Why The Chronicles of Narnia is the Best Series Ever

 

Over the years, The Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis, The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien, and Harry Potter by J. K. Rowling have been among the leading contenders for the most respected fantasy series ever. Each series of books has its own value and is worth reading. I personally prefer Narnia over the other two, however. 

Some years ago, I read The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien. While I enjoyed this work, I have come to appreciate it more over time. When I read The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien, I immediately came to see it as superior to The Hobbit. I have loved Tolkien's stories of Middle-Earth since I was young, and The Lord of the Rings left an impression on me not only for its epic story of Frodo and Sam but also for its beautiful literary status. The Lord of the Rings may very well be the best-written work of the twentieth century, and for that reason alone, it is a true classic of English literature.

Lately, I've been reading J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, and I have enjoyed each of the books. The Philosopher's Stone and The Prisoner of Azkaban are among my favorite works of the series. Rowling has a charm to her writing style, and her popularity among fans resonates strongly because of her remarkable talent as a writer. The Harry Potter series is arguably one of the best-written series in the twenty-first century. Rowling's stories have had a significant influence on modern culture, and the large fandom of the books comes as no surprise given each novel's well-written status. 

Why Narnia, then? Why do I prefer C. S. Lewis's series over Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings? I have three points to argue in favor of The Chronicles of Narnia being superior to the other two literary works. Below, I have written an essay on this topic: 

                                                                  Introduction: 

C. S. Lewis was both a great philosopher and a literary genius. His Christian views informed him about everything he did, and he wove his knowledge of scripture into his writings. His ability to transform both theology and good story-telling into literature reflected a rare genius on his part. Additionally, Lewis's knowledge of both philosophy and medieval literature allowed him to write not only books about past literature but also to write new literature of his own. When he wrote The Chronicles of Narnia, he was not writing it simply as a good novelist, but also as a brilliant literary scholar. In my view, by the writing of these books, C. S. Lewis achieved a higher level of success in the literary tradition than either J. R. R. Tolkien or J. K. Rowling. The superiority of The Chronicles of Narnia over both Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings is attributed to its theological elements, its roots in Medieval literature, and its enchanting storytelling. 

                          Part 1: The Theological Implications of The Chronicles of Narnia

The Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis was influenced by the author's Christian faith. In the first published novel, Edmund takes from the Turkish delight given to him by the White Witch (Chapter IV). Despite the fact that Edmund knew better, his pride guided him against his family. In fact, he was hardly innocent as the White Witch tempted him. He wanted to hear the flattery that she gave him. 

In the same way, many of us often desire the wants of this life that are not good for us. From sin, we find more pleasure in what we want at the moment than what will keep us satisfied long-term. Edmund's fall resembles the fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. Like them, he took of something that seemed pleasurable at the moment---but which brought on detrimental effects for everyone else. 

Perhaps the closest value to Christianity in the Narnia books is the sacrifice of Aslan. The great lion gives his life in Edmund's place (Chapter XIV) so that Edmund won't have to be killed by the witch. While nothing in literature can truly parallel the work that Jesus Christ did, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe do as good as a children's book can do for this. Throughout the whole novel, Aslan is portrayed as a great and just lion---tributes which adds to the sadness that we all feel when he gives his life on the stone table. As we read the book, we feel moved by Lucy and Susan's tears that the great lion has fallen and we are (hopefully) reminded of the dismay that the disciples felt when Christ passed from them. Near the end of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Reepicheep leaves us in awe of Aslan's country. Though the brave mouse loved his friends, he ultimately desired to be with Aslan.  

The Chronicles of Narnia has as much or more to teach adults about the values of Christianity as they do for children. Perhaps if we read them frequently, we would learn to come to Christ as children (Matthew 18: 3) just as many of the children came before Aslan throughout the series. Obedience does not necessarily require great knowledge, but it means us trusting in God even when we don't understand everything about His will and our purpose. Likewise, Jill Pole did not realize her purpose when Aslan gave her a task (Chapter II of The Silver Chair) yet she did as he said. Perhaps if we spent less time questioning why God wants us to do certain things and instead actually do them, we would waste a lot less time. 

                               Part II: The Roots of Medieval literature in The Chronicles of Narnia

Many readers who love C. S. Lewis and his writings are unaware of the impact that Medieval literature had on his stories. While Medievalism also greatly influenced Tolkien, I have always seen Narnia as more resembling the world of the High and Late Middle Ages whereas I have seen Middle-Earth as greatly drawn from the Anglo-Saxon world of the Middle Ages. When it comes to history, Tolkien and Lewis's works easily surpass Rowling's. Though the Harry Potter series is entertaining to read, they lack the imagination of a fantasy world akin to the legends of King Arthur and Merlin which both Narnia and Middle-Earth give. 

To me, The Horse and His Boy closely resemble aspects of crusading legends from the Medieval era. As the Calormans attempt to take Queen Susan and force her into a marriage with their prince, I sense that Lewis was familiar with the crusades, and not just their history, but the accounts that some of them left for us to read of their expeditions. As an interesting note, the crusades are actually mentioned near the beginning of Prince Caspian.  

In The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, C. S. Lewis tells us a story about Aslan's death that may resemble the atonement of Christ for many Christians. Interestingly enough, Lewis was hardly ignorant of the doctrine of the incarnation. Having written a preface to Athanasius's On the Incarnation, he knew well that this doctrine was central to Medieval theology. Although Aslan does not transform his body into another form (except in Voyage of the Dawn Treader) the idea of an incarnation is still somewhat within the first published book. For example, Aslan (like Christ) did not simply reign from high heaven and look down on Narnia. The great lion walked among the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve. Aslan knew Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy just as Christ knows the children of God (Galatians 3: 26). 

Finally, the ideas of chivalry and romance are found throughout the Narnia books. As an illustration, Peter saves his sister, Susan, from a great wolf in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (Chapter XII). Likewise, Ramandue's daughter and King Caspian together reflect a traditional romance in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (Chapter XIV) similar to one that a reader would find in Medieval literature. 

The Medieval feel of the Narnia books is nothing the avid Lewis fan should miss. When one studies the Narnia books next to the works of the Middle Ages, it would be difficult to be blind to all the similarities between them. As a result, Lewis left us with stories with strong allegory and solid theology just as Chaucer and Malory did for their respective eras. 

                        Part III: The enchanting storytelling of The Chronicles of Narnia

There is a reason beyond theology and its shared qualities with other past works of literature that the Narnia books are so loved. Many of us simply read C. S. Lewis simply because his stories are magical to us. Like Lucy in the wardrobe, we are enchanted by the thought of going into another world. Additionally, we long to have someone near us who we can laugh with and cry with just like Lucy does with Aslan. 

In the second chapter of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Lewis leaves us wondering what the Faun's intent really is. Is he truly sorry that he has worked for the White Witch? Or is it that Mr. Tumnus only speaks regretfully in front of Lucy so as to trick her into returning to his home? Examples like these, are what keep us on the edge as we read good stories. Lewis knew how to keep the reader intrigued enough not to just mark the page and never finish the book. Again and again, the author of Narnia keeps us longing for more of shadowlands. 

                                                                     Conclusion: 

While The Lord of the Rings is a better literary work than The Chronicles of Narnia, in many ways, I prefer the latter. The Narnia books may not have the language of Tolkien or Milton, yet they make great reads and leave us with a joyful feeling. Likewise, The Chronicles of Narnia is so enriched with Christian themes that essentially nothing save Confessions by Saint Augustine of Hippo, The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan, and Everyman be possibly more Christian literary than it. 

Personally, I would cautious Christians about the Harry Potter series for reasons that are not mentioned in this article. Narnia and Middle-Earth are great Christian fantasies for all who hold to the Christian faith. 

There is much that all of us can enjoy about The Chronicles of Narnia. I love these books just as I always have. As I have written this, it has given me the desire to read these classics again. 

The English Reformation and Transubstantiation

 

                                                                      Introduction: 

Transubstantiation was an important theological position of the Roman Catholic Church. It taught that at the consecration of the elements, the bread and wine used for the Eucharist, become the Body and Blood of Christ. While taught by the Fourth Lateran Council, this position remained controversial---especially during the later Protestant Reformation. 

Before we understand why Transubstantiation was controversial though, it is important that we examine the Eucharist as it was understood and practiced in the early church. By understanding the role of the Eucharist in early Christianity, it can help critique later positions that developed in Christendom. 

To begin with, many early Christians took the words of Jesus literally in Mark 14: 22-24. Likewise, they understood the Eucharist to give grace to those who received it worthily. The latter position was based on their understanding of Paul's warning to those who take from the table unworthily (1 Corinthians 11: 23-25). The Romans who practiced the gods of the empire, however, could not understand why Christians desired the flesh of Jesus. To them, the Christians must be cannibals. 

Although some modern evangelical theologians have interpreted the early church fathers to teach memorialism, this is a misreading of the church fathers. While another post could be written all for the topic alone, I strongly believe (as do many historians and theologians) that the vast majority of early church fathers taught the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Where many evangelicals go wrong is that they will read a passage from scripture or early Christianity that may speak of remembering Christ. However, even Roman Catholics believe that the Mass remembers what Christ did. It is a logical fallacy to assume from a text in scripture or church history that because something says about remembering Christ at the Lord's Table that it means nothing else than that. For example, though many early church fathers describe the Eucharist as being a memorial towards their Savior, they never say that it is simply that. Indeed, had Paul the Apostle believed that Jesus was merely speaking in parables it is hard to imagine why he would have understood the Eucharist to be so serious (1 Corinthians 11: 23-25). On the contrary, some of the earliest Christians spoke of the Eucharist being a ''sacrifice'' and how they ate the flesh of Christ: 

''A marvellous thing in truth, that God rained manna for our fathers. Yet they who ate that bread died in the wilderness. But the Bread which thou recievest, that living Bread which came down from heaven, supplieth the substance of life eternal: it is the Body of Christ''-Saint Ambrose of Milan (Baverstock, A. H. The Eucharistic Year, 1930, p. 91).

''When the sacrifice is being offered, and Christ becometh our sacrifice when thou seest the curtains drawn at the doors (of the iconostasis) consider that high heaven is drawn down, and the Angels descend''-Saint John Chrysostom ( p. 96). 

No question, the Eucharist was highly regarded by the early church fathers. That said, I think that there are strong reasons to believe that the church did not historically teach Trent's dogmatic understanding of Transubstantiation. Among these reasons, it is important to recognize that the early Christians did not universally believe that Christ's literal Body and Blood are present during Communion (though nearly of all them did agree with the belief of His real presence). 

''Thou hast prepared meat for them. A spiritual meat is understood. He saith that this hath been prepared, since before the foundation of the world was fore-ordained the mystery of Christ, who is the living Bread coming down from heaven and giving life to the world.'' -Origen of Alexandria (p. 95). 

So before we evaluate the doctrine of transubstantiation in light of the English Reformation, let me summarize the above information that I have provided. Early Christianity took the Eucharist to be Christ's Body and Blood (some literal, others spiritual, though hardly none understood it as just memorial). The Eucharist was central to early Christian practice and would serve as a foundation for much of later Medieval Christianity. 

                                        II. Transubstantiation in Medieval Christianity

The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was widely accepted long after the first three centuries of Christianity. The fact that it was hardly challenged is further evidence of its orthodoxy. This does not mean, however, that the idea of Transubstantiation was universally accepted across Christendom. 

The doctrine of Transubstantiation was not formally taught by a church council until 1215. Even then, the Fourth Lateran Council defined it in ways that would be less offensive to Protestants than how the Council of Trent would define it in the sixteenth century. For example, the Fourth Lateran Council never taught that Christ's Divinity and Soul are present within the Eucharist. Despite the fact that some Protestants may have other issues with the Lateran Council's understanding of the Eucharist, their objections would be mild compared to what Trent would later teach: 

''There is one Universal Church of the faithful outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being changed (transubstantiation) by divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us.'' -Fourth Lateran Council, Can I.  

During the Counter-Reformation, the Council of Trent made Transubstantiation dogma: 

''If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently, the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.'' -Council of Trent, Thirteenth Session, Canon 1. 

Essentially, the Council of Trent ordered for the excommunication of anyone who denied its teaching. It also taught doctrines such as the Divinity and Soul of Christ being present in Holy Communion despite the fact that no one in church history taught these teachings for the first eight centuries of the church's existence. 

But what evidence is there to show that Trent's understanding of Transubstantiation was never taught in the church's history. Surely, after all, Rome would not force a dogmatic teaching concerning something that had not always been taught? Think again. 

                                                        III. The English Reformation 

Among all of the theological differences between Catholics and Protestants during the Reformation era, the debate over the Mass was among the most heated. For at the core of Transubstantiation was a reliance upon the priesthood of the Catholic Church for salvation. This is because Rome understood only ordained clergy as having the authority to consecrate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. To the Roman Catholic, pastors and priests not ordained by a bishop were invalid. As a result, Rome believed that many Protestants who followed Protestant Reformers who had no apostolic succession, could not obtain absolution for their mortal sins. While many of the reformers were former Catholic priests, not all of them were. For example, John Calvin had never been ordained by a bishop. Furthermore, few bishops sided with the cause of the Reformation. This in turn, would mean that former Catholic priests could not carry on priestly powers to their successors. 

In England, things were a little bit different than elsewhere in Europe. For example, many clergy within the Church of England came to accept at least some of the Protestant ideas after Henry VIII's breach from Rome in 1534. Nevertheless, like those in Continental Europe, those supporting the English Reformation took great issues with Transubstantiation. Indeed, Thomas Cranmer considered the debate over the Mass to be the most important issue of the Reformation. 

Contrary to the claims of many Catholic apologists, transubstantiation was not the universally accepted position concerning the Eucharist before the Reformation. The supporters of Rome have done a good job at portraying the Reformation as a radical movement that abolished the historic practice of viewing the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ---so they say. Interestingly enough, many before the sixteenth century had denied Transubstantiation. Among theologians who denied it included William of Ockham, John Wycliffe, and Jan Huss. 

Those in England during the Elizabethan era were aware of the fact that not all of Christendom had taught Transubstantiation in past centuries. Especially before the Fourth Lateran Council, there had been several different views concerning the Holy Eucharist in the early Middle Ages. 

Archbishop Matthew Parker approved of The Thirty-Nine Articles which denied Transubstantiation in canon XXVIII. Parker, who was an avid reader of Anglo-Saxon literature, looked to the English Church before the Norman Conquest as a type of a pre-Anglican Church. He was aware of how many practices in England had changed as a result of the Norman Conquest. Among these changes had included the English Church coming more under the thumb of the papacy, the gradual suppression of the Bible in English (though there were some examples of Middle English translations before Wycliffe), and the gradual acceptance of Roman doctrine. From a sermon by Aelfric, Abbot of Eynsham, Parker felt that the ancient English church had never taught Transubstantiation at all. I encourage you to read the sermon here: 

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A26478.0001.001/1:3?rgn=div1;view=fulltext&fbclid=IwAR1dtrLA43fspsbiK7wCzg8u21pOHTr60P7xIqB2HheNK3a64ILPYadlX7k

                                                                   IV: Conclusion

Transubstantiation does not equate with believing in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. When one reads the early church fathers, for example, one should not so easily conclude that they taught Transubstantiation because many of them understood the Eucharist to be the literal Flesh and Blood of Christ. Furthermore, while some of the church fathers did describe a change of elements as having taken place at Mass, none of the ancient councils ever held Transubstantiation as dogma. Likewise, when it was taught at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, the medieval council did not have the same understanding of it as did Trent. 

At the same time, I look forward to hearing counter-arguments from my Roman Catholic friends. My issue with Trent's dogma of Transubstantiation is less with the ideas that this doctrine proposes than that of it being a dogma for all Christians to believe. On the other hand, though, I believe that Transubstastion is trying to explain the miracle at the Eucharistic table which no one can perfectly explain. I prefer to see the Eucharist more as a mystery, at least as concerns dogma. While in my view, good Christians can believe in Transubstantiation, it should not be dogma as Trent understood it. 

Further Sources: 

Baverstock, A. H. (1930). The Eucharistic Year. Morehouse Publishing. 

Haigh, Christopher. (1993). English Reformations: Religion, Politics, and Society under the Tudors. Clarendon Press. 

Ruud, J. (2006). Encyclopedia of Medieval Literature by Ja Ruud. Facts on File.