Question on CS Lewis

[RDKirk]

To some extent, The Last Battle is more allegorical than the other stories of the series. But only to some extent. And it does present Lewis's inclusivist beliefs more directly than his other fictional works.

 

[dms1972]

Readers of a story tend to engage in allegoresis, reading allegories into the story. Lewis's replies to particular readers who had written to him about his books, may have been just attempting to help them with their allegoresis, putting some boundaries on it.

Tolkien disliked Allegory. People thought that Sauron's ring in the Lord of the Rings was a reference to the atomic bomb, but it could be shown that Tolkien did not know of the atomic bomb when he started writing. If people would just read it and take it as the story that it is, then they would be more likely to understand it.

 

[dms1972]

The Last battle is difficult - I think I read the beginning and then the last chapter.

You're missing so much!

I did the same a few times before I sat down and read it right through.

But it is a tough read in several chapters.

 

[dms1972]

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.

Thanks for that insight I had been struggling to see both the Lion and Lamb imagery in that book. That Aslan is also the Lamb is made more clear in Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

Again I agree with you not strictly symbolic either, yet in certain phases of the story could it be said that Aslan takes on a symbolic character, but not throughout the whole narrative. I think though rather than representing something from within ourselves as an allegory often does, symbol is a safer way to interpret what Lewis is doing as the direction is away from the 'copy'. But I don't think Aslan exhaustively symbolises Jesus Christ even taking in the whole series of books. And also I'd say if the stories do have symbolic value and lead someone to study the Gospel's which will then correct any misunderstanding there is, it's because the Holy Spirit is at work, or that some is reading them prayerfully.

But of themselves they are just a sort of fairy-story, that in themselves may be quite edifying in some respects for some readers depending on taste, and to me seem to fall into the area of freedom of the believer to cultivate their own convictions about whether to read or not. But in their support they are not encouraging kids to dabble in dirt, as to be honest Harry Potter novels tend to.

 

[Goodbook]

hmm I just read the wiki on C.S. Lewis to make sense of why he wrote Narnia and its seems he DID dabble in the occult, hence references to witches etc.

Although it does say on the wiki that C.S. Lewis himself said it was NOT allegory, as some people are trying to say it is on here.

Another interesting thing is that he wrote 'Pilgrims Regress' which presumably is about backsliding. It wasn't popular, obviously.

Also it does mention someone did criticise his theology and he did apologise on it and then wrote testimony 'surprised by joy' which was more effective than theology in sharing the gospel, rather than rationalising christianity as a belief thats reasonable for intellectuals, he would write about how faith changed him.

Also, that he was anglican (or church of ireland) so, no wonder some of his beliefs seem a bit strange. They weren't obviously evangelical, and tending toward catholicsim. So ecunemical. These would be religious beliefs rather than transforming of the gospel - belief in Jesus as Lord.

 

[Goodbook]

In my own experience of reading Narnia or seeing it (think it was a miniseries) as a child, I thought it was more mythology than gospel, like aseops fables.
Of course aesops fables can teach things like virtue and vice and morality, but they are not especially christian either. I don't see the lion as a symbol of Jesus, and if it was it would have gone completely over the heads of children, especially those who werent brought up as christians. Although I have heard those who are catholic can easily relate to this story, not sure why, maybe its the symbolism inherent in that religion, like this object means something else etc.

the lion, aslan seems more like the aesop fable lion who gets rescued by a mouse, thats what it reminded me of.

 

[Goodbook]

I also think that, people do read more things into Narnia than intended. for example, CS Lewis contemporary Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings, which was also occult based as the main characters are wizards. one of the wizards, gandalf, in the story, supposedly dies and then comes back to life again. But I doubt whether Tolkien intended a wizard to be a symbol of Christ. Especially when, in the Bible, witchcraft is not looked upon favourably by God! And is still not, today.

 

[dms1972]

CS Lewis was still a Fundamentalist/Apologist even without seminar training. His popularity with evangelicals is proof of that.

I think the difference is that Lewis moved towards a view of the Bible as inerrant - rather than beginning from inerrancy - He didn't begin with errancy either. But he clearly believed problems could be resolved without calling into question the reliablity of Scripture. His approach allowed him to distinguish the different types of literature in the Bible - rather than beginning with a view of total historicity of all narratives - which would mean Jesus' parables must also be taken as talking about historical events in a literal way - a quite ridiculous view. Strict Fundamentalist's don't see the problem with their position, and they never adhere to it anyway. Lewis' approach to scripture was correct in my view, and not Fundamentalist.

He said he was an Anglican because simply that was the church he belonged to. Parts of it are more liberal now than during Lewis's lifetime.

 

[dms1972]

hmm I just read the wiki on C.S. Lewis to make sense of why he wrote Narnia and its seems he DID dabble in the occult, hence references to witches etc.

So could he not just have heard of witches from say fairy-stories like most people who have never dabbled in the occult yet would know what you meant if you talked about a witch?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

hmm I just read the wiki on C.S. Lewis to make sense of why he wrote Narnia and its seems he DID dabble in the occult, hence references to witches etc.

Although it does say on the wiki that C.S. Lewis himself said it was NOT allegory, as some people are trying to say it is on here.

Another interesting thing is that he wrote 'Pilgrims Regress' which presumably is about backsliding. It wasn't popular, obviously.

Also it does mention someone did criticise his theology and he did apologise on it and then wrote testimony 'surprised by joy' which was more effective than theology in sharing the gospel, rather than rationalising christianity as a belief thats reasonable for intellectuals, he would write about how faith changed him.

Also, that he was anglican (or church of ireland) so, no wonder some of his beliefs seem a bit strange. They weren't obviously evangelical, and tending toward catholicsim. So ecunemical. These would be religious beliefs rather than transforming of the gospel - belief in Jesus as Lord.

Miss Goodbook

You are wrong. He was interested in Paganism yes, he loved norse mythology. That is not the same as the occult.

You have consistently refused to acknowledge what many well meaning people have told you. Please do not continue on this path, you are merely showing yourself willfully ignorant and refusing to be enlightened.
CS Lewis was a great man and sincere Christian, you would do well to judge a man on his fruits, not your own opinions. He has helped many to God, including myself.

 

[Widlast]

I also think that, people do read more things into Narnia than intended. for example, CS Lewis contemporary Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings, which was also occult based as the main characters are wizards. one of the wizards, gandalf, in the story, supposedly dies and then comes back to life again. But I doubt whether Tolkien intended a wizard to be a symbol of Christ. Especially when, in the Bible, witchcraft is not looked upon favourably by God! And is still not, today.

The term "witch" does not exist in the literal text of the Bible, "witch" is a bad translation.

Your understanding of the subject matter is far too simplistic. You must clear your mind of all your ill conceived biases before you study a subject. I don't mean to be rude, but your comments reflect your ignorance.

A "wizard" is a "wise man". You may note that 3 wizards came to visit the baby Jesus in the gospels. The term has little or nothing to do with what you would call the "occult". Gandalf was intended to be a "Christ-like figure" in the Lord of the Rings.
Tolkien was a very devout Catholic and many of his Christian metaphors were completely intentional, his faith very much leaked into his writings.
J.R.R. Tolkien wrote, "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."

 

[Myrddin]

Goodbook, I've looked through several of your posts and in almost every case you say something like "I think that". You seem to make the mistake of believing your opinion is "fact" quite often. Many people in this thread have disputed your views with real facts, and yet you stubbornly persist in your error.

 

[Hawthorne]

I also think that, people do read more things into Narnia than intended. for example, CS Lewis contemporary Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings, which was also occult based as the main characters are wizards. one of the wizards, gandalf, in the story, supposedly dies and then comes back to life again. But I doubt whether Tolkien intended a wizard to be a symbol of Christ. Especially when, in the Bible, witchcraft is not looked upon favourably by God! And is still not, today.

Please refer to my post which addresses Tolkien's definition (and discontent) of the term wizard.

I can't be bothered to search through eight pages since I'm a slothful ne'er-do-well, but I can say that you will only begin to understand Lewis and Tolkien once you understand their motivations and influences.

Lewis and Tolkien were both greatly influenced by the post-Medieval romances of Pre-Raphaelite William Morris (a Renaissance man if ever one existed), the allegorical fairy stories and fantasies of minister George MacDonald (themselves their own controversy), and Northern things: sagas, epics, great battles, hopeless circumstances, tragedy, and its homey atmosphere. In Lewis' case, Charles Williams' abstruse novels whose genres wander between allegory, supernatural thriller, and who knows what else.

Lewis and Tolkien were scholars of Medieval literature, and their literary criticism is excellent; notably, Tolkien on Beowulf, Lewis on courtly love, and Charles Williams on Dante and Arthurian lore; it's a marvel these competent scholars were able to make their fiction coherent enough for the layperson.

With these influences and their vocations, it's no surprise thy carried into their fiction. If the thesis of Planet Narnia is correct, fluency in Medieval symbolism is required to unlock, as it were, the subtle allusions embedded within the Narnia cycle.

 

[bloodbought09]

Jesus is depicted as the Lion of the tribe of Judah and the Lamb of God. CS Lewis as a good read. I do not care. I personally enjoy just the bible and pretty much nothing else. If I had enough time I might check more into the matter but find it a better use of my time to read the bible and avoid fruitless debates and fables.

2 Timothy 4:2-4

2. Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Have a good working knowledge of scripture. It is what transforms the mind, not an allegory or story written by mere man. How much of your own knowledge of God is from reading his word as opposed to what a man writes about God? We are His sheep and His sheep know His voice and no other voice will we follow. We will run from what is not His voice.

Narnia is more like a fable than the Word of God. I rather flee it, read the bible, and commune with the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ and My Father. I rely on the Holy Spirit to bring me to all truth and not just a man. God is not like man that He would lie. I reiterate, I find enough knowledge in the bible that I do not need any writing of man. And not only that, if I know my bible and have discernment, God will not allow me to be fooled by any lie, for I know the truth and the truth sets us free.

 

[Willie T]

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.

Speaking of knowing or not knowing the Bible, you might want to do a bit of study on that comment to the Thessalonians about "the appearance of evil" and how it pertained to their approach to prophesies.

 

[Strong in Him]

hmm I just read the wiki on C.S. Lewis to make sense of why he wrote Narnia and its seems he DID dabble in the occult, hence references to witches etc.

Before his conversion, possibly.

Another interesting thing is that he wrote 'Pilgrims Regress' which presumably is about backsliding.

No. It was the first book he wrote after his conversion and is described as "in a sense" explaining his own journey to faith.
You say, "presumably"; presumably you haven't researched it.

Also it does mention someone did criticise his theology

Maybe they did. Some people might criticise my theology - or yours. None of us understand God perfectly, but that is far from saying that we have never met him; at all.

Also, that he was anglican (or church of ireland) so, no wonder some of his beliefs seem a bit strange. They weren't obviously evangelical, and tending toward catholicsim.

?? You can have evangelical Anglicans, and evangelical catholics.

 

[dms1972]

The difficulty is that Goodbook picks up a grain of truth here and there about Lewis, and doesn't present the wider picture about him, as she has not read enough to know it. Other here have a wider understanding.

Never has it been said or suggested Lewis' Narnia books are the Word of God.

But people who have knowledge on a subject are not going to let ignorance and misrepresentation go unchallenged.

What is particularly sad is that when the criticisms are from professing christians and they pick out little bits of of Lewis's testimony about his early life to rubbish him, but they ignore the Hand of God in his life, protecting him and guiding him back to Christ, and in their own life without which who knows what those criticising would be into.

So for instance to correct the notion that Lewis dabbled in the occult.

Lewis during his Boarding school days, was taught the doctrines of Christianity at a church that the pupils went to, he said he heard them taught by ministers who clearly believed them. This had an impression on the young Lewis and he began to obey his conscience and pray.

As time went on he experienced difficulties and there was a nurse at the school who was into a lot of esoteric beliefs. Gradually Lewis lost his boyhood faith because of influences in the school. Later he read WB Yeats, who he said clearly believed in magic.

His search in life was for Joy (not Happiness) like a longing for a far off country, which came upon him unawares, for fleeting moments, and he experienced its two imposters reading writers who had an interest in esoterica and the occult, the other imposter being his teenage lusts. Because of the depth of the fleeting experiences he had of Joy he realised the occult and sex were false trails in his search.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Lewis never dabbled in the occult. He had an interest in writers which did and in mythology, clearly he liked the idea thereof, but before his conversion he was a thorough Atheist.

 

[dms1972]

If the thesis of Planet Narnia is correct...

There may be something in them of the planets, but I don't think its their primary meaning, or theme at all.

But it seems to me cleverness may make people blind to seeing the obvious.

Based on a fleeting conversation about something Lewis was thinking of attempting, so no one knows for sure if this was what Lewis was talking about, maybe he dropped whatever idea he had ben toying with!

The Planets thesis was a long, long time brewing. All the things Ward cites in the Narnia books as evidence he makes nearly everything an instance of Lewis's hidden theme when its equally possible even if he is right, that some of these things like Jill being soaked and saying "I am all wet" mean simply that and nothing else. It would have been a far better book if he hadn't tried to make his case so rigourously.

The book depicts Lewis as rather secretive, and somewhat disingenious. People were always misjudging Lewis, and saying more about themselves at times when they talked about him. For instance his supposed discouragement following his debate with Elizabeth Anscombe.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I myself like the thesis of the Narnia books mirroring the mediaeaval ideals of the Planets. Lewis did something similar in the Space Trilogy and he was a mediaevalist afterall. However, it is not very clear or definate, but it is fun to speculate and look for allusions and connections in the books.