I love the part in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe where Lewis puts his "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" argument into the Professor’s mouth (see this post by La Shawn Barber for the Mere Christianity version of the argument). We know Lucy is an honest person; so she’s not lying. We know that Lucy is not crazy. Therefore, it is most logical to believe that Narnia exists, and that she’s been there.
Lewis makes us all face the claims of Christ head on. Take them or leave them, "but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great
human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
I’m increasingly flabbergasted by the attempts of other religions to
claim Jesus for their own. Why? Why is it necessary for your religion
to have a version of Jesus that doesn’t fit His own claims but works
for your particular set of beliefs? I’m not one to be deliberately
provocative of other religions; I tend to think it best to engage them
in respectful dialogue and let God do the work of conversion when and
where He wills. But this just baffles me.
So let me put this plainly: Don’t claim Jesus for your religion and
discard the stuff about him that doesn’t fit your religion. That
doesn’t make sense, and I don’t do that to your religious leaders. How
many Christians do you know that look at all the other religious
leaders of history, render anything they said that doesn’t sound like
Christianity "inaccurate" or "biased," and then pretend they were
really Christians all along? Can you imagine the uproar if a Christian
scholar decided that everything Buddha or Muhammed ever said or did
that isn’t in line with Jesus is inaccurate or biased information, and
that all the stuff that looks or sounds like Jesus is real, and
therefore Buddha and Muhammed are really Christians?
So take or leave Jesus as He is. But please don’t make Him fit into
your religion by disregarding everything He said or did that doesn’t
fit your religion. You can’t have Jesus (your religion, that is).
{ 0 comments… add one now }