Though not a “priority read” (in other words, I pick it up when I can), I’ve been reading, and been thoroughly intrigued by Francis Schaeffer’s pamphlet Art and the Bible. Granted, a 64-page essay is not going to mine deep, and it presents problems as well as it solves some, but this pamphlet seems to serve as a good introduction to the relationship between art and the Christian faith.

That relationship has often been strained at best and frankly Mr. Shankly, it is all too often non-existent. While Christians have struggled with the implications of the Gospel for ages, the subject of art is often relegated to the backseat, and often, not considered at all. It’s always there on the fringe, but never quite discussed. Or, when it is discussed it’s often in a legalistic “yes, but I’d rather focus on the Gospel” sort of way.

Schaeffer begins his argument by asserting the Lordship of Christ over all creation. Though he doesn’t specifically state it as such, there is a real sense in which Christ’s work is the beginning-stages of the reversal of the Fall. Redeemed men and women actually experience a more complete understanding of what it means to be human, to be made in the image of God because the hold of the Fall has, at least partly been broken, thus freeing even our intellects and creativity. That is why Schaeffer is able to argue as he does, that “The Christian is the one whose imagination should fly beyond the stars.” Nancy Pearcey expresses the same sentiment in her book Total Truth, stating: “Those in relationship with the Creator should be the most creative of all.”

Christians have often taken a very utilitarian view of art, simply using it as a means to an end rather than an end in and itself. Indeed, as William Romanowski argues in his book Eyes Wide Open: Looking For God in Popular Culture, (and I have elsewhere quoted), “some Christians want to make faith the issue by making popular art into religious propaganda.” The result, Romanowski argues, is that, “Believing that the only reason to create popular art is for evangelism, Christians portray religion as a narrow aspect of life, instead of as a life orientation”

Schaeffer counters this purely utilitarian view of art by pointing out several instances in which Scripture records art that had no apparent immediate utilitarian value other than beauty. The objects in question did not serve a functional value, in other words, they were not support beams, or structurally necessary. Nor do the items in question seem to contribute directly to the Gospel message. They seem to exist simply because of their beauty and for God’s enjoyment.

For example, Schaeffer spends quite a bit of time examining the instructions regarding the construction of the tabernacle. We won’t mention all of his arguments, or Scriptures cited, but one good example is that of Exodus 25:31-33 which includes the instructions for some lampstands:

You shall make a lampstand of pure gold. The lampstand shall be made of hammered work: its base, its stem, its cups, its calyxes, and its flowers shall be of one piece with it. 32And there shall be six branches going out of its sides, three branches of the lampstand out of one side of it and three branches of the lampstand out of the other side of it; 33three cups made like almond blossoms, each with calyx and flower, on one branch, and three cups made like almond blossoms, each with calyx and flower, on the other branch–so for the six branches going out of the lampstand.

A purely utilitarian approach would have simply called for lampstands that functioned. But God orders ornamental lampstands, engraved with almond blossoms and their flowers. These images served exactly that, an ornamental purpose, decoration, beauty, art. Moving from the tabernacle to the temple, Schaeffer notes 2 Chronicles 3:6 which notes that Solomon covered the house with precious stones for beauty. Again we are presented with ornamentation that served no utilitarian purpose, God simply wanted beauty, both in the tabernacle and the temple.

Citing many more examples, Schaeffer repeatedly argues that certain elements existed simply for beauty’s sake. Contrasting the exquisite beauty of the former places of worship with man the “ugliness of many evangelical church buildings,” Schaeffer summarizes that “Fixed down in our hearts is a failure to understand that beauty should be to the praise of God.”

Though there are many implications here that I hope to draw out in the future, one of them is, as Schaeffer argues, “The factor which makes art Christian is not that it necessarily deals with religious subject matter.” This is indeed a difficult concept for many utilitarians to grasp, but we must admit that Scripture itself lays the groundwork for a Christian view of art that many Christians do not actually embrace.

Schaeffer’s foundation is absolutely necessary. I believe that many Christians look negatively on art and other areas of life because they don’t understand the true scope of man’s original role and as a result, they also miss the true scope of salvation. Christ actually began the work of reversing the Fall and we, as His ambassadors, are left to continue this task. Shouldn’t it stand to reason that those who claim the most joy should also be the first and the best at expressing that joy? Our failure to appreciate and produce meaningful art is to be understood as the result of a failure to understand being made in the image of God, and having that image (partially) restored by redemption.

We must encourage one another to seek artistic expression. We must try to raise our children with an appreciation for more than Sesame Street and coloring books. We must seek to actually make art a part of our lives and above all, we must understand that the creative process itself simply points back to the ultimate Creator, whether we realize it or not.

• Read Art and The Bible by Francis Schaeffer.
• Read Eyes Wide Open: Looking For God in Popular Culture by William Romanowski.
• Read Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey.
• Read my previous post Pastor as Poet.

One of my favorite fiction books has always been The Stranger by Albert Camus. When people asked why that book, my key response was that for me, it presents in beautifully unintentional detail, the hopelessness of a life lived outside of Christ; lacking direction and motivation. For me, that book epitomized the life of the lost. That is, until I recently read Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead.

As frighteningly directionless as Camus’ Meursault is, Rand’s Roark is disturbingly driven. But it’s what drives Roark that makes The Fountainhead such a study in the true depravity of the heart. In an introductory essay to the Centennial Edition of the book, Rand explains her position.

Summarizing her the pertinent philosophy behind The Fountainhead, Rand refers to the “sense of life dramatized in The Fountainhead as man-worship.” Rand warns “not to confuse ‘man-worship’ with the many attempts, not to emancipate morality from religion and bring it into the realm of reason, but to substitute a secular meaning for the worst, the most profoundly irrational elements of religion.” In other words, Rand was quite upset that the field of ethics had primarily been designated to religion, and she felt that man, in his glory, had no need for religion, mankind was his religion. So Rand set out to demonstrate that such “man worship” need not minimize ethics or morality.

I remember reading several years ago a Rolling Stone interview with publicity-grabber Brian Warner (Marilyn Manson). The reason I mention that interview here is because, at one point, Manson discusses his understanding and practice of Satanism. I cannot find the article, so I’ll have to paraphrase, but essentially, Manson argues that Satanism is not the worship of Satan, but the worship of man. What more powerful lie could there be?
More recently Beliefnet featured a Manson interview in which he states:

A lot of people like to pass me off as a devil worshipper. I think that could only be true if I considered myself to be the devil, because I tend to be narcissistic and believe in my own strength and my own identity. I find God to be what exists in what you create. I make music. I think that that’s coming in touch with God when I write a story, when I come up with a phrase or paint a picture, because that’s about creating. Art gives people a reason to be alive. It gives people something to believe in. I think art is the only thing that’s spiritual in the world. And I refuse to be forced to believe in other people’s interpretations of God. I don’t think anybody should be. There’s no one person that can own the copyright to what God means.

Compare that quote with a segment of Roark’s defense at the climactic trial towards the end of The Fountainhead:

No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive. His own truth and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane or a building - that was his goal and his life. Not those who hear, read, operated, believed, flew or inhabited the thing he had created. The creation, not its users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his turth. He held his truth above all things and against all men.

Roark brings his (or should I say Rand’s) and Manson’s visions closer to one another, summarizing:

His vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man’s spirit, however, is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego. The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power - that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself.

What makes Rand’s depravity so much more destructive than Camus’ is that Camus’ Meursault is directionless and for the most passive whereas Rand’s Roark feeds on his own pride. While Meursault certainly lacks morals, Roark defines his own, rejecting outside norms, setting himself up as the satndard. Roark is the true picture of the fallen man that lurks inside each of us. If you don’t think so, count the time’s you’ve had that little (or not so little) thought “they can’t tell me what to do!”

Scripture is clear that “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6, 1 Peter 5:5, etc.) and that “pride goes before destruction” (Proverbs 16:18). The true danger of pride is that it blinds the proud, but the true danger of Rand’s vision is that it glories in pride, a temptation to which we could all fall. Hers is the sin from which it is difficult to return because it rejects any notions but its own. Hers is the place right where Satan wants us and where the human heart wanders all too willingly.

Art, whether it be music, visual, or literature, shines a spotlight on the human soul, reminding of the restraining grace of God. May we learn from Camus, Rand and their spotlights. May we learn from them and be spared their pain.

• Read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand.
• Read Wikipedia’s entry on Ayn Rand.
• Read Wikipedia’s entry on Frank Lloyd Wright, who is said to have been Rand’s model for Howard Roark.
• Read Beliefnet’s interview with Marilyn Manson in which he discusses many of his views concerning religion.
• Read Wikipedia’s entry concerning Albert Camus.
• Read The Stranger by Albert Camus.

I’ve been wrestling with how to fully and faithfully implement a “Christian” approach to popular culture. If you’ve watched my “What I’m Reading” section at all, you’ve probably noticed several books dealing with Christianity and Culture. One book in particular, Eyes Wide Open: Looking For God in Popular Culture by William Romanowski has presented several items for “thinking out blog” and has appeared here several times. It’s sad, but I know that as I set out to right this, I have to state that that’s exactly what I’m doing; “thinking out loud”. I’m not arguing a position as much as looking for feedback.

Cultivating a Christian approach to popular culture can be a very difficult thing. As we’ve discussed, many simply place an entire segment of popular culture “off limits“. Others simply try to argue that anything done by a Christian must have an explicit Gospel message and turn all forms of artistic expression into propaganda. I’m not sure that either approach is the answer, or that either approach is actually helpful. Neither approach takes positive steps towards wrestling with the deeper issues surrounding just what it means for a Believer to be “in the world but not of the world”.

The sad truth is that many Christians simply offer knee-jerk reactions to popular culture. That is to say, many times, we don’t actually think through all of the implications, we simply react to society. Rather than thinking through what might be some helpful criteria for the music that we listen to, it’s much easier simply to ban entire segments. Christians (particularly in America, which is all I can speak for) are very reactionary. We wait until presented with a problem and then we fly into action. This simply won’t do when the question at hand deals with our interaction with popular culture, particularly our intake of the popular arts (music, television, movie, print media, etc.).

Another issue is that many Christians fail to recognize the inter-connectedness of our ideas regarding life and how to live it. For example, Christianity rightly places a heavy emphasis on the family; it’s structure, its function and its role in life. But, we often fail to recognize how this emphasis on family (particularly children) might impact other areas of our life, namely media intake.

Christians often strive to intake only “family friendly” forms of entertainment. Without questioning the validity of this, I must point out that the result is often unintentional and probably unrecognized. For many, the criteria for “family friendliness” is whether or not the material in question is appropriate to view, listen to or what have you, with our children. While this is a good question to ask, we must be reminded that it is not the only question to ask.

The unintended result of this approach is that many well-intentioned Christians have lowered the level of all intellectual stimulation from the popular arts to that of a child. Thus, many are rarely if ever actually challenged by the popular arts, because everything the intake is set at the intellectual (and spiritual) level of a child.

Having made that argument, I can just hear someone snidely questioning then that an increase in spiritual maturity also brings with it an increase of influence from the world? Well no, but it should increase the level at which you are able to interact with the world. Romanowski gives the example of a “Christian” response that he read to two movies dealing with the Holocaust. Schindler’s List was deemed unacceptable to Christians because of portrayals of violence and brief nudity while Life Is Beautiful was recommended because it skirts these visual representations. However, as Romanowski points out, Life is Beautiful also minimizes the brutality of the truth by using an extreme juxtaposition of genres to the point that the viewer is left not knowing how to respond. Romanowski notes that “One could easily conclude from these reviews that a Christian critical approach is one that supports obscuring the harsh and painful realities of the past in order to make movies that are appropriate for today’s family market”.

Many Christians have limited their critique of popular art to simply examine gratuitous profanity, sex and violence. While I am not defending these elements, I must point out that there are deeper philosophical issues that we miss by limiting our examination and only asking whether or not material is appropriate for children. Of course some material is not going to be appropriate for children and is not meant to be, but does that mean it’s also automatically banned from adult intake?

I discussed the movie To End All Wars here some time ago and more recently the movie Hotel Rwanda. I would call neither movie “family friendly” but I would say that Christians could be rightly challenged by each movie, not only for the artistic merits of each, but also for the content, which is exactly what prohibits them from being suitable for young children. Adults ought to be challenged in ways that children are not. Therefore, the criteria of family friendliness ought not to be the only criteria Christians use to judge their media intake.

Read Eyes Wide Open: Looking For God in Popular Culture by William Romanowski.
Read excerpts from a PBS interview with William Romanowski.

Some time ago I wrote a piece called Misplaced Boundaries? in which I wrestled with questions regarding how many Christians set their “boundaries” for their media intake. It seems that many Christians place an all-out ban on any music that is not “explicitly Christian” while using discernment and Scriptural wisdom to set boundaries elsewhere, with movies, television and other popular culture. Despite Tim’s insinuation, I was not arguing that we must take in more “secular” in order to better relate to the world around us (which brings up the question regarding the validity of the “sacred vs. secular” distinction that many have adopted in the first place). Rather, I was pushing for a more consistent application of the discernment that we elsewhere use everyday; a total ban may not be the answer for everyone, but discernment is.

Much of the thought behind that post was the result of reading William Romanowski’s Eyes Wide Open: Looking For God in Popular Culture. Romanowski advances a fundamental concept that many Christians are simply not comfortable with: there can be a healthy involvement with and intake of modern popular culture that does not require a steady diet of Touched By An Angel. No, it is not easy, yes, it requires constant vigilance and discernment. In the pursuit of a comprehensive view of the Gospel over all of life, it seems that at some point, we must all wrestle with the questions of media, art and culture as they relate to the Gospel.

Though Romanowski’s book is “filled to the brim” with conversation pieces, I want to briefly touch upon two areas where he feels that many Christians have misplaced their boundaries (notice how I pushed the following position onto him? Did you like that?). Lord willing, we will cover one aspect today and another tomorrow.

I’ve already alluded to this, but many Christians limit their media intake (at least the music they listen to) to only ‘explicitly’ Christian material; it must contain an overt Gospel message. It must name God (either as Jesus or God, Lord, Spirit, or some other direct address), it must explicitly present the Gospel (despite the fact that it’s marketed to people who already claim to have accepted it, which presents a great inconsistency) or it must voice some direct praise. The assumption is (and I know because its one that up until recently I too held) that if someone is a Christian, then at some point during the course of an album, it must be explicitly stated. What’s interesting about this approach is that, if taken to the extreme, the book of Esther may not have made it into Scripture! After all, God is not mentioned once in the entire book, but we certainly don’t question that it is about God. How inconsistent we’ve become to require things of our modern music that Scripture does not require of itself.

Rarely is there a question regarding artistic excellence, because it’s the message that counts, not the medium. The result is that, as Romanowski notes, “some Christians want to make faith the issue by making popular art into religious propaganda.” Sadly, this is exactly what much Christian music is (I will limit this discussion to music, though most of the comments apply to art in general). It is marketed to people who already claim to be Christians and it simply reassures them of their claim. It is, for all practical purposes simply propaganda. Much Christian music simply mimics what was popular in the mainstream market a few months ago simply replacing the content rather than actually pushing the bounds of creativity for themselves. Much of what is sold in the Christian market is not about artistic expression at all, but simply about pushing an image; an image that is all too often doctrinally questionable at best.

As we’ve discussed, content actually has very little to do with what’s sold in “Christian” bookstores, and much “Christian” popular art is actually subpar compared to the artistic quality of most “secular” popular art. Would anyone really say that The Omega Code is quality film or that the Left Behind series is good literature? Both would fall squarely into the propaganda section. Many Christian artists focus on the message to the point that the medium suffers, but it doesn’t matter because they have a guaranteed market with no need to differentiate themselves “from the pack” because they’re simply imitating as it is.

But even deeper, Romanowski points out that “Believing that the only reason to create popular art is for evangelism, Christians portray religion as a narrow aspect of life, instead of as a life orientation”. I would add worship to Romanowski’s stated criteria of evangelism. Most Christian music portrays an extremely narrow view of life and as such, is not even true to the Gospel which has influence over all of life, from worship to romance to suffering and everything in between. We connect with art because it speaks to our lives, and for many, “Christian” music has little to say, while many Christians are trying to limit it even more.

So, the question remains; must music (or art in general) produced by Christians automatically include an explicit reference to God, the Gospel or worship? I’m beginning to think not. There are, of course, natural boundaries, a Christian artist should not produce music riddled with expletives or gratuitous sex and violence. Certain things are by nature off-limits and rightly so. I would also say that the art in question must put forward a Christian worldview, even if in implicit terms as does the book of Esther. It must align itself with the thoughts and patterns of Scripture, be guided by it and continually point back to it.

Think about the role of music in many of our lives. We turn to music that we are able to identify with. Many have experienced loss of some kind and found solace in music. Many have struggled with hard issues and found comfort in the words of a song that deals with that particular issue. Much, if not most of this is entirely missing in Christian music because of the unnecessary limitations that we place upon the artists. Romanowski clarifies: “Christian artists should not just be singing that Jesus is a light unto our paths; they also need to create popular artwork that show how God’s Word is a light and direction for our journey in life”. The Gospel must influence all of the lyrics, but it is not necessary that it explicitly appear in all of the lyrics; in fact, arguing otherwise might actually hinder the creativity.

If it’s true that the Gospel is for all of life, then shouldn’t our art reflect that? I’m looking forward to your feedback, because this is certainly an issue that I wrestle with and one where Romanowski puts forward some interesting ideas.

Read Eyes Wide Open: Looking For God in Popular Culture by William Romanowski.
Read excerpts from a PBS interview with Romanowski.
Read Creation Regained: Biblical Basics For A Reformational Worldview by Albert Wolters.

The end of the year is quickly approaching. If you’ve read here at all, I hope that one of the things you’ll see is that I’m very openly wresting with (and encouraging you to do the same) the scope of the Gospel’s impact on our entire lives. There is no area of life which we may say is outside the authority of Christ. As such, our media intake is something that it is vital for us to examine. While many blogs, websites and print media outlets simply publish lists of their favorites, I hope that we do so from a Christ-centered perspective. I’d love to provide an outlet for you to share your thoughts on 2005, so please tell me your thoughts on the past year and I’d love to pass them on as we strive together for an honest and complete Christ-centered approach to life.

The guidelines are simple:

1. Please follow the guidelines.
2. Please submit responses only for the listed categories (though there are opportunities for you to simply speak out).
3. Please try to include a short paragraph (at least a sentence or two) on why you made each selection, particularly its relationship to your faith. This makes for a much more interesting read than just your list, as interesting as that may be.
4. Please have all submissions returned to me (by e-mail) no later than: Friday, December 23, 2005.
5. Please include a small JPEG photo of yourself if possible, or a link to one if online.
6. Please include your name, city and state of residence.
7. Please e-mail your list to me at kpita@yahoo.com.
8. Please pass this on and get as many people as you can to participate!

And now, on to the categories! Please submit responses for as many or as few categories as you’d like. For example, if you really don’t watch many movies, then don’t feel pressed to include selections for that category. Again, please try to include a short descriptive bit as to why you made the selection you did; give us some insight as to why you think this is the year’s best and above all, use this as a chance to evaluate your media intake in light of the re-creating Gospel of Christ our Lord.

The Categories (In no particular order):

Hearing:

• Album(s) of the Year - Must have been released in 2005, may be from any genre.
• Music “Find(s) of the Year” - Something that you “discovered” during 2005, may have been released any time, but you first heard it this year.
• Song of the Year - Again, must have been released during 2005.
• Back Catalogue(s) of the Year - What artist did you discover this year and investigated further?
• Artist/Performer of the Year - What artist has impressed you the most during 2005?
• Misc. music thoughts for 2005.

Seeing:

• Movie(s) of the Year - Must have been released in 2005.
• Movie “Find(s) of the Year” - Released any time, but you first saw it in 2005.
• Actor/Actress of the Year - Who has particularly impressed you this year?
• Misc. movie thoughts for 2005.

Reading:

• Book(s) of the Year - Must have been released in 2005 in any genre.
• Book “Find(s) of the Year” - released any time, but you first read it in 2005.
• Author of the Year - What author has made a particular impression on you or just made a huge impact in 2005 and why?
• Misc. reading thoughts for 2005.

Pop Culture:

• Person of the Year - You decide the criteria (most influence, etc.)
• Pop Culture Moment(s) Or Trend of the Year - What will 2005 be remembered for?
• Misc. cultural thoughts for 2005?

Faith:

• What theological Truth(s) has particularly “hit home” for you this past year?
• What have you been meditating on throughout the year?
• Misc. faith thoughts for 2005?

Misc.:

• This is where you can include anything you think I should have.

Please e-mail submissions to me at kpita@yahoo.com by no later than Friday, December 23, 2005.

Time, Newsweek and Books & Culture have all recently published pieces interacting with Anne Rice’s new book Christ The Lord: Out of Egypt. Yes, this is the same Anne Rice who wrote the Interview With the Vampire/Lestat series.

Apparently, Rice had near death experiences at least twice; once in 2004, having surgery for intestinal blockage and also in 1998 when she went into sudden diabetic coma. Her first close-encounter with death also led her back to the steps of the Roman Catholic Church which she had not frequented since she was 18. Rice’s return to religion has made its way into her fiction. Her new book Christ The Lord: Out of Egypt chronicles the life of the 7-year old Jesus with Jesus Himself serving as the narrator. Rice claims that she has “promised” that from now on, she will only “write for the Lord.”

I do not question that Rice has had a “religious awakening.” Why should she be “off-limits” to God if God has saved the likes of me? I pray that her conversion is real, life-changing and God-glorifying. However, Rice’s new book raises an interesting question for me; one which I don’t pretend to have an answer to, so I thought I’d just post some thoughts and look for some dialogue and some feedback.

My primary thoughts center around the question of whether or not it is acceptable (helpful? edifying? right?) to write fiction based on the person of our Lord and Savior. Granted, His is The Greatest Story Ever Told, but should some things be “off-limits” or is that a terribly legalistic thought?

Though I have not yet read Rice’s book, by all accounts it appears to be reverent and even worshipful. There are, of course, scenes of the young Jesus exercising His divinity. The book includes a section in which Jesus, suffering the slings and arrows of a bully, strikes him dead only to later resurrect him. This young Jesus seems largely unaware of his divinity, though he had to wonder why no one else was striking bullies dead and resurrecting them to teach them quite the vivid object lesson.

Is fiction regarding our Lord ever helpful, edifying and/or reverent? No matter how devout the author, at some point, the character will be more human than divine. Such is nothing less than idolatry because, after all, it would seem to be a clear case of recasting God in our own image, would it not? Yet we seem to have a higher tolerance when it comes to fiction than we do with theological liberals. Why is that? Both paint Jesus as someone other than who He really is, and both take significant liberties with Scripture.

While it is certainly an intriguing concept to write from the perspective of Jesus, it is also not recommended. Unless one proposes to lessen Jesus’ divinity, not only are you striving to “get inside the head” of Jesus who was 100% man, you are also trying to “get inside the head” of Jesus who was 100% God. Again, not recommended. The finite wrestling with the infinite will always strive to lower the infinite, because, after all, isn’t that easier than rising to a level which we cannot in the first place?

I try to occasionally read fiction because I find it incredibly helpful to examine the way effective writers use concrete imagery. For someone who’s job it is communicate (like a pastor), using words well is always a challenge, and reading fiction can sharpen attention to details and the ability to convey imagery. However, simply because studying fiction can help to better communicate theology does not mean we should allow our theology to become fiction.

Read Christ The Lord: Out of Egypt by Anne Rice.
Read Interview With The Vampire by Anne Rice.
Read the article in Time.
Read an article on MSNBC/Newsweek.com
Visit Anne Rice’s website.

Like many, I’ve been reading C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia in light of the upcoming movies. Although touted as a Christian statesman, there are glaring deficiencies in Lewis’ theology which manifest themselves most clearly in the last installment of the Chronicles, the Last Battle.

Towards the end of the novel which is the end of the series, Aslan (the God-figure) has brought the “shadow” Narnia to a close and his people to the real Narnia. Yet our main characters soon encounter Emeth, a Calormene, an enemy soldier and worshipper of the rival god Tash in their paradise! How could this be?

Emeth explains that Aslan welcomed him on the basis that “all service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.” Aslan continues “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?”

We understand all too well.

Lewis, though heralded as a beacon of conservative Christian theology has adopted a very non-conservative view of salvation known as inclusivism. The question is: must someone have explicit knowledge of Jesus Christ to be saved or can they pursue some vague notion of God and salvation and still be accepted? Bluntly: is Jesus Christ the only way to salvation?

Lewis says no. And lest we hope that this was a literary device rather than his theology, we do well to heed the account found on page 276 of C.S. Lewis: A Biography by Roger Lancelyn Green. Lewis states, “I had some ado to prevent Joy and myself from relapsing into Paganism in Attica! At Daphni it was hard not to pray to Apollo the Healer. But somehow one didn’t feel it would have been very wrong - would have only been addressing Christ sub specie Apollinis.”

Lewis’ sentiments, though warm and fuzzy are anything but Scriptural. Not only do they fly in the face of the words of Jesus Himself who said “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me (John 14:6),” but they rob the Cross of its significance. The early Church understood that “there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).” Indeed, Scripture is clear Christ must be believed in the heart and confessed with the lips (Romans 10:9-10) and that “he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God (John 3:18).” There is no way around that there is no other way in.

In light of Lewis’ high stature, this is a sobering reminder to us all to follow the example of the Bereans who tested even the words of Paul against Scripture (Acts 17:11). While we all know people who do not claim Christ as their savior and we desperately want them to be “in,” we must not try to widen the narrow path in the process. Rather, we should all feel the fire of evangelism deep within us. Instead of trying to include people who may not have heard, why are we not trying to make sure everyone hears?

Read more about the Inclusivism debate.
Learn more about C.S. Lewis.
Read the Chronicles of Narnia.
Watch the trailer for The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.