Why are so many non-Christians bothered about the (relatively few) borrowings from the Christian myth in the Narnia books?

[BelfastBloke]

Apart from Aslan's resurrection in one book, which is quite heavy-handed, Christian elements don't seem to be that prevalent across the seven books.

Yet many people seem to be deeply suspicious that the Chronicles of Narnia are a form of propaganda which will indoctrinate their kids.

I know that CS Lewis was a part-time Christian evangelist (and full-time Professor of Medieval Lit), but the books themselves don't seem suffused with the doctrines in the way one might expect; and certainly not in the way they're sometimes described.

As you seek, so shall ye find - if I may borrow a Christian phrase :) Propaganda is where you look for it, in my opinion. I was raised in a (rather lapsed) Muslim family and my mother had no compunctions about the children's books we read or the nursery rhymes we listened to (she bought a bunch of tapes of children's songs from a missionary once, and while they were great fun for us to sing along to, and no lasting religious indoctrination occurred). The Narnia series was a great favourite in our house and unless a child is made aware of the symbolism I really don't think they see it as anything other that a great set of stories. (I went on to obtain an M.A. in Literature, so I think mum's 'read what you will' attitude was A-okay). Even Philip Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' trilogy (which irks the Church for it's anti-religious establishment angle), was a great read as a kid - the other layers became visible much later in life.

I think your AIBU thread had attracted all the attention, and that most people won't repost here what they've said there.

For any future readers, who come to this via Children's Books, the AIBU thread is here.

I disagree with premise in OP - that there are few borrowings. What I posted in the other thread is:

If you don't see that the books are a close Christian allegory of both the Gospel and the Acts, with a great deal of stress on the power of redemptive and protective love, then you have nothing to consider here. Either with Narnia, or with Harry Potter.

If you do see this rich symbolism, then it can be appreciated as an additional layer of eithe cultural or religious significance, as suits your own world picture.

But I think it's a little unfortunate to say that the symbolism is neither there nor that it is not persuasive.

I read Phillip Pullman more as a warning about the dangers of organised religion, rather than a commentary on faith. Narnia and HP are the flip side of this - they are about faith without organisational structures.

Both sets of books are incredibly rich, I agree. But neither could be termed indoctrination without context. Ooh, thanks meditrina for pointing out the other thread, very interesting!

I've just realised, seeing my post here, that in the lst line it should have said "pervasive" not "persuasive".

(Probably too late to change it on the other thread - pity, as my point was about how much there is in the stories - especially the books which follow events in Acts - not that they are likely to evangelise persuasively on their own).