Look at Lewis's famous formulation that a Tash-worshipper's love for Aslan is authentic despite lacking the proper referent.
"Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me... 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..."Similarly, consider Lewis's response to a mother who was concerned her son loved Aslan "too much," perhaps even more than he loved Jesus. Lewis consoled:
But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet 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."
"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 things that 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 before."Lewis does a po-mo jig with the word really. Love for Aslan is really love for Jesus, for Aslan literarily did all the things Jesus really did.
To see the silliness of Lewis's position, imagine a reply to a spouse stricken by the revelation of her husband's infidelity:
"Your hubby can't really love his new flame more than you.... For the things he loves his mistress for doing or saying are simply things that you did and said. So that when your hubby thinks he is loving his girlfriend, he is really loving you; and perhaps loving you more than he ever did before."
4 comments:
How is this a "po-mo jig"?
Lewis divorces "love for X" from its referent, as the analogy makes quite clear. It's similar to the way liberal scholars defend "the Christ of faith" against "the Christ of history," or the way others claim "Christians, Muslims, and Jews all worship the same God."
Lewis is certainly an inclusivist about salvation. It's not surprising that he uses language like that used by other inclusivists, then. (eg, John Hick's insistence that all the major world religions make contact with or worship "the Real.")
James Sennett has an interesting paper on the topic, incidentally. I can only find it in the Wayback Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20041022045510/http://www.lccs.edu/~jsennett/lewis.htm
I'm guessing it's gone because it was "a work in progress" that's nearly ready for publication.
If Lewis is right, there is no compelling reason to convert to Christianity, if one sincerely seeks "the Real" in the confines of one's own religion. (One could even imagine "anonymous Christians" populating the ranks of atheism.) Inclusivism blunts the rhetorical force of Paul's evangelistic plea in Romans 10:14-15.
Post a Comment