C.S. Lewis, Inclusivism, and Scripture (Part 1)
A few months ago, in the midst of the "Is Rob Bell a Universalist" debate, I wrote a few posts on the subject. One post in particular included some definitions of exclusivism, inclusivism, and universalism. I defined inclusivism as the belief that salvation comes through Jesus, but that individuals do not necessarily need to exercise explicit faith in Christ's name for salvation. In other words, a sincerely seeking Muslim or Buddhist could be saved, according to inclusivism, because they could believe in Jesus without knowing it. In response to that post, Jordan posted a question in the comments section:
Does Inclusivism directly contradict the teachings of Scripture? At first, I would think so. But your statement that C.S. Lewis was an Inclusivist begs me to investigate. It’s been a while since I read “The Last Battle”, but I loved “Mere Christianity” and hold his writings in very high regard. Is there other evidence that he was an Inclusivist in his writings? And if so, what implications would this have on what we, as Bible-believing followers of Christ, take from his writing?
Jordan is asking three related questions. First, was C.S. Lewis really an inclusivist? Second, is inclusivism really inconsistent with the teachings of Scripture? And third, if it is, how should we approach C.S. Lewis and his writings? I'm going to divide my answers into at least two posts, if not three.
These are all great questions, but tough ones.
Was C.S. Lewis really an inclusivist?
My assessment of C.S. Lewis's position on this issue comes primarily from the end of The Last Battle, which is the final book in The Chronicles of Narnia. Although a work of fiction, it is clear throughout the entire series that Lewis intends the books partly as tools for theological instruction. At any rate, one of the book's main characters, Emeth, is a follower of the false god Tash (who bears a strong resemblance to the Muslim Allah). The Christ figure of the books, the lion Aslan, allows Emeth to enter heaven based upon the fact that Emeth had been unknowingly serving Aslan his entire life, even though he thought he had been serving Tash. (Confused yet? It really helps to actually read the book). Emeth's integrity and character and righteousness were proof that he had really been serving Aslan, since the true followers of Tash are evil and immoral. Lewis argues that nobody could do the good things that Emeth had done unless he was truly following Aslan. Emeth, then, was what we might call an "unconscious believer" -- he believed in Aslan without knowing it.
There are hints of Lewis' inclusivism in Mere Christianity, although it's most explicit in The Last Battle. Quite simply, it seems that he held to the idea that Jesus is the only way to salvation, but that explicit faith in the name of Christ was not necessary for a person to be saved. In a letter written in 1952, Lewis wrote the following (from Collected Letters, Vol. III, p. 245):
I think that every prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god, or to a very imperfectly conceived true God, is accepted by the true God and that Christ saves many who do not think they know him. For He is (dimly) present in the good side of the inferior teachers they follow. In the parable of the Sheep and Goats those who are saved do not seem to know that they have served Christ.
There are other examples sprinkled throughout his writings, but hopefully these are sufficient to make the case that Lewis did indeed affirm the concept of inclusivism.
So how does this belief stack up to the Scripture? And if Lewis's view is contrary to our understanding of the Bible, how should we respond to him and his writings? I'll answer those questions in my next post or two.
[Image via http://blogs.courant.com/susan_campbell/2010/11/happy-birthday-cs-lewis.html]
July 19th, 2011 - 10:51
I would hesitate to base any serious theological discussion around allegorical fiction. The Chronicles of Narnia boil many complex topics down to their most basic and simple interpretation for children. Something certainly gets lost in translation there. But using them as the basis for what Lewis believed is almost as shaky as saying we can interpret what Lewis’s theology was based off of Till We Have Faces.
His letters are certainly more solid evidence. He also wrote about purgatory in A Grief Observed. I think towards the end of his life the grace of God became overwhelming, and he didn’t really know how to process truly free grace. Whether he errs on the side of inclusivism or the other side of pseudo-works based salvation. Either way I think it’s refreshing to see that one of the giants of apologetics and modern Christianity didn’t have it all figured out. We would be wise to refrain from thinking we have our theology 100% accurate either. But perhaps that comes in part 2 (or 3).
July 19th, 2011 - 10:56
Hey Robert,
Thanks for the thoughts. I agree that on the whole, fiction is shaky grounds to base theological discussion. It really is just one evidence — if it weren’t supported by other writings I’d be hesitant to use it.
Interestingly, it does happen to be the most understandable statement of inclusivism in his writings, largely because it was written to children. Sometimes when we are forced to distill our theology into something that kids can understand, it suddenly becomes clearer.
At any rate, the passage highlights his beliefs, which are further illuminated in the letters, along with a passage or two in Mere Christianity and even some other places.
And yes, there will be more to come in previous posts about how we process what he believed.
July 19th, 2011 - 23:45
Matt,
great post!
would you speak to the issue of our “imperfect theology?” There are many “pillars of the faith” that had a good deal of heresy in their theology. (which i will not mention here… to avoid offending anyone) How can i be confident that my view of God is the correct one, and then i suppose… can one arrive at a place where people are splitting hairs and the discussion becomes insignificant?
If you are going to answer this in a following post, feel free to delete this and answer later.
-Yates
July 20th, 2011 - 09:30
Hey Yates,
Great questions! I do plan to discuss some of those things in the final part of this post. Short answer — we need to be careful to define “heresy” in a way that holds us to the core doctrines of the faith (read: creedal) without making our faith so narrow that it only includes our little corner of Christianity.
Another question is how to view those within the fold who disagree on issues that we see as important, but perhaps not ones that would define a person as “out” of the circle of orthodoxy. Tricky questions, but valuable. More to come!
July 20th, 2011 - 17:58
I would also add the illustration from The Last Divorce where one of the visitors from Hell consents to let the angel kill the spirit of lust that has been controlling him and is, so far as we can tell, redeemed.
That being said, I think that the Bible leaves room for Lewis’ interpretation here. Romans 2:13-16 is a key passage that indicates that those who didn’t know Jesus in this life may yet be saved. The Bible also indicates that one day all will see God and know who he is. This leads me to believe that those who did not have the chance to hear about him in this life will be given the opportunity to make their choice as well. What exactly that will look like I’m not sure, but I can see someone like Emeth being included in that group on the basis of the aforementioned Romans passage. I’m sure you’ll address all of this in upcoming posts, but I wanted to mention it anyway.