Otro dominico, nuestro admirado Tom de Disputations, ha estado comentando (1 2 3 4 ) algunos aspectos teológicos de Narnia -de moda estos días, ya saben-. Aunque a él le gusta la obra, encuentra muy poco satisfactorio el concepto de Aslan… que según él no sería una «figura de Cristo«, como suele decirse, sino la misma persona de Cristo. Y, si es así, dice Tom, la obra parece malograda; y más: peligrosamente malograda.
….contrary to what some say, Aslan is not a Christ-figure. In Lewis’s stories, Aslan does not represent Christ, he is not an allegorization of the kingly and untame aspects of Christ that were downplayed in 1950’s England.
Aslan is Christ. He is meant to be the identical Person Who became man and died for us, the very Word made flesh (albeit different flesh in a different world) we worship, the Son of God present on our altars.
[…] certain defenses of Aslan, Narnia, and Lewis are non-starters. You can’t defend it by saying Lewis was trying to write literature, not theology; that’s a false dilemma, and including a character who is supposed to be God is doing theology.
[…]There’s a certain irony that a decision that makes Narnia such a fresh and original story makes it so flawed at the same time, that what excites so many Christians about the story is its weakest part.
[…] «Suppose the Second Person of the Trinity became, not a man in our world, but a lion in a fairy tale world.» Isn’t this pretty much what Lewis himself said was his thought going into writing LWW?
So, very well, that incarnation is not the Incarnation, and the same rules do not apply. But there don’t seem to be any rules to the Aslan incarnation — no reason for it, no cause of it, nothing really to it apart from a focal point of divine power.
For me, that raises questions about Lewis’s own understanding of the Incarnation, and more pertinently about the evangelical dimension of the Narnia stories to which some Christians cling so tightly. If the Son as lion is so utterly different rom the Son as man, what’s the value in supposing the Son as lion? Whatever it is, it isn’t in the theological insight Lewis brought to bear in creating the character of Aslan.
Muy interesante -y polémico, como pueden imaginar,
y comprobar en los comentarios. No estoy seguro
de estar de acuerdo. Y en verdad no tengo
derecho a formarme una opinión:
nunca conseguí leer completas las crónicas de Narnia,
nunca lograron atraerme.
Aslan is Christ. He is meant to be the identical Person Who became man and died for us, the very Word made flesh (albeit different flesh in a different world) we worship, the Son of God present on our altars.
[…] certain defenses of Aslan, Narnia, and Lewis are non-starters. You can’t defend it by saying Lewis was trying to write literature, not theology; that’s a false dilemma, and including a character who is supposed to be God is doing theology.
[…]There’s a certain irony that a decision that makes Narnia such a fresh and original story makes it so flawed at the same time, that what excites so many Christians about the story is its weakest part.
[…] «Suppose the Second Person of the Trinity became, not a man in our world, but a lion in a fairy tale world.» Isn’t this pretty much what Lewis himself said was his thought going into writing LWW?
So, very well, that incarnation is not the Incarnation, and the same rules do not apply. But there don’t seem to be any rules to the Aslan incarnation — no reason for it, no cause of it, nothing really to it apart from a focal point of divine power.
For me, that raises questions about Lewis’s own understanding of the Incarnation, and more pertinently about the evangelical dimension of the Narnia stories to which some Christians cling so tightly. If the Son as lion is so utterly different rom the Son as man, what’s the value in supposing the Son as lion? Whatever it is, it isn’t in the theological insight Lewis brought to bear in creating the character of Aslan.
Y ya que estamos de seriales, vaya una introducción a Flannery O’Connor en seis posts (1 2 3 4 5 6) en Compostela. Una escritora que, en cuanto me tome el trabajo de leerla con cuidado, sospecho que me va a gustar.