They are both different strategies for trying to find a way to make peace between Scriptural truth and the postmodern culture.
I wish to apologize if my comment on the C. S. Lewis thing offended you
Doesn't offend me at all. What offends me is when people say that just because the Catholic Church allows people to allegorize to the point of panic it means that (1) The Church's official position on Scriptural truth is purely allegorical and (2) a Catholic who is extremely suspicious of the allegorizing tendency (like myself) is somehow less Catholic or more heterodox in relation to the larger Church.
I take the exact same position that Thomas Aquinas did on these matters and he is the definition of the mainstream of Catholic thought.
Also, when discussing Lewis one should keep in mind that the abiding passion of Lewis' life was allegory. Not only are The Chronicles of Narnia an allegory, but his other major fictional series The Space Trilogy is also an allegory, his first major work of fiction The Pilgrim's Regress is obviously modeled on Bunyan's great allegorical narrative The Pilgrim's Progress, and his other works like Till We Have Faces and The Great Divorce are modeled on mythological and allegorical works of the past.
Lewis' professional career was as a premier scholar on allegorical literature of the Middle Ages and early Renaissance and he was one of the world's foremost experts on Sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia and Edmund Spenser's Faerie Queene which are respectively the longest and most elaborate works of allegory in prose and verse of the English Renaissance.
Lewis had an extremely allegorical bent of mind - it was his lifelong passion.
So it would be wrong to characterize Lewis' attachment to allegory as being inspired by his conversion to a liturgical church.
It might be more accurate to say that he chose a liturgical church because in it he found the freest field of play for his allegorical fancy.
I suppose that there are those who would say that to insist on the facticity of the supernatural phenomena described in the Bible and sacred tradition is to exhibit a lack of imagination. Actually, I have absolutely no objection to fancy and imagination whatsoever. I merely insist that when dealing with G-d, the Ultimate Truth, we are dealing with Ultimate Fact as well and that (considering G-d's omnipotence and the inerrancy of the scriptures) there is simply no need of dismissing them as allegories and accusing literalists of being inherent foes of poesy and imagination.
As a matter of fact, so strictly do I adhere to the Bard's dictum that "there is more on Heaven and earth, Horation, that is dreamt of in your philosophy" that I am open to cryptozoology (the real thing, not the bogus kind) and am fascinated by the idea of The Good People (I'm sure you understand). I once read Lewis' essay on the Longevi, as a matter of fact.
I maintain that at this particular time in history the liturgical churches have largely defaulted the supernatural phenomena of religion to allegory and that they exhibit this attitude to a greater extent than do Fundamentalist "low" churches. But then, I'm sure some would accuse the "low" churches of incipient "19th century positivism." At any rate no insult was intended toward you or your own faith and beliefs. Granted both you and I on occasion get really irritated and post something callous, but we are both only human.
Is it not somewhat ironic that it is the very people who constantly shout that "truth is one!" who insist on creating a scientific truth and a religious truth separate from each other?