Susan and Emeth

[Son of Aslan]

I do not know if this has been asked here before, so I apologize if it has.

I have a serious problem with the Emeth character in the Chronicles. The implication is that someone in our world can live their entire life acknowledging another God and rejecting Christ, and their acknowledgement of that other God was really their acceptance of Christ. The inevitable consequence of this philosophy is idea of universal salvation.

But in contrast, promises given in LWW are done away with in the character of Susan. It is plainly said that "Once a king or queen in Narnia, always a king or queen in Narnia." But Susan does cease to be even a citizen of Narnia, how much less a king or queen.

It seems that Lewis is building on the "first shall be last and the last shall be first" idea. But I still struggle with the idea of someone who has rejected Christ all their life being saved in the end whilst someone who lived a whole lifetime on a throne in Cair Paravel would be denied salvation based on a few carnal ideas sneaking into their heads.

I've never heard a satisfactory explanation of this.

Discuss.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I think you'll find an extensive discussion of Emeth in the Tash thread (which also discusses a lot of other things):
http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1466&page=13&pp=10

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Regarding Susan, I don't think it was "a few carnal ideas" that was the problem, but a wholesale turning away from the reality of Narnia to the reality of this world. Remember that one of the risks of this life is the choking and rendering fruitless of the seed that has been sown ("And others are the ones sown among thorns; they are those who hear the word, but the cares of the world, and the delight in riches, and the desire for other things, enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful." Mk 4:18,19.) I think Susan's falling away was an example of that, and Lewis even lays the groundwork for it in Prince Caspian. Remember how Susan was the doubting, fearful one, and that made her petulant and disobedient? ("You have listened to your fears, child.") She continued to listen to her fears.

The "once a king, always a king" echoes Romans 11:29 ("For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."), but I don't think her falling away negates that - it makes it more severe. She did not cease to be a Narnian citizen, she became a Narnian queen who no longer cared about Narnia - a far worse condition than, say, someone like Pittencream from Dawn Treader, who eventually deserted and went to live in Calormen. He was just a common citizen, so Susan's betrayal was the greater fault. Remember the people of Israel in the OT - even in their worst apostasy, and receiving God's wrath for their disobedience, they did not cease to be the people of God's covenant. In fact, it was the covenant which brought the wrath, for those were the consequences of violating the covenant.

One constant theme of Lewis' writings regarding salvation and damnation is that people choose their fate. I forget the reference, but somewhere Lewis writes that there will end up being only two types of people: those who say to God "Thy will be done", and those to whom God says, "thy will be done." It wasn't that Susan was being "punished" for a few "infractions", but that she chose something other than Narnia.

[mtdman]

I don't think that Lewis ever implies that she is lost to God and Jesus forever. I think he leaves it open ended diliberitly. Even if you turn your back on God now, there is always hope for your redemption and salvation. All you have to do is turn back.

And I think all he implies is that Susan got caught up in the trappings of the material world which clouded her relationship with God. Which is something everyone should be able to relate.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I certainly agree with that - in fact, someone else just started a thread about that topic over here (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?p=59718#post59718)

[@tlantis]

I think the story of Emeth is a bit different than most poeple think. I hear a lot of reaction telling that Emeth worshiped tash, but was upright and thus really worshiped Aslan. But I think that reaction has some thinks mixed up.

Emeth was a follower of Tash, her really believed an worshiped Tash. When he entered the stable he wasn't conftonted with the wrath of Tash. Not because Tash liked him, but because Aslan made sure Tash wouldn't hurt him.

Emeth came to realize that Tash was an evil being and Aslan was the real ruler of his world. After that he told Aslan that he should die because he worshiped tash all his live and not Aslan. But, het tells, it's better to have seen the lion and die than to not have and live. Het also says Aslan is worth of receiving all honour.

Now this is totally proof of the conversion of Emeth: he is sorry for the evil he has done, he accepts his punishment and although he thinks Aslan will kill him, he still says he's glad that he saw him and He is worth te receive all honour.

And after that, Aslan tells him that all the good thinks he did in his live under the name of Tash really aren't in favour of Tash, because all bad things done are belong to tash (even if they are done in the name of Aslan) and all good things done belong to Aslan (even if they are done in the name of Tash). Aslan never told Emeth that his works in the name for Tash justify him, nor did he tell Emeth that worshipping Tash wasn't sinfull (he didn't have to tell hime cause Emeth found out already.

There is really no gnostic or liberal view of God in the symbol of Emeth's justification!

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Those are very good points, @tlantis, many of which I had never noticed before, though I've been reading the series for decades. You're right that Emeth would have incurred Tash's wrath upon coming through the stable door. A lifetime of dedicated service would mean nothing to a being such as Tash - all that would matter would be the continued service. Since that service would have ended upon coming through the door, Emeth would have been "in for it", as Rishda Tarkaan was - in fact, even worse, since (as Aslan makes clear) Emeth's noble deeds never really ended up before Tash because they couldn't - they were too good.

You're also profoundly correct about Emeth's surrendering to death at Aslan's hand for his false service. That, in essence, was his conversion - not all the deeds that he had done. Even after Aslan had explained that they were by their noble nature actually offered to Him instead of Tash, Emeth doesn't sit up and say, "Oh, well - in that case, I guess I'm okay then." No, he knew what he deserved, and even welcomed it, deeming it better to be killed by Aslan than rewarded by Tash. (reminiscent of Hwin's words: "I'd rather be eaten by you than fed by anyone else.") Emeth surrenders himself to death (i.e. lays down his will), and Aslan raises him up.

Spot on, @tlantis! It's Aslan's grace all the way, from start to finish! Higher up and further in!

[falco]

Emeths words reminds me of Jobs word to God, (paraphrase) "Even though you kill me I am still faithful"...does someone have the Bible at hand. Sorry to butcher Jobs words. I think you get the idea.

I was reading the other thread dealing with this issue and the understanding of Emeth repenting, converting and laying his life in Aslan's hand fills in alot of the void and helps answer the accusation of lewis being a Universalist.

Great post.

[Cereniel]

I do not know if this has been asked here before, so I apologize if it has.

I have a serious problem with the Emeth character in the Chronicles. The implication is that someone in our world can live their entire life acknowledging another God and rejecting Christ, and their acknowledgement of that other God was really their acceptance of Christ. The inevitable consequence of this philosophy is idea of universal salvation.

But in contrast, promises given in LWW are done away with in the character of Susan. It is plainly said that "Once a king or queen in Narnia, always a king or queen in Narnia." But Susan does cease to be even a citizen of Narnia, how much less a king or queen.

It seems that Lewis is building on the "first shall be last and the last shall be first" idea. But I still struggle with the idea of someone who has rejected Christ all their life being saved in the end whilst someone who lived a whole lifetime on a throne in Cair Paravel would be denied salvation based on a few carnal ideas sneaking into their heads.

I've never heard a satisfactory explanation of this.

Discuss.
I didn't like the fact that Susan wasn't a "friend of Narnia" anymore, but she also wasn't , ahem, there (spoiler for those not done w/ the books) so whos to say she didn't eventually become saved?
As for Emeth, I always liked him. To me he represents the people who have never had the opportunity to come to God. People who live in countries like Calormen where they don't teach the truth about God. Or like the native tribes that live high in mountain rainforest, ya know, like on National Geographic, who may never have even been told the word of God, or even heard of him. Which raises the ?, do those people have a story that God gave them? I'm sure he hasn't just left them there all alone!

[EveningStar]

I know I'm going to leave myself wide open for the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, but here goes....

I'm going to try and answer the questions up front by spelling this out step by step and carefully wording things. Please do me the patience to hold off on replying till reaching the bottom in the order written.

The problem: Someone is dying in the village where the word of Christ has never come. The missionary is coming, but has a flat tire. The person dies.

The three possible outcomes: Heaven, Hades, or Purgatory (am taking into account the ENTIRE Christian range here)

Discussion: If I went to the hospital and someone certified to operate on me did so and did such a poor job that it was beyond a doubt the doctor's entire and unabridged fault, would my family be able to bring up a wrongful death suit and charge medical negligance? Yes. And they would win. According to the law I have a reasonable expectation of survival if what I had was treatable and I put myself in the hands of an acknowledged expert.

Discussion: The possibility that God left the entire and sole resposibility for sharing a potentially fatal secret with every single man woman and child in the entire earth which must reach them and be accepted before they die of anything under any possible circumstances, even though human beings are often lazy, incompetent, and not forced to render services. If Christianity were a hospital and sin were an illness, God would be up to his ears in lawsuits if he ran his facility that way and it ultimately and completely mattered.

Thoughts: Fully half the history of man by any reckoning died prior to the death of Christ on the cross. There are doctrines such as the harrying of hell (a nod to the Catholic doctrine of limbo) that say such people who died before Christ are entitled to accept his atoning sacrifice, therefore God was not responsible for murdering dozens of generations of people in the most eternal way possible. Now where does that leave those who died in "impossible circumstances" after Christ died?

Initial Impression: My initial impression is that there are no "impossible circumstances," lest the sacrifice of Christ to save some but not others be exposed as capricious and based entirely upon timing and luck rather than grace or mercy. Since God obeys his own laws (the covenant with Israel and later with Christ's people clearly states God's responsibilities), he would either HAVE TO or at least WANT TO do better than that.

Complicating Factors: Natural Theology, as spoken by Paul himself, who claimed that the Gentiles would not be held blameless for their abominations simply because they did not have the law of Moses for they had "seen the handiwork of God in that which God created and are therefore a law unto themselves."

Posit: That any law which can condemn the guilty can also exhonorate the innocent.

Counter Posit: No man can uphold the law sufficient to save himself, but must rely upon justification by grace, the act of absolution by Christ Jesus.

Rebuttal: Fine. Then if the Christian can be forgiven from sins against the law of Moses, shall not the man under Natural Law, the law unto himself?

Emergent: Here we have it. God's right and demonstrated tendency to extend mercy would be able to reach anyone who attempted to obey either the law of Moses or Natural Law in the absence of the Law of Moses.

Therefore: I do not believe the law was designed to tie God's hands. The law was man's bill of rights...not to be murdered, stolen from, envied by his neighbor, bereft of the sanctity of his marriage, or lied to.

Why: This comes down to the purpose of man. If we were Ancient Greeks addressing this question, the answer is obvious...to provide gifts and sacrifices. If we were Bantu, we would be feeding the gods and seeing after their needs and in return they would make the crops grow and the rain to fall. But we're not operating under that assumption here. This is Christianity. Mankind are the heirs to God's promise of salvation, his children, his people who walked in darkness but now see a great light.

Why Evangelism? To spread the word of God to bring the message of God's love to all the world. People need the good news.

Does God Threaten us if we Don't? Frankly it appears that way. We ought to know better. We DO have the law of Moses and so God is not interested in whether the missionary's tire went flat in OUR case.

Are there other viewpoints? Sadly, yes, and I am braced for impact. :o