Problems In Lewis' Theology

C

Capstick

New member
Hi,

I'm fairly new here, so what I'm about to say will probably be regarded by some of you as close to blasphemy, however, please refrain from stoning me just yet! :)

Don't misunderstand me; I love the writings of C.S. Lewis (I've read both the Chronciles of Narnia and his space trilogy), and he remains one of my favorite authors to this day. However, I have noticed several theological problems in his writings, several of which are especially apparent in The Last Battle.

The one reference that I have the most trouble with occurs in The Last Battle
towards the end of the book where they meet a Calarmine soldier in what is essentially heaven. Aslan says to him that although he had worshipped Tash his whole life, in reality, the man was worshipping Aslan. Obviously, there is a profound problem with this statement! It seems to be saying that there are "multiple" paths to God. If someone can worship Tash and yet be saved, why not be a Buddhist, or a Muslim, or Hindu? Religion would then simply be subjective, with no firm truth. The First and Second Commandments specifically prohibit this: there is only one path to God and He must be approached on HIS terms, not ours.

The second problem with his theology, is that, although a Christian, C.S. Lewis was also heavily influenced by "classical" pagan writers, such as Plato. Again this is apparent in the Last Battle where there is a "deeper, more real Narnia." This theology is taken directly from Plato (I believe its Plato). He believed that this reality was like a shadow on the back of a cave wall, reflecting something grander and more real. However, I don't see this imagery in Scripture.

Has anyone else noticed these problems (or others), and what are your opinions on this?
 
The situation with the Calormen I don't think of as much as multiple paths to God as in different religions. I think of it more as God speaking to someone in an unreached country who has never heard the gospel, yet still lives by it. That was a part I had pondered on a bit as well though (and I'm still not entirely sure about it myself).

As for the other imagery you mentioned, it reminded me of the passage in I Corinthians 13 where we have been seeing God through a glass but will soon see face to face (paraphrased). Lewis, of course, expanded this idea a bit for his personal idea of heaven. I for one don't know that much about Plato or Aristotle or whomever it was who came up with the theology you mentioned.
 
"Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons as my great desire for wisdom and understnading I overcame my fear and questioned the Glousius One, and said: Lord, is it then true as the Ape said that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said: It is false. Not becasue he and I are one, but becasue we are oppisites, I take to me the services that thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds, that no service that is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swears by Tash and keeps his oath for the oaths' sake it is by me that he has truly sworn though he know it not and it is I who reward him, and if any man do a cruelty in my name then though he says the name 'Aslan' it is Tash whom he serves and it is by Tash that his deed is accepted...."

The Last Battle Chapter 15 Pg 188-189

It seems to me that what is passed here between Aslan and the Chalormean is Aslan saying that it is the devotion of the worship that is important, reguardless of what god was served. This would be wrong on Lewis's part as in ancient time the Philitines worshiped Daegon adamantly, yet God did not accept thier worship and they were a great enemy of Israel. On the same level Elijah scorned the worshipers of Baal, even though their cries and pleas were genuine to their 'god' he was not the true God, and thus thier cries went unheeded.
Furthermore, Tash was a demon and the worship of him was utterly evil. Molech's worship was adimant and his followers truly beleaved in him, but that does not overshadow the fact that Molech demanded human sacrifices, which is against God's law; would God accept such evilness in his own name, even if the people were sincere in their actions? How could this Chalormean be worshipping adimantly a demon all his life, and yet Aslan found his devotion acceptable in his sight?

I will also note that this sounds close to justification by works, not faith (i.e. If one's worship is good then you go to heaven) but perhaps that is an argument for another time.... :)


I would love to think that what you said was true in the book Dragon (As I prefer it overwhelmingly so to what was actually given) and if you can change my mind on the matter I would openly listen to what you have to say.
 
I agree with Dragon. I have talked to some of my friends who are of a different religion about this and I have come to believe that unless you are worshipping GOD then you will not go to Heaven. But then you have to think about how different people think of GOD. Just because he has a different name doesn't neccessarily mean that he is not GOD. I know I might sound blasphemous here but bear with me. Everyone knows deep in their heart that there is a God. That's why someone who has lived on an island their whole life, never heard of God, never heard of Jesus, can still know and worship the true God. This is what it says in the bible, that everyone has knowledge of God in their hearts. There are those who choose to believe it and those who choose to hide it. Anyway so what I'm trying to say is kind of what Aslan said to Edmund and Lucy in Voyage, that they wouldn't come back to narnia and see him again but he was in their world too and that they must learn to know him by his other name. Names don't matter. You can call God Aslan or whatever but as long as you KNOW he is the Lord of the Universe then you are worshipping the true God. I've heard that somewhere in the middle east an altar was found with an inscription that said "to the unknown God". I don't know if what I said makes sense but thanks for letting me spout...
~Chantal
 
I really hope more people join in on this discussion, as I find it completely fascinating!

I understand what you are saying, and wish to clarify my previous post and make a couple new statements. What my point is about Aslan and the Chalormean is not that someone can’t have the true worship of God without use of the proper name, (such as calling Aslan Jesus in our world and Aslan in Narnia) but rather that the worship of Tash in and of itself would be evil and unchristian. I know there are many different denominations in Christianity today, all with varying beliefs and practices, but I myself do not believe that you can be a practicing and consistent heathen and still an adamant Christian. Perhaps the Calormean’s heart was true in his worship to his god, but he still was not worshiping Aslan, he was worshiping the demon Tash with all that that entails. Tash’s worship must have varied greatly from that of Aslan’s, and the Chalormean even said that he believed in more than one god! (I would refer to my previous post about the heathen gods of Old Testament times) The Chalormean should have come to Narnia, heard about this mighty Aslan, and thrown down his weapon saying that This God was the True God, and not the hollow Tash he had followed, while repenting for ever worshipping the graven Tash.

It is dear to my heart that God has known his elect from all eternity and prepared a place for us within the new heaven and earth, and I do not believe that anyone has their theology completely right. (I shudder sometimes to wonder how I falter in my own) But someone who is out-rightly unchristian, and even draws the sword against those who would have been his Christian brothers, how could his demon-worship have been directed to Aslan, the very creature who was King of those whom he drew his sword against? He hated Aslan, and still clung to Tash; he even seemed unrepentant of his loathing for the lion until he actually met Aslan after death.

I hope no one is offended by my beliefs, and I am so heartened to hear the replies/rebuttals on this form and hope that I am promptly corrected/challenged on one of my points (And please be lengthy as I desire to hear what others think of what I’ve said here)
 
Wow, it looks like we've got a good discussion going here. So far, I'd have to agree with what GrayCloak said. I'll try to answer some of your objections Nienna, while also building on what GrayCloak said.

"But then you have to think about how different people think of GOD. Just because he has a different name doesn't neccessarily mean that he is not GOD."

It is obvious from the Bible that God has more than one name: Yahweh, Prince of Peace, Wonderful Counselor, etc, as well as the whole doctrine of the trinity (there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit). However, if there are different names for God, how do you know if you are worshipping the One True God (the God of the Bible) or a false god? There are several important issues here.

FIRST: The Bible is clear that God is unchanging. His nature, character, attributes, etc. are constant.

TWO: God is revealed to us through Scripture, and more specifically, His character is revealed through the Moral Law (i.e., the Ten Commandments).

THREE: Building on this, God has specifically told us how He wants to be worshipped. God is to be worshipped in spirit and in truth, meaning that we must be sincere in our worship and also that we need to worship Him according to the way that He has told us to. One example: we are not to worship God through the use of idols; the Second Commandment is very clear on this.

Sincerety is no substitute for truth. Those who do not worship God on HIS terms, will face the consequences. In the Old Testament, Aaron's two sons worshipped God with "strange fire." This was so offensive to God that He killed them immediately! Going back to the issue of the Calormine (I don't know how to spell that) in the Last Battle, simply because he was sincere in his worship of Tash did not mean that he was worshipping Aslan.

Thus, we should be able to tell true religions that might worship the One True God, but with a different name for Him, from false religions. I am sorry to say this, but every other religion than Christianity is a false religion, worshipping a false God. Islam, Buddhism, Hinduish, Shintoism, etc, are all false religions. They do not worship the same God that we do, but with a slightly different name. In the New Testament, it says that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, then you shall be saved. This implies that those who do NOT confess Jesus as Lord, and do not believe that God raised Him from the dead will NOT BE SAVED!

Now, having said all that (I hope I didn't bore anyone), I do agree with some of the things you said. All men DO have knowledge of the One True God. However, they suppress this truth in unrighteousness.

Well, thanks for letting me have my say. I hope I didn't intimidate you! :)

By the way, the altar with the inscription "to the unknown God" was in Athens. Paul mentions it in one of his letters.
 
wow! this is a very interesting/ammusing discusion! well, i realy dont know about this one. maybe the lewis didnt relize the error or like what grey cloak said, about in that first paragraph. im clueless. but i agree very much with the ones who talked about ''no one comes to the Father but by me.'' and how Jesus is are only way to Heaven...im a bit confused about the wholle thing now though. lol.
 
I had noticed some of those theological issues when I finally read LB this summer. I agree with what capstick and Grey Cloak have said, for the most part.

Another thing to take into consideration is the fact that Lewis was Catholic(not that this makes him any "less" of a Christian; the R.C.C. has many Christians in it, but some of its members are there only because of the "tradition").
 
Well Aragorn, I'm glad you agree with me, but I must respectfully disagree with one thing you said :) ! I do not believe that Lewis was Roman Catholic. His good friend, J.R.R. Tolkien was Catholic, but I do not think that Lewis himself was.

However, I do agree with you that the Roman Catholic faith has many problems. This isn't to say that Roman Catholics cannot be Christian, but, as you said, there are many traditions in it that are not grounded in the Bible. In fact, that was the whole cause of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries, but that really is a whole 'nother issue for another time.
 
This is all highly fascinating. If I happen to see C.S. Lewis in heaven someday, I will drill him on why he made all these little loops in his theology. Hmm, I'll study up on his beliefs until then. He seems to have had quite a few broad-viewed ideas.
( * Lunis
 
I hope nobody misunderstood my post. I do believe that Jesus is the only way and that any other religion besides Christianity is sadly misled and will not lead to Heaven or God. But I made a mistake when i was reading exactly what Lewis wrote about the Calormen. I think I was confused about exactly what was the problem. I thought it was just that he worshipped a god named Tash but now I think that there is an inconsistancy there because it's true, if you knowingly worship a different god/demon whatever and refute the true knowledge of God then you are in the wrong and there is no way you will die and God will say to you "well because you were so religious to YOUR God we'll just pretend it was to me ok?" I just don't think that works. Sorry about that. I hope I don't sound too confused or garbled I just wanted tos ay that yes, I believe there is only one way to God and any "christian"who says there are many paths to the same God is not a true christian because they are going against the bible when it says " I (Jesus) am THE way, THE truth and THE life, NO ONE comes to the father except through me"
~Chantal
 
Have I mentioned lately that I love this forum? :D

Lewis was an Anglican by the way, and not only that but he was only a classical philosopher, which meant he was highly influenced by Greek culture and mythos. (Explaining why he has creatures like fauns (Roman term for saters) nyads, dryad, ect...)

He was heavily into Plato, and some of the other old Greek philosophers explaining a couple of sequences in LWW when he is talking with the children about the current school system. "Logic...why don't they teach Logic anymore?"

-Lunis, I too am looking forward to seeing Lewis in heaven, I have often been downhearted that I never got a chance to hear his conversations with Tolkien. (I would have loved to be a fly on the wall around those two!) :)
 
That scene in the Last Battle has always always bothered me. I generally skip it when I read that book, because well, I don't agree with it. I see it as a huge flaw in Lewis' theology.

The Bible tells us that no one is without excuse

Romans 1:18-20 ~ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Just because the Calorman was raised to believe that Alsan was evil and Tash was good, is no excuse. If we were to transfer it to our world, just because a child was raised believing in Budda or Muhammed, and not Christ, that is not an excuse for his rejection of the gospel.

Someone has already mentioned this verse
John 14:6 ~ Jesus answered, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the father except through me" If in the allegorical sense Aslan is Jesus, it is through Him that men are saved.

Which brings me to another flaw I see in Lewis' logic in this sense... it was works and service that were attributed to the Calorman's salvation. I guess I don't exactly see what Lewis was trying to state in the portion of his book. All I see is that it does not line up with scripture.

I do see the greek influence in the whole "more real" Narnia situation. However I also find that a great reflection of the passage in Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 13:12 ~ Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
and
2 Corinthians 4:18 ~ So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.


I guess my biggest issue with Lewis' theology is his veiw of Creation. This is not so much reflected in the CoN but rather in the space trilogy. I am a firm believer in a literal 6 day creation, no gap, and a young earth. Lewis was not. However, I am still a fan of Lewis' work. He was a creative man, with a great intellect. I do believe he was a Christian, despite his misguided theology. You know what, I probably beleive some wrong theology as well, but I know I am going to heaven for the simple fact that "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and beleive in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved!" (Romans 10:9)
 
Well put AlwaysHis324, I couldn't have said it better myself. When I reread that passage in The Last Battle, I came to the same conclusion as you did: it sounded very much indeed like a work's based righteousness. (Salvation is by faith ALONE, not works).

I have read Lewis' space trilogy and I really enjoyed it. I too, am a literal, strict, 6-day Creationist. I was not aware that Lewis was not. One thing to note though about his space trilogy, was that he was using the mythology that was established by J.R.R. Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings (this is especially clear if you read That Hideous Strengh).

By the way, what denomination of Christianity are you? By any chance are you Reformed? :)
 
You have a very eloquent way of expressing your point AlwaysHis, and I agree with you wholeheartedly!

I am also a firm 6 day creationist, and have always had a problem with the way Lewis handled the creation of his world. Lewis seems also to be relying on ‘Works vs. Faith’ i.e. it was the Calormean’s works of worship that were accounted to him, meaning perhaps that he had earned his own salvation. (Which would really have made Aslan’s sacrifice in LWW unimportant wouldn’t it :D )

There is no doubt in my mind that Lewis was Christian (If you haven’t already I urge you to read ‘A Grief Observed’ where Lewis deals with a trial of faith after the loss of his wife, and please don’t consider the movie ‘Shadowlands’ as a substitute as Hollywood has robbed it of its Christianity.) I fell much the same about his as I do Tolkien (Probably my favorite author) That though their theology was wrong they did indeed, confess that they believe in the One True God.

“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved”
 
I normally avoid threads like this one, but I really felt like I had to jump in this time.

So Lewis didn't agree with exactly what the rest of the Christian church said. So? The Chronicles of Narnia aren't supposed to be mirrors for scripture, they're Lewis' personal take on faith, and he's perfectly allowed to disagree with what someone else says. Personally, I agree with him on the Emeth issue (in fact, I used that scene from LB with Emeth as a quote in the Favorite Quotes Thread on this site). A world where only Christians got in to heaven would put Gandhi in hell and Hitler in heaven, and that is a world which many people, probably including C. S. Lewis, have trouble believing in. There can't be theological "errors," because theology is defined by a person's individual beleifs, and no one person or religion has a monopoly on the truth.

Sorry if anyone's offended, I just really felt like somebody needed to add some counterargument here.
 
I appreciate your sentiment Y fish, however my stance remains. Lewis' representation of theology in LB is unbiblical, plain and simple.

Being good does not get you into heaven. Scripture is clear on that. Unless Ghandi accepted Christ as his savior, even a good person like Ghandi won't be in heaven.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, not of works lest any many should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9.

The root of all truth is found in God's word, the Bible. It is where we should go for our source of theology.

No, CoN is not supposed to be an exact interpretation of scripture, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not think anyone has said that. We are simply pointing out instances where we see unbiblical theology coming through in Lewis writing.
 
Nicely put AlwaysHis324, but if no one minds, I think I need to reply to Y. Fish's statements as well. Please do not take this personally Y. Fish, but I STRONGLY disagree with what you said, and so I'm going to take some time to respond to it.

"So Lewis didn't agree with exactly what the rest of the Christian church said. So? The Chronicles of Narnia aren't supposed to be mirrors for scripture, they're Lewis' personal take on faith, and he's perfectly allowed to disagree with what someone else says..."

The problem here that comes in is that these beliefs do have consequences, ESPECIALLY concerning the doctrine of Salvation. We are also concerned about those people who might read these books and then base their theology on this. In addition, as Christians, we need to be concerned about only believing what is true, because Truth is an attribute of God. Now, none of us are saying that because of these problems, Lewis' is totally bankrupt and we shouldn't read his writings; far from it. However, allowing heresy and doctrinal error to go unchallenged is a dangerous thing (it is like playing with fire, but to a greater extent: you put your eternal soul on the line).

"A world where only Christians got in to heaven would put Gandhi in hell and Hitler in heaven, and that is a world which many people, probably including C. S. Lewis, have trouble believing in."

Sorry, but once again I believe you're wrong.

If Ghandi did not confess his sins and place his trust in Christ Jesus alone for his salvation then, you might not like to hear it, but he is in hell.

None of us are saying that Adolf Hitler would go to heaven; in fact, quite the contrary. He was an occultic, evil, sadistic man. Even if he "claimed" that he was a christian, that does not mean that he is saved. His actions demonstrate that he did love God or His law.

Matthew 7:16-20 basically says that by their fruits you will know them.

In addition, C.S. Lewis would support what I have just said regarding Hitler.

"and if any man do a cruelty in my name then though he says the name 'Aslan' it is Tash whom he serves and it is by Tash that his deed is accepted...." I believe that GrayCloak dealt with this in a previous post.

Moreover, saying that something is "hard to believe" is an illogical argument. Our beliefs should not be based on our personal feelings, but rather on what is true. Deciding that you don't want to believe in something because it is "harsh" or "unpleasant" is the same thing as a small child deciding that he isn't going to believe in peas because he doesn't like the taste of them! Despite the child's sincerety, this is not going to make the peas vanish.

"There can't be theological "errors," because theology is defined by a person's individual beleifs, and no one person or religion has a monopoly on the truth."

Sorry, but once again, I have to disagree with you one-hundred percent. There IS such a thing as absolute truth, and it is based on the character and nature of God revealed through His Moral Law (summarized in the Ten Commandments). I would like to make two points herre:

ONE: Truth, by definition, must be absolute. If it is not, then it is not truth! An example: if a circle is round, it cannot also be square.

TWO: If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then there is no such thing as right or wrong: it is all based solely upon personal preference. Thus, rape, murder, homosexuality, cannibalism, human-sacrifice, etc. all become perfectly fine because without absolute truth morality cannot exist.

I think I've answered all basic issues, and I hope I haven't scared you off :) . I would like your feedback on this Y. Fish, as well as some feedback from other people (especially that of GrayCloak and AlwaysHis324 :D ).
 
Darn you AlwaysHis324 and Capstick! I leave the message boards for a couple of hours and you refute the best argument we've had on here! :D (And did it exceptionally well I might add. :) )

I will add only two things:

One:.”. Jesus answered, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the father except through me" John 14:6

Also, I don't know how many of your are familiar with the Westminster Shorter Catechism (This is not scripture but it is an interpretation of it, and what I firmly believe) in question 4 it states:

"What is God?"

And the answer

"God is a spirit, infinite, eternal unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power holiness, justice, goodness and TRUTH!"

Jesus is truth. There is no way around it, and it can never be subjective, there is only one truth and it is God.

The second thing I will say is that from now I promise to check this darn forum more often so I can write a page and a half like Capstick got to!
 
Well, this is a great topic! I haven't had time to say much, but I think you're all doing a splendid job. :D :rolleyes: You can definitely tell who are the writers here. ;)

As to your fly on the wall statement, Graycloak...
I agree! Hmm, it sort of reminds me of something in a book (turning into a small insect to get an inside look or inside "scoops").

( * Luni
 
Back
Top