incarnation?

I think Lewis was more concerned in TLTWATW with presenting an easily
understood analogy to the atonement than with mirroring the
incarnation. Perhaps the Narnian idea about God was not so distorted as
were ours prior to Christ so that Aslan did not need to become
"natural" in order to carry out His plan there. The space trilogy
certainly tells us that different expressions were appropriate to
different circumstances.

Daryl
 >> Stay informed about: incarnation? 

"mike_in_the_west" <mhcole.TakeThisOut@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1140661913.609060.230650@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I've read that Lewis regarded the Narnia series as a "supposal" as to
> the _incarnation_ of God into another world (Narnia). Without
> over-analyzing the books, does this make any sense at all?

Not impossible, I don't think. (contra-allegory people notwithstanding)
But if not precisely that, Lewis did think about God in other worlds. See
_Perelandra_, for instance. And I believe he would like me to think about
same as I read Narnia.
>
> IIRC, Aslan pre-existed Narnia (i.e., he was not born into Narnia).
> Does he ever get hungry or tired like other lions? Does he ever take a
> catnap? In what sense is a "real" lion?
> Maybe Lewis intended him to the "Platonic" Lion - the real lion of
> which other lions are just shadow-copies?

Have you read Charles Williams' _Place of the Lion_. Interesting comparison
there.
>
> I know it's counter-productive to analyze the stories too much, but I'm
> baffled that one of Lewis's central ideas seems so poorly worked out.

Perhaps it is best to read and let your mind do the walking. And perhaps
Aslan is what Aslan will be.
Interesting note: _Letters to Children_ 6 May 1955.
Apparently the mother of a boy named Laurence became concerned that her boy
was loving Aslan more than Jesus.
Here's some of what CSL wrote to her:
2. "But Laurence can't _really_ love Aslan more than Jesus, even if he
feels that's what he is doing. For the things he loves Aslan for doing or
saying are simply the things Jesus really did and said. So that when
Laurence thinks he is loving Aslan. he is really loving Jesus: and perhaps
loving Him more than he ever did. Of course their is one thing that Aslan
had that Jesus has not -- I mean the body of a lion. But remember, if there
are other worlds and they need to be saved and Christ were to save them as
He would -- He may really have taken all sorts of bodies in them which we
don't know about."
C.S.L. reassured the mother further: "God knows all about the way a little
boy's imagination works. (He made it, after all)
_Letters to Children_ is just an absolutely precious book- as among other
things, it shows the kindness, patience and generosity of C. S. Lewis.
Thanks for having me look for it again!

Blessings,
Ann
Perhaps we may have to revisit the term 'allegory' for at least parts of the
Chronicles?
 >> Stay informed about: incarnation? 

Combining some of the comments above:

>The space trilogy certainly tells us that different expressions were
> appropriate to different circumstances.

>if there are other worlds and they need to be saved

All of your comments were helpful. I _think_ I've figured out what
Lewis meant when he talked about Aslan being an incarnation. (At least
_I_ am relatively satisfied with my answer...)

I'm pretty sure Lewis believed that In our world God incarnated as
Jesus Christ (a true man born of a woman) because that was the best way
to deal with Humanity's particular circumstances.

If all of the humans in Narnia (and Calormen, etc.) are descendants of
people from our world (i.e., they are Sons of Adam or Daughters of
Eve), their "atonement needs" are already covered by the incarnation of
Jesus Christ. Lewis is fairly broadminded, in that folks like Emeth
need only live decent lives to join Aslan after the end. IIRC, Lewis
believed the same thing about people in our world (no requirements re
baptism, confession, etc.).

The mention of the Space Trilogy jogged my mind. Lewis wrote somewhere
that it'd be presumptuous to speculate very much about how God
ministers to space aliens - who are we to say whether an alien species
is "fallen" and is best served by a Jesus-type Incarnation?

Lewis treats the Talking Animals the same as he would space aliens. He
actively avoids saying that Narnia needs an Incarnation (uppercase "i")
to be right with its Creator. An incarnation (lowercase "i") is
sufficient for Lewis's stories. Anything more would be presumptuous
speculation.

I think that's as far as Narnia can be analyzed with respect to
"incarnation" and "atonement".

(All of that discussion, and I completed avoided the word "allegory"


mike_in_the_west
 >> Stay informed about: incarnation? 

On 22 Feb 2006 18:31:53 -0800, "mike_in_the_west" <mhcole.DeleteThis@mac.com> wrote:

>I've read that Lewis regarded the Narnia series as a "supposal" as to
>the _incarnation_ of God into another world (Narnia). Without
>over-analyzing the books, does this make any sense at all?

Lewis said something very like that, in a letter to a child.


>IIRC, Aslan pre-existed Narnia (i.e., he was not born into Narnia).
>Does he ever get hungry or tired like other lions? Does he ever take a
>catnap? In what sense is a "real" lion?

See the end of THE HORSE AND HIS BOY where a character is asking questions
like that.


>Maybe Lewis intended him to the "Platonic" Lion - the real lion of
>which other lions are just shadow-copies?

Well, I think in Lewis's thought the 'real' lion would be MORE physical
than the copies, not less. See what he said about the 'real Narnia' at the
end of THE LAST BATTLE.



Bree
 >> Stay informed about: incarnation?