Question on CS Lewis

JCFantasy23 · Mar 30, 2016

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

Do you mean his Chronicles of Narnia series, or his non-fiction books? With the Chronicles of Narnia I recommend always starting with the order in which it was written and published - the American publishers renumbered it to be chronicle order. Chronicle order is harder to get into as it's rather boring in comparison since it starts with one of the weaker books.

For his non-fiction, I found Mere Christianity easy to get into. A Grief Observed was difficult as it was more of poetic jottings and not always as easy to follow, but I don't think grief is meant to be.

faroukfarouk · Mar 30, 2016

JCFantasy23 said:
Do you mean his Chronicles of Narnia series, or his non-fiction books? With the Chronicles of Narnia I recommend always starting with the order in which it was written and published - the American publishers renumbered it to be chronicle order. Chronicle order is harder to get into as it's rather boring in comparison since it starts with one of the weaker books.

For his non-fiction, I found Mere Christianity easy to get into. A Grief Observed was difficult as it was more of poetic jottings and not always as easy to follow, but I don't think grief is meant to be.

Thanks for your impressions. I myself found both hard to get into, actually.

JCFantasy23 · Mar 30, 2016

faroukfarouk said:
Thanks for your impressions. I myself found both hard to get into, actually.

His writing style just may not be to your taste. It happens to me with some authors.

MournfulWatcher · Mar 30, 2016

I'm not going to beat a dead horse repeating what others have said, but I will say this...

Lewis originally was an atheist, who set out to prove Christianity was false. What he came to find out by using logic, however, was the it was quite true. Many of his books explain how a Christian can be much more successful in evangelizing by using logic and sound philosophy in order to prove the existence of God, Jesus, and the truth of the Bible. He explores this idea strongly in "The Screwtape Letters" which I have no doubt that you, OP, would likely view as heretical because it is written from the viewpoint of demons. While yes, it is true that that can cause SOME Christians problems, many Christian intellectuals have found it to be enlightening and highly valuable to their Christian walk. I, personally, was highly influenced by his book "The Great Divorce", which caused me, living in a Christian household all my life, to finally jump off the fence and believe in the existence and truth of Jesus. It taught me that Heaven is a real place, that there is so much that we can't understand on earth yet because of our human minds, and the complete reasonability in believing in Jesus Christ.

This is why most Christians adore C.S Lewis's writing; he didn't simply take scriptures and say, "Well, the Bible says this, so there!" he could examine scripture and prove it with reason and philosophy. That's the beauty of his writing; he proves that everything, especially logic, comes from God. Logic is one of the things that makes us human, and all humans came from God. God is logical; He doesn't just expect us to blindly follow him, He wants us to think and reason, because the truth of Jesus is reasonable and intelligent. Otherwise, how would so many people become Christians today, if the Gospel didn't make sense?

Lewis understood this perfectly, that's why he loved to use allegories and Christian themed writing. I suggest you try to look deeper into Christianity, look at what God has provided for us that makes us wonder, question, and seek Him.

actionsub · Mar 30, 2016

LaSorcia said:
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.

If you look into the history of the C of E, they could never quite decide whether they were Catholic or Protestant doctrinally...it depended on whether or not the King/Queen was friendly with the Pope at any given moment, so "English Catholic" is a pretty apt description!

actionsub · Mar 30, 2016

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

Not to mention he was a professor of classics and literature. If anyone could define "allegory" it would be CSL.

Anguspure · Mar 30, 2016

MournfulWatcher said:
What he came to find out by using logic, however, was the it was quite true.

This maybe true but what captured him and led to him being "perhaps the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England", was the Joy he described as something like a forward looking sense of nostalgia that he encountered in things that make us long for the fulfillment of the Kingdom of Heaven.

dms1972 · Mar 31, 2016

ok a few points, some already made by others to attempt to dispel some of the confusion.

The Narnia books are not the Historic Gospel, or even the Gospel in a children's story. They are simply a christian fairy tale, that is a fairy tale written by a christian. In many ways they may be pre-evangelistic and Lewis thought they might have that potential after writing them, and hearing peoples comments.

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe owes a lot to Edith Nesbit's short stories, particularly The Aunt and Amabel. In 1948 Lewis told a friend that he was thinking of writing a story in the tradition of E. Nesbit.

Secondly they're not strictly an allegory, unless one is just using that term very loosely. Allegory is difficult to define, and Lewis said it was one of those term that needs defining in each context where one uses it.

"Allegory in one way or another involves an equivalence of the material and immaterial; medievals started with immaterial fact - a passion or a sin - and sought a visible item to represent it; moderns, by contrast prefer symbols, which work in the other direction, directing the reader away from the 'copy' to a world that is 'more real'. Bruce Edwards

Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is an Allegory.

Lewis's Pilgrims Regress is also allegorical, and apology (defense) of Reason and Romanticism. Lewis admitted it had several flaws, was "needlessly obscure' in places - and he tried to amend those in later editions. It was his first book, and depicted his own intellectual journey - but he realised his path had been one few others had travelled.

[edit] I had thought Aslan could be described as a symbol of Christ, rather than allegorical, but neither of these I see now Lewis was prepared to use to explain Aslan's significance. He was neither symbolic, or allegorical, but simply suppositional. He doesn't exhibit every aspect of a biblical christology, but he reminds people of, and can serve to generate a longing for the Christian Story, which is a true story.

"To Tolkien and Lewis, tales such as the Narnian chronicles can, by their very nature, serve as pointers to the great theme of Christian Redemption. Moreover, they will establish in the hearts of the sensitive reader an appreciation of, and longing for, the Christian Story." John Warwick Montgomery

dms1972 · Mar 31, 2016

faroukfarouk said:
Thanks for your impressions. I myself found both hard to get into, actually.

i found most of the other narnia books after the Lion, the witch, and the wardrobe, harder to get into. LWW is the most fast paced of the stories which is part of its appeal. Eventually i read them all, but none of them gave me quite the same overall satisfaction as LWW, however the ones I found difficult did improve on re-reading I thought - I found that with the Magicians Nephew at least. Now I put any inability to fully enjoy them down to myself mainly - and ask myself if I could do any better (and obviously the answer is 'No'), then I begin to get more out of them again. Eac hof them have some great episodes, Jill's first meeting Aslan, King Caspian being raised to life in Aslan's Country. The Last Battle was the hardest to read, I just didn't continue with it several times. Then eventually I said ok I am going to finish it this time. Of course the subject matter is much more difficult, dark, and Aslan doesn't enter the fray like in the other stories, and their faith is really put to the test.

Strong in Him · Mar 31, 2016

dms1972 said:
i found most of the other narnia books after the lion, hard to get into. evntually i read them all, but none of them had quite the same appeal as LWW. The Last Battle was the hardest, i just didn't continue with it several times. Then eventually I said ok I am going to finish it this time. Of course the subject matter is much more difficult, dark, and Aslan doesn't enter the fray, and their faith is really put to the test.

Yes, I liked "the silver chair" and "the magicians nephew" was quite good, but the LWW was definitely the best. I don't think I ever read the horse and his boy. The Last battle is difficult - I think I read the beginning and then the last chapter.

radhead · Mar 31, 2016

CS Lewis might not have been "theologically trained" but that doesn't sound like a valid way for anyone to approach the Bible. If a church really believed in sola scriptura, then they would know that God would guide anyone who read the Bible, and guide them in whether to believe it literally, or as psychological metaphor.

Sola scriptura = Trusting in God
Seminar training = Don't worry about what the Bible says because we will tell you what you need to believe.

CS Lewis was still a Fundamentalist/Apologist even without seminar training. His popularity with evangelicals is proof of that. He might have called himself an "Anglican" but I don't think that was honest of him because they are a very liberal church. He believed in all the miraculous stories in the Bible, and all the supernatural claims in the Bible. I never really understood him or his own stories. How does a person create new supernatural stories in order to "symbolize" supernatural events in a traditional religious system? It's absurd to me.

Quid est Veritas? · Mar 31, 2016

radhead said:
CS Lewis might not have been "theologically trained" but that doesn't sound like a valid way for anyone to approach the Bible. If a church really believed in sola scriptura, then they would know that God would guide anyone who read the Bible, and guide them in whether to believe it literally, or as psychological metaphor.

Sola scriptura = Trusting in God
Seminar training = Don't worry about what the Bible says because we will tell you what you need to believe.

CS Lewis was still a Fundamentalist/Apologist even without seminar training. His popularity with evangelicals is proof of that. He might have called himself an "Anglican" but I don't think that was honest of him because they are a very liberal church. He believed in all the miraculous stories in the Bible, and all the supernatural claims in the Bible. I never really understood him or his own stories. How does a person create new supernatural stories in order to "symbolize" supernatural events in a traditional religious system? It's absurd to me.

He didn't really do that. It was a supposition in his mind and his Apologetic works are very Biblically based. Please read the above posts, it has been explained ad nauseam.

radhead · Mar 31, 2016

A much better Anglican author was Charles Dickens. His own story "A Christmas Carol" stands on par with any similar story in the Bible in my opinion. It's basically a dream which causes someone to become reborn spiritually. Scrooge is reborn as a result of his own mental processes.

Charles Dickens despised the evangelical type of Christianity that was growing in popularity in England. Which was really a reaction to modernism.

radhead · Mar 31, 2016

Quid est Veritas? said:
He didn't really do that. It was a supposition in his mind and his Apologetic works are very Biblically based. Please read the above posts, it has been explained ad nauseam.

I don't really care about what he tried to do. As I said, Dickens was a much better author who was very close to God in my opinion. He and Lewis had two very different messages, and I don't care what Lewis was trying to say because I don't respect him or his beliefs.

1. Dickens: Become a new person.
2. Lewis: Just have "faith"

Quid est Veritas? · Mar 31, 2016

radhead said:
I don't really care about what he tried to do. As I said, Dickens was a much better author who was very close to God in my opinion. He and Lewis had two very different messages, and I don't care what Lewis was trying to say because I don't respect him or his beliefs.

1. Dickens: Become a new person.
2. Lewis: Just have "faith"

Read Mere Christianity. He talks of becoming New Men. Your simplistic view is very inaccurate.
But yes, Dickens probably wrote better literature, but it is not a competition of Lewis vs. Anyone.

radhead · Mar 31, 2016

Quid est Veritas? said:
Read Mere Christianity. He talks of becoming New Men. Your simplistic view is very inaccurate.
But yes, Dickens probably wrote better literature, but it is not a competition of Lewis vs. Anyone.

There is a lack of God's spirit in anything I have read by Lewis, including Mere Christianity. Like so many Christian authors. So I don't really care to read (or re-read) anything he has read.

RDKirk · Mar 31, 2016

dms1972 said:
Thirdly they re not strictly an allegory, unless one is just using that term very loosely. Allegory is difficult to define, and Lewis said it was one of those term that needs defining in each context where one uses it.

"Allegory in one way or another involves an equivalence of the material and immaterial; medievals started with immaterial fact - a passion or a sin - and sought a visible item to represent it; moderns, by contrast prefer symbols, which work in the other direction, directing the reader away from the 'copy' to a world that is 'more real'. Bruce Edwards

Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress is an Allegory.

Lewis's Pilgrims Regress is also allegorical, and apology (defense) of Reason and Romanticism. Lewis admitted it had several flaws, was "needlessly obscure' in places - and he tried to amend in later editions. It was his first book, and depicted his own intellectual journey - but he realised his path had been one few others had travelled.

Aslan is a symbol for Christ. He doesn't exhibit every aspect of a biblical christology, but he reminds people of, and can serve as pointer to Christ.

"To Tolkien and Lewis, tales such a the Narnian chronicles can, by their very nature, serve as pointers to the great theme of Christian Redemption. Moreover, they will establish in the hearts of the sensitive reader an appreciation of, and longing for, the Christian Story." John Warwick Montgomery

I agree, but I'd say that as a "not-an-allegory," I don't think we can say that Aslan is even a "symbol for Christ." Rather, Aslan is a character of fiction who is written to exhibit some of the characteristics of Christ in a fictional setting that exhibits some of the characteristics of the world. In this way, it does present Christian concepts in a simplified, focused, and detached way that makes them more easily understood when we turn back to scripture.

For instance, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe presents the biblical paradox of Christ as both conquering lion and sacrificial lamb in a comprehensible manner: A lion undeniably powerful and conquering who for a particular reason allows himself to be shorn and slaughtered like a lamb, even though he could destroy any of his foes in a moment.

If this were an allegory, the story would have to track more closely to the entire scriptural narrative, but it's really intended to present certain concepts in a way that they can be examined from a different direction.

RDKirk · Mar 31, 2016

radhead said:
I don't really care about what he tried to do. As I said, Dickens was a much better author who was very close to God in my opinion. He and Lewis had two very different messages, and I don't care what Lewis was trying to say because I don't respect him or his beliefs.

1. Dickens: Become a new person.
2. Lewis: Just have "faith"

OTOH, the Dickens tale could have been told just the same way as a morality tale totally separate from any Christian concept. It works just as well--even better, actually--as a hedonistic explanation of why charity leads to greater personal pleasure than malevolence.

Quid est Veritas? · Mar 31, 2016

radhead said:
There is a lack of God's spirit in anything I have read by Lewis, including Mere Christianity. Like so many Christian authors. So I don't really care to read (or re-read) anything he has read.

To each his own. I however have found more of God in Mere Christianity than any work besides the Bible.

JCFantasy23 · Mar 31, 2016

Strong in Him said:
Yes, I liked "the silver chair" and "the magicians nephew" was quite good, but the LWW was definitely the best. I don't think I ever read the horse and his boy. The Last battle is difficult - I think I read the beginning and then the last chapter.

I actually loved the Last Battle, although I know some have issues with it. The Horse and His Boy was just okay, but that and Prince Caspian would have been tough for me to start with and be able to get into the series. I especially enjoyed Voyage of the Dawn Treader and books that focused on the four main children.

Question on CS Lewis

In a Kingdom by the Sea.

Fading curmudgeon

In a Kingdom by the Sea.

In the beginning was the Word.

Sir, this is a Wendy's...

Sir, this is a Wendy's...

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Great is thy faithfulness

Contributor

In Memoriam to CS Lewis

Contributor

Contributor

In Memoriam to CS Lewis

Contributor

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

In Memoriam to CS Lewis

In a Kingdom by the Sea.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency