
So Adam Gopnik
wrote an essay on C.S. Lewis for
The New Yorker about four years back, and in true Godsbody tradition (Yesterday's News Today!), we're just getting to it now. Of course, we're not going to tackle the whole piece at once - who has time to read anything that long any more? Instead, we'll just offer piecemeal comments here and there over the next little while. Cheers!
Gopnik:
"Yet a central point of the Gospel story is that Jesus is not the lion of the faith but the lamb of God, while his other symbolic animal is, specifically, the lowly and bedraggled donkey. The moral force of the Christian story is that the lions are all on the other side. If we had, say, a donkey, a seemingly uninspiring animal from an obscure corner of Narnia, raised as an uncouth and low-caste beast of burden, rallying the mice and rats and weasels and vultures and all the other unclean animals, and then being killed by the lions in as humiliating a manner as possible—a donkey who reëmerges, to the shock even of his disciples and devotees, as the king of all creation—now,
that would be a Christian allegory. A powerful lion, starting life at the top of the food chain, adored by all his subjects and filled with temporal power, killed by a despised evil witch for his power and then reborn to rule, is a Mithraic, not a Christian, myth."
Really? Gopnik's version would be a fine allegory of Christianity seen, as it were, from the outside - the wondering world marveling that this odd little tribe could provide the seeds of a new dominant paradigm. But if we're talking about what Christians think really happened with the Incarnation, then Aslan sort of
has to be a lion - God Himself come down to earth, yes? And even so, his account of the "Mithraic, not Christian" myth doesn't quite tell the whole story. What makes Aslan a Christ figure is that he not only descends to earth and walks among us, but also that he
strips himself of power and delivers himself over to his enemy, out of love for one who betrayed him.
That's the moral force of the story.
This is not a particularly clever or subtle observation, but that's precisely my point. It feels a little like Gopnik is twisting the text a bit to fit his larger point. (And what is his larger point? I'm afraid you'll have to go read the thing to find out.)