Be peaceful.

Lewis was a convert, having been an atheist. Lewis was trying to convert people, and perhaps trying to convince people already in the pews to give a bit more attention to what they believed.

He certainly deserves better treatment than some of the comments are willing to give him.

One might do well to remember that the early Protestants attempted to define the “fundamentals” of the faith, and failed. They could not agree on what was central or on how it was to be understood.

A comparison of the theologies of Luther and Calvin will bring about that recognition easily enough. Luther held out for a quasi-sacramental view; Calvin pretty much opposed it. Ask any Baptist if God can be present in bread, as in the Eucharist. No agreement on fundamentals but maybe just maybe cannabilism is involved. One can disregard the synoptics and John 6.

Given that both Luther and Calvin had a very high impression of the Mother of God, as is seen in their writings, one might compare their impression with that of their current followers in Lutheran and Reformed Churches. The anabaptist position on Mary has taken precedence and the anabaptist position is that any woman would do. Nothing unique about the woman to whom Gabriel appeared, or about Mary’s appearance before Elizabeth and the praise that gushed from Elizabeth’s mouth at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Nothing unique at all. Mary was just another woman in a position where any woman would do just fine.

I listened to a man talk about how, as an Anglican, he had taken the high church position (which contrasts with the low church position [think Methodist/Baptist in orientation]). He noted that he came to the realization that his position involved private judgment. He had made the decision on what he was, and understood that he could as easily have been something else if private judgment is involved.

Anyone with a modicum of familarity with CS Lewis writings or history sees him as evangelical in practice. He was not Catholic, he was not Unitarian and he was not a Buddhist.

He was known for speaking about our Lord in meeting halls, churches and on the radio. He accepted speaking engagements for the privilege of speaking in favor of the Christian God. He took that part of the line – the broad middle – in defending God and was found to be defending us as well. That recognition was why Baptists, Catholics, Methodists and Presbyterians could enjoy reading him and weighing the ideas that he had expressed.

His Christianity was described as genial (open, friendly) and muscular. He defended those positions he listed in Mere Christianity. For many of us who had the privilege of reading Mere Christianity (and a large number of other, often complementary books), he anticipated our questions and gave us substantive answers.

He deserves credit for what he did and what he wrote. If there is such a thing as mere Christianity, he certainly served it well.

Well said.

I think we play a theological version of buzz-word bingo, where individuals like Lewis are judged on the basis of whether or not they use the right words or catch phrases or superlatives. One can say something profound, but if he or she doesn’t garnish it with a quote from a reformed bobblehead or at least one reference to a “sola”, it is dismissed as heresy or “milk”.

A lot of Christians are still skeptical of human reason and thought. It may go back to some dumb things done in the name of medieval nominalism. It could be due to the horrific things done during the enlightenment in the name of autonomous reason. Because of this, some may be a little fearful of Christian thinkers. It’s really tragic, but it just requires patience.

I take it that people think he contributed that?

Chesterton said that when faced with a paradox or an apparent contradiction that one must embrace both sides as a mystery. He also said that lunatics look for simple answers, rather than seeing complexities and mystery. I understand that one can summarize the Christian faith in one or two scripture verses or in a phrase or statement of faith. But these summaries would be meaningless without the richness and depth which lies under the surface. That is part of the problem with the current pragmatism which makes the church a mile wide and ankle deep: we just want something simple that will “work”. We don’t care about the finer points of fly-by-wire avionics; we just want the plane to get us somewhere. Church history is full of examples where orthodoxy was a meeting in the middle of two opposing views. There’s a lot of things I love about Augustine, but his neo-platonism and tendacy toward manichaeanism had to be balanced by theologians who came after him. When you’re tempted to believe that life and faith are simple, read Job again.

As I said before, I don’t think Lewis was making a Readers Digest version of the faith; I think he was, as already stated, opening a hallway we can all meet. If someone believes that the true Christian faith is found behind one particular door, the whole analogy of a hallway becomes meaningless. For a view of a world where everyone lives behind isolated doors of self-righteousness, read Lewis’ description of hell in “The Great Divorce”.