Problems In Lewis' Theology

Wow!

I just read this whole thread. You all are a very thorough bunch of debaters (as I know from the 50+ pages of "Debating & Discussing," which I didn't read all of that).

Anyway, a BUNCH of interesting stuff in this thread about what CS Lewis' theology was, as portrayed in the Chronicles of Narnia. I think it was resolved that most Christians believe Jesus is the only way to salvation, but others think as long as you are following whatever religion out of a desire to follow goodness and love, you will be saved. And we think maybe Lewis believed that, too. BUT, the most comfortable explanation I found for the Calormene Emeth being received in Aslan's country was simply that Emeth had been on a spiritual journey, and he recognized Aslan at last (and before his death) so he was saved. Bravo to whoever posted that, sorry, it was so many pages back.

I don't think Lewis could have been intending with Emeth's example (in The Last Battle) to communicate that Emeth's good works in Tash's name had saved him, because Lewis was known to believe that works were NOT a key to salvation. He said, "Bliss is not for sale, cannot be earned, 'Works' have no 'merit' though of course faith, inevitably, even unconsciously, flows out into works of love at once. He is not saved because he does works of love; he does works of love because he is saved. It is faith alone that has saved him; faith bestowed by sheer gift."
 
And another thing

I just said all that about Emeth, but was reminded of something else CS Lewis said:

* "I couldn’t believe that 999 religions were completely false and the remaining one true."

*"We are not pronouncing all other religions to be totally false, but rather saying that in Christ whatever is true in all religions is consummated and perfected."

The latter makes some sense as regards Emeth: whatever was true in his worship of Tash was fulfilled in Aslan.

Lewis doesn't want the millions who follow other religions to be condemned and hopes that there is a way for them to find Jesus in this world or the next one.
 
GrayCloak said:
"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
Click to expand...
I think it's important to understand what Lewis is saying and not saying here. If you don't do the second, you can't do the first.

To begin with, remove your thoughts from the area of soteriology. Lewis did not believe in works righteousness. As in The Great Divorse, he urged people to "take the charity." Rather, he is using a "supposal" to make an interesting point about service to God.

The pivot on which it turns is the last part of the quote above: "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."

This idea is driven by passages like Matt 7:21-23, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" and John 16:2: "They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God."

The supposal then is that if evil done in the name of God is really done for Satan (and it is), then what is the status of good done in the name of Satan? Of course you can argue the case that it is impossible to do good in the name of Satan (and some have in this thread), but possible to do evil in the name of God. Does that make the name of Satan more powerful than the name of God? I hope not. This is a tough question.

Lewis seldom takes the easy out, though. He asks, "but what IF?" and plays it out in this scene with the Calermene. And it is in that innocent questioning that we should take this passage. Note the way the Calermene approaches the situation. (And here I should point out that the American edition of TLB has a typo in this dialog. Where the American edition says, "Yes, I have served Tash all my life," as if the Calermene is proud of it, the English edition says, "Yet, I have served Tash all my life.") Clearly the Calermene knows, in hindsight, that serving Tash was wrong. And here Aslan gently leads the Calermene to know and accept the truth.

The fact that this happens after the Calermene has passed through the door should not be taken as belief in a second chance after death. Lewis has a tendency in his writing to play with causality and time so that sometimes order of events is irrelevant. Rather this story is an illustration of how God deals with us - where we are - in love and gentleness. We are not expected to know it all and get it all right. But we should expect that God will meet us on the way and lead us toward the light, as he does with the Calermene. This theme is repeated many times in the Narnia stories.

I think reading more than that, theologically, into the passage blinds us to what Lewis is trying to show us.
 
Well writ, Lisbeth!

The theme of God's activity to save mankind is broader than some readings of Scripture. There is in the OT a theme of salvation and God at work among the non-Jewish populations of the world. Some of the prophets in particular elucidate this theme, and some stories of the patriarchs (the whole Joseph bit is an interesting example). We are repeatedly told that God does not desire the death of sinners, but that they return and repent.

"What, O man, does God desire of thee, but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly before God?"

Isaiah 53 entire (which forthtells and foretells and previews the Incarnational God in both the Jewish nation as servant and Jesus as Servant)

the Nunc Dimittis : "Lord, now lettest thy servant depart in peace. For these eyes of mine have seen the Saviour whom Thou has prepared for all the world to see: a Light to enlighten the Gentiles and the glory of Thy people, Israel."

Peter's vision in Acts of the sheet and animals and his understanding that more than historic Israel and political Israel was "saved" by Jesus' Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, and the Coming of the Advocate, "Now I perceive that men of every nation who fear God and do what is right are acceptable to Him" - Acts 10:34.

Do not misunderstand me, all who are saved are saved are saved through Jesus and His "one, full, perfect, sufficient satisfaction for the sins of the world" which He made for our sins "and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world."

And the "Yet, I served..." is an act of repentance, faith, and acceptance of Aslans' grace. Do not forget the thief on the cross next to Jesus who defended Jesus from the accusations of the one railing at Jesus from the other cross. "Remember me..." to which Jesus replied in His grace, "Today thou shalt be with me ...." Someone great (whose name escapes me at the moment) wrote wisely of this that it indicated that it so happened that all men might come but none should presume!

What Lewis is modelling here is not "alternative" salvation, but the sovereignty of God's grace as Jesus said "All that the Father gives me are mine and none shall snatch them out of my hand." And in this image we are shown the breadth, and depth, and height of the mercy of God acting beyond our best understandings. "By this ... that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" is THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life. God calls and we answer, yes or no. "And this is not for you and your children only but to as many as the Lord our God shall call" - Peter's Pentecost sermon.

So what Lewis has done is open to our imagination to God's love and grace and provision NOT validate alternate routes to salvation. There is only one Way but remember all countries (even Calormen and Narnia and England!) are in Aslan's country. There is no where His dominion and grace cannot reach!
 
inked said:
And the "Yet, I served..." is an act of repentance, faith, and acceptance of Aslans' grace.
Click to expand...
Thank you, inked. I like that thought.

On the various arguments and discussions I have seen in this thread, I have three comments.

There was a rather drawn out argument over whether other religions lead to salvation. A divide that I saw becoming clearer in it is whether different religions worship differet gods or worship the same God under different names. This divide closely relates to Lewis' use of "gods/goddesses" in his writing.

As others have pointed out Lewis and Tolkien used the same shape for their mythologies. Because Tolkien was more explicit in how he laid it out in the Silmarillion, it is easier to use his terminology. Illuvatar, "The One," created the universe and the beings in it through song. The greater created beings Valar and Maiar were made stewards of the world. Diverse people, in fear and ignorance, worshipped them as gods. This is a reflection of the Greek view where there were diverse gods, but philosophers recognized that there was one God over them.

Lewis added an "incarnational" strain to this theme that was different from Tolkien's. In Tolkien, a spirit would become incarnated by traveling from Valenor to Middle Earth. But in Lewis, any particular god might be found to be an incarnation of the one God. This can be see in Till We Have Face where Lewis retells the story of Psyche and Cupid. When Psyche's sister Orual finally meets the god, she finds that he is the one true God and lover of all souls. This is a reflection of Hinduism where all of the gods are considered to be aspects of the one God.

So do other religions worship other gods or the same God under different names? Certainly not other gods in the sense of another who is coequal in power and majesty. There is only one God. So do they worship lesser created beings, or do they worship the one God in various aspects? I don't know that as finite human beings, we can make a blanket statement for all religions about that. One religion may be on one side and another on the other. And for those religions that worship created beings, are they worshipping one that is in rebellion against God or one that is not? And once we have gone through all that, do the worshippers have a clear understanding of the nature of their god? And can they?

I am intentionally not answering these questions. I am pointing out that the answers are probably more complex than what I have seen so far in this thread. And to do justice to Lewis, you can't be satisfied with the simple answers because he avoided simple answers.

For the other two topics, I would like direct people to The Great Divorce.

When Lewis is on the edge of heaven he meets George MacDonald, his old teacher, and Lewis asks him about predestination. The answer that he gets is that the teaching of predesitination is both right and wrong, that it is impossible for created beings inside of time to understand the eternal. This should lead us to think that whatever we teach about predestination is a seeing in the mirror darkly. When talking about predestination it is easy to take it to a place that says people are not responsible for their sins because they are predesitined to their path. I think Lewis would say it's best not to break our heads on things we can't understand and be satisfied that we are saved because God intended us to be saved.

As for the discussion of wine and cutting loose, Lewis fealt that any passion was evil to itself - even if humans call it good - but could be redeemed by submission to God. In The Great Divorce we see several examples of ghosts who are using "love" to manipulate others. One is the husband labeled "the Tragedian." Another is a mother who insists that her son would be better off with her in hell. On the opposite side is the man afflicted by the lizard. When he allows an angel to kill it, it transforms into a beautiful stallion that bears him toward God.
 
Bravo Lisbeth and Inked

Very nicely reasoned and documented. Well done.

Now, I have read some articles that say because of these very arguments, Lewis was not a "believer" in our 21st Century reading of the term, but a pantheist because of the reasons outlined here.

He allows for the existence of God/god in other forms than YAHWEH of the Old Testament or Christ, and even argued much of the Old Testament was mythology rather than history.

What do you say to this?
 
Let me point out that mythology is not untrue just because it is mythology. And "history," in the modern sense, did not exist when the Old Testament was written. The Old Testament is at once more mythological than people on the right wish to admit and more historical than people on the left wish to admit. To me it doesn't matter because in it I meet God.

If we take Genesis seriously, then all societies are descended from Edin and we should expect to hear echoes, however faint and however mixed with falsehood, of the original worship of God in all religions.

This, for example, lead me to pay attention to the legend of Earendil in the Silmarillion. It is essentially a "salvation" story. Earendil sacrifies his life to carry the plea of Middle Earth to the Valar, and in the end becomes the Morning Star. Tolkien must have derived this from some mythology. In what other mythologies can we find "morning star" legends? It didn't take me long to realize that it is also Jewish. The Bar Kochba revolution was lead by "the son of the star." So the morning star becomes another metaphore for the Messiah. (Rev 22:16) In how many religions do people wait for the morning star to rise in their hearts? (2 Peter 1:19)

But what I really want to talk about today is the notion found in this thread that the Old Testament Law is the perfect will of God. Such an opinion is an oversimplification that does not take into account the "seeing in a mirror dimly" of 1 Cor 13:12. If the Mosaic Law is the perfect will of God, then why did Jesus repeatedly say, "you have heard it said (in the Law of Moses)... but I tell you...?" So also, "Moses permitted... because your hearts were hard." Rather the Law of Moses was given in the measure that the Jewish people could handle in their lives.

The Pharasees revered the Law of Moses to the point that they would weigh out a tithe of their "spices--mint, dill and cummin," but "neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness." (Matt 23:23) This reminds me of Gandalf's assessment of Sauron at the Councel of Elrond: "He weighs all things to a nicety (with great precision) in the scales of his malace."

The real question for each of us is where does your heart lie? We can love the precision of our theological reasoning. Or we can love the one whom we meet in that theology. In VDT the children encounter Aslan in the country at the edge of the world. Here he tells Edmund and Lucy that they will never come to Narnia again. "It isn't Narnia (that we love), you know," sobbed Lucy. "It's you. We shan't meet you there. And how can we live, never meeting you?"

Indeed.
 
It was precisely the muddy sort of thinking that all gods and goddesses must be in competition with YHWH that Lewis was out to abolish. Any item, self or computer or spouse or idealogy can be elevated to the place of God. But simply because that is so does not mean that everything is necessarily an alternative to GOD. Everything can be in a sinful world, but not everything is. Some things are avenues to God by which He draws us to Himself.

In this regard the nyaids and dryads and elelmentals can be modes of access to God, and are often spoken of that way and not as competitors. To speak of the awe and grandeur of YHWH as riding the thunder and scattering lightening bolts does not mean that Zeus=Jove=YHWH. It means that the natural force can be used to express or comprehend within limits the character or power that God has that is analogous to those events.

It is not either/or but both/and. The analogy fails, as they all do, when pushed too far in itself or in literal understanding of descriptors of this sort.

That is why Jesus kept applying correctives to the intertestmental developments and explications of the Law. The intent and purpose had been forgotten in the nitpicking. And the legalists could hold that I didn't do wrong because I kept all the nitpicks. As Lisbeth notes, this did not work well for Jesus and He expanded the Law.

In analogous fashion, the use of the lesser gods and goddesses are expansions of concepts of aspects of God, but certainly not His replacement. Left on their own they tend to contract to human limitations.
 
I guess as one final note, I think we should spend more time in listening and understanding before we condemn other religions and people. To decide a case without hearing all the evidence is to prejudge.
 
In the Space Trilogy, one of the characters says something like "I suppose there are two sides to every story," and the man he is talking to says something like, "Two sides to every story? There are hundreds of sides to everything until you know the truth, and then there is just one..."

I think that's probably a good reflection of all our ruminations about religion. We can listen and understand other people and religions, but in the end there will still be only one truth, one way to salvation.
 
inkspot said:
In the Space Trilogy, one of the characters says something like "I suppose there are two sides to every story," and the man he is talking to says something like, "Two sides to every story? There are hundreds of sides to everything until you know the truth, and then there is just one..."

I think that's probably a good reflection of all our ruminations about religion. We can listen and understand other people and religions, but in the end there will still be only one truth, one way to salvation.
Click to expand...
And not one of us has got it right. Good thing we're saved by grace.
 
lone calorman

I aways wondered about this part to LB also. Interesting ther seems to be only one Calorman. So I wouldn't call following Tesh a good way to the new Narnia. Post Vatican II teaching is much like Lewis' teaching, but this was written before the Catholic council. I see the Calormen as a kind of Abram.
 
Interesting observation, ToO! I had not thought of it in that manner even after reading TCON for 35 years! An excellent insight. :D
 
WEll, I came on this discussion while searching for Narnia fanfiction, and as I noticesd it's been started up at least once after going silent for a few months and that even so it became pretty active again, I felt compelled to sign on and add my two cents. Oh, and appolagies if I repeat anything allready mentioned in a previous post;I only read some of it.l

Regarding the incident with the Colormen(e?) in the Last Battle, a few points:

1.) First, I don't think that Aslan was referring to anything specifically
related to religious worship, but rather to those general things
related to one's kindness and service country and their fellow man;At
least, I think we can safely assume the shedding of children's blood on
Tash's alter, which I believe is mentioned in the book, wouldn't be one
have been of those 'good things' acreddited as service to Aslan! :p
He seems to have simply been a common(and courageous, I might
add...) soldier doing his duty for 'king and country'.

2.) Second, It's worth noting that HE DOESN'T DIE; Yes, the metaphore
of the barn door to death is clear-nonetheless, he is never slain before
meeting Aslan, so one COULD argue that this takes place for him on
this side of death. Now, one could argue that the fate of the cynical
dwarves after they are thrown in by the Colormenes, as well as the
apparent belief by the two guarding the door on the inside that they
also were in a dark barn, raises problems with this interepretation, but
they may also suggest suggest something else about the colormene
(see below)

3.) Everything we read about this colormene-his reaction when he learned
how his people were to go about conquering Narnia, but especially his
strange, 'entranced' state and the apparently noteworthy look and
expression on his face as he entered his barn; his abillity to see what
'really' lay on the inside of the door, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, his
immediate reaction when he sees Aslan, suggests that in some way
his heart was allready prepared. He DID seek the truth, and believed
immediately when confronted with it. Remember, Narnia IS a different
place; On the one hand, there's certainly no old-testament fire and
brimstone from the sky, no devinely endorsed massacres for the sake
of future generatons' lessons, but neither is there any equivellant to
the 'Great Commission', no 'descipleship', 'appostles', or 'church' per
se; and while there's a 'Father' and 'Son', there's little mention made
of a 'Holy Spirit'....(unless one can count that magical Narnian air that
can give old legs new strength and allow a child to learn swordplay
and lead an army in days;or was that from a little one-on-one time
with aslan...? ;) ) And then there's the context of the 'final
judgement' of all the inhabbitants of narnia, where some look on his
face and are filled with joy, and others turn and go into 'outer dark-
ness...

Having said all that, I still wouldn't put money on Lewis's meaning it that way. Nonetheless, I think a film could easilly include that scene giving more emphasis toward that meaning while still leaving a little ambiguitty for the audience to make up their own minds. And there'd be another good reason for keeping the scene in a film-one that may have prompted Lewis's inclussion of it in the first place, for that matter; while there are perfectly good reasons for all of the elemants of the Last Battle, it's understandable, at least in these times when we're all so much more aware of such things, that some people see and implicit racism there, concious or not (And who knows if a surpressed racism could have snuck into the decision-making of what form some of those 'logical elements' took? ...*meep*). This incident helps to mitigate against that view.

Thanks for your time!



Joel
 
Last edited:
Concerning Lewis' theology and The Last Battle:

First I must note that Christian Theology is too great of a topic to be completely covered in a single thread. That being said, I ultimately agree with Lewis' theology. Consider that God only allowed those into Heaven that had worshiped 'God' and believed Him to be the single Living God. A man grows up in a tribal community in the middle of the Amazon, completely sheltered from any other beliefs or ideas. We'll call this man Fred. His community belives in one god, whom they call 'Yur,' who rules the Earth with supreme authority. At age 20, he dies from an accident while working on the community's worship shelter and faces God. Because God only accepts those who worshiped Him ('God'), he sends the man into eternal damnation. Was this fair?

My arguments:
We all know that God is (a) Jealous God and that he forbids his people to worship idols. In the case of Fred, isn't he worshiping the same deity, although he is using a different name? After all, he is worshiping only one God, and has lived (unknowingly) by the Ten Commandments and with the love of Christ. Is it his fault that he never heard of 'God?' Is it also his fault that he never stumbled upon a Bible, conveinently translated into his language, complete with his name engraved in gold on the front cover?
God is a Just God as well and turning Fred away would be self-defeating. God is supreme and He controls everything that happens on the Earth and in the Heavens; therefore, it would be His fault that Fred had never seen or heard of Him. After all, he put Fred in the middle of the Amazon for a reason. If you do not agree that God would accept others into Heaven that call him by a different name, wouldn't getting into Heaven be merely a predestined lottery?

My final word is that God is much more than one language. Besides, if the Jews are his chosen people, we should be calling him Yaweh. There are many different names that represent one idea. I believe that it is the idea that matters, not the name.

In response to the mentioning of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, I do not think it relates to this topic. The Allegory of the Cave represents the stages that man goes through during his life. Plato saw this as intelligent enlightenment, but this could also be parallel to the rebirth of a man into Christ.
 
You got some good points! Welcome to the site btw...

I think its important to remember that the only reason people are saved is because of God's grace - we have no way of getting into heaven ourselves:

Ephesians 2v 8-9

'For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no-one can boast.'

So - if Fred understands this, that he can never be good enough for God, and that he can only try to be the best he can, always knowing that it is on God he relies, I believe he will not be sent to damnation. However, if his community believe that through human sacrifice or suchlike they can earn Yur's respect, then I believe he will suffer damnation beacuse:
1. He believes he is intrinsically good enough to inherit eternal life
2. He is commiting a terrible sin (human sacrifice) without remorse or repentance

I hope that makes sense!??!
 
Back
Top