Runaway Planet

MORE WEAK THEOLOGY FROM NARNIA CRITICS

Another batch of Narnia movie reviews today, another large dose of bad theology. I explained below what Carina Chocano of the LA Times got wrong in comparing Aslan, the messianic lion of the Narnia tales, to Jesus. Today Stephen Hunter of the Washington Post and Polly Toynbee of The Guardian do exactly the same thing. None of these writers seem to be able to see Jesus as a conquering warrior king. Hunter writes

the plot [C.S. Lewis] engineered for the first of his seven "Chronicles of Narnia" reenacts the march to Golgotha, the ugliness enacted thereupon, and the good news three days hence, when someone powerful arises and gives hope to a death-haunted world. However, in the role of Jesus Christ is a lion named Aslan who, no matter how holy he may be, is still a lion, and when he paws an enemy to the ground, he then bites its head off. That's pure big carnivore and a long way from Christ's admonition to turn the other cheek.

Adds Toynbee

Christ should surely be no lion (let alone with the orotund voice of Liam Neeson). He was the lamb, representing the meek of the earth, weak, poor and refusing to fight.

First of all, destroying the enemy in battle is absolutely consistent with the picture of Christ found  in the Bible (see previous post) and battle is bound to be gruesome. I'm not saying that the actual Christ is going to bite anyone's head off (although the Biblical images of the final battle are not exactly gentle), but how else would a lion (a symbolic, anthropomorphized Christ) battle?

Second, when Christ says "turn the other cheek", He is saying that in individual relationships (not on a cosmic or even governmental level), we are to let go of our pride and trust that God will ultimately execute justice. When we are wronged, we tend to get righteously indignant and want to give the other person "what they deserve" - our wrath. God logic in asking us not to do that is that He is the only one able to properly execute wrath. When we try to hand out justice, we are putting ourselves in a position that is God's alone.

Romans 12:19
Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord.

Third, Jesus is referred to as a lamb not because he was small and cuddly, but because He took the penalty for the sin of the world upon himself in the same way the passover lamb of Exodus did.

Fourth, Jesus didn't represent the meek, he was an example of meekness (which, by the way, is simply being obsessed with God rather than yourself, not being weak or wimpy) and preached that only those who are like him get into the kingdom (Matthew 5:5).

Fifth, Jesus is nowhere presented in the Bible as weak.

Finally, as for being poor, Jesus did not chase after worldly wealth and did say that the poor are in a more favorable position for entering the Kingdom because they see their need for God (Matthew 19:16-30, Luke 6:20), but as for "representing the poor" I'm not sure what Toynbee means or how that helps the point she is trying to make.

Jesus personal meekness and His teaching about turning the other cheek are not in conflict  with His clearly Biblical role as warrior king. Perhaps we should start handing out Bibles and holding theology classes for movie critics.

ASLAN NOT MEEK AND MILD ENOUGH TO BE JESUS?

Today's LA Times movie review of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe offers an interesting take on the story's clear messianic imagery. According to Carina Chocano, Aslan the lion can't really be considered a type of Jesus because Jesus would never fight bad guys.

If a scene featuring the torment and grisly execution of Aslan is meant to recall the crucifixion (the lion is eventually resurrected, thanks to the rules of the "deep magic" that governs Narnia), the other stuff [cute talking animals and a "furry, benevolent Jesus figure"] cancels it out. That is, unless Christianity has lately been amended to allow for the Christ figure in pitched battle against a witch, a Minotaur and evil dwarfs (the centaur, the faun and flying wildcats are on his side), which, these days, you never know.

She concludes the article

The story climaxes with a scary battle scene. No wonder that some might take it as religious instruction: It's a medieval vision of Christianity for another dark age, with the Christ figure as soldier and war as the way to make the world safe for Santa Claus. As a Christian primer, it's terrible. As a story, it's timeless.

It seems like Chocano needs to brush up on her theology, because Christ as warrior king is one of the preeminent themes of scripture. Christianity is anything but the cute, fuzzy, feel good religion that Chocano seems to think it is. It presents a picture of the universe that is in the midst of the exact same battle that engulfs Narnia in Lewis's Chronicles and it presents exactly the same solution: a redeemer that not only dies for the sins of others, but is resurrected and leads the forces of his kingdom to victory in battle.

Revelation 19:11-21

I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, "Come, gather together for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great."

Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army. But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

CLINT EASTWOOD, NIHILIST

Million Dollar Baby cleaned up at the Academy Awards last night in the wake of a cultural debate over it's euthanasia advocating plot. However, as Thomas Hibbs writes in an outstanding piece for NRO, the real  focus of Eastwood's movie is not how and when to die what is life like without God.

Beneath its surface, Million Dollar Baby, like Eastwood's previous film, Mystic River, entertains the question, "What if God does not exist?" In both films, the human condition is a barren landscape, a place dominated by amoral forces and marked by brutal indifference to human longing and suffering. Indeed, human life is, as Hobbes once bluntly described it, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Although it has a more traditional plot, Million Dollar Baby is as nihilistic as any of the films of Quentin Tarantino or David Lynch.

Make sure to read the rest of the article and I highly recommend Hibbs' book Shows About Nothing: Nihilism in Popular Culture from The Exorcist to Seinfeld as well.

FIGHTING THE DEVIL

Devil fighting has been getting a lot of press lately. Not only did Keanu Reaves' Constantine open last weekend, but we learned that the Vatican is making a concerted effort to train exorcists. According to the LA Times,

The Catholic church is facing a shortage that you might not have heard about: qualified exorcists.

Thursday about 100 priests stood, prayed for protection, then sat down to begin an eight-week study of how to distinguish and fight demonic possession.

The course at Rome's Regina Apostolorum, a prestigious pontifical university, represents the first time a Vatican-sanctioned study at this level has been dedicated to exorcism.

In Italy, the number of exorcists has soared over the past 20 years to between 300 and 400, church officials say. But they aren't enough to handle the avalanche of requests for help from hundreds of tormented people who believe they are possessed. In the United States, the shortage is even more acute.

One of the more interesting things about this story is that it lays bare people's worldview presuppositions. Many in the media have reacted to this effort with mocking condescension For example, I heard radio talk show host Bill Handel refer this morning to people who think they are possessed as "lunatics" (or something along those lines).

It is important to understand that this reaction is not usually based on any evidence or have any well thought out support. Instead it is based on an article of faith - a belief that says the universe is a closed system of cause and effect and made up of strictly matter. In other words, the mocking reactions are based on a blind trust in philosophical naturalism. There is no evidence for this belief - it is simply accepted. As such, conclusions reached based on this worldview are not as solid as they are made out to be.

For example, if a hurting person has symptoms that could be interpreted as legitimate demon activity, people who hold to naturalism never allow for that theory to be surfaced because they have already decided that can't be true. Not based on the evidence, or on good science, but on blind faith in their worldview.

As such, they immediately conclude that any problems must have some sort of psychological (biological) basis. (Notice that if only matter exists, there can be no real difference between psychology and biology in a naturalistic worldview - that is why drugs are described for psychological disorders.)

This is a real weakness in contemporary health care, and I, for one, applaud the Vatican for addressing people's needs at more than a surfacy, physical level. I think the evidence strongly suggests that angels and demons are real and that we do live in a supernatural battle zone. To ignore this theory based on nothing but blind faith seems to me the height of folly.

OSCAR NOMINATED PROPAGANDA

Maggie Gallagher on Million Dollar Baby:

Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby," which is nominated for seven of the statuettes, is an extraordinary movie that forces us to ask the question: How do you get liberal elites cheering a movie that lovingly reproduces every stereotype in the book about welfare mothers -- fat, lazy, good-for-nothing cheats?

Answer: Have the hero kill an invalid.

"Million Dollar Baby" portrays murder as the ultimate act of love, teaching us the crippled human being killed wants death, deserves death, is better off dead. How else to explain the look of almost sexual ecstasy on lovely Hillary Swank's face when Clint Eastwood finally agrees to kill her?

And it's not just Hollywood, of course -- audiences love the movie, too. I used to wonder how the Nazis readied normal Germans for legalized murder. Walking out of that dark movie theater, I don't wonder anymore. 

She goes on to offer a great critique of this William F. Buckley column, which calls for the Pope to go ahead and die.

MARILYN MANSON AS JESUS?

It looks like Marilyn Manson may be the next to play Jesus in the movies. According to In Touch magazine, Manson is scheduled to play a pot-smoking Jesus Christ in George Romero's new film Diamond Dead.

"The reason we thought Marilyn would be interesting [as Christ] is that we all see God in our own way," says producer Andrew Gaty. "So, it stands to reason that a rock 'n' roller would see God as a rock 'n' roller."

Gaty's comments reveal a culture wide problem in our approach to religion. It certainly is true that many people make God out to be whoever they want him to be, but that does not mean that they are all correct. I may see God as a rock 'n' roller, but that doesn't mean he is one. In the same way, I might see God as a big fluffy cloud, a cuddly teddy bear, a gray haired old wise man or a genie on a bottle, but if he is not, in fact, any of those things, than my beliefs are a waste of time. The same principle applies if I see God as a wrathful killer of infidel Americans and Jews. If God is not that, no belief of mine is going to change it.

The bottom line is that we are not in charge of who God is. He simply is. It is not our duty to conform Him into our image. Rather, we need to be changed into His.

HOLLYWOOD'S GOD

I got a kick out of this weeks People Magazine cover story on faith in Hollywood. By chronically the religious practices of several stars, the writers tried to make the point that even in supposedly pagan Tinseltown there is plenty of spirituality. Well, that may be, but there isn't a lot of truth seeking. Most of the celebrities interviewed were involved in whatever fad they happened to be in not becasue they thought it true, but becasue it "did someting for them." Madonna, for instance, has gone from Catholicism to Hindusim through yoga and is now into Kabbalah. Of course, shopping around for a faith that "works" is not limited to Hollywood - that is how most of the country approaches it as well, unforunately.

By the way, the quotes in this piece are gems, from the boldly blasphemous studio exec: "The primary religion practiced in Hollywood is money We do not hesitate to wroship false idols. If religion sells, we're going to do it." to the hilarious John Travolta, in response to a charge from former members that Scientology (one of the nuttiest cults around) is a mind-controlling cult: "Give us a break. Being the bold personalities we are, do you honestly think we'd let ourselves be controlled?"

THE MORMON PASSION

One of the major draws of Mel Gibson's Passion seems to have been the emotional effect it has had on people. Journalists have recorded again and again how people have left the theater crying. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing, but as I argue below (see Feb 28 post), the important issue with the movie is whether or not it is true.

I was reminded of that point this morning as I read about the new Book of Mormon Movie.. It recounts the (fictional, I am convinced) journey of the leaders of the lost tribes of Israel to America 600 years before Christ. Although not in the numbers of The Passion, people are seeing this movie and yup, you guessed it, they are "leaving the theater in tears." It is a really moving experience for them. Misleading, but very moving.

NO PLAY-DOUGH JESUS

Here is a great commentary about Jesus and The Passion, from the LA Times no less (free subscription required).

"HE WILL CRUSH YOUR HEAD..."

Perhaps my favorite part of The Passion was in the Garden of Gethsemene when Jesus stomps the serpent's head. Awsome allusion to Genesis 3:15 and one of the only images in the movie that showed the fuller picture of Jesus. He isn't just the meek and mild brunt of humiliation - He is also the victorious warrior King who will come again in the clouds and before whom we all will bow.