Due to the many questions and requests about C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, their books, and their subsequent videos and movies, we have added considerable information to our review section. The body of this review has been slightly updated and it has a very large addendum now attached containing much more of the kind of information that people are seeking in wanting to know just who C. S. Lewis was. But this is no longer a standalone review. Please visit the review on J. R. R. Tolkien also. The lives and ideas of the two men were so intertwined, as were their longstanding relationships, that a review on either must, at some points, include the other. As we have tried to keep duplication of information to a minimum, we suggest that if you are interested in a fuller picture of one man or the other, simply read both reviews.
C. S. Lewis—Who He Was & What He Wrote
The name “C. S. Lewis” usually brings forth a number of accolades customarily used to describe him— “Brilliant, great Christian, great mind, great apologist, greatest lay champion in the 20th century.” His book sales, still today, remain over two million dollars annually, half of which come from the sales of his famous fantasy series, The Chronicles of Narnia.
Who is this man, and what were his beliefs that he should be touted as such a monumental Christian? C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) was a college professor, and author, and had his own radio broadcast for many years. He was an atheist, who converted to theism, and later professed Christianity. His most notable work, for which he has won much acclaim, is Mere Christianity. The author basically describes the book’s intent as an effort to set forth the fundamentals that form the basis of Christianity, excluding all doctrines and opinions that are not integral to Christianity (or, at least his definition of Christianity), thus, the name Mere Christianity. The exclusion of all such doctrines allows for the inclusion of all faiths.
This book has received raves from the liberal Christian press as a great apologetic work, but we should bear in mind as we review any apologetic work that not all apologetes are Christians. An apologete poses arguments that defend his view of what constitutes Christianity. In this endeavor, Lewis might well be unequaled in combining impressive logic, perceptive examples, and convincing object lessons to make his points. No one “hits the nail on the head” so squarely and so descriptively on issues of Christian morals and tenets, Christian growth, and explanations of difficult-to-understand theological concepts. Mere Christianity can almost leave a reader awe-struck as one continues to encounter such brilliant exegeses, and such keen insights into problems and resolutions in the Christian walk, in chapter after chapter. The book identifies so adeptly with temptations and thought processes that even the most serious Christian cannot help feeling an intimate association with the thoughts expressed.
However, unlike the Christian who seeks proof of what is true in the Word of God, Mr. Lewis proves everything through his own logical arguments and examples. Like some other apologists, he treats Christianity as a belief system, as opposed to other belief systems such as atheism or Buddhism. However, God’s Word never defines Christianity, as a belief system, or otherwise. For the Christian, it describes a relationship that rules his every moment and decision—a relationship that exists only by faith, as logic simply cannot take a man that far.
Again, contrary to what most people believe, men who argue the existence of God with atheists, especially publicly, are not all real believers, despite what they claim. Many are simply debaters and showmen. It is not a difficult debate to win, because there is a God, and the evidence is all around us. Proving the existence of God by logic is meaningless to the Christian. To a believer, God is not “something” that exists, He is a Person. We do not believe in His existence—we know Him, and not by logic, but through faith. We have no need to give time to such doubtful disputations, and the Bible teaches us to avoid them anyway. We need not follow too hard after those who engage, even successfully, in them.
Mere Christianity is basically a treatise on the rightness and wholesomeness of behavior of the individual as prescribed by Christian precepts. Mere Christianity continually instructs us that our thinking processes about our behavior are either becoming good or becoming evil, and that a creature with good thinking processes will go to heaven, and one with evil thinking processes will go to hell. It is stunningly logical, and keenly accurate and intuitive into proper behavior and improper behavior, man’s sinful reasons for improper behavior, and the logical reasons for proper Christian behavior. However, Christian behavior is not the point of Christianity. Absolute faith in, and a personal relationship with, Jesus Christ are the point.
Mere Christianity is focused upon who or what a Christian is. This idea is based on the premise, or, more correctly put, supposition of what a Christian is according to C. S. Lewis. His arguments are also based on another premise, or false assumption, that anyone, of any faith willing to be called Christian, is a Christian. This is the real basis of his mere or no-frills Christianity under which everyone ought to be herded into one corral. In Chapter 4 of What Christians Believe, book two of Mere Christianity, he shows which corral that is, as he includes even such churches as the Church of England of which he was a member, and the Church of Rome, both of which oppose Scripture as the final authority on spiritual truth. Any doctrine that conflicts with this doctrine of unity, he dismisses as unimportant theories of men. However, we must remind ourselves that his theories are based on dogmas that do not concur with Scripture, especially his theories about becoming a Christian. Chapter 5 of What Christians Believe, the second book in Mere Christianity, states, “There are three things that spread the Christ life to us: baptism, belief, and that mysterious action which different Christians call by different names — Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord’s Supper.” Notice again his personal view of Christianity which was primarily based upon the dogmas of the Church of Rome — baptism and transubstantiation. Matthew warned us about such doctrinal views when he wrote, “Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” Matt 16:12. Later, in Chapter 10 of Beyond Personality, book three of Mere Christianity, Lewis takes the “all under one roof” idea even further, as he writes, “There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points.” Scripture entertains no concept of belonging to Jesus without knowing Him or knowing of Him. This is strictly “Lewisology”.
Lewis appears to be the modern-day precursor of the current wave of Christian philosophers and psychologists who mention Christ but exalt Christian behavior. The effect of the teachings of this persuasion is to unite people under a belief system of Christian behavior patterns. It is to draw them to large groups or churches that help reinforce such behavior patterns, in the name of Christ, of course. (Else, how would those who wish to know Christ accept it?) Such persuasions also stress the importance of spreading Christian behavior patterns through activism, legislation and other means, propounding the idea that “we are all in this together and we are all the same.” However, we are not all the same. Some of us believe that what people need is Jesus, and not cohesion, whether Christian legislation ever gets passed. Often the idea of faith in Christ is proclaimed. It simply loses focus behind struggles over physical externals, and the call to unify because there is strength in numbers. God’s strength is not in numbers.
A by-product of such movements is that they band people into large, controllable, religious groups. The larger and fewer they are, the more controllable they are. Hence, we see the purpose of the attempts of today’s leaders to form massive inter-denominational, “Christian” organizations, and form friendships and alliances with those attempting to merge Christians into the Church of Rome.
Lewis was obviously an early initiator of what we see proliferating more widely now. Lewis’s Mere Christianity attempts to lend credulity to this process by insisting that Christianity, in its base and purest form, is simply a set of behavioral thinking patterns that excludes doctrine. Lewis’s argument for Christianity as a belief system set apart by certain behavior patterns can be seen in the fact that Mere Christianity was originally published as three books: The Case for Christianity, Christian Behavior and Beyond Personality. In the single volume, the first book is titled Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe.
Lewis’s claim that doctrines are immaterial is an age-old ploy used to unite people under a “good, Christian” set of behaviors. The same purpose is shared by those who wish to combine all “Christian” faiths in efforts to combat sociological ills. The next step, which we already see taking place, is to unite them as one large religion or one large group that is far more controllable than many individual, dissimilar groups.
In this country, the behaviorists have combined efforts to merge everyone who uses the name “Christian” into one mass by forming popular movements which stress love, unity, and brotherhood. They also stress the world’s “desperate need” for such unity over the truth of Scripture. The desperate need in this world has always been for Jesus—not for membership in a world-wide brotherhood. These ideas may not pose so much confusion for older Christians who have a proper foundation, as they are urged to “embrace all faiths in love.” They may be made, though, to think it is sort of godly not to stand up for truth, as “not making waves” maintains a certain kind of peace. Yet, it is an expensive peace. When their children grow up under the “we are all the same” philosophy, it will be nearly impossible for them to discern real salvation, and a need for it, when they have already embraced “Christian behavior patterns” as faith.
Behavioral psychology is powerful, especially when intertwined with the term “Christianity”. Lewis proved it in his day, and others are using it with tremendous success in our generation. Today, we are often given accounts of extraordinary behavior which are used continually to thrill and heighten the emotions of the hearers. Once the story heightens the emotions, the hearer’s focus becomes riveted. The final effect, though, is not that the hearer realizes more fully his own sinfulness and lack of worth, but that he vicariously joins the struggle in the story, and associates himself in such a subconscious yet integral way, that the entire experience culminates in the hearer feeling pride in bearing the same name (Christian) as the noble character in the story (basically, being in the “in crowd”), or feeling a swelling heart (pride) at claiming to be a follower of Him Who has delivered someone in some excitingly miraculous manner. Anyway, Lewis seems to have been the first behaviorist in this century to make great inroads into more sincere Christian circles as a “great Christian mind” or “great Christian layman”, and Mere Christianity is the horse (methinks Trojan) that he rode in on.
Lewis cites many behavioral truths, but they do not equate to being redeemed. They simply equate to natural laws of behavior. For instance, he employs the idea that practice develops habit in describing the struggles to do right in the Christian life. The idea that doing things that we would rather not will help us to enjoy doing such deeds is not strictly a phenomenon unique to Christians. It is the same for the non-Christian. Practice cannot develop us into a Christian.
There are two ways to convince people of error. The first is to use complicated, deceptive logic. The second is to use open, profound, brilliant logic, which people easily understand, and readily agree with, but to use for its foundation faulty untested assumptions of truth. The second is generally the more successful, because people, once confronted with logically sound arguments, seldom backtrack to check the basis upon which they are founded. In this review, we look at several false premises found in Mere Christianity. Lewis is not original in his use of this technique, but he certainly has deftly used this approach in switching the foundation of Christianity itself to that of a behaviorist doctrine.
Something else that is very disturbing is that C. S. Lewis was not only quite familiar, by his own words, with the occult, but he even said that he had to get into the devil’s mind to write the Screwtape Letters, a book in which he describes the devil’s thinking and strategy. Although, such practices might be used by someone who proves God’s existence by logic, they are not the kind of activities and study that would be engaged in by someone who knows Jesus. Great Christian minds have no part with occult phenomena.
There are other writers today who claim to be Christian, but display a deep and thorough knowledge of the occult and all its workings. How can this be? A man cannot serve two masters, nor can he know Jesus and the devil intimately.
So, here we have a man who argues the existence of God, is involved in the occult, and writes occult books for children. Should we be surprised? “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” James 2:19.
His insightful discussions of the Christian walk makes a Christian want to exclaim, “He is one of us!” Yet, he admits he is not. In Chapter 11 of Beyond Personality, describing truly regenerated Christians, he says, “And I strongly suspect (but how should I know?) that they recognize one another immediately and infallibly, across every barrier of colour, sex, class, age, and even of creeds.” The quote implies quite clearly, “I suspect they do, but not being one of them, I cannot know.” Did we say that not all apologetes are Christians?
This quote in Chapter 11 comes right on the heels of the following quote. “Everyone knows about Evolution (though, of course, some educated people disbelieve it): everyone has been told that man has evolved from lower types of life.” Notice the capitalization of “evolution” in this quote, almost as if it were some theological being.
Lewis mentions a number of other ideas in Mere Christianity that do not agree with Scripture. In Chapter 2 of Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe we find, “But surely the reason that we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did. . .we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did.” However, God believes in witches because His Word tells us so. It may do us well to bear in mind Lewis’s published opinions on the occult when we move on to his books for children and the effects that they might have on those children.
In Chapter 9 of Beyond Personality, we find purgatory, the old Catholic escape clause, where man works off his sin debt after death. The author writes as if Jesus were speaking, “Whatever suffering it may cost you in your earthly life, whatever inconceivable purification it may cost you after death, whatever it costs Me, I will never rest, nor let you rest, until you are literally perfect. . .” Actually, Lewis sounds much more like his contemporary, Bishop Sheen than a Bible-believing Christian.
In Chapter 1 of Beyond Personality we find, “Everyone reads, everyone hears things discussed. Consequently, if you do not listen to Theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones — bad, muddled, out-of-date ideas.” There is no mention in the book of getting ideas about God through reading His Word, or through praying for such wisdom. The only suggested sources for such knowledge are theological think-tanks.
Why read Mere Christianity at all? A discerning Christian will be able to sift through it, and sort much of the error, but if we want to know what real Christianity is all about, why not go to the Source of Christianity, and read what He has to say about it? Oh, how foolish man is, to continually seek some other man’s definition of God.
Let us not forget that this man, who has tried very hard to make us feel like he is one of us, has written a number of books that our children will very likely be reading if he has convinced us.
Let’s look at some of those books for children. Lewis’s most famous fictional series for children, is the Chronicles of Narnia. Although adults are often discerning when they read, children seldom are. Hence, fictional children’s books can be a very dangerous commodity. When there are poisonous philosophies in a book, they are generally woven into an exciting story. The child is enthralled with the story and swallows the philosophies without knowing that they are even there. If you are trying to rear good children, and you are seeing atypical results, check what your children are reading. It is there that you will usually find the problem.
The Chronicles of Narnia is a collection of seven fantasy stories. The jacket cover says, “Here is your passport to a most extraordinary excursion into magical lands and enchanted happenings. If you’ve never been to Narnia, you can enter it for the first time with any of the books below . . .”
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is the first in this “Christian” series of occult books for children. The title, itself, should be a tip off to a discerning Christian. How can a Christian book have such an occult label?
The story involves four children who step through a magic wardrobe into the occult land of Narnia. Narnia is populated by talking animals who have equal status with humans. (Sounds like New Age?) The land of Narnia is ruled by the White Witch who makes the land always to be winter. The land is populated with ghouls, werewolves and all manner of evil creatures siding with the witch. The witch has powerful magical powers and is able to turn all of her enemies into stone. The wicked witch tricks one of the children into coming over to her side, and the other children must rescue him.
Aslan, a huge lion and the son of the great emperor of the north, is the only one who can set things right in Narnia. He negotiates with the witch for the salvation of one of the children. He must die to save the child. However, he does not stay dead, he has a resurrection and saves the day. Aslan responds to the question of what it all means with, “It means that though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know.” Eventually, the White Witch is destroyed and spring returns to Narnia.
Obviously, there is a salvation message in all of that, but is it the message of Jesus Christ? Obviously not. It is the salvation message of an occult, New Age lion that has, not only more powers than a human, but enough power to rival our Savior in the eyes of young readers.
Rather than wade through the entire series, we will skip ahead to the last book in the series, The Last Battle. This is the story of how evil came to Narnia, and how Aslan led his people to a glorious new paradise. It is the story of the confrontation between Tash (Satan) and Aslan (Jesus).
The book opens with one of its excellent lessons on how to manipulate and exploit another for one’s own benefit. This is accomplished by a conversation between and ape (Shift) and a donkey (Puzzle) that is not as smart as the ape. The ape uses a number of instances of faulty logic and parallelisms to convince the donkey that the best course of action would be to simply trust him (the ape), and, thereby, of course, fulfill his whims and desires (for the donkey’s good, of course.) This is just the sort of technique that you will find an older brother or sister using on a younger one the day after they have read it, and simply wonder how they figured out how to do such a thing. Throughout the course of the book, the ape uses these manipulative routines to make the donkey do anything he wants him to do. (Tell me your children won’t be anxious to try that out on someone!)
The story culminates in a final showdown between Tash and Aslan. Of course, Aslan triumphs over evil, the world of Narnia comes to an end, and Aslan takes many into Paradise (heaven).
The disturbing part of all this is who is allowed to go to Paradise (heaven). At the end of the book a servant of Tash (Satan), who made it into Paradise says, “I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious 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 because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him, for I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s 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 by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for truth constrained me), Yes I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.”
In the book, the children actually do die and enter heaven. Of course, as we can see from the quoted passage, all sorts of creatures, both good and evil, do the same. Some people praise this book as an allegory of the gospel, but upon a closer look, it is not intended to bring one to Christ at all. It is simply a very misleading occult, New Age, fantasy tale, replete with supernaturally-powered animals, and the evil philosophy that regardless of how evil we are, we all have that spark of goodness in us for which God will surely take us to heaven.
Besides all the very apparent evil in the book—witches, magic, spells, demons, and more, there are several serious problems which can and will cause damage to our children.
A child reading the book, is, as advertised, “stepping into another world”—a world of fantasy. Lewis, like Disney, was a New Ager. He built entire surrealistic worlds for our children to escape into—escape from reality and from real life. These worlds invariably contain creatures of every sort endearing our children, performing heroic feats, and displaying often greater powers than our Savior displayed when He was on earth. Who will our children most readily identify as having awesome power—Lewis characters, Disney characters, some time-space traveling hero, or the almighty Jesus? Is it any wonder that we have a very difficult time convincing our children to give their all to Someone so far down the totem pole of their experience? Why should we cloud our children’s minds with meaningless fantasies which can, at their very best, only result in doubts and confusions about real spiritual things, and more seriously, open the floodgates of their minds to the advancing waves of captivating fantasies designed to introduce them to the world of Satan and the occult.
These Chronicles would be quite a misleading allegory. As we said, in the first book Aslan negotiated with Satan. Truly, our God has never needed to negotiate with His creation-turned-evil. Jesus did not negotiate with Satan before He went to the cross to die for mankind. It was foreordained before the foundation of the world!
If they were allegorical, these stories would be a faulty allegory because they imply a salvation by works rather than faith. What is worse, we have seen that children are taught that one can even be saved for evil works if they are done wholeheartedly. Certainly, one cannot serve Satan and count it as service for Christ, and then plead ignorance and enter heaven. The Bible says, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12.
Lastly, It would be better never to make the claim of allegory. The claim, itself, serves only to condemn the work as blasphemy. Romans 1:21-25 tells us, “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” You see, God commands that man never depict Him, the Divine Creator of the entire universe, as some beast walking around on all fours, named Aslan or otherwise. He also commands us never to view Him in such a comparatively despicable manner. What does this do to an impressionable mind? (See our Tolkien review for more on this.) Isaiah 5:20 says, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” We need to be careful when we use the word “allegory” because God will hold us accountable for what we call Christian.
We can never recommend these books for young people. Some people insist that they are simply entertainment, but entertainment at what price? Shall we give the minds of our children to C. S. Lewis because he makes some compelling arguments for Christianity as an earthly value system? His Christianity is one of behavior. It is one in which the Bible is not the final authority. It is one that makes no mention of repentance. It is one that does not need the blood of Christ. It is one that embraces people of all faiths, whether or not they know Christ, as long as they have acceptable works. It is one that denies the reality of occult influences such as witches. Is this the kind of mentor that we want for our children?
****
We thought that some of our readers might be interested in the following testimonial. It contains some ideas about what we have always thought were prime sources of nightmares, unexplained fears and spiritual confusion in children.
****
Just a quick “thank You”. We are enjoying all the back issues we ordered and are sharing them with friends.
We are so thankful for all the Scripture verses in every article. The topics are challenging and how do you argue with God’s Word?
We’ve added the “Lessons” section to our family devotions. Believe it or not, the children are enjoying these lessons and desiring to work on our trouble areas. It’s freeing to know exactly what God expects from us.
You mentioned you’re going to do a book review on C. S. Lewis. I’d like to share an experience we had.
Several years back while attending a certain church, we allowed our children to attend children’s church for a short span of time.
We made the mistake of not following through and finding out what was being taught.
Our daughter, about seven at the time, started having nightmares. One night was so bad she screamed hysterically as she heard us coming up the stairs, and fought us as we tried to wake her and comfort her. I have never seen a child so terrified.
After calming her down and praying for her, she told us her nightmare: (I cannot remember it all, but here is the gist of it.) A witch was trying to push her down into a black pit and she pointed to where the pit was in her bedroom floor. Upon further questioning we found out it came from her watching The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in children’s church. We took all this to our Heavenly Father Who has all power over darkness and our daughter did not have any more dreams of that nature until this past summer when friends came to spend the weekend.
Her dream was not as frightening as before, but it had the same demonic twist. We came to find out that their daughter had watched The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe just before they came to our house.
As we study Scripture, we see Jesus healing demonic people (or delivering) from their sin, but I don’t see that He used occult symbols to share the gospel. I Cor 1:21 says, “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.”
Why do we have to borrow the world’s ways when God tells us exactly how He wants it done?
I read a quote of C. S. Lewis once where he said he had an infatuation with the occult. Eph 5:12 answers that “It is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.”
Sorry this got kind of lengthy, but I hoped it might help. Keep pressing on in the Lord. You are in our prayers.
Montana
****
We know that some people will scoff that these fantasies are “not hurting anything or anyone”. We will leave that decision up to you parents.
ADDENDUM
We receive considerable response and many thanks on our book reviews. However, in particular the responses that we have received over the last couple of years seem to indicate that we were not really specific enough or detailed enough in our treatment of C. S. Lewis. We thought that the following addendum would be an appropriate addition to the review on the works of C. S. Lewis. Though we have been blessed by the many parents who have thanked us for exposing the real side of C. S. Lewis, it has also become obvious, that in revealing only the barest of necessities, we may have done a disservice to many who seem not to understand what could make us feel that Lewis, his books and their subsequent films are not healthy fare, especially for children.
Let me begin with the great “Christian” lie about The Chronicles of Narnia. Over the years we have often received correspondence asking how we can write a review of C. S. Lewis and be so ignorant as to not know that “scholars” have said that The Chronicles of Narnia is a Christian allegory. Well, we do know that “scholars” have said as much. However, even though we stated it in our original review, we will state it again here. C. S. Lewis, himself, denied that this was so. Our question to any such “scholars” is, Why are they promoting this falsehood? We do notice that this idea emanates generally from ecumenical sources, and therefore assume that they feel that it helps their cause of bringing Christians back under the papacy. The following quotes sum up the feelings of C. S. Lewis about the allegorical status of the Chronicles of Narnia.
Lewis was a member of a literary group called The Inklings. The following quote is from The Inklings Handbook, a historical/biographical work by a couple of fellows enchanted by the Inklings. “CSL [Lewis], however, argued strongly that the Chronicles of Narnia should not be viewed as an allegory like Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, though he acknowledged the intentional parallels between the main features of Christian teaching and the Chronicles, not least in the unambigously supernatural Christ-symbol, Aslan the Lion.”
Again from The Inklings Handbook—“The earliest hints of Narnia come very early in CSL’s life, long before he became a Christian; the common assumption that he wrote the whole series as an extended allegory of the Christian faith, with a strong evangelistic motive, is one that CSL always denied and which is not borne out by the facts.”
So, who are we to believe—scholars who wish to justify their untenable positions favoring exploration into occultism, or the author himself? By the way, there is very good reason for Lewis’ denial. That is why our original review speaks to this argument on the basis of the content in question. We have already examined the passage regarding the servant of Tash (Satan) being in paradise and its explanation—its idea being that just because God turns the works of His enemies to His own advantage, He will also warmly receive those enemies into heaven. It is quite easy to expose this as neither scriptural nor Christian to anyone who has ever spent any time in the Bible.
Lewis knew that the work was no where near parallel to sound theology, and he knew that in that day people were not so willing to accept such surreal imaginations as “Christian.” He knew that it was much too early to present his New Age, miracle-working animals as actual doctrine, such as they are being hailed today. Aslan and Tash are obvious New Age manifestations, even without being placed within any context of religion. Aslan is not a Christ as the authors of The Inklings Handbook would too eagerly suggest. He is a hermaphrodite image—an intangible copy—designed to capture hearts and minds—the hearts that God says He wants to be captured only by Himself.
The Screwtape Letters is a book written by Lewis and idealized as an instructional work about how the devil thinks and works in the lives of men. It is set in a series of letters from one demon, Uncle Screwtape, to his nephew, Wormwood. Wormwood’s charge is a human who has become a Christian. The letters contain Screwtape’s instructions on how to return the human to the devil’s camp and ownership. Though it is billed as an instructional work for the Christian, it seems much more an instructional work for the New Age ecumenical echelons of this generation.
Consider the following advice from Screwtape to his nephew. “I have great hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalise and mythologixe their [humans] science to such an extent that what is in effect, a belief in us [demons] (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to belief in the Enemy [Christ]. The ‘Life Force’, the worship of sex, and some aspects of Psychoanalysis, may here prove useful. If once we can produce our perfect work—the Materialist Magician, the man, not using, but veritably worshipping, what he vaguely calls ‘Forces’ while denying the existence of ‘spirits’—then the end of the war will be in sight.” Lewis is saying that the strategy involved here in bringing Christians under the control of the devil is to get them enthused about ‘forces’ while not recognizing these ‘forces’ as demonic spirits or ideas.
Is not this exactly what is being done right now through the movie versions of the works of Lewis and Tolkien. Was it not also accomplished with their books. Is not further cover given to this strategy by “scholars” who help hide the truth about this spiritual attack by calling it “Christian allegory”? And have not Lewis’ own works been used in this very way? Have not the works of Lewis and Tolkien simply paved the way to the widespread acceptance of all things Harry Potter? Is it not even more ludicrous that some “scholars” would warn us about the demonism and witchcraft of Harry Potter, and inform us that the demonism and witchcraft of Lewis and Tolkien can be made an integral part of our Christian faith? Notice how the idea of ‘forces’ and morphodites has descended from the works of the Inklings into an entire culture of Star Wars imaginative nonsense.
Is this business about allegories really good counsel? It comes from the right sources and movements. These people are pro-life. They are conservatives. They are in the “Christian government” movements. However, here is what Screwtape says. “Once you have made the World an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing. Provided that meetings, pamphlets, policies, movements, causes, and crusades, matter more to him than prayers and sacraments and charity, he is ours—and the more ‘religious’ (on those terms) the more securely ours. I could show you a pretty cageful down here.” And again, “On the other hand, we do want, and want very much, to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything—even social justice. The thing to do is to get a man at first to value social justice as a thing which the Enemy [God] demands, and then work him on to the stage at which he values Christianity because it may produce social justice.”
This is very interesting. It reads like a playbook for sending people to a lost eternity. Just keep them busy with movements, causes and “scholars.” Then interest them in adventure and occultism masquerading as “forces.” And, finally, to put the icing on the cake, add some mental justification. Interest and involve them in social just and “Christian” government as much or more than they are interested in real Christianity (which does not involve the other two at all, even according to Lewis). After all, it is so easy to ignore the sin of not daily, even hourly, living for God, when we can make ourselves constantly aware of some good thing that we see ourselves doing.
Can we not speculate that this playbook has been followed religiously with an adverse spiritual effect on those in our society? Have we not been inundated with Lewis-Tolkien type fantasy from the heathen-owned publishing industry? Has not Hollywood reproduced many of them in a more captivating medium of film? Has it not followed up with unnumbered versions of Star Wars type creatures, Terminators, and the like? And have not social issues and “Christian” government become the causes celebres of today’s churches and Christian circles. Even the nation’s first politicians are being made over into Christians. These things all make us feel quite righteous about our “stand,” but our nation continues to spiral downward. Could it be that Screwtape’s creator has penned a plan to convince us to replace our concern for personal holiness with a concern for national righteousness?
But maybe we should evaluate what we view and what we read when we think about our righteousness. Psalms 101:3 says, “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.” Does Hollywood love the Lord Jesus Christ, or do they turn aside? Should we view those works and let those images cleave to our minds? What about the witches, demons, and fantasy creatures in books? Should those images cleave to us? If C. S. Lewis thinks that these things are not good for us, why did he write them for our children? Could it be that the people who understand him know that he is instructing in the ways of corruption? Are the children of the world wiser than the children of light in this matter also?
It is truly baffling that any real Christian should think that Lewis was a Christian. It seems that most have only heard the advertising rhetoric, but few have taken the time to read the works that expose his personal views or biographical works chronicling his habits. Lewis did not consider all of the Bible the inerrant Word of God (Reflections on the Psalms). He did not believe that faith in Jesus Christ was all that was necessary for salvation (Screwtape Letters). He believed that one could lose one’s faith in a moment through commission of a mortal sin (Screwtape Letters). He believed in Limbo as a place (neither heaven nor hell) of temporary punishment (Screwtape Letters). He believed that church sacraments are part of salvation (Mere Christianity, Screwtape Letters). He believed that pagans may belong to Christ without knowing it (Mere Christianity). He had a participating interest in the occult (The Inklings Handbook). And, regardless of his reputation and his “great swelling words,” his outlook on death was not that of a Christian. This from C. S. Lewis, A Biography: “Like many (most?) religious people, Lewis was profoundly afraid of death. His dread of it, when in the midst of life, had been almost pathological and obsessive. Physical extinction was a perpetual nightmare to him and, whatever his theological convictions and hopes, he was unable, before his wife’s death, to reconcile himself to the transition which death must inevitably entail.”
The idea of Lewis as a “great Christian mind” has been thoroughly impressed upon so many for so long that he has become a very real “angel of light.” It was Hitler who said, “If you tell a lie often enough and long enough, the people will believe it.” So, now that we know what The Chronicles of Narnia is not (a Christian allegory), what is it? The concept of God’s enemies going to heaven is not theologically sound, and is by no means Christian. It is theosophical. Theology is the study of relating to God. Theosophy is the study of relating to God’s opposite or archenemy. The Chronicles is full of theosophical beliefs. The idea that God’s enemies go to heaven is a distinct theosophical tenet. This only makes sense. Those who serve and worship the devil do not expect to spend eternity in hellfire and brimstone for doing so.
Most theosophy is thrust upon the world today as its opposite—theology. The reason is obvious. Most people would not accept it for what is at face value, but disguised as religion, church, faith, etc, it is readily acceptable to those who have less care for being discerning. The American Theosophical Society met in 1901 to discuss how to plan and implement the goal of propagating theosophy throughout this nation and the world. The conclusion drafted at that convention stated that such propagation was only possible through the churches—that theosophical values must be disguised as Christian or religious to be accepted popularly. So what are we being taught by these scholars that tell us that all this theosophy is actually Christian?
And what about Lewis? Are we still not ready to believe his connection to the occult? Why? It is public fact. The following excerpt from a letter to a religious magazine.
“Kudos to Roberta green for deftly summarizing the trouble with Harry Potter. C. S. Lewis himself experienced the dangers of “crossing the line” into obsession with the occult. In Surprised by Joy, he writes that, partly because of a school matron who dabbled in the occult, “for the first time, there burst upon me the idea that there might be real marvels all about us, that the visible world might be only a curtain to conceal huge realms uncharted by my very simple theology. And that started in me something with which, on and off, I have had plenty of trouble since—the desire for the preternatural, simply as such the passion for the Occult. Not everyone has this disease; those who have it will know what I mean. It is a spiritual lust; and like the lust of the body it has the fatal power of making everything else in the wold seem uninteresting while it lasts.”
Some children will read Harry Potter and never struggle with such a lust; but for others, it will open the door for a maleficent obsession. After reading the first Harry Potter novel, I decided that our children do not need that door opened, not even a crack.
How about something even more public? In the Screwtape Letters, Lewis admittedly takes his reader on a tour of the devil’s mind. This is an area of study strictly forbidden by the Bible. This is a study that no Christian mind, even a mind as “great” as that of C. S. Lewis is allowed to make in the service of God. Pray tell, is this a trip theological or theosophical? Will God condone such a trip as long as “scholars” tell us that it came from a “great Christian mind”?
Should there be any doubt about Lewis’ theosophism or his activity in occultism? Consider the company he kept. He was a star member of The Inklings. The Inklings was a literary group that met in taverns to trade ideas and discuss how their work should impact society. Many had theosophical affiliations, not the least of which was Aleister Crowley, member of the Order of the Golden Dawn, who called himself “The Great Beast” and “the wickedest man alive.” Charles Williams also became deeply involved in witchcraft and theosophy because he was intrigued by its power. Author after author in the group was fascinated by pre-Christian paganism, and they credit the ideas they find in pre-Christian paganism as the source of much of the thought expressed in their works. Isn’t this a little strange for Christian authors? There was plenty of pre-Christian theism available to be learned. There are plenty of good thoughts and ideas in the Old Testament, and I have seen many of them used as sources for some very good reading material. Of course, none of them has been as mesmerizing (nor as confusing) as the works of the Inklings, especially those of Lewis and Tolkien. For much more information on the Inklings, see our review on Tolkien.
Think about this for a moment. In Mere Christianity Lewis tells us Christians recognize each other, but he speaks about them—not in an inclusive manner, but more as those people—not including himself among them. He also published a considerable amount of fantasy full of occult overtones, topped off with a major theosophical doctrine. Knowing that he denied that his fantasy was Christian allegory, and realizing that theosophists can also recognize each other by their own beliefs and works, was Lewis getting across who he was to the people familiar with this stuff? Also, is it any wonder that we receive so many reports of young children having continual nightmares and demonic type experiences after viewing one Lewis’ “allegorical” works? Lewis’ work has been compared as “white magic” to Harry Potter’s “black magic.” Is there any white magic to God? What does His Word say about all magic? Are Lewis’ magic, demons, ogres, monsters, curses, gods, fairies and illusions really pointing people toward God? The Bible says, “I will put no evil thing before mine eye.” What are we doing reading and watching such things? What is worse, what are we doing to our children?
As we said, C. S. Lewis and J. R. Tolkien are just the first steps toward Harry Potter and beyond. And how long shall we tolerate all the surreal video games corrupting our children? These games are literally destroying the proper thinking ability in our young people. This is fact, not a lone idea from a Christian voice crying in the wilderness. This is factual evidence from studies done by heathen government and medical agencies, endorsed by non-Christian psychiatrists and psychologists across the nation. Do the research. Find out what games are doing to your children. These games are extremely harmful to even adult minds. Also, notice how closely these games parallel the books and movies originating from Lewis, Tolkien and others like them.
As an aside, J. R. Tolkein was a contemporary of Lewis, and received considerable mentoring from him. Tolkein’s works are so similar to those of Lewis that, if they had all been published under the same name, few would ever know the difference. They are filled with the same occultism, black magic, and theosophist views. They also were never purported to be allegorical by their author. Tolkein was a Catholic, so he knew of no salvation by faith in Christ. Having been Catholic, I can attest through my own experience as well as by the last papal encyclical, that the Catholic church teaches of no salvation other than through itself. So much for scholars and their allegories.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 says, “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.” The theosophist’s game is not original. It has been around as long as man. And the admonishment of Jesus in Luke 16:8 is as good for today as it was for the day when He said, “. . . for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.”
One last question—if, in Jesus’ day, the children of light were the Jews, and many Jews did not go to heaven (remember, the idea that those Pharisees who murdered Jesus went to heaven is a theosophical plank), then how many in our churches today are bound for brimstone because they have glibly accepted false doctrines? How many are being anxiously awaited by Screwtape? How many are sitting in the place where the theosophist scholars have gone to teach them—the church. “The church” is where the Pharisees taught “God’s people”—the people who said “Lord, Lord,” and He said, “I never knew you.” The Pharisees were scholars. Does education make truth? Are we not responsible to discern what we are taught? Are scholars teaching what is right—or teaching what is popular? Are we being taught that the pure in heart shall see God, or are we being offered garbage packaged as Christian parallelism? The path parallel to the narrow way leads to destruction. Do not take my word for it. How much time have you spent alone with God’s Word allowing the Holy Spirit to teach you the difference? Eternity hangs in the balance. He knows the pure in heart.
Copyright www.keepersofthefaith.com. All rights reserved.
