C.S. Lewis on the Atonement: Part 3 (Enablement)

Where this takes us to now is examining Lewis’ overall soteriology, which should shed light on the emphases and models Lewis himself employed in discussing Christ’s atonement. We discover that Lewis’ soteriological framework is in congruence with Anglican (and even Wesleyan) thought, and carries affinity with the early Eastern Church Fathers. The chief points in his soteriological discussion point out that he stands against a Reformed or Calvinistic understanding of salvation and atonement.

Lewis’ chapter in Mere Christianity devoted to the atonement is “The Perfect Penitent,” a title that rings a bell in the ears of atonement scholars who have encountered the model of the “vicarious penitent,” as developed by John McLeod Campbell.[i] A fascinating thing, however, is that Campbell’s (and Lewis’) treatment of the “perfect” or “vicarious” penitent is a variation of Anselm’s satisfaction theory,[ii] one that is also related to and borrowed from in what would become the “penal substitutionary” model, favored and employed especially by Calvinism. The difference lies in that Anselm, Campbell, and (possibly) Lewis focus on something that is in need to be offered up to God (be it honor or repentance, both of which humans are incapable of perfectly fulfilling). The penal substitutionary model, on the other hand, focuses on legal forensics and punishment that humans deserve because of sin, a notion that Campbell strictly wants to avoid and Lewis largely plays down (if not ignores). We should also note that Campbell, in his development of the “vicarious penitent” model explicitly criticizes and stands against Federal Calvinism.[iii] Hence we can see that Campbell wants to maintain a substitutionary model (much like Anselm) that avoids penal and punitive language. Lewis differs somewhat from Campbell in that: a.) he admits he does not find the penal model as “immoral and silly” as he previously did;[iv] and b.) Lewis never strictly employs the use of “substitutionary” language and does not explicitly develop Campbell’s theory of the “perfect penitent” any further than the references within this chapter of Mere Christianity.

That being said, it is vital to point out that Lewis’ proposed understanding of the atonement stands in tension with or contrast to the Calvinistic understanding of salvation. Lewis, like Campbell, downplays the penal and judicial language when treating the issue. Instead of employing such forensic categories that focus on the “punishment” placed on Christ that was due us, Lewis embraces a view of atonement and salvation that we might call “enablement,” which places the focus on the efficacy of the atonement in Christ’s ability through it to actually change, or transform those who could not change themselves.[v] In Lewis, therefore, we have a significantly relational framework as the central focal point when it comes to atonement and soteriology. The question that needs to be answered, when it comes to this issue is: What is the goal, or telos, of salvation and the atonement? Is it primarily about ensuring the stance of the recipient(s) as being pardoned (i.e., imputation)? Or is it primarily about effecting a change in the life of the recipient(s) (i.e., impartation)? Put differently, we may ask what our understanding is of forgiveness. In the Reformed, penal substitutionary model, forgiveness appears to be the desired end. That may be overstating the case, but it is at least the overarching emphasis. However, in the model focusing upon transformation, forgiveness is not an end but a means to the end of transformation and sanctification (or restored relationship). Lewis embraces this latter outlook and envisions Christ’s death on the cross (and his subsequent resurrection) as an act of enablement, making possible our response and sharing of his kind of life!

With this understanding of salvation at the forefront of our minds, let us now focus our attention on how Lewis articulates and understands the atonement through various models he employs throughout his writings. The rest of the posts on this thread will center on three of the general models (all of which originate with the writings of the early Eastern tradition) Lewis uses to illustrate the nature of this enablement and its goal for the enabled.

...to be continued...

References:
[i] J. McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement, 4th ed., (London: James Clarke & Co., 1959).
[ii] Cf. John McIntyre, The Shape of Soteriology, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992), 47-48.
[iii] J.B. Torrance, “The contribution of John McLeod Campbell to Scottish Theology,” Scottish Journal of Theology 26, 1973: 303-5.
[iv] Lewis, Mere Christianity, 37.
[v] Burson & Walls, Lewis & Schaeffer, 58, 61.