Question on CS Lewis

[Meowzltov]

The bible says to cast down vain imaginations and make every thought captive to christ. Dont twist the bibles words.

Its really weird how some people think that just because someone makes something up, its better than the truth.

2 Corinthians 10:5 isn't talking about the creative imagination of fantasy, fables, and myth. It's talking about VAIN imaginations that are contrary to correct doctrine. Here is a better translation:
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Did you read "On Fairy Stories"?

 

[Meowzltov]

christian fiction is an oxymoron.

Are you for real, or are you a troll? I am now no longer sure! You are now no longer limiting your accusations of evil to fantasy, but fiction in general? Do you realize that there are fiction stories in the Bible? For example, Jesus made up fictitious stories (parables) to teach lessons.

 

[dms1972]

I think it is easy to read into things that the author didnt intend...

Yes indeed it is.

The bronte sisters were probably christian esp charlotte but Jane eyre wasnt particularly a christian story. Even though it had elements of christian love in it, and things like repentence and meekness, that you could take from it.

Good. I suggest then you take those things, read those sorts of books, or the books, letters of Joy Davidman / Gresham, whom you said was a born-again christian, or anything else you find edifying.

 

[dms1972]

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.

I don't see how humanism would leave one in a position to say whether or not the Holy Spirit ministers through the writings of CS Lewis, or other christians.

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgements about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment. 1 Corinthians 2:14


On the other hand Leanne Payne as a spirit-filled christian could discern the influence of the Holy Spirit in Lewis's writings.

 

[dms1972]

2 Corinthians 10:5 isn't talking about the creative imagination of fantasy, fables, and myth. It's talking about VAIN imaginations that are contrary to correct doctrine.

Thats true and Lewis had a 'baptised imagination'. Leanne Payne in her books speaks of it in terms of a Holy Imagination, and a Holy Intellect both of which she said were well developed in CS Lewis.

 

[Goodbook]

I'm not sure about Leanne Payne either....

lol.

I'm just gonna read this biography by Alistair McGrath and make up my own mind. I'm still not sure about him, some things C.S. Lewis he got right on the money as it were but then other things were complete head scratchers and you go, why on earth did he write that? Did he really intend to get in the mind of a demon in screwtape letters, just for satirical effect? oh how clever..but, then well, so what?

I do know he was atheist who became a theist, but, lots of people can be that but so can muslims and get the whole character of Jesus wrong. I want to know what he was like as a person rather than just the things he wrote, because, well writers can lie and fabricate, especially if they are writers of fantasy.

 

[Goodbook]

And possibly people know more about him than what people know about, say, Shakespeare, who's theology was questionable. Sorry CS Lewis fans, but not everyone who is christian is enamoured of his writings. I mean, sure brilliant skilled writer Im not saying he wasn't, BUT please don't put him on a pedestal over anyone else and then put down other people for disagreeing with you.

 

[Goodbook]

Another thing that strikes me about C.S. Lewis is this verse in Timothy

3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.


is not Narnia a myth? I just notice whenever C.S. Lewis comes up in a christian or religious conversation, that person will put more emphasis on what Lewis says than what scripture actually says. They will quote him over and above scripture as well. I just find that weird, because not all christians read fantasy stories and myths like narnia and lord of the rings.

 

[dms1972]

I'm just gonna read this biography by Alistair McGrath and make up my own mind. I'm still not sure about him, some things C.S. Lewis he got right on the money as it were but then other things were complete head scratchers and you go, why on earth did he write that? Did he really intend to get in the mind of a demon in screwtape letters, just for satirical effect? oh how clever..but, then well, so what?

I do know he was atheist who became a theist, but, lots of people can be that but so can muslims and get the whole character of Jesus wrong. I want to know what he was like as a person rather than just the things he wrote, because, well writers can lie and fabricate, especially if they are writers of fantasy.

If you want to know about Lewis as a person you might like to read Out of My Bone by Joy Davidman.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes, I've heard this as well and read Great Divorce. However, at some point he was perhaps for we see Emeth in Last Battle who is saved despite being a Calormen Tash worshipper and certain of his written pieces tend in that direction. I am not convinced one way or the other how Lewis stood on Universalism, but I did not think it worthwhile to argue the point with Mr Luke.

I don't think that the episode in the Last Battle indicates universalism so much as it shows Lewis' understanding of the breadth and depth of divine grace. The Universalist would say that both the follower of Aslan and Tash will, ultimately, be in the same place eventually; but for Lewis it's not that following Tash doesn't have real, even eternal, consequences, but that divine grace is big enough to cover the "invincible ignorance" (to borrow a term) of Emeth the Tash worshiper.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Meowzltov]

not all christians read fantasy stories and myths like narnia and lord of the rings.

Not every person has a creative imagination, and those that do have it in varying degrees. You are a person who is obviously lacking, which is why you don't understand the value of myth and fairy tales. We all have our gifts and our areas of lack. I for example have absolutely zero mechanical aptitude. I can't even change a tire. (I've been taught several times and always forget.) I have to have my son change the time on the car clock every time we go to daylight savings. I bet you're good at THOSE sorts of things.

 

[dms1972]

I don't think that the episode in the Last Battle indicates universalism so much as it shows Lewis' understanding of the breadth and depth of divine grace. The Universalist would say that both the follower of Aslan and Tash will, ultimately, be in the same place eventually; but for Lewis it's not that following Tash doesn't have real, even eternal, consequences, but that divine grace is big enough to cover the "invincible ignorance" (to borrow a term) of Emeth the Tash worshiper.

This is a very good post.

I think you're spot on here

But it is worth pointing out also that it is not theological doctrines Lewis is communicating, but images of salvation and redemption of which there are several of particular note throughout the books including: Edmund, Eustace, Jill, and Emeth.


The case of Emeth is explained well by Clyde Kilby in The Christian World of CS Lewis

"The account of Emeth is told to illustrate Lewis's deep-seated conviction of a great basic right and wrong in the cosmos rather than that there are many roads leading to Christ...To reconcile the account of Emeth with Lewis's customary teaching that Christ is the only way to salvation it might be pointed out that the doorway in The Last Battle is not altogether the symbol of salvation. Indeed an unbelieving pagan (Rishda Tarkann) and may cynical dwarfs managed to get on the other side of it, as did Tash himself. Perhaps the door is to be look upon as similiar to the purlieus of heaven in The Great Divorce, where a great many people caught glimpses of the glory within and yet refused to enter. The moment Emeth saw Aslan he fell down before him for blessing."

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

This is a very good post.

I think you're spot on here

But it is worth pointing out also that it is not theological doctrines Lewis is communicating, but images of salvation and redemption of which there are several of particular note throughout the books including: Edmund, Eustace, Jill, and Emeth.


The case of Emeth is explained well by Clyde Kilby in The Christian World of CS Lewis

"The account of Emeth is told to illustrate Lewis's deep-seated conviction of a great basic right and wrong in the cosmos rather than that there are many roads leading to Christ...To reconcile the account of Emeth with Lewis's customary teaching that Christ is the only way to salvation it might be pointed out that the doorway in The Last Battle is not altogether the symbol of salvation. Indeed an unbelieving pagan (Rishda Tarkann) and may cynical dwarfs managed to get on the other side of it, as did Tash himself. Perhaps the door is to be look upon as similiar to the purlieus of heaven in The Great Divorce, where a great many people caught glimpses of the glory within and yet refused to enter. The moment Emeth saw Aslan he fell down before him for blessing."

I agree. It seems as if any who enter the door are called by Aslan, but like the dwarves they may wallow in ignorance and therefore condemn themselves to sit in a hut. It doesn't mean that the New Narnia is specifically heaven as repeatedly Aslan says to go in upwards and inwards. (Emeth immediately responded, although he saw the verdant fields already, I might add, the dwarves however only saw a hut) This echoes The Great Divorce closely.

However this is only reverse crystallisation of myth on Lewis's part, from history(the Incarnation) into myth (Fairy tales) so I do not think he ever meant for much doctrine to be sought there. The idea of Images of Salvation in a mythic framework makes much more sense here.

I would add Till we have Faces here, for we see Orual seeing the old blood-spattered rock of Ungit as being far more divine than the finely wrought Greek statue, more viscerally true than the Fox's theological explanation of their religion. We also see her finding Psyche's cult set up in a neighbouring kingdom, having mythologised their history together and transforming it into metaphor. As the title itself says, you cannot see the gods until we ourselves have faces to face them. The lies we tell ourselves, our own conceptions, trap us and keep us away from God as much as anything else. The ideas and images of Till we have Faces fits in well with Tashlan's hut in Narnia in my opinion, of unjust human complaints against God as the dwarves and Orual make; of Orual being told she too will be Psyche juxtaposing well with Emeth. It is not plain to the reader, but inference in the texts tell us something far more viscerally true from these myths than any amount of apologia could have done, at least in my opinion.

Another place he talks of an old veteran in the desert who "knows God" because he felt him out there, but then disparaging theology. As Lewis says, Theology is the map of different experiences, not actually standing on the beach or the forest itself and experiencing God. These works seems to me to be an attempt to bridge the gap between theology and experience by immersing us in novelisation of truth so that we may glimpse it ourselves, as Orual did on the mountain or her last vision.

PS. Miss Goodbook, just because Lewis wrote here on Greek gods etc. it doesn't mean it is pagan or occult.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I think I just need to clarify something regarding Lewis and Universalism.

We see George Macdonald in Great Divorce saying: "St Paul talked as if all men would be saved". This is never refuted by any angels in the novel, only said that it was not man's place to enquire. It is kept a possibility although against the tenor of the rest of the work.
Also Lewis quotes another universalistic message from Julian of Norwich: "All manner of things will be well" in the same work. Likewise, there is constant intercourse between "hell" and heaven in the story, the inhabitants of hell just choose not to travel to heaven for whatever reason, so arguably perhaps at some point in millennia/eternity they might enter the bus. It is never clearly stated they will remain in the grey town forever.

In Last Battle, Emeth is saved in spite of hating Aslan before entering the hut as a life long worshipper of Tash. It is explicitly stated that his good works in Tash's name were really done for Aslan's sake, which has a universalist tinge even if it can be argued for Inclusivism.

He also was closely associated with Dom Bede Griffiths, a known universalist, and considered Macdonald a spiritual mentor of his.

To quote Lewis: "I think that every prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god, or to a very imperfectly conceived true God, is accepted by the true God and that Christ saves many who do not think they know him. For He is (dimly) present in the good side of the inferior teachers they follow. In the parable of the Sheep and Goats those who are saved do not seem to know that they have served Christ"

That being said, he affirmed hell and the human ability to choose perdition in other works like Screwtape etc., but it can be argued that he implies that we only exist in reference to God himself, so that if you refuse God you do not in fact have a real existence at all. He never said that therefore the damned don't really exist, but he does say it is not a human condemned, but what could have been one.

While CS Lewis was most definitely an Inclusivist, there are elements in his works that can be construed along Universalist lines as I endeavoured to show, which is why I don't think such a definite statement on the matter can be made with any certainty. From my understanding of his works, I don't think he would have considered it our place to make such definitive statements on Salvation in this manner.

 

[Goodbook]

seems like a whole lot of fuss about nothing really, since pagan gods etc aren't christian, so why bother using them to illustrate a christian principle. Might as well say, well Twilight books and Harry Potter are christian because you can glean some morals from them.

Was just reading a memoir in which the author wrote as a child she read Narnia but she ignored the heavy handed moral message in it, just read it for the fantasy. So I think children really aren't that interested in whatever christian message is in there but are more inclined to read it for the talking animals. I know I did.

 

[Goodbook]

I think CS Lewis wanted to be universalist but couldn't quite come to terms with it. This may have been because he hung out with 'good' people at university that were atheists like he himself used to be. Of course atheists want to think they are good people doing good works, but also at the same time blaspheming God. You can't really have it both ways. You have to know the name of Jesus because it's the only name by which anyone is saved.

 

[Goodbook]

Maybe he just didn't want to offend them. I find that wishy washy theology really, but then if you are employed by a secular university I suppose you wanna keep your job. The real test is would you give up a cushy professors job to serve the Lord totally or still hang on to it and justify it by saying you can reach more people with a watered down gospel?

 

[dms1972]

To Quid est Veritas.

Re universalism - you said "it is kept as a possibility but it is against the tenor of rest of the work."

Yes. "There is no heaven with a little corner of hell in it." was Lewis's point. Also Heaven cannot be vetoed by Hell. The denizens of hell can't keep postponing the Joy of Heaven for the redeemed.

[edit] Lewis had many friends some fully orthodox others less so. George MacDonald is depicted less as a universalist (and even he wasn't dogmatic about that) an more as someone who understands things better in heaven. I really think there is a very clear either Heaven or Hell message in the book, its not a promise of a second chance after death. There are more 'ghosts' that refuse the invitation to heaven than accept it in The Great Divorce - several do not wait for a moment but run back to the bus and its explained to Lewis by MacDonald that those that go back are choosing hell - not the grey town. All the choices of their life are encapsulated in the single choice they make on the Purlieus of Heaven. In the story - The vicar who had ceased believe in a literal heaven and hell, can't be convinced by his former theology student, even as they both stand on the very borders of heaven.

I think Goodbook is right to place Scripture over Lewis. Aslan is not meant to be a source for christological study apart from or equal with Holy Scripture - Jesus the Messiah is greater than Aslan.

But at the same time it has to also said Lewis has enabled many christians to grasp truth in scripture that they had screened out because they lived in a materialistic age.

I really think some may dislike Lewis because he didn't teach 'Christianity and water', they dislike the clear separation of Good from evil. They dislike his 'supernaturalism', and they have problems also with his depiction of Grace sometimes. The main reason being I would say is that they cannot get past what they think he is saying, to what he actually is saying. Reading a book to grasp what the author is saying (even if one doesn't agree with everything) it is necessary to get oneself out of the way.

I know from my own background I read CS Lewis at times wondering about him a bit like Goodbook. But I came to see while there are things still I don't understand him saying, he was an authentic christian, and taught christian truth.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Maybe he just didn't want to offend them. I find that wishy washy theology really, but then if you are employed by a secular university I suppose you wanna keep your job. The real test is would you give up a cushy professors job to serve the Lord totally or still hang on to it and justify it by saying you can reach more people with a watered down gospel?

Lewis was highly opposed to watered down Gospel, miss Goodbook. If you read Mere Christianity that would be very plain. Also, he mostly associated with Theists of various Christian denominations.

 

[dms1972]

seems like a whole lot of fuss about nothing really, since pagan gods etc aren't christian, so why bother using them to illustrate a christian principle. Might as well say, well Twilight books and Harry Potter are christian because you can glean some morals from them.

Was just reading a memoir in which the author wrote as a child she read Narnia but she ignored the heavy handed moral message in it, just read it for the fantasy. So I think children really aren't that interested in whatever christian message is in there but are more inclined to read it for the talking animals. I know I did.

Talking animals is probably a reason many read them.

But I am struggling to understand were you are really coming from on this, if you are raising questions just for the sake of discusion, so as several of us have tried to answer those, could you then answer for us:

If the Narnia chronicles had a christian message worked out in a different manner would that make them worth reading in your view? Do you think a christian message could be done in a story with talking animals and such?

What sort of stories could convey a christian message in your view?

Is there a place in your view for stories that might not be out and out christian but yet in a responsible way lead readers to question the secular story, and point them in the direction of christianity?

Is there anything wrong with a basic Good triumphing over evil in an other-world type story?

CS Lewis didn't want people to stop with Narnia, that was why in his letters and in the stories themselves he was always drawing them back again from the world of Narnia and was seeking to gently direct readers to the Historic Gospel.

Some people enjoy in stories the notion of characters being able to reach another world beyond this world, of Good triumphing over evil. It's a basic human need to know that in a world where for now things are not always resolved clearly, to know that Good will triumph in the end. Authentic Fairy Tales actually serve several legitimate needs humans have for Recovery, Escape, Consolation, and Fantasy. And these are not just needs of a child, if you ever read Tolkien's On Fairy Stories, he makes very good point how adults relegated fairy stories to the nursery and I suppose (i am still reading OFS) because an 'enlightened' era led to the false assumption such stories were immature. In fact what we call fairy tales were originally for adults, not because they were dark, or dealt with themes that are what we would now call 'adult' but because they bore witness to universal themes.