any claims that he is being targeted or attacked by the Church are totally UNTRUE.


  2. skylar · June 7, 2012

    Thanks for that link about loving ourselves and not judging ourselves so harshly. The author sounds like she gained a lot of wisdom at a young age.

    Our culture and mindset drives us to compare things and ourselves constantly. Girard’s genious is that he saw this as the underlying mechanism that drives envy, scapegoating, denial of truth and just about every evil. It is a hidden sabotage in human thinking.

    Maybe comparing things is okay, but comparing ourselves to others reduces us to objects. Objectifies us. Love is the only appropriate response to human beings.


  3. dasrettende · June 7, 2012

    Thanks for this great post. I especially like your discussion of Christianity and fear of death. Whenever I take a stroll in the beautiful churchyard close to my house I am touched by the multitude of inscriptions saying that love is stronger than death. Since you seem to like music, and in case you haven’t already done so, go listen to the first two songs on the album “Dusk” by the British band “The The”, “True happiness this way lies” and “Love is stronger than death”. I think that they wonderfully illustrate your argument.


    • erik buys · June 9, 2012

      Thanks for mentioning “The The”. I just loved “Love is stronger than death”!


  4. skylar · June 8, 2012

    Regarding Sanal:
    He is a drama addict. He needs attention and he’s getting it.


    • erik buys · June 9, 2012

      Well, I didn’t know him, but it seems you’re right about that…


  5. Pingback: C.S. Lewis Account of Mimetic Desire | mimetic margins

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s