Narnia and it's place in the struggle of two competing Christianities

[sophiaserpentia]

So, we are planning to see the Narnia movie this weekend.

I've been thinking about a point chipuni made a couple of days ago:

For most of the book, Peter, Susan, and Lucy are passive. ... [U]ntil Aslan shows up, they can do nothing really good. Although they finally get to act in the final third of the book, fighting the forces of the White Queen, they aren't successful until Aslan comes with his army. ... [T]his Christian allegory says that whatever we do without Christ isn't good or successful. But doesn't the book also imply passivism? Whatever we do matters little: Aslan will fix it.

This point has stuck with me. My research has suggested that throughout history there have been (at least) two competing strands of interpretation within Christianity -- one which tells people that they are hopelessly depraved and that they are utterly dependent on Christ for salvation, versus one that tells us that a better life is in our own hands and when we take on that work we are on God's side, and God is on ours. I'd say the Eastern Orthodox notion of theosis falls into the latter category, though this is more of a spiritual emphasis than a social one.

This debate has raged for centuries without resolution because it boils down to the way in which one reads the text and reflects on tradition. It's amazing that many people can read the same text and see different meanings in it, but there you have it: the same words mean different things and hold different degrees of significance for different people.

But of these two views, which is more hopeful? It is worthwhile to ask which of the two views above is more likely to inspire one to see the value in working earnestly for a better world and a better society? Which is more likely to inspire confidence in oneself as a valuable agent of hope and positive change? Not IMO the one which tells us to be passive and wait for Jesus to do all the work.

A day or so before, someone (can't remember who, you're invited to come forward) posted a link to Polly Toynbee's disapproving atheist commentary on Narnia:

[H]ere in Narnia is the perfect Republican, muscular Christianity for America - that warped, distorted neo-fascist strain that thinks might is proof of right. I once heard the famous preacher Norman Vincent Peale in New York expound a sermon that reassured his wealthy congregation that they were made rich by God because they deserved it. The godly will reap earthly reward because God is on the side of the strong. This appears to be CS Lewis's view, too. In the battle at the end of the film, visually a great epic treat, the child crusaders are crowned kings and queens for no particular reason. Intellectually, the poor do not inherit Lewis's earth.

from 'Narnia represents everything that is most hateful about religion'

Again, here we have another debate within Christianity, intractable for the same reason as given above: Jesus the Prince of Peace vs. Jesus who brings not peace but a sword. Peace outweighs the sword by 95%-to-5% or so, to judge by attention dedicated to either by Jesus, but the one or two passages of Jesus with a sword, emphasized highly enough, can apparently be claimed to outweigh all the talk of loving one's enemies.

But even the sword can mean something entirely different if it is used to champion the downtrodden against a cruel oppressor, vs. when it is used by a majority to bend people to their will by fear. Which slant it will have in the movie remains to be seen. Overall, with regards to the movie i am not in a position yet to say whether or not i agree with Toynbee's assessment.

Comments

[liminalia.livejournal.com]

And then there's Lewis' attitude towards women, which has been noted by many--all mature women are evil, and when Susan hits puberty and starts wearing nylons and lipstick, she's denied return to Narnia.

Neil Gaiman had a problem with this, and wrote a short story called "The problem of Susan" to redress it.

From a NYT article:
"Then there's the unfortunate business with Susan, the second-oldest of the Pevensies, who near the end of the last volume is denied salvation merely because of her fondness for nylons and lipstick - because she has reached puberty, in other words, and has become sexualized. This passage in particular has set off Pullman and other critics (and has caused the fantasy writer Neil Gaiman to publish a kind of payback scenario, in which Susan has grown up to be a distinguished professor, not unlike Lewis, and in which for good measure Aslan performs earth-shaking oral sex on the witch)."

[firebirdgrrl.livejournal.com]

Oh my-I must read that story:)
(There is one thing that trips me up in the "Susan leaves Narnia because of sexuality" idea; the first King and Queen of Narnia were a cab driver and his wife, King Frank and Queen Helen--so,while Lewis certainly has quite a few chips on his shoulder, it doesn't seem quite that simple to me--it's well worth noting, of course, but it seems like there's a lot going on that isn't just Susan)
I think the allegory is all about Mithras anyway:)

[witchchild]

Where can one find this story?

For that matter, someday I am going to read Narnia again. I think when I was a kid I only did LWW.

[liminalia.livejournal.com]

In an anthology entitled Flights, edited by Al Sarrantonio, Roc, 2004.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

I thought it was more about growing up and leaving fantasy behind myself - later in the series he tells some of the other children they are not coming back because they are too old, both boys and girls. In my own weird screwed upness, I have decided I shall always believe in elves and witches and faries instead of saying I'm "too mature" for any of that. *twinkle*

[collie13.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear. If "growing up" requires becoming staid, unhappy, and boring, then I shall remain a child at heart as well. ;)