Question on CS Lewis

[greenguzzi]

This clearly shows his ecumenical views. I don't understand why his personal allegiance to Anglicanism is in any way a issue here.

Spot on, I agree. It's not an issue, it's an advantage.
Anglicanism seems to produce the best thinkers, my daughter is one of them. But she is yet to become famous.

 

[Widlast]

'Sounds christian' but isn't actually christian.

Thats what CS Lewis is like. I would pick up his book and wonder, ok, why is it called 'Mere Christianity'?! And then its just one big lecture on how you can find religion.

I think people like it because its not threatening their worldview the way the Bible can - the word of God is quick and powerful. But someone else's idea on how to be a christian is more important than the Bible? Esp if that someone had gone to oxford and was educated?

Sometimes when ppl mention C.S. Lewis its like he's an apostle or something, but...I just find that as far as theology goes, you might as well just read the Bible.

C.S. Lewis was VERY Christian. He wrote books to explain complex notions to those (apparently like you) who have a difficult time understanding the concepts. His fiction was largely metaphorical, that is he used symbols to represent people and concepts. Having the Christ figure in his stories be a lion, is not "unbiblical", have you not read Revelations? Who do you think the "Lion of the tribe of Judah" is?
Just "reading the Bible" has caused as much trouble as it has solved, too few understand what they read and too many get hung up on one phrase and ignore all the rest. That is where heretics come from.

 

[Look Up]

A thing about Lewis and the Chronicles of Narnia. Lewis was actually opposed to people saying that they were an allegory, for Lewis Narnia was to be understood as a world parallel with our own, and the events which unfold in Narnia parallel our own world. In other words Aslan isn't an allegory for Christ, rather Aslan is Christ in Narnia.

"If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity in the same way in which Giant Despair [a character in The Pilgrim's Progress] represents despair, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality, however, he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, 'What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia, and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?' This is not allegory at all." - C.S. Lewis to Mrs. Hook, 1958

-CryptoLutheran

I didn't know that. Yet I wonder if Tolkien would wholeheartedly agree. Is Lewis here (or in his letter to Mrs. Hook) also defending the claim that no elements of The Chronicles of Narnia are allegorical? Or that the controlling story/ies (i.e., the fantasy/ies) and many elements therein are not allegorical?

If Aslan is not an allegory for "the immaterial Deity" (of our world, if you will), does he possess no elements which may rightly be said are allegorical for the Incarnate Jesus Christ? As one might expect to be so if Aslan "is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, 'What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia, and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?'."

If there are enough obvious analogies in tight sphere such as in the character of Aslan relating to our Jesus Christ, in other words, surely at some point the "charge" among readers (not to put too negative a spin on mere definition) of being allegorical cannot be avoided, an author's claim to the contrary notwithstanding. One does not anticipate that all elements of the character Despair in Pilgrim's Progress be obvious analogies to what humans experience as despair (or to the picture the Bible paints of despair) for the allegory to work.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I didn't know that. Yet I wonder if Tolkien would wholeheartedly agree. Is Lewis here (or in his letter to Mrs. Hook) also defending the claim that no elements of The Chronicles of Narnia are allegorical? Or that the controlling story/ies (i.e., the fantasy/ies) and many elements therein are not allegorical?

If Aslan is not an allegory for "the immaterial Deity" (of our world, if you will), does he possess no elements which may rightly be said are allegorical for the Incarnate Jesus Christ? As one might expect to be so if Aslan "is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, 'What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia, and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?'."

If there are enough obvious analogies in tight sphere such as in the character of Aslan relating to our Jesus Christ, in other words, surely at some point the "charge" among readers (not to put too negative a spin on mere definition) of being allegorical cannot be avoided, an author's claim to the contrary notwithstanding. One does not anticipate that all elements of the character Despair in Pilgrim's Progress be obvious analogies to what humans experience as despair (or to the picture the Bible paints of despair) for the allegory to work.

I'm hardly the most knowledgeable on these matters, though as I understand it Tolkien was critical (as a literary critic) of the Chronicles of Narnia because he disliked allegory; so best as I have heard Tolkien saw the work as a work of allegory. To what end Lewis' defense against the charge of allegory sticks completely is almost certainly up for debate.

I just find it interesting that from Lewis' perspective the work is not one of allegory, but rather a fictitious account of an imaginary "real world" parallel of our own, in which the events of the Gospel take place there even as they did here.

As I understand it for both Tolkien and Lewis the art of storycraft was more than simply telling a story, it was the art of creating a world with breadth and depth. For Tolkien the creation of Middle Earth was, for him, an act of worship, of subcreation, and thus in imitation of the true Creator of heaven and earth.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[faroukfarouk]

I'm not sure I understand why CS Lewis wrote the things he did, it seemed like he was christian but then he wrote about lions and witches and wardrobes.

i remmeber seeing this movie as a child and I did not think it was actually christian. It was more fairy tale. Actually it scared me a bit when I was young because it suggested that wardrobes could be portals to this other world.

Later when I became a christian CS Lewis writings didnt make much senese either. It seemed he was advocating anglicanism as a religion rather than actually being born again.

I tried to read 'mere christianity' but nothing registered, just seemed like an out of date apologetic for religion. Screwtape letters seemed to glorify demons. I did not enjoy reading the screwtape letters, I thought, very clever, but no gospel in it.

What do other people think? Anybody actually know him personally? Why was he writing about witches etc when we are meant to avoid all appearance of evil? I would not say chronicles of narnia are christian. Its fantasy, with twisted elements of christianity in it.

I found C S Lewis hard going. Admittedly his style is allegorical, something which great works of literature in the past have evidenced, such as The Pilgrim's Progress, although I would not rank C S Lewis in the same league. Interestingly, Joana Rowling's Harry Potter series was loosely influenced by the style and genre of C S Lewis's writings.

They appeal to some ppl and don't to others.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Another poignant quote from the article:
Unfortunately, many evangelicals are quick to discount — and even damn — their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ over alleged doctrinal trespasses, even if those same brothers and sisters hold to the historical orthodox creeds (Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed, etc.). Such discounting and damning can always be avoided and it serves no one on the Kingdom side of the aisle.

And really, I'm officially Protestant (I confess, I'm a Catholic and Orthodox sympathiser!), but I did not find most of these 'shocking views' to be shocking. C of E, while a Protestant denomination, has much in common with Roman Catholicism. I always tease my British husband that C of E is just English Catholic.

There might be some similarities in terms of outward form and traditions, but in fact in terms of central, historic, Biblical doctrines there are some rather major differences; for example, justification Biblically means that by faith the repentant sinners is reckoned righteous in God's sight because of the death at the Cross of the Lord Jesus, whereas some traditions teach that justification is a more vague process of supposedly becoming righteous as we to some extent add our supposed merits and efforts to the 'merely' partial work of God. Some traditions also are not clear on the Lord Jesus being the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14.6), and the 'one Mediator between God and men' (1 Timothy 2.5).

 

[faroukfarouk]

C.S. Lewis was VERY Christian. He wrote books to explain complex notions to those (apparently like you) who have a difficult time understanding the concepts. His fiction was largely metaphorical, that is he used symbols to represent people and concepts. Having the Christ figure in his stories be a lion, is not "unbiblical", have you not read Revelations? Who do you think the "Lion of the tribe of Judah" is?
Just "reading the Bible" has caused as much trouble as it has solved, too few understand what they read and too many get hung up on one phrase and ignore all the rest. That is where heretics come from.

I really would not make man's commentary the norm, while relegating the Word of God itself as tending to heresy, supposedly. Many Christians will speak of Sola Scriptura, and this is often combined with the Biblical notions of Sola Fide and Sola Gratia (Ephesians 2.8).

 

[RDKirk]

I just find it interesting that from Lewis' perspective the work is not one of allegory, but rather a fictitious account of an imaginary "real world" parallel of our own, in which the events of the Gospel take place there even as they did here.

I suspect Lewis's definition of "allegory" was significantly more pedantic--and possibly more British--than ours.

 

[Simon Crosby]

I suspect Lewis's definition of "allegory" was significantly more pedantic--and possibly more British--than ours.

It certainly was. And as a solid Brit, well, a Manx, I suppose rhat makes me British enough; I am a citizen of Great Britain, although not ironically the United Kingdom; I can say we have a certain appreciation for pedantry. Pedantry is an underrated virtue and was something CS Lewis excelled at.

 

[Simon Crosby]

He said "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy", aka "Watch what you listen to." Which is basically exactly what I said. Discern the message, but don't judge the messenger. Never once did Christ instruct any disciple/apostle to do anything about the Pharisees. He merely told them to avoid them and their poisonous teachings.

Actually, He didn't even say that. Rather, He commanded, "Do as they say, not as they do."

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I found C S Lewis hard going. Admittedly his style is allegorical, something which great works of literature in the past have evidenced, such as The Pilgrim's Progress, although I would not rank C S Lewis in the same league. Interestingly, Joana Rowling's Harry Potter series was loosely influenced by the style and genre of C S Lewis's writings.

They appeal to some ppl and don't to others.

Lewis did not think his works were literature. He didn't even think English literature was written in 19th century in fact (he fought with the faculty to try and prevent them from teaching on Dickens for instance). He thought he would be forgotten in 20 years of his death.

I however, rate his apologetics highly (Not such a big fan of Narnia). His works on Milton are still considered the set text in many universities on this subject.

As has been pointed out ad nauseam, Narnia isn't allegory, but supposition. I wouldn't hammer so much on this myself, but Lewis disliked it being called this and unfortunately he can't defend himself.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Actually, He didn't even say that. Rather, He commanded, "Do as they say, not as they do."

Indeed, the Lord in fact states that they sit in Moses' seat. As experts on Torah they were to be listened to. What the Lord condemns is their hypocrisy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[faroukfarouk]

Lewis did not think his works were literature. He didn't even think English literature was written in 19th century in fact (he fought with the faculty to try and prevent them from teaching on Dickens for instance). He thought he would be forgotten in 20 years of his death.

I however, rate his apologetics highly (Not such a big fan of Narnia). His works on Milton are still considered the set text in many universities on this subject.

As has been pointed out ad nauseam, Narnia isn't allegory, but supposition. I wouldn't hammer so much on this myself, but Lewis disliked it being called this and unfortunately he can't defend himself.

Whatever word is used, in some ways some of Lewis's writings are similar to Bunyan's; and Milton's Comus, Lycidas, etc. also have strongly allegorical elements, whether or not one chooses to look at them from such an angle.

 

[Simon Crosby]

Lewis did not think his works were literature. He didn't even think English literature was written in 19th century in fact (he fought with the faculty to try and prevent them from teaching on Dickens for instance). He thought he would be forgotten in 20 years of his death.

I however, rate his apologetics highly (Not such a big fan of Narnia). His works on Milton are still considered the set text in many universities on this subject.

As has been pointed out ad nauseam, Narnia isn't allegory, but supposition. I wouldn't hammer so much on this myself, but Lewis disliked it being called this and unfortunately he can't defend himself.

I disagree that Narnia is either allegory or supposition. It is in CS Lewis own words, a mere fairy tale. He enjoyed reading and writing fairy tales. His Space Trilogy is also quite good.

Rather, I would call The Great Divorce an example of supposition on his part. And I would call Til We Have Faces: A Myth Retold, allegory.

 

[Simon Crosby]

Indeed, the Lord in fact states that they sit in Moses' seat. As experts on Torah they were to be listened to. What the Lord condemns is their hypocrisy.

-CryptoLutheran

Precisely. Whereas on the other hand, the Sadducees were simply lukewarm or irreligious; to them, religion consisted purely of the rituals of the Temple (which they dominated; I am sure fhere were Pharisees among the priests, and Sadducees in the synagoges, but ai get the impression that on the whole, the Temple was very much the domain of the Sadducees, and the Synagogues, of the Pharisees, which is not to say the Pharisees were not absolutely devoted to the Temple; they were, and their devotion is expressed in the sombre, mournful tone of many preciously joyous Jewish holy days, like Yom Kippur).

 

[Strong in Him]

I don't completely agree with the "sadly"...
By and large I see the various denominations as an inevitable consequence of us mortals coming to grips with God and His Word. The existence of denominations is one of the things that convinced me that the Gospel is true.

I reckon that proto-denominationalism is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:

"I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you."
​

I'm not saying that some denominations are wrong and others right. But that divisions exist so that the truth can be relieved though evidence. Notice that Paul says there must be factions. Not that there are factions, and we have to deal with them, but that factions must exist: Denominations are part of God's plan. One could argue that I'm reading too much into this, but the fact that denominations exist might weigh on my side.

It is sad, however, in the way that denominations sometimes interact. I'm London born with Irish blood, so I know first-hand what denominational conflict can look like when both sides forget that it's supposed to be about God and His Christ, and not about planting bombs.

I am encouraged by more recent trends for Christians of all denominations to look around to see what might be approved by God in eachother's tradition. Which is one of the reasons why I identify as a post-evangelical.

You may have a point.
In one way, many denominations reflects the great diversity of worship that we offer to God. But in another, they testify to differences within the church and point to disharmony in the body of Christ, which is not how it should be at all.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Whatever word is used, in some ways some of Lewis's writings are similar to Bunyan's; and Milton's Comus, Lycidas, etc. also have strongly allegorical elements, whether or not one chooses to look at them from such an angle.

I disagree that Narnia is either allegory or supposition. It is in CS Lewis own words, a mere fairy tale. He enjoyed reading and writing fairy tales. His Space Trilogy is also quite good.

Rather, I would call The Great Divorce an example of supposition on his part. And I would call Til We Have Faces: A Myth Retold, allegory.

Lewis saw allegory as: "allegory is a work in which immaterial realities are represented by imaginary physical objects. For example, the immaterial faculty of Reason may be allegorically represented by someone we call Lady Reason. This Lady – because Reason is clear, undefiled, swift, cold, hard, and sharp like a sword – we could picture as a “sun-bright virgin clad in complete steel,” riding on a horse “with a sword naked in her hand"

None if those works of Lewis fulfills this criteria. Pilgrim's Regress is allegory. Till we have faces is mythology as the subtitle informs us.

People don't know what allegory means anymore, it seems.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Lewis saw allegory as: "allegory is a work in which immaterial realities are represented by imaginary physical objects. For example, the immaterial faculty of Reason may be allegorically represented by someone we call Lady Reason. This Lady – because Reason is clear, undefiled, swift, cold, hard, and sharp like a sword – we could picture as a “sun-bright virgin clad in complete steel,” riding on a horse “with a sword naked in her hand"

None if those works fulfills this criteria. Pilgrim's Regress is allegory. Till we have faces is mythology as the subtitle informs us.

People don't know what allegory means anymore, it seems.

I don't agree with the supposed aptness of the title Pilgrim's Progress as Pilgrim's Regress: numerous Biblically minded Christians have indeed identified with the experience of Pilgrim: 'Thus far I came, laden with my sin... blest Cross, blest sepluchre, blest rather be the Man who there was put to shame for me'.

But I'm happy to be regarded as ignorant in the general, common sense use of the word 'allegory'.

 

[faroukfarouk]

You may have a point.
In one way, many denominations reflects the great diversity of worship that we offer to God. But in another, they testify to differences within the church and point to disharmony in the body of Christ, which is not how it should be at all.

In the end it's adherence to Biblical truth rather than the appearance of corporate 'unity' that really counts.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Precisely. Whereas on the other hand, the Sadducees were simply lukewarm or irreligious; to them, religion consisted purely of the rituals of the Temple (which they dominated; I am sure fhere were Pharisees among the priests, and Sadducees in the synagoges, but ai get the impression that on the whole, the Temple was very much the domain of the Sadducees, and the Synagogues, of the Pharisees, which is not to say the Pharisees were not absolutely devoted to the Temple; they were, and their devotion is expressed in the sombre, mournful tone of many preciously joyous Jewish holy days, like Yom Kippur).

As far as I know the Sadducees were comprised entirely of the aristocratic priestly families. A major cause of strife going back several centuries involved--following the Maccabean war for independence--was the power which the priests held. During the Hasmonean period the office of king and high priest were held by the same individual. This only came to an end with the Roman conquests which continued to grant the high priest importance, gave the throne to Antipater the Idumean, the father of Herod the Great. Thus the high priesthood, the Sadducees in general, were far more content with their Roman occupiers and lived a far more comfortable life. The Pharisees, on the other hand, were far more grounded in the life of the common people, and while the Temple was important because it was the Temple, the Pharisees and the Sadducees were both theological and political opponents.

For the Sadducees, Jewish religion centered entirely around the Temple, only the Torah being accepted. The Pharisees however accepted the writings of the Prophets, and the traditions of the elders, their Judaism was the common man's Judaism, in the markets, in the home, and in the synagogue.

-CryptoLutheran