C.s. Lewis Was Not A True Christian.

[Llwellyn]

C.S. Lewis could never believe in "divine wrath" as the Bible teaches it -- that God enforces his violated law by requiting destructive retribution upon the human or upon Christ as his substitute. Rather, C.S. Lewis believed that divine retribution is always creative and never destructive (though it may hurt like hell). In this point of view, C.S. Lewis agreed with Plato over the Bible, making Lewis more of a "Platonic theist" than a Christian (see Plato's Gorgias Dialogue).

 

Thus, C.S. Lewis could never believe the Bible's explanation of the meaning of Christ's death on the cross as a "penal substitutionary atonement" where God punishes Christ instead of punishing us. In his writings, Lewis offered a different way of understanding the meaning of Christ's death as a "victory over death" (rather than a propitiation of the wrath of God). Lewis described the contrasting Biblical theology of the atonement as "immoral," "silly," and "shocking."

 

In terms of soteriology (the "theology of salvation"), Lewis believed that salvation means only moral and spiritual growth and not the forebearance of divine punishment ("justification"). Thus, people are "saved" by uniting with God through moral growth and not by being "justified by faith." Lewis agreed with Plato that the most direct way God can "save" a person is by radiating that person with God's wrath, cauterizing the evil in him, and bringing him to repentance and growth. Thus, non-Christians are at no particular disadvantage in the process of salvation. Non-Christians, like Christians, inhabit the same "Purgatory" in the eternal world.

 

C.S. Lewis was not a Christian. C.S. Lewis was a universalist. More accurately, C.S. Lewis was a Platonist. He was a Platonist who saw some promise in the Christian religion. Following Plato's recommendations in "The Republic," C.S. Lewis sought to encourage belief in Christianity as a "noble lie" that could be helpful and motivational to help people move down the path of moral growth. But C.S. Lewis believed that the Biblical form of the Christian story was disfunctional and could be made more functional by changing the doctrines around -- like a person moving the furniture in the house.

 

I myself believe that Christianity on the whole is more destructive than helpful, and thus should not be encouraged even in C.S. Lewis's more benign reconstructions of the doctrines. I also believe that it is unethical to tell lies to other people, even if they are "helpful." In that sense I disagree with Strauss, Burke, Machiavelli, Plato and C.S. Lewis. I agree with these authors that the mass of men do not have the capacity to think or govern themselves, but nevertheless, they should not be controlled with lies.

 

I also believe that C.S. Lewis's attempt at "changing" or "reshaping" the Christian religion into a more helpful and true story have largely failed. Rather, Lewis's more benign characterizations of "hell" and "Yahweh's wrath" have only served to provide fundamentalist Christianity more "cover" and more camouflage. Lewis did not leave a lasting impact on the religion -- he did not effectibely and permanently disable the Biblical theology of "divine wrath" and "penal subsitution atonement," and "penal hell." Instead, he just provided a happy face mask that fundamentalists are very willing to utilize in order to temporarily hide their hideous dogmas.

 

C.S. Lewis's project in the Christian religion was largely a failure. He should have used his massive intelligence to directly attack Christianity like Nietzche and Ingersoll did, instead of indirectly attacking it. Lewis's indirect attacks on Biblical theology have paradoxically had the effect of strengthening the Christian cognitive edifice.