Chronicals of Narnia

[CammoBlammo]

Darwin was a character who set up a sort of 'AntiAslan'. In some ways (the characters are the same but the theology is very different) this is Lewis' version of Left Behind.

Whoa, Shift as Darwin?  F'real?  That's a standard take?  Just because Shift is an ape?  When monkeys are often used as trickster gods in folklore?  And Lewis' drawing upon mythology and folklore is well-documented in all of the books?  Hmmm, not sure there's a lot of textual support for Darwin = Shift.  I shall await direct references and take it under consideration.

Damn, that's embarrassing. You're right, the ape's name is Shift, not Darwin. I've got no idea why I had that in my head, but it's been there since the subject first came up. In fact, if you'd asked me outside the thread what his name was, I would have said 'Darwin' as well.

Lewis allegorised, but he wasn't that blatant. Apologies to all.

[FNH]

sluttery.

LOL, thats knew word for my dictionary!

[Loz]

They'd have to do major rewriting on Silver Chair as it's really just Eustace and Polly arguing with each other for the entire time. Similarly with The Last Battle, Darwin is naughty and breaks religion, so God breaks Narnia and Susan is a slut. It's hard to render that dramatically.

I think you mean Eustace and Jill?  Polly is from The Magician's Nephew.

Oh bumflaps! You are, of course, absolutely right. Serves me right for not going and doublechecking the names.

It's been a while since I read The Last Battle, but I don't remember anything about Darwin in it at all.  I know Lewis wrote a lot about what he purported to be arguing against (and for) in letters and essays, but I haven't cared to look into anything that wasn't strictly story narrative textual.  I'd be interested in seeing page references for what you mean by "Darwin is naughty".

Well, I always thought that Shift the monkey was a reference to Darwinism and 'modern times', what with his telling everyone that Aslan and Tash are the same.

[birdless]

Well, I always thought that Shift the monkey was a reference to Darwinism and 'modern times', what with his telling everyone that Aslan and Tash are the same.

I think it's more of a reference to Gnosticism (or, stated simply, everyone ultimately worships the same Diety, just by different references) more so than evolution.

[Loz]

Interesting, but wouldn't a Gnostic Shift tell everyone to ignore Aslan and Tash and material possessions?

[birdless]

I honestly don't know. My understanding of Gnosticism, which is probably incomplete or maybe even incorrect, is that it's the view that Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, etc. all ultimately worship the same god. Maybe "Gnosticism" isn't the proper term, so whatever that belief is called. I've always heard it referred to as Gnostic, though. I only skimmed over the Wikipedia entry because I'm at work and didn't have time to not so much read it but comprehend it, but from my skimming, it seemed to more or less incorporate this belief.

[DKT]

Ok, my theology might be off a little here, but if that's gnosticism, is that really what Lewis is criticizing?  I mean doesn't the leader of the Calormenes also make it to "heaven," or wherever Aslan is leading them because of the way he served Tash?  Everything you did for him you did for me, or something along those lines? 

[birdless]

I would have to reread it to get the full context, because I honestly just don't recall it clearly enough. It's been a long time.

Edit:
So I did a little searching, because that really is curious. I found the passage you refer to, and there is a lot of contextual consideration to be had (i.e. there's huge implications in the last two lines alone)... well, make of it what you will (discussing this in a theological context would get exceedingly deep). It's very interesting:

"Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, 'Son, thou art welcome.' 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 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.'"
--Emeth, the Calormene, describing his encounter with Aslan

[Tango Alpha Delta]

"...'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 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.'"
--Emeth, the Calormene, describing his encounter with Aslan

This is a great passage for someone like me, because Believers are constantly trying to "save" me by convincing me that I'm serving the wrong Master - which I find especially frustrating to me because I maintain that I don't serve a Master. 

They expend so much energy trying to prove that theirs is the "Aslan" version of the truth, and that I am following some kind of "Tash" philosophy... and all I want is for them to leave me alone and let me fumble along and figure it out on my own.

This Emeth passage is also the logical flip-side of a concept that I find repellent about the idea of God's infallibility: all of my "goodness" is ascribed to God, but all of my "evil" is attributed to me and my flaws (since I don't buy into any external personification of my faults in the form of a "Tash/Satan" kind of construct).  The way I see it, God only deserves the credit for my successful goodness if I don't have free will... and if I don't have free will, then what's the bloody point, anyway?

(This is "free will" as opposed to "predestination"... not to open another jar of kimchi to argue about...)

[CammoBlammo]

"...'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 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.'"
--Emeth, the Calormene, describing his encounter with Aslan

This is a great passage for someone like me, because Believers are constantly trying to "save" me by convincing me that I'm serving the wrong Master - which I find especially frustrating to me because I maintain that I don't serve a Master. 

I used this passage in a theology essay once. The lecturer had worked very hard getting us to argue a range of opinion, not just the one she was supposed to be teaching. Unfortunately, she didn't grade the same way. Personally, I think Lewis managed to say a very profound thing in a single paragraph here. In simple terms, I think at 'Judgment Day' (or however your theology describes the culmination of history) there are going to be a lot of surprises. Funny, Jesus said the same thing (Matthew 25, for example).

This Emeth passage is also the logical flip-side of a concept that I find repellent about the idea of God's infallibility: all of my "goodness" is ascribed to God, but all of my "evil" is attributed to me and my flaws (since I don't buy into any external personification of my faults in the form of a "Tash/Satan" kind of construct).  The way I see it, God only deserves the credit for my successful goodness if I don't have free will... and if I don't have free will, then what's the bloody point, anyway?

(This is "free will" as opposed to "predestination"... not to open another jar of kimchi to argue about...)

A similar (but opposite?) thing happens in sport, at least here in Australia. If the team wins, they're a great bunch of team. If the team loses, sack the coach.

I don't think Lewis' passage necessarily arrives at that conclusion. This is all about free will. Emeth was being rewarded for following his conscience. It is more about the choices he made rather than which god made him live the way he did. He chose to live a good and moral life, but the only framework he had to describe it was the Tash religion.

As far as I can tell, there is room for this in Christianity (oh dear, I can feel this thread getting bumped as we speak!) John 14:6 might say the only way to the Father is through Jesus, but the details of how to find Jesus are surprisingly few. There is no mention of the sinner's prayer, and even simple things like baptism and church attendance are hardly hinted at in this context. Rather (again, see Matthew 25) the important factors seem to be how we submit to the reign of God in our lives. The moral code is simple (but hard): love God, love your neighbour as yourself.

Emeth discovered what Jesus said: Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. He could only respond to the answers that were given. He did so admirably; and the result was, in Christian terms, salvation.