Having converted to Christianity from atheism, Lewis writes as an apologist, as one with a special passion for persuading the non-believer about the believability of Christianity. But in order to do this, Lewis has to argue several things, themselves, perhaps, debatable. First, Lewis argues that the things that divide Christians have to do with the fine points of doctrine. If one strips doctrine down to the bare essentials, there is a common core, a (mere) Christianity that binds the Christian tradition together. But is this true? And if it is true, can we trust that Lewis has got this (mere) Christianity down pat, without introducing some of his own theological bias? Secondly, Lewis suggests that doctrine is not necessarily essential to faith, that one can leave it to the specialists, so to speak, and develop a sufficient Christianity without it. Again, is this true?
His (mere) Christianity is not sufficient to the task, and in order to fill out the contours of the faith, he introduces ideas that are theologically slanted and subject to debate. Socially, for instance, he is a leftist, and argues that biblical Christianity cannot support any form of competitive capitalism, and this even includes the whole idea of charging interest on loans. He must confess that the closest type of economic system to what the Bible espouses is socialism. In the area of personal or sexual morality, on the other hand, Lewis is highly conservative, going so far as to suggest that the Christian/biblical view recognizes an inherent hierarchy of male over female in the marital or familial unit.
On a deeper level, Lewis seems to compromise basic Reformational tenets about the priority of grace over good works and the fact that God justifies us sinners and claims us fully as children, regardless of how much we advance on the path toward sanctity in this life. Even though Lewis is enough of a Protestant to know some of this, he is essentially a moralist who links being saved with becoming a nicer, better, more moral human being. The big sin, according to him, is pride, but he says nothing about the other pole of sin which is equally insidious, that of indifference or sloth (sometimes cloaked under cynicism, or else, cloaking fear), also part of core Christian teaching, and perhaps more true to us living in the new millennium than it was in Lewis's day.
His rational arguments for the believability of Christianity, do, I believe, make some sense for those who like to base some of their faith on rational arguments. But it is also true that I, for one, live in a time and place (specialists call it post-modern) where spiritual experience is more compelling a way into faith than rational argument, and a relationship with the Jesus of the gospels does more to challenge and provoke my faith than arguments drawn from natural law or the law of human nature.
