Narnia a cause of nausea?
I'm not a movie critic, but I really enjoyed it. I thought the acting was well done, the effects were great, and the film really seemed to "work" in all aspects. It is, in some regards, a movie for children, but I was very entertained and felt like it was as good as or better than most movies I would typically go to see. There are much better reviews out there, so if that's what you're after, I would recommend going somewhere else.
The thing I have been most interested in is seeing the reaction of the "secular" world to this film. And, as expected, there has been a considerable amount of ink (or pixels if you prefer) devoted to exposing this movie as a hateful, bigoted, Christian left-hook to the sensibilities of every open-minded, tolerant soul, err, person who goes to see it.
You can read one such article here.
The author, Polly Toynbee, suggests the audience bring along their own sick bag because "Narnia represents everything that is most hateful about religion." In my mind, that would probably be a movie about flying airplanes into buildings or cutting off a person's head with a kitchen knife while saying "God is great!? all in the name of a "peaceful and respectful religion." But, strangely enough, that's now what she was writing about. The biggest offense in the movie (and Christianity) is this:
Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to? Poor child Edmund, to blame for everything, must bear the full weight of a guilt only Christians know how to inflict, with a twisted knife to the heart.
She goes on to tell us why this is so offensive:
Without an Aslan, there is no one here but ourselves to suffer for our sins, no one to redeem us but ourselves: we are obliged to settle our own disputes and do what we can. We need no holy guide books, only a very human moral compass. Everyone needs ghosts, spirits, marvels and poetic imaginings, but we can dowell without an Aslan.
Unfortunately, her statements are nonsense that even a child would recognize as foolishness, especially her point about needing "only a very human moral compass." That sounds cute, and I'm sure it's fit for discussion among hippies and first graders in public schools, but it's pure and utter nonsense. (Incidentally, a lot of my opinion of such gibberish is informed by C.S. Lewis' book, Mere Christianity).
Apparently her moral compass instructs her that movies should not have any religious or spiritual content in them, for fear that others might be offended by such abuse of their "bully pulpit." Perhaps that is "true for her," but not for me. I happen to like movies such as Fiddler on the Roof, Schindler's List, O Brother, Where Art Thou, Sister Act, and a few others. And, that may not be the only point in which my moral compass differs from that of Ms. Toynbee.
My very human moral compass might also instruct me to kill journalists who disagree with me about the appropriateness of spiritual themes in movies. So, I would be obliged to kill Ms. Toynbee in order to follow my moral compass. Of course, she would probably object to that, telling me that I have no right to do such a thing. She would declare that it is not right to kill people, especially her. In short, she would appeal to some other standard of right and wrong that was somehow more authoritative than mine or hers.
She would also have to assume that I would agree with her that such an authoritative "moral code" existed and that it could trump our own personal opinions of right or wrong. If not, her arguments would be in vain because I would still be under the authority of my own compass and would therefore have to take her life.
Of course, I wouldn't do that. I do actually believe that there is a higher standard of morality than what I feel is right or wrong. I am guessing that Ms. Toynbee would disagree, as her article states. However, I would have to point out that her very assessment of the movie relies on the idea that some sort of right/wrong, good/evil standard exists by which things can be compared and measured. I could go even further and point out that there is no such thing as a good or a bad movie, or even a concept of good or bad, if we are all to be guided by our very human moral compasses.
The Bible says that man's heart is deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9), and that man is prideful and chooses to go his own way rather than bow to God's authority in his life (Isaiah 53:6). Sound familiar? The author of this article is saying that we should all listen to our hearts, and follow our own moral compass. The whole idea of "guilt" or "responsibility" for our actions is nonsense. We don't need redemption. We don't need a savior. We don't need an Aslan.
And yet, we all realize, on some level, that we've rebelled against our creator and are deserving of punishment. We also realize, like Edmund, that there is nothing we can do to "undo" our rebellion. Being a Christian isn't "a way to avoid humans taking responsibility" for our actions. It is the exact opposite. In fact, faith in Christ always starts with the realization that we are accountable to God for our actions and a deep despair at our inability to do anything to make up for our deficiencies. It is only after we've come to this point that we can then trust in Christ and his sacrificial death on our behalf.
The redemptive story in the movie is beautiful to anyone who knows what I'm talking about. To others, such as Ms. Toynbee, it is disgusting largely because it insults their opinion of themselves. Ms. Toynbee doesn't believe that she needs such a savior, because she believes that there is no standard of morality for her to conform to, much less punishment for transgressing it. I don't mind her believing that, I just wish she wouldn't try to force her beliefs on me. It makes me sick.
RSS 2.0
