C. S. Lewis and Total Depravity

I have a very narrow focus for this blog: it is to show how C. S. Lewis describes "Total Depravity" in his writings does not match how Calvinists (Reformed Theologians) define "Total Depravity". This blog's purpose is not to argue whether C. S. Lewis is an Arminian or a Calvinist. I am not claiming anything about whether C. S. Lewis is saved or not. I am not trying to persuade the reader whether his idea of "Human Wickedness" as defined in the The Problem of Pain is actually close to the Reformed definition of "Total Depravity." I am just trying to show how Lewis understood "Total Depravity" is different from the Calvinists' definition.

Lewis wrote much about "Total Depravity." In all his arguments concerning "Reason", he touches on "Total Depravity" tangentially. In order to keep the blog short, I focused on the statements where he specified the doctrine by name. I used an index of his works and these are the quotes I could find.

The Problem of Pain

The doctrine of Total Depravity--when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing--may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil worship. (p. 29)

This chapter [Human Wickedness] will have been misunderstood if anyone describes it as a reinstatement of the doctrine of Total Depravity. I disbelieve that doctrine, partly on the logical ground that if our depravity were total we should not know ourselves to be depraved, and partly because expereince shows us much goodness in human nature.(p. 61) [brackets mine]

God in the Dock

C. S. Lewis commenting on the danger of cruelty being the result of self-loathing:

Even Christians, if they accept in certain forms the doctrine of total depravity, are not always free from the danger. (p. 194, "Two Ways With the Self")

Christian Reflections

C. S Lewis to the Editor of Theology, (It was a response to Mr Bethell's Letter to the Editor):

(2) That my position 'logically implies...total depravity' I deny simply. How any logician could derive the proposition 'Human nature is totally depraved' from the proposition 'Cultural activities do not in themselves improve our spiritual condition', I cannot undertstand. Even if I had said (which I did not), 'Man's aesthetic nature is totally depraved,' no one could infer 'Man's whole nature is totally depraved' without a glaring transference from secundum quid to simplicitir. I put it to Mr Bethell that he has used 'logically implies' to mean 'may without gross uncharity rouse the suspicion of'--and that he ought not to use words that way. (Christian Reflections, pp. 25-26)

The Reformed Doctrine of Total Depravity

Charles Ryrie
Negatively, the concept of total depravity does not mean a) that every person has exhibited his depravity as thoroughly as he or she could; (b) that sinners do not have a conscience or a "native induction" concerning God' (c) that sinners will indulge in every form of sin; or (d) that depraved people do not perform actions that are good in the sight of others and even in the sight of God.

Positively, total depravity means (a) that corruption extends to every facet of man's nature and faculties; and (b) that there is is nothing in anyone that commend him to a righteous God.

Total depravity must always be measured against God's holiness. Relative goodness exists in people. They can do good works, which are appreciated by others. But nothing that anyone can do will gain salvational merit or favor in the sight of a holy God. (p. 253, Basic Theology)

J. I. Packer
The phrase total depravity is commonly used to make explicit the implications of original sin. It signifies a corruption of our moral and spiritual nature that is total not in degree (for no one is as bad as he or she might be) but in extent. It declares that no part of us is untouched by sin, and therefore no action of ours is as good as it should be, and consequently nothing in us or about us ever appears meritorious in God's eyes. We cannot earn God's favor, no matter what we do; unless grace saves us, we are lost.

Total depravity entails total inability, that is, the state of not having it in oneself to respond to God and his Word in a sincere and wholehearted way (John 6:44; Rom. 8:7-8). Paul calls this unresponsiveness of the fallen heart a state of death (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13), and the Westminster Confession says: "Man by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto" (Concise Theology, IX. 3).

Conclusion

"Total Depravity" is a misnomer in a certain sense. Total depravity does not mean we all are bad and corrupted as we could be. It asserts we have consciences, although tainted by sin, that still recognize moral choices. Our consciences still convict us concerning our sin. Our reason, according to total depravity, is tainted by sin, but still exists in some form. Some people realize how corrupt they are. People still do incredible acts of love and kindness for one another. Men and women still build culture and the arts.

Packer and Lewis do agree in other areas. Lewis wrote in his response to Mr. Bethell, "Cultural activities do not in themselves improve our spiritual condition". Only repenting of our sin and placing our trust in Christ's work on the cross puts us in fellowship with God.

C. S. Lewis, Allegory, and the Church

C. S. Lewis

"The difference between the two [allegorist and symbolist] can hardly be exaggerated. The allegorist leaves the given--his own passions--to talk of that which is confessedly less real, which is a fiction. The symbolist leaves the given to find that which is more real. To put the difference in another way, for the symbolist it is we who are the allegory. We are the 'frigid personifications'; the heavens above us are the 'shadowy abstractions'; the world which we mistake for reality is the flat outline of what that which elsewhere veritably is in all the round of its unimaginable dimensions."

(The Allegory of Love, p.45)

This Lewis quote started me thinking about allegory and symbolism and how we are the allegory. First, let us flesh out the quote with an example of a symbol and an allegory. The American flag is a symbol. Each color and pattern on the flag represents something else. For example, the fifty stars represent all fifty states and the 13 rows of stripes represent the original 13 colonies. The people who created the flag were symbolists. When we look upon the flag, we leave the less real to think about the reality of the United States. Some people think about the sacrifices that they themselves and their kin suffered for freedom. Others think about how far we have to go in order to fulfill the dream of the United States for all her citizens. These things are real. The actual representations using stars and stripes expressed through cloth are less real.

An allegory goes in the opposite direction. John Bunyan, a master allegorist, took his real experiences, temptations, and feelings as a Christian and turned them into a fictional story, Pilgrim's Progress. Bunyan's protoganist, Christian, encounters companions like "Faithful" and "Evangelist". He faces enemies like Apollyon and the giant Despair. The story is designed to be an encouragement to the everyday Christian. The story and characters are less real than Bunyan's experiences.

When we look in the Bible we see glimmers how God used historical practices to represent something more real: the Old Testament Law and Practices are a down payment for the promises of the New Testament. The following verses show how the New Testament writers used the metaphor of "shadow" to explain how the Old Testament practices pointed to a deeper reality of Christ's ministry: His life, the Church, His offices (priest, prophet, king).

Colossians 2:16,17
16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

Hebrews 8:5
They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” 6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.

Hebrews 10:1
For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.

The following passage in Ephesians expresses something about the purpose of the Church in the present age. We see this same pattern in the New Testament that God used in the Old Testament: God is using the Church to express the deeper realities about His manifold Wisdom.

Ephesians 3:7-10
7 Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace, which was given me by the working of his power. 8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God, who created all things, 10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places

Notice the italicized passage. The universal church, the believers throughout the ages, is supposed to "make known" the "manifold wisdom of God." Look again to Lewis's explanation of the allegorist: "one leaves the given". The given in this case is the "manifold of wisdom of God." The second part is "to talk of that which is less real." The church and the believers who are the church are less real than God's Wisdom. God the allegorist is using the Church as an allegory to express the foundational reality of His maniford wisom to the rulers and authorities. We are the "shadowy abstractions" and "the frigid personifications" pointing to the ultimate and deeper realities of God.

Application

First, humankind is not the center of the universe. Life is not about us. God is the center. The chief end of men and women, according to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, is to worship God and enjoy him forever. God uses his Church to manifest his Wisdom. We are the allegory that expresses the deeper realities of God to the authorities and powers. The more we serve and love God through the Church, the more we fulfill the purpose God has for us.

Second, the Church is the expression of the manifold Wisdom of God. It is not individual believers. The whole of Ephesians is about the unity, structure, and purpose of the Church. God never intended individual believers to function properly without being involved in the local church. How the local churches look and function may look different from age to age and culture to culture, but "Lone Ranger" believers is not how God is working in this age.

Third, our present lives are not our ultimate reality. They are just a shadow of our future life with God. "The sufferings of this present time," as Paul wrote in Romans 8:18, "are not worth comparing to the glory to be revealed." Purified from our sin, we will become who we were intended to be. The church will become the bride of Christ. The glimpses of God's love in this present age through fellowship, through worship, through prayer, through serving, through our obedience, and through His Word are just the slightest glimmer of our life with God in eternity. As Lewis puts it elsewhere, these are but the shadowlands.

The Last Battle
"There was a real railway accident," sad Aslan softly. "Your father and mother and all of you are--as you used to call it in the Shadow-Lands--dead. The term is over: the holidays have begun. The dream is ended: this is the morning."

And as He spoke He no longer looked to them like a lion; but the things that began to happen after that were so great and beautiful that I cannot write them. And for us this is the end of all the stories, and we can most truly say that they all lived happily ever after. But for them it was only the beginning of the real story. All their life in this world and all their adventures in Narnia had only been the cover and the title page: now at last they were beginning Chapter One of the Great Story, which no one on earth has read: which goes on for ever: in which every chapter is better than the one before.