No Apologizing

"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect." 1 Peter 3:15

Does Mere Christianity really represent Christianity?


Mere Christianity or Mere bunk?

In our 2011 Challenge we encouraged our readers to try their hand at reading and digesting a Christian book.  I recently read and reviewed C. S Lewis’  Mere Christianity (San Francisco:  Harper Collins, 1952, 1980. Pp. 227) for a class I took at Luther Rice Seminary and thought I’d share my thoughts with you here:

Sociologists have observed that the United States has lagged behind, or followed, the socio-political and cultural trends of Europe.  At times, in terms of things like fashion, for example, the lag-time is rather short, whereas in more foundational issues such as cultural and political trends, the time gap between progressive Europe and the more conservative America is quite broad.  This helps explain why a book that was written from radio-broadcasts given in Great Brittan during the 1940’s is still relevant in America today.  C. S. Lewis agreed to give the radio-talks, which were later edited and compiled as the book Mere Christianity (Click Here for a link to this book on Amazon.com), to explain and defend the Christian faith to a war-torn country “which had come to consider itself part of a ‘post-Christian’ world” (p. XIX).  Following that European trend, America is becoming increasingly post-Christian as well.  Mere Christianity has become a foundational classic in the field of apologetics. It has helped shape the way both apologists and Christians in general think and speak and set the standard for defending Christianity to a “post-Modern” or “post-Christian” world.  It is oft quoted by other apologists in their works; it has been used by others as a tool for thoughtful dialog with atheists and has served to strengthen the faith of Christians who have been confronted with their own doubts or by questions raised by atheistic family, friends and acquaintances.  Though it is not without its imperfections and some of the language, examples and illustrations given by Lewis are a bit out-dated, it is still useful for these purposes today.

C. S. Lewis (1898-1963) taught at Oxford then later at Cambridge, where he was the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance English.  He was a prolific writer, credited with authoring more than thirty books including:  The Chronicles of Narnia, The Screw-tape Letters, and works such as Reflections on the Psalms.  Lewis’ understanding of literature, language and popular culture, as well as his high intellect and background as a staunch atheist, uniquely qualify him to produce this pioneering work.  He wanted to tell his country “in basic terms what the religion [Christianity] was all about” (p. XIX) not to “convert anyone to [his] own position” (p. VIII) but to help them understand Christianity’s reasonableness over other belief systems, including atheism.  Indeed, because he was formerly an atheist, Lewis was able to articulate and answer many of their common objections to Christianity in a gentle, respectful and convincing manner.  Additionally, Lewis felt being a layman helped him to better relay the basic tenants of Christianity to unbelievers in a more commonly understood way than a highly trained theologian (who may be tempted to expound upon issues that divide various Christian sects).

Lewis originally organized this book into three parts that reflected the formatting of the radio broadcasts.  In fact, the original work included contractions and italics designed to reproduce the conversational feel of the radio programs as much as possible.  The current revised and amplified edition still tries to maintain a “‘popular’ or ‘familiar’ tone” (p. VII) which allows Lewis’ logical case to shine through without the cumbrance of highly technical language. 

The book is now arranged into four sections that progressively take the reader on a journey of faith opening with the contention that there is such a thing as an absolute Moral Law that must originate from something outside this universe.  Lewis goes on to make the case that it is most reasonable to identify the origin of that Moral Law as the Trinitarian God of the Bible.  He used this foundation to demonstrate the need for man’s redemption to God through Jesus Christ.  Building off these notions, Lewis explains morality from a Christian perspective in the next “book”, and concludes that section with a description of what it means to truly have faith.  Lewis closes with a theological section that attempts to describe “what God is and what He has done” (p. 187) and how Christians should respond to that by becoming new creatures – something Lewis describes as being beyond human. The progression of his arguments throughout is logical and convincing and probably to the truly open inquirer, quite convicting.  It is likely that God has used this work to bring a great multitude of souls into His kingdom. 

This work is first and foremost an apologetic treatise.  Even though the final “book” seems more designed for one who has already made a decision to believe, the entire work contains a good amount of apologetic material.  It seems as though Lewis was doing his best to gently and respectfully walk people through a journey from ignorant unbelief to a reasoned understanding of Christianity that culminates in one placing their faith in Jesus and then living for Him – to put it in his terms, he is hoping that people will move from Bios (Biological life) to Zoe (Spiritual life) (p. 159, 177).  He goes about this by presenting a progressive, comprehensive and “common” view of Christianity.

In the preface Lewis stated that he wished “to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times” (p. VIII), but he strays from that goal as there are a few ideas that are expressly stated and others that are merely alluded to which many evangelicals would say at least partially depart from orthodox evangelical Christianity.  Some of these departures are perhaps caused by Lewis’ desire to present a universal or non-sectarian picture of Christianity while others are undoubtedly due to Lewis’ personal convictions. Either way, however, these notions that may even be viewed by some as heresy certainly do not represent the “common” Christian faith Lewis professed to be aiming to present.

One area where Lewis deviates from traditional-orthodox Christianity is that he betrays a belief in Darwinian evolution throughout.  Because Darwin proposed his theories in the 1800’s that cannot be a view held by Christians “at all times” (p. VIII).  Additionally, this view of creation undercuts a trust in biblical inerrancy, which is a core value shared by conservative-evangelical Christians.  It also seems that Lewis alludes to the doctrine of purgatory when he speaks of an “inconceivable purification… after death” (p. 202). This doctrine, of course, has been rejected by most protestant denominations and is a key point in one’s soteriology.  Lewis also seems to err in his soteriology by implying that one must clean themselves up prior to coming to faith in Christ when he said, “it is impossible for Him to show Himself to a man whose whole mind and character are in the wrong direction” (p164).  The final doctrinal error Lewis apparently held to is that he seemed to be at least partially an inclusionist. He said, “There are people in other religions who… belong to Christ without knowing it” (p. 209) – This is untenable from a “common” Christian perspective.

In spite of the teachings that are not common to all Christianity and/or are incompatible with traditional orthodoxy, there are several subjects where Lewis’ arguments are matchless.  Possibly the most useful of these from an apologetic sense is Lewis’ defense of Jesus’ deity (either He is a liar, a lunatic or Lord) (p. 52).  This is followed closely in importance by his convincing argument that our common sense of morality is strong evidence for the existence of the God revealed in the Bible.  Mere Christianity also begins a good preliminary discussion on the problem of evil (as Lewis presents the similarities between Christianity and classic dualism), and it contains an excellent response to atheistic objections that are rooted in the perceived hypocrisy of Christians.  These philosophical gems make wading through the theological problems and the difficulties created by the difference in time and culture well worth the effort.

The brilliance and impact of Mere Christianity cannot be denied; it is indeed a classic which has helped shape the standard for apologetics to post-Modern non-Christians, particularly with the issues listed above.  However, this work is far from the inerrant and inspired Word of God.  In fact, there are several significant topics in which Lewis does not hold to conservative evangelical Christianity.  If one just scans the table of contents they may be tempted to rely upon this book as a layman’s systematic theological handbook, but because of these issues, those wishing to fully understand orthodox Christianity should avoid employing Mere Christianity for that purpose.  Instead, one should learn to utilize the theologically sound arguments contained in this work as part of a more comprehensive apologetics repertoire, so that they may gently and respectfully “give an answer to everyone who asks [them] to give the reason for the hope that [they] have” (1 Peter 3:15).

Advertisements

2 responses to “Does Mere Christianity really represent Christianity?

  1. Pingback: Book Review: Mere Christianity By C.S. Lewis | The BitterSweet End

  2. I'mAllBooked June 12, 2013 at 11:40 am

    Excellent balanced overview of the book – with both positives and negatives. I read this a long time ago, before I was really grounded in my doctrinal views (which are reformed), so I have been wanting to read it again with more, shall we say, discernment. Interestingly enough, I’m currently reading Charles Colson’s book “Born Again” and this is the first book he read that made him explore his beliefs about God and Jesus and challenged him to consider a personal relationship with God. It may be useful for opening the door of discussion with atheists and intellectuals, but doesn’t seem like a good tool for teaching the doctrinal truths of God’s Word. Thanks for this article – will be reblogging it soon on my site!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: