Re to Aberforth's defense of CSL & JKR

[Lumen]

No: HPFGUIDX 25982

First I want to stand up and cheer Aberforth's Goat for one superb post;
really, one of the best ever.  Below is the part on which I would like to
add a few points.

"Also: one thing many readers may not notice about Narnia is the originality
and influence of its theological contribution. Lewis was a classical
Christian, but he wasn't just toeing the party line. (In fact, he was
arguably the century's most original conservative theologian - assuming that
isn't an oxymoron). The Narnian tales have certainly had a more significant
effect on the way I understand the world than any single theology book I can
think of. (Of course, people coming from a different background are unlikely
to see this originality and very likely to see the things they dislike about
CSL's worldview.)

I don't see Jo at all in same light - which is natural since she is not a
theologian nor even a philosopher. She's coming at her stories from a
different background and with a different agenda. I think she's more
interested in the people than the issues, which certainly isn't bad. But I
don't think she'll be giving Sartre or Tillich a run for his money."
Aberforth's Goat


There seems to be a difficulty for some as regards just what for moral
content, etc. C.S. Lewis has in the Narnia tales: over-simplistic, etc.  Of
course anyone who has read all of his works (they are superb;no one should
miss them) knows that the man is anything but simplistic in his approach to
morals. The books in question are targeted for children younger than the
audience
that JK has in mind for hers.

The deeper touchstone --and Aberforth pointed in that direction-- is that
CSL is also writing from a theological point.  While we know that JK has
Christian roots, has had her own child baptized, is intensely interested in
questions that pertain to the religious realm; still she is not a
theologian, nor can any one say with exactitude where she stands now.

My point is --and I am a Christian, Catholic, and easily termed as serious,
having devoted a good many years to the study of theology-- is that for
those outside the faith, there is a tendency to divide our approach and
practice of morality from our confession of God as the center of our life.
We don't follow --now I am speaking of the "ideal" since there are always a
goodly number who don't really grasp the full implications of what is
offered to them in their faith-- a set of "Do and Do not" because this is
how it has to be or else.  The moral code is based on a loving relationship
with God.  Just that simple.  Loving God and loving my brother in Christ, I
strive to do what is best for the other/Other.  Modern morality has for the
most part taken "don't harm the other" as its rule for what should be done
or not done.  The dynamism behind our morality/spirituality moves in a very
different direction.  Christianity, by contrast, is based
on a love-relationship and that is the foundation for every moral decision:
do the very best you can for the other.  If one goes to CSL Narnia tales
with that in mind, you will see that it is much deeper than suspected.

Then there is also the fact that Christians --again I am talking of what
would be called the orthodox approach-- do hold that there is a natural law,
a law which is written in the nature of man and can be learned apart from
any sacred book or theological manual, be it Buddhist, Hindu, Moslem,
Jewish, or Christian.  CSL called it the Tao in his "The Abolition of Man".
That is why there are so many things that coincide in the great world
religions.  Modern morality has for its norm --this is speaking rather
generally but this is getting too long-- this foundational sentence
structure,
"I feel that such and such is.."  In our extreme individualism, the person
makes their own
emotional/psychological experiences the norm for moral behavior.  A few
weeks ago they had a large symposium at the Utrecht University on this
modern trend to view morality from "how I feel about such ..."  These
professors and others are anything but supportive of the traditional
churches, Protestant or Catholic.  Yet they cannot embrace this either.  As
we say in Holland: everyone is a Pope.

Truly, if you are not a Christian, it is very difficult to evaluate someone
like CS Lewis when you enter into the realm of morality.  The life of prayer
and earnest seeking for the Face of God lies at the heart of all that the
serious Christian does and yearns for.

There is also a literary point here.  There are literary critics (refer to
Danziger's Literary Criticism) who would categorize the Narnia Tales as
allegory.  Allegory does not lean on characterization in the way of many
novels.  Look for the children to each symbolize, represent a particular
dilemma, a challenge to be answered, a problem solved.  Not that every word
they say pertains to that, but it seems to some that this is the better way.
Diggory would be the perfect one to point up all what I mentioned.  For he,
as the one who brought evil into Narnia, is made into the symbol of total
trust in God.  In Diggory there is much of Abraham walking towards the
mountain with fire and knife in hand.  The decision to obey or to do what
seems to him the way to save the one he loves....


O Aberforth, do you really like Chesteron's mysteries?  To read one is worse
than three detentions with Snape for this poor reader.

Maria
(going back to work on her clip notes for Book I)
www.the-sorting-hat.com


    "Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort
cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realize that love as
powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no
visible sign... to have been loved so deeply, even though the person
who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever."