I caught the late show of Narnia last night. Paid full price. Worth it without question.
The unfortunate thing for Narnia is that it will inevitably be compared to Lord of the Rings. It can't quite stand up to that comparison. The main difference is that the Narnia stories are really intended for children, whereas the LOTR tales are written without an age group in mind. Thus, Narnia doesn't carry the same terrible feeling of impending doom or massive relief at the escape from doom.
One of the primary factors that makes Narnia so much less threatening is that we see so much of the villain, the evil queen. In LOTR, the ultimate villain is always beyond our grasp. So ancient, dark, and terrible, one can only strive in near blindness to prevail on faith. Here, the Queen is bad, but quite manageable by comparison. Like I say, Narnia is a children's story. They can't handle as much. In a way, Narnia is like The Passion of the Christ if you tried to make it endurable for kids. The result is entertaining, beautiful, reverent, and something that adults can enjoy, but is not FOR adults.
My distinction between what is for adults and children would possibly not hold up so well in an age where adults were not as world weary and jaded as we are. I suspect an audience from an earlier time would have all the violence and threat they would need to be pushed to the max by this film. That may be part of why C.S. Lewis wrote for children. They are still impressionable and in a good way.
Beautiful movie, but I think the story could have spent a little more time developing Edmund's treachery and the rights that it gave to the queen. Had they done so, I think the doom/relief level would have reached a more heightened level.
ReplyDeleteI'm waiting for King Kong. The reviews I've heard are so favorable, I'm wondering if it can possibly live up to the hype. After LOTR, I'm inclined to think Jackson can deliver.
ReplyDeleteHis argument is that by introducing the Christ resurrection story in the form of an obvious fable it may very well lead to more disbelief in the bible.
ReplyDeleteI believe there may be some truth to that. We (my wife and I) do not teach our kids the myth of "Santa Claus" or the "Easter Bunny."
Picture the conversation when our children are older: "No son, there is no Santa, no bunny, but there is a Messiah."
[Christianity] has absconded [pagan] rituals and holidays (Christmas, Christmas trees, Easter, etc.).
As a Christian, this bothers me. I don't think that God is glorified when Christians go looking for Easter eggs, or when they put Christmas trees in their houses.
The cultural pressure (within the Christian community) to partake in these holidays/rituals is tremendous.
I could go on ... but because this is off-topic, I'll stop here.
I think the more compelling point is that Aslan is a distinctly non-Christ like figure. Christ was deemed the "lamb of God." Aslan is literally a lion; a fierce and violent predator.
ReplyDeleteI think Lewis was very intentional with his selection of the lion. First of all, Jesus is actually called the 'Lion of Judah' (Rev 5:5). But even more so, I don't think Lewis liked the notion that Christianity was some sort of namby-pamby, soft-soap religion. (One of the central points of the Narnia story is the significance of courage in the Christian life.)
In his other writings, Lewis refers to the arrival of Jesus as an invasion of enemy territory. The point being that those who think that the Christian life is all about comfort and peace are in for a rude awakening.
Here's Luke 12:51:
"Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
Lewis anticipated the trend to wimp-out the faith into meaninglessness years ago. He's the one who said that you have to believe that Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic or the son of God - there is no middle ground postion.
Other than the ressurection idea it's hard to imagine two literary figures that are more opposed.
Maybe you've only been hearing part of the story. It's really not that obscure a concept in the faith...we even have songs about it ('He's the Lion and the Lamb').
Also in re: the lion imagery, there is some evidence from letters and journals that Lewis was very taken by the lion in fellow Inkling Charles Williams's The Place of the Lion. But I agree with your main point, Matt: anyone who thinks Christ is only a Lamb is missing not just half the story, but the essential Chestertonian insight that Christianity taken piecemeal seems on the surface to be nothing but internal contradiction; you must look at it whole to see the resolution of the paradox.
ReplyDeleteIn the spirit of holiday comity, I will acknowlege that Tlaloc and I finally agree on something. Jack Black does indeed rule.
I hasten to agree that we seem to have found a point of unity. Jack Black doth rule.
ReplyDeleteJack Black would be enough for me on his own - but the fact that he has a sidekick like Tenacious D is priceless.
ReplyDeleteSchool of Rock ... need I say more? :)
ReplyDeleteHowever as it is the book of revelation and hence dealing with the second coming that would seem to be a bit different.
ReplyDeleteThe Lion of Judah used in Revelation has prophetic Old Testament significance as well.
I suspect you are right, of course one could make the point that rather than change the religion to suit his desires maybe he should have found a religion that met his tastes better.
I think that the disconnect we're having here is our understanding of the battleground and what the ultimate end is in this 'fighting' version of Christianity.
Christians say that there is a rebellion going on in the world (and within each of us), and that we live in enemy territory. (You'll note that Jesus talks about Satan and describes him as the Prince of this world.) Resistance to the powers of the enemy requires the sort of discipline and courage that Lewis refers to, not because Jesus asks us to dominate the world by force of arms, but because we are engaged in a battle for souls (including our own).
This is where you find meaning from the verses you cited, we defer to others out of love and a desire for their ultimate well-being. But don't let those words confuse you; love sometimes requires a tough response to its intended recipient.
Except that Christ himself explicitly says it IS all about comforting the afflicted. Repeatedly.
No. For believers, we love our fellow man because he is loved by God, and when our lives have been transformed by Christ, we can’t help but do so. And by the way, we're not believers in order to receive comfort. Comfort, like happiness, is not something you will find if you look for it. We believe because we have pursued the truth - and at the end of that truth we find many things, including comfort.
[I'll be back for more later...]
I think what you are saying here (correct me if I'm wrong) is that all the fighting in Narnia is supposed to be a metaphor for the internal struggle over our own souls.
ReplyDeleteActually, I was referring more to Lewis’ other writings at the time. He uses the ‘battle/invasion’ illustration to give us a better sense of what is on the line in order to develop the appropriate sense of urgency and importance to our preparation and action. The New Testament is full of similar analogies.
It's a reasonable position but here's where I think it fails: Narnia ALSO has a struggle for souls in addition to the physical struggle.
My understanding of Narnia (I’ve only seen the movie – so I’m open to correction) is that all of life is engaged in this rebellion (represented by the vastness of the physical struggle), and we as individuals have our own role to play in it. The corruption of Edmund is a summarization of all of our stories, and describes how, why and what effect comes when we individually go wrong. It shows the insidious nature of sin and the power behind it. The trouble sin leads to, and the price that must be paid to overcome it.
It’s important to remember here that Narnia is a children’s story – an allegory – and is not the real thing. If it helps you picture the real thing, great. If not, leave it alone.
I don't see how this pertains to my statement that Christ explicitly and repeatedly says that the christian faith is all about comforting the afflicted.
Maybe it would help if I reset a moment here to your original question, which was that the lion seemed an odd choice for Jesus, and recap the logic behind Lewis' choice:
1) The bible in several places calls Jesus the Lion of Judah.
2) The lion represents kingship.
3) The lion's fierceness represents the will to resist the evil one.
4) You have described the lion as predatory, which I would suggest symbolizes the focus Jesus has on the sin in each of our lives - and his desire to root it out. (We believe that God is very personal and intentional in this way.)
5) The lion's strength overcomes the power of sin and the evil one.
The lamb-like statements you mentioned earlier are all important, but they are lion-like in the sense that they are part of the bizarre way that Jesus asks us to fight evil.
As for the imagery, I don't see a better option than the lion - and I think there are many good reasons for using it. But I think the primary issue you're having is this whole physical struggle imagery.
ReplyDeleteAgain, he's not focusing on how to fight - which is the nature of the items you mentioned - but rather that there actually is a fight going on that requires our attention, preparation and participation.
Like I said, if you don't like Narnia - no big deal. I just like to make sure we all comprehend the message.
Maybe there's an easier answer: Lions are cool.
ReplyDelete