His books have influenced more Christians than possibly any other author; his stories are classics, beloved by children and adults alike. There are foundations to his legacy, a movie about him, bumper stickers that quote him and his caricature can be found on t-shirts and coffee mugs. C.S. Lewis is the 
poster boy for “Christian thinkers,” inspiration for vast numbers of Christian authors, an icon in the already crowded pantheon of religious heroes.
But does he deserve the acclaim? Not only do some question the uncritical embrace of Lewis by American evangelicals, they question his Christian faith.
Christianity Today columnist Bob Smietana, in an article entitled, C.S. Lewis Superstar, sums up the essence of the “Lewis resistance” :
Clive Staples Lewis was anything but a classic evangelical, socially or theologically. He smoked cigarettes and a pipe, and he regularly visited pubs to drink beer with friends. Though he shared basic Christian beliefs with evangelicals, he didn’t subscribe to biblical inerrancy or penal substitution. He believed in purgatory and baptismal regeneration. How did someone with such a checkered pedigree come to be a theological Elvis Presley, adored by evangelicals?
Somehow, Lewis’ “checkered pedigree” has become of little concern to the average evangelical admirer. Nevertheless, some have described his Christianity as a “myth” and John Robbins goes so far as to ask, Did C.S. Lewis Go to Heaven? In his essay, Robbins concludes, “So we ask again: Did C. S. Lewis go to Heaven? And our answer must be: Not if he believed what he wrote in his books and letters.”
For instance:
- He believed in purgatory. In Letters to Malcolm, he wrote “I believe in Purgatory. The right view returns magnificently in Newman’s Dream. There if I remember rightly, the saved soul, at the very foot of the throne, begs to be taken away and cleansed. It cannot bear for a moment longer with its darkness to affront that light. Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they?” (pp. 110-111)
- He believed in evolution.
- He was unusually tolerant of mythology and paganism. On a visit to Greece with his wife in 1960, Lewis made the following unusual statement: “I had some ado to prevent Joy (and myself) from lapsing into paganism in Attica! AT DAPHNI IT WAS HARD NOT TO PRAY TO APOLLO THE HEALER. BUT SOMEHOW ONE DIDN’T FEEL IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY WRONG–WOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN ADDRESSING CHRIST SUB SPECIE APOLLONIUS” (C.S. Lewis to Chad Walsh, May 23, 1960, cited from George Sayer, Jack: A Life of C.S. Lewis, 1994, p. 378).
- He believed in prayers for the dead. In Letters to Malcolm, he wrote, “Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter men. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden” (p. 109).
- He believed in a type of “soft universalism.” “[H]ere 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. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been in this position” (Mere Christianity pp 176-177).
Perhaps these are why renowned Welsh preacher D. Martin Lloyd-Jones warned that C.S. Lewis had a 
defective view of salvation and was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement (Christianity Today, Dec. 20, 1963). And in a letter to the editor of Christianity Today, Feb. 28, 1964, Dr. W. Wesley Shrader, First Baptist Church, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, warned that “C.S. Lewis … would never embrace the (literal-infallible) view of the Bible” (F.B.F. News Bulletin, Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, March 4, 1984).
Andrew Greeley in an article entitled, Narnia: Not Just for Evangelicals writes,
C.S. Lewis was not a Christian in the sense of the word that “evangelicals” insist upon. He was an Anglican who sometimes skirted, in his writings at any rate, dangerously close to the thin ice of Catholicism. Indeed, many in my generation of Catholics simply assumed he was one of us. But even as an Anglican he would certainly fall out of the realm of the “saved” when the Rapture blasts all of us who do not believe in word-for-word inerrancy into oblivion.
Despite all this, C.S. Lewis is still considered one of the greatest Christian theologians, thinkers and authors of all time. But why? Of course, disbelieving in the innerancy of Scripture is far more serious than smoking tobacco and swilling suds. But nowadays a Christian author / thinker who smoked cigarettes, drank beer, believed in evolution, felt compelled to pray to Apollo, and rejected biblical innerancy would have about as much chance of becoming an evangelical hero as Paris Hilton does of becoming relevant.
So, given the facts, how “Christian” was C.S. Lewis. . . and why is he an evangelical hero?
Mike,
I am well aware of some of the erroneous views of C. S. Lewis, but I’d like to address his smoking first. It may not have occurred to the 21st Century Christian that Christian mores regarding smoking have not always been against the prcatice. Point in fact, Charles Spurgeon, the Prince of Preachers, was known to smoke WHILE preaching! Can you imagine the outrage today at a preacher lighting up in the pulpit?
I am aware that Lewis accepted evolution, just as I am aware Spurgeon accepted the possibility of the old earth timescale [but rejected evolution]. In regards to some of the other views you’ve mentioned, I think a quote by St Paul and another by Martin Luther sum up my attitude:
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” – 2 Timothy 2:15
…which points to our personal responsibility to rightly divide the Word rather than simply take someone else’s word for it. Paul commended the Bereans for taking the time to see if the Scriptures really said what he claimed they did.
“The days of creation were ordinary days in length. We must understand that these days were actual days (veros dies), contrary to the opinion of the Holy Fathers. Whenever we observe that the opinions of the Fathers disagree with Scripture, we reverently bear with them and acknowledge them to be our elders. Nevertheless, we do not depart from the authority of Scripture for their sake.” – Martin Luther
-Rev Tony Breeden
aka Sirius Knott
Great topic and discussion. With no desire to divert from the main subject I feel compelled to make a few minor corrections. Evangelicalism is not a minor stream in Chrisitianity nor is it some homogenous unit. It is also not an offshoot of the Anabaptists (a cult?). Mennonites are direct theological descendents of Menno Simmons and before him Zwingli.
As to Lewis and his theology. His Roman Catholic leanings are hard to deny but then again the same is true of Dean Zoontz and I enjoy him as well. We are all called to be noble Bereans, comparing all things with Scripture for ourselves and jugding what is simply a good story and what is revelation from God.
Not to stir up another can of worms but I am far more distrubed by Evangelical love affair with The Shack. It is neither good theology nor good writing and when I read reviews that call it the Pilgrim’s Progress of our generation I want to say a prayer for John Bunyan’s sanity. Then again, I don’t believe in praying for the dead. And, I can’t wait to take my grandchildren to see Dawntreader.
Great article Mike. I wonder how Lewis would answer the question: Do you consider yourself an evangelical? But then “evangelical” meant something different in Lewis’ day than what it has evolved into today.
I think you’re biased toward your own denomination and this article reflects poor research and is written rather badly. I read this article as your opinion. I disagreed with those parts I did not find humorous(which was most of it).
I consider myself a fan of C.S. Lewis, but I do not consider him one of my “heroes.” I believe that evangelicals can properly appreciate Lewis only if they take into account everything that Mike has written here and then some. While I think those who have called Lewis’s Christian faith “a myth” are simply being vindictive, there’s no questioning the fact that Lewis himself did not consider himself and evangelical, and we shouldn’t either.
So to answer Mike’s question: I think that evangelicals have embraced Lewis to the extent they have because he was a high-profile convert from atheism who wrote very engaging prose, including apologetic material, and he was a living demonstration that one can be an intellectual and yet believe in the supernatural at a time when many were heralding the triumph of the Enlightenment in Western culture. And yet not every evangelical has been guilty of the actual hero-worship of Lewis, any more than have most evangelical admirers of the Roman Catholic G.K. Chesterton.
Meanwhile, whoever it might be who has the cheek to dismiss what Mike has written here as biased, poorly researched, or simply his opinion, just flat-out doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Such a person is disagreeing with the facts, and while one may be entitled to his own opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts.
How Christian was Lewis? He was in Christ, and there are no degrees of that. How Christian was his life? I would have to say average, but then again I don’t know what he was dealing with in his past, so lets leave that up to God. He had lousy theology. Like almost all Arminians he was inconsistent in his beliefs. Why is he a hero to so many Christians? Because he wrote so clearly, and powerfully on evidential apologetics, and Christian living. If the Lord does not return for a hundred years, Lewis will STILL be the most widely read (Arminian) Christian writer of the 20th century. I have over 30 books by Lewis, and Duran must have searched hard to find the worst comments by Lewis for this article. Next I would like to see mike Duran write on Legalistic attitudes in Reformed circles. Things like Exclusive Psalmody, Strict Sabbatarianism, No holidays, etc.
Lewis didn’t believe the gospel of God’s grace, election, predestination, etc. How can he be a child of God?
Because Lewis believed in the central fact of Christianity (the Resurrection) and the central doctrine of Christianity (the Atonement).
by the way, I need to be clear that I was the author of the previous post about “central fact” and “central doctrine”. I trust the other Chris on this thread would not be worried about potential confusion, but I do not want to open the door to any confusion. Blessings to all here, \
— Chris Curzon
Excellent post. I heard the same and I think it is a desperate attempt to associate an author from the upper echelon with Christianity. At the same time that association did not make me want do delve deeper into his work to find out just how serious he was about Christianity. Perhaps he was a false teacher, if anything.
How many among us — any of us — could describe a correct view of any theological topic in a way that God would approve??
Would God be more inclined to LAUGH — “You mean THAT’S what you think I AM???”
Or SCORN — “You mean you are more concerned with figuring out who my followers are than of BEING a follower of ME?”
These kinds of post hoc determinations that this author, or that artist, or some music leader was or was not Christian, are only opportunities to weigh imperfect human beings against imperfect theologies. They are more of an opportunity to distract our focus from the living Lord Jesus Christ than anything else.
The question is, indeed, a challenging one… but it admits no answer.
Nice Blog. Sign me up!
I’ve long thought that referring to C.S. Lewis as a Christian was a bit like saying Norman Vincent Peale was a Christian. To the church-goers, it’s probably a true statement. To the born again believer, however, it’s a fantasy – much like his series. (All that said, I must now confess that I so loved Narnia that I own it. Sorry!)
I like your piece, of course; but you won my heart by quoting one of my heroes, Dr. John Robbins — whose book on Roman Catholicism I quoted extensively, in my manuscript “Fully Recovered Catholic.” He read parts of it, before his demise, and gave it a thumbs up – a response I will always consider an honor. http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=73
Anyway, nice meeting you, brother. Your FB Friend Linda Freeman sent me.
As a born again believer, I’m quite convinced C.S. Lewis was a Christian. Without picking a fight, I do want to ask, How is this a fantasy?
Respectfully,
Chris Curzon
No fight necessary. Mike Duran’s piece explains very clearly how Lewis’ “Christianity” was a fantasy. If you can’t see this, then I’m not sure where the problem lies: with the fantasy or with your confession of faith – ?
In response to Chris and Sharon, and just to be clear: I use the phrase “How Christian was C.S. Lewis” rhetorically. I believe we are on dangerous ground when trying to make final judgements on anyone’s spiritual state. I deeply respect Lewis, have benefited greatly from his writings, and believe his iconic status is somewhat deserved. Nevertheless, he does not not fit tidily within an evangelical framework. The point of this post is to ask why evangelicals seem to disregard Lewis’ “non-evangelical” components. Thank you both for commenting!
Perhaps the problem lay with Mike’s quoting Robbins list of 5 particular beliefs which seem to hold a weight greater than Lewis’ own stated belief in the Resurrection and the Atonement.
So I suppose my question is really this:
Given that Lewis accepted the Resurrection as a historical fact and the Atonement as the principle Christian doctrine, how conclusive is Robbin’s argument (cited by Mike) that Lewis did not go to heaven “if he believed what he wrote in his books and letters”, specifically:
1) belief in purgatory
2) belief in evolution
3) tolerance of paganism (I think this is overstated by Robbins)
4) belief in prayers for the dead
5) “soft universalism”
To the point: How is it that these five beliefs, a fortiori, nullify Lewis’ stated belief in the Resurrection and in the Atonement?
Since Robbins is not around to answer this, I would be interested in any answer you, Sharon, or you, Mike, wish to provide.
Sincerely,
Chris Curzon
Or to put it another way…. how does
1) belief in purgatory
2) belief in evolution
3) tolerance of paganism (I think this is overstated by Robbins)
4) belief in prayers for the dead
5) “soft universalism”
become MORE SIGNFICANT than belief in the Resurrection and the Atonement?
Sincerely,
Chris Curzon
Like Mike, I find discussions of the worth of others’ faith to be troublesome.
As far as Lewis goes, like the rest of us he certainly harboured some window-dressing theories that are neither indicitive of the intensity of our faith or combative with Grace.
Lewis was reared in a different culture and tradition, and many of the ideas that Mike has thumbnailed for us are as much a byproduct of culture as the Evangelical “no drinking/no smoking/ no dancing” teachings. They certainly are NOT barriers to salvation, as I understand the presentation of such in the Gospel.
I find it a good thing that so many are willing to embrace Lewis’ intellectual approach to the faith, and see many Christians challenged by it.
Yet I assume we all know that Lewis was neither Holy God Incarnate nor an anointed apostle, so we understand that some of his opinions (like some of ours) might be a bit wonky.
As to the position of salvation for the Roman Catholic…can we not go there?
“As to the position of salvation for the Roman Catholic…can we not go there?”
I find this to be a troubling perspective (wanting to avoid the conversation), as denying that Catholicism is a false religion dismisses the fact that its members are a mission field of 1+ billion people who need to hear the true gospel.
Most definitely a discussion to be had.
Mike wrote: “I believe we are on dangerous ground when trying to make final judgements on anyone’s spiritual state.”
You miss the point. Is the teaching of Lewis evangelical, is it safe?
Answer: no
Mike said: “I deeply respect Lewis, have benefited greatly from his writings, and believe his iconic status is somewhat deserved.”
What are you talking about? This is nonsense. How can this be true about you?
C.S. Lewis is a sacred cow. People who love innovation love him, those who are not playing games don’t.
Did Lewis bring glory to the person and work of Christ? No. Anyone who loves Christ will not be into Lewis. The love of Christ has heat and zeal, and loves those who magnify Christ.
In general, your argument makes wholly unsupported claims. You say Lewis “did not bring glory to Christ…” but you quote nothing from Lewis proving this point. For contrast, you might define what WOULD constitute bringing glory to Christ, so that we might learn.
So your argument is a vote against. But otherwise, it is empty. Claims without support.
I would add that you directly denied a personal statement made by another. A statement you can have no knowledge of that would make you able to correct.
When Mike said “I deeply respect Lewis, have benefited greatly from his writings, and believe his iconic status is somewhat deserved.”
You dismissed it completely. “This is nonsense.”
And you know this is nonsense because…. ?
— Chris Curzon
Mike, you are obviously zealous, and for that I commend you, but you cannot possible know whether Lewis brought glory to Christ! You can however, discuss the specifics of direct quotes that he an made, and whether they are in line with the Bible (or your unique interpretation of the Bible). What you are engaged in is libel, which does not bring glory to Christ. Christ alone will be the ultimate judge of Lewis. In Mere Christianity, Lewis defends ALL the fundamental doctrines of the church, including salvation by grace through Jesus’ death and atonement. Insomuch as he was possessed of such faith, he was as saved as you or I.
^above was directed @Jim (not Mike) 🙂
Did Lewis bring glory to the person and work of Christ? No. Anyone who loves Christ will not be into Lewis. The love of Christ has heat and zeal, and loves those who magnify Christ.
Nice to meet you, Christ!
Allow me to explain. I was a big fan of Lewis. I read his Space Trilogy, and the Narnia Series many times. But now I feel like a dupe, and wonder where our heads are at.
In book one of Narnia, the “atonement” is presented as a sacrifice made to the devil. No allusion to God’s wrath being appeased, no allusion to Justice being made, just pagan, Romanish, flat-out error on one of the most important truths known to mankind.
Now tell me this: why is this allowed in a kid’s book? I am ashamed of myself for being so cold hearted toward the Lord and His work on the cross. I have given this book to a child to read! I told a nine year old boy who trusted me that it was Christian! What kind of a spell was I under?
In the story of Perlandra, what did we get: two humans in bloody combat. And this was the redemption of Perlandra? What a missed opportunity, what a waste of time, what clutter and confusion. What about the last book, That Hideous Strength? What did we get there? Sensuality, perversion, drunkenness, gore, darkness, wizards, spells being cast, decapitated talking heads; come on! Where is Christ’s real person or real work glorified in any of Lewis’ work? How can a man bring glory to Christ if he does not understand what Christ did on the cross?
And yes, I don’t get how Mike can say he was helped by Lewis.
Is this question irrelevant? Did Mike step over the line? What happens when we follow the line of cows, where does it lead? Lewis had it wrong. Billy Graham had it wrong. Rick Warren has it wrong. Sacred Cow John Piper is warmly connected with the last three cows who are not Evangelical (I spent years following Piper). Piper says Lewis was a major inspiration to him, he gives tribute to Graham on his website, and he flat-out indorses Warren. What do we make of this?
Why is it so hard for us to call an ace an ace? Why do we like those who mix things up? Is it not our job to stay separated from error and call it out? I need this from leadership, and I am not getting it from the well-known. I am a dumb sheep, with limited time.
I have been a fool. I have bought into this slop big-time, but now I am moving on. No Christian worth the name has any sacred cows.
You ask what does giving glory to Christ look like? Here is a short book by A.A. Bonar, “The Gospel pointing to the Person Of Christ”. Find it online to read. It will bring you joy in a few short pages!
Thanks for giving your ear to a stranger for a few moments,
Warmly in Christ,
Jim
Wow. Jim – your reading of The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is so faulty it’s scary.
Aslan sacrifices HIMSELF to himself. And allows himself to be killed by the witch in accordance with the old prophecies. Similarly Christ offered himself to be killed by Satan and his forces, in accordance with the old prophecies.
The sacrifice was not TO the devil, it was OF God, for sinful mankind as represented by Edmond.
Note: understood correctly – that Edmond had to die as a traitor, that Aslan gave himself as propitiation to that law, that Aslans death both frees Edmond and breaks the spell of the witch – the story maps precisely to the penal substitutionary understanding of the gospel.
The reason you reading is scary is this: if you so eloquently and blithely misunderstand Lewis so badly, imagine how eloquently and misunderstand scripture! Image what distortions your inability to read must bring to the text! Imagine the danger you pose to all who read you…
Thank you, Jim, for your thoughtful and passionate response.
Per your suggestion, I was able read online “The Gospel pointing to the Person Of Christ”, by Alexander Bonar. I will wholeheartedly agree with you, for the part that I have read so far, Chapter 1, of what Bonar wrote is truly excellent. It so well describes the Gospel, that it takes my breath away. His ability to communicate is outstanding. Now, I’ve only finished chapter one, before deciding to write this reply to you, but I look forward to the remaining chapters.
Of your regard for Lewis, I will make just a few comments. Regarding Perelandra, I have mixed feelings about the very conflict you mention. But Lewis is not explicitly presenting the Gospel in that book. He is doing something rather different and exploring what the struggle of the Fall might have looked like, and what it might be like if the Temptation were presented, but rejected. As for “That Hideous Strength”, yes, it IS about everything that you say. But it’s purpose is not so much to present the Gospel, as it is to teach us what the works of Satan could look like, and how the human soul can be corrupted. And not so much in the abstract, but through a fantasy set of events that feel like they could actually happen. It’s a warning: Be vigilant.
That’s it for now. we have different views of Lewis, but quite the same view of the Gospel. The glory that belongs to Jesus Chris alone, we both affirm. What Jesus did is breathtaking to contemplate, and only grows more so, the more I think about it. I’m going to write again, after finishing the whole book by Alexander Bonar.
God bless you,
Chris Curzon
I am aware of the above things in regard to C.S. Lewis, although I have also read that Tolkien and Lewis considered Christianity the greatest of all myths – not in the same vein as Greek or Norse mythology, but as a kind of fulfillment – a myth come true, if you will, or the greatest (true) story every told. For my part, I am a Christian apologist, and have been defending the faith thus far for about three years. I have read several of his works, and although I may not agree with everything Lewis wrote, I nevertheless find many things that Lewis wrote useful. Again, I do not agree with everything that he penned, but as with other writers, aside from Scripture, that is; I tend to read a work and filter out the bad and hold on to the good. Did Lewis believe certain things that Evangelicals do not? Evidently. Does that mean that I am going to be a fierce critic and devalue many things written by this man, whom I still consider to be brilliant? Not at all. On the contrary, I also share Lewis and Tolkien’s love of myths (particularly Greco-Roman mythology), but as opposed to claiming that the Bible was influenced by such things, I rather use them to support the Bible. For example, Judges refers to Samson, who had remarkable strength and was recorded as tearing apart a lion with his bare hands – in Greco-Roman mythology, Hercules/Heracles was also a strong man who defeated a lion as one of his twelve labors. In other words, I am of the mind that Hercules/Heracles was based on the historical Samson. This leads down another discussion, however, one that I do not intend to engage in. I am simply commenting to note that the article was well written, and I acknowledge the man’s flaws, yet also believe that he is in heaven by faith in Christ. I do apologize for a bit of a rant, but I have been a fan of Lewis since I was a child. He had some remarkable ideas, if anything, and several of these ideas (though not all, of course) are very positive and useful in nature. God bless you.
Hello Troy,
You believe a man can go to heaven who believes wrong about the person and work of Christ. Why? Because he is brilliant?
This is not safe thinking, nor is it safe teaching.
I will grant that some of his ideas on culture were useful (I just read All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes, great book!). So I agree that a person can be useful and helpful who is not evangelical.
My main issue is this: what right do you have to pronounce him saved? Are you not gospel-centered in your life, in your faith? What is your hope, that you are brilliant?
If sin were the standard, we’d all be disqualified. Lewis was just as flawed as the rest of us yet God has used him (still to this day) to display His invisible qualities.
I was a bit confused about this article…
Wouldn’t you agree that, whether a person is cristian or not, decides by his acceptance of god’s grace and love? And definitely not by his level of perfection! (compare 1.John 4,17)
At the end of the day, we will have real big surprises in Heaven..just make sure you make it there first!
I know this a late post to an old topic, for that, apologies! However, the question that this post and many of the following comments bring to mind is this-when did evangelicalism become the “only true way” for Christians to believe? As a rather late comer to Christian history, will people really discount 1600 years of Christian history because it didn’t match up perfectly with the evangelical framework?
Josh,
Are you a lover of Rome? Fly your colors man, let us know what is on your mind.
@Jim: What about Luther’s Reform? What about Post-Calvinist Reform? What about the Protestant Reformation (out of which sprang Anglicanism)? What about the the Anabaptist movement? What evangelical disagrees with 4th c. {catholic} writer, St. Augustine, en toto? Why are you accusing Josh of being a “lover of Rome” for pointing out that the evangelical movement does not represent the sum total of Christianity?