If Bogus, Nevertheless Right

Those of you interested in Lewisian controversies may find of interest something from the Ales Rarus weblog, Bogus Lewis Letter?. It covers an alleged discovery hyped in the London Times, a letter in which Lewis only said what (as the weblog's author shows) he had said several times before.

The Times story did include this interesting item:

Douglas Gresham, Lewis’s stepson, said recently: “Churches in Britain and America are promoting the film as a Christian film, but it’s not . . . and the Narnia books aren’t Christian novels.”

It's a point Gresham has been making a lot, for reasons not entirely clear, since the idea's so obviously daft. Interviewed by The Washington Times, he

called the religious emphasis "an American disease."

"The Brits don't give two figs about that aspect," Mr. Gresham said in an interview from his home near Dublin.

Even the film's resurrection theme does not mean it's a Christian story, he added.

"That idea is informed by the religious training of those reading it," Mr. Gresham said. "The myth of a god who dies and comes back is in ancient Roman, Norse and Hindu mythology. The difference is that the Christian myth actually happened."

This would be a little more plausible if Lewis were writing in, oh, A.D. 10. But no one, not the most badly read and inept novelist you can find, is going to write a resurrection story of the sort that appears in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe without knowing that it will be read as a Christian story.

He knows his meaning is set by the massive cultural fact of the Christian story. By, to borrow Gresham's words, the religious training of those reading it today, and even more when it was written. The writer's not going to say, "Oh, no, nothing to do with Jesus. It's really about a Mesopotamian corn god."

"American disease" indeed. If "The Brits don't give two figs about that aspect," the poor Brits can't read. Or, sadly, they've lost the ability to understand the imaginative recreation of the turning point of human history.

Comments

[theforester]

The author of "Mere Christianity" and "The Screwtape Letters" did not intend Narnia to be a Christian story? One of the most respected Christian apologists did not intend Aslan to be a representation of Christ?

It's nothing but a marketing ploy. J.R.R. Tolkien himself criticized Lewis' stories for being too allegorical, too obvious. Does Gresham know better than Tolkien?

Gresham and Disney are confident that Christians are going will flock to this movie in droves (the whole point of making it was to tap into the Mel Gibson "Passion" audience). So now their trick is to drag in the agonistics and atheists as well by recasting the story as a pagan myth. That type of recasting won't keep the Christians away, and may raise ticket sales by catering to those who would enjoy seeing the Narnia allegory sheared of its mane, tied down, and stabbed through the heart.

[Judy Warner]

I read that comment of Doug Gresham's in the Washington Times and I was horrified. Gresham has spent his life as a Christian worker. His home in Dublin has been a Christian haven. When I was in the process of becoming a Christian I corresponded with him briefly by email and he was very helpful to me. I would not think him capable of being so cynical and am very sorry to see it. It makes me wonder about the movie; the fact that he oversaw it to make sure it stayed close to the book may not mean as much as I thought.

[G.]

Keep in mind that you are not reading a transcript of the interview.

[Randy Estes]

I love this comment of his that "The myth of a god who dies and comes back is in ancient Roman, Norse and Hindu mythology. The difference is that the Christian myth actually happened."

I think it was Chesterton who said that these other myths about a god who dies and comes back, in reality bolster the story of Christ, as the resurrection is a fact built into the very substance of the universe. These other myths are just a universal truth perceived through a glass darkly.

[Tony Esolen]

In fact one of the critical turns in Lewis's life came when Tolkien and Owen Barfield persuaded him that those old myths were haunted by the truth, too. So if you said to Lewis, "Well, the Babylonians had a resurrected god, too," he would say, "And what is that supposed to imply? If no other culture's myths told of a god who conquered death, you would say that Christianity is unbelievable because it strays so far from human religious experience. If every other culture's myths tell of a god who conquered death, you would say that Christianity is unbelievable because it is only more of the same. But the amazing thing is that it is at once like those other myths, and utterly unlike them."

[Mike]

Well, you see, there is a lot of money to be made if the Narnia books are just more "Harry Potter" with no religious themes keeping people away from them. Didn't they attempt to do this with the re-releasing of the Narnia books because "fantasy was becoming more popular"? They also wanted to write MORE Narnian stories.

[sharon d.]

It's not even a matter of reading the Narnia Chronicles "as" a Christian story, as if they were an extended allegory, with a central figure who could be interpreted as Christ or as anything else that seemed to fit the death-and-resurrection theme. Lewis has Aslan tell the children at one point that he has a different name in every world, and that they will have to come to know him by the name he has in their own world. Either Lewis is making clear in this scene that Aslan *is* Christ, and the children will need to encounter him as Jesus in their/our own world, or the scene makes no sense at all.

Aslan doesn't represent Christ; Lewis clearly meant him to *be* Christ.

[Daniel C.]

I heard Mr. Gresham make those comments several times during the course of an hour long interview on Michael Medved's radio show. I didn't think much of it at the time, but this post has caused to to 'think a second time' about what Gresham is saying about The Chronicles of Narnia.

The first thing we need to acknowledge is that Mr. Gresham is making the interview rounds in order to market Narnia. It is obvious that he doesn't want this film to become something only Christians go to see. I don't agree with these 'Narnia is world myth' comments, but I can understand why he is making them from a marketing perspective. Especially since he, Walden Media and Disney all want a multi film franchise (6 to 7 films) that will compete with Potter.

I wonder if Mr. Gresham's step-father would appreciate how his step-son is characterizing this story. I have read that Tolkien strongly chriticized Lewis for writing such an obvious Christian alegory, and that Tolkien didn't care much for Narnia because it wasn't as subtle as LOTR in its Christian aspects.

I think we are getting a glimpse of Mr. Gresham's character. He cares a great deal about his step-father's books and wants them accuratetly portrayed on screen. However, his faith in the books subject matter is weak and and therefore retreats into this world myth storyline in order to sell the films.

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

I could postulate a different and less dark motive -- to wit, that Mr. Gresham is concerned that if some people hear too much that it is a Christian story, they will stay away for that reason (probably true) and that upsets him not because of the lost ticket sales but because someone who might see for the first time the glory and power of Christ in the character of Aslan would be kept from that revelation by too much emphasis on it. That is, he may want to movie to reach out to the unconverted and be concerned they will be turned off by the hype. That may well be justified. However, it is too late now, and probably always was unrealistic. Christians just get so little to celebrate in the media that they could not be kept from celebrating this -- especially if it is as good as it is made out to be. Secondly, it is wrong to dissemble for the purpose of deception, even from good motives. Aslan is Christ. Deal with it.

[Wolf N. Paul]

The comments also are not quite consistent:

First he says, "Churches in Britain and America are promoting the film as a Christian film", then he calls the religious emphasis "an American disease" and says "The Brits don't give two figs about that aspect."

The truth is probably that people outside the churches don't give two figs about that aspect, whether in Britain, America or elsewhere, and as has been pointed out, he's making these comments to persuade potential non-Christian viewers that it's not just a movie for Jesus freaks -- whatever his motive for doing so.

My father always was skeptical about the concept of a "Christian businessman" and the longer I live the more I understand his skepticism.