Mere Christianity -- Book 2, Chap. 4

The Perfect Penitent

What is our frightening alternative then?  Either "this man" was exactly who He claimed to be or else he was a lunatic or something worse.

Lewis accepts the view that He was and is God -- "God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form."

But why?  What was the purpose of it all?

The main thing is that He came to earth to suffer and be killed.

At this point Lewis rejects what is called the "penal substitutionary view of the atonement" -- that God was going to punish us, but that Christ took our punishment himself, and therefore God "let us off."

Lewis argues that we do not have to accept a particular theory of how the atonement works, but rather that the atonement does indeed work -- the central Christian belief is that Christ's death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start."

In this chap., Lewis distinguishes between the central belief of the atonement and the "theories" of what happened in the atonement (usually 3 major:  vicarious sacrifice, ransom for sinners, and victory over devil; among others).  What all Christians agree on is that it does work.  Theories about Christ's death are not Christianity:  they are explanations about how it works.

What are we to think about Lewis' suggestion (see conclusion)?

1.  Remember that Lewis is writing as a layman and not a theologian.  Also he is writing a book about "mere" Christianity and attempting to not get into "in-house" debates among Christian theologians.       

2.  Lewis argues that the "theories" are only pictures to help us understand something that is "absolutely unimaginable from outside through into our own world" -- "the inconceivable, the uncreated, the thing from beyond nature, striking down into nature like lightning."  In other words, the "way" the atonement works is too mysterious for us to comprehend.

3.  Notice what Lewis in fact says about the atonement:  "We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself.  That is the formula.  That is Christianity."  -- The different theories of the atonement are often right in what they affirm but wrong in what they deny.

4.  In Narnia, Aslan is a willing victim who is killed for a traitor.  He is the object of wrath of the Emperor of the Sea and says, "the worst falls upon myself."

While there is an element of "substitution" in Lewis' view, he seems to limit the atonement to an innocent "man" (who is God) paying off the debt of a guilty person.  So rather, than Jesus receiving our punishment -- in our place -- so that we would not be punished, Jesus came to pay off the debt -- "footing the bill."

So what sort of "hole" did we get ourselves into?  We tried to set up our lives as if they were our own -- that we were in control.  Therefore, we don't merely need moral improvement.  We need radical conversion -- true repentance.  We are rebels:

"who must lay down his arms.  Laying down your arms (signaling that pride is being conquered), surrendering, saying you are sorry, realizing that you have been on the wrong track and getting ready to start life over again from the ground floor -- that is the only way out of the 'hole'.  The process of surrender -- this movement full speed astern -- is what Christians call repentance.  Now repentance is no fun at all.  It is something much harder than merely eating humble pie.  It means unlearning all the self-conceit and self-will that we have been training ourselves into for thousands of years.  It means killing part of yourself, undergoing a kind of death."

Lewis argues (latter in the book) that the most serious and dangerous sin is pride.  Conversion is the "unselfing" of ourselves.  It is dying to ourselves.  Cf. Rom. 6:1-11.  See Calvin Institutes 3.7.1-10 -- the sum of the Christian life is self-denial.

Now, what's the problem then?  On the one hand, only a "bad" person needs to repent.  But on the other hand, only a "good" person can repent perfectly.  The same badness which makes us need it, makes us unable to do it.  The only person who could do it perfectly would be a perfect person -- and he would not need it. 

So how do we resolve this dilemma?  We can do it only if God helps us.  But how does God help us? 

But there is a further dilemma.  What we need, God cannot do.  God cannot repent, surrender, suffer, submit, or die.  He cannot do what we need him to do in order to help us.

But what if, God became a man so that he could suffer and die in order to help us?  "He could surrender His will, and suffer and die, because He was man; and He could do it perfectly because He was God."  And it is only as God does this that we can "share" God's dying -- perfect repentance -- if He pays our debt and suffers for us what He Himself need not suffer at all -- in other words "union with Christ."

But the critic will object, "If Jesus was God as well as man, then His sufferings and death lose all value in their eyes, 'because it must have been so easy for Him.'"  But the objector has actually "understated" their case!  "The perfect submission, the perfect suffering, the perfect death were not only easier to Jesus because He was God, but were possible only because He was God."

But why would we not accept Jesus for that?  It is His "advantage" over us that is the only reason why he can be of any use to us (cf. the teacher teaching the child to write).  "To what will you look for help if you will not look to that which is stronger than yourself?"

Lewis ends the chap. with these words, "Such is my own way of looking at what Christians call the Atonement.  But remember this is only one more picture.  Do not mistake it for the thing itself:  and if it does not help you, drop it."

Well, in sum, while we certainly don't want to drop his masterful treatment, we should be clear that the substitutionary view of the atonement is not just a "theory" but is the true nature of the atonement and the only understanding that makes the atonement sufficient to save us.