The Massacring of CS Lewis & Why it Matters The thing that is going on with these insufferable film adaptions in which characters like Odysseus and Aslan are neutered and feminized is not simply a result of the Left having no good stories to tell on their own. It is a strategic infiltration after decades of successfully and systematically eroding the foundations of the Christian West. It's not that Hollywood and Netflix couldn't produce original stories with big names and big budgets, it's that they have moved on to the humiliation ritual phase of their conquest. CS Lewis is, without question, the most important, influential, and unifying Christian creative of the last three centuries. He represents the absolute antithesis of modern secularism, of woke leftism, and - way more than most realize - of feminism. The only reason why everyone knows his name is because millions of Christians, Evangelical Christians, bought and read his books, and continue to buy and read his books. Lewis was the Christian answer to the Enlightenment humanism preceding him. And he was the prophetic voice against the postmodernism that came after him. A once in a millennia talent, Lewis wielded a spectrum of literary genres, and at every turn, he masterfully dismantled the idealogical enemies of historic, orthodox Christianity. More than that, he positively presented the beauty of Christianity with unmatched brilliance. The enemies of Christ are definitionally subversives. The hijacking of Narnia, the transing of Aslan, this is a deep work of deconstructive subversion. Aslan is not a masculine lion merely as an echo of Christ, for the same reason that Christ is not called the Lion of Judah as a simple poetic figure of speech. The question is, which direction is the metaphor moving? Is Christ called a Lion because He is kind of lion-like? Or do lions exist because they echo something of what Christ is like? The latter is the reality of things. The archetype is never creation. The archetype is always the Creator. To feminize Aslan is not a matter of mere stylistic preference. It is not just screwing up an allegory either. It is desecrating the archetype, which is to say, it is a subversion and an explicit mockery against Christ, against Christianity, and against Christians. "But [in your world] I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there.” Aslan, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader "As to Aslan’s other name, well I want you to guess. Has there never been anyone in this world who (1.) Arrived at the same time as Father Christmas. (2.) Said he was the son of the great Emperor. (3.) gave himself up for someone else’s fault to be jeered at and killed by wicked people. (4.) Came to life again. (5.) Is sometimes spoken of as a Lamb…. Don’t you really know His name in this world. Think it over and let me know your answer!" CS Lewis, in a letter to Hila Newman (age 11), who had asked about Aslan's other Name.

1. It wasn’t honest question asking and criticism. You literally reposted a Leftist, Jesus-hating, subversive’s cherry picked soundbite edit and then broadcasted to the entire internet that people should leave the churches of two pastors like a bolt of lightning out of the clear blue sky. There was nothing even remotely approaching “honest” about what you did. 2. A woman with a podcast, posing as a conservative complimentarian who reposts tabloid edits from leftist subversives attacking Male, evangelical, Bible-believing pastors is a textbook definition of gossip. 3. It is good and right for “supporters” to defend good men in the court of public opinion. It’s called honor. No one swung at you. You threw the first sucker punch. You do not get to play the victim here. 4. You attacked the character of two pastors. People responded with personal stories about them to disprove your character attacks. This is not deflection. This is true defending, and it is righteous. Just because you say ad nauseam, “Bible, Bible, Bible” that doesn’t make your thing biblical and their thing unbiblical. The only kinds of people who reposted your post locally in my region were LGBTQ activists with a proven track record of militantly opposing Jesus and Christians and the Church. For a conservative, complimentarian, female biblicist, that’s quite the following. I will tell you the reason you have received backlash…it’s because I have actual names and faces of real people in my church who I pastor and who I love. And the last thing they need is the seed of subversive doubt sown in their souls toward godly spiritual authority and the fellowship of the family of God.

I’m going to state a hard hitting reality here. I don’t mean any disrespect towards Alisa, but I’m not going to pull any rhetorical punches either, because she chose to enter the arena. If Martin Lloyd-Jones, or RC Sproul, or Leonard Ravenhill, or Charles Spurgeon, or George Whitefield, or Jonathan Edwards, or John Wesley, or Cotton Mather, or John Cotton, or John Knox, or John Calvin, or Martin Luther, or Wycliffe, or Bucer, or Tyndale, or Hus, or Boniface, or Patrick, or Columba, or Augustine, or Jerome, or Athanasius, or any of the actual Apostles were alive today doing ministry as pastors… heck, if Billy Graham was alive today and still preaching… all of those men would be accused at some point by a woman with a podcast for being too authoritarian. They would be accused by leftist women of being misogynistic, racist, sexist, and all the rest. And they would be accused by “complimentarian” women of being spiritually abusive. Why? Because their testosterone would be influencing their leadership in the church. And that is the thing that inevitably offends a feminized Christianity. That is the simple and plain fact. And it is that “offense” that is underneath the “NAR!” accusation.

Hi Megan, I’m one of the elders at Josh McPherson’s church. I’ve known him my whole life. I’ve worked for him and alongside him in ministry in an official capacity for 13 years, along with a team of godly men, all of whom I deeply respect and gladly follow. I have no doubt that Alisa feels strongly about the things she says and writes and posts. And I would not accuse her of being motivated by virality. I don’t know her. I’m not going to speculate about her intentions. However, feeling strongly is not a substitute for truth. You know this. Alisa has leveled very serious claims against both Josh H and Josh M in posting a clip pulled out of context by a genuine Jesus and church hater and definitively labelling it “NAR.” She even went so far as to adamantly urge congregants to leave. It seems silly to me to have to be doing this, but I am compelled to take it personally as a shepherd because her comments could negatively impact people that I pastor. Chiming in with the functional equivalent of “Hey everyone, trust me, Alisa has really strong feelings here…” is adding your credible voice to a an online piece of criticism against a pastor and against a local church without you doing any actual research. So, this is me making a good faith effort, as a first hand witness, with decades of context and experience and knowledge that Alisa knows nothing about regarding Josh and his church, to let you know that she is entirely wrong.