Sponsors

Narnia Isn't What the Religious Right Claims Email Print

By Tom Ball
12/28/2005 04:15:30 PM EST

I love Jesus! Not as the savior of humanity, but as one of the most powerful and influential liberals of all time.

That's why I lose it when I see the fundamentalist conservative 'Christian' movement in America using his likeness and reputation to further their decidedly un-Jesus-like agenda.

Most recently, our friendly neighborhood fanatics have taken to promoting a movie, the Chronicles of Narnia, claiming that its popularity is evidence that their brand of 'Christian pop culture' is taking over America.

If these were 'true' Christian principles at issue here, I doubt I would mind much since they'd naturally consist of such things as love, understanding, peace, good will and the like.

Unfortunately, the religious right has consistently advanced 'false' Christian principles -- maddeningly heavy on prejudice, intolerance, hatred, heavy and frequent judgment, and various sorts of lethal vengeance.

Regardless, after taking my kids to see the holiday flick -- a recent tradition in our household -- I can report, to my delighted surprise, that Narnia seems more like the 5th installment in the Harry Potter series (ironically demonized by the religio-wingnuts for its 'anti-Christian' setting) than a rehashing of the conservative Christian spiel.

In fact, you drop a few keywords from the movie and you're left with a good ol' fashioned,  simple-yet-compelling story of 'good vs. evil'.

So why all the winger Christian hype?

First, it should be noted that there are some legitimate reasons that Chronicles is touted as propping the 'Christian message' -- not the least of which is that C. S. Lewis intended the story to be a 'Christian' Tale. There are also sporadic, if disjointed references to various biblical points. Fortunately, they're only momentarily in your face.

Anyway, if it weren't for the politically oriented publicity of the movie and the few overt biblical references that I just described, the 'story of Jesus' aspect of Narnia never would've occurred to me -- and I grew up as Red and conservatively Christian as the worst of them.

Just take a look at some of the more Christian-implied aspects of the film and decide for yourself whether the film is deserving of the wingnuts' claims:

Prophecy: The nuts always cite various prophecies as reason for your (and my) eternal damnation and there was a prophecy in the movie (that four humans would free Narnia from the rule of the White Witch). Was it this use of a bible-like 'prophecy' that sent the theo-crackpots into a tizzy? Nope. Couldn't be... cause the prophecy in the movie actually came true. Anyone who has ever read the bible knows full well that the bible has a prophecy 'hit-rate' of absolute zero.

Dominion over Animals: Was it 'man's dominion over animals' that gave Fundies the idea that Narnia was promoting their message? Well, it is true that all... er... most of the non-human creatures in the Narnia bowed down to the humans, but the overpowering hero of this flick was a Lion -- not a human. So there goes the whole 'humans over animals' thing.

Resurrection: Was it the Lion's death and subsequent 'resurrection' that caused the hype? Hmmmm. I don't know if such a thing really singles out this story as a 'Christian' tale. I can think of a number of far less Christian-hyped movies that also involved a 'resurrection' of sorts: Jason in  Friday the 13th, That little creature in Disney's The Sword and the Stone, the Alien in Alien Resurrection, and even the pseudo-resurrections of all those 'petrified' people in Harry Potter II -- the Chamber of Secrets. So that aspect doesn't really scream, "Hey, Check out this 'Christian movie."

Adam and Eve: In the movie, humans in Narnia are oft referred to as the offspring of Adam and Eve. But hey, this is old testament stuff and could certainly refer to Judaism and thus, does not refer specifically to Christianity.

Sacrifice for others' sins: The Lion does indeed sacrifice himself for the sins of another (very Jesus-like) albeit with the knowledge that a technicality overlooked by the witch will spare his life in the end (uhhh. Smart, but not so Jesus-like). In any event, the overarching premise is a truly noble facet of 'true' (i.e. liberal Christianity) but has absolutely nothing to do with conservative religiosity IMO (using as my reference the right's fervor for war without personal sacrifice, and tax cuts to the wealthy -- that is assuming that our 'bible-study' president is any indication of the broader conservative religious movement.)

Talking Beavers: Perhaps it was the biblical talking beavers (Narnia has two of them). The bible is rife with these chatty, wise-ass little rodents. Wouldn't be a bible story without talking beavers.

To its credit, Narnia does provide a message reminiscent of some of the 'true' principles of Christianity -- remaining notably devoid of the prejudicial, judgemental, God-vengeful filth often purported by the religious right-wing in America today.

So how they find themselves entitled to claim the movie as supporting their worldview is absolutely beyond me.

If there is a message about Jesus in this flick, it's that he was a caring, self-sacrificing, understanding, and tolerant being. In short, he fought against everything that today's conservative Christians seem to support.


KEYWORDS: , , ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< Culture Shocks & Countering the Religious Right | Sorry to Rain On the Parade, But... >
 Display:
Narnia Isn't What the Religious Right Claims | 15 comments (15 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Subtle as a scream (5.00 / 2)
They "know" Narnia is about Jesus because they've been told it's about Jesus.  They know Harry Potter is evil because they've been told he's evil.

The fact that you could as easily map Christian themes on Potter as you can Naria is beside the point.  These folks answer to a higher authority -- like Dobson, Robertson, or Falwell.

by Devilstower on 12/28/2005 11:25:33 PM EST

So true (none / 1)
the 'Dobson, Robertson, or Falwell' know that their 'blind faith' followers will lap up any BS they dish out.

And their more overt polital counterparts know that they can take advantage of this dependent mentality (of the 'blind faith' followers) when its time to secure the base vote.

Political Cortex -- Brain Food for the Body Politic

by Tom Ball on 12/29/2005 08:11:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks for posting this...saves a few wrinkles (none / 1)
from the wince effect anytime Narnia is seen or heard.

And I agree with Devilstower about the winger Christians (not the real? ones) not knowing thing. Visit Freeperville for some entertaining (but only for a few minutes) definitions of moral relativism or rule of law. They can respout what they hear, but not in context of what they say. Wierd.

All it takes to fly is to hurl yourself at the ground... and miss. (Douglas Adams)

by scoophound on 12/29/2005 01:03:35 AM EST

Freeperville (none / 0)
can be both entertaining and insightful (intot he 'minds' of the wingnuts) -- but only in small doses.

Political Cortex -- Brain Food for the Body Politic

by Tom Ball on 12/29/2005 08:12:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks from me too (none / 0)
I was getting sick of hearing about the movie as well. Now I might actually go see it to I can add to your refutation.

by Embolden on 12/29/2005 08:19:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I read somewhere (none / 1)
that the new strategy of the religious right is going to be to spin as many pieces of entertainment as they can in favor of 'supporting Christian pop culture'.

Apparently, Chronicles of Narnia is only the beginning. They want everyone to feel that everything they do and experience is a result the US being a "Christian Nation".

by Embolden on 12/29/2005 08:17:25 AM EST

They can't just go and watch a movie and relax (none / 0)
for God's sake? :)

All it takes to fly is to hurl yourself at the ground... and miss. (Douglas Adams)

by scoophound on 12/29/2005 08:26:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
T'would be (none / 1)
a sin;)

Political Cortex -- Brain Food for the Body Politic

by Tom Ball on 12/29/2005 09:03:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The Sinful CInema (none / 0)
My roommate in college belonged to the Church of the Nazarene, who really do believe it's a sin to go to the movies.  Of course, ultimately I did manage to act as the voice of temptation and get him to visit the fifty-cent theater they offered on campus.  First movie he ever saw: Texas Chainsaw Massacre.  Clearly, I am as evil as my screen name would suggest.

Years after college, he came to visit along with his even stricter wife.  She lectured my wife on the subject of how women should never cut their hair, or wear makeup, or wear pants, or listen to rock n' roll music.  However, when she found out we had one of those newfangled VCRs, she spent the whole visit running back and forth to the video store, renting every movie she could find.  The church, you see, had made no rule about VCRs.

by Devilstower on 12/29/2005 09:39:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Aha! (none / 0)
Life by technicality. Perfect.

This reminds me of many of the religious traditions that I've been exposed to having a Christian upbringing and a Jewish wife.

for example, on passover, practitioners of Judaism are not supposed to eat wheat (please correct me if I'm wrong) nevertheless, a host of cakes and breads are available that offer substitutes for that ingredient.

So the cakes and breads are consumed sans wheat. But the point of that symbolism is eliminated by have the same food with a wheat substitute.

The point to the 'no wheat' symbolism was that the foods available at the time contained wheat, and thus, on certain days, those same foods should be avoided.

On a technicality, we can still enjoy the same foods without the wheat as long as we abandon the symbolism that required the avoidance of wheat in the first place.

Again, life by technicality. The examples exist in all manner of standardized orgainizations -- religious or not. Everyone wants to live their life. If you offer them a loophole, then 'meaning' is secondary.

Phew. Does that make any sense?

Political Cortex -- Brain Food for the Body Politic

by Tom Ball on 12/29/2005 12:22:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Christians (not just winger Christians) (none / 0)
recognize the biblical allusions because of the clear parallels.  In case there were any doubts, CS Lewis gave an interview years ago wherein he said he wrote the story to make the Christian story accessible to people who won't go near a bible. So not only were winger Christians told, but everyone was told, and by the author himself.

I'm not quite sure why the author of this diary is singling out winger Christians since it is fairly easy for anyone familiar with Christianity, whether they are a Christian or not, to recognize the Christian themes in Lewis' book.

Most of the bolded items seem like searches for debunkable strawmen.  The first one about prophecy requires comment. "Anyone who has ever read the bible knows full well that the bible has a prophecy 'hit-rate' of absolute zero."  No, anyone who has read the bible knows full well that the bible has a great hit rate, in fact, such a great hit rate that some critics wonder if Jesus deliberately lived his life to fulfill bible prophecy in order to fool his contemporaries into thinking he was the real messiah.

by Robin Abernathy on 12/29/2005 03:35:45 PM EST

First... (none / 0)
The bible has a zero hit rate. Period.

The primary issue that I have with the bible (and other religious texts) is that, as historical documents, they are left wanting.

They are rife with conflicting passages, revisions, interpretations -- and modified interpretations, and worse, that passages were interpreted and translated to fit the events, and worst of all -- there were after-the-fact additions to prior written text.

(Frankly, from a scientific perspective, most religious texts offer little in the way of 'proof' for anything. Maybe that's why fundamentalists abhor science.)

And would Jews consider Christ the fulfillment of these prophecies?

Thus far I've seen no attempts at biblical 'prophecy' that have survived a rigorous critique.

An obvious retort to this comment is that you cannot apply a scientific analysis to a religious text. You must simply 'believe'.

To add some context, I am a very spiritual person, and I understand that the success of a scientific analysis is not necessary for something to be correct. In fact, it is near impossible to 'prove' one way or another whether the prophecies of ancient times truly came to fruition in a legitimate chronology.

Political Cortex -- Brain Food for the Body Politic

by Tom Ball on 12/29/2005 03:43:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't have time right now (none / 0)
to write a lengthy essay on biblical prophecy.  I will say that critics have often debunked prophecy by claiming that the prophecy was written after the event, yet providing no evidence of the claim except that since the prophecy was fulfulled it must have been written after the event prophesied.

Even leaving aside the messianic prophesies, there are a number of historical prophecies to be dealt with throughout the Old Testament, prophecies that Jews (as well as Christians acknowledge).

I would not say that all fundamentalists abhor science; I would say that some certainly do.  

by Robin Abernathy on 12/29/2005 03:53:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
With all due respect (none / 0)
Ancient prophecies fulfilled will never be 'proven' by other dubiously sourced thousands-of-years old documents. There is simply no way to determine the true nature and absolute chronology of writings vs. events.

In fact, as much respect as I have for Jesus, there is no absolute proof that he ever really existed. You simply have to believe.

Political Cortex -- Brain Food for the Body Politic

by Tom Ball on 12/30/2005 09:30:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I guess then that the historian, Josephus, (none / 0)
made Jesus up out of whole cloth.

by Robin Abernathy on 01/05/2006 12:00:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Narnia Isn't What the Religious Right Claims | 15 comments (15 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
 Display: