The Evangelical Universalist Forum

C.S. Lewis - dangerous heretic?

I am always astounded at the way in which C.S. Lewis has been absorbed by Reformed orthodoxy in America as a good guy – and that he can be approved of by a John Piper or a Michael McClymond. There is an obvious difference in that C.S. Lewis was Armenian rather than Calvinist ; but even if they can extend a broad latitude of tolerance here there is so much else in C.S. Lewis writing - imaginative and theological - that should properly be seen as dangerously heretical by people in the Reformed orthodoxy camp.

I know that the lunatic fringe of sectarian Calvinism already sees Lewis as are personification of wickedness. I see this opinion as vile and odious – but at least it is consistent. Is anyone interested at looking into this? I think I can set forth about twenty point about Lewis as being deeply, deeply flaky in terms of the Reformed camp – and I’m talking about his writings rather than gossip about his personal life or habits. Of course this is related to Dr McClymond’s lecture – my point is that if GMac is in the firing line, why not C.S. Lewis who actually should be seen as far more of a danger by him IMHO. I will proceed with this if it’s not deemed too inflammatory.

I, for one, would welcome this! :smiley:

I have a great appreciation for Lewis, but the co-optation by reformed orthodoxy is puzzling to some degree… Is it just that his apologetics made “orthodox” Christianity reasonable in a time of tremendous skepticism?

In ny event, I think the departures of “Saint Lewis” (as he has been referred to or unconsciously thought of by American evangelicals) from reformed orthodoxy would be relevant, helpful, and not too inflammatory.

I’d be interested as well.

Ditto!

Alrighty All and Sundry :smiley: -

Well first of all I’ll get the obvious one out of the way; C.S. Lewis obviously did find the doctrine of hell very problematic and did feel the need to ‘apologise for it’ and he clearly did not believe that God – who is holy love – willingly inflicts eternal conscious torment on creature that he has created because they are objects of his holy wrath. There are plenty of thread son this site that look at his and Jason has looked at his in some detail and with expertise regarding Lewis’s different positions in ‘The Problem of Pain’ and in ‘The Great Divorce’. As I understand it Lewis sometime suggests that hell is annihilation, and at one point almost verges in universalism, but his settled opinion is that the damned send themselves to hell which is not a place of God inflicted torture but rather a state in which God honours the choice of some of his creatures to be shut up in the isolation of their own egocentricity for eternity.

There is one antecedent I can see for this view of damnation when combined with the role C.S. Lewis gave to the hungry devil in Screwtape and elsewhere (and some would say that he sometime strays too much in the direction of dualism). If actually comes from one John Pordage – the Boehmenist ‘universalist’ :confused: given special scorn in Dr McClymond’s lecture:

(from the close of the 22nd chapter of ‘Sophia; The Graceful Eternal Virgin’)

Of course there is no direct line of influence. But the teaching of Pordage and Lewis are very similar on this point. And both teach a doctrine at variance with both Reformed orthodoxy and standard evangelical Armenianism. Yes they arrived at their insights through different processes, but the insights are strikingly similar and surely subversive.
Well that’s the most obvious one – comments and critiques are welcome

I think this is right Steve

I know that in terms of his ‘Mere Christianity’ he confessed to Sister Penelope that he was above sect and party – what he was actually against was atheistic materialism and any form of ‘liberal’ Christianity which accommodated with atheistic materialism; that is types of Christianity in his day that seemed to dismiss the supernatural or the necessity of human salvation/the existence and effectiveness of the Saviour and God’s plan of salvation. This makes him malleable for partisans but when we look at who C.S. Lewis actually was and what he actually wrote he really doesn’t fit the partisan box.

Here is an article that some of you will find interesting from a back number of Christianity Today -

brow.on.ca/Articles/Megashift.html

It would be interesting to speculate how Lewis would react to Talbott and Parry’s full-throated defenses of universalism.
Any ideas on that?

I wonder Dave? I think he would certainly have sympathised more with new model than old middle evangelicals. I know towards the end of his life he admitted that he had erred on the side of dualism in his thinking about Satan. I wonder whether a diminished Satan would have made him more open to universalism if he’d had the time to think it through? I dunno - we’ll have to ask Jason on this one I guess.

Good article from CT. One thing they’re missing, I think, is a shifting view of the atonement – or is it just us?

Hi Cindy :smiley:

Yes C.S. Lewis’ views on the atonement are very relevant to this discussion. This is hinted at in Robert Brow’s discussion in CT

But yep - I need to clarify this one (and I will) :slight_smile:

I like this article I read about Lewis a little while back, makes me appreciate the man more actually:

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/0 … ever-knew/

I know the above article is talking about his personal life though, and not his beliefs or his teaching necessarily, but thought it might be interesting. :slight_smile:

Along the line of what you’re talking about, I just ran across this article written by a guy who refers to himself as a ‘classic evangelical’, who argues that evangelicals can still learn a lot from people like Lewis, even though he had some very ‘heretical’ ideas :

revangelicalblog.com/blog1/2 … brace.html

Naturally I disagree with the guy’s position as a ‘classic evangelical’ in the article above, to be sure, namely because I pretty much agree with Lewis on all those points that the guy brought up, namely I don’t believe in penal substitution theory, I’m a universalist, I’m open to evolution, I question biblical inerrancy and infallibility, and I believe we can never come to know God completely, at least not in this life… and I’m probably even more of a ‘heretic’ at this point than Lewis ever was…

But aside from that, I like how the guy shows some humility and generosity and has a ‘don’t throw out the baby with the babywater’ attitude, which is kind of refreshing.

Anyways, thought I’d share that article too, as it relates to the discussion at hand. :slight_smile:

Thanks for bringing up an interesting discussion, Prof :slight_smile:

Matt

Hi Matt :smiley:

Wow, that’s a lot of stuff :laughing: - and very interesting stuff too. Since the articles are both long I’ll just play facilitator for a second and give some guidance (or else I’ll lose the plot

Regarding the John Blake article on Jack Lewis’ biographical details – I think this is an interesting subject in its own right and needs to be considered separately and should have a separate thread (although I agree that the human Lewis is far more encouraging than the stained glass window version :slight_smile: )

In the second article Brandan Robertson makes the point that C.S Lewis differs from fundamentalism and reformed orthodoxy on the following issues:

No Literal Eternal Hell: (which we’ve done)

Theology of Atonement/Gospel: (which we’re doing at the moment)

Theology of [Potential] Universal Salvation: (well Lewis was what I’d describe as a ‘wide hoper’ and we can look at this in terms of his thoughts about the Johannine Logos)

Purgatory: (well he believed in this and the communion of saints towards the end of his life when he was becoming increasingly Anglo Catholic I understand; perhaps it is enough simply to note this)

Evolution: (I wasn’t particularly going to look at this one since his thinking on evolution seems to be rather unclear to me – but we can do later if anyone has any thoughts)

Non-Inerrant Bible: (absolutely and this connects to his theology of ‘true myth’)

Theology of God/Knowability of God: (this is a really good point – definitely worth looking at later)

So we’ll focus on the Theology of Atonement now – and we’ll take the rest of the list (and other points) one at a time). We’ll get through it bit by bit promise :slight_smile:

OK – regarding Lewis and atonement – he did not see PSA as a Christian essential. Chapter 9 of Mere Christianity is the key text. Brandan Robertson quotes the following bits from this in the article Matt has supplied above -

To flesh this out a bit more is a very thorough article by Ariel James Vanderhorst at Touchstone about this. The article is interesting because Vanderhosrst seems to me to be a supporter of both PSA and Lewis (for example he assumes that Lewis would have changed his mind about PSA if he’d had access to Leon Morris’ ‘The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross’ – which is a defence of PSA - but that’s a very big ‘if’.

Also he says

However, I think the article will be of much interest because it deals with the Atonement as expressed in ‘The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe’ in some detail thus (I’ve inserted two comments into the text here in bold)-

This is some great information, thank you Dick.

Aw thanks Dave :smiley:

I guess I’ll leave things open for a few hours and then I might pick up on C.S. Lewis thoughts about the saving work of the Eternal Christ - another non-reformed orthodoxy theme. In the meantime if anyone want to give their view of the magic of atonement in ‘The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe’ (even if it’s just to confirm one of the views given in the article) I’d be delighted to see what you have to say.

I’ve not much to add at this point. I will say that I think the imagination is a more worthy instrument of understanding the atonement than forensics or courtroom analogies. A great Tale can bring out themes of heroism, heraldry, joyful praise, sacrifice etc. that involve our whole being, not just our discursive intellect, themes that in fact might be missed by the rational function alone.
The Second Chapter of Acts - remember them? the Christian group from the 70’s - had an album “The Roar of Love” that had as its theme the first of the Narnia books. I thought they did a great job of matching music and mood to the various themes. Musical imagination, a wonderful thing.

I’ve not heard of the band but I completely agree with you Dave – and I think this is partly to do with the fact that as an Anglican Lewis experienced atonement through incarnational liturgy (and of course, in terms of saving ‘myth’) rather than as a forensic axiom. I’ll have a ponder about how to express this.

A few final thoughts about Lewis and PSA

Perhaps I am biased but I do find it difficult to square the atonement that takes place in Narnia with PSA. C.S. Lewis did not react with anger against PSA teaching as GMac did (but he never, as far as I know, felt the need to correct Gmac on this score in the way he does with Gmac’s views on universal salvation in The Great Divorce’). Yes Lewis at first was dismissive of PSA and then he back peddled in the name of charity. But his financial model of satisfaction which he outlines in Reflections on the Psalms is meant as an empathic and peacemaking gesture – but it is taken from the civil law courts and not the criminal law courts so it is not the same as Reformed PSA.

With the Ransom theory of atonement the Ransom of Christ’s life is paid to the devil to trick the devil out of what is his by rights according to the law of death. This is what I take to be the deep magic from the dawn of time in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, while the law of eternal life that overcomes death is what I take to be the deep magic from before the dawn of time – and the fact that the wicked Witch who is the devil in Narnia does not know about the magic from the before the dawn of time and therefore is tricked by it fits well into Ransom atonement imagery and narrative.

Additionally in PSA theory – apart from when it is used by universalists – those who have faith in the efficacy of Christ’s death are saved from the wrath of God – those who do not have faith experience the active wrath of God for eternity. This does not fit with Lewis’ idea that hell is self chosen/self torment (with a little help from the temptations of the kingdom of darkness) as stated in the Great Divorce. And it does not fit what happens in The Last Battle where Aslan says to Lucy concerning the renegade dwarfs who are shut up in poisonous, selfish suspicion ‘You see they will not let us help them. They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their own minds, yet they are in that prison and so afraid of being taken out that they cannot be taken out’. Aslan says to Tash the demon god of the Calormen –‘ Begone monster and take your lawful prey to your own place’ (these people have not been redeemed by the deep magic from before the dawn of time).

I rest my case. Lewis actually relativises PSA by not promoting it himself but not censuring those that do. For those who take an axiomatic view of doctrine Lewis should be seen as rather post modern on this point.

Open to correction :slight_smile:

I’m sorry I’ve been out working on other projects the past few weeks (and likely will continue for a while)… :frowning: I want to catch up on the McClymond thread(s), too.

I think my only corrective comments about the articles linked have already been made by Sobor et al above. (e.g. he believed pretty strongly in implicit and post-mortem evangelism, but that isn’t even theoretical universalism.)

Regarding Lewis’ sexual proclivities (for whatever it’s worth): he made a strong effort to tamp down on those after he converted, and what evidence there is on the topic indicates he had a chaste relationship with Mrs. Moore after that point (if not before) which may have contributed to her growing resentment of him. (On the balance I do think the evidence points toward him having an extended affair with her.) He and the Inklings could still be rather raunchy, though (some moreso, some less – not Tolkien), and his taste for rough play resurfaced again when he finally married Joy, as he talks in that period about the lover’s pinch and things of that sort.

Edited to add (since this wasn’t remarked on upthread): Lewis doesn’t stay a “shattered theologian” in A Grief Observed. That’s early in the diary, and he picks up the pieces and puts them together again as he goes. There’s an abbreviated version of his classic Argument from Reason for example.

He picked up a lot from MacDonald, once he began to study him theologically of course, but also from Athanasius who himself was a devoted fan of Origen (much as I am of Lewis as my teacher) and of Didymus the Blind (another student of Origen); I am 100% sure that Lewis picked up his emphasis on the essential nature of the Trinity as interpersonal love from Ath, since in a foreword to “On the Incarnation” he himself says so. Unfortunately Lewis never worked this out systematically, much less into his theology thereby. It shows up on occasion but not in an integrated way. As Dr. Ramelli demonstrates exhaustively in her recent Tome, this was a key characteristic of the trinitarian and proto-trinitarian patristic theologians and apologists – when they were also universalists. It isn’t surprising from this and MacD that Lewis got as close as he did. I don’t know any evidence that Lewis read much Origen or Nyssa or other super-patristic universalists, but I’m pretty sure he was familiar with Augustine and we now know (thanks to Dr. R) that Augustine was applying those same arguments against non-trinitarian Christians and non-Christians in his early years. We can also be reasonably sure what Lewis rejected in Augustine – since Lewis was neither a Roman Catholic nor a Calvinist. :wink: What he picked up and followed through from Augustine, consequently, came from the Originean school indirectly mediated by Aug.

What would Lewis have made of modern evangelical universalists? Considering how much we like and follow him, I’m going to guess he would have appreciated that at least!

Naturally, once he read SttH and my various scriptural arguments based on standard ortho-trin exegetical techniques, he would have quickly seen that MacDonald was correct on this topic, and would have become a purgatorial universalist like myself (and MacD) for exactly the same reasons I did. I am as confident of this as any Roman Catholic is that Lewis would have been a Roman Catholic if given a few more years. :laughing: :sunglasses:

(But there is one key difference: I really am systematizing Lewis’ theology in detail and following out his points along lines he himself started, fixing various points of internal contradiction and implicit anti-trinitarian weaknesses by his own methods and in appeal to what he himself also believed. I hope he approves; but then he and I would both rather say we hope God approves of what we do, but we’re willing to trash what God says He doesn’t approve when we see it.)