![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldPolly Toynbee's scathing treatment of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe and C.S. Lewis' Narnia has to be read. The core of her critique lies in her hostility to the sort of religion favoured by Lewis.
Even though I remain fond of the Narnia series, even though I probably will see this movie, I have to agree with the core of Toynbee's argument. A Christianity that does nothing but buttress the established order justified only by claims of authority isn't very attractive to me. Christianity's true power rather lies in its potential to radically transform social relations at all levels and between all levels, not in simple displays of unexplainable power. As it happens, this likely will be a non-issue. What's going to be of greater interest, I think, will be the necessarily related questions of whether or not other Narnia books will be filmed, and if so, what role will The Horse and His Boy play? Books which feature brave young men trying to escape a brutal empire in the southern deserts populated by misogynistic, mustached, turban-dwelling men who (it is revealed later) worship an avatar of Satan have an obvious negative resonance. Lewis wasn't a fan of ecumenicism, it seems.
Tolkien hated Narnia: the two dons may have shared the same love of unquestioning feudal power, with worlds of obedient plebs and inferior folk eager to bend at the knee to any passing superior white persons - even children; both their fantasy worlds and their Christianity assumes that rigid hierarchy of power - lord of lords, king of kings, prince of peace to be worshipped and adored. But Tolkien disliked Lewis's bully-pulpit.
Over the years, others have had uneasy doubts about the Narnian brand of Christianity. Christ should surely be no lion (let alone with the orotund voice of Liam Neeson). He was the lamb, representing the meek of the earth, weak, poor and refusing to fight. Philip Pullman - he of the marvellously secular trilogy His Dark Materials - has called Narnia "one of the most ugly, poisonous things I have ever read".
Why? Because here 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.
Even though I remain fond of the Narnia series, even though I probably will see this movie, I have to agree with the core of Toynbee's argument. A Christianity that does nothing but buttress the established order justified only by claims of authority isn't very attractive to me. Christianity's true power rather lies in its potential to radically transform social relations at all levels and between all levels, not in simple displays of unexplainable power. As it happens, this likely will be a non-issue. What's going to be of greater interest, I think, will be the necessarily related questions of whether or not other Narnia books will be filmed, and if so, what role will The Horse and His Boy play? Books which feature brave young men trying to escape a brutal empire in the southern deserts populated by misogynistic, mustached, turban-dwelling men who (it is revealed later) worship an avatar of Satan have an obvious negative resonance. Lewis wasn't a fan of ecumenicism, it seems.
