Cowardly Lion? C.S. Lewis is Morally Incoherent
Armed and Dangerous writes:
The core of the problem is Aslan, the godlike lion who sang Narnia into existence in The Magician’s Nephew (seventh book to be written but earliest in narrative time). ... Logically, if Aslan is sufficiently powerful to sing Narnia into existence (as he does in the first book) he should have been able to create anything or anyone he needed to in order to cold-cock the White Witch (who is for certain not powerful enough to make worlds and hosts of sentient beings). Instead, all he does is mumble about a prophecy and rely on four children accidentally arrived from another universe to set things right.
This isn’t far different from God is supposed to behave in our universe. According to Christian beliefs, God appears whenever it’s convenient (to save a single person from a plane crash, to help his favorite football team win another game), but not at any point in time when it would actually do some real good (like stop the Holocaust). We are expected to believe that a being powerful enough to create the universe isn’t willing to able to simply do away with the evil of things like Satan, Hell, or those people try to buy 15 items at the 12-items-or-less checkout lane in the grocery store.
What a way to run a universe.
And what about Aslan’s so-called sacrifice?
The Witch “kills” Aslan with a stone knife — but within minutes he is back and better than ever, it being by his representation a law of the Deep Magic that when one innocent of treachery is sacrificed on the Table the magic turns back on itself.
But I see no actual sacrifice here. It’s a sham, a put-up job. Aslan suffers no harm at all other than some transient pain and the indignity of having been trussed up like a Christmas goose. To a being that can sing worlds into existence this is surely no worse than a hangnail. We are only fooled into thinking otherwise, if we are, because Lewis abuses the word “death” to refer to a condition that is completely reversible, and is in fact reversed.
In retrospect, Aslan’s vaunted sadness on the way to the Stone Table is evidence of either (a) extreme cowardice, because he’s boo-hooing even though he knows he’s got a get-out-of-death-free card, or (b) an indication that he doesn’t know in advance he’ll survive. But (b) is ridiculous — he’s certainly quick enough to explain his resurrection to the children afterwards, and does so in terms which pretty much exclude the possibility that he wasn’t expecting it.
Skeptics have made similar observations about Jesus’ so-called “sacrifice,” but there is so much emotional and psychological investment in the Jesus story that it’s unlikely to make much of an impact on believers. With Aslan, however, it’s possible that some will realize that there just isn’t anything exceptionally laudable or logical about what Aslan does.
It’s not especially laudable to endure a bit of brief discomfort in order to save a life — it’s very nice and worth a prompt thank-you note, but hardly a worship-inspiring act. It’s also not especially logical for Aslan to be so upset as he is being taken to die. Even if what he endures is very uncomfortable, if he's a decent sort of guy he should be happy that he'll save a life and this should override his sadness.
Read More:
Comments
The author of this comment fails to realize two important concepts about Aslan (and therefore God): 1) That he cares about and is affected by the thoughts and comments of those he created (or came into being as a result of his creation/singing). What appears as “transient pain and the indignity of having been trussed up like a Christmas goose.” is arguably the most painful kind of torture known to mankind. Any good and loving parent would gladly endure all kinds of pain and humiliation in order to spare his/her children the same. But nothing hurts more than when the source of pain and humiliation is the child himself rebelling against the very love which makes a parent willing to die to save his/her own child.
2)That he wants the loyalty and love of those he created to be tested and true. Just because he didn’t “cold-cock” the white witch doesn’t mean it wasn’t within his ability. He chose to succome to the power of the witch in order to level the playing field. Otherwise the devotion of those who follow him would be based only on his ability to “win”. Any bully can coerce “loyalty and love” out of people. But who, in their right mind, believes such “loyalty and love” is authentic? The choice to follow the white witch or stay true to Aslan would be a farce unless the white witch truely had the power to defeat Aslan. Aslan (God) wants people to follow him because they WANT to, not because he has FORCED them to.
That’s precisely what the threat of hell does.
Except she didn’t, just as Satan doesn’t truly have the power to defeat God. It was never possible, just as the “pain” of the crucifixion was ultimately trivial to a deity. Crucifixion would be horrible to a human, but less than a pinprick to God.
The word of Narnia and Aslan are only an allegory, however thinly veiled, and as a result not all logical arguments applied to the allegory will apply equally to that which it intends to represent. You do make a salient point that by arguing the merits of Aslan’s sacrifice you are able to speak more directly to the logical merits of the crucifixion without the cloud of religious sediment that obviously comes out when you try argue about something so central to Christianity as the crucifixion. However the crucifixion of Jesus differs from Aslan’s sacrifice in the following very important aspect. If the crucifixion was purely a physical act then it would indeed ring somewhat hallow. Surely the infinite and eternal God would not sweat blood at the thought of the mere whipping he was about to receive. If he, as creator, was the only being truly able to grasp fathomless stretches of eternity then three days in the grave is could only produce crocodile tears. However, I would argue that the crucifixion was more significant on several levels. Consider the fact that God’s sense of purity, justice and love are reputed to be equal to that of his power and might. It is for this reason that the crucifixion caused God incarnate real pain. Let me introduce an additional example to try to paint understanding of the pain endured at the crucifixion. Christianity in addition to the belief that God is mighty and powerful also rests heavily on a belief that God is supremely pure and perfect. Imagine a school girl that is known for being innocent, humble, kind ect. In my analogy let us suggest that this girl is raped and then released otherwise unharmed. She would have every right to immense pain. Perhaps some of the pain would be physical. But the violation of her purity is the most egregious of all. The biblical account of the crucifixion clearly states that the guilt of the world was placed on Christ. C. S. Lewis and later the Disney version of Narnia depict only physical pain. But I would argue that Jesus’ crucifixion is most important because God allowed himself to be humbled in a way that was truly a sacrifice.
Regarding the aspect you mention of Aslan’s battle with the Witch. I agree that he could have created any means necessary to “cold-cock” the Witch. Perhaps he did. As I recall in the Magician’s Nephew he allows the lamp post to be placed in a way that foreshadows the Witches demise. Indicating that in the “mumbled prophecy” he relies on the actions of the children in a way that does not appear at all accidental. Clearly, Aslan has at the beginning of Narnia time chosen a way that is of his own choosing.
Likewise, in our world the Almighty could arrive at any point to destroy evil and evil people/beings. However the grace element of the biblical account indicates that he has chosen another way of his own choosing.
On a final thought I would suggest that before you debate the merits of the Chronicles you should consider some of C. S. Lewis’s other work. After all it seems silly to argue about academic standing of a children’s book when the same author has published important work such as Mere Christianity.