News Bulletin: C.S. Lewis Not an Evangelical, Therefore Dangerous

Use caution when reading this man's works.

My friend Gabe pointed me (via a tweet by John Piper: "Kevin DeYoung is more reliable than C.S. Lewis. Yes he is. Not an overstatement.") to this this article by Pastor Kevin DeYoung. DeYoung argues that Lewis' Mere Christianity is a bit *too* mere:

Later Lewis says that “Christ was killed for us” and “His death has washed out our sins” but “any theories we build up as to how Christ’s death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary” (59). This impatience of careful thinking about the atonement is bad enough, but then Lewis goes on to make clear that he rejects the understanding of the atonement evangelicals (and the Bible I would say) find most central and most glorious. [...]

He does believe in a substitutionary theory of the atonement, but he rejects penal substitution. He admits that penal substitution is not quite as silly as it once sounded, but he still does not accept it. Instead, he argues that Christ pays a debt (which is true), but not as a punishment for our sakes.

DeYoung's extra-biblical terminology strongly influences his worldview (a pretty good sign that he is a mechanic, and thus thinks rather differently than a mystic like Lewis), so much that it gives him tunnel vision as to what Lewis could actually be saying. A careful reading of Lewis' statements about penal substitution makes clear that he is not at all familiar with the idea of a covenantal representative, and without covenant headship penal substitution *is* is silly idea. 

DeYoung's second complaint is about Lewis' inclusivism:

Lewis, by contrast, believed in what we might roughly call “anonymous Christians.” That is, people may be saved through Christ without putting explicit faith in Christ.

There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. (178)

No matter how much we may like Lewis, this is simply a profound misunderstanding of the Spirit’s mission (and a rejection of John 14:6). 

DeYoung could use as prooftexts references like "no man comes to the Father except through me," and then logically argue that it must have certain implications for those who have never heard of Jesus. Lewis, on the other hand, might cite as prooftexts statements like "just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression, so too through the one righteous act came righteousness leading to life for all people," and then make his case from there.

The point is that they are both prooftexting, a use of Scripture that looks like something Christ and the apostles did but is actually quite wrong, and they are both extrapolating from Scripture, meaning neither position is unambiguously supported. They're treating their personal conclusions as if they were premises, which any logic teacher should cringe at. And Lewis would argue, I think rightly, that the salvation of a person does not depend on which logical thread a believer finds more convincing. (And just in case you are wondering, I tend to disagree with Lewis on this point. But what DeYoung presents is a poor argument against it.)

So I'd say they're on equally reliable intellectual footing, but where Lewis interprets those he considers wrong with charity, DeYoung sees errors (and is harsh with the one making it) both when they are present and when they aren't. I'll stick with Lewis.