This would be a very good thing if he meant that they had "gotten beyond" the soft, non-dogmatic, non-denominational evangelism of Lewis and had matured to the stage of real Christian faith with a belief in dogmas that are true, and a corresponding belief that opposite statements are false.
firsts at Oxford in Greek and Latin Literature, Philosophy and Ancient History, AND English Literature, who in the parish had written for the Oxford History of English Literature, etc. etc. etc.
This is no recommendation for a Christian. Seems like most of the people from Lewis' generation who met these criteria turned out to be communist spies and/or homosexuals. I must at least give Lewis credit that HE did not believe in a Christianity for the Oxford dons.
He was criticizing Lewis as too unsophisticated and not "intellectual enough" for "this parish." That's what popped my cork.
And as for Lewis's faith, I think you're dead wrong. This is a man that came a long way, having begun in a bigotted Ulster Protestant family, the same sort of folks that published that attack on "The Passion" as "papistical" earlier this week. If you believe that he was a wishy-washy, "soft, non-dogmatic, nondenominational" Christian, you simply cannot have read him carefully. During his life, he was criticized for being too dogmatic, and that is even more the case now as so many Anglicans (and Catholics too for that matter) have become ever more wishy-washy.
Go read his Screwtape Letters and The Great Divorce, and then reconsider your judgment.