In an essay written in 1946 entitled "The Decline of Religion" (found in God in the Dock), C.S. Lewis makes several interesting statements. He notes, for example, that in one sense (in literature) the 19th century was quite as secular as our own.
"The novels of Meredith, Trollope, and Thackeray are not written either by or for men who see this world as the vestibule of eternity who regard pride as the greatest of the sins, who desire to be poor in spirit, and look
for a supernatural salvation. Even more significant is the absence from Dickens' "Christmas Carol" of any interest in the Incarnation. Mary, the Magi, and the Angels are replaced by 'spirits' of his own invention, and the animals present are not the ox and ass in the stable but the goose and turkey in the poulterer's shop."
The "decline of religion" he notes was not Christianity. "It was a vague Theism with a strong and virile ethical code, which, far from standing over against the 'World', was absorbed into the whole fabric of English institutions and sentiment . . ." That 'religion' -- "morality tinged with emotion"-- has declined. While it makes a distinction with real Christianity possible, at the same time it is something of a bad thing for the "World" in the following sense:
"By it all the things that made England a fairly happy country are, I suppose, endangered: the comparative purity of her public life, the comparative humanity of her police, and the possibility of some mutual respect and kindness between political opponents. But I am not clear that it makes conversion to Christianity rarer or more difficult: rather the reverse. It makes the choice more unescapable."
C.S. Lewis recognizes a place for apologetics and the creation of an intellectual climate favorable to Christianity, and
"Those who help to produce and spread such a climate are therefore doing useful work: and yet no such great matter after all. Their share is a modest one; and it is always possible that nothing--nothing whatever--may come of it. Far higher than they stands that character whom, to the best of my knowledge, the present Christian movement has not yet produced--the Preacher in the full sense, the Evangelist, the man on fire, the man who infects. The propagandist, the apologist, only represents John Baptist: the Preacher represents the Lord Himself. He will be sent -- or else he will not. But unless he comes we mere Christian intellectuals will not effect very much. That does not mean we should down tools.
C.S. Lewis said a real Christian movement would encounter opposition.
We have not yet had (at least in junior Oxford) any really bitter opposition. But if we have many more successes, this will certainly appear. The enemy has not yet thought it worth while to fling his whole weight against us. But he soon will. This happens in the history of every Christian movement, beginning with the Ministry of Christ Himself. At first it is welcome to all who have no special reason for opposing it: at this stage he who is not against it is for it. What men notice is its difference from those aspects of the World, which they already dislike. But later on, as the real meaning of the Christian claim becomes apparent, its demand for total surrender, the sheer chasm between Nature and Supernature, men are increasingly 'offended'. Dislike, terror, and finally hatred succeed: none who will not give it what it asks (and it asks all) can endure it: all who are not with it are against it. That is why we must cherish no picture of the present intellectual movement simply growing and spreading and finally reclaiming millions by sweet resonabableness. Long before it became as important as that the real opposition would have begun, and to be on the Christian side would be costing a man (at the least) his career.