Question on CS Lewis

[Strong in Him]

The OP has expressed, in the past here at CF, that she thinks that people that wear black are witches.

Seriously??
On what evidence?

 

[dms1972]

but it must be understood his context was high church Anglicanism.

Even though he said he wasn't especially high, or especially low?

 

[dms1972]

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.

You are quite wrong to say that Lewis is doing that.

Otherwise you have opened up some good discussion in some points. The Narnia books are not intended to be a close Bible parallel - It is an imaginary world that has a Good Ruler and his son - the Lion Aslan who out of love gives himself to save one of the children from the Witch. Its a beautiful depiction of Grace and forgiveness.

For sure the Pilgrims Progress is closer to the Bible. But you are thinking far too much into it - looking for deception where none was intended - I sympathise because with some of his books I struggled with at first with doubts at times. And some of these sites you look up haven't helped you.

But why spend so much time debating about CS Lewis, when no one is telling you you must read him?

 

[jargew]

C.S Lewis authored many works beyond Lion Witch Wardrobe.
For example, Mere Christianity is considered one of the greatest works of Theology of the 20th century. It is one of the first, if not the first book of Chrisitan Apologetics, to define Christianity as a very rational belief based on the world around us.
In my opinion, Mere Christianity is a remarkable book, truly inspired by the Holy Spirit. Timothy Keller's A reason for God is likewise exceptional.

Regarding witches, I recently told my kids a story about Hansel and Gretel that included a witch and I'm a Christian.
I once made up a bedtime story for my kids where they chased a witch and trapped her in a giant pumpkin until the police came. Yes, I was, and still am, a Christian.

The Bible talks about pride, greed lust and anger as being infinitely more likely to control of hearts and minds than a witch story.

 

[Goodbook]

Is it the greatest work of the 20th century?
I read it and couldn't make much sense of it. It seemed to have a select audience (British people of a certain era) and kinda was more his ideas than an actual testimony, which I tend to think is worth a lot more than someones opinions trying to explain what christianity is.

Although I was talking to a friend about CS Lewis and she hadn't read much of his work either. She said maybe he was a pre-evangelist. So he didn't exactly expound the gospel but maybe just planted seeds.

I still don't really like Narnia though and think it was more fairy tale or mythology than allegory. John Bunyans Pilgrims Progress was clearly allegory.

I wouldn't say fairy tales are christian and if they have witches in them, wether good or bad, not the point, Bible stories are actually better to tell children and the truth. I wish I had read bible stories as a child instead of fairy tales.

Saul visited the witch of endor, so clearly witches are real and not just fairy tale.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Miss Goodbook

I love Mere Christianity. It speaks from base principles, from a non Christian perspective to explain Christianity.
It isn't testimony, Lewis wrote other works like Surprised by Joy that are more in that category.
For many, they don't want testimony. CS Lewis' arguments work much better for those of us who don't really trust people or believe they are truthful. Others will find more worth in testimony. Lewis himself says that Mere Christianity is merely to bring someone into the hall of Christianity, but they then need to find their room, their Church. It is not a complete exposition of the faith.

Some prefer Lewis, others will prefer other writers. Luckily there are diverse writers for diverse people.

Children need to be taught Bible stories, but a diet of only Bible stories will leave them exposed when they reach the outside world and find all kinds of other ones out there. They need to be taught what is Truth and what is Fable and fairy tales are a good way to do this.

 

[Strong in Him]

Although I was talking to a friend about CS Lewis and she hadn't read much of his work either. She said maybe he was a pre-evangelist. So he didn't exactly expound the gospel but maybe just planted seeds.

If you and your friend haven't read many of his books, then you can't say whether, or not, he expounded the Gospel.

 

[Gideons300]

I was reading a site where someone was badly affected by the witchcraft shown in lion, witch and the wardrobe. I think christians should stay away from occult writing like that.

I have doubts about his profession thats all.

Also the King of Kings is the lamb of God, NOT the lion.

Making out God to be the devil is not only fiction, its an abomination.

Cs lewis word against the Word of God? Jesus triumphs.

Jesus is both the lamb of God AND the lion of the tribe of Judah. CS Lewis was indeed a believer, and simply used story telling to allow many who would never have heard the gospel to understand exactly what happened and what amazing love God has for us.

His writings are not doctrinal but Christian entertainment. Oftentimes, we can read our bibles again and again and from our mindset, we see nothing new, so we glaze over amazing truths. But when the same basic premise is presented differently, it often strikes a chord and a new appreciation for the gospel, especially in seekers, is found.

The screw tape letters is an amazing insight into how the enemy works, and how he often gains advantage of us due to our remaining ignorant of his devices. Once we understand the methods Satan uses, we can recognize them as his work and as they say "Forewarned is forearmed."

Lewis's writings are fictional analogies of true stories. We watch gobs of tv shows and movies and let our brains be filled with all sorts of garbage we would be ashamed to be seen watching when Jesus returns. Watching the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe does not mean we espouse witchcraft or magic. Yet even in the Bible, there are indeed witches and magic. But reading about them does not mean in any way we believe in them.

Enjoy Lewis, he is like a nice dessert after an awesome meal, but for true meat, the Bible has what we need to grow.

Blessings,

Gideon

 

[Extraneous]

Being clever cuts no ice with me..Im just not impressed by his writing and I think it can lead others astray if they dont know their Bible.

I don't read Mr Lewis either, don't feel bad, but you wont find much support for your distrust of Mr Lewis. Just give me a bible, some fallible but still helpful commentaries, and let that me good enough for me

 

[Strong in Him]

Jesus is both the lamb of God AND the lion of the tribe of Judah. CS Lewis was indeed a believer, and simply used story telling to allow many who would never have heard the gospel to understand exactly what happened and what amazing love God has for us.

His writings are not doctrinal but Christian entertainment. Oftentimes, we can read our bibles again and again and from our mindset, we see nothing new, so we glaze over amazing truths. But when the same basic premise is presented differently, it often strikes a chord and a new appreciation for the gospel, especially in seekers, is found.

The screw tape letters is an amazing insight into how the enemy works, and how he often gains advantage of us due to our remaining ignorant of his devices. Once we understand the methods Satan uses, we can recognize them as his work and as they say "Forewarned is forearmed."

Lewis's writings are fictional analogies of true stories. We watch gobs of tv shows and movies and let our brains be filled with all sorts of garbage we would be ashamed to be seen watching when Jesus returns. Watching the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe does not mean we espouse witchcraft or magic. Yet even in the Bible, there are indeed witches and magic. But reading about them does not mean in any way we believe in them.

Enjoy Lewis, he is like a nice dessert after an awesome meal, but for true meat, the Bible has what we need to grow.

Blessings,

Gideon

Mostly agree, but he did write non fiction as well; Christian books.

 

[greenguzzi]

Is it the greatest work of the 20th century?
I read it and couldn't make much sense of it. It seemed to have a select audience (British people of a certain era) and kinda was more his ideas than an actual testimony, which I tend to think is worth a lot more than someones opinions trying to explain what christianity is.

Although I was talking to a friend about CS Lewis and she hadn't read much of his work either. She said maybe he was a pre-evangelist. So he didn't exactly expound the gospel but maybe just planted seeds.

I still don't really like Narnia though and think it was more fairy tale or mythology than allegory. John Bunyans Pilgrims Progress was clearly allegory.

I wouldn't say fairy tales are christian and if they have witches in them, wether good or bad, not the point, Bible stories are actually better to tell children and the truth. I wish I had read bible stories as a child instead of fairy tales.

Saul visited the witch of endor, so clearly witches are real and not just fairy tale.

No, it's not the greatest work of the 20th century. Because that would be either "Animal Farm", "Nineteen Eighty-Four", "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", or possibly "Catch-22".

Since when did a book become inaccessible just because it was written for a different audience? That's ridiculous!
Every single book of the Bible was first written for a select audience, and an audience profoundly different from us westerners. The difference between a woman in NZ and the original audience of to the book of Job (for example) is massive compared to the difference between a 20th c. Pommy and a 21st c. Aussie. If you can understand the Bible, then you can understand (and maybe even enjoy) Lewis.

Exposition and testimony are two quite different things. One cannot place one above the other in merit. They exist together in harmony..

If you are the Bible aficionado that you appear to be, then you would be very familiar with hermeneutics. Well guess what?: Hermeneutics can be applied to the writings of C S Lewis just as easily as it can be applied to the Bible. Try it, I'm pretty sure that it will give you an appreciation of Lewis's work, or at least an understanding of why some Christians love his work.
(I'm certain that you understand hermeneutics; if someone as cloistered as you present to be didn't, then they would be incapable of understanding the Bible.)

Personally I find much of Lewis's theology questionable. But that doesn't mean I reject his work. To me he is a thought-provoker and a great Christian philosopher. He is often wrong, but he always moves the conversation towards God and Christ; that's a very good conversation to have.

There is more to a life in Christ than a life in the Bible. Our God is a God of the here-and-now. And our God's influence includes wonderful - but flawed - novels written by imperfect mortals of faith. Many "fairy tales" have just as much truth as Bible stories, it's all about choosing the right tales.

As far as telling children the truth, I personally reckon that properly introducing one's children to good literature like Narnia is far superior to introducing one's children to (say) Father Christmas or the Easter Bunny. I'd offer the story of Narnia to my kids in a flash, but never the story of Santa.

One more thing, the woman that Saul consulted at Endor wasn't a witch. Which is good news for you, because if she was, then the Bible has witches in it; so by your logic it should also be avoided.

When the Bible talks about a witch it uses the Hebrew kashaph which translated via the Septuagint becomes pharmakeia, which is where we get the English word "pharmaceutical".
So your Biblical "witch" becomes either a poisoner or maybe a drug dealer. Which has nothing whatsoever to do do with fictional "witches" of literature, or modern practitioners of Wicca.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

No, it's not the greatest work of the 20th century. Because that would be either "Animal Farm", "Nineteen Eighty-Four", "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", or possibly "Catch-22".

Since when did a book become inaccessible just because it was written for a different audience? That's ridiculous!
Every single book of the Bible was first written for a select audience, and an audience profoundly different from us westerners. The difference between a woman in NZ and the original audience of to the book of Job (for example) is massive compared to the difference between a 20th c. Pommy and a 21st c. Aussie. If you can understand the Bible, then you can understand (and maybe even enjoy) Lewis.

Exposition and testimony are two quite different things. One cannot place one above the other in merit. They exist together in harmony..

If you are the Bible aficionado that you appear to be, then you would be very familiar with hermeneutics. Well guess what?: Hermeneutics can be applied to the writings of C S Lewis just as easily as it can be applied to the Bible. Try it, I'm pretty sure that it will give you an appreciation of Lewis's work, or at least an understanding of why some Christians love his work.
(I'm certain that you understand hermeneutics; if someone as cloistered as you present to be didn't, then they would be incapable of understanding the Bible.)

Personally I find much of Lewis's theology questionable. But that doesn't mean I reject his work. To me he is a thought-provoker and a great Christian philosopher. He is often wrong, but he always moves the conversation towards God and Christ; that's a very good conversation to have.

There is more to a life in Christ than a life in the Bible. Our God is a God of the here-and-now. And our God's influence includes wonderful - but flawed - novels written by imperfect mortals of faith. Many "fairy tales" have just as much truth as Bible stories, it's all about choosing the right tales.

As far as telling children the truth, I personally reckon that properly introducing one's children to good literature like Narnia is far superior to introducing one's children to (say) Father Christmas or the Easter Bunny. I'd offer the story of Narnia to my kids in a flash, but never the story of Santa.

One more thing, the woman that Saul consulted at Endor wasn't a witch. Which is good news for you, because if she was, then the Bible has witches in it; so by your logic it should also be avoided.

When the Bible talks about a witch it uses the Hebrew kashaph which translated via the Septuagint becomes pharmakeia, which is where we get the English word "pharmaceutical".
So your Biblical "witch" becomes either a poisoner or maybe a drug dealer. Which has nothing whatsoever to do do with fictional "witches" of literature, or modern practitioners of Wicca.

Actually Pharmakeia is closer to 'what must be avoided' referring to the Pharmakos, an unfortunate ejected from certain Greek cities as a propiatary rite. This was associated with sickness, hence medicine, hence Pharmacy. The Hebrew for the Witch of Endor translates to woman with a familiar spirit or perhaps ventriloquist in certain literal readings. Either way, not witch as you pointed out.

 

[Extraneous]

If you can understand the Bible, then you can understand (and maybe even enjoy) Lewis.

The denominations are divided over what Scripture means, so i'm having a hard time understanding your assertion.

 

[greenguzzi]

Actually Pharmakeia is closer to 'what must be avoided' referring to the Pharmakos, an unfortunate ejected from certain Greek cities as a propiatary rite. This was associated with sickness, hence medicine, hence Pharmacy. The Hebrew for the Witch of Endor translates to woman with a familiar spirit or perhaps ventriloquist in certain literal readings. Either way, not witch as you pointed out.

I agree, but these things adds an irrelevant dimension to my argument. Sometimes the devil isn't in the detail. However I like your work.

 

[greenguzzi]

The denominations are divided over what Scripture means, so i'm having a hard time understanding your assertion.

No, you are not having any difficulty understanding at all. You are just making a point that is irrelevant to the issue at hand. For what it's worth, I agree with you. But sometimes a silent nod is more helpful.

 

[nomadictheist]

No, jesus isnt the lion of Judah.
He is the lamb, thats why people constantly get it wrong due to CS lewis influence.

Jesus isn't the lion of Judah? Do you even know what the Lion of Judah references?

So I wept much, because no one was found worthy to open and read the scroll, or to look at it. 5 But one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals.”

6 And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 Then He came and took the scroll out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne.

8 Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10 And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth.”

11 Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice:

“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain
To receive power and riches and wisdom,
And strength and honor and glory and blessing!”

13 And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying:

“Blessing and honor and glory and power
Be to Him who sits on the throne,
And to the Lamb, forever and ever!”

14 Then the four living creatures said, “Amen!” And the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped Him who lives forever and ever.

If you don't think that's Jesus, it certainly explains a lot about your theology.

 

[greenguzzi]

Jesus isn't the lion of Judah? Do you even know what the Lion of Judah references?

Please don't.

 

[RDKirk]

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).

It's not salvationally necessary, but it is intensely historically interesting to see what the actions and statements of Jesus and the apostles (in Acts) look like when we lay them upon the political (and religious-political) and moral situation of the day.

A little thing, for instance: My wife pointed out recently that Mary spent a large portion of her pregnancy away from home with Elizabeth--who would have been sympathetic with Mary's incredible virgin pregnancy because she was carrying a miracle baby of her own. The folks at Mary's own home...maybe not so much.

 

[RDKirk]

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

Theologically, the Pharisees were essentially more "progressive" than the Sadducees...which is not the way Christians tend to picture them.

 

[faroukfarouk]

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.

Did you find it easy to get into C S Lewis? I myself found it hard.