(urth) Lupiverse(es)

[António Pedro Marques]

No dia 16/03/2012, às 01:31, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> escreveu:

> On 3/15/2012 8:17 PM, James Wynn wrote:
>> On 3/15/2012 6:26 PM, Matthew Weber wrote:
>>> Lewis' theology, idiosyncratic?  I'd characterize it as broadly catholic and orthodox, though I can see where the hyper-Reformed might have problems with it.
>> 
>> Um...I think he recognized that his views were enough at variance with the beliefs of his fellow-travellers** that it merited noting the fact. And he certainly did note it in "The Great Divorce" during his conversation with George MacDonald. Nowadays, one will easily find practicing Catholics and Protestants who find Aslan's conversation with the Tash-worshipper to be sensitive and insightful. I doubt that would have been nearly so common in 1960. Educated Catholics like to think of the Church as being "universalistic" regarding Soterology (and thus more rational than Reformed and Fundamentalist sects) and it probably is in their experience. But that certainly wasn't my experience growing up in a small Ohio town that was probably 75% Catholic. Nor is that the experience described by my friends who went to parochial school. The message was clear and emphatic: "Outside The Church There Is No Salvation".
>> 
>> **"fellow-travelers" is defined here as Christians who were broadly "evangelical" in that they considered both Faith and non-belief to be an active, personal decision rather than a cultural ritual
> "Outside The Church There Is No Salvation" ... but there is nothing outside the Church, so how do we know that "Outside The Church There Is No Salvation"? Because there is nothing outside the Church! But ...
> 
> I think have read quite a few stories about that paradox, without guessing the inspiration.
> 
> Also, btw: Tash was always a favorite episode of mine.
> 
> And George MacDonald is another didactic fantasy writer who often just completely fails to grab me. I am not surprised to hear he and Lewis were pals.

Wasn't MacDonald a good half century older? And he was one of those mollified Presbyterians. 
But is it fair to criticise didacticism which didn't pretend to be anything else? I mean, neither MacDonald nor Lewis, that I know of, tried to present their books as doctrinally free. At least MacDonald was overt as to their didactic nature. It isn't Lewis's fault if the Narnia books got popular that they were pushed everywhere as mere children's books without a caveat that they were had a religious undercurrent. Maybe the real issue is that they are popular because that undercurrent pleases people, just as Praise of Empire pleased others, and those who take exception to that way of writing resent the popularity.