Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Spot on, I agree. It's not an issue, it's an advantage.This clearly shows his ecumenical views. I don't understand why his personal allegiance to Anglicanism is in any way a issue here.
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?'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.
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.
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.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.
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).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.
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).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 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.
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.
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.
Actually, He didn't even say that. Rather, He commanded, "Do as they say, not as they do."
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.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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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'.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.
In the end it's adherence to Biblical truth rather than the appearance of corporate 'unity' that really counts.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.
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).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?