Conversations on Magic: ‘Leaning Annie’

Conversations on Magic: ‘Leaning Annie’
Share

CONVERSATIONS ON MAGIC

People want to talk about magic.

When we go to conventions, it is the number one topic that attendees bring up in our booth. Some begin the conversation accusing us, some start off defensive, some are curious, some confused, some joyful … and so begin hours of fascinating discussions with our visitors.

I’d like to revisit some of these conversations on magic and paganism, so that you can be an observer, and if you like, a commentator. Perhaps I’ll make it a series.

First though, I humbly ask for you to forbear with me. I know this is a touchy subject. Almost all my Christian friends disagree with me, and yet we are brethren who love one another.

‘LEANING ANNIE’

‘Leaning Annie’ is a mixture of people I’ve met who ‘lean’ towards the notion that God is okay with magic being portrayed positively in Christian books and media. Yet, they are not completely convinced that their position is a right one.

Annie, about sixteen or seventeen, perused our books for a few minutes. She seemed thoughtful, and with open countenance she turned to me and asked, “I want to be a Christian writer, could you tell me why I should not write about magic in my Christian fantasy novels?”

There really seemed to be a great sincerity behind her question.

I responded with my own question, “Do you know what the Bible says about magic?”

She answered quickly. “Yes.”

I pressed the point. “There are some topics, like wine, that have scriptures which seem to promote it and others which seem to condemn it. Though God has one doctrine on wine, we can see why different believers hold to opposing and contradicting positions on the subject. Does that make sense?”

She nodded her head.

“Good. Now, there are many scriptures on magic in both the Old and New Testament, and they all, every one, portray magic in the negative. Do you know of anywhere in the Bible that says magic is good, or okay?”

“No,” she said, “I totally get that.”

“I think then, I know where you are coming from. Tell me if I’m wrong. You want to follow God’s Word. You also have read many books, some even claiming to be Christian books that have magic and pagan elements in them … and those books are exciting, you really enjoyed them. Am I right so far?”

Annie thought for a few seconds, looked down, and then back up at me. “Yes, that is correct …”

I continued, “But, you have heard a doctrine that says it is okay to use magic in stories as long as those stories do not take place in the real world. For if they are in a pretend fantasy world then the magic can represent something else, something that is not evil. Furthermore, the reader will not be deceived into thinking magic is good because the reader, even a child, understands that none of the story is real, by the very context: i.e. the pretend world that the story takes place in.”

Her eyes brightened, “Yes, exactly. That is it exactly!”

“So, in your books you want to portray magic as good. You’ve already told me that you understand God thinks it is evil, and I’m sure you know His warnings, “Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil”. But you are under the impression that it is okay to call evil good as long as you do so in a pretend world. Am I still explaining your position fairly?”

She looked like someone who had just noticed something unpleasant poking out from  her ice cream. “I wouldn’t have phrased it that way … but I suppose it is accurate.”

She really was taking all this very well, and she still seemed eager to hear what I had to say, so I continued my train of thought. “Since we’ve now decided it is okay to call evil good in a pretend world, there is nothing to stop us from calling any other thing good, which God has labeled as bad or evil, as long as we place it in the context of a pretend, fantasy world.”

She frowned.

This is the point where I hoped she would clearly see the inconsistency in her doctrine. “Annie, I want to write a book where all marriages are made up of homosexual couples. I know God says that it is sin, but they won’t represent sin in my made up world, these marriages will represent Godly marriages between a man and a woman. I know that sounds off, but you’re going to do the same thing with magic, something else that God calls evil, so I don’t see any problem with it. Are you okay with that? Would your parents let you read books like that?”

She leaned back from me, shocked. “No … No … that’s awful. No!”

Again she turned her gaze away, and then with boldness looked me in the eyes. “I’ve never thought of it that way. I can’t pick and choose what I want to be okay with God.”

“Amen, sister. Our measuring rod must always be God and His perfect Word and we must always be on the alert for our own itching ears.”

A little while later, Annie came back with her mother. We introduced ourselves and talked some, and we were greatly encouraged.

18 Comments

  1. That is a really good argument against magic! I have a friend who reads Harry Potter and she also said that it was just an imaginary world and it didn’t matter. I wasn’t able to convince her from that standpoint. This should help next time, thanks!

    Reply
    • Hi Rosey,
      I’m glad it was helpful for you 🙂

      Reply
  2. Great job, Matt, on being faithful to the WHOLE gospel and to help illustrate clearly, carefully the importance of obedience to God especially when our urge is to blur the lines a little. “Did God really say . . .?” is a familiar refrain from our one Enemy and so common today in many discussions about faith, theology, what is okay and what is not. Praise Jesus that Annie was receptive to honest instruction!

    Reply
    • Hi Matt,
      Yes, she really had such a sweet, humble spirit. So much so, that I was convicted. It seems that pride is always rearing its ugliness in me. Romans 7:24-25 [24] O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? [25] I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. …
      Amen to your comment on “Did God really say …”. So much comes back to either belief or unbelief, a Huge Holy God or a man-made man-like god, and servant loving obedience or a propensity to itchy eared loving of self. Thank God that He is so rich in Mercy and Grace towards us.

      Reply
  3. I agree on most of your reasoning, but not your conclusion.
    What is magic?
    In the Bible, magic is the harnessing of supernatural forces, a.k.a. daemons.
    What are miracles?
    Miracles are things accomplished by God, whether firstly through His own might or through His angels, that would not have happened in the “natural” course of events. [This is a rough definition, but it will serve]
    The analogy to homosexuality does not necessarily work; if magic is the harnessing of supernatural forces, it is wrong, even in fiction. Thus far the analogy works. But if, as in the case of Aslan or Gandalf, it is not the harnessing of a supernatural force but the supernatural intervention of either a God figure [Aslan] or an angel-like being [Gandalf; he was a Maia, or lesser angel]. Here their work is what the Bible would call miracle and what the genre calls magic.
    The treatment of this type of magic should be careful, but “miracle- magic” is not inherently a morally wrong thing to write about as good. [see this article I found online: http://decentfilms.com/articles/magic; I dont’ agree with it entirely but I do think it has the basics right.].
    Now for “magic- magic”: is it acceptable to write about this at all?
    The answer is yes; the Bible speaks of it, not just in admonishments against it but in its narrative.
    The treatment is what is important here. This “magic-magic” must be clearly defined as wrong, horrible, and despicable; it should not only be called that but shown to be that. It should not be portrayed as in the least attractive. Details should not be lavished upon it; it’s not a thing which it is wholesome to dwell upon.
    Just a note: I would say that Lord of the Rings, at least, portrays this well, in the books at the very least. “miracle-magic” is practiced by Gandalf and some of the elves; I would contend that it is the inherent nature of the elves to have what we would consider a suprnatural gift, though it varies in strength in each fo them. Then look at Morgoth, Sauron, and S_____ [spoilers for those who haven’t read it]. They practice “magic-magic” being, all of them, evil forces, really analogs of daemons. As for one of the few semi-human magic users, the Witch King clearly uses Sauron’s power; this is “magic-magic” not “miracle- magic”.
    This is actually the philosophy of magic that I use in writing my fantasy; it’s related to what I call my “alternate universe” method of world- building:the world is fantasy but it keeps Christian theology, the nature of God, and the nature of the superantural essentially the same.
    Please excuse any typos I may have made.
    God bless.
    Χαιρε!
    Sincerely, RC

    Reply
    • Hello, RC.
      Wow, you brought up a lot of points. It might take a little while to address them, and I’ll begin with a question that might seem off point, but please bear with me.
      Do Father Christmas (Santa) and Christmas represent what they seem to represent in the Chronicles of Narnia, i.e. what we would normally think of?

      Reply
  4. They do not, at least in Narnia proper. Narnia contains several similar inconsistencies.
    I am interested to see where this goes.
    God bless.
    Sincerely, RC

    Reply
    • I am amazed by your answer. I didn’t think it was possible for you to say no. And In so doing, you have circumvented my argument. But you have brought to life another that will perhaps be more persuasive to you.

      If you hold to your answer then it seems that we can not know anything about what the Chronicles of Narnia teach or promote because one must be either initiated into the esoteric mysteries of Narnia or there is no such thing as truth in Lewis’s fiction and all who read it are expected to be post modernists who create their own truth. In other words, all truth is relative. This would seem to give license to Christian writers who follow in the footsteps of Lewis to tell stories without any measuring rod for truth, without any accountability to the Word of God.

      Wouldn’t 99.9% of children and most adults reading the Chronicles immediately see Father Christmas and Christmas through the lens of our current world’s reality. Isn’t that how Lucy saw it? When she first went through the wardrobe and saw Mr. Tumnus carrying packages, her perspective was that he looked like he had been Christmas shopping. In the same chapter he tells her that is is always winter and never Christmas. She doesn’t need any explanation about what winter or Christmas is. Does winter also represent something else in Narnia than what we would expect?

      How do we interpret Lewis’s words ‘daughter’s of eve’ and ‘sons of Adam’? As humans right? He even uses the word human. But, since we’re in Narnia should we think of them as some other beings?

      Here is a quote from Chapter 10 of the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe which seems to clearly state how we should interpret Christmas in Narnia:
      It was a sledge, and it was reindeer with bells on their harness … and on the sledge sat a person whom everyone knew the moment they set eyes on him. He was a huge man in a bright red robe (bright as holly berries) with a hood that had fur inside it and a great white beard that fell like a foamy waterfall over his chest. Everyone knew him because, though you see people of his sort only in Narnia, you see pictures of them and hear them talked about even in our world – the world on this side of the wardrobe door. But when you really see them in Narnia it is rather different. Some of the pictures of Father Christmas in our world make him look only funny and jolly. But now that the children actually stood looking at him they didn’t find it quite like that. He was so big, and so glad, and so real, that they all became quite still …. Then he cried out Merry Christmas!

      1 Corinthians 14:7-9 KJV
      [7] And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? [8] For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? [9] So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

      Reply
  5. Mr. Harding,
    I beleive you misunderstood me. I meant that Christmas in Narnia doesn’t represent Christ’s birth. It couldn’t.
    From the passage you quote, Father Christmas seems almost a title, like the name is one adopted from a rumor which he or one like him started.
    God bless.
    Sincerely, RC
    P.S. I am NOT a relativist, just to be clear.

    Reply
    • Does Adam represent the same person in Narnia that he does in our world?

      Reply
      • Mr. Harding,
        Humans in Narnia clearly derive solely from our world. Telmarines were former pirates, King Frank and Queen Helen were Londoners, Polly, Diggory, Andrew, Peter, Edmund, Eustace, Jill, Lucy, and Susan were all from England. Calormenes are not specified but i beleive that their origin is most likely the same. So yes, Adam actaully is the same person.

        Reply
  6. Continuing from RC’s comment “Humans in Narnia clearly derive …”

    At this point I would have liked to ask the same question about Bacchus, but instead I’ll just make an assumption, realizing that I might get your response wrong. Still, I don’t think it will change my point to much if you would have answered differently. I’ll assume that you think Bacchus in Narnia is none other than the Baachus from our world, or at least that he will be instantly recognizable as the same to most readers who are familiar with the ancient pagan gods. Because he has the same name, the same followers in Narnia as he does in our world, and he does things that fit with who he is in our world.

    I’ll also assume that you believe that stories are intrinsically didactic. Wether we try to or not, they teach something.

    You mentioned in your original post that magic-magic must be ‘clearly defined as wrong, horrible, and despicable; it should not only be called that but shown to be that. It should not be portrayed as in the least attractive.’

    What Lewis ‘teaches’ in his stories are not clear though. According to our discussion and what I’ve read in the books:
    Magic sometimes means magic but sometimes it doesn’t.
    Father Christmas who looks like Father Christmas and acts like him actually is not him.
    Christmas is not actually Christmas.

    But, Adam is supposed to be the real Adam. The only problem is that Lewis’s Adam is different from the true Adam, because his Adam had a wife, named Lillith, before Eve, worse yet, she was half demon. This teaching comes straight from the occult, from the Jewish Kabbalah. So most readers will actually think of Adam as the true Adam and will be taught something horribly false about him.

    So, now back to Bacchus. Aslan, who is supposed to be our Christ figure joins in fellowship with this god. In Prince Caspian, chapter 15, we read:

    “Then Bacchus and Silenus and the Maenads began a dance, far wilder than the dance of the trees; not merely a dance for fun and beauty (though it was that too) but a magic dance of plenty, and where their hands touched, and where their feet fell, the feast came into existence – sides of roasted meat that filled the grove with delicious smell … ”

    Here is magic enticingly performed, exciting, and wonderful. Yet it is performed by a demon god, and Lewis ‘teaches’ us that both the demon god and his magic-magic are good things.

    This is just one of many things that, when lined up with scripture, help to show us that Lewis believed and was ‘teaching’ exactly what his books seem to say on their surface – specifically that a syncretized christian and pagan theology is to be desired. Most Christians don’t like that, so they naturally try to change the clear teachings for hidden ones.

    If you look through the books again forgetting what you’ve been told to think about them, I think you will find Aslan is not so much a Christ figure but an Anti-Christ figure. Strong stuff I know.

    Reply
    • Mr. Harding,
      I beleive Bacchus’s situation is similar to that of Father Christmas. As for the magic dance of plenty, it seems to be a natural part of the maenads of Narnia. True, Lewis doesn’t make a dsitinct theological statement about that, but the evidence fits.
      Please support the second to last paragraph with evidence from outside Narnia.
      Please provide support for your statement that “Aslan is… an Anti-Christ figure.”
      Lewis took bits and pieces out of the Pot of Story and fit them into Narnia. He didnt’ do it in the most consistent way.
      Magic is the name used in the genre of fantasy/ faery- tale. It’s much clunkier to say, “a amgic dance of miracle.”
      Let me look back at one fo Narnia’s true magicians: Mr. Ketterly. He and his morality, accompanied by his magic and philosophy, are quite clearly condemned. as for the rings, the Magician’s Nephew condemns them. [see: Helens’ call to Narnia, the last chapter, the first chapter of The Silver Chair]
      God bless.
      Sincerely, RC

      Reply
  7. To the question of Bacchus: Who then do you say he represents? Or how do you make him represent something good? You ask me to provide you proof or support for your positions quite often. Do you have any proof that the average reader would (not should) think of Bacchus as anything else? The internal proof for Bacchus and Father Christmas is already substantially against your position.

    Support, for my second to last paragraph, outside of Narnia: All one has to do is go to The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, or really any of the books that begin with the children in our world. How do they get into the magic world of Narnia? The answer is, through magic. A magic wardrobe and a magic picture as I recall. And in the Magician’s nephew their is a magic tree in our world at the very end of the book which is clearly to be seen as good. C.S. Lewis puts magic into our world and ‘teaches’ us that it is good. God says it is evil. He syncretized his ‘christianity’ with paganism. We could also go outside of his Chronicles of Narnia altogether and find more proof from his own writings.

    Support for my position that Aslan is an Anti-Christ (false Christ) figure: The internal evidence is quite strong. Let’s look objectively at Aslan. We are called to prove all things. Aslan might be a Christ figure or he might be an Anti-Christ figure. We should at least be suspicious of him when we see that he uses magic. Our suspicion grows when we find out that he is subject to a magic book that forces him to appear when Lucy is reading it and thinking about him. Our suspicion should completely be swept away by the sold evidence of who his companions are. He creates gods and goddesses of the wood, and joins himself with false gods, Bacchus, and the River God who he sets free to join them in all night dancing in the groves. He then asks a young girl to join them, and the maenads help her take off some of her clothes and join them in dancing. And then we see his false gospel when he tells a follower of Tak (Satan?) that all the things he did for Tak are counted as if they were done for him. Isn’t Aslan an Anti-Christ (false Christ) as objectively defined by the story itself and then compared to the Bible?

    Reply
    • By logic, Bacchus and Father C. couldn’t represent what they do here because that would not fit into the Narnian cosmology. There is no Christmas or Bacchus- worship. Bacchus seems to praise Aslan also. Narnia, especially at the beginning, was a jumbled mess of different influences.
      Methods of arrival in Narnia:
      1. Magic Rings [Condemned]
      2. Magic Wardrobe [From Narnia; see below]
      3. –
      4. Queen Susan’s Horn [In Narnia]
      5. Picture [Could be viewed as magic or as jsut a picture Aslan chose to brign them through wihtout the picture being special in anything other than looks]
      6. Alsan’s direct call [magic rituals are condemned]
      7. Aslans’ direct call
      About the magic tree/ wardrobe: It’s form Narnia. it’s “magic” is part of its nature, just like a regular apple’s sugar content is part of its nature. The magic is, in fact, explicitly diminished by coming here.
      As for Aslan:
      It’s called magic, maybe. But it doesn’t fit the definition of magic i posited, if you see Aslan as a sort of analogy for Christ. It would just be part of Aslan’s nature.
      As for his appearance when Lucy read the book…. Was not Christ affected by gravity when he walked the earth? In Narnia, the “spell” simply was a part of the laws of nature.
      Bacchus and the River gods are gods in name only. They are never granted god- status, worshippers, or anything like that.
      If you pay attention to the text, they didn’t take her clothes off. just the stiff ones. idk what Telmarines wore, but i’m guessing that meant the jacket and bonnet or something like that. idk exactly and Lewis probably didn’t either.
      That passage about Tash and Emmet is an example of Lewis’s own flawed theology that those who have never heard the Gospel can be saved by good intentions. I see it and filter it.

      Reply
  8. Thanks RC 🙂
    Response to your post, “By logic ….”

    RC: “By logic, Bacchus and Father C. couldn’t represent what they do here because that would not fit into the Narnian cosmology.”

    Why not? Where is the cosmology defined if not in the story? You said yourself that Adam is the same in the Narnian cosmology and in ours. The sons of Adam and Daughter of Eve also go back and forth between the worlds. Aslan used his magic in both worlds (you said it was by his magic that he was able to call them from our world to Narnia.) The magic of Narnia works in our world, as you’ve just said, albeit without as much power. I propose that Bacchus and Father Christmas will not fit into ‘your’ Narnian Cosmology because you don’t want them to. Yet, a logical, normative approach to what words mean make them fit quite nicely. I see them there. I see what they do. I hear what they are called. And I see some of Lewis’ characters and many of his ideas straddling both worlds.
    I agree with you that someone could try to see it the way that you do, and many Christians do try to see it that way when confronted with the problems of the story before them. But there is no internal reason within the stories to do so. And most people reading the text, will read it for what it says. Do you imagine that most Christians who subscribe to your arguments take the time to explain your complex Narnian cosmology and interpretation of magic to their children and friends when they recommend the books? I’ve never seen it. In fact I have heard many shepherds/pastors of flocks across the country preach the word of God faithfully and then support their points with a quote from Lewis or Narnia, regaling him and his fantasy as a bastion of truth. In every instance, I have never heard a word of warning or word of explanation concerning his strange use of the magical worldview.

    RC: “Bacchus and the River gods are gods in name only. They are never granted god- status, worshippers, or anything like that.”

    Bacchus actually does have his followers/worshippers with him. Here is what Wikipedia has to say:

    Maenad: In Greek mythology, maenads were the female followers of Dionysus (Bacchus) and the most significant members of the Thiasus, the god’s retinue. Their name literally translates as “raving ones”.

    Silenus: A notorious consumer of wine, he was usually drunk and had to be supported by satyrs or carried by a donkey. Silenus was described as the oldest, wisest and most drunken of the followers of Dionysus (Bacchus), and was said in Orphic hymns to be the young god’s tutor.

    RC: “If you pay attention to the text, they didn’t take her clothes off. just the stiff ones. idk what Telmarines wore, but i’m guessing that meant the jacket and bonnet or something like that. idk exactly and Lewis probably didn’t either.”

    I did pay attention to the text. It says that they took off some of her unnecessary and uncomfortable clothes. I said that they took some of her clothes off. I don’t see how I misspoke. Anyway, I think you missed my point. While paying attention to the text, I naturally paid attention to the context of the maenads and Bacchus within the story. Which all point to the larger context of who the Maenads and Bacchus are and what disgusting perversions they are known for. Then one reads the passage of Aslan calling her ‘sweetheart’ and the maenads taking off some of her clothes, etc., and one can not but help to be shocked that Lewis chose the words that he chose for this passage.

    You seem to know much of the pagan myths, so I assume you know what the maenads were all about. Lewis most certainly did know. You are also a writer. So imagine yourself researching the false god Bacchus, the maenads and the bacchanalian perversions, and then writing them into your story with great detail using the same words that Lewis did, yet keeping out the most obvious and blatant perversions, just as Lewis did. You finish your rough draft of the Bacchus passages and hand them to your mother, and sisters, fiancé, and the mother and father of your fiancé, to proof read. Can you look them in the eyes?

    If I were that father in law to be, I would do everything I could to keep you away from my daughter, though I don’t think I would have to say anything, for after she read into your heart the words that you wrote she would not need any convincing from me.

    Perhaps you don’t recall all the passages concerning Bacchus in the Chronicles of Narnia. I think the exercise of looking them all up and reading them together might help give you form a better understanding of just how carefully Lewis went about painting the picture of Bacchus and the many elements that show us who and what he is. I hesitate to post the comparisons to the historical Bacchus because of Ephesians 5:12 but I feel prompted to do so because of Ephesians 5:11,13. At least for now, I shan’t say anything more on the matter.

    RC: “That passage about Tash and Emmet is an example of Lewis’s own flawed theology that those who have never heard the Gospel can be saved by good intentions. I see it and filter it.”

    That is an interesting response to a false gospel. Is that also an admonition that the proclaimer of that false gospel is Aslan? Perhaps I can’t see the powerful emotions that you feel when you see a false gospel proclaimed to the millions who read these stories. When I read your words, “I see it and filter it,” It seems that you don’t think of it as that big of a deal. I understand, to a much greater degree, the ‘see it and filter it’ response when reading an author who is not remotely considered a Christian. But that is not the case with Lewis. Evangelical Christianity has made him one of the preeminent Christian defenders of the gospel. Maybe I’m not being fair to your comment, but you know your own heart on the matter. I’ll just list a few scriptures about Gods strong thoughts on the Gospel:

    Acts 20:24 KJV
    [24] But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

    Acts 17:16 KJV
    [16] Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.

    Galatians 1:6-10 KJV
    [6] I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: [7] Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. [9] As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. [10] For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

    Romans 10:13-15 KJV
    [13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. [14] How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? [15] And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

    2 Corinthians 11:3-4 KJV
    [3] But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. [4] For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him .

    Reply
    • Mr. Harding,
      There is no Nativity or hints of worshipping Greek gods in Narnia
      The Sons of Adam come from here; Father C. and Bacchus are petty clearly Narnian entities.
      So you are saying that one shouldn’t read Narnia b/c not everybody sees magic the same way in it? I think that one should rather explain magic in Narnia when recommending it. If somebody didn’t read the “no magic” label of your book, it’s quite possible they could read the Sneaks as magicians, the dragons as fantasy, and the badgers as sentients.
      The Maenads here appear to be enigmatic beings similar to Bacchus, as is Silenus [he, at least, lasts over a thousand years], not the people of Greek times.
      Perhaps Lewis didn’t choose the greatest words. But I think it’s clear that it wasn’t immodest. Narnia seems to me in some parts, very much a children’s paradise, particulary the clothes. Pretty AND comfortable [reference The Dawn Treader i beleive].
      1. i’m 14, so that passage about fiance [idk how to spell it] really cracked me up.
      2. leaving aside the point that i’d blush regardless of whether it was describing that or a pigeon eating bread crumbs, I think i see your point. I’d probably re-draft it first and make it very clear what was not happening.
      I only remember two: a mention in Lion Witch and Wardrobe and an appaearance in Prince Caspain. Were there others?
      Everybody has something off in their theology. Some choose to convey it more storngly than others. If one is to read anything besides scripture, one must be able to identify such problems and realize the author’s failings.
      Lewis was a heretic in my books, b/c from what i can tell he beleived that the Pentateuch wasn’t necessarily really history.
      p.s. what is your opinion of fantasy books where the only fantasy is in geography, flora, and fauna?
      God bless.
      Sincerely, RC

      Reply
  9. In response to RC: “There is no nativity …”

    Thanks again RC for writing. I don’t want to get too much into Lewis’s ideology here because I’m hoping to write a post on it in the future. But, I’ll put out the thought that it was Lewis’s intent that paganism was necessary for mankind to come to the truth of Christianity, and that the false god Bacchus was part of the plan of God to lead people to Christ, and that is why Lewis brought our earthly Baachus into the world of Narnia. No doubt, you would like proof of this from his own non-fiction writings, and if you search on your own I think you will find that proof fairly quickly, but if not, I hope to bring it forth here in the future. As I have already stated, I think the proof is already obvious within his fiction alone.

    RC: “So you are saying that one shouldn’t read Narnia b/c not everybody sees magic the same way in it? I think that one should rather explain magic in Narnia when recommending it.”

    No, I didn’t say anything about not reading it. My hope is that Christians will stop trying to explain what God says is evil as if it is good, and instead explain magic in Narnia the way God sees it, if they decide to recommend it or if they don’t. Basically, I hope that we will reprove the darkness:

    Ephesians 5:10-13 KJV
    [10] Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. [11] And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them . [12] For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. [13] But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

    RC: “p.s. what is your opinion of fantasy books where the only fantasy is in geography, flora, and fauna?”

    Could you clarify what you mean by this? Thanks RC.

    Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *