This Rebellious Planet - Alf Cengia - http://www.omegaletter.com/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=8175
I confess to being an enthusiast of nearly anything C. S. Lewis wrote. In fact, I still love reading his Chronicles of Narnia, though they were written for children. That probably says something about me.
When I first came across The Magician's Nephew I immediately recognized who Aslan really was. Perhaps, the evil Queen of Charn's references to "son of Adam" and "daughter of Eve" were big clues. To my joy, I soon discovered The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in which Aslan (Christ) dies for Edmund's sake, and is then Resurrected.
Lewis' Christian themes can be found throughout his fictional works. Every so often I still read his three science fiction novels. In that Cosmic Trilogy, earth is known as Thulcandra - the silent planet. It is silent because, unlike the other planets of Arbol (the solar system), it is out of fellowship and in rebellion against Maleldil (Christ).
For me, the most difficult of the trilogy to read was the third, dystopian installment,That Hideous Strength (T.H.S.). Reviewer Phillip Johnson sums it up quite well here:
'In C. S. Lewis' novel, the technological super-agency is the National Institute of Coordinated Experiments (NICE), which is empowered to solve all sorts of social and genetic problems without being bothered by "red tape."' (Emphasis mine)
Of course there's a lot more to it than that. The N.I.C.E. resort to social engineering and propaganda to, allegedly, save the world from itself. But they also plot to take it over because, as the intelligentsia, they know what's best for the masses. In reality, they become dupes for Thulcandra's demonic entities, who turn them into murderers.
My first copy, an abridged version, was a struggle to read. Yet, when I gradually noticed how the world around me was changing, I began to understand what Lewis was getting at. I got hold of the unabridged version and devoured it.
The protagonists of (T.H.S.) may have been caricatures, but Lewis was right on the money. Like Orwell (1984), Lewis saw the writing on the wall in the social experimentations of his day. He even hinted at it at the end of The Silver Chair. But he also noticed that the church denominations of his day were being invaded by apostates.
Lewis included apostate churchmen in T.H.S., and his book The Great Divorce(TGD). In T.H.S. they had become evil co-conspirators with the N.I.C.E. The seemingly safer Episcopal bishop in T.G.D. denied the Resurrection and Christ's divinity. In fact he questioned whether the relatively younger Jesus may have lived a more fruitful life had he been shown a little more tact and patience!
The apostate bishop's idol was his academic enquiry into truth using his abstract intellect. He strongly objected to describing God as a "fact", and preferred using the term "The Supreme Value." He tells his friend:
"Well, really, you know, I am not aware of a thirst for some ready-made truth which puts an end to intellectual activity....Will it [Heaven] leave me the free play of Mind? I must insist on that..."
It's interesting to me that T.H.S. was published in 1945 (Orwell's 1984 came out in 1949). Dr. Wilbur M. Smith's Christian apologetic Therefore Stand was also published in America in 1945. Smith's book is more relevant now than ever. It's still available on Amazon via second-hand book dealers and I highly recommend it.
Like T.H.S., Smith's first chapter is difficult to read because of the sheer volume of information he catalogued on the attacks against Christianity by the Social Engineersof that time. Some of the attacks came from the Humanists (Humanist Manifesto). Yet an astonishing number of attacks were from either ex-clergy or apostate professors of religion still serving in influential capacities in highly regarded universities like Harvard.
The common theme was (and still is) that man is far better off worshiping humanity than leaning on the "crutch" of the "made-up" Christ. The Humanist goal was to get these progressive ideas into mainstream educational institutions, while systematically eradicating Christian practices. The idea was to circumvent the church's influence on society through education. In turn, the demands of the people would force the church to bend to an emancipated society's demands.
Smith cites philosopher R. W. Sellars who drafted the Humanist manifesto in 1933:
"The humanist's religion is one that says yea to life here and now, of one who is self reliant and fearless, intelligent and creative. It is a religion of the will to power, of one who is hard on himself and yet joyous in himself. It is the religion of courage and purpose and transforming energy. Its motto is, 'What hath not man wrought?' Its goal is the mastery of things that they may become servants and instrumentalities to man's spiritual comradeship." ~ The Next Step in Religion (Emphasis mine)
In contrast, Smith cites Dr. Walter Athearn, who was once a leader of religious studies at Boston University (circa 1926):
"There is rapidly developing a cult of Christian atheists. Persons who say they accept the ethical program of Christ, but who deny the existence of Christ's God, upon whom that ethical program is based. Our [the Christian] greatest task today is to keep religious education religious. The concept of the existence of a personal God is on the defensive."
Note that Athearn's use of the word "religious" means biblical as opposed to secular. The Humanists have largely succeeded in their goals by using various distractions such as defending the Constitutional Separation of Church and State and by claiming that an open display of a Cross or Bible may offend minority religious beliefs.
The Humanist Manifesto is man snubbing his finger at God. Humanism has infiltrated educational institutions and has spread the lie that man must do without God. This lie appeals to man's basic carnal instinct of pleasing himself rather than serve God.
This explains why recent attacks on Christianity by the likes of Candida Moss and Reza Aslan get a free pass and are lauded by the main-stream media. These authors don't have to be academically truthful, as long as they write the right stuff.
I was surprised at the animosity expressed against C. S. Lewis and Narnia by some atheists. What I loved, others hated. One woman blogged how disappointed she was to learn who Aslan really was. It destroyed her love for Narnia. What a tragedy!
Humanist, Philip Pullman, wrote children's books (The Golden Compass etc) to counteract Lewis' Christian-based Narnian Chronicles. He even wrote a spiteful article about Lewis and Narnia. Space and time prevent my elaborating except to note that Pullman's gripe isn't really with C. S. Lewis - it is with God.
"Yet, like it or not, this is God's universe. And one day He will break His silence." (Psalm 2:2-12; Rev 6:17).
Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but a little.
"Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him." (Psa 2:12)
Will you be ready?