Here is an interesting page on what order the books should be read in, which is sure to again become the subject of many heated debates now that the movie is out.
The internecine strife between Lewis aficionados about the order of the Narnia books shows no signs of abating. In principle, both devout Chronologists and sincere Publicationists both allow that people should read the books in whatever order they chose. Yet both groups, in their hearts, believe that their order is best. Fisticuffs can easily develop, and the first excommunications and crusades cannot be far away. In an attempt to resolve this very serious issue, I offer my own, definitive, take on the problem.
Lewis expressed a mild preference for this second, chronological order. In a letter written in 1957 to an American boy named Laurence, he wrote the following:
‘I think I agree with your order {i.e. chronological} for reading the books more than with your mother’s. The series was not planned beforehand as she thinks. When I wrote The Lion I did not know I was going to write any more. Then I wrote P. Caspian as a sequel and still didn’t think there would be any more, and when I had done The Voyage I felt quite sure it would be the last. But I found as I was wrong. So perhaps it does not matter very much in which order anyone read them. I’m not even sure that all the others were written in the same order in which they were published. – Quoted in “Letters to Children”
He also covers the whole “allegory” controversy towards the end of the page quite well, also. I think that sometimes people try to make too much of certain things, especially regarding stories told in books and movies. Of course, there are some clear similarities, but as Lewis himself said, the story was never meant to be a parable-like retelling of the Biblical story; he said that it started out as a story with a witch, a lion, etc. and evolved from there, obviously picking up some themes from a timeless story that Lewis loved.
Perhaps the desire to turn such a story into a trophy or a tract is the result of the compartmentalized style of Christianity that we have grown accustomed to in our society – if something has any hint of a Christian theme to it, it is an “outreach” (or some other Christianeese label), and everything else is something somehow less “holy”. I think Lewis said it best when he said that “it is not a ‘Christian book’; it is a book written by a Christian man”. May our lives be lived the same way…
Or perhaps it’s the sincere Christian’s love for the true story of Christ’s selfless sacrifice for mankind that makes us zealous to draw out the comparisons between it and the C.S.Lewis stories.
The fact that Christian’s “departmentalize” or “label” is probably because we are human beings living in a physical world in which we try as we might (however imperfectly) to communicate our beliefs in whatever ways we can find.
The Bible speaks of nature declaring the glory or God, that the natural speaks of the invisible, that things that happen are for our example, etc. So I don’t think it’s a flaw that Christians find sermons and “outreaches” and object lessons in so many tangible things.
And I don’t see a problem with Christians being excited to have a wholesome meaningful film out that speaks of values that we know are real and true and right. You can’t be saying that on a “holiness scale of 1-10″ a movie like, say, Wedding Crashers, has the same redeeming value as The Chronicles of Narnia.
Although C.S. Lewis didn’t C.S. Lewis himself said that he “did not want his readers to notice the resemblance of the Narnian theology to the Christian story,” says biographer George Sayer. “His idea, as he once explained it to me, was to make it easier for children to accept Christianity when they met it later in life. He hoped that they would be vaguely reminded of the somewhat similar stories that they had read and enjoyed years before. [He told me,] ‘I am aiming at a sort of pre-baptism of the child’s imagination.’”
So, you see, C.S. Lewis certainly did intend for his story to point the way to the True Story of Christ and his love for us.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t trying to put down the movie at all; I loved it. I also wasn’t saying that there isn’t a clear underlying reference to the story of Christ in the Narnia stories, since there obviously is (at least in this particular one).
I was mostly just commenting on how much I’ve heard Christians talk about what a “Christian” movie this was, or at least about the underlying story. I’m not necessarily saying that’s bad (sorry if it sounded that way), just that I think that trying to categorize something (especially a creative work of art, literature, etc) as either “Christian” or “secular” is too limiting, and it is similar to what seems to be the common practice of Sunday-morning-Christianity in our western culture. Kevin Prosch used to talk about his all the time too, because when he started doing music that wasn’t traditional worship, people would always ask him about why he wasn’t doing “Christian music”.
I think that if Christ is in us, then in one sense everything we do is “Christian”, while at the same time we still are human, so nothing we do is purely “Christian”.
From what I’ve read on Lewis, he wanted these stories to be entertaining and captivating, as you said, and he obviously took inspiration from the story of scripture, but he didn’t set out to write them in order to “convert” people, nor to give a direct or complete picture of the truth God’s story, although he hoped that pondering some elements of his stories may facilitate that process of discovery in the lives of some who read them.
The point he was making in saying that these are stories written by Christian man as opposed to “Christian stories” is what I was focusing on; the fact that Christ should be present in everything that flows out of our lives, not just the things that we normally look to as “ministry”, and that they don’t have to have some kind of traditional ministry goal to be considered valuable or even “Christian”.
What I was trying to say is that I think it’s admirable that he wasn’t trying to use the story to sneak in what he was really trying to say, only using the whole story as a subtle cover for his “message”; I think that it’s OK that he wasn’t doing that, but I was just observing that it seems to be how people are talking about it.
I think we (in general) would maybe come off as much more authentic if we didn’t try to frame our presentation of God’s truth so much in neatly wrapped packages, but rather in the (sometimes messy) unraveling of life, however that may unfold. I really believe that (for better or worse) the people around us who don’t know Him yet learn a lot more about us (and their view of Him) from how we treat people when things don’t go well for us, or we’re in a “bad mood”, etc. in our day to day lives, because I think especially in this day and age people are not very willing to trust a well-laid-out presentation, since they see those all the time. Seeing peace, joy, patience, self control, forgiveness, etc. in action is much more compelling, but it’s also a lot harder, so I think sometimes we (as the church) tend to drift back to the programmatic to accomplish our “mission”.
I’m certainly not against object lessons, or finding the truth that God is speaking to us in a variety of ways that aren’t always obvious. If anything, I’m trying to say that I think sometimes we to narrowly focus on certain things as having a “message”, when I believe that there is opportunity to learn about God everywhere.
I read the books as he, I guess you are saying from the ‘57 letter, in the order he wrote them. It was fantastic to read them that way and read the last – that really was about the time before the first after the rest. So advanced in storytelling, I believe. C.S. Lewis is one of the many I want to sit and talk with when I see him.
Now some correctionists have come along who have to stick their noses in ( some things have not changed )and redo the order as to what they think is right… at least that is what I have seen in Barnes & Noble. Those people are written about in one of books as the teachers in one of schools the kids had to go to.
I have stayed away from the whole Christian discussion/scene in regards to this movie. So much hype and banner waving. I see it alienating people who otherwise would judge the movie on it’s own merits. The Christian community tries to prove itself to the world ” look look we are cool too, we have good movies etc “. There seems to be a spiritual battle going on around the movie.
Too bad it just couldn’t have come out and let it be.
It’s a powerful story and will change lives.
Ok. I have to comment again. Sorry! I’m not trying to be a pain in the butt but I can’t help it. I’m not really talking about the movie in this comment, so I apologize.
Although I agree with almost everything you have said, Jared, I have a problem with one thing. You seem to have a category of “stuff” that those “Sunday Morning Christians” do which to you seems worthless, or hypocritical, or sensless or whatever. In the process you are putting God in a box just as the ones you are scrutinizing have. It’s just a different shaped box. In other words, if you do it “that” way you are wrong or old fashioned or ineffective, but if you do it the way I like it, you are effective and enlightened. I don’t think many seriously committed Christians would agree that programs or rules/regs overshadow the need to “live the life of Christ.”
I just get tired of all the Christian Bashing going on among the HIP CHURCH lately. “They” take every opportunity to tell the rest of us slackers how we have totally missed the message of Christ.
Of course! seeing peace, joy, etc. demonstrated in our lives is the most compelling argument we can give, but well laid out presentations have their place too. And just because someone (C.S. Lewis is a good example) is very good at giving well laid out presentations or is involved in something organized like an outreach or a program, it doesn’t mean they are abandoning the fruits for the safety of the “programatic” or missed the meaning of the Gospel. It doesn’t necessarily mean they are closed minded, or hypocritical, or selfcentered either (not that you used any of those words, but it seems to come across in your writing).
One other thing, do you actually think that our western culture has the corner on “human nature”? We in the west are no more or less people than onyone else in the world. Every culture has their own brand of self centeredness woven very well into their society.
In response to Dave Z’s comment
“The Christian community tries to prove itself to the world â€? look look we are cool too, we have good movies etc “.
Forgive me for saying so, but I think that is a totally ridiculous statement. Are you not pleased when something substantially positive comes out of Hollywood given the amount of trash that normally flows freely? Come on. It’s not “Look! Look! We are cool too!” It’s “Thahks Lord for allowing us to do something excellent with a great message and that the industry has accepted it as worthy to be put out there.”
You should try not to be so judgmental.
I never said that those kinds of things were “wrothless” or any of the other adjectives above. I also never identified with the “hip church” whatever that is; I was speaking in a general sense about the “church” as a whole, or I should say a lot of the people that go to church without “being” the church; in saying this I’m not trying to single out any one particular church organization or even style.
I’m just speaking about my own experience in talking with other church-goers and those outside of the “church”; perhaps my perspective is not representative, but I think it’s at least somewhat accurate. Most people I talk to about church ask a lot about numbers, “good worship” (referring to the musical part of worship), etc. which I find frustrating, since it isn’t supposed to be about that. Likewise, a lot of churches that I know of put a lot of time and money into the structured programs and other things like buildings, and relatively quite a bit less on helping people in need. Even if my own conversations are not enough to gauge this, the fact that there is so much monetary wealth in the American church and yet still so much unmet need in our communities and beyond our borders serves to illustrate it better than I ever could.
As for my speaking of the western culture in a negative light, we’ve had this conversation before. Of course, “human nature” is common among all humans, but you’ve got to admit that in terms of greed, materialism, selfishness, etc. it is far more rampant in the west. This is why God says that it’s hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom, like fitting a camel through the eye of the needle, it’s an acknowledgment of the fact that it’s very common for those in prosperity to tend to not live out those fruits in their lives. The “church” in countries like China or others that have been oppressed for so long is dramatically different than the church in America, and I often think that it would be great if their type of “Christianity” could somehow invade and infect us here in the west. If that sounds like too “negative” a thing to say, I apologize.
I’n not saying that there aren’t things to be frustrated about in the neat tidy Christianity we have developed here in America. There are. Of course, we are not anywhere near perfect yet. I agree that we give too much attention to our buildings, etc, but I don’t agree that we don’t pay attention to need. The “church” in America pours zillions of dollars into helping human need here and around the world. Of course there is still more that can be done, but on a scale of one-to-whatever, there is very little unmet need in our communities. Our poor are rich by comparison to much of the world. Many of these “programs” that you speak of were built for the very purpose of reaching those in need. Like Rescue Missions, Teen Challenge, Family to Family, Laundry Love… Stuff like that. Is that what you are talking about when you talk “programatic”, “neat little boxes”?
Any way, we started talking about the Narnia books and that’s where I felt you started in on Christians, because they have taken the book and made it something that it’s not. But see, what’s the problem with making a small group study from something like that? Or from “The Three Little Pigs” or anything else for that matter? If there is a lesson that can be taught or learned, why not do it? Why shouldn’t everything be used as an “outreach”? Which by the way is an Enlish word that is used by English speaking people which comes from the idea of “reaching out” to others.
The programs you mention above are definitely examples of good things being done; my point was that in most churches who are involved with such things there is a small minority of the people within that church that actually participate in those activities in any way. I get the sense that the rest feel that since “their church” is doing those things that their obligation is being fulfilled without actually being involved personally at all; this is the “programmatic” mentality that I am talking about.
I’m not necessarily trying to put down any of the other programs that churches run that don’t involve helping people in need either, (although sometimes it seems that there is a huge Christian book industry being supported by them and I wonder if it is at the expense of spending time with the book we already have), just that I think the priorities could be a little out of whack.
As for the amount that America gives in terms of aid to those in need (both at home and abroad) it’s certainly a lot, but relative to our total wealth it is still very small. The rich person in line before the widow in Mark 12:41-44 probably put in a lot more than she did, and I’m sure their gift was appreciated, but the fact was they weren’t giving sacrificially as she was, and I don’t think most of us in the US are either.
As for there being very little unmet need in our communities, I’ll have to disagree with you on that; there are too many statistics about the numbers of people that live under the poverty level here in the US. It’s certainly better than a lot of other places, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say there’s very little unmet need.
ma ma J
I understand what you are saying about the movie quality issue. The world will always be involved in sin and feed on sin and love sin. I have seen that there is a market for it and those who are suppliers and consumers.
First I am not a member of the ” hip ” church.
With all due respect you seemed to have not understood what I am speaking about -
Not talking about the movie quality issue – only about the Christian ghetto hype surrounding the movie. Two different subjects.
I think the Christian community in the US has an inferiority complex that comes out in the way I stated. Often having to ” dress ” up to be trendy or cool.
Often even watering down our message to make it easier to hear etc.Paraphrased greatly – I like that JB said we need to live it.
We will be known by our love and ” fruit of the Spirit ”
We don’t have to apolgize for our true message and we are to be bold – not try to disguse it with coolness/being trendy sneaking it in.
I have seen and heard reactions to the movie from the Christian community that ” we ” finally have a good movie ” hurray for our side “.
Truth is truth even if it’s a ” secular ” movie.
Yes I am happy that there are decent movies.
My comments were about the Christian media hype Not about the quality of movies from hollywood.
Anyway, last comment here for awhile.
I realize that there are people living under what we call poverty level, but I was meaning in comparison to the rest of the world. We have a different standard when talking about poverty. That’s why I said on a scale of one-to-whatever…
But as far as poverty and other social problems go, we have to realize that there are lots of factors that come into play. Wealth, greed and materialism are only part of the problem.
If you stand a comfortably wealthy person next to a hungry homeless person, you might quickly come to the conclusion that the wealthy person is selfish and materialistic, the homeless person is an innocent victim of circumstances and if the wealthy person would just give up a little cash or give the person a job or home, every thing would be OK. But as you probably know, there are MANY situations that are just not that simply solved.
I’m sure there will always be more we can give or do. That doesn’t excuse selfishness, I realize, but maybe when Jesus said that the poor we would always have with us, He knew that regardless of our level of giving there will always be those who fall into the “poverty” category for one reason or another. Or maybe He knew that there would always be injustice in this world, but we should still always try to do the right thing.
Sorry, now I’m rambling. It’s all about love, baby!
JB, how can I email you? Your tag board is down and I would like to text you re a Video Call I did with MIT… if you are interested?
I will check back here.
Comment again and include an email address for yourself (it won’t show up on the page), then I’ll email you there.
I completely agree that the poor will always be with us; and whether in each individual case that is due to circumstances beyond their control or completely their own choices I don’t think makes too much difference in what our response and action towards them should be, just as Christ’s love and action towards us does not depend on our own worthiness, or the fact that most of the trouble we get into is our own fault.
That’s why I believe that when you stand that wealthy person next to the poor one that they should make an effort to help them, and it doesn’t matter that it won’t make everything OK. How many times have we all accepted the gift of forgiveness only to “waste” it by returning to the very same behavior, attitudes, etc. that we were forgiven for, yet it is continually offered to us.
I know that we mostly agree on all this stuff, so I don’t want this to look like an argument. I understand that your main issue with my comments is that I sometimes seem to be too critical of the American culture, and I can see how that could come across. I just believe that to whom much has been given, much will be required.
My other reasoning for the sometimes unbalanced criticism is simply that as a part of this culture, I feel some obligation to move towards changing it. There are certainly other cultures that do bad things as well, but I am not a member of those societies, so I feel that it is better for me to acknowledge my own flaws (or that of an organization that I am a part of) and work on them rather than focusing on other groups or organizations which I am not a part of.
Ok thanks
Yes, I know we do agree on the generousity issue. Our response should be the same regardless of the results, but what I am saying is this:
You can’t necessarily use the results to prove that we (whoever we happens to be) are not doing enough. There are some holes you can fill and fill and fill and they will never be full. That doesn’t mean you haven’t tried your darndest to fill them.
And yes, that wealthy person SHOULD do what he can to help, but that doesn’t mean that the problem will be solved. And if it’s not, does that mean that the wealthy person was to stingy or too materialistic? It might, but not necessarily.
I knew a grandpa once who tried to help his grandson. The kid was pretty much a flake, estranged from the parents and sponging off whomever he could. The grandpa agreed to help the kid find a job, gave him a place to live, helped him plan a budget, got him some clothes, etc. etc. etc. The kid wouldn’t take the help. He went back to selling drugs out of the grandpa’s house, trashed the place, stole from grandpa and ended up living on the street again, dispite the grandpa’s generousity and kindness. The grandpa forgives him and loves him, but the kid won’t take the help. We could say that the REASON we have this kid living on the street is because we live in a materialistic self cenetered society, but there is so much more to it than that. You know what I mean?
To Dave: Actually, I WAS responding to your comment in regards to your attitude about the “Christian ghetto hype” surrounding the movie. I felt your comment was unkind and demeaning. I realize there are attitude problems in the church, but fabricating derogotory quotes is pretty unproductive, even destructive, in my opinion Most of the Christians I know don’t say things like “Hooray for our side” or “Looky, looky. We’re cool. We have a good movie.” They are simply pleased to have a quality production with a great message to take their kids to with the added hope that the message will point viewers to Christ.
interesting.