Question on CS Lewis

[Goodbook]

I totally understand Pilgrims Progress which is brilliant but I have doubts about cs lewis. i dont think his work is particularly christian and esp the narnia tales as being fairy tale. He took elements from the bible but then made it into his own supposition, which were, as it turns out, wrong. That people are decieved by that is interesting as they wil, say oh its metaphor but if you look closely and really read the bible his metaphor is actually making out the beast to be God, which is a lie.

 

[Goodbook]

I also think, people who are intellectuals have a hard time grasping spiritual matters so they do turn to myths.

Which is absolutely hilarious.

 

[Look Up]

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.

The above clarifies my previous confusion and doubt (cf. my post #63 above) wrt Lewis's 1958 letter to Mrs. Hook, cited above on this thread by ViaCrucis--so thank you. You seem thus to bemoan my ignorance of the definition of allegory too, though my understanding has conformed to the definitions of which I have been aware hitherto, such as "a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral [or religious] or political one." But whether the definition has changed over time (Lewis was a classically educated scholar of medieval literature) or if Lewis preferred a narrow or classical understanding ("Lewis saw allegory as:") or whether preferred British and American (or common v. academic) definitions differ (though that probably oversimplifies) is more than I know. Tolkien's criticism of the Narnia series as allegory might (for all I know) suggest either some variance in definition or difference of opinion as to what is being implied in the Narnia stories (how does one separate material and immaterial realities of the Incarnate Son of God?).

 

[faroukfarouk]

I totally understand Pilgrims Progress which is brilliant but I have doubts about cs lewis. i dont think his work is particularly christian and esp the narnia tales as being fairy tale. He took elements from the bible but then made it into his own supposition, which were, as it turns out, wrong. That people are decieved by that is interesting as they wil, say oh its metaphor but if you look closely and really read the bible his metaphor is actually making out the beast to be God, which is a lie.

I myself do prefer Pilgrim's Progress to C S Lewis.

 

[JCFantasy23]

If he was misguided I have nothing against him personally as he's no longer here, but, I really think that if people read their Bibles they would find much of what he said and wrote is actually unbiblical.

The Chronicles of Narnia series was a fantasy fiction series - obviously much allegories and metaphors with Christianity, but still meant to be entertainment value. It doesn't mislead and shouldn't be read as bible based study. And yes, Jesus was the Lion and the Lamb in the bible, I'm not seeing that as unbiblical.

I loved his Mere Christianity as well- need to re-read it. My friend bought me a collection of his writing in one books, The Essential C.S. Lewis, for my birthday this year. After my fiancé was killed two years ago, I bought and read his book on grief as a type of solace, and it was clear that book was a diary of his own pain at the passing of his wife, stark and honest.

Based on how you're seeing him, he's likely not a writer you should explore more of, but I certainly don't see him as dangerous to other's faith, especially over a series he wrote as high fantasy fiction.

 

[Widlast]

I also think, people who are intellectuals have a hard time grasping spiritual matters so they do turn to myths.

Which is absolutely hilarious.

The exact opposite is the truth. It is the anti-intellectual crowd that neither understands the physical nor the spiritual, and tend to have an equally faulty understanding of both.

 

[topcare]

The exact opposite is the truth. It is the anti-intellectual crowd that neither understands the physical nor the spiritual, and tend to have an equally faulty understanding of both.

Exactly and give authentic Christianity a bad name.

 

[Anguspure]

What do other people think?

CS Lewis held the chair of Mediaeval and Renaissance Literature at Magdalene College, Cambridge, and thus his fictional writing was heavily influenced by the Northern European stuff of this era. He was also a friend of J.R.R Tolkien.

I think the way he used the sort of imagery you are worried about as an allegorical tool for the spreading of the gospel was and is very engaging and effective. Nobody is suggesting that his writings are scripture and any flaws that might be found, either theologically or otherwise, only prove the humanity of the author. I've never liked his justification for killing in war, for example, and I remember being a bit shocked when I read it from my favourite author.

I remember reading something in one of his books that toyed with the suggestion that the old spirits may have been more neutral (in respect of Christ Jesus) in the past, and that as history comes to a head things are becoming more polarised. He was referring in this way to his use of ancient pagan imagery and characters in his writing. But whether we agree with this or not it is very clear that God used him very effectively in the spreading of the gospel to the world.

 

[dms1972]

Anglicanism seems to produce the best thinkers, my daughter is one of them. But she is yet to become famous.

I have been enriched intellectually by several anglican writers, I don't think Lewis deliberately set out to convert people to any particular denomination, just to invite them into a hallway with doors off and that the chairs by the firesides, and the conversations were in those rooms. To my mind he never pushed his Anglican spirituality / theology. But every tradition has writters that present that tradition's spirituality and theology in a manner to explain it to outsiders, and also to invite people in.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I totally understand Pilgrims Progress which is brilliant but I have doubts about cs lewis. i dont think his work is particularly christian and esp the narnia tales as being fairy tale. He took elements from the bible but then made it into his own supposition, which were, as it turns out, wrong. That people are decieved by that is interesting as they wil, say oh its metaphor but if you look closely and really read the bible his metaphor is actually making out the beast to be God, which is a lie.

I myself do prefer Pilgrim's Progress to C S Lewis.

Goodbook, please read the posts above. There is nothing Unchristian about CS Lewis. You simply do not like his writing style and descriptive methods. That is your right, but that does not make him dangerous or unchristian, quite the opposite in my opinion.

I prefer Lewis to Bunyan, but they are not in competition. Both would be equally happy if people found God in the others work as well.
(Probably Lewis would have preferred Bunyan to his own work as well, but I have never seen a quote to this effect. He did prefer George Macdonald though)

As to myths, there is much material that would be equally at home in mythology in the Bible. Just because you do not understand another's viewpoint is no reason to denigrate it.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Goodbook, please read the posts above. There is nothing Unchristian about CS Lewis. You simply do not like his writing style and descriptive methods. That is your right, but that does not make him dangerous or unchristian, quite the opposite in my opinion.

I prefer Lewis to Bunyan, but they are not in competition. Both would be equally happy if people found God in the others work as well.
(Probably Lewis would have preferred Bunyan to his own work as well, but I have never seen a quote to this effect. He did prefer George Macdonald though)

As to myths, there is much material that would be equally at home in mythology in the Bible. Just because you do not understand another's viewpoint is no reason to denigrate it.

I would not dismiss the Bible as myth; and I prefer to speak of Bunyan's great work by its title rather than by what you referred to it as.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I would not dismiss the Bible as myth; and I prefer to speak of Bunyan's great work by its title rather than by what you referred to it as.

I did not dismiss the Bible as myth. Please read my post again.

I apologise if I offended you regarding the Pilgrim's Progress, but I would then ask that you mention which works of Lewis you reference as just saying you prefer it to Lewis is very vague.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I did not dismiss the Bible as myth. Please read my post again.

I apologise if I offended you regarding the Pilgrim's Progress, but I would then ask that you mention which works of Lewis you reference as just saying you prefer it to Lewis is very vague.

I don't take to the Screwtape Letters; and the allegorical (or whatever word is better) fiction does not appeal to me in the way Bunyan's work does.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I don't take to the Screwtape Letters; and the allegorical (or whatever word is better) fiction does not appeal to me in the way Bunyan's work does.

I agree. I am also not such a fan of Narnia or the Screwtape letters.

I do love Till we have faces, most of his Apologetic works and Mere Christianity is one of my favourite books. But as I said before, Lewis isn't for everyone.

I have never tried to rank them against the Pilgrim's Progress though, as I don't think they are in the same genre.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I agree. I am also not such a fan of Narnia or the Screwtape letters.

I do love Till we have faces, most of his Apologetic works and Mere Christianity is one of my favourite books. But as I said before, Lewis isn't for everyone.

I have never tried to rank them against the Pilgrim's Progress though, as I don't think they are in the same genre.

This I probably would agree with all that you have said.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

If he was misguided I have nothing against him personally as he's no longer here, but, I really think that if people read their Bibles they would find much of what he said and wrote is actually unbiblical.

In light of the fact that the Lion of Judah reference went completely over your head, i would say young(?) lady that you need to read your bible a bit before falsely accusing one of the bretheren (i'm willing to be merciful about that because you appear to have done it in ignorance). Just remember, not understanding what somebody writes is not the same as that person's writings being evil, or heretical.

Incidentally, although he is often called a theologian, Lewis had no theological training. He was a professor of English Literature at Cambridge (1954) after being an Oxford Don for many years. He was a communing member of the Church of England and a layman. He merely read his bible.

Lewis wrote a good deal of fiction. It was never intended to be taken as literal, or even as perfect analogies. In fact, even the parables of Jesus in the New Testament gospels can be made to say something different than their obvious meaning if too literal an interpretation is forced upon them.

 

[Strong in Him]

I totally understand Pilgrims Progress which is brilliant but I have doubts about cs lewis. i dont think his work is particularly christian and esp the narnia tales as being fairy tale. He took elements from the bible but then made it into his own supposition, which were, as it turns out, wrong. That people are decieved by that is interesting as they wil, say oh its metaphor but if you look closely and really read the bible his metaphor is actually making out the beast to be God, which is a lie.

Not liking C S Lewis' books or his style of writing is one thing - and it is ok.
Accusing him of "making out the beast to be God" is not true and not ok. Where exactly has he done this; where does he rank God equal with the devil?

 

[ScottA]

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 are two reasons why he wrote as he did:

1. Because it casts a wider net than limiting things to the Christian-only community.
2. Because there is indeed a world within that can and should be discovered.

Fear not.

 

[dms1972]

I remember reading something in one of his books that toyed with the suggestion that the old spirits may have been more neutral (in respect of Christ Jesus) in the past, and that as history comes to a head things are becoming more polarised. He was referring in this way to his use of ancient pagan imagery and characters in his writing. But whether we agree with this or not it is very clear that God used him very effectively in the spreading of the gospel to the world.

Yes, it was in That Hideous Strength, when Ransom forbids Merlin from using a kind of natural magic to make nature work against their enemies at Belbury. Dimble then talks about it to his wife - explaining the polarisaton - . I hadn't thought of it quite in the context of CS Lewis and his use of mythological characters (rather than pagan imagery) but Michael O Brien who is a big admirer of Tolkien, and Lewis, does caution that better explication may be needed today than when Lewis first wrote, so that readers may not misunderstand him.

Part of that is making clear that it's not allegory and explaining what allegory is, and what a suppositional story is. What isn't helpful are articles spreading fear and suspicion of CS Lewis, instead of teaching as I said, things like what myth meant to Lewis, what allegory is, the way fairy tales can serve to convey difficult notions. Generally it is easier however to discern wrong concepts, than it is to discern wrong use of imagery.

But when the task gets approached from a position of fearfulness and suspicion, one sets off on the wrong foot.

 

[seashale76]

The OP has expressed, in the past here at CF, that she thinks that people that wear black are witches. So, it isn't a leap to believe that she would think that any book that mentioned a witch was the embodiment of evil, and it's author a heathen. Do not waste your time with this, folks.