Posted by: @pete

Posted by: @courtenay

As I was saying, I'm wondering if part of the issue here is differing theological ideas about life after death. I've encountered people before who insisted that the ending of LB means that our world must have come to an end too, for the Pevensies' parents to have entered Aslan's country as well (and so they read it as implying that Susan must be lost forever). It turned out this was coming from the theological position that those who have died are asleep until the end of the world — or in this case, the end of all worlds — and only then will the final judgment happen and those who are saved will be allowed into heaven.  

It surprises me that you have come across people that have come to this conclusion, especially considering Lewis makes clear why the Pevensies' parents have entered Aslan's Country - namely due to Peter stating that their parents were on the same train as Lucy and the others.  Out of interest, I am curious to know how these people you mention, understand 2 Corinthians 5:8 also.

I should clarify that the ones who were putting forward that view weren't people I know personally, but people in other forums or discussion sites online, and I don't know anything about them or what their exact background was.

I think it came up on two different occasions with different people. One was in an Enid Blyton discussion forum where we also have a thread for Narnia (under "Other Authors"), and she said something to the effect that when she was little and first read the Narnia stories, she thought the end of Narnia in LB meant that all other worlds had ended too, including our own, and so she thought Susan must have gone to hell. I think that was just a misreading, though, as she wasn't coming from a very religious background, to my knowledge. (We may recall at least one famous modern children's author has made exactly the same claim about Susan's fate.)

The other one I remember — this was on Quora, a Q&A site for every conceivable topic — came in with a comment insisting that Susan's absence at the end must mean she was lost forever, "because it's the end of the world and the last judgment and everyone is supposed to be there" (or words to that effect). I tried to explain that it was only the end of Narnia, not of our own world, but she came back insisting that as the Pevensies' parents were in heaven, that must mean our world had ended too. I just carefully explained that that isn't the Anglican concept (not that I'm Anglican myself, but I respect that that's where Lewis was coming from and I try not to impose my or other people's theological ideas on his own), and that was the end of the conversation. 

There are Bible passages that can be read as supporting the idea of "soul sleep" until the final judgment, and others (not only 2 Cor. 5:8 but also Luke 23:43 as another example) that suggest that the faithful, at least, go straight to heaven upon dying — so I'm not going to start a theological debate with anyone, when perhaps we all just need the humility to admit that God knows a lot more about these things than we do.   I've always felt, though, that Lewis's concept of heaven — as the place where all the real originals are of the things we only see as "shadows", at most, in the mortal world — somehow just feels right, and I ended up (as an adult) joining a denomination that has a very similar concept, so I'm content with that. 

I think what you would also see is an entirely good Tashbaan unstained by the corruption the mortal city is presented with - probably even with a different name, considering the name of it in the mortal world gives honour to Tash.

Aslanbaan?  

Sorry for taking so long to get back to everyone - the conversation has moved on somewhat - not sure anything I add below is still relevant. 🙂

Posted by: @courtenay

Maybe we're coming from different interpretations of Lewis's concepts of heaven and the afterlife? I don't read the book as suggesting that the "real" worlds that are part of Aslan's country are made up of leftover good bits that were redeemed from the "shadow" version of that world when it met its end. That would suggest that the "real Narnia" wasn't created until the "old Narnia" was destroyed — is that the way you're reading it?

No, not at all.  Sorry for being unclear.  (Though having said that, the discussion that followed was interesting, so I am happy to have read everything you all had to say.)  When discussing these things in the Last Battle, they notice that no good thing was destroyed in Aslan's country and Professor Digory Kirk's old Mansion is still there in Real England. So clearly, it is not just what was present at the chronological end of the world's existence that is preserved in the real version.

And, as @Courtenay also pointed out, England continues to exist after the Pevensies parents are in real England - so clearly Lewis intends the two realities to co-exist.  (The fact that Narnians of every era are in the new Narnia - 'further up and further in' the real Narnia, such as Reepicheap - also hints that they were already there before the Tirian and the Pevensies arrived; and before the end of Narnia.) Technically, the Pevensies and Tirian arrive in Real Narnia before its end - as the Pevensies witness the Calormene guard going into the stable, Tash frightening "Ginger" the cat, the battle between the guard and Emeth, Tash's encounter with Rishda Takaan, etc. Tirian is in Real Narnia to witness the separating of the sheep and goats as all the creatures come to the Stable door and look into Aslan's face and either love him or cease to be talking beasts.

My point was that I look at Charn at the end of its existence and find it rather bleak.  I tend to then project that reality onto the entire history of Charn (and see it as a thorough-going evil place with no life and no good in it).  This clearly is not what Lewis intended as he shows in the Hall of Statues that there were once good people in that world before it degenerated into the cruel world that it was in Jadis' time.  My comment on 'my struggle' was referring to this bias that I have.  Several of you have pointed out that this bias is clearly wrong - Aslan knows Charn (as @Pete pointed out) and there is neither an evil world that Aslan created, nor a world that was created without Aslan.  ('All things were made through Him and without Him nothing was made that was made.' - I am sure Lewis would have happily agreed with this statement.)

Posted by: @narnian78

One wonders if there could be a good Charn just as if there could be a good Calormen.

I think this is partly where I was going - there didn't seem to be anything good about Charn and Calorman - and thus little to preserve in a Aslan's country.  However, I know somewhere else (I thought it was either 'Mere Christianity' or 'The Problem of Pain', but I cannot find the reference), C.S. Lewis uses the idea that evil is just the absence of good.  He uses an analogy that as you remove heat it becomes colder, but heat is a form of energy - we can measure heat, coldness is not a thing, it is just an absence of heat.  He is also defined evil as being corrupted good (following the tradition of Plato and Thomas Aquinas).  I found a reference to this in a quotation to his friend Arthur Grieves, but I am pretty sure he wrote about it in one of his major writings:

The truth is that evil is not a real thing at all, like God. It is simply good spoiled. That is why I say there can be good without evil, but no evil without good. You know what the biologists mean by a parasite—an animal that lives on another animal. Evil is a parasite. It is there only because good is there for it to spoil and confuse.

So if Lewis is using either of these ideas, I think it would be consistent to think of Charn and Calorman to have elements of good - even if they have been corrupted to varying degrees.  (And even if Calorman was begun by outlaws, there is clearly some good there - Aravis was born in Calorman, as was Emeth; and there are likely countless more examples that we never heard of).
A little off topic, I remember a guy called Bruce Waltke once saying (paraphrased) that there are records of people from the ancient world saying that the Canaanite language is the most debased of all languages around at that time, with lots of inuendoes and repulsive concepts.  Ancient Hebrew is near identical to Ancient Canaanite (not surprising as Abram / Abraham lived amongst the Canaanites and later the Israelites did the same). The bible is written more-or-less in this corrupt, deprived language, except God takes something that is corrupt and redeems it, to make it holy and writes holy scripture with it.  I like this idea, because it means that evil never has the last word.  Even if Calorman was started under corrupt conditions, that does not mean it is beyond the point of redemption.  In saying this, I am contradicting my own original post.

Also, if we think of Caspian coming from a long line of Telmarines who did not care for Aslan or old Narnia and, in spite of his heritage, Caspian loved old Narnia and Aslan.  Aslan finds a way to make Himself known even when it seems impossible.

So, it seems possible that there could be individuals that belong on Aslan's side in Calorman and Tashbaan.  As far as the city of Tashbaan itself is concerned, Aravis witnessed incredible beauty in the Tisroc's gardens within Tashbaan, so even there it appears there is something that may exist in Real Narnia.

Posted by: @pete

It surprises me that you have come across people that have come to this conclusion, especially considering Lewis makes clear why the Pevensies' parents have entered Aslan's Country - namely due to Peter stating that their parents were on the same train as Lucy and the others.  Out of interest, I am curious to know how these people you mention, understand 2 Corinthians 5:8 also.

I think the whole 'death sleep' idea is inspired by passages like 1st Thessalonians 4:14-15 and 1st Corinthians 15

For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.  According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

1st Corinthians 15

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

The idea derived from this is that once we die, we become unconscious (I think until the Eschaton / New Age / Christ's return / New Heaven and New Earth / whatever-phrase-you-use-to-refer-to-the-new-creation). The word 'sleep' is the key to this understanding.

I toyed with this idea some time ago, but I do not think it holds up, as it seems demonstrable that 'sleep' is used throughout the bible as a euphemism for death (mostly clearly in word-for-word translations) E.g.:

1st Kings 22:50

And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father, and Jehoram his son reigned in his place.

2nd Kings 15:38

Jotham slept with his fathers and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father, and Ahaz his son reigned in his place.

John 11:11

After he had said this, he went on to tell them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.”

Acts 7:59-60

While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.

Acts 13:36

“Now when David had served God’s purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his ancestors and his body decayed. But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay.

I think people who hold this position are not bothered by 2nd Corinthians 5:8 as they would say (if I understand the correctly) that from our perspective, once we die it appears instantaneous that we are witnessing Christ's return - thus it would appear to Paul that he is present with Christ as soon as he dies.

Even Luke 23:43 is not that big an issue, as Jesus often says "truly I tell you" just before he says something cryptic:

Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”

Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Insofar as I understand it, the foundation of this view is that 'sleep' is used so often in the Bible as a metaphor for death.  I do not understand it to have much support beyond that.

Oh dear, I've spent way too much time writing this, my lunch break is over - back to writing code...

Posted by: @davidd

So if Lewis is using either of these ideas, I think it would be consistent to think of Charn and Calorman to have elements of good - even if they have been corrupted to varying degrees.  (And even if Calorman was begun by outlaws, there is clearly some good there - Aravis was born in Calorman, as was Emeth; and there are likely countless more examples that we never heard of).

I'm still not sure why there is any hesitation whatsoever in acknowledging that there definitely WERE good people and other good elements in both Charn and Calormen, honestly.

Aravis and Emeth exist, and they quite logically cannot be the only two "good" people in the entire history of Calormen, unless we want to suggest that Lewis deliberately invented a whole civilisation in which there were only two people worthy of being redeemed. I cannot believe that of him. Considering he gets more than enough accusations of racism (most of them unfounded) from critics, insinuating that he intended readers to think of nearly all Calormenes — presented as dark-skinned and "Oriental"-coded — as irredeemably evil is... well, let's just not go there.  

(I'm not saying you intended to insinuate that, by the way, but if Narnia fans in general keep being reluctant to acknowledge that there must have been good Calormenes, and good elements of Calormene culture, that is where we're implicitly heading.)

Same thing with Charn. We only have the statues of Charn's monarchs in the hall of images to go by, but both Polly and Digory get the impression from these that the earliest kings and queens were wise and good. They seem to have become gradually more and more overrun by evil as the generations and centuries went by; we don't know why and how. But even under a terribly corrupt government, good "ordinary" people can still exist, and there is no reason to believe that none of them did exist throughout Charn's history.

And again, theologically speaking, I don't think Lewis would invent a world that was so utterly evil that no-one and nothing in it was worthy of anything better than eternal destruction. As you say, he didn't see evil as a power in itself, so much as the absence of good (and he's not alone there among theologians — Julian of Norwich, the 14th-century female visionary, had very similar insights, as one example). And the worlds within his Narnia books are all created by the same sole Creator. To suggest that the Christian God would create any group of people who are inherently so evil that absolutely none of them can be saved — again, I'm pretty sure that would be abhorrent to Lewis. Tolkien had a similar sense of moral dilemma with his own evil characters, particularly the Orcs — were they an entire race of living beings who were intrinsically evil and unworthy of any kind of salvation? He baulked at that idea and never managed to completely resolve it in his various writings about Middle-earth.

A little off topic, I remember a guy called Bruce Waltke once saying (paraphrased) that there are records of people from the ancient world saying that the Canaanite language is the most debased of all languages around at that time, with lots of inuendoes and repulsive concepts.  Ancient Hebrew is near identical to Ancient Canaanite (not surprising as Abram / Abraham lived amongst the Canaanites and later the Israelites did the same). The bible is written more-or-less in this corrupt, deprived language, except God takes something that is corrupt and redeems it, to make it holy and writes holy scripture with it.  I like this idea, because it means that evil never has the last word.

I've never heard of Bruce Waltke, so I'm not familiar with his ideas. But I have some casual background in linguistics and definite background in the Biblical languages — I studied Biblical Hebrew for two semesters at university — and I cannot understand on what basis Ancient Hebrew could be called a "corrupt, deprived language". Languages, after all, cannot be "corrupt" (or uncorrupt) in and of themselves; it's the ways in which people choose to use a language, the concepts they speak about or write about, that may be judged as good or bad. And the idea that the Hebrew Scriptures — which of course are still sacred to religiously observant Jews, even more than they are to observant Christians — are written in a "corrupt, deprived language"... where exactly is that notion coming from, and what is it meant to point to?

I can only speak a few words of modern Hebrew, but I know enough about it to know that it's essentially the same as the ancient language, with the grammar somewhat simplified and new words added for new inventions and so on. And I've known enough native speakers of Hebrew to know they would be very deeply insulted by the notion that their ancient and sacred language — the language in which humankind's first real notions of the one God were recorded — is somehow corrupt and debased in its origins. Basically, I'd take any such claims (regardless of who made them) with an absolute truckload of salt.

This is going off topic now, and we do have a general theology discussion thread in the Spare Oom if anyone wants to carry on a not-directly-Narnia-related conversation there, so I'll leave it at that for now.

Posted by: @courtenay

I'm still not sure why there is any hesitation whatsoever in acknowledging that there definitely WERE good people and other good elements in both Charn and Calormen, honestly.

Agreed.  I am not intending to hesitate to affirm that there are other good people in Calorman.  My whole point is that I think there are other good people in Calorman - and countless numbers of them.

I responded in the Theology thread about the paraphrase of Bruce Waltke - I've included the quote of what he said. Hopefully I said it clearly (sorry if I have not).  The point was not to insinuate that Hebrew is a debased language, but rather that it was (and is) holy because God sanctified it and made it holy.  But more on that in the other thread.

This is a comment that @DavidD made in the "Christianity, Religion and Philosophy" thread (linked to above) that is pretty much back on the topic of this thread — although it's about Calormen rather than Charn — so I'll reply to it here.

I was trying to echo this idea.  If Calorman had begun by a group of outlaws fleeing justice (I think from Archenland) across the desert, than this is not the most moral beginning for a society.  However, just as God is able to take something that has been corrupted and restore it, so to, Calorman's poor beginning as a corrupt society does not mean that Aslan cannot redeem something from it.  (My own life is a testimony of something that I have made a mess of, but God can turn around and make something holy from in spite of the mess that I often have made.)  Hope that makes sense.

It does in itself, but again, from what we're told in the closing chapters of The Last Battle, the various "real worlds" that are part of Aslan's country are not corrupted places (or peoples) that have been redeemed from the remnants of their mortal versions and somehow grafted into Aslan's own realm. They are the original worlds that, like the real Narnia, always have been there and always will be there, regardless of how debased the "Shadowland" versions of them may be.

Calormen's beginning in the mortal world does look unpromising: founded by outlaws, growing into a huge and materially powerful empire, one that's fraught with inequality and misogyny, whose rulers care mainly about empowering themselves at all costs, and that worships particularly bloodthirsty gods. (We're told in LB that human sacrifices are made to Tash.) But going by what we know of Aslan's country, there must be a "real Calormen" there that was never any of these things — that was founded by Aslan, not by fallible mortals, and that must reflect Aslan's own concepts of what Calormen truly should be, even while the "shadow" or "copy" of it in the mortal world was at best a poor (apparently often very poor) imitation. And I've no doubt the Calormenes who found their way there recognised it as their true home, as Jewel the Unicorn does of the real Narnia.

@courtenay 

a very brief response - it is a public holiday here, my wife is doing an assignment and I need to entertain my son at a local science museum so not a lot of time.

I agree with everything you said above. My point is not that in Narnia, Narnian eschatology involves redeeming the world as it was at the end of its existence.

My comment was in response to “one wonders weather there could be a good Charn, just as if there could be a good Calorman?”

I was reflecting that not everything in Calorman is bad. (Emeth, Aravis and the Tisroc’s beautiful gardens all being examples.)  I was using redemption not to refer to redemption at the end of the world, but in regards to the fact that Calorman had begun as a group of outlaws escaping imprisonment. This sounds like an unpromising beginning where Calorman’s foundations are built on crime and immorality.

It was from this beginning that I was saying Calorman could be redeemed - that there could be good in Calorman in spite of its origin.

Would there be a need for a creation story similar to the one in The Magician’s Nephew for the real Narnia at the end of The Last Battle if that world always existed?   If it is Aslan’s country wouldn’t it be something that Aslan himself created, and nothing could exist without Aslan being there first?  This would even apply to Charn, Calormen, Archenland, and the other places that could not exist without Aslan being there to create them. The story doesn’t mention how the real Narnia came into existence, but only that it apparently was always there without telling us of its origin.  I guess Lewis was not obligated to tell everything at the end of The Last Battle, but it does leave us with a mystery.