C.S. Lewis, Heaven, and Non-Christian Saints

This morning I was thinking I should write something about an op-ed in the New York Times on politicians manipulating intelligence agencies. That changed this afternoon, though, when I finished C.S. Lewis's The Last Battle, the conclusion to The Chronicles of Narnia. The last few pages of that "children's book" have more deep theological/philosophical content than many sermons, which can tend towards recitation of denominational dogma.



Firstly, there was his presentation of heaven. Here, and in other Lewis writings, heaven is presented as a world that is more real than the world we currently inhabit. In fact, this current world is merely and echo or a reflection of heaven. What's more, in heaven, as one moves "upward and inward," heaven itself becomes more real and more heavenly. Heaven, to Lewis, is an adventure, the continuation of the greatstory that this life is merely the title page to (his metaphor, not mine). To me, this idea of heaven is far more appealing than the usual descriptions we get, which tend towards vagueness ("an eternity of joy and bliss") or the tedious ("an eternity of praising God"). I like the idea that in heaven I will be doing things, that I will continue growing and improving for all eternity, that the adventure of life and knowing and growing in likeness to the Lord truly only begin at death.



What really dipped my brain in the paint and then flung it against the wall was his take on "good people" who aren't Christians. First, just for clarity, I want to point out that I'm reading a lot into one paragraph Lewis wrote, but based on my combined understanding of Lewis and what I've read of his writings, Christianity, Scripture, and various doctrines I don't think I'm way off. Second, I realize that this is controversial, and what I'm about to say may be downright heretical to some people (I'm thinking of many at the church I grew up in).

The question is usually something to the effect of, "What about Gandhi/Mother Theresa/Pope John Paul II/a Native American (or other ethnicity) who was never exposed to the Gospel? Would a loving god send them to hell just because they were born in the wrong time/place/weren't the right religion?" This is what Lewis says in The Last Battle through Emeth, a non-Narnian who finds himself in heaven and having met Aslan:

“But I said, ‘Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash.’ He answered, ‘Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.’ Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, ‘Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one?’ The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, ‘It is false. 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. Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child?’ I said, ‘Lord, thou knowest how much I understand.’ 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.’” (For those of you who didn't catch it, Aslan is a symbol for Lord Yahweh, and Tash is a pagan deity who represents Satan.)

To me, this seems to be a combination of two ideas in the Bible. One is in Romans, where Paul describes Creation witnessing to all men. The other is in Christ's story of the sheep who are taken into heaven yet say "Lord, when did we see you naked and cloth you? . . ." This passage is usually presented as a contrast between good Christians and bad Christians, or to make the point that true Christians' lives reflect their faith. As I understand it, though, Lewis is making the point that it is impossible to do good, except to serve The Lord in doing so. Many would say that unless the good is done to purposefully serve the Judeo-Christian God Yahweh, it is not good but (rubbish). I disagree, and I think Lewis would, too. I am beginning to think and believe, along with Lewis, that conversion and the faith experience need not necessarily occur in this world, on this side of death. Rather, the bent of one's life towards or away from Truth is what matters, not merely agreeing or disagreeing with what the dogmatists hold up as the Right Answers. In other words, a Thai, Ahgani, or Ethiopian who sought goodness and Truth but was never exposed to the Gospel may have more of a chance of getting into heaven than an upper-middle class Hoosier who was in his Baptist church pew (or other denomination of choice) every Sunday but never lived for anything more than his own comfort. I'm not saying, and I know Lewis wasn't saying, that anything goes, but that the heart of the animal is more important than the clothes it wears.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I would rather be a person/be with people who is/are seeking Truth, than one who already has all the Right Answers.



And ending on a humorous note, but with a small point. Lewis also wrote this in The Last Battle:

“He doesn’t mean any harm,” said an older Dog. “After all, we call our puppies Boys when they don’t behave properly.”
“So we do,” said the first Dog. “Or girls.”
“S-s-sh!” said the Old Dog. “That’s not a nice word to use. Remember where you are.”

Ha, ha, how funny, Talking Dogs see the word "girl" like we see the word "bitch." Knowing how intentional Lewis is with his writing though, I think he's making a point also. Sure, he probably thought this was a funny bit, and is content that to most people that's all it will be. I think too, though, that he's making a point about "dirty words"-they're all relevant. Take the word "rubbish" above--you probably wondered why it's in parens. Well, I wanted to put in a different word that would have been less vague, but might have turned off some readers. Now you all know what I meant, and either the word "rubbish" has been similarly ruined for you (but by the way, it already meant that, except now you know) or you're laughing at my small joke. Words are tools; weapons, even. Rather than being concerned about "bad words," I think I should be more careful about using words idly and carelessly.



If you haven't, you should go read The Chronicles of Narnia. Then you should read anything else by C.S. Lewis you can get your hands on. Even if you disagree with everything he says, you'll be the better for it.

Terrorist, Soldier

I found a Slate op/ed piece today called Terrorists ain't what they used to be. It reminded me of a discussion I had recently with Phil. (Phil is my philosophy major friend-we discuss/debate/argue a lot, often just for the fun of the mental sparring. It's good times.)

I was contending that the only difference between a terrorist and a soldier (a "bad guy" and a "good guy") is government recognition - a terrorist is someone, anyone, who uses "violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims." Phil argued that the definition of terrorism and terrorist have changed. To what, he never said, though.

Keep in mind that I'm not trying to say anything against the line soldiers, the grunts, on either side. I respect them tremendously. Anyone willing to lay down their life for a cause, for the defense of others or an ideal, is praiseworthy in my book.

My problem is with the people making the decisions. The people who send young men to kill innocents by the planeload. The leaders who launch missles with the dual goals of causing damage to the enemy and creating martyrs on their own side in the inevitable retaliation (how many modern day martyrs were volunteered for the position by someone else?). The warlords who say, in effect, "You spit in my eye, so I'm justified in slitting your throat, and your cousins', too."

Since seeing Oliver Stone's World Trade Center Monday night I've been thinking. How many people died in the 9/11/01 attacks? 2-3 thousand? How many American's have been killed since in what could be called a terrorist action? How many American soldiers? On the other hand, how many innocents in other countries have been killed by American violence with a political aim (terrorism)? How many foreign combatants?

The title of terrorist has been dragged through the mud in recent years, but it could be fairly applied to the American Founding Fathers (John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, et al), President Abraham Lincoln (Civil War), President Ulysses S Grant (Mexican & Civil Wars), General Robert Lee (Mexican & Civil Wars), Stonewall Jackson (Mexican & Civil Wars), President Theodore Roosevelt (Spanish-American War), President Franklin Roosevelt (WWII), the French Resistance during WWII, President John F. Kennedy (Cuban Missile Crisis), President Richard Dixon (Vietnam, Watergate), the mujahideen in Afghanistan who fought the Soviets, President Ronald Reagan (Iran-Contra), President George H.W. Bush (Gulf War I), President Bill Clinton (Somalia, various "peacekeeping" missions), and President George W. Bush (Afghanistan and Iraq wars). Before you get mad at me (assuming it's not too late) I'm not saying that these are all bad people--I'm saying that sometimes a good guy is a terrorist.

I'd like to see a change in the way modern leaders think. Running nations or armies with a retalitory mindset is dangerous. All it can do is get people killed. Instead of a "How much damage can I do to my enemy? How can I minimize the damage he does to me?" mindset, I'd like to see more of a "How can I make my enemy my friend?" worldwide.

Here's a hint for that last question: you don't make friends at gunpoint.

Revivization

Alright. Under the influence of my friend Stephen Cady (well, kinda--his blog inspired me) I'm gonna be bringing this page back to life. This will take a while, though, since I'm about to be out of town for about 48-60 hours.