C. S. LewisAlmost everybody they chose to pick on was either a purely academic theologian with no other interest or ability. Then they picked on Lewis for a series of popular level lectures designed to assist those with interest in Jesus in actually seeing Jesus. The work simply was not designed to be a work of academic or creative theology, in fact, Lewis left the finer points of theology (the cools ones that people like to write long tomes about) to the theologians, confessing that he was a layman writing for laymen. Including him in the list would be like including the ministerial handbook by George Herbert among the droves of "church growth" manuals out there. The two just simply are not the same thing.
Must have smoked cannabis
With Narnia creatures to write the banality
Of Mere Christianity.
One wonders if modern theology guys do not like Lewis' work, not because of theological missteps or poor exegesis (they are plentiful) but because his work was actually intended to yield evangelistic results. Interestingly enough, this is the same reason that Brunner thought his work as a theologian was not as volumious as Barth's nor as popular, he dealt with many practical exigences.
Again, I loved the post, did not take it serious, I love insulting academics, even C.S. Lewis, I just wonder if the bias against the guy is that he was practical.