Reviewed: "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis

A Balanced Discussion of the Positives and Negatives

You can listen to an audio narration of this article here.

---

Introduction:

“Mere Christianity” is one of Lewis’ most popular nonfiction books, having sold almost 4 million copies. Lewis was invited by the BBC to give some talks explaining the basics of Christianity to the audience at large, early in the 1940s during World War II. These talks were transcribed, lightly revised by Lewis, subsequently combined into a single volume, and published in 1952. This book has become something of a classic, interestingly, both for Protestants and Roman Catholics. To be sure, there are some fabulous parts of the book, but there are also parts where it leaves a lot to be desired. I want to look at both the highlights and – shall we say – the lowlights of “Mere Christianity” from a classical Reformed perspective.

What Lewis Does Right:

Healthy Collegiality:

Reformed folks get nervous when people start promoting ecumenism, and rightly so as such efforts often comprise a degradation of doctrinal distinctives on both sides. However, it’s my conviction that churches from separate streams, without compromising their doctrines, should work together at a local level much more than they currently do. The left wants to destroy everyone who won’t bow down to their demands, be they Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc. Thus, we ought to view other churches who refuse to give in to the left as allies, or at the very least co-belligerents. The advantage of working together at the local level is that it allows for real relationships to grow and for conservative-leaning churches of more liberal denominations to participate.

In “Mere Christianity,” since Lewis is attempting to represent Christianity at large, he necessarily spends little time on doctrinal distinctives and focuses more on the central tenets of Christianity, which most everyone, from the staunchly Reformed to the traditionalist Catholic, could assent to. I think this encourages a healthy collegiality, and though Lewis is far more willing to compromise than I think appropriate, even this serves as a good counterbalance to our Reformed sectarian instincts.

Clever Articulation of the Moral Argument for God’s Existence:

Lewis spends the first section of the book arguing for the existence of the Christian God. Instead of cramming every argument possible into his time, he went with the Moral Argument and spent his time fleshing through it very carefully, dealing with objections, and masterfully drawing out its implications. Though I think the Ontological Argument is the strongest logically, and the Transcendental Argument is the most persuasive, my favorite for practical use is the Moral Argument, and Lewis’ treatment is a sort of masterclass on how to make the argument.

Helpful Explanation of the Trinity:

The Trinity can be a difficult doctrine to convey to new Christians, especially because most analogies simply misconstrue the Trinity. However, Lewis not only explains it well, but also uses two analogies which are limited but accurate. The first analogy (from Book 4 Chapter 4) illustrates the relationship between the Father and the Son, specifically how Christ is “begotten, not made” in the words of the Nicene Creed:

Imagine two books lying on a table one on top of the other… It is because of the underneath book that the top one is resting, say, two inches from the surface of the table instead of touching the table. [L]et us call the underneath book A and the top one B. The position of A is causing the position of B… Let us imagine that both books have been in that position for ever and ever. In that case B’s position would always have been resulting from A’s position. But all the same, A’s position would not have existed before B’s position.

Right after this, Lewis gives the second analogy, which illustrates the Trinity as a whole, but he first sets the stage by reminding us that our understanding of the reality of God is like someone in a one-dimensional world trying to understand our three-dimensional existence. Building on that preface, he then likens the Trinity to a cube, which is six squares and yet one cube. I think this nicely avoids both modalism and partialism. Of course, our Trinitarian theology is best communicated in the words of Scripture and the historic creeds, but I think this analogy really does work.

Condemnation of “Christianity-and-Water”:

Though this phrase occurs just twice and in one chapter (Chapter 2 of Book 2), it deserves some attention. In the previous chapter, Lewis argues that an atheist objecting to Christianity on the basis of the Problem of Evil actually discredits the atheist’s worldview and demonstrates it to be too simplistic. Lewis then opens this chapter thus:

Very well then, atheism is too simple. And I will tell you another view that is also too simple. It is the view I call Christianity-and-water, the view which simply says there is a good God in Heaven and everything is all right – leaving out all the difficult and terrible doctrines about sin and hell and the devil, and the redemption. Both these are boys’ philosophies.

By “Christianity-and-water,” Lewis is obviously referring to liberal “Christianity” which dilutes the less cozy portions of Scripture. First, his decision to group liberal Christianity in with atheism carries some not-so-subtle implications. Second, he says it’s too “simple,” a critique which at first seems a bit nonsensical because liberals frequently rely on liberal academics and scholars. However, once all the credentials are stripped away, what is the worldview they’re left with? “There is a good God in Heaven and everything is all right.” In fact, it’s probably this laughably simplistic view which makes liberals so reliant on credentials.  

What Lewis Does Wrong:

Evidentialist Apologetics:

Within Protestant apologetics, there are two main schools of thought: Evidentialism and Presuppositionalism. The evidentialist seeks to find common ground with the unbeliever and argue for Christianity from premises the unbeliever in question already accepts. The presuppositionalist, on the other hand, argues that it is not possible for the unbeliever’s worldview to be true, and, conversely, that it is only possible for the believer’s worldview to be true. Presuppositionalism denies the unbeliever’s logical ability, within his worldview framework, to judge whether Christianity is or is not true. The evidentialist, conversely, affirms the unbeliever’s ability to make this judgement, which results in the evidentialist allowing the unbeliever to sit in judgement over God with the apologist acting as His defense attorney. This inverts the picture the Bible paints, always portraying God as the judge and His spokesman as the prosecuting attorney.

Lewis, as an evidentialist, frames his arguments for Christianity as though the unbeliever had the right to determine whether or not he thinks God exists. As a presuppositionalist, I object to this inversion. However, it must be admitted that Lewis’ writings alone have probably played a role in more people’s conversions than all the presuppositional apologists’ combined.

Economic Leftism:

When discussing how Christian morality affects society at large, Lewis invites us to imagine a fully Christian society. Summarizing what it would be like, Lewis said:

We should feel that its economic life was very socialistic and, in that sense, “advanced,” but that its family life and its code of manners were rather old-fashioned – perhaps even ceremonious and aristocratic.

Lewis isn’t entirely wrong in noting that Scripture does not outline nor endorse an unfettered capitalist system. However, it’s a far cry from “very socialistic.” The Mosaic Law very clearly defined and defended private property rights, and the New Testament likewise condemns theft and swindling. Lewis also hesitantly presents an argument against interest (aka usury), but ultimately says, “I simply do not know.” It would take an entire article at least to cover the ethics of interest, so please leave me a comment if that would interest you (no pun intended).¹

Derives Christian Ethics from Philosophy, not Scripture:

As Lewis covers the ethical ramifications of Christianity, he follows the system developed by Greek philosophers which focuses on the “cardinal virtues.” While I don’t object to anything in specific he said about Christian ethics, I object to using a pagan system to explain it. If one should counter that it’s simply a convenient way of summarizing Christian ethics, I would reply that God gave a summary of His own in the Ten Commandments. I really see no benefit at all to Lewis’ chosen method, and, interestingly enough, he moves on from that system to discuss other points of ethics, most of which would have been covered if he had used the Decalogue to explain Christian morality.

Waffling on the Atonement:

The principal criticism I would make is Lewis’ explanation of the atonement in Chapter 4 of Book 2. I understand that Lewis is not fully Reformed, and thus he’s not going to quote the Westminster Confession when explaining the atonement, especially not to a popular audience. With that being said, while Lewis does put forward a substitutionary notion of the atonement, he weakens it in two ways. First, he retreats from the Reformed covenantal notion of the substitution in favor of a vaguer idea of monetary ransom. Second, he prefaces his discussion by saying,

Any theories we build up as to how Christ’s death [saves] are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself.

It seems to me that Lewis simply had an aversion to the covenantal Reformed notion of penal substitution, and yet the pervasive language and imagery of substitution throughout Scripture forced him to adopt some sort of substitutionary view. It seems that Lewis felt duty bound to present a substitutionary theory of the atonement, but wasn’t particularly happy about it. No writer of Scripture ever invites his audience to discard what he says about the atonement if they find it “unhelpful.”

Conclusion:

Does “Mere Christianity” deserve to be a classic? Honestly, I don’t think so. Generally, I would say Lewis’ fiction communicates far more truth than his nonfiction (with the exception of “The Abolition of Man,” which I’ve also reviewed). So for doctrinal formation, I would actually caution against giving this book to a new Christian. However, for those who have been instructed in the basics of doctrine and apologetics, this can be a helpful and thought-provoking book, and for that, it’s certainly worth reading.

---

Article by A.C. Join us on MeWe, Telegram, Gab, YouTube, or feel free to:

1. Due to readers answering in the affirmative, this article has been written.