This article states that Liam Neeson, the voice of Aslan in the recent Chronicles of Narnia movies, claims that Aslan could be any religious leader.
Simply put, that’s not the intention of the author.
Perhaps with some creative cutting you can twist Aslan to be a generic religious hero/ leader in a few of the books (for instance, in Dawn Treader it might be possible). But in the most famous of the Narnia books, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, Aslan dies as an innocent sacrifice to take away the guilt from a human malefactor.
Aslan is a figure of Christ, a picture to help us grasp what Jesus did for us. That’s what C. S. Lewis intended, and it’s impossible to twist that. What other religious figure died to free others from their guilt? Certainly not Muhammad. Not Buddha. No, only Christ takes our guilt away. Every other “religious leader” tells us to take care of our guilt ourselves. And that’s Lewis’s intention: he wants to show us Christ. Like Brandon’s post mentions, the point was to glorify Jesus.
Not “religious leaders.” Not “spiritual pioneers.”
Jesus.
To say that Aslan could stand for any “spiritual leader” misses the point of Lewis’s books entirely. Maybe the actor playing Aslan should go read the source material a few more times.
Seeking the New Earth 
My response to Liam Neeson is the same as my response to Ian McKellan yammering on about “no churches in Hobbiton.”
No one cares cares what you think, Neeson. We pay you to shut up and act like a lion.
I cannot see how Aslan CAN be Muhammad, especially since C. S. Lewis is a Christian author! You must take into context what the author wants, or it is not a good movie at all.
Ah, good point, Bookspirit. I wouldn’t necessarily say that you have to share the author’s point of view–I am a Christian but I believe one need not be a Christian to read the Bible and extract some meaning from it–but the very least one needs to do when listening to the story is accept what the author tells you, even if you disagree with it. Otherwise, you will miss the story entirely.
In high school, I remember reading the book Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn. I actually gained a great deal of understanding of secularism and Eastern Philosophy from the book. I disagreed with nearly every page.
I would have gained nothing, trying to twist his words and meanings to support Christian or Western thought.
I also found a website that was talking about “Damnable Lutheran Practices”. I didn’t believe it at all. Here’s the website for you to check out.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Lutherans/damnable.htm
This appears to be from an offshoot of charismatic reformed church perspective, I think, and the writer isn’t a very learned argumentarian. A few minutes of perusal shows several glaring argumentation errors, such as “In fact, the phrase “Holy Communion” is NOT found in the Bible at all” Yeah, neither are the words Eucharist, abortion, rape and child molestation, but it’s not like the Bible is silent on those topics.
He’s loud and insistent, but his arguments lack clarity or depth. He’s a resounding gong and a clanging cymbal, but doesn’t appear to have much to offer beyond sensationalism.
If you have a specific question that Luther’s Small Catechism doesn’t answer (I assume you’re Lutheran?) feel free to ask us, or hit the WELS.net FAQ and ask away. After a brief perusal of all Mr. Stewart’s objections, most should be quite easy to answer.
Yes I am Lutheran, and I was actually looking for the Holy Communion’s uses online because I was too lazy to get my catechism. It is true that there are many things not directly stated in the Bible. Like the Rapture.