Okay so today, I found this goodie on tumblr: Liam Neeson and Aslan.
Now, I am not gonna say that Aslan isn’t an allegory for Christ. But I have many problems with that Liam’s statement AND the author’s “CONCERNS.” First of all, Aslan can be Buddha? Okay, really? Really? I guess Liam hasn’t read the Narnia series or doesn’t remember the politics in them. Look Aslan is a type of Jesus, and he’s also a right wing authoritarian figure. Prince Caspian is basically a story about how democracy is bad, Aslan is “good but dangerous” hint hint hint. If you read any C.S. Lewis, especially his Space Trilogy, the guy leans heavily pro-war and conservative. Does the Buddha represent any of these values? Um no, because not every religious founder is viewed by their religion the same way. It’s like Liam is taking what he has learned from Christianity, and applying it to another religion, rather than seeing it, speaking of it on its own terms. Narnia is clearly a theistic story; Buddhism is a non-theist religion.
On the concern, and the argument that C.S. Lewis is an “intolerant” Anglican. Look, really? That’s dumb. Have you even read the newspaper headlines with Anglicans and Episcopalians? (please read the links if you don’t know what’s up) While Lewis was politically conservative, he was theologically liberal. He is what we call a universalist, that Jesus died for everyone, and that while Jesus is savior, if you worship Tash or practice another religion, you are saved through Jesus’s death and resurrection. This is the conclusion of several of Lewis’ own writings, including The Last Battle. Whether we disagree with Anglicans is a different issue, but to make claims about Anglican theology and history, without any familiarity, well, is just bad theology!