I'll gladly admit to being really excited about The Chronicles of Narnia movies. I'm a total fantasy maven, and unlike The Lord of the Rings (books I found too ponderous as a child, and actually still do to this day) or Harry Potter (books I feel I'm just too old far; I can't get into them), I actually enjoyed C.S. Lewis's Narnia world-building exercie as a child. This past weekend, my wife and I decided to check out the film version of talking beavers and centaurs, and on the whole, the flick was real fine. It is certainly not The Lord of the Rings films. But Narnia was never Middle-Earth in anyway at all. Narnia is much more of a fable or myth, compared to Tolkien's herculean "historical" effort. So, like the books, the film version of Narnia is much lighter and fantastical, compared to the gritty realism of the Rings trilogy.
But what I'm actually more interested in thinking about is this whole Christian hubabaloo. In full disclouse, when I read the books for the first time in the 5th grade, I *totally* missed the Christian allegory (I'm just not that bright). It was only years later that I learned about it. While I've never revisited the books, I still remember them fondly despite the Christian streak in them. However, I was somewhat surprised to read that some people were quite upset that this movie is being marketed to Christians, and generally argue that Narnia represents all the bad parts of religion. I don't want to suggest that this is what *most* people think about the movie. But there does seem to be a lot of hand wringing over whether or not Narnia espouses the kind of militan, millennial Christianity that secular, humanist (and mostly liberal) folks are so worried about. In other words: Is Narnia part of the culture war? Is Narnia just the PG version of The Passion of the Christ? Does Narnia makes us believe in a simplistic world of Manichean black and white?
The long and short of it? No.
Polly Toynbee is one of the primary writers who seems to crying murder: that Lewis got Christianity all wrong, turned it militant, and ignored the idea of "Christ as Lamb." Which I think is sort of interesting. Really, the problem seems to be is that secular types (who, at least in the American context, are also going to primarily be liberals) are uncomfortable with the idea of a militant Jesus, or a militant Christianity. But I'm not sure that this characterization of Christ, or Christianity is fully accurate.
Now, obviously Christ wasn't raising army and was not an advocate of violence. But this is *not* the same thing as avoiding conflict. In fact, Christ seems to have a really strong sense of right and wrong (duh - he is the Messiah.... assuming you're Christian). More than just an abstract feeling, Christianity is an ethos that people are intended to act upon. Thus, Christ hassles the moneychangers in the Temple. Similarly, Christ doesn't *stop* preaching or *avoid* Roman troops. He keeps causing trouble.
In fact, activist Christianity is a pretty common idea. Gandhi, heavily influenced by Christian ideas, embraced the idea of *conflict* as central. Thus, it may be that the universe is just - but that only means we will be successful if we strive for justice. It does not guarantee us justice without conflict. Now, this conflict should not be violent for Gandhi. But, Gandhi was never a "pacifist" (by his own insistence) - he believed in fighting. Martin Luther King, Jr, influenced by Hegel and Gandhi both, also openly embraced the idea of (non-violent) conflict as inherent to achieving justice. Now, the King or Gandhi version of Christianity do not necessarily have to be the *only* or *ultimate* intepretations of Christian militantcy. But, the simple assertion that Christianity avoids struggle is simply wrong.
The actual problem seems to be a misunderstanding between a personal moral code and a broader social agenda. This is something that the Christian theologian Reinhold Neibuhr accutely understood. Neibuhr started off as a pacifist. Following WWII, he realized that some evils could not be accpeted, and people must work in concert against them. This is importnat. Christianity works "best" as a personal ethos - a sense of what is right and wrong in the world. We can generally see some good things in it: helping the poor, humility, avoiding hurting others, reciprocity and so on.
Yet, Christianity faces a problem when it faces injustice or "evil" on a grand scale. Hitler is the easy example. We could also consider various ethnic conflict in Europe, poverty in Africa, or political oppression in the Middle East or China. The tension is that Christianity is telling us to give of ourselves, to do the right thing .... but just what do we do in these cases? In fact it might involve conflict - perhaps even violence (in other word: some variation on a just war, to borrow from another Christian - St. Augustine - now). Thus, being a good Christian might not be such an easy thing after all .... It might involve this kind of action. This is not necessarily militancy, but it is a more aggressive Christian action. Certainly, then, such dedication and such choices do not seem fully out of line with Christian ideals, as some attempt to paint Christianity as a religion solely of pacificism.
In fact, what is interesting about Lewis is that he is also writing in the wake of WWII (in fact, the children in the book are actaully sent to safety to avoid bombing raids). The book just isn't about Christianity, or even violence. It's a book about virtue - about courage, honesty, duty, and loyalty. And I am hard pressed to see how these are *bad* in any way, shape or form. Sure, to follow without reflection is a problem. But so it being weak willed and frightened. I hate to say it, but sometimes I really get the feeling that the left is just becoming, well, *weenies* as they avoid making judgements or decisions. Struggle, conflict, and righteous anger are not *bad* things. They need to be directed and controlled, certainly. But sometimes too much nuance, too much sensitivity - these are bad things that can cost you in a struggle.
So did Lewis get Christianity all wrong? I just don't really see how. Lewis uses a metaphor to start opening a discussion about sacrifice and courage (and to note, these are values that are by no means solely the providence of Christianity). Sure, there's violence ... but who wants to read an adventure story with meetings and dialogues? The story works as a fable - we don't have to mimic Aslan and eat people to fight evil. But we could learn *the lesson* and apply it to our given context. Does Lewis simplify morality? Sure. But what children's story doesn't? Morality starts from somewhere - some basic tenet (the categorical imperative anyone? The Golden Rule?). It's only with time, experience, and sophistication that we begin to untangle what really is right and just. I mean these aren't *easy* questions, and it seems foolish to start in the middle ("its all grey!").
So what? Well. I dunno. Mostly, I just want to defend Narnia. Not everything that focuses on courage or sacrifice is a right-wing plot to ruin America. It could be that some of the values are really valuable to free society. More and more, I feel like the secular left needs to stop freaking out so much, and really start talking about alternatives. We need to start thinking about what we believe in, and what values a free society should have. And no, they will not *all* involve hugging.
But what I'm actually more interested in thinking about is this whole Christian hubabaloo. In full disclouse, when I read the books for the first time in the 5th grade, I *totally* missed the Christian allegory (I'm just not that bright). It was only years later that I learned about it. While I've never revisited the books, I still remember them fondly despite the Christian streak in them. However, I was somewhat surprised to read that some people were quite upset that this movie is being marketed to Christians, and generally argue that Narnia represents all the bad parts of religion. I don't want to suggest that this is what *most* people think about the movie. But there does seem to be a lot of hand wringing over whether or not Narnia espouses the kind of militan, millennial Christianity that secular, humanist (and mostly liberal) folks are so worried about. In other words: Is Narnia part of the culture war? Is Narnia just the PG version of The Passion of the Christ? Does Narnia makes us believe in a simplistic world of Manichean black and white?
The long and short of it? No.
Polly Toynbee is one of the primary writers who seems to crying murder: that Lewis got Christianity all wrong, turned it militant, and ignored the idea of "Christ as Lamb." Which I think is sort of interesting. Really, the problem seems to be is that secular types (who, at least in the American context, are also going to primarily be liberals) are uncomfortable with the idea of a militant Jesus, or a militant Christianity. But I'm not sure that this characterization of Christ, or Christianity is fully accurate.
Now, obviously Christ wasn't raising army and was not an advocate of violence. But this is *not* the same thing as avoiding conflict. In fact, Christ seems to have a really strong sense of right and wrong (duh - he is the Messiah.... assuming you're Christian). More than just an abstract feeling, Christianity is an ethos that people are intended to act upon. Thus, Christ hassles the moneychangers in the Temple. Similarly, Christ doesn't *stop* preaching or *avoid* Roman troops. He keeps causing trouble.
In fact, activist Christianity is a pretty common idea. Gandhi, heavily influenced by Christian ideas, embraced the idea of *conflict* as central. Thus, it may be that the universe is just - but that only means we will be successful if we strive for justice. It does not guarantee us justice without conflict. Now, this conflict should not be violent for Gandhi. But, Gandhi was never a "pacifist" (by his own insistence) - he believed in fighting. Martin Luther King, Jr, influenced by Hegel and Gandhi both, also openly embraced the idea of (non-violent) conflict as inherent to achieving justice. Now, the King or Gandhi version of Christianity do not necessarily have to be the *only* or *ultimate* intepretations of Christian militantcy. But, the simple assertion that Christianity avoids struggle is simply wrong.
The actual problem seems to be a misunderstanding between a personal moral code and a broader social agenda. This is something that the Christian theologian Reinhold Neibuhr accutely understood. Neibuhr started off as a pacifist. Following WWII, he realized that some evils could not be accpeted, and people must work in concert against them. This is importnat. Christianity works "best" as a personal ethos - a sense of what is right and wrong in the world. We can generally see some good things in it: helping the poor, humility, avoiding hurting others, reciprocity and so on.
Yet, Christianity faces a problem when it faces injustice or "evil" on a grand scale. Hitler is the easy example. We could also consider various ethnic conflict in Europe, poverty in Africa, or political oppression in the Middle East or China. The tension is that Christianity is telling us to give of ourselves, to do the right thing .... but just what do we do in these cases? In fact it might involve conflict - perhaps even violence (in other word: some variation on a just war, to borrow from another Christian - St. Augustine - now). Thus, being a good Christian might not be such an easy thing after all .... It might involve this kind of action. This is not necessarily militancy, but it is a more aggressive Christian action. Certainly, then, such dedication and such choices do not seem fully out of line with Christian ideals, as some attempt to paint Christianity as a religion solely of pacificism.
In fact, what is interesting about Lewis is that he is also writing in the wake of WWII (in fact, the children in the book are actaully sent to safety to avoid bombing raids). The book just isn't about Christianity, or even violence. It's a book about virtue - about courage, honesty, duty, and loyalty. And I am hard pressed to see how these are *bad* in any way, shape or form. Sure, to follow without reflection is a problem. But so it being weak willed and frightened. I hate to say it, but sometimes I really get the feeling that the left is just becoming, well, *weenies* as they avoid making judgements or decisions. Struggle, conflict, and righteous anger are not *bad* things. They need to be directed and controlled, certainly. But sometimes too much nuance, too much sensitivity - these are bad things that can cost you in a struggle.
So did Lewis get Christianity all wrong? I just don't really see how. Lewis uses a metaphor to start opening a discussion about sacrifice and courage (and to note, these are values that are by no means solely the providence of Christianity). Sure, there's violence ... but who wants to read an adventure story with meetings and dialogues? The story works as a fable - we don't have to mimic Aslan and eat people to fight evil. But we could learn *the lesson* and apply it to our given context. Does Lewis simplify morality? Sure. But what children's story doesn't? Morality starts from somewhere - some basic tenet (the categorical imperative anyone? The Golden Rule?). It's only with time, experience, and sophistication that we begin to untangle what really is right and just. I mean these aren't *easy* questions, and it seems foolish to start in the middle ("its all grey!").
So what? Well. I dunno. Mostly, I just want to defend Narnia. Not everything that focuses on courage or sacrifice is a right-wing plot to ruin America. It could be that some of the values are really valuable to free society. More and more, I feel like the secular left needs to stop freaking out so much, and really start talking about alternatives. We need to start thinking about what we believe in, and what values a free society should have. And no, they will not *all* involve hugging.
VIEW 14 of 14 COMMENTS
Your journal is pretty interesting today. I would suggest, though, that the Left still has a lot of militant members. We could distinguish between a "liberal Left" and a "radical or Socialist Left" and then the liberal Left would be much less more in accordance with your analysis above.