Double Standards

When it comes to Harry Potter and Narnia, while it’s not hard to raise objections to the former (I myself fell into this in a way), but when it comes to the latter among Christians I feel it constitutes a socially acceptable way to read something taboo or off-limits in some way. But this involves realising something about themselves that feel drawn to things they shouldn’t even be into, I feel a children’s story featuring characters going through the trials and tribulations of their own wrongdoing and striving to be faithful to God would get off the ground, if it didn’t have any magic at all perhaps other than it being the byproduct of suspicious characters, would get off the ground the way Narnia did.

Even if it would’ve been more Biblically consistent, given the Bible’s stance on magic, but I guess something that’s taboo is more appealing than if it’s already good for other people. It kind of lines up with the verses about being tempted into doing something sinful/evil but also risking negative consequences as it’s been like this with me before, perhaps because a lot of Christians are rather worldly that even if they’re against the world on principle, they actually like it in practise for as long as it’s done in a socially acceptable form. Though sin is still sin, regardless of the form it takes on, it’s kind of unsaid in Christian communities that sin is kind of lovable if it takes on a socially acceptable form like Narnia for instance.

To put it this way it would be like the taboo surrounding male nudity, put them in tight clothing (for as long as you ignore the crotch area) then it’s kind of okay to look at. It’s already the case with superhero stories in a way, but at times it’s so close to actual nudity that inevitably many superhero cartoonists would’ve inevitably looked at naked fit men at some point. Maybe not really but it does feel like it whenever they make it so tight as to be bodypainted, maybe in ways not many would immediately realise what superhero cartoonists are actually up to. But it does make you wonder about how people enjoy consuming something taboo in a socially acceptable form, it may not be male nudity as it is with superhero comics. It could be something like magic in Narnia, but not many will admit it in some way.

I thought about this when it comes to Narnia’s own author CS Lewis, where I feel some of his popularity owes to how he can indulge in things taboo to a lot of Christians and still be beloved for it. He wouldn’t enjoy the same degree of cultish fame among Evangelicals if he was square through and through, something like CH Spurgeon and it’s kind of telling how CH Spurgeon never spawned a cult following among Evangelicals the way Lewis did. Even though he advocated and did more things in line with both Evangelical dogma and the Bible, there’s not a single CH Spurgeon society the way there is for CS Lewis. I still think Evangelicals actually enjoy taboo matters, for as long as it’s presented in a way that doesn’t offend them.

But it does make you wonder if their standards for what’s good and edifying are lower than they realise.

False God

As I said before about CS Lewis, it’s one thing to defend what Christianity stands for. But it’s another to actually believe in God’s goodness, something people have struggled with before. In CS Lewis’s case, because he was so interested in paganism that his interest in pagan gods frequently got the better of him. No wonder why he struggled to believe in God for as long as he became a Christian, paganism got a stronghold on him.

Notice how other Christian writers like David Wilkerson and Mary K Baxter never seem to be interested in pagan mythology that much, to the point where you can get an idea of how CS Lewis constantly struggled to believe in God’s goodness and why he’s so prone to idolatry. Not that Wilkerson and Baxter never committed idolatry, though nowhere as frequently as he did. Same with unbelief and why Lewis could be so disloyal to God at times.

My point about being interested in pagan gods is that they are precipices, the fact that they’re intended to be idols is a dangerous road to get to. Lewis was especially interested in mythology, but sometimes too much for his own good that’s why he struggled to believe in God. If Lewis isn’t always such a great Christian writer, he can be taken as a warning to any Christian who gets interested in anything pagan.

It is perhaps telling that by the time his wife died, he stopped writing about pagan mythology in any way. This is God’s way of telling him that he had gone astray from him due to his interest in such topics, not to mention there was a time when I really got into Journey to the West (a story involving pagan gods) that happened when I was backsliding. Even as I got into mythology and Taoism again, it tends to be rather fleeing the more I devote myself to God.

When you’re dealing with characters intended to be worshipped as gods, any strong interest in them leads to the risk of idolatry in any way. It’s for the best that writers like Julian of Norwich, David Wilkerson and Mary K Baxter never show much interest in pagan mythology, otherwise they would’ve doubted God as much as CS Lewis had. Any interest in a pagan god will always be a precipice, no matter how hard you try to not make it be.

Fear of witchcraft

As I realised in life, admittedly this could be a false consensus bias going on in here, but when it comes to non-Christian mythology it’s easier for Christians (and Christianity) to co-opt, assimilate and cherry-pick certain aspects because they don’t compete for a love of God the way a strongly sincere interest in any pagan god would. Especially when it comes to lower mythological creatures and witchcraft in relation to what the Bible despises and fears, both fairies (for Europeans) and mermaids (for Africans) have been construed as demonic because they oppose God in everywhere.

Like say how some countries and cultures, be it present day Cameroon or early modern Scotland, viewed dogs as demonic but since the Bible doesn’t always have the highest opinion of dogs eithers so it’s a belief that can easily be meshed with Christianity in a way a sincerely strong interest in a pagan god wouldn’t. If because the latter would easily crossover to idolatry, which the Bible abhors and forbids. Perhaps this is why CS Lewis, with his strong interest in mythology, could have crossed the line easily and likely why some Christians distrust him.

When it comes to being strongly interested in any one of the pagan gods, it’s the big thing about polytheistic mythology that’ll never be smoothly assimilated into and widely accepted by Christians and Christianity. It could easily cross over to idolatry, perhaps sometimes mistakenly so. CS Lewis may’ve easily done this a couple of times over, so it’s not a stretch to think he committed idolatry before even as a Christian. This proves my point that a very strong interest in any pagan god could open up the potential for idolatry in a way a fear of witchcraft wouldn’t.

Though this involves realising how fallible Lewis actually was in person, given his penchant for mythology he would be really susceptible to it and may’ve struggled with it all throughout his life. This is likely why he doesn’t always have a strong relationship with God, especially with mythological gods on his mind that would’ve inevitably got the better of him from time to time. It’s still telling that throughout time and place, fears of witchcraft and evil beings are among the things that gets readily accepted by Christians.

It’s easy to incorporate into Christianity, if because Christianity already has these sentiments that it’s way easier to pull off than say being really interested in Zeus for instance. To paraphrase somebody else, he can only be called Thomas. No wonder CS Lewis sometimes doubted God and the Bible a lot, if it weren’t for his interest in mythological gods. There are things in mythology that Christianity readily accepts, and there are things in mythology that Christianity doesn’t.

It’s easier to integrate pre-existing witchcraft beliefs into Christianity than say a profound interest in Athena ever would, though it’s something that I realised ever since I came back to Christ that my interest in mythological gods is rather fleeting at this time. An epiphany like this is what led me to this conclusion and why some parts of mythology will never be seamlessly integrated into the faith the way a shared fear of witchcraft and evil would.

The Nutty Backslider

Returning to Peanuts and Charles M Schulz, the latter said that he became a secular humanist. If I’m not mistaken, his two wives were nonbelievers. While it’s true that God does use unbelievers to motivate Christians to do something, like preaching to them and the like but sometimes it’s best to stay away from them. Light has no companionship with darkness, ergo Schulz shouldn’t have married Jeannie and Joyce. It was these two that he drifted away from God, even though his cartoon was getting successful.

He has gained the world but lost his soul (and faith in God) along the way, perhaps that’s why Peanuts seems to have a larger secular audience than Narnia does. CS Lewis, for all his faults, went back to God after a period of backsliding (if he did at all) and dedicated much of his stories and writings to the Lord. Schulz, by contrast, drifted away from God the more successful his cartoon got. Cumulating in an affair with a younger woman named Tracey Claudius, which inspired cartoons where Charlie Brown catches his dog for dating on the phone.

Seems like Schulz’s own children never seem to be devout Lutherans, he evidently didn’t train them the way he should’ve. Any Christian parent should train their children, as well as subsequently their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, to be devoted Christians and while they may not become Christians immediately they can and will become good Christians in due time if they pray hard enough for their salvation. Schulz didn’t seem to do this, not that they’re maladjusted.

But he never seemed to bring them up in the Lutheran church or any form of Protestantism, only one of them became a Mormon missionary and with his approval. While Charles M Schulz still clung to his faith to some extent, even after his affair with her, he gradually backslided over the years the more successful his cartoon became. While there were biblical references and teachings in Peanuts, these too could’ve lessened the more Schulz fell away from God.

Maybe that’s why the Peanuts cartoons appear to have more secular fans than Narnia does, well the Peanuts cartoons have more secular fans than CS Lewis in general. The latter seems to honour God in many of his written works, whereas Schulz pretty much stopped honouring God later on in life. While Peanuts’s advantage over Narnia is that it doesn’t come off as that preachy, but when it comes to honouring God this might also be its Achilles heel.

What Schulz gained in the world, he lost God’s favour along the way.

Lost in the wardrobe

JRR Tolkien is hailed as the forefather of fantasy fiction, especially when it comes to epic fantasy and the like. He pretty much created the blueprint for modern fantasy fiction, often with a feudal feel complete with dwarves, elves, orcs and hobbits. While not all fantasy works contain any one or more of them, it’s apparent with fantasy brands like Dungeons and Dragons and Warhammer Fantasy as well as Warhammer 40K. But his friend and colleague CS Lewis didn’t leave much of an imprint on subsequent fantasy works, well not to the extent JRR Tolkien has done for so long. In part because some of his biggest fans were Christians, I guess that’s got more to do with seeing the fantastic in real life when it comes to miracles, answered prayers and prophecies.

These are big in Christianity, especially among the more pious. I personally feel when you do see the supernatural in real life, be it angels, demons or witchcraft this is probably the reason why you don’t see that many Christians doing speculative fiction much. If because to them, real life is already fantastical if you take these things seriously. Witches aren’t speculative superhumans, but rather truly dreadful as it was reflected in folklore before. I guess when it comes to Christians seriously believing in miracles and the like, this is possibly why CS Lewis’s influence on secular speculative fiction seems rather limited. Nonetheless, he did make an influence on some secular productions like Digimon for instance.

Not that CS Lewis didn’t influence fantasy and the like at all, but that much of his influence is more greatly felt among Christians than it is among non-Christians. Tolkien’s work seems more palatable for secular readers, since the Christian themes aren’t so blatant as it is with Narnia. That’s why he seems more influential in fantasy literature, especially when it comes to things like Dungeons and Dragons and Warhammer Fantasy.

Hunters

There was somebody on a certain Christian website who said something about the rub with hunting is that a lot of it’s destructive, especially, if I may add, serves little practical use that is trophy hunting. It’s not that the Christian churches don’t entirely get rid of hunting, but the only times it’s ever been permitted is for pest control and pest control alone. They don’t just do this with cats, they also do this with dogs well in one Arizonan Eastern Orthodox monastery. But other times hunting was condemned as a frivolous past time that no monk should ever participate in.

The hunters mentioned in the Bible are almost always seen in a negative light, with the Devil being this associated with hunting in folklore as he is in the Bible. Then comes the extrabiblical knowledge from Anne Catherine Emmerich, which I suspect this is how Biblical writers gained their knowledge of Biblical characters from, who said that there were also evil women involved in hunting. So far only two are named, Semiramis and Derketo. While extrabiblical in nature, this shows how consistently negative the portrayal of hunting is throughout Biblical thought.

Even if it’s not entirely negative, the only ones it’s ever done to service the Lord is for pest control. Outside of that, the only other thing that’s permittable is hunting for food. Even CS Lewis greatly criticised the act of hunting for sport, hunting is generally negative and destructive. It is the very thing that will be put away in the New Earth, which it will be forgotten for good.

Nobody goes crazy over Thomas

Not Thomas Aquina, I’m referring to Thomas the Tank Engine and the odd fact that his original author and creator wasn’t just a railway fan but also an Anglican pastor or priest. Admittedly, the Thomas the Tank Engine books tend to be rather simplistic. But as to why Wilbert Awdry never became a big name among Evangelicals the same way CS Lewis has, I suspect it’s the feeling of how spiritual the work is that can make or break an author.

Despite being a pastor, the Thomas the Tank Engine never seemed to have overt Christian references the way Narnia seems to even though CS Lewis is not a pastor and believed in the things Evangelicals would find abhorrent. To be fair, some Evangelicals dislike Lewis for that reason. Awdry seemed quieter about his faith, while he did preach the word of God in church he never seemed to show it in his works. Awdry has written a Christian book called Our Child Begins to Pray, but it never caught fire the same way Mere Christianity has.

Since Thomas the Tank Engine spawned a lot of merchandise, I suspect Evangelicals never seemed to praise it a lot because it seemed worldlier than Narnia is. Other things loved by Evangelicals may not be any better, but as to why Narnia’s more popular among Evangelicals than Thomas the Tank Engine is that perhaps Thomas the Tank Engine seemed to have little overt Christian analogues and the like in them. Even though Awdry could’ve been more devout than Lewis is.

It’s life’s greatest mysteries why so many Evangelicals passed over an actual pastor in favour of a writer.

CS Lewis said it

CS Lewis said that Buddhism’s like a simplification of Hinduism which does make more sense when it comes to certain branches of Buddhism such as the one in Japan having the same five elements of fire, wind, water, earth and void as that of Hinduism. (While Chinese Daoism did influence Japan, I don’t think it made a big mark on Japan the way Shintoism and Buddhism did.) While some Japanese and part of Japanese culture follows the Daoist/Chinese five elements of earth, fire, wood, metal and water as well as feng shui and Bagua (eight trigrams of Heaven, Earth, Wind, Thunder, Fire, Water, Lake and Mountain) there’s likely a substantial number of Japanese that adhere to the five Hindu-Buddhist elements.

Not to mention Hindu gods and goddesses have found their way through Buddhism via India and China where you have Japanese monks and scholars learning Sanskrit to better understand and delve into the religion, which’s how Hindu gods ended up in Japanese Buddhism. This is likely similar to some extent in China, though that’s inevitable given Buddhism originated in India and Indian influence would find its way in various cultures and countries when possible. The known similarities between Hinduism and Buddhism is that they both believe in karma (actions come consequences), reincarnation and share stories like the Ramayama.

(The similarities become deeper when it comes to syncretism.)

I wouldn’t say that Buddhism’s exactly like Hinduism but when it comes to the use of devas, there’s going to be some leeway for Hindu gods to make it to countries like China and Japan in addition to Hinduism proper.

CS Lewis–Sympathiser to Catholicism

As I said before, whilst CS Lewis’s not formally part of the Catholic Church he’s sympathetic to it for many reasons like say JRRR Tolkien getting him converted to Christianity and him being exposed to Catholicism a lot does explain some things in the like manner Billy Graham’s sympathetic to the Russian Orthodox Church and probably aware of it on some level.

There are at least some Evangelicals sympathetic to Catholicism and other Christian denominations, or some Christians have profound experiences or knowledge with both denominations like at some point, somebody might be brought up in a Catholic church, goes to a Protestant school and church and then back again.

I could be talking about myself and a few others, but then again I’m rather sympathetic to the Eastern Orthodox like Billy Graham. I also have my sympathies for and interest in things like Catholic Charismatic (part of the Catholic Church that’s meant to revitalise the Church like what Martin Luther tried to do) and also Dante Alighieri.

The latter I think if he were alive today, with his vivid visions of hell and heaven he’d be either Pentecostal or Charismatic. So I can’t berate Catholics, Evangelicals and Orthodox anymore as I’m exposed to all three in varying degrees of familiarity.

CS Lewis and Catholicism

To me, it’s not that CS Lewis is against Catholicism but rather coming off as a Protestant sympathetic to Catholicism that I think makes sense given he did convert to Christianity through a Catholic, even though he didn’t become a Catholic himself.

There are Evangelicals who’re this sympathetic to Catholicism, sometimes seemingly converting to it and in my case, to satiate my curiosity in the role of animals in Christianity. (There are monasteries, both Catholic and Orthodox, that do care for animals a lot.)

My take on Catholicism’s that it’s got a lot of lore with regards to animals and their relation to saints and monasteries that this lack of intellectual curiosity’s almost absent in Evangelicalism. Not helped by Evangelicals bashing Catholicism, that’s kind of depressing.

If because they’d miss out all the knowledge of animals and the like with regards to Christianity but that’s just me.