Thread: Should we pray to Aslan? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030088
Posted by A Sojourner (# 17776) on :
 
What's people's opinion on calling Jesus/God names that come from fictional works?

Is it acceptable for someone to pray to Aslan? Or to Illuvater (Elvish for God).

Or how about calling Jesus the "Star of Earendil" the name of the Morning Star in the Lord of the Rings?

Do people have any thoughts on the matter? Personally don't think it is that big a deal, but I'd be interested to see what the citizens of the Ship think about it.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I doubt our opinions matter (ask God), but hey, we give irrelevant opinions all the time, so...

I'm guessing he wouldn't mind unless there was some problematic problem associated with it--for example, a person who does this with the intention (hidden or otherwise) of pissing off/freaking out other people listening.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
The Narnia books were intended to at least in part be a Christian allegory for children, so that places Aslan in a special category of a character that represents Christ, in a book written by a devout Christian, as part of a series that is intended to teach Christian themes.

Tolkien, on the other hand, was a devout Christian, but I am less sure that his books on Middle Earth were intended to teach elements of Christianity.

With many other fictional works, you have authors who are not themselves Christian or who are pretty unorthodox in their Christianity - or you have fictional deities that do not resemble Christ or the Christian understanding of God.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
God does it. Not the praying to Himself. Except in a human ... But representing Himself symbolically. Wind. Lamb. Fire. Dove. Voice. ... Human. I've addressed Him as these and more. As Gelert-of-fire. The Hound of Heaven, Lissajou curving round my legs and resting His head on my lap.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
stonespring--

Respectfully, it's better than an allegory. [Smile]

Aslan is Christ, as he is known in Narnia. E.g., at the end of "The Last Battle", there's something about "and to them, he looked no longer like a lion". And, early in the series, Aslan specifically tells the kids that he brought them into Narnia so they would know him better in their world. All one person.

It's also CSL working out a lot of his own stuff. E.g., he lost his mother when he was a kid, and it really damaged him and his faith. But in "The Magician's Nephew", he gets to fix that. In the persona of Digory, he saves his mom.

FWIW.
 
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
It's too late at night for me to go hunting for the exact quotes, but AFAIK CS Lewis stated that Narnia was not an allegory and that Aslan was not Jesus. They could be better described as analogies.
I don't think anyone actually prayed to Aslan in the Narnia books. They called on him and he appeared. They discussed him in his absence. But throughout the Narnia books, Aslan was very much more of a tangible being than Jesus has been for this world for many centuries.
Presumably, if you pray to Aslan in our own world, you consider that the chronicles of Narnia are as true to you as the gospels? I think CSL might have found that more disturbing than flattering.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Clearly, the only appropriate time to call upon Aslan is if you are in Narnia. Which I am sure you would have noticed.
Attacking it from the other direction,however, Aslan himself says that he has other names. I am sure that God is totally cool with whatever name you use. He is able to handle the [whatever number| human languages on Earth, after all. And if you and I can handle metaphor and symbol, I am sure He can.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Our Grandfathers and Grandmothers. Which doesn't mean ancestors. But also sort of does, and maybe sort of like saints. . And spirits of animals which also is both personification of the Creator, but also the animal nature. Not too different to some OT things.

I am aware that Jesuits in the 16th and 17th centuries, and others later, accepted Wyandot (Huron) and Cristineau (Cree) literary traditions within their Christian world view. It helps to honour the worldviews, cultures and the literature that comes with it versus just imposing your own.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
It's too late at night for me to go hunting for the exact quotes, but AFAIK CS Lewis stated that Narnia was not an allegory and that Aslan was not Jesus. They could be better described as analogies.
He also said they weren't children's books.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
It's too late at night for me to go hunting for the exact quotes, but AFAIK CS Lewis stated that Narnia was not an allegory and that Aslan was not Jesus. They could be better described as analogies.
He also said they weren't children's books.
Source?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Agh I remember hearing that somewhere somehow but now that you ask can't seem to find any confirmation of that. Probably some sub-Lewis fandom legend. Apologies.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
“What If I Love ASLAN More Than JESUS?” Lewis Answers an American Child's Distress." (SPU Response)

Once upon a time, a little boy was confused, and his mom wrote to CSL on his behalf, starting a long correspondence.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Agh I remember hearing that somewhere somehow but now that you ask can't seem to find any confirmation of that. Probably some sub-Lewis fandom legend. Apologies.
By any chance, are you getting him mixed up with Madeleine L'Engle? IIRC, she said some of her books ("Wrinkle", etc.) weren't particularly for children, but that's the category the publisher chose.

CSL started the Narnia series for his god-daughter, the real Lucy. But he said in the TLTWATW dedication that he hadn't realized how fast she was growing up, and she might not appreciate the story until he was too old and deaf to hear her! [Smile]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Agh I remember hearing that somewhere somehow but now that you ask can't seem to find any confirmation of that. Probably some sub-Lewis fandom legend. Apologies.
By any chance, are you getting him mixed up with Madeleine L'Engle? IIRC, she said some of her books ("Wrinkle", etc.) weren't particularly for children, but that's the category the publisher chose.
Entirely possible.
[Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I am in two minds about this. On the one hand, I don't think God gives gives two hoots what name we call him by. The whole "I am who I am" thing sort of addresses this. If you feel happier praying to God whom you picture as Aslan and who you name Aslan, that is not an issue.

However, there is a danger that we diminish God to being the characters described by one persons imagination. Of course, this doesn't have to be the writer of fantasy works, and they are undoubtedly better than many sources, but we must remember that God is not Illuvater. That Illuvater is one persons way of understanding and interpreting God. That there is more.

That we don't replace the bible by LoTR, as a source to find out about God. I think it is a better place to look that The Collected Works of Bigot St Bigottus or whatever, but it is not the whole story.

I know, for me, LoTR opened up a whole new lot of ways of thinking about God and the world*. The creation stories in The Silmarillion are superb and insightful - more so for me than Genesis. But I think they provide insights and ways of looking at the Christian story that other forms - non-fiction - can never do.

So yes, I am happy to call Jesus "Star of Earendil", and I think that is appropriate. As long as I don't forget the other names, the other titles he has.

*Utter Tolkien nerd here, and unashamed. I do have - and have read - all 12 volumes of The History of Middle Earth.
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
Maleldil in Lewis' space trilogy is very clearly Jesus. Then again doesn't Perelandra contain its own warning about writing about God?
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
Or more exactly, writing fiction about God.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
One could argue that much of the Bible is fiction about God. Revelation surely is.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
It was Tolkien himself who said that we put all we love into all that we make. I fail to see how, if your faith is important to you, that you don't write about it. Slantwise, yes. With analogy, allusion, metaphor, deep down under the surface of the text -- all the tools of the fictioneer. But everything important to you is reflected in what you write.
And this is not confined to religious matters; there's a reason why so many novels revolve around love and/or war. Why so many of Dickens' characters have a double nature, or two names, or hide their identities. Why all of Bronte's heroines are short and poor. Why the prose in Fifty Shades of Grey is so execrable.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Nothing wrong with pet names - they're a sign of love
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Doesn't Christianity place a particular importance on the name Jesus as opposed to all other names? Could a person be a Christian without ever using the name Jesus (translated into whatever language that person speaks) in prayer? I am not saying that other names could not be used in addition to Jesus - but I am asking whether, if a missionary went to an isolated place and spread a faith that resembled Christianity in every sense other than that Jesus was called Bob, would the followers of that faith be Christians? To use a more realistic example, what if missionaries in past centuries had chosen a name for Jesus for people in a culture to use that was not based phonetically at all on Jesus' historical name but rather was based on a respected name in that culture (but not the name of another Deity)?

In this sense, how is Christianity different from Islam in its idea of Allah being the definitive name (among many others) of God, or of Judaism in its reverence of YHVH as the definitive name (among many others) of the One God that is so sacred it cannot be uttered? Granted, Jesus is the name of only one person of the Trinity, but its specialness as the "name at which every knee shall bend" bears some resemblance to the idea of a special name for God in other religions. I grant that there are differences. What is the significance of these differences?
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
What Brenda Clough is saying is that you write what you know. Not that you should, but that you do.

If you are a Christian and that is a fundamental part of you and what you know, that will come out in your writing. Its not that you should or will write explicitly Christian works, it is that your faith will be an inevitable part of what you write. If others can find that expression of your faith helpful, I don't see why that is a problem just because you have written fiction not Worthy Theological Tomes.

I know that in my writing, the characters reflect parts of who I am. I always put myself into my writing, because I can't put anyone else there.

It does make me wonder what is in EL James head, and why she hasn't seen someone about it.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Doesn't Christianity place a particular importance on the name Jesus as opposed to all other names? Could a person be a Christian without ever using the name Jesus (translated into whatever language that person speaks) in prayer? I am not saying that other names could not be used in addition to Jesus - but I am asking whether, if a missionary went to an isolated place and spread a faith that resembled Christianity in every sense other than that Jesus was called Bob, would the followers of that faith be Christians? To use a more realistic example, what if missionaries in past centuries had chosen a name for Jesus for people in a culture to use that was not based phonetically at all on Jesus' historical name but rather was based on a respected name in that culture (but not the name of another Deity)?

In this sense, how is Christianity different from Islam in its idea of Allah being the definitive name (among many others) of God, or of Judaism in its reverence of YHVH as the definitive name (among many others) of the One God that is so sacred it cannot be uttered? Granted, Jesus is the name of only one person of the Trinity, but its specialness as the "name at which every knee shall bend" bears some resemblance to the idea of a special name for God in other religions. I grant that there are differences. What is the significance of these differences?
Surely the specialness of that Name does not lie in the phonics. Otherwise everyone speaking only sign language would be up a creek without a paddle.

Look for the specialness of the name (either name) in its meaning. "I am who I am, I will be who I will be" or "YHWH is salvation."

Granted, "Bob" isn't going to convey either of those. But neither does "Jesus" without some knowledge of the original, which is why Matthew obligingly translates it for us, and modern Bibles have footnotes. If "Bob" was for some reason the only possible choice (perhaps because the phonic equivalents of Y'shua were all obscene in meaning, or were unpronounceable due to the local tongues and jaws being mutated), well, I think Jesus would happily settle for "Bob." It's not as if English "Jesus" sounds that much like [insert Hebrew here] anyway.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And Lewis says something very useful about this, in The Last Battle. Recall the young Calormene who surprises all the Narnians by turning up in Paradise. Aslan explains later that it is because he worshiped God in his true guise. The name is just a label on the outside. What's important is the jam within.
Jesus himself backs this up. We all could name a lot of whited sepulchres who look nice and talk a good game, but who certainly hide a lot of nasty inside.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[qb] Agh I remember hearing that somewhere somehow but now that you ask can't seem to find any confirmation of that. Probably some sub-Lewis fandom legend. Apologies.
By any chance, are you getting him mixed up with Madeleine L'Engle? IIRC, she said some of her books ("Wrinkle", etc.) weren't particularly for children, but that's the category the publisher chose.
I recall what seemed like a fairly credible quote from Mark Twain, saying that Huckleberry Finn was not meant for children, and expressing serious disquiet that people thought it was.

This was in the context of contemporary debates about the book being removed from school curriculums for its racism, violence etc, the point being that Twain himself wouldn't have wanted the book in schools.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Doesn't Christianity place a particular importance on the name Jesus as opposed to all other names? Could a person be a Christian without ever using the name Jesus (translated into whatever language that person speaks) in prayer? I am not saying that other names could not be used in addition to Jesus - but I am asking whether, if a missionary went to an isolated place and spread a faith that resembled Christianity in every sense other than that Jesus was called Bob, would the followers of that faith be Christians? To use a more realistic example, what if missionaries in past centuries had chosen a name for Jesus for people in a culture to use that was not based phonetically at all on Jesus' historical name but rather was based on a respected name in that culture (but not the name of another Deity)?

In this sense, how is Christianity different from Islam in its idea of Allah being the definitive name (among many others) of God, or of Judaism in its reverence of YHVH as the definitive name (among many others) of the One God that is so sacred it cannot be uttered? Granted, Jesus is the name of only one person of the Trinity, but its specialness as the "name at which every knee shall bend" bears some resemblance to the idea of a special name for God in other religions. I grant that there are differences. What is the significance of these differences?
Surely the specialness of that Name does not lie in the phonics. Otherwise everyone speaking only sign language would be up a creek without a paddle.

Look for the specialness of the name (either name) in its meaning. "I am who I am, I will be who I will be" or "YHWH is salvation."

Granted, "Bob" isn't going to convey either of those. But neither does "Jesus" without some knowledge of the original, which is why Matthew obligingly translates it for us, and modern Bibles have footnotes. If "Bob" was for some reason the only possible choice (perhaps because the phonic equivalents of Y'shua were all obscene in meaning, or were unpronounceable due to the local tongues and jaws being mutated), well, I think Jesus would happily settle for "Bob." It's not as if English "Jesus" sounds that much like [insert Hebrew here] anyway.
I guess the question is whether Missionaries (who themselves could very well be members of the target culture) should try to approximate either the sound or meaning (something like "God saves") of the name Jesus when they decide how that name will be translated into the language of a culture not familiar with Christianity. If for whatever reason, a missionary makes a deliberate decision to choose a translation that is not based on sound or meaning (maybe anything that sounds like Y'shua/Jesus has a bad meaning in the target language and maybe anything that means "God saves" has a sound not aesthetically pleasing to members of the target culture (or rhymes with things with bad connotations)) - is the missionary doing something wrong or unwise?

By the way, are there any languages in the world where the name for Jesus is not a phonetic approximation of the Aramaic/Greek/Latin/English/etc. name for Jesus but rather a semantic translation of something like "God saves"?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Wrong, probably not. (for what it's worth, my family are missionaries) Unwise? Well, the culture in question will doubtless be joining the global community sooner or later, and it's going to be a tad odd if they're calling Jesus "Bob" or similarly far-removed phonetic name. But I think we'd all get over it. Look what they did with "Jehovah," after all.

I'm not aware of any culture that has chosen a name based purely on the translation and without reference to the phonetics, however slight. But there's a pretty big range of possibilities(international equivalents of English H/J/I/Y for the first consonant, just for starters). And one of the things you think about is usability, when you're choosing names. What have they heard already, if anything? Do your options carry any political/historical/ethnic freight? And is this a culture where you can name a kid "God-is-salvation" and use that name daily without getting squiggle-eyed looks? (In modern English such a choice would probably get one identified as a fundamentalist or worse.)
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Doesn't Christianity place a particular importance on the name Jesus as opposed to all other names? Could a person be a Christian without ever using the name Jesus (translated into whatever language that person speaks) in prayer? I am not saying that other names could not be used in addition to Jesus - but I am asking whether, if a missionary went to an isolated place and spread a faith that resembled Christianity in every sense other than that Jesus was called Bob, would the followers of that faith be Christians? To use a more realistic example, what if missionaries in past centuries had chosen a name for Jesus for people in a culture to use that was not based phonetically at all on Jesus' historical name but rather was based on a respected name in that culture (but not the name of another Deity)?
Yes. Yes, they would.

When we say "there's power in the name" we're speaking metaphorically. The name itself is not a magic spell-- it's what the name represents.

Interestingly, there is quite a debate among both Christians and Muslims about missionaries using "Allah" as a translation for God.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
If I could be ever pedantic to note, that Jesus' Aramaic speaking disciples would not have called him "Jesus." They would have called him, something akin to "Yeshua."
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One could argue that much of the Bible is fiction about God. Revelation surely is.
I prefer to look at Revelation as truth about God that isn't literal.

Job, Daniel, Ezekiel and Psalms also fall into this category.

If the old guy in the clouds, Ancient of Days, is taken from a non literal work, why not Aslan?
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
In liturgy, a variety of terms are used the refer to Jesus, such as "Lamb of God" or "Son of God",
and in Scripture he is occasionally "the human one"
or "king of the Jews". Some of these seem more respectful to me than others, but that's not the point. Likewise, God the Father is referred to in a variety of ways: Yahweh, Jehovah, I AM, etc. (Kipling wrote of "Jehovah of the Thunders".)
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
In liturgy, a variety of terms are used the refer to Jesus, such as "Lamb of God" or "Son of God", and in Scripture he is occasionally "the human one" or "king of the Jews". Some of these seem more respectful to me than others, but that's not the point. Likewise, God the Father is referred to in a variety of ways: Yahweh, Jehovah, I AM, etc. (Kipling wrote of "Jehovah of the Thunders".)
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Going back to the original question, am I missing the point by asking in reply the question "Why would anyone want to?"
 
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :
 
I don't think you're missing the point, Enoch!

I suppose someone might want to pray to Aslan to get rid of the cultural baggage surrounding the name of Jesus. But that means they are praying to a deity with a different history, which, though appealing, is very definitely fictional. Why would you want to do that?

The other odd thing about praying to Aslan is that he is a different species in a different world. I can see why a cat might prefer to pray to Aslan (if it could understand all the concepts involved) but not quite why a human would. It doesn't make sense to want to believe in God incarnate, which brings him closer to humanity, and then distance that incarnation further from us by preferring God to be incarnate as a lion.
(On a slight tangent, Roy Campbell wrote a poem "The Theology of Bongwi the Baboon" where the baboon describes God in his own image - well worth a read if you can find it.)
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I suppose one might have issues with one's own species and prefer another. Or one might simply not care. In a not-quite-parallel, it doesn't bother me that God became a man rather than a woman as Christ Jesus, nor does it bug me that he is a Jew and not (mostly) a Gentile.

Still, the sticking point is whether you are in fact still praying to the same God by a different name--that is, the only God--or have managed to wander so far off that you are praying to a nonexistent fiction. Which would not be good. But drawing the precise line past which this happens is not easy. I suppose it falls in God's remit to decide whether or not he's going to take a wrong address (or partly wrong, or whatever) as his own. Much as I decide whether to respond to the zillions of people who regularly address me as [RL equivalent of Moose Pureed].

[ 16. April 2016, 18:53: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One could argue that much of the Bible is fiction about God. Revelation surely is.
I prefer to look at Revelation as truth about God that isn't literal.

Job, Daniel, Ezekiel and Psalms also fall into this category.
So you're saying that fiction is not truth?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
(On a slight tangent, Roy Campbell wrote a poem "The Theology of Bongwi the Baboon" where the baboon describes God in his own image - well worth a read if you can find it.)
Sounds interesting! Some others:


"Prayers From The Ark" and "The Creatures' Choir", by Carmen Bernos De Gaztold.
The top two reviews have a bio and extensive quotes.

"In God's Name", by Rabbi Sandy Eisenberg Sasso.
This is actually with humans, rather than animals, but about the same basic issues.

"Old Turtle", by Douglas Wood.
"Long ago, the animals, rocks, waters, and trees of the earth began an argument about God. Is He a wind who is never still? Is He a rock that never moves? Is He high above or here among us?"
 
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
I am reminded of Yeats' early poem 'The Indian Upon God,' which examines various 'incarnations,' including IIRC a roebuck, a peacock and a lotus.

It's worth looking for.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Texts of the two poems people mentioned:

"He Is a Great Baboon" (Laudator Temporis Acti).
Also has a quote from Xenophanes, on topic.

"The Indian Upon God" (Occupy Poetry).

[ 17. April 2016, 21:54: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :
 
Golden Key:

Thanx for locating the Yeats reference.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
You're welcome. [Smile]
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One could argue that much of the Bible is fiction about God. Revelation surely is.
I prefer to look at Revelation as truth about God that isn't literal.

Job, Daniel, Ezekiel and Psalms also fall into this category.
So you're saying that fiction is not truth?
No. I'm saying that stories are important.

(sorry it took so long to reply.)
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
"Heaven" by Rupert Brooke is another example of the genre.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0