Via Kevin Drum, I cam to this John Derbyshire piece, which led me to this piece by Adam Gopnick on C.S. Lewis:
When “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” (magical title!) opens, four children who have been sent to the countryside discover an enchanted land on the other side of an old wardrobe; this is Narnia, and it has been enslaved by a White Witch, who has turned the country to eternal winter. The talking animals who live in Narnia wait desperately for the return of Aslan, the lion-king, who might restore their freedom. At last, Aslan returns. Beautiful and brave and instantly attractive, he has a deep voice and a commanding presence, obviously kingly. The White Witch conspires to have him killed, and succeeds, in part because of the children’s errors. Miraculously, he returns to life, liberates Narnia, and returns the land to spring.Yet a central point of the Gospel story is that Jesus is not the lion of the faith but the lamb of God, while his other symbolic animal is, specifically, the lowly and bedraggled donkey. The moral force of the Christian story is that the lions are all on the other side. If we had, say, a donkey, a seemingly uninspiring animal from an obscure corner of Narnia, raised as an uncouth and low-caste beast of burden, rallying the mice and rats and weasels and vultures and all the other unclean animals, and then being killed by the lions in as humiliating a manner as possible—a donkey who reëmerges, to the shock even of his disciples and devotees, as the king of all creation—now, that would be a Christian allegory.
I'm not religious, but this strikes me as pretty pallid. Surely Gopnik doesn't really think that washed-out theology of New York's Upper West Side, in which Jesus came to tell us to turn the other cheek and be nice to the poor, and his rather unnecessary self-martyrdom was undergone largely to really drive home his point about progressive non-violence, is the sum total of Christian theology.
Jesus is a little more complicated than that. Says He, in Matthew 10:
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.
Indeed, Jesus is actually referred to as "the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David" in Revelations, most of which he spends being distinctly un-lamblike.
Contrary to what Gopnik says, a lamb or a donkey in Aslan's place wouldn't make it more accurate; it would rip the heart out of Christian theology. The sacrifice of the Lamb of God is extraordinary precisely because the Lamb of God is actually the Lion of Judah. A lamb that dies on the sacrificial altar is no more than one in a string of pointless sacrifices; the lamb has no choice in the matter. What is central to the Narnia stories, and to Christian theology, is that the lion, which could rend the sacrificiants limb from limb, instead deliberately eschews violence and lays himself down to be killed. The lion-as-lamb simultaneously acts to end the violent power that is lion-ness, and the passivity that is lamb-ness. It is an endlessly rich act, which Gopnik would have us replace with the martyrdom of the cow at the slaughterhouse gate.
Megan - for a non-religious person, you did a FANTASTIC job of explaining the significance of Aslan! As a Presbyterian minister I give you props and kudos. Also, I read your blog daily and really enjoy it and learn from it...if not entertained by it, i.e. your Comfort Inn horror story! Anyway - blessings to you and keep up the great work. Bryan Bond Cookeville, Tennessee
Beautifully written!
Excellent post. Having seen many prior posts in which you disclaim any religious affiliation, I didn't think you were as steeped in Christian theology as this post suggests that you are. If you are seeking God, I hope that you find him.
One minor quibble: while it is true that Christians consider Jesus to be the "Lion of Judah," he did not always strike his contemporaries as being lionlike. Like the first kings of Israel, who were chosen by God from small and inconsequential families in small and inconsequential tribes, Jesus was born a king, but in a stable and not a palace. So while I agree that Gopnik was wrong to suggest that Jesus should have been allegorized as a donkey, I think he was right to suggest that he should always be presented as obscure.
Yes and no; at many times, Narnia is presented as being in much closer harmony with Aslan than we ever are. They better apprehend his true nature than we do.
That's true, to a degree. I mean, look, if you are a Christian (and I am not), you are simply forced to do some picking and choosing, considering the numerous inconsistencies and contradictions contained within. I would suggest, though, (as a fan of Jesus) that we should probably privilege his message of love and peace, because that is by far the one he tells the most. There are over 3,000 verses in the Bible discussing the duty to ease the pain of poverty. There are, by the most generous definition, perhaps 40 concerning homosexuality.
The fact that Revelations has become the major book for today's horrid Evangelicals shouldn't confuse the fact that the Gospel has always been the principal text of Christianity. It is, after all, the story so nice they told it four times.
I think this is the crux of what Lewis was trying to sat about Aslan, and by extension, Jesus. From LW,W:
“Ooh!” said Susan, “I’d thought he was a man. Is he – quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.”
“That you will, dearie, and no mistake,” said Mrs. Beaver; “if there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly.”
“Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy.
“Safe?” said Mr. Beaver; “don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King I tell you.”
Agreed. The idea that Aslan isn't a "tame lion" is one of the most powerful ones in the whole series. Lewis's Christianity may not be the same as Gopnik's, but it's a valid and powerful strain of the faith.
Tne Narnia stories aren't Christian doctire, anyway. They're stories with a strong Christian theme. And I'm sorry that C. S. Lewis is dead (for many reasons) as I'd like to see Gopnik try to teach him about Christian theology...
EI
Is this all related to the fact that, in the US, those who are the most religious support torture the most? I can feel a connection there but I cannot put my hand on it yet... more such posts and maybe we can reach some enlightenment regarding the need of Jesus to torture those he loves (his enemies)!
I can see Jesus holding down a Roman while his disciples simulate drowning and do not allow the Roman to sleep...
I know that the Bible speaks out against poverty. But is there something in the bible that says - the way to avoid poverty among brown catholics (not real Christians) - is by throwing them out of the country? Do catholics not bleed when...
Never mind, it is just a book, just a story, and there are many books and made up stories out there. Many older and newer books are actually much better than the one written 300 years after Jesus' death. I hope that most people will get around to read a 2nd book one day?
a little something you might consider, Freddie...
neither God nor the universe iteslf actually fit into The Bible. It is a beginning to help us understand that which is impossible for us to understand. We live in 4 dimensions and wrapping your head around the existence of others is generally considered a mathmatical excercise, far different from understanding it. From the human point of view, life itself is inconsistant... good people die, bad people prosper, and very little of it makes sense. we would like to believe that a benevolent God wouldn't allow such things to happen, but we are using a human shaped yardstick for that. Because human shaped is what we know.
This is why Aslan isn't safe, and why the white witch miscalculated. She presumed to know and understand all he knew, indeed, all there is to know. When you read the Bible, it tells you what YOU need to know, but not everything there IS to know.
That doesn't make what you say about how people react to what is written, untrue. Nor does it make the religious, the arbiters of everything... and it doesn't prove that this religion or any other is the end all and be all. THAT would be an article of belief.
YMMV, naturally. I wouldn't claim to know much, just an opinion...
elsewise, thanks for writing on this Megan...
The problem that I've always had with the Aslan-as-Jesus analogy is that, IIRC, Aslan and the Witch are both subject to some poorly-specified "higher magic," whereas in (post-Arian) Christian theology, Jesus *IS* God, and therefore is omnipotent, omniscient, etc., and therefore not subject to any higher power.
Is this all related to the fact that, in the US, those who are the most religious support torture the most? I can feel a connection there but I cannot put my hand on it yet...
Is this all related to the fact that those who are most "reality-based" are most inclined to cite their own stereotypes instead of actual evidence?
Joseph, thank you. Well put.
John, I think you have a great point, but let's keep in mind that this not just an analogy, but an analogy for children. First of all, you need some kind of restraints just to keep a narrative going. Secondly, the kind of restraint children are most familiar with is of the "somebody more powerful than me says its not allowed" variety. It's a lot easier, if less accurate, to explain to a child that Aslan doesn't just magic everything back to normal because he's not allowed to than it is to accurately explain why God won't just undo original sin. This is a gap is Lewis' allegory, but I think it's a necessary one.
Is Mr. Gopnik one of those atheists who presumes to lecture believers despite the fact that his lack of understanding matches his lack of belief? Or is he trying to explain a belief he holds?
Gopnik's comments about Aslan remind me of Vonnegut's idea in Slaughterhouse 5 about how it would have been better if Jesus was a nobody when he was killed, and then the authorities had an 'oops' moment when they realized that they had killed someone who wasn't just a peon. (To be fair, Vonnegut put it in the words of some aliens, but I remember him being sympathetic to the idea.)
Gopnik's lamb and Vonnegut's nobody Jesus serve their own permissible uses of religion, whether 'be nice to everyone' or 'watch out, evil powerful people!'. But they have nothing to do with Christianity.
Any non-theologian who would presume to know more about Christianity than CS Lewis is clearly delusional.
Next, I wait for Gopnick to show us the flaws in Einstein's mathematics.
Oh my God Joseph,
Is this all related to the fact that those who are most "reality-based" are most inclined to cite their own stereotypes instead of actual evidence?
hahahha... You want "actual evidence"? You fucking scientific atheist, you! You freaking non-believer.. have a bit more faith, man!
I kid. But really, chill - we are talking about religion - not something "real" here! I could claim whatever I want and do not have to prove it.
What do you want me to do next - prove to you that God does not or does exist?
It would be easier for me to prove that there is an obese pink elephant in every bathroom on the planet who can only be seen when practicing yoga for 3 years. Everybody knows what obese means, everybody knows what an elephant is and looks like, everybody knows what bathrooms and yoga is... This can be practiced genuinely but include "god" and the whole think becomes just "kidding" around? Right?
I mean, we are not really discussing morals and ethics here, are we? Those are independent of religions and have existed long before religion and fantasy and sci-fi books in animals!
Any non-theologian who would presume to know more about Christianity than CS Lewis is clearly delusional.
Is it even worth pointing out that Jesus was opposed to appeals to religious expertise?
From my reading, Aslan is homoian with the deep magic, not homoousian with it. Lewis is obviously an Arianist heretic!
I appreciate the point here that it is annoying when non-believers lecture believers - particularly those such as Lewis - on what they should believe. However, it is a point that Jesus was a carpenter's son whose mother could not find a bed for him to be born in. It is a tension throughout the gospels - he was born in a stable, but the three kings of the east recognized his birth and visited him there while he was young. So, it is an appropriate argument to make that Lewis chose but one manner of presenting Jesus, and he could have equally, or perhaps even more profitably, been depicted as a more underdog character.
ther point is in narnia that the reality is more obiously the "supernatural " aspect of creation-i.e aslan appears as he does to the devil in the gossipls- so the lino analogy makes a lot of sense.
Even in secular terms one could make too much -jesus was from an oredinay rather than a very humble background and was cleary regarded as a major figure-why he was bumped off.
Gropnik flip-flops between disdain for allegory (he approvingly cites Tolkein) with the preverse intent to read Lewis as allegorically as possible and find him wanting.
Demanding that Aslan be a perfect allegory for Jesus is a bit like demanding that Edmund hang himself and be buried in the potter's field. There is a lot of allegory in the Narnia books, but it isn't all allegory.
I loved the whole Narnia series as a kid -- everything except Aslan. Tedious, preachy, smarmy weirdo, who elicited all this tearful sentimental hysteria, especially from Lucy, for no apparent reason; and the part where he gets shaved and bound to a slab was creepily sexual, from my seven-year-old point of view. Aragorn becomes similarly boring in Tolkien sometime after dropping the dangerous Strider angle, around Lothlorien; but at least he does have his initial Strider thing, and he never gets stripped, sedated and laid out on a stone slab. (Frodo does, of course, which is also very creepy for grade-schoolers.) Luke Skywalker -- similar boring blond zero.
As for the Christian thing, we kind of knew it was supposed to be a Christian allegory by age eight, but we didn't exactly know what "allegory" meant, and all the kids who dug Narnia were Jewish; the Christian kids seemingly couldn't care less.
Who's lecturing? Jesus is very clear: religious worship should not be held hostage by religious expertise. Saying "Who are you to question CS Lewis!" isn't just stupid from the point of view of the elementary logic of discourse; it's unChristian.
You can question CS Lewis all you want. But keep in mind that he was a very smart and thoughtful man who studied and explained Christian theology at great length. He's not infallible or supernatural.
Gopnick can question him all he wants, but when he does so in so obviously a superficial manner, it calls into question his judgement. He most likely doesn't understand the subject as well as CS Lewis and is probably not as good a writer, but he is telling him how he should have written his stories. Gopnick isn't wrong or evil or sinful. Just silly.
Hugo, your response, while unhinged and emphatic, did not actually address the criticism of your comment:
Again, do you always assume that everyone is actually like the stereotypes you have in your head? Do you understand that both the Democratic and Republican parties are quite diverse and contain a wide variety of opinions on all subjects?
EI
EI
Again, do you always assume that everyone is actually like the stereotypes you have in your head? Do you understand that both the Democratic and Republican parties are quite diverse and contain a wide variety of opinions on all subjects?
No I did not know that there are two sides to every coin and that everything we say is absolute..
But please enlighten me. Who is still supporting Bush and hence torture? Give me a demographic breakdown of those 25-30% of people please! Are these mainly moderate Christians (who support abortion and evolution) or agnostics?
I will, in the meantime, fish out an article about the chain smoker who lived to be 103 years old. Ok?
Surely Gopnik doesn't really think that washed-out theology of New York's Upper West Side, in which Jesus came to tell us to turn the other cheek and be nice to the poor, and his rather unnecessary self-martyrdom was undergone largely to really drive home his point about progressive non-violence, is the sum total of Christian theology.
As far as I can tell, there is no one "Christian theology," only many competing perspectives all claiming the "Christian" label. Gropnik has expressed one. C.S. Lewis has expressed a different one (or two or three, depending on which books you read). I find nothing extraordinary about Gropnik's complaint except for the fact that it has attracted attention.
But this dispute focuses on the tension between ambition and ethics. That is, do you base your behavior on achieving the "right" outcome (based on something that can only be determined after the fact) or on doing what is "right" (as determined by something that can be determined beforehand, such as law or gut feeling)? "Honor-based" cultures, especially those arising from Spanish cultures that have suffused the southern US, crave external acknowledgment and reward. Winning a duel is celebrated. "Dignity-based" philosophies, especially those emerging in New England and spreading throughout the Great Lakes regions and into the west coast, emphasize the need to do the right thing even in the absence of external reward and recognition. Such societies celebrate Socrates' drinking the hemlock, Luther's 95 theses, and Thoreau's civil disobedience.
Not surprisingly, people in honor-based cultures caricature dignity-based cultures as cold, passionless and dower, whereas people in dignity-based cultures caricature honor-based cultures as hot-headed, irrational and violent.
Thus, people in honor-based cultures value symbols of dominance and vindication. Such people prefer to look at Jesus as a little smug, going to his death while confident that he could pull an ace from his sleeve if he wanted to. In contrast, people from a dignity-based culture regard symbols of dominance and vindication as a little demeaning. Such people prefer to look at Jesus as a guy who is motivated by compassion for all mankind to do what he knows is right, even in the face of powerful societal forces that will inflict suffering and death. To these people, discussions about giving Jesus "dominion, fame and glory" really trivialize what transpired and kinda miss the point. Jesus was motivated by love; what use does he have for fame and glory, or to dominate others? Offering these things to Jesus is like offering him a gratuity: it focuses on what the donor values, not the receiver.
Thus to some people, it is important to seek Jesus as like a lion -- potentially dominant. To other people, it is important to see Jesus as like a lamb -- blameless and pointedly not appealing to worldly values such as dominance or glory. As people have pointed out, both views find support in the Bible. I can't characterize either one as THE Christian perspective.
Luke Skywalker -- similar boring blond zero.
Ha! I was just thinking of Star Wars (Episode 4) -- specifically, about whether it reflects an honor culture or a dignity culture. Arguably, it reflects both. Luke is initially motivated to help Lea out of compassion (and perhaps lust; he doesn't learn that he's her sister until later). There's no suggestion that he's either motivated or deterred by what others will think of his actions. Nevertheless, the movie ends with a big recognition ceremony. Some people really get off on that ceremony; some don't. That's a quick-and-dirty test about whether people value honor or dignity. (Ok, and whether people value John William's score, which was clearly divinely inspired.)
In Jesus' time, donkeys were the royal mount -- not lowly and bedraggled. When Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, which Christians now celebrate as Palm Sunday, his riding a donkey was an implicit claim to kingship. Whatever Gopnick is, he's no theologian.
Is it really so hard to spell Adam Gopnik's name correctly? We have Gopnick and Gropnik all over the place here.
I recall liking Gopnik's essay when it came out, but don't want to reread it now. But this is clearly a poor reading of what Gopnik is saying. Gopnik:
If we had, say, a donkey, a seemingly uninspiring animal from an obscure corner of Narnia, raised as an uncouth and low-caste beast of burden, rallying the mice and rats and weasels and vultures and all the other unclean animals, and then being killed by the lions in as humiliating a manner as possible—a donkey who reëmerges, to the shock even of his disciples and devotees, as the king of all creation—now, that would be a Christian allegory.
And McArdle:
Surely Gopnik doesn't really think that washed-out theology of New York's Upper West Side, in which Jesus came to tell us to turn the other cheek and be nice to the poor, and his rather unnecessary self-martyrdom was undergone largely to really drive home his point about progressive non-violence, is the sum total of Christian theology.
Where does Gopnik suggest that Jesus's martyrdom is "unnecessary"? It seems precisely the point of his hypothetical version of the allegory, which climaxes with the donkey being killed by the lions "in as humiliating a manner as possible". What Gopnik wants is an allegory which focuses on Jesus's initial identity as an outcast, one of the low and the poor. He wants a lamb or a donkey who consorts with rats and squirrels but ultimately turns out to have been The King all along, rather than a lion whom we know is The King right from the beginning but who chooses, in a weird and seemingly pointless subterfuge, to give up his powers. This mirrors the gospels: Jesus is presented to us first not as God, but as the child of a couple of poor migrants in an obscure backwater of an oppressed land, with only hints of the great destiny to come. Ditto for all the Dragon Prince tales: we meet Sundiata as the lame child of a poor widow, before he becomes the mighty King of Ghana; we meet Arthur as a poor farm boy, before Merlin sees him for the son of Pendragon; and so on, down to Luke Skywalker on Tatooine. The thrill of the scenes of recognition in such tales -- John the Baptist's recognition of Jesus as the Messiah, Arthur pulling Excalibur from the stone, Obi-wan revealing to Luke his destiny -- is set up by the protagonist's initial obscurity. In the Gospels, that device is imbued with moral force: the recognition of the humble carpenter's son as the Son of God is the recognition of the dignity and holiness of every human being, no matter how humble, the settling of the ancient debt, and the undoing of the old law in favor of a new order of pure love.
If Jesus really does appear as the Lion of Judah only in Revelations, that's pretty damning; Revelations is the Battlefield: Earth of the Gospels, a weird sci-fi fantasy bereft of moral content. Given the role lions more usually played in early Christianity, it certainly seems fair for Gopnik to point out the contradictions in that choice of symbol. That's not to say that lions haven't also long served as symbols of Christ, but then, so have fish, and goldfinches, neither of which would have made great choices for Aslan. In any case, I have no idea why McArdle sees Gopnik's version of this story as "washed-out" or concerned only with "being nice to the poor". If anything, Gopnik wants the more difficult version of the Gospels in which Christ is himself one of the poor and brings revolution and upheaval, not a comforting Anglican-Catholic theology in which Christ is assimilated to the reigning power and appears as an ally of authority who only wants to caution the wealthy to be charitable to their inferiors.
Yeah, but CS Lewis was writing a children's story, not a theological dissertation. Though he did write those, as well.
EI
I don't believe CS was writing a perfect allegory of the Christian experience on this planet. I think in one of the books Aslan planely stated that Lucy could find him in their world, only in a different apperance -- ie as Jesus Christ.
When I read the books I take them in this quasi literal/allegorical viewpoint. Aslan is Christ portrayed differently than he is in our world.
I read Narnia as some uplifting stories containing some morality and positive traits related to Christianity, but anyone who reads any more into the story and attempts to work backwards by defining Christianity based on a reading of the Narnia books is off their rocker.
If you want to understand Christian teachings read the Bible with sincere intent.
If anything, Gopnik wants the more difficult version of the Gospels in which Christ is himself one of the poor and brings revolution and upheaval not a comforting Anglican-Catholic theology in which Christ is assimilated to the reigning power and appears as an ally of authority who only wants to caution the wealthy to be charitable to their inferiors.
This is interesting, it inverts much I have heard in the US from religious critics. The Episcopal church gets slammed for being too liberal, championing the downtrodden, being tied up with other progressive causes, etc. The Roman Catholics are slammed for their flirtation with liberation theology and being too concerned with the poor. Evangelical/Fundamentalist churches, especially the non-denominational megachurches, are slammed for being too wrapped up in "success theology" and for lack of outreach to the poor and powerless. Both are overgeneralizations.
My own reading of the Gospels, limited in understanding as it is, is that Christ's crucifixion was caused because he didn't bring what the locals wanted - revolution and upheaval ... against the Romans and instead a resetting of the Law. At least this a major socio-political lesson of Matthew.
EI
And since we are at it some more thoughts...
Jesus was probably dark skinned and dark-haired and dark-eyed.. not much of a lion or lamb connection there. But I do see Jesus as a black sheep of some kind? somebody who did seek the lowest common denominator and not some differences. who asked us to extend our circle of empathy. To treat others as one would want to be treated oneself? Individual rights in other words?
I cannot see how one can claim to follow the message of a lion or lamb Christ while supporting torture? Torture is not self-defense. I do not even mentioning the fact the torture is stupid. (Torturing suicide bombers is like a sadist torturing a masochist. Who wins?).
The character analogy, aggressive vs defensive, is a misleading one? In nature - those who balance the best between both native traits are most successful and the virtual stand-off "lion vs lamb" does not exist in the context discussed. In nature, bovines compete just as much as lions and lions defend as much as bovines. What it often comes down to, emotionally but mistakenly is, "do you want to eat or be eaten... Kill or be killed?" But both lion and lamb eat, both die. So do apes like humans.
It is interesting that artists have historically often portrait god as having a fair mane and the devil as a hoofed bovid? God the lion and the devil as an adult lamb? Hmm.. we lock up, torture and eat the devil and train the gods to jump through burning rings in Las Vegas? Hmm...
I'm sure this is futile, but Hugo, you are making up the connection between being Christian and supporting torture. I don't really know very many people who actually support torture. I know a lot of people who are willing to accept some coercive interrogation techniques and/or treating prisoners with less than luxurious comfort. I know some people who are willing to accept the possibility that torture may be the only way to get some vital information in an extreme situation. Not all of them are Republicans (some are even Democrats)!
I know Republicans and Christians who are vehemently opposed to torture under any circumstances.
I know a lot of people, though, who want to define torture as any treatment of a prisoner that might make him the least bit uncomfortable and then make all of that illegal. Those people would have us coddling prisoners, specifically prisoners who are terrorists and who are already receiving better treatment than required under Geneva since they are not uniformed soldiers of a signer of the convention.
I know a lot of people who want to use the torture issue as a partisan attack against a President that they don't like, so they bring it up constantly and use dishonest rhetoric to twist the facts around to suit their attack.
I know at least one person who hijacks threads to talk about the same issue of animal rights and vegetarianism over and over and uses overgeneralizations to make some sort of point...
EI
I remember that essay too and wondering about all those famous fact checkers at the New Yorker who let Gopnick's 'meaning of Christianity' go on through and thinking they're not all that good.
For brookfoe, remember the temptation in the desert. Ms. McCardle and Lewis are getting Christianity correct here, the only question about Gopnick one might ponder is how he got such a screwed up view of the topic, and more fantastically, how he thinks he understands the topic batter than a rather well known apologist like Lewis, as above sort of presuming to explain physics to Einstein. An essay by Gopnick, 'How I arrived at my view of Christianity' might make a good case study in clinical psychology.
Ms. McCardle and Lewis are getting Christianity correct here
Okay, I'll say it again-- a good part of what made Christ's teachings so revolutionary was that he advocated taking religious practice away from hierarchical religious authority and towards personal connection with God. Saying "This guy is an expert, therefore his position on Christianity is correct" is not a Christian thing to do.
Freddie, good thing no one is doing that... instead, we're saying that his position on Christianity is very well thought out and informed and makes a lot of sense, therefore he's an expert. Gopnik's position is not, therefore, he's not.
Neither Megan nor CS Lewis are part of a hierarchical religious authority. CS Lewis is famous for explaining his personal beliefs about Christianity, not for telling everyone how they ought to believe.
Perhaps you are not familiar with CS Lewis' writings on Christianity... he does not take an authority position. Instead, he explains his own beliefs and thoughts in an effort to share them with others. Quite a different attitude.
EI
I dunno. If you start off as part of God (lion), then lower yourself to the world of men even though you still have "powers" (becoming like a lamb), die, then return to life and are part of God again, then I think Lewis had it pretty much right. Jesus living as lamb, dying as lamb, and rising as lamb does not quite indicate the powerful transition that is necessary to make the Christian story worthwhile (to believers) and preposterous (to the non-believers).
That transition, where God (or part of him) comes down to man is essential.
The lion, like Jesus, could save himself and the witch showed some fear. One recalls Jesus upon the cross with the thieves, and there, hanging, nailed down with them, the one mocks, the other believes. There Jesus, as ridiculous as ever says, "This day will you be with me in paradise." How absurd. Weak as a lamb, but the authority of a lion.
The whole idea about lamb or lion is less about God's essential nature (for he carries every good trait) but rather, about how his actions can best be visualized by limited human understanding.
Freddie,
That is certainly your interpretation but it may not be entirely correct. Some truth, but not complete.
Christ organized Apostles. He called them to continue his Ministry after he was gone. The Apostles converted and baptized many so you can assume there must have been some sort of organization. They wrote letters to their converts and kept in touch with them as best as they were able to at that time. So there certainly was a lot more than just getting baptized, "having a personal relationship" and not listening to any pesky outsiders.
From there you can either believe the early church morphed into the Catholic church, or believe, as I do, that it fell away from it's early teachings and was corrupted by the philosophies of men.
Well, maybe it's a Jewish thing, but there are things I really love about Christianity, and the Aslan vision of Christ is not one of them. I always found Aslan creepy, sanctimonious, and majoritarian, and Lucy's enthusiasm for him rather cultish. One of the things Gopnik was getting at in that essay, if I recall correctly, is that the best stuff in Narnia is basically pagan, Brothers Grimm-ish and Freudian -- the magic portals, the children astray in the woods, Edward and the beautiful winter queen's fatally seductive Turkish Delight; later in the series, the prince who turns to a dragon each night, and must be tied to his throne so he doesn't wrestle free; etc. This is all chthonic, dark stuff. The effort to impose an overlay of Christian Goodness over the top of this, in the person of Aslan, fails in part because the universe Lewis creates is so polymorphous and non-Manichaean; there's so much going on there besides good and evil. It's like Buffy that way -- the proliferation of demons and universes, the flipping of characters from good to bad. It's all far too weird to be contained by a frame of Light vs. Dark, and Aslan feels strangely out of place in his own world -- perhaps more like just another fairy, more Oberon than Jehovah.
I'm not sure how anyone can be weirded out by a character that:
-makes you feel loved upon meeting him
-is willing to go through a painful sacrafice of himself for the good of everyone
-understand that just because you might like things to turn out a certain way, and he has the power of granting your wish for you, doesn't mean that he should because he recognizes some trials are necessary for your growth.
Ya, what a sick freaky character. I might suggest that perhaps because you are Jewish, as you observed, you were aware of the fact that this benevolent character represented Jesus, and since you stand in firm opposition to Jesus' existance as the Son of God you read a little bit too much into this Aslan character.
Jesus stuff aside, if the character had no parallels whatsoever with Jesus, he's a great character that I always looked forward to appearing in the books. I can't imagine someone turning the page thinking, "oh great this Aslan guy showed up again".
Brooksfoe: I think you've hit why I (a non-christian ever since I first understood what the preacher was claiming) liked Narnia - it's got so many wonderful pagan elements...
john w.
The problem that I've always had with the Aslan-as-Jesus analogy is that, IIRC, Aslan and the Witch are both subject to some poorly-specified "higher magic," whereas in (post-Arian) Christian theology, Jesus *IS* God, and therefore is omnipotent, omniscient, etc., and therefore not subject to any higher power.
I'm no theologian or any kind of expert, but through this discussion I realized that the analogy is good but there's a diffult to reconcile gap in the (post-Arian) theology: Jesus's sacrifice only makes sense if God is constrained by higher laws, which is hard to reconcile with omnipotence. An omnipotent God doesn't need divine sacrifice to add an element of mercy to a law he made himself. An omniscient God wouldn't make a law he would need to change later. I'm sure hundreds of theologians have talked around this point, but I doubt they'd get any further with me than if they were arguing that pi = 3.0.[1]
But where does the Bible say God is omnipotent and omniscient?
[1] There is a verse in the Bible describing a bowl with a circumference to diameter ratio of 3.0, but the measurement accuracy and where measured are unclear. I'd suggest any budding theologians out there concentrate on those possibilities rather than trying to prove that basic geometry is wrong.
markm -
I'm not much prone to religious discussion, and haven't been for many years, but I'll give it a shot.
I believe the conventional Christian view is that God creates moral law. (If God decided that torturing small innocent children to death was moral, than it would be moral, either our intuitions about morality would change, or they would be wrong in some objective sense.
Another view is that God is infinitely wise and recognizes what is wrong or right.
Omnipotence isn't as simple of idea as it sounds. If one is omnipotent how do you deal with logical contradictions? There is the old "can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it? The answer could be there is no God, or that God isn't omnipotent, or that God can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it (he can impose a restriction on his own omnipotence, or make himself non omnipotent) or that he can't make a rock so heavy he can't lift it (that his omnipotence doesn't extend to ending or limiting itself), or that he can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it and that he can lift it anyway (that his omnipotence trancends logic).
One can define omnipotence as something that doesn't transcend logic. Some might not consider that to be omnipotence, because its in a sense accepting a limit. But if one does accept such a definition, than its possible to imagine that right and wrong (at least some sub set of what is right and is wrong) is inherent in the logic of Universe (in a way which God can comprehend and we can't at least not fully)
God, embodied in Christ/Aslan is NOT subject to the "higher magic", that's why the sacrificial table (symbolizing the higher magic) cracks when he is resurrected.
God is also not "in" time as humans perceive it. God in Christ is the Alpha and Omega. So God does not change the law "later" since there is no "later" for God. Since God is not fully knowable, as thus also is God's law, our perception/understanding of it changes, rather than the law itself.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17)
Megan, you're dead on.
buy generic online viagra