It seems as though all walks of Christians want to claim C.S. Lewis as conforming to their theology. That's just the kind of figure that he has proven to be in Christian history. Even during his lifetime, members of Christian sects that he did not openly associate with decried his failure to do so, such as J.R.R. Tolkien who was greatly disappointed when Lewis disavowed his atheism only to become a Protestant rather than a Catholic.
Lewis' work as a Christian apologist stands as a forerunner to the many successful apologists of our day, such as John Lennox and William Lane Craig. And yet, like those same men, theologians have drawn distinctions between the work that these men perform in proving the existence of (or at least rationale for) God, and the beliefs that they hold within the faith. Craig, for example, has long stood as one of the few advocates of the Molinist view in opposition to the much more common Calvinist and Arminian views. In much the same way, the work of C.S. Lewis cannot be downplayed, but there is at least one very important theological gaff that manifests itself in his perhaps most famous work, Mere Christianity.
"Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked." - Mere Christianity
Lewis, as an apologist, sets out in the first section of his book (entitled "Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe") to provide real and argumentatively logical reasoning for believing in God. He does this, although he never uses this phrase, on the basis of "the Moral Argument". By speaking of those common experiences that all mankind shares, such as romantic espousal and occupational ambition, he shows that regardless of era or culture, all humans have found that they expect some level of reliability and consistency in conduct that cannot be expected in mere animals or grounded in scientific experiments.
This section is a truly fitting introduction to Lewis' book, not strictly in terms of topic but in terms of style. When reading this book, the reader is struck by how little Lewis actually says the word-for-word point that he is getting at, and rather uses word pictures, analogies, metaphors, and common experiences to bring the reader to understanding his point before he states it outright. With that said, Christians who have listened to any matter of introductory apologetics will gain little from this section other than pictorial illustrations that could be used to explain these truths to others.
"When you teach a child writing, you hold its hand while it forms the letters: that is, it forms the letters because you are forming them." - Mere Christianity
The second section of the book addresses Christian beliefs. Of course, as this is a book that was not intended to be read by theologians and scholars but by the popular world at large, this is certainly not to say that he delves into any real doctrines of soteriology, eschatology, or ecclesiology. Rather, he lays out the introductory beliefs of Christianity as opposed to say that of an atheist or a pantheist. This juxtaposition is quite important, if not for all people, particularly for the 21st Century apologists who will face these worldviews ad nauseam.
The Reformed community will be glad to hear that Lewis spends quite a bit of his time explaining what could basically be defined as the doctrine of Total Depravity, although his conclusion of how we escape it is rather imprecise. He says at one point, "The same badness which makes us need it [repentance] makes us unable to do it. Can we do it if God helps us? Yes, but what do we mean when we talk of God helping us? We mean God putting into us a bit of Himself, so to speak. He lends us a little of His reasoning powers and that is how we think: He puts a little of His love into us and that is how we love one another." This section felt like a great rising up a roller coaster to cross the crest and look and see that there is no plummet down, but simply a flat track slowly crawling into the horizon. He details our inability to repent on our own, and even goes so far as to say that God has to come into us to change us, only to then fail to mention the Holy Spirit at all - choosing rather to say that God gives us a bit of "His reasoning powers". What a let down. While not altogether untrue (as the Spirit does create in us a new mind and new way of thinking), this was a huge letdown for sure.
Later in the book, Lewis makes a passing comment about how Christians who pray know that it is God who is prompting them to pray - a reflection on the providence of God and his sovereignty in directing even the prayers that He will use to bring about new things. This statement would be uncharacteristic of non-Reformed Christians, who typically rely on man's free will rather than God's intervention and direction. Later in that same section, Lewis makes another statement that is characteristically Reformed, "When you come to knowing God, the initiative lies on His side. If He does not show Himself, nothing you can do will enable you to find Him. In fact, He shows much more of Himself to some people than to others."
"Bad psychological material is not a sin but a disease. It does not need to be repented of, but to be cured." - Mere Christianity.
There are a few instances in which Lewis shows himself to be strikingly ahead of his time. Mind you, this book was written in the early 50's and was the result of a radio series that took place at the end of the Second World War. Yet, Lewis had the mindfulness to distinguish between mental disorders and spiritual difficulties - a distinction that is not altogether clear to many Christians today (think of the war over conversion therapy for homosexuals; the debate over whether same-sex attraction is a choice or not; whether transgenderism is an identity or mental disorder, i.e. Gender Dysmorphia, and it goes on and on).
Another of these instances is in his view on marriage - and his is a view that is likely too liberal for most Evangelical Christians today. He states that Christians ought not to try to force their views of marriage on other members of society. He justifies this by comparing this to Muslims trying to prevent the rest of society from drinking wine. Rather, he says, Christian marriage should be distinguished from non-Christian marriage in some recognizable way, so that certain rules will apply to Christians and not to non-Christians.
One noteworthy downfall of Mere Christianity, in my reckoning, is the considerable time that Lewis spends trying to elaborate on the Trinity. This section is fraught with dangers, as Lewis' continual usage of word pictures and analogies now runs into an unimaginable figure in the Godhead. The best that he does is try to explain the difference between one-dimensional, 2-D, and 3D figures, before comparing God to a figure with more dimensional complexity than us such that He can exist as one Being and three Persons at once. This section, however, is so dangerous because of the analogies that he uses. He explains the Father begetting the Son as a literal father bringing a son into existence - which is Arianism - a condemned heresy.
Opmerkingen