mere christianity: an examination of the concept … · dbsj 20 (2015): 65–88 mere christianity:...

DBSJ 20 (2015): 65–88

MERE CHRISTIANITY: AN EXAMINATION OF THE CONCEPT IN

RICHARD BAXTER AND C. S. LEWIS

by Timothy E. Miller1

INTRODUCTION C. S. Lewis has been hailed as one of the most influential Chris-

tians of the twentieth century. A great measure of his success was due to his appeal to large segments of the “Christian” religious community. Duncan Sprague commented on this phenomenon: “I am amazed the extreme positions within Christendom that claim Lewis as [their] champion and defender...liberals and the fundamentalists; the Roman Catholics and the evangelical Protestants...the most conservative Bap-tists to the most charismatic Pentecostals claiming Lewis as one of their own.”2 This led Walter Hooper, a prominent Lewis scholar, to brand Lewis as an “Everyman’s apologist.”3

A major portion of Lewis’s wide appeal should be attributed to his concept of Mere Christianity. When engaged in apologetics, Lewis be-lieved he ought to avoid controversial issues that divided Christians.4 Instead, only the core of Christian doctrine should be advanced and defended to unbelievers. Consequently, since most of Lewis’s doctrinal comments are contained in apologetic works, it comes as no surprise that many—even strongly opposed movements—could claim him as their own.

Examining the spiritual heritage of Lewis’s works one would be led to believe that Mere Christianity (MC)5 was a huge success. Even today, Lewis’s works are being reprinted for and sold to an ever-increasing public. However, even successes have failures. The point of this paper, then, is to critically examine Lewis’s conception of MC, asking what the content of such a concept may be and whether it is ultimately helpful.

1Dr. Miller is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology and Bible Exposition at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI.

2Duncan Sprague, “The Unfundamental C. S. Lewis,” Mars Hill Review (1995): 53–63.

3From an interview reported in Joseph Pearce, C. S. Lewis and the Catholic Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003), 131.

4C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2001), ix. 5MC will stand for the idea while Mere Christianity will be reserved for the title of

the work by Lewis.

66 Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal

In order to fulfill our task, we will examine the historical foundations of Lewis’s concept. Namely, we will trace MC back to its origin in Rich-ard Baxter. Having considered Baxter’s view of MC, we will compare it to Lewis’s conception. Finally, we will seek to show where Lewis and Baxter’s conceptions of MC were different and how a proper under-standing of these differences should modify our understanding of the connection between MC and Christian apologetics.

RICHARD BAXTER AND MERE CHRISTIANITY

Though popular opinion may ascribe the expression Mere Christi-anity to Lewis, the term dates back hundreds of years before Lewis to Richard Baxter, a seventeenth-century Puritan, who coined the phrase. Unfortunately, Baxter’s name is not well known in the modern world. In his day, however, Baxter was a prolific author, writing over 160 works.6 Samuel Johnson, a distinguished English author in his own right, answered a question as to which of Baxter’s works should be read by saying, “Read any of them; they are all good.”7 As a professor of English literature, it comes as no surprise that Lewis was familiar with Baxter’s work. The extent to which Lewis was familiar with Baxter must, unfortunately, remain uncertain. Nevertheless, it is clear that the concept of MC derives from Baxter.8 But did Lewis intend to further develop Baxter’s view of MC? Or did Lewis commandeer the term, empty it of Baxter’s meaning, and fill it with his own meaning? An ex-amination of Baxter’s use of the term will lead us to embrace the latter position.9

Baxter’s Historical Context In order to fully understand Baxter’s use of MC, we must under-

stand the historical circumstances in which he lived. Religious rivalry was the norm of life throughout England during Baxter’s lifetime (1615–1691). Henry VIII’s break with Rome was only the beginning of the religious strife that would mark the country for many generations. As Baxter’s ministry matured, the religious battles were no longer being fought with the continent; rather, the battles were internal to England. The political lines were drawn alongside the religious lines. Due to the dictates of his conscience, Baxter found himself fighting with the Non-

6John G. West, “Richard Baxter and the Origin of ‘Mere Christianity,’” Discovery

Institute, last modified 1996, accessed 29 July 2015, http://www.discovery.org/a/460. 7Quoted in ibid. 8Lewis cites Baxter as the source of the concept, but Lewis does not develop the

connection between his use of the term and Baxter’s use of the term (Lewis, Mere Christianity, ix).

9Of course, in light of what was said above, it is possible that Lewis misunderstood Baxter’s position. It is more likely, however, that Lewis embraced some elements of Baxter’s MC and appropriated other aspects on the basis of his own historical context.

Mere Christianity 67

conformists under Cromwell. When the monarchy was re-established, Baxter was appointed to the royal chaplaincy.10 But, due to the Act of Uniformity (1662), his position was short lived.11 The act demanded that all pastors exclusively use the Book of Common Prayer and be or-dained by the Anglican Church. Baxter was neither willing nor consci-entiously able to obey the act.

Did Baxter leave his post because he was a Presbyterian? Some have claimed as much, but Baxter’s beliefs remained more elusive than a de-nominational name could identify.12 N. H. Keeble notes, “Baxter has proved an elusive figure. Modern scholars claim him both as Puritan and Anglican; as representative of the central moderate Puritan tradi-tion and as its ‘stormy petrel’; as a rationalist and a mystic; as a Calvin-ist and an Arminian; as a fully integrated personality and as an ‘utterly self-divided man.’”13 When pressed to determine his religious affiliation Baxter wrote:

I am a CHRISTIAN, a MEER CHRISTIAN, of no other Reli-gion; and the Church that I am of is the Christian Church.… I am against all Sects and dividing Parties: But if any will call Meer Christians by the name of a Party, because they take up with Meer Christianity, Creed, and Scripture, and will not be of any dividing or contentious Sect, I am of that Party which is so against Parties: If the Name CHRISTIAN be not enough, call me a CATHO-LICK CHRISTIAN; not as that word signifieth an hereticating majority of Bishops, but as it signifieth one that hath no Religion, but that which by Christ and the Apostles was left to the Catholick Church, or the Body of Jesus Christ on Earth.14 Describing himself at a different time, Baxter said, “You could not

(except a Catholick Christian) have trulier called me than a Episcopal-Presbyterian Independent.”15 Since the main options for Baxter at that point (save for Catholicism) were Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, and

10Pearce, C. S. Lewis and the Catholic Church, 118. 11Pearce doubts the depth of Baxter’s ecumenism because Baxter did not support

the Act of Uniformity, which was designed to bring unity among Christians. How can Baxter pursue ecumenism and yet work against an act that would bring unity? The answer lies in Baxter’s strong position on the role of religious conscience. Baxter desired a church united without coercion. Since the Act of Uniformity demanded all preachers become Anglicans to preach, Baxter was obliged to leave his post. This was not in spite of Baxter’s ecumenism, but because of his ecumenism (ibid.).

12See N. H. Keeble, “C. S. Lewis, Richard Baxter, and ‘Mere Christianity,’” Christianity and Literature 30 (1981): 10, 28.

13 N. H. Keeble, Richard Baxter, Puritan Man of Letters (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 22.

14Richard Baxter, Church-history of the Government of Bishops and their Councils (London: John Kidgell, 1680), xv, accessed 29 July 2015, https://archive.org/details/ churchhistoryofg00baxt.

15Quoted in Keeble, “C. S. Lewis, Richard Baxter,” 29.


independence, Baxter identified himself with, paradoxically, all of them and none of them. He wanted to identify with none, but at the same time, he did not want to exclude any.

Baxter’s omni/non-position exasperated his opponents. Some of his contemporaries began calling his unique blend of Christianity Baxteri-anism—of which he despaired.16 He wanted no identifying adjective placed next to Christian. He did not want to be a Catholic, Presbyteri-an, Anglican, Independent, or any other Christian; he wanted to be a Christian. The adjective mere was not to become another faction within the church. In fact, the word mere was designed to indicate the lack of an adjective, not the replacement for an adjective.

Baxter’s Non-Denominational Stance The source of Baxter’s anti-denominational stance is explained by

multiple factors. A major factor was grounded in Baxter’s belief that all worship is faulty. The Presbyterian will criticize the Anglican mode of worship, and the Anglican will respond in like manner. But Baxter be-lieved that neither had the higher ground. He arrived at this conclusion by consideration of human depravity. That is, since every aspect of man’s life is fallen, even the best worship will be marred. Thus Baxter says,

For while all the worshippers are faulty and imperfect, all their worship will be too: and if your actual sin, when you pray or preach effectively yourselves, doth not signify that you approve your faultiness; much less will your presence prove that you allow of the faultiness of others. The business that you come upon is to join with a Christian congregation in the use of those ordinances which God hath appointed, supposing that the ministers and wor-shippers will all be sinfully defective, in method, order, words, or circumstances: and to bear with that which God doth bear with, and not to refuse that which is God’s for the adherent faults of men, no more than you will refuse every dish of meat which is unhandsomely cooked, as long as there is no poison in it, and you prefer it not before better.17 In another, similar, context Baxter said, “All our worship of God is

sinfully imperfect, and that it is a dividing principle to hold, that we may join with none that worship God in a faulty manner; for then we must join in the worship of none on earth.”18 For Baxter, error cannot be avoided while on earth. One who seeks to worship in perfection can worship with no one—not even himself! Consequently, if we accept faults in our own worship, we should accept the faults in our brothers’

16Keeble, Richard Baxter, 23. 17Richard Baxter, The Practical Works of Richard Baxter (London: Paternoster

Row, 1830), 8:358–59. 18Ibid., 8:470.


worship as well.19 Though Baxter does not explicitly note politics as a source of his

anti-denominationalism, his historical circumstances forced him to think critically about the role of politics in religion. Whatever political position was in power attempted to force its religious views on the country. If his vision of anti-denominationalism succeeded, there would be no coercion and persecution. In Baxter’s view, Christianity super-sedes political lines and should not be drawn alongside of them.

Baxter’s anti-denominational stance can be attributed to another factor—the sinfulness of division. Baxter defines a Christian as one who

is an esteemer of the unity of the church, and is greatly averse to all divisions among believers. As there is in the natural body an ab-horring of dismembering or separating any part from the whole; so there is in the mystical body of Christ. The members that have life, cannot but feel the smart of any distempering attempt: for ab-scission is destruction…. He looketh at uncharitableness, and di-visions, with more abhorrence than weak Christians do at drunkenness or whoredom, or such other heinous sin…. There-fore he is so far from being a divider himself, that when he seeth any one making divisions among Christians, he looketh on him as on one that is mangling the body of his dearest friend, or as one that is setting fire on his house, and therefore doth all that he can to quench it; as knowing the confusion and calamity to which it tendeth.20

His justification for such strong language is grounded in his under-standing of the following Scriptures: Romans 16:17–18; Acts 20:29–30; and Philippians 2:1–3. Division, he argued, was against God’s will, disrupting the unity of the church. His picturesque analogies (dismem-bering, mangled bodies, and house on fire) display the abhorrence Bax-ter felt for division in the church. Paul’s analogy of the body of Christ was more than a mere picture; it described a spiritual reality. Thus, he believed the conscientious Christian must also abhor disunity and de-nominational factions. The only recourse was to reconstitute the whole, creating a unified, functioning body once more.

A final reason Baxter embraced anti-denominationalism concerns its role in Christian apologetics. Baxter believed that the gospel of Christ was hindered by division. Speaking of his own ministry, Baxter stated, “When people saw diversity of Sects and Churches in any place, it greatly hindered their conversion.… But they had no such offence of objection [at Kidderminster]…for we were all but as one.”21 Baxter

19We should add one caveat: Baxter did not say that a Christian should join any congregation in worship. If the congregation worshipped in a fashion that imposed sin upon the worshipper (e.g., Roman Catholic communion), then it should be avoided (ibid., 4:537).

20Ibid., 8:468–69, emphasis added. 21Richard Baxter, Select Practical Writings of Richard Baxter: With a Life of the

Author (London: Durrie & Peck, 1831), 1:115.


labored hard to eliminate sectarian divisions among Christians at Kid-derminster, and he was quite effective, for he was able to say later that “I know not of an Anabaptist, or Socinian, or Arminian, or Quaker, or Separatist, or any such sect in the town where I live; except a half dozen Papists that never heard me.”22 His success in erasing the divisions be-tween Christians, he believed, led the way to apologetic success. A fully unified army of believers presenting the gospel to the world was much more effective than each sectarian group making individual advance-ments.

Baxter’s Conception of a Mere Christian On the negative side, we have examined the core reasons Baxter

held to anti-denominationalism, but on the positive side, it would be helpful here to delineate precisely what Baxter meant by MC. That is, who is included as a Mere Christian and why is he included? Baxter gives five requirements for being a Mere Christian.23 First, one must hold to those beliefs that are evident from the apostolic times. In this way, Baxter was not disavowing the role of church history in doctrinal formation. He believed that the modern church must seek to live out the true tradition passed on by the apostles. More specifically, Baxter believed the content of apostolic teaching, church history, and the common interpretations of the present church presented the following core truths: “The Christian faith is ‘the believing an everlasting life of happiness to be offered by God (with the pardon of all sin) as procured by the sufferings and merits of Jesus Christ, to all that are sanctified by the Holy Ghost, and do persevere in love to God and to each other, and in a holy and heavenly conversation.’ This is saving faith and Christian-ity, if we consent as well as assent.”24

Second, true Christians must adhere to teaching that is “plainly and certainly expressed in the Holy Scripture.”25 The two adjectives are ex-tremely important. The beliefs received from the Scripture must not be unique to each reader. The Scripture is perspicuous, yet there are many things that remain enigmatic, and to those issues man should not be-come divisive. Opinions may be given and held, but they should not become a standard of orthodoxy or communion. For this reason, Baxter was opposed to detailed creeds, for when they focused on more than the essentials they could tend to “multiply controversies, and fill the minds of men with scruples, and ensnare their consciences, and engage men in parties against each other to the breach of Christian charity.”26 Creeds, in Baxter’s mind, sought to go beyond Scripture to establish with

22Baxter, The Practical Works, 16:393. 23West, “Richard Baxter and the Origin of ‘Mere Christianity.’” 24Baxter, The Practical Works, 7:475. 25Ibid., 8:476. 26Ibid., 16:491.


certainty what Scripture had not clearly revealed. The end result, at least in Baxter’s mind, was division and sectarianism.

The third characteristic, which is a further implication of the first, is that Mere Christians agree to doctrine that has been held by the uni-versal church throughout the ages.27 True Christianity, Baxter argued, would be grounded in the Bible and would follow the traditions laid down by Christ and the apostles. Consequently, the Mere Christian must find himself in continuity with the line of true Christians throughout the centuries. Historical continuity with believers of past ages served as both a proof of identity as well as a sign of God amongst his people.

Harmony of essential belief among a modern community of faith is the fourth characteristic of Mere Christians. The problem with this characteristic concerns its circularity; that is, one cannot define a Mere Christian by referring to Mere Christians. Thus, the scope of this char-acteristic is necessarily limited. However, one can see that Baxter was seeking to express the impressive unity amongst believers cultivated by those who seek to honor Scripture first. As far as they are successful, they will become attractive to other true believers. In this way, they will give credibility to their own interpretation of Scripture. Summarizing the previous points, one finds that the Mere Christian is one who fol-lows in the footsteps of the apostles, follows the Scripture in all things, gauges his interpretations of Scripture by the interpretations of church history, and gauges his interpretation by modern interpreters who are likewise devoted to sola scriptura.

The final characteristic of a Mere Christian concerns the fruit of conversion. Baxter stated the truth this way: “Every man in the former ages of the church was admitted to this catholic church communion, who in the baptismal vow or covenant gave up himself to God, the Fa-ther, Son and Holy Ghost, as his Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, his Owner, Governor and Father, renouncing the flesh, the world and the devil.”28 Baxter believed a true change must accompany the conversion of a Mere Christian. Mental assent to the aforementioned truths was not enough. The path of membership travelled to the cross of Christ where the pride of man is stripped away and the work of God is perma-nently started in the heart of the believer.

Before leaving Baxter’s requirements of a Mere Christian, it is fruit-ful to also examine what Baxter taught about extraneous beliefs. What should one do about beliefs that were beyond the scope of MC—e.g., whether one should use extemporaneous or liturgical prayers? Neither method of prayer is clearly taught in Scripture, so is one to suspend be-lief on the question? Baxter believed in what we will call undiluting ad-dition. According to this position, one could be a Mere Christian while holding many things that were not necessarily clear in Scripture. More

27Ibid., 8:476. 28Ibid.


strikingly, Baxter held that one could be a Mere Christian while hold-ing to a whole plethora of beliefs that were not true. Keeble summa-rized the position by noting that Baxter had a “readiness to welcome as true Christians any who held these essentials no matter what further beliefs they also maintained.”29 Baxter noted of himself, “I confess I affect none of the honour of that orthodoxness, which consisteth in sentencing millions and kingdoms to hell, whom I am unacquainted with.”30 He wanted to judge those outside by only the essentials and not by the beliefs he added to the essential truths of the gospel.

Of course, Baxter did not believe every extra belief attached to Christianity was acceptable. Some extra beliefs dilute the essential be-liefs and ultimately cause one to modify the essential belief. When this happens, the external belief has invalidated the essential belief, and the person indicated cannot properly be called a Mere Christian. As an ex-ample, Baxter cited the beliefs of the Catholic Church:

If Papists, or any others, corrupt this religion with human addi-tions and innovations, the great danger of these corruptions is, lest they draw them from the sound belief and serious practice of that ancient Christianity which we are all agreed in: and (among the Papists, or any other sect) where their corruptions do not thus corrupt their faith and practice in the true essentials, it is certain that those corruptions shall not damn them.31

In summary, if a belief brings the essentials into question, then the pro-ponents cannot properly be called a Mere Christian. If however, the extra beliefs do not bring the essentials into question, he may be wrong, but he is still a Mere Christian.

C. S. LEWIS AND MERE CHRISTIANITY

N. H. Keeble, speaking about the connection between Baxter and Lewis, wrote, “[There is] a pervasive coincidence of idea and emphasis between the work of the most popular and influential Christian evange-list and apologist of the seventeenth century and that of his counterpart in the twentieth.”32 Indeed, a similarity of thought should be expected, since Lewis borrowed a central phrase from Baxter’s thought. But we will also find that there are some striking differences. This section will develop Lewis’s conception of MC. The reader is encouraged to look for the subtle differences in thought between the two great Christian thinkers. The next section will make the differences as well as the com-monalities explicit, allowing us to examine how the Christian apologist should incorporate MC into his defense of the faith.

29Keeble, “C. S. Lewis, Richard Baxter,” 32. 30As cited ibid. 31Baxter, The Practical Works, 7:476. 32Keeble, “C. S. Lewis, Richard Baxter,” 27.


Lewis’s Historical Situation Lewis’s life was spent in a post-Christian Europe ravaged and de-

mystified by two world wars. Many of the remnants of Christianity re-mained throughout the European world; however, the substance of Christianity had faded at least a generation before. As a result, Christi-anity was coming under attack on two fronts. First, many were seeking to abolish religion in light of the “modern advances.” Science was of-fered as an explanation for everything, including the origin of life through Darwin’s theory of evolution. Second, Scripture was being un-derstood as a work of historical fiction to be handled by the sociologists. The consequence was the humanizing of Scripture, which allowed man to control biblical revelation. Both of these challenges—modernism and liberalism—were substantial in Lewis’s day and became significant ob-stacles to Christian belief in the European world.33

Faced with such unbelief, Lewis determined that the age-old battle between Catholics and Protestants was distracting to the Christian cause. Both groups should have a united front to face what Lewis be-lieved was the greater challenge of unbelief.34 The essentials of Christi-anity, Lewis believed, were shared between Catholics and Protestants, and while their disagreements were significant, they paled in light of the unity provided by the essential theological beliefs they shared. In the preface to Mere Christianity, Lewis writes that the agreements between Christians—including Catholics and Protestants—“turns out to be something not only positive but pungent; divided from all non-Christian beliefs by a chasm to which the worst divisions inside Chris-tendom are not really comparable at all.”35

Lewis and Ecumenical Spirit Why did Lewis present MC as opposed to his own denominational

stance as an Anglican? Lewis gives three reasons in the Introduction to Mere Christianity.36 First, Lewis believed that only the experts should speak to matters of deep theology. As a layman, he believed he ought not trespass into the dangerous territory of theological argumentation.37

33N. H. Keeble notes the striking continuity between the two great Christian apologists: “Each man was confronted by a significant break with the Christian tradition of the past and a consequent weakening of the authority and influence of the church. Baxter had to face the divisiveness and contentiousness consequent upon England’s protracted and uncertain Reformation, Lewis the disillusion and apostasy which followed the two world wars” (ibid., 28).

34Michael H. Macdonald and Mark P. Shea, “Saving Sinners and Reconciling Churches,” in The Pilgrim’s Guide: C. S. Lewis and the Art of Witness, ed. David Mills (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 47–48.

35Lewis, Mere Christianity, xi. 36Ibid., viii-ix. 37“I am a very ordinary layman of the church of England, not especially ‘high,’ nor

especially ‘low,’ nor especially anything else” (ibid., viii).


Lying behind this statement was Lewis’s personal belief that the Chris-tian gospel was simple and easily understood by the common man. Se-cond, Lewis believed that more talented (and theologically astute) writers were devoting their time to controversial theological truths. In sum, to write an apologetic treatise for the Anglican Church would have been fruitless since he was not as qualified as other writers, and it would not have filled a needed void. Instead, Lewis believed he ought to write to the simple man about the simple Christian message. Lewis felt adequate in that field, since any believer is qualified to speak on the essentials of Christianity. He felt further justified in that there appeared to be a void in this field: “That part of the line where I thought I could serve best was also the part that seemed to be the thinnest. And to it I naturally went.”38

Another substantial reason Lewis gave in Mere Christianity for writ-ing on MC rather than Anglicanism concerns the need of unregenerate men. Lewis believed that arguing over theological peculiarities hindered unbelievers from accepting the truth of the Christian gospel: “I think we must admit that the discussion of these disputed points has no ten-dency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. So long as we write and talk about them we are much more likely to deter him from entering any Christian communion than to draw him into our own.”39 The great unity of the Christian faith, Lewis believed, was a substantial argument for its validity. Yet the argumentation Lewis found in most religious books spoke past unbelievers to established Christians. Conse-quently, the message communicated to unbelievers betrayed an internal war within the Christian camp. For this reason, Lewis sought to fill the gap. He wanted to write to the exponentially growing post-Christian world about the validity of the Christian message. In order to do this, Lewis felt it was imperative to shed the husk and teach the core.

A final reason Lewis chose to write on MC can be gathered from his other works. Namely, Lewis’s apologetic ideology was grounded in his belief that there was much more that united Christians than divided them. In 1933, nineteen years before the publication of Mere Christian-ity, Lewis was asked to enter a debate on the merits of Anglicanism and Catholicism. Lewis responded, “When all is said…about the divisions of Christendom, there remains, by God’s mercy, an enormous common ground.”40 Thus, when Mere Christianity was originally published, the content was the product of mature reflection on denominational differ-ences.41

The apologetic value of a unified Christian witness was personal to

38Ibid., ix. 39Ibid., viii. 40Walter Hooper, C. S. Lewis: A Companion & Guide (San Francisco: Harper,

1996), 295–96. 41Actually, it was first broadcast as a radio publication, then later developed into a

book.


Lewis. Even before he was a Christian, Lewis was impressed with the unity of Christianity:

When I still hated Christianity, I learned to recognize like some all too familiar smell, that almost unvarying something which met me, now in Puritan Bunyan, now in Anglican Hooker, now in Thomist Dante. It was there…in Francois de Sales;…in Spenser and Walton;…in Pascal and Johnson…in the urban sobriety of the eighteenth century one was not safe—Law and Butler were two lions in the path…. It was, of course, varied; and yet—after all—so unmistakably the same; recognizable, not to be evaded, the odour which is death to us until we allow it to become life…. We are all rightly distressed and ashamed also, at the divisions of Christendom. But those who have always lived within the Chris-tian fold may be too easily dispirited by them. They are bad, but such people do not know what it looks like from without. Seen from there, what is left intact despite all the divisions, still appears (as it truly is) an immensely formidable unity. I know, for I saw it; and well our enemies know it.42

Thus, Lewis believed that the unity of the Christian faith—despite what it may look like from the believer’s viewpoint—is a strong argu-ment for the validity of the Christian message. If Christians were intent on living this reality, Lewis was convinced that Christian apologetics would be greatly advanced.

In summary, Lewis’s reasons for writing on MC are evangelistic and apologetic in principle. No doubt he also wanted to bring healing to the divided church, but his overriding purpose was to present Christ in simplicity to his post-Christian generation.43

Lewis’s Conception of a Mere Christian Nowhere in Mere Christianity does Lewis elucidate the fundamen-

tals of a Mere Christian. In various places he gives hints of what may be included. For instance, he says that doctrinal differences should never be expressed in the presence of those who have not yet “come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son.”44 So we have at least two explicit essentials: first, Mere Christians are Monothe-ists, and second, they believe Jesus Christ is God’s Son.45 In another place, Lewis gives a second, more mystical definition: “It is at [the church’s] centre that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each

42C. S. Lewis, “Introduction,” in St. Athanasius: The Incarnation of the Word of God (Bedford, NY: Fig Press, 2012), 4.

43Lewis, Mere Christianity, ix. 44Ibid. 45And though it is only implicit, Lewis appears to suggest that one must also

believe that Jesus, as the Son of God, is God incarnate.


there is a something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of be-lief…speaks with the same voice.”46 How can one identify a MC con-gregation or denomination? They have the same spirit. Here, Lewis is suggesting that Mere Christians can recognize one another by an invisi-ble and undeniable unity of spirit.

A much clearer picture of Lewis’s conception of MC comes from a speech Lewis gave on apologetics to Anglican priests and youth leaders. In that context, Lewis provided a two-dimensional definition, describ-ing what it is and what it is not. Positively, a Mere Christian holds to “The faith preached by the Apostles, attested by the Martyrs, embodied in the Creeds, expounded by the Fathers.”47 Negatively, “[MC] must be clearly distinguished from the whole of what any one of us may think about God and man.”48 As for the negative definition, Lewis sought to divide what was commonly held from that which individuals believed. A Mere Christian necessarily held the beliefs necessary to MC, but they might also hold additional beliefs beyond the core of MC.

Developing the positive definition is more difficult. Lewis says that MC is contained in the faith preached by the apostles, but how can we access that preaching? The context does not say. His second source is the attestation of the martyrs; however he never speaks of which mar-tyrs. “Embodied in the creeds” is likewise unhelpful since Lewis does not specify of which creeds he speaks. And finally, he gives no indica-tion of which fathers are to be referenced.

Being fair to Lewis, it must be admitted that he was not seeking to be explicit in a delineation of MC in this context. And many of the people he was speaking to would have had common assumptions con-cerning which fathers, creeds, and martyrs he was referencing. Howev-er, it is certainly distressing that Lewis never (at least to my knowledge) explicitly stated what he believed constituted MC. This lack of clarity led Steven Mueller to conclude, “It may be simply that each reader has his or her own definition of MC through which he or she evaluates Lewis’s words.”49 Certainly Lewis never intended this result, but with-out being explicit could Lewis have avoided it?

While none of Lewis’s public works exhibit any sort of clarity about the content of MC, one personal letter does shed some limited light on how Lewis thought about the subject. In 1945, an Anglican layman, H. Lyman Stebbins, wrote to Lewis concerning the merits of Roman

46Lewis, Mere Christianity, xii. 47This quotation does not come from Mere Christianity, nor does it mention the

word mere; nevertheless, Lewis’s statement comes in a context where he is encouraging church leaders to defend the Christian faith. In that context, he tells them not to defend their peculiar beliefs, but to defend historic Christianity. In Mere Christianity he is following the advice he gave to these church leaders (C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970], 90).

48Ibid. 49Steven P. Mueller, “Beyond Mere Christianity,” Christian Research Journal 27

(2004), accessed 29 July 2015, http://www.equip.org/articles/beyond-mere-christianity.


Catholicism. Apparently Stebbins had been presented with information that was compelling him to accept Roman Catholicism, so he wrote to Lewis asking for guidance. Lewis wrote back and said,

My position about the Churches can best be made plain by an imaginary example. Suppose I want to find out the correct inter-pretation of Plato’s teaching. What I am most confident in accept-ing is that interpretation which is common to all the Platonists down all the centuries: What Aristotle and the Renaissance schol-ars and Paul Elmer More agree on I take to be true Platonism. Any purely modern views which claim to have discovered for the first time what Plato meant, and say that everyone from Aristotle down has misunderstood him, I reject out of hand. But there is something else I would also reject. If there were an ancient Platon-ic Society still existing at Athens and claiming to be the exclusive trustees of Plato’s meaning, I should approach them with great re-spect. But if I found that their teaching was in many ways curious-ly unlike his actual text and unlike what ancient interpreters said, and in some cases could not be traced back to within 1,000 years of his time, I should reject their exclusive claims—while ready, of course, to take any particular thing they taught on its merits.50 In this imaginary example, Lewis indicates that he believes MC lies

precisely in the doctrines that have been held by all Christians through-out all times. For this reason, theological novelty should be rejected. Further, and of incredible importance, Lewis believes one should exam-ine beliefs in light of the text they claimed to follow. In this way, Lewis was indicating the importance of Scripture. If a group called itself Christian but their theology failed to accord with the Scriptures, Lewis would not allow their errant formulations into the criteria for MC.

In summary, it is evident that Lewis’s concept of MC relies heavily upon commonly shared beliefs among those who call themselves Chris-tian. Lewis was impressed with the continuity of Christian belief through the centuries. As such, he believed these common beliefs were the bedrock of Christianity, or put otherwise, they were the core of MC. However, since Lewis was never quite clear about the require-ments of MC, one is lost in speculation as to which groups are included and which are not. Unfortunately, both heresies and truth have been held for centuries. Does heresy perpetuated become a part of those truths inherent to MC? Is the mysterious unity of the Spirit clear enough to wall off faulty doctrine? What place should be given to exe-getical concerns in light of historical doctrine and the mysterious work of the Spirit? These questions remain unanswered by Lewis.

Unfortunately, Lewis’s conception of MC must remain somewhat enigmatic. But perhaps that is the way he planned to leave it. He did

50H. Lyman Stebbins, “Correspondence with C. S. Lewis,” Catholics Education Resource Center, last modified 1998, accessed 29 July 2015, http://www.catholiceducation.org/ en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/correspondence-between-c-s-lewis-and-h-lyman-stebbins.html.


not want to outline the role of tradition and Scripture in exact detail, for in doing so he would have flared up the sources of division. Lewis stated, “You cannot…conclude from my silence on disputed points, either that I think them important or that I think them unimportant. For this is itself one of the disputed points. One of the things Christians are disagreed about is the importance of their disagreements.”51 Maybe Lewis avoided giving the exact details of the content of MC, since it would have caused division and rivalry—the very things he was seeking to overcome.

Lewis and Denominations Lewis believed that any split of the body of Christ was against

God’s will: “Divisions between Christians are a sin and a scandal, and Christians ought at all times to be making contributions towards re-union, if it is only by their prayers.”52 And though Lewis believed unity was the ultimate goal “as a logician,” Lewis would say, “I realize that when two churches affirm opposing positions, these cannot be recon-ciled.”53 So what should be done? Lewis believed that churches ought to work together in concord on those issues in which they agree. Thus, Christians of all sorts should join arms in fighting unbelief. In Mere Christianity he noted his wish that his text might be a sort of bridge connecting the isolated islands of Christianity.54 However grandiose the intentions, Lewis remained realistic in his assessment of the possibility of complete unity. Reunion was his hope and he sought to build bridg-es for its possible occurrence; however he could not conceive of how it could be accomplished.55 Macdonald and Shea summarize Lewis’s posi-tion succinctly: “He believed that the key for each Christian was to go to the heart of his own communion while simultaneously locking arms with other Christians to fight the real enemy of unbelief. Analogously, during World War II, the various Allies united to fight a common en-emy. Yet the French remained the French and the English remained English.”56

Despite his misgivings about denominationalism, Lewis still sought to direct converts to various denominational local assemblies. His fa-mous illustration is that of a hallway with many doors. The hallway represents MC and its essential tenets. The rooms branching from the hallway represent different denominations. Lewis maintained, “If I can

51Lewis, Mere Christianity, xii. 52Lewis, God in the Dock, 60. 53Translated from the French introduction to the Problem of Pain in Hooper’s text

(Hooper, C. S. Lewis, 296). 54Lewis, Mere Christianity, xi. 55Will Vaus, Mere Theology: A Guide to the Thought of C. S. Lewis (Downers

Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 171. 56Macdonald and Shea, “Saving Sinners and Reconciling Churches,” 50.


bring anyone into the hall I have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in.”57 Lewis never sought to establish a hallway church. Mere Christianity was not designed to establish a new commu-nity of saints united in Spirit and divided in doctrine.

How exactly does one determine which room (denomination) is right for him? Lewis believes the answer is that one must pray for direc-tion and visit the rooms (i.e., the churches) until the Lord confirms his direction. As a test case, Susie listens to the broadcasts on BBC and is convinced of the truth. She determines to follow the Lord, so she prays that the Lord would lead her to the right church. Lewis warns that Susie should not pick the one with the nicest padded chairs or the one with the most expensive sound equipment. Susie should not ask, “Do I like that kind of service,” but she should ask “Are these doctrines true: Is there holiness there? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?”58 Evidently, Lew-is was not concerned with which denomination his readers (and listen-ers) joined. His concern was only that they entered through the main hall into one of the rooms.

Lewis’s carefree attitude towards denominational choice was grounded in his belief that denominations were groups of Mere Chris-tians with additional beliefs. In the letter to H. Lyman Stebbins, Lewis stated, “In one sense, there is no such thing as Anglicanism.”59 Lewis’s basis for this startling admission is that men “are committed to believ-ing…whatever can be proved from Scripture.”60 Since many different denominations share the one Scripture, and each seeks to expound its teachings, Lewis assumed that they were unified even as they were di-vided. One can speak of Anglicanism, Catholicism, and Protestantism but he must keep in mind that he is speaking of a unified entity at the same time he is speaking of the diversity. For this reason, Lewis is un-concerned which particular communion a believer chooses. In the con-clusion to his letter to Stebbins, who was seeking arguments in favor of Anglicanism over Catholicism, Lewis states, “Whichever you decide, good wishes.”61 This statement may shock most Christians in the age of denominationalism; however, Lewis believed the unity of the Christian message surpassed the diversity found in its various expressions.

57Lewis, Mere Christianity, xv. 58Ibid., xvi. 59Stebbins, “Correspondence with C. S. Lewis.” 60Ibid. 61Ibid.


BAXTER VS. LEWIS

In seeking to find the relation between MC and Christian apologet-ics, we have noted two great historical figures. Both men were successful in their respective ages in spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. Howev-er, their understandings of MC were not the same. Though they share commonalities, there are some differences as well. In this section of the paper, we will flesh out the commonalities as well as the distinctions to determine if anything can be gleaned for effective Christian apologetics today.

Points of Commonality

Historical Setting Tumultuous historical circumstances thread together the lives of

these two men. Lewis was fighting against the tide of naturalism, mate-rialism, and liberalism that was sweeping through his country after two great World Wars. Baxter was fighting the onslaught of political fac-tions, which were taking clerical garb. Each man’s unique situations brought the same problem: a weakening of religious conviction that threatened the integrity of Christ’s body.62 Both Lewis and Baxter found a way to present the gospel to the world in the midst of these difficult times, and for this God can be thanked.

Bond of Christianity Another commonality between Baxter and Lewis can be gleaned

from their respective house illustrations. Lewis believed that MC was the hallway of a house where the various rooms are connected. Though Christians find their fullest expression of Christian belief in the indi-vidual rooms, nevertheless, there was a common hall. Baxter’s house illustration is quite similar. Speaking to those who are

so solicitous to know which is the true church among all the par-ties in the world that pretend to it…you runne up and downe from room to room to find the house; and you ask, Is the Parlour it, or is the Hall it, or is the Kitchin, or the cole-house it? Why everyone is part of it, and all the rooms make up the house.63

A few lines later Baxter gives the interpretation: Which is the Catholic church? Why, no part is the whole. Is it the Protestants, the Calvinists, or Lutherans, the papists, the Greeks, the Ethiopians? Or which is it? Why, it is never an one of them, but all together, that are truly Christians, good Lord!64

62Keeble, “C. S. Lewis, Richard Baxter,” 27. 63Baxter, The Practical Works, 4:736. 64Ibid.


Thus, we find that both Baxter and Lewis held that there was a signifi-cant treasure of commonality among those who are denominationally divided Christians.

Points of Dissension

Denominationalism Though both Baxter and Lewis viewed Christianity as a common

house, what they believed should be done in the house is quite differ-ent. Lewis believed that the individual rooms were the places of rest. It is there that the tables and chairs exist and where men ought to migrate as quickly as they can. New converts should dedicate themselves to a particular denomination as soon as they could. Baxter, on the other hand, believed the rooms in the house should be boarded up.65 The tables, food, and chairs should be moved into the hallway, so that there would be no visible disunity amongst God’s people. Both men agreed that when the house was originally built there was only the common hall, and both agreed that it was through sin and human fault the rooms were individually built. However, their solutions to the problem were opposite one another.

John Frame, in Evangelical Reunion, suggests something close to Baxter’s ideal. Frame outlines a strategy for eliminating denomination-alism and establishing a post-denominational phase in church history.66 Baxter’s and Frame’s ideas have always had poor reception in the church. The idea sounds attractive and is grounded in Scriptural com-mendation towards unity. However, the issues that divide denomina-tions are not easily solved—especially since most of the issues are argued from the text of Scripture. For instance, how could baptism be administered in a post-denominational (PD) church? How would the church be led individually and universally? What place would tradition, Scripture, and spiritual gifts have in a PD church?67 These questions are not matters of unimportance, and many of them affect the way one views the essentials of the faith. It is for these reasons that various de-nominations exist in the first place, and without clear objective criteria

65One might believe it is a leap to move from Baxter’s criticism of separation

within the body of Christ to his view that denominations should be “boarded up.” Two aspects of what has been stated before lead the present author to this view. First, Baxter sought to establish a local church body as an ideal for how local churches should function. As indicated earlier, Kidderminster did not have denominations, and Baxter was clearly proud of the achievement. Second, Baxter’s criticism of creeds suggests that any distinguishing mark of a particular group (e.g., a denomination) was destructive to the church. Combined, these two facts suggest that Baxter’s ultimate vision was for a church without denominational divisions.

66John M. Frame, Evangelical Reunion: Denominations and the One Body of Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991).

67Frame seeks to answer many of these questions in his text. To critique his arguments here is beyond the scope of this paper (see ibid.).


for how the issues are to be resolved, PD Christianity will have to wait until Christ returns.

Lewis had determined denominationalism was a necessary evil. Pre-sumably, Lewis recognized that the issues that divided Christians were significant enough to prevent complete union. If so, Lewis believed di-visions were an unfortunate byproduct of current human limitation. Instead of warring over the differences, Lewis suggests that Christians accept them as differences. Christians should live in their own rooms; however they should gather often in the common hall to fight against the common enemy.

Overall, Lewis’s approach to the denominational question is supe-rior to the approach of Baxter. First, Lewis accepts depravity and the consequence that even the saints will not be fully agreed on important matters of the faith. Second, Baxter’s conception leaves too many diffi-cult issues unresolved. And finally, Baxter’s anti-denominational vision has never been shown to work. In Kidderminster, where Baxter minis-tered, he boasted, “I know not of an Anabaptist, or Socinian, or Armin-ian, or Quaker, or Separatist, or any such sect in the town where I live; except half a dozen Papists that never heard me.”68 Undoubtedly Baxter believed he had accomplished a PD type of community. However, oth-ers looked at his work and instead of identifying it as PD, they called it Baxterianism.69 Decisions in Kidderminster had to be made about church government, mode of baptism, and like issues. When those have been made, no matter the intention, a distinctive group of Christians has naturally arisen. Thus, PD Christianity is a noble goal, but it can-not be accomplished without a crystal-clear, objective means of deter-mining all ecclesiastical questions.70

Essential Beliefs of Mere Christians Neither Baxter nor Lewis was as explicit as he could have been con-

cerning the content of MC. However, we saw that Baxter was much more thorough than Lewis. What is immediately obvious is that both Lewis and Baxter speak highly of tradition. As they look into the tomes of church history they find a continuity of belief and doctrine from the apostles to their own day. They believe that Christ passed the truth to his people and the truth was never lost to the ages. Thus, they share a common conviction of the holistic unity of the church. Both men also gave Scripture priority over tradition. In sum, Baxter and Lewis essen-tially have much the same criteria for determining the content of MC.

But if this is the case, then why is there such a discrepancy of belief

68Quoted from Nuttall, Richard Baxter, 64–65. 69Keeble, “C. S. Lewis, Richard Baxter,” 30. 70While the Scripture is certainly the objective authority on these issues, those who

hold truly to the gospel of Christ disagree about its instruction. As long as man remains in this flesh, these questions will probably remain unresolved. If nearly two thousand years cannot resolve them, little hope is reserved for agreement this side of eternity.


concerning the Roman Catholic Church? Lewis has sometimes been hailed as a defender of Roman Catholic doctrine. For instance, Peter Milward notes, “Not a few Catholics, on reading his books about Christianity, have formed the impression that there was no difference in doctrine between him and themselves.”71 On the other hand, Catholics lament the fact that Lewis chose to use a term from Baxter, an anti-Catholic Puritan.72 Why, if they held to similar beliefs about MC did they differ so greatly on the matter of the Roman Catholic Church?

Perhaps Baxter was merely a product of his own time and circum-stances. He was born in anti-papal England only a few generations after the great tumult with Rome. But the same argument can be turned against Lewis. Could it be that Lewis was also a product of his time and circumstances? Many of his close associates were Roman Catholic, in-cluding many in the Inkling literature group.73 Further, many would say that the denominational characteristics of the Anglican Church mir-rored closely that of the Roman Catholic Church, so that Lewis might have been blinded to the real differences between the two religious es-tablishments.

Overall, the difference between the men should not be explained solely in terms of environment. Instead, it will be argued that Baxter’s final requirement of a Mere Christian—undiluting addition—makes the significant difference. Again, that requirement argued that extra beliefs one holds should not bring the essential beliefs into question. Baxter argued for the invalidity of Roman Catholicism this way:

Since faction and tyranny, pride and covetousness, became the matters of the religion of too many, vice and selfish interest hath commanded them to change the rule of faith by their additions, and to make so much necessary to salvation, as is necessary to their affected universal dominion, and to their carnal ends…. He is the true catholic Christian that hath but one, even the Christian religion: and this is the case of the Protestants, who, casting off the additions of popery, adhere to the primitive simplicity and unity: if Papists, or any others, corrupt this religion with human additions and innovations, the great danger of these corruptions is, lest they draw them from the sound belief and serious practice of that ancient Christianity which we are all agreed in…. For he that truly believes all things that are essential to Christianity, and lives ac-cordingly with serious diligence, hath the promise of salvation: and it is certain, that whatever error that man holds, it is either not inconsistent with true Christianity, or not practically, but notionally held, and so not inconsistent as held by him: for how can that be

71Peter Milward, A Challenge to C. S. Lewis (Madison-Teaneck, NJ: Fairleigh

Dickinson University Press, 1995), 60. 72Ibid. 73J. R. R. Tolkien, Robert Havard, James Dundas-Grant, George Sayer, Gervase

Mathew, and Christopher Tolkien were all part of the Inklings and were Roman Catholic. See Pearce, C. S. Lewis and the Catholic Church, 68, 132.


inconsistent which actually doth consist with it?74 Thus, the problem with Roman Catholicism is not that they did not hold to the doctrines of Christ, grace, or any number of other Christian beliefs; their problem is that their additions to Christianity bring the foundations into question. For this reason, Baxter believed that Roman Catholics could be true believers only in spite of Rome and not because of Rome.75

A second factor that divided Baxter and Lewis on the merits of the Roman Catholic Church concerned the priority of tradition to revela-tion. Baxter said of Scripture, “We take the Word of God for the Rule of our Faith, and the Law of the Church, sufficiently determining of all that is Standing, Universal Necessity or Duty, in order to Salvation.”76 Baxter’s overriding concern for the teaching of Scripture is evident in his distaste for creeds. He spoke of the “vanity, yea the sinfulness of men’s under-taking to determine by canons what God thought not fit to determine in his Laws.”77 While Lewis would have agreed with Baxter concerning the priority of Scripture,78 Lewis seems to have a greater and deeper concern for tradition than Baxter. Joseph Pearce, a Roman Catholic, recognized that Lewis’s “conception of ‘mere Christianity’ was far more ‘Catholic,’ in its sacramentalism and in its defence of ecclesiastical tradi-tion, than would be tolerable to the typical Presbyterian or low-church Calvinist.”79

Overall, it appears that Lewis was not willing to critically evaluate the theology of Roman Catholicism. No doubt, Lewis’s relationships with those in the Roman Catholic Church partly explain this phenom-enon. Further, the commonalities between Catholicism and an evangel-ical protestant Christianity are replete, and Lewis’s appreciation for the argument from the unity of the faith may have prevented him from

74West, “Richard Baxter and the Origin of ‘Mere Christianity,’” emphasis added. 75Baxter believed there were at least two ways a Christian could also be a Roman

Catholic. First, he begrudgingly held the outward appearance, while his heart and mind held to true Christianity. Second, he could also hold Roman Catholic beliefs but not in his heart. Baxter calls this a notionally held belief. In either case, the Roman Catholic was no longer a Roman Catholic. See Richard Baxter, A Christian Directory, Or, A Body of Practical Divinity and Cases of Conscience: Christian Politics (or Duties to Our Rulers and Neighbours) (London: Richard Edwards, 1825), 263–65.

76Quoted in Keeble, Richard Baxter, 25. 77Ibid. 78While it is beyond the scope of this paper to examine Lewis’s view of divine

revelation, it is important to note that Lewis did not hold to a classically orthodox understanding of Scripture. The role this played in his overall view of MC is fascinating, but cannot be investigated here. For more information on his view of Scripture see, Philip Ryken, “Inerrancy and the Patron Saint of Evangelicalism: C. S. Lewis on Holy Scripture,” in The Romantic Rationalist: God, Life, and Imagination in the Work of C. S. Lewis, ed. John Piper and David Mahtis (Wheaton: Crossway, 2014), 39–64.

79Pearce, C. S. Lewis and the Catholic Church, 63.


seeing the implications of Roman Catholic doctrine for the historic Christian faith.80 Essentially, however, the problem is much deeper than these previous two points. Lewis failed to recognize the chasm between those whose primary trust is in tradition and those whose primary trust is in Scripture. Since he believed the chasm to be only a minor fault line,81 Lewis proposed that Catholics and Protestants could join togeth-er and fight the common enemy of unbelief. He underestimated the potential that Roman Catholic doctrine could itself be a form of unbe-lief.

Lewis’s failure to present a harmony between Catholics and Evan-gelicals is not only evident from the Evangelical side. Roman Catholic writers have likewise noted that his attempt was faulty:

It is…a little ironic that [Lewis’s] ‘mere Christianity’ intended as a via media or centre ground of traditional Christianity, is embraced by two such diverse theological traditions [i.e. Catholics and Evangelical Protestants].…. It is clear that Protestants have to reach beyond their own beliefs if they are to embrace fully the be-liefs of Lewis…. Catholics, on the other hand, are faced with the absence in Lewis’s ‘mere Christianity’ of certain doctrines that are central to the faith as taught by the Church. In other words, for a faithful Catholic, Lewis’s ‘mere Christianity’ is deficient; it is less Christian than the Church.82 Joseph Pearce recognizes in Lewis’s MC that, in seeking middle

ground, Lewis has abandoned his only ground. In the end, one must choose which is primary—tradition or Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church for its part has chosen tradition. The Evangelical Church has chosen Scripture. There is no middle ground. Baxter saw this, but Lew-is appears to have missed it.

MERE CHRISTIANITY AND CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

We can be thankful for the gospel work of the two Christian apol-ogists C. S. Lewis and Richard Baxter. And the best we can do for their memory is to learn from their work, and if possible, improve on it. In that light, Lewis and Baxter provide for us a few lessons about the inter-section of MC and Christian apologetics.

First, modern apologists should emphasize the unity of the gospel in Christ. Both Baxter and Lewis recognized unity as a powerful argu-ment for Christianity, and they recognized disunity as a potential

80For instance, see his introduction to the French translation of The Problem of

Pain in Hooper, C. S. Lewis, 296–97. 81Lewis suggested that his fifteen-minute time limitation (on air radio present-

ation) was the only reason he could not present MC in a way that every Christian (including Protestants and Catholics) would agree to (see ibid., 306).

82Pearce, C. S. Lewis and the Catholic Church, 168.


argument against Christianity. If we are to emphasize unity, those who seek to advance the gospel of Christ in our generation need to be able to clearly distinguish the doctrinal essentials that divide those within God’s flock from those who remain outside the flock. Because there will be unregenerate members within orthodox congregations, it is not pos-sible to definitively know the elect from the non-elect. Here it is merely suggested that the apologist should know the theological boundaries of Christian orthodoxy.83

The second lesson we can learn is uniquely drawn from Lewis. He argued that Christian denominationalism will not be extinguished this side of eternity. Members of God’s church must not remain in the wel-coming hallway; instead, they must move to a room. The rooms are where doctrinal commitments are made and where fellowship centered on a shared understanding of God and his Word resides. Of course, the key is to recognize which rooms are attached to the welcoming hallway. Only those rooms that share the commonality of the gospel as present-ed in the Word of God have a right to the hall.

Third, in order to provide solid theological boundaries, a more ro-bust delineation of the qualifications of a Mere Christian is required. This lesson is Baxter’s unique contribution to MC and Christian apolo-getics. Lewis is faulted for finding too much commonality where the differences were significant. Baxter, due to his focus on the Word of God as the primary authority, was able to establish a more specific standard.84 Further, Baxter’s principle of undiluting addition is exceed-ingly important. If one’s doctrine brings the essential elements of the Christian message into question, his belief in the essentials must be questioned. The advantage of this principle for Christian apologetics is manifest, for if the standard of belief is firmly established, then the en-emy of unbelief can be recognized—whatever form it takes.

Baxter’s contribution provides us with a tension, however. While there are clear boundaries for orthodox Christianity, there are not clear boundaries for discerning what additional beliefs dilute or do not dilute the foundational beliefs. That is, how do we determine whether an ad-ditional belief brings the foundational beliefs into question? For in-stance, does belief in one’s entrance into the covenant community by pedobaptism challenge the gospel of grace? Does the doctrine of bap-tismal regeneration serve as a dilution to the doctrine of conversion, a central aspect of the gospel?85 Does belief in dispensationalism embrace

83While some elect may be involved in non-orthodox religious groups (e.g., Baxter’s example of nominal Roman Catholic believers), they should be excluded from consideration of the breadth of orthodox Christian unity. This is because their inclusion would blur the boundaries for those with whom the Christian engages apologetically.

84Much more needs to be said about the qualifications of a MC. However, Baxter’s dependence on Scripture as the basis of MC is undoubtedly the place to start. To deve-lop the qualifications more thoroughly is beyond the scope of this paper.

85See D. Patrick Ramsey, “Baptismal Regeneration and the Westminster Confes-sion of Faith,” Confessional Presbyterian 4 (January 1, 2008): 183–91, an article dealing


multiple paths to salvation, challenging the uniqueness of Christ?86 Does openness to modern prophetic utterance challenge the finished Scriptures and therefore the basis of the fundamental Christian doc-trines?87 Lewis never saw this tension because he did not fully consider the role of additional beliefs. Baxter never sought to solve the dilemma. Instead, while he declared Roman Catholic doctrine as a dilution of the essentials of the Christian message, he did not present an exhaustive method on how one could determine whether a belief dilutes the essen-tial beliefs.

Where does this leave us? Both Lewis and Baxter argued that the existence of the common hall is a powerful apologetic argument for Christianity. But Lewis has shown us that because of important differ-ences, the hallway cannot be the church. And Baxter showed us that we must be careful to discern who is actually in the common hall. Ulti-mately, Lewis and Baxter agreed that there is a common hall, but they did not agree with who was in the common hall. This ultimately shows the difficulty of the concept of MC. Many agree that there is such a thing as MC, but not all agree concerning the content of the concept. Can we move forward towards a fully defined MC? If two thousand years of church history has failed to reach a consensus, there may be little hope this side of eternity.

In conclusion, with the historical background we have just estab-lished let us look more broadly at the intersection of MC and Christian apologetics. There are two reasons to question how much MC can aid Christian apologetics. First, as noted above, Christians disagree about the content of MC. If we are to hinge our apologetic on defending this concept, we must have a more secure definition of what it includes and what it excludes. Our second concern is more foundational. The ulti-mate goal of the apologist is not merely the communication of the es-sentials; it must also include discipleship (Matt 28:18–20).88 The

with the theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith and baptismal regeneration. The author suggests that while some hold to baptismal regeneration on the basis of the confession, the theology of the document does not support it.

86While dispensationalists have consistently refuted this claim, it continues to be offered as a critique. For instance, in a 2012 interview, Sinclair Ferguson mentioned, “There are dispensationalists who seem to believe that God has operated with different ways of salvation throughout biblical history” (“Theology Night with Sinclair Ferguson & R. C. Sproul,” 20 February 2012, accessed 21 March 2015, http://www.ligonier.org/ learn/conferences/ligonier_ webcast_archive/jan_20_2012/).

87Bruce Compton, “The Continuation of New Testament Prophecy and a Closed Canon: A Critique of Wayne Grudem’s Two Levels of New Testament Prophecy” (pre-sented at the 64th meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Baltimore, 2013).

88While apologetics is designed to remove obstacles from the unbeliever hearing the gospel, the ultimate aim is conversion to Christian discipleship. Scripture provides no unique role to an apologist who merely converts people to a watered-down message. Instead, an apologist may intentionally train in the skill of removing those barriers, but this does not relieve him or her from the Great Commission obligation to disciple and teach all things God has communicated through his Word.


danger of Lewis’s approach is that those who hear only the essentials may subsequently embrace positions that bring those essentials into question.89 Further, Jesus charged his disciples to teach all things not only the basic things. Lewis noted his own apologetic goal in Mere Christianity: “If I can bring anyone into the hall I have done what I at-tempted.” Nevertheless, Lewis maintains, “it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals.”90 But if so, the goal of the apologist-disciple should be to bring the unbeliever both into the hall and into the right room.

89For example, Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses claim to have the same hallway,

and it is imperative that unbelievers be steered away from these sects. 90Lewis, Mere Christianity, xv.

mere christianity: an examination of the concept … · dbsj 20 (2015): 65–88 mere christianity:...

Documents