C.S. Lewis?

[Melodys]

I don't understand why people don't like him. His books are so great and the metaphors are genius. The way he portrays demons in "The Screwtape Letters" really helped me to understand how much Satan is around us. Sure, its not completely doctrinal, but its a story.
I have heard some say that the allegory is Narnia is really of orgies, goddesses and the like, but what is the basis of that? It seemed as though they dug too deep into the metaphors. Why would someone who writes so much of God put stuff like that in?
I don't know, could someone explain better?

[Annie]

I don't understand why people don't like him.

Who doesn't like him?
You can look here for a recent discussion we had on this board about C.S. Lewis. I'm a fan, to be sure, but others aren't. The disagreement seems to lie in the definition of fantasy, and whether the elements in a work of fantasy (like Narnia and LOTR) trespass against Scripture. I don't think they do, but others see it differently. Edited April 28, 2011 by Annie

[Seth Doty]

I don't understand why people don't like him. His books are so great and the metaphors are genius..... Sure, its not completely doctrinal, but its a story.

"Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

Most of the people who object to C.S. Lewis do so for exactly the reason you acknowledge. His stories contain quite a bit of false doctrine. A half truth can be more dangerous than a complete lie sometimes. Why do you think false religions can be and historically have been so much more successful than pure atheism? Generally it is because they mix some truth and "spiritualism" with error. A little truth makes a lie more likely to be accepted. The less truth a lie contains the harder it is going to be to make it believable. Suppose I said I was 6ft six inches tall(which I am not). Without knowing or seeing me you might believe that statement were I to state that as a fact because you would known that it is true that some people are that height and you would have no reason to doubt me. However if I were to state that I was 20ft tall you would not believe that because it is a known truth that there are not any 20ft tall people. A lie like that would be difficult to get people to believe because it is getting even farther away from the truth. Thus it is with the devil. He is very fond of half truths or even twisting the scriptures to make his lies more believable.

The way he portrays demons in "The Screwtape Letters" really helped me to understand how much Satan is around us.

It has been a long time since I have read those but I remember some pretty weird doctrine being mixed into those "letters". For example I seem to recall that it was taught that demons "ate" the souls of men and in turn were "eaten" by other demons. That sort of silliness is how errors in common thought gets started, such as the common perception of the devil as a horned creature with hoofs for feet, a pitchfork, a pointed tail, and a little pointy beard. Also such things as a long haired Jesus, people or angels having "halo's", angels being women, people become "angels" when they die and on and on... When doctrine and spiritual things are being taught it is a very bad idea to ignore a "little" false doctrine. At best it risks gradual acceptance of error as no big deal through familiarity, at worst it can mislead those who don't know any better into believing that the error is actually the truth.

I have heard some say that the allegory is Narnia is really of orgies, goddesses and the like, but what is the basis of that? It seemed as though they dug too deep into the metaphors. Why would someone who writes so much of God put stuff like that in?
I don't know, could someone explain better?

The real question is such a thing pure? Is such a thing unrebukeable? Is it necessary or very smart to flirt with evil for the sake of a "story"? Not that any of us are or ever will perfect till we get our glorified bodies, but every Christian should be constantly doing their best to head more and more in the direction of the perfection of Christ. If that goal is persistently sought after out of a pure heart it results in many things. It results in a change of both actions and attitudes. Way to many Christians decide that since it isn't possible to be completely holy or perfect they are not going to make any effort in that direction at all. That is where many liberal elements of "christianity" are at. They attack anyone they perceive as having standards as a "legalist" since the thought or suggestion that a Christian really shouldn't be doing a whole lot of highly questionable things makes them uncomfortable. The other extreme is mistakenly and sometimes unconsciously deciding that holiness is important but that it is based mostly on Christ honoring "standards" such as the the way you dress, what you do or don't watch, what you do or don't read and so on. All the while putting a rather low emphasis on showing such things as biblical mercy, grace, self control, and so forth which are certainly every bit as important in being holy before God as holding Christ honoring standards(not that standards don't matter, they do, but they are only a piece of the picture rather than the whole picture). Few things bug me as much online as when I encounter people I generally agree with on doctrine and share their biblical standards yet they show very little or no evidence of self control, grace, longsuffering and so forth when they are arguing with people who don't see it. Of course this is subjective to a point, often times when someone disagrees they will claim they are being mistreated simply because there is disagreement when that really isn't so. Sometimes it really is so though. In such cases it unfortunately defeats the whole purpose of an argument over spiritual things even if one is technically right. It becomes a case of this: "Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." When that happens it is quite sad and is the single greatest hindrance to the truth IMHO.

[1Timothy115]

I don't understand why people don't like him. His books are so great and the metaphors are genius. The way he portrays demons in "The Screwtape Letters" really helped me to understand how much Satan is around us. Sure, its not completely doctrinal, but its a story.
I have heard some say that the allegory is Narnia is really of orgies, goddesses and the like, but what is the basis of that? It seemed as though they dug too deep into the metaphors. Why would someone who writes so much of God put stuff like that in?
I don't know, could someone explain better?

I've seen some things worth quoting from some of his books...
Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important. - C.S. Lewis

I understand he wrote mainly to the atheist crowd. So, I went to their sites and found he is a constant point of antagonism for them. In regard to whether or not he reached his intended audience, I would say yes; they have to read Bible to argue against what he says.

I intend to read another of his books soon.

[Annie]

I've seen some things worth quoting from some of his books...
Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important. - C.S. Lewis

I understand he wrote mainly to the atheist crowd. So, I went to their sites and found he is a constant point of antagonism for them. In regard to whether or not he reached his intended audience, I would say yes; they have to read Bible to argue against what he says.

I intend to read another of his books soon.

Melody, have you read any of Lewis's works besides his fantasy stories? My favorites (besides Mere Christianity and Surprised by Joy) are The Abolition of Man (an EXCELLENT indictment of modern education) and Till We Have Faces. Good stuff! Edited April 29, 2011 by Annie

[Melodys]

Yeah, Annie. Screwtape Letters is definitely one of my favorite books ever
I just feel like people twist his words to mean something that they don't

[Salyan]

The David Cloud news feed has an article on him today. You should go over and read it! Here's an excerpt...

Even Christianity Today admits. “Clive Staples Lewis was anything but a classic evangelical, socially or theologically. He smoked cigarettes and a pipe, and he regularly visited pubs to drink beer with friends. Though he shared basic Christian beliefs with evangelicals, he didn’t subscribe to biblical inerrancy or penal substitution. He believed in purgatory and baptismal regeneration” (“C.S. Lewis Superstar,” Christianity Today, Dec. 2005).

[John81]

The David Cloud news feed has an article on him today. You should go over and read it! Here's an excerpt...

That's an excellent article! :thumb:

[Guest]

Is this the same Christianity Today started by Billy Grahm? The same Billy Grahm folks here railed against not long ago? Now his ministry is quote-worthy?

Hmmm?

[John81]

Is this the same Christianity Today started by Billy Grahm? The same Billy Grahm folks here railed against not long ago? Now his ministry is quote-worthy?

Hmmm?

I believe it was used as a means of pointing out the clear truth, which even "mainstream Christianity" acknowledges. As well, it serves to point out that those who love Lewis can't claim ignorance of his views and beliefs since they have reported on them.

Did Billy Graham start that magazine? It's been many, many years since I've looked at a Christianity Today, but I know even back then the magazine was liberal leaning.

[HappyChristian]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. :icon_smile: