Religion Is Power... Absolutely: Thoughts about the Film, The Book of Eli

The Book of Eli: Rated R for language, action violence and some gore

I must admit that while I am still deciding whether or not I liked this movie, I am surprised at the spiritual and religious insight it showed… so unlike Hollywood. Typically, religious or spiritual figures (particularly if they are Christian) are depicted in very two-dimensional terms. They are ignorant or self-serving or tyrannical or insecure or all of the above. Consequently, religion or spiritual belief systems are also presented as a tool of oppression. The Book of Eli certainly has a character that has a strong interest in religion but a jaded use for it (Gary Oldham’s character, Carnegie).

However, the movie’s protagonist (who functions a bit like Clint Eastwood’s ‘man-with-no-name’ in the first half of the film but who is later revealed to be Eli) is a man of sincere if not pure faith. The world has been destroyed in some apocalyptic ‘flash,’ ripping a whole in the ozone layer and driving the few survivors underground for over a year. Many blamed religion for the apocalypse and sought to destroy all copies of “the book.” Eli, however, found the sole surviving copy and heard a voice “from inside” telling him to protect it and bring it “west.” He is a keeper of the true faith (as objectified in Eli’s book), protecting it from extinction but also from those who would twist it for their own selfish gain. Carnegie is such a man, looking passionately for a copy of “the book” because it will be a way to expand his rule from a small town to the surrounding region and beyond. Fairly early on, the film makes clear that while faith… doctrine even… can be co-opted by corrupt men, the problem is not faith or religion, but the human heart.

More than this, the film slowly begins to reveal that the real testimony of the book’s power is not so much in its physical pages as it is in the character it forges in us. Eli even admits that he had lost sight of this fact as he pursued his mission. In the end, and without trying to reveal too much about the end, it is Eli himself who is the book (thus the double meaning of the movie title) because he embodies its teachings. That some of my Catholic brothers would accuse this film of “bibliolatry” (the worship of the book, a common Catholic critique of Protestant theology) really misses this central idea altogether.

There are some things in the end of the movie that are interesting twists or in some cases just confusing (relating to some wounds Eli receives, the nature of the physical book he has been protecting and one other matter that I can’t even mention in the abstract). Some are so distracting that it detracts from the film overall. However, the story of the parallel pursuits of Eli and Carnegie and where their pursuits led them, which are also strangely parallel and yet worlds apart, is worth thinking about and discussing.

For many with low tolerance for violence and foul language, this film may not be for you. If you like unending action, you may also be disappointed. But if you like movies that make you think about the nature of religious faith and its place in society, you will appreciate going even if you don’t like the ending.

Avatar: Spirituality v. Corporate Greed... and I liked It!

Avatar: PG-13 for some language, action-violence, and some sexuality (though I am unsure how to categorize the CGI, National Geographic type, near nudity of the alien characters throughout the movie)

I knew it would happen. One of my first thoughts as I left the theater was, “Christian culture warriors and political conservatives are going to hate this movie.” Sure enough, I wake-up today to read articles in the New York Times and other places critiquing James Cameron’s Avatar as pantheistic, profoundly naïve about human nature and anti-corporate.; critiques that are not entirely undeserved, but certainly predictable.

The vagaries of Cameron’s worldview do flavor the film and his own viewpoint is also predictable. Anytime Hollywood has some primitive tribe prominently featured in a movie (in this case, the Na’Vi, natives of the forest moon Pandora), you can be sure there will be some technologically superior culture coming to exploit them and destroy their culture. However. I really liked this movie.

It was a holiday season blockbuster, and it did not disappoint in the entertainment factor (a feat for any movie 2 hours and 40 minutes long). First, the new “performance capture” technology is pretty amazing. While I could still tell (most of the time) that I was looking at digital characters, the ability to capture the facial expression of the actors was very compelling. The world of Pandora was dazzling, imaginative and simply fun. While the story fits the mold of other films (Dances with Wolves comes to mind, where a simple soldier who is adrift spiritually finds meaning and belonging in a primitive culture), it works. And though the storyline of David & Goliath is a well-worn path, I still love it when the powerful and arrogant go down at the hands of the small and simple who believe in something bigger than themselves. It’s just feel-good fun.

As for the critiques of Cameron’s worldview, it is true that he depicts the primitive Na’Vi culture as this idealistic Eden where the people live “in balance” with their world/goddess. There is no hint of disease or tribal rivalries. Death is portrayed as a peaceful surrender of the life “energy” back to the All-Mother, Eywa. The culture and religion of the Na’Vi seem almost directly transferred from a modern and liberal understanding Native American spirituality, with all its white-guilt baggage.

However, tempting though it might be to dismiss the movie’s message on this basis, it would tragically miss things that we should all affirm in the movie. There are two themes that I found thought provoking. The first is the tendency we have to take what we want when we can get away with it without respect to the rights and dignity of others. The corporation looking to mine Pandora for an energy source gives the appearance of engaging in diplomatic negotiations with the Na’Vi but is more than willing to resort to military force to simply take what it wants. Of course, this is directed at corporations, but the lesson is true in whatever context you can imagine: politics, personal relationships, or work place dynamics. The person in power will face extraordinary temptation to disregard the dignity and rights of those in a weaker position. The Bible is filled with cries for justice against oppressors. Corporations often get a bad wrap as immoral by definition, but the faceless nature of corporate actions often results in brutal behavior in preserving the bottom-line. But again, these sins are not exclusive to capitalism. Fascism in Germany and communism in both Russia and China have produced their share of atrocities because some in power deemed weaker people as “getting in the way.” In an attempt to justify their actions, the stronger party usually dehumanizes or demonizes the weaker party. They are “savages,” “less-than-human,” or “devils.” This logic is present in our personal relationships as spouses are discarded because they no longer us “happy” or fulfilled.” It is present in our national politics. I would even say this is the brutal logic behind abortion.

Another theme that I found interesting was the juxtaposition of secular (godless) materialism to spirituality. The bare pursuit of wealth divorced from moral conscience is soundly condemned in this movie, and rightly so. The corporate representative and the mercenaries on Pandora regularly scoff at the god of the Na’Vi while displaying no spirituality of their own. For them the natural world is something to be exploited. While I am not a pantheist, (indeed I think it is essential for human dignity to recognize the distinction between the material world and God) I do recognize the relationship between humanity and the surrounding world. Strangely enough, even though Cameron shows greater explicit sympathies with pantheism in Avatar, he cannot completely abandon Western theism. Eywa, at the request of the main character, seems to intervene on behalf of the Na’Vi, expressing will and a sense of justice (or at least loyalty to the indigenous people of Pandora). This is not reflective of eastern Pantheism. Regardless, even in the Western faith of Christianity, humanity is commissioned as the caretaker of the world. Cultivate, manage, even master the natural world: yes. Exploit, exhaust and violate: no. But materialistic worldviews will inevitably exploit nature because there is no basis to appreciate or value nature on its own merits. The natural world is only a collection of resources. These values can only come from some form of spirituality. If anything, this film reflects Hollywood’s continual search for a moral foundation. If the film proves popular, perhaps it will be in part because the people of America are also looking for a basis for moral clarity. I find this encouraging. Even if I don’t agree with the form of spirituality extolled in this film, we have more common ground for interaction than I do with the secular materialist, just as Paul found common ground with the people of Athens on Mars Hill (“Men of Athens! I see that I every way you are very religious….” Acts 17:23ff).

There is more I could write but I will bring this to a conclusion. Not a great film (I don’t think I will buy the DVD, but I may go to see it in 3-D) but it was fun and it made me think some. No spectacular performances (though Ben Worthington was great) but the acting wasn’t bad. And it’s something that you would need to see on the big screen to really take it all in. Go see this movie, if only to talk about it with all your friends who will see it. And they will.

Tolkien, Lewis and J.K. Rowling: Should Christians Embrace Harry Potter?

Okay. I am finally getting back to blogging. Over the past month, we received a call to serve in West County St. Louis to help get a church site off the ground, put our house on the market (which sold in a day!), moved to St. Louis, start at the church and begin looking for a house. We’ve been busy. BUT… I can now get back to some writing.

Some weeks ago, a friend of mine asked me what I thought about Harry Potter. I know this is not new territory for the blogosphere but I still thought some folks might find this helpful or at least thought provoking. The way the typical conversation goes is like this: “Daryl, I appreciate Tolkien and Lewis, but as a Christian, all this witchcraft in Harry Potter bothers me. Is there a difference?” The simple answer is, of course there is a difference, but not in the ways you might guess at first… and the ways in which the Harry Potter series is similar to the writings of Tolkien and Lewis might surprise you.

The obvious concern for many Christians (particularly Christian parents who have children reading J.K. Rowling) is the use of witchcraft and sorcery, which are clearly forbidden by scripture. Many Christians have worked through the mention and use of magic in other literature. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia make repeated reference to magic, used even by Aslan, the Narnian incarnation of the Son of God. Tolkein’s The Lord of the Rings also makes wide reference to magic. Yet these works enjoy great popularity among Bible-believing Christians.

With Lewis, I think there are at least two reasons Christians are more willing to look past references to magic: first, the depiction of magic is vague. It does not include incantations but simply describes the results: a faun turning to stone, a boy transforming into a dragon or a prince enchanted to forget who he is. In fact, what might be referred to as the supernatural acts of God also seem to fall under the description of “magic” in Narnia. Second, the clear and overriding Christian imagery in the Narnia stories overshadows any concerns about magic.

With Tolkien there is a greater skepticism among Protestant Christians, as his works seem to reference a Catholic sacerdotalism (which many Protestants would critique as Christian superstition) and the magic is described in greater detail than in Lewis. However, the magic of Tolkien’s world also includes the technological advances of Saruman (Treebeard describes Saruman a having a “mind of metal”), and the magic of Tolkien’s stories are so clearly not what those tales are about. They are about courage, friendship and providence among other things. There are deep and powerful Christian themes in Tolkien’s works and indeed Tolkien wrote them in honor of God’s majesty and creativity.

Many would argue that magic figures so prominently in Harry Potter that this is what the stories are about. They describe the specific incantations used in magic as well as the substances used in concocting potions or constructing magical objects (wands for instance). J.K. Rowling seems to have researched the occult to bring greater detail and depth to her depiction of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. This, along with the absence of overt Christian themes, seems too much for Christian parents too tolerate.

I concede that there is a greater description of magic and the occult in Harry Potter. However, much like Lewis’ and Tolkien’s work, we have a sure sense that this is fantasy literature. The comedic handling of the interactions between the magical and “non-magical” worlds re-enforces the idea that this is not presented as “real.” The fantasy of the magical world simply serves as a device to get at more important themes: courage, integrity, loyalty, and belonging. Many Christian authors have used fantasy as a construct to illuminate important truths (Lewis has a great chapter in his book, An Experiment in Criticism, where he talks about fantasy literature and how it is more difficult for authors to “tell lies” with an imaginary world than having the a story told in a real world context which gives the sense of being “true to life”). In many ways, the works of J.K. Rowling mirror the works of Tolkien and Lewis. In fact, Rowling seems self-conscious of her literary inspirations and reflects that in things like the choices of names for her characters. One interesting example of this is Cedric Diggory (pictured at the left from the movie, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire), the Tri-Wizard Tournament champion from Hogwarts and rival to Harry for the affections of Cho Chang. Diggory Kirke, who appears as the boy with an ailing mother and nephew to “the magician” in The Magician’s Nephew and as the professor who gives the Pevensie children refuge during World War II in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, has long been thought of as Lewis himself appearing in his stories. Many critics believe that Cedric Diggory was named in honor of Lewis. John Granger, in his book How Harry Cast His Spell, details many more interesting names in Harry Potter that make other allusions and reference deeper themes (Granger also has a chapter on the tradition of using fantasy literature to communicate Christian themes).

Granger’s book also examines something else: the consistent Christian themes found throughout the Harry Potter series. The struggle between good and evil, the path of purification the journey of the hero through life… and death… to life again; these are all themes with which Christians… that all people… can relate. In fact, a former professor of mine at Covenant Seminary is convinced that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a contemplation on the resurrection of Christ (John Granger is of a similar opinion).

So, do if think there is a difference between the works of J.K. Rowling and those of Lewis and Tolkien? Yes. Rowling chronicles the maturing of a boy into a many through fantasy while Tolkien creates a complex world of myths and tells the story of a man (hobbit) who sacrifices all he loves to save the world. I would even say that Lewis and Tolkien are explicitly Christian while Rowling is perhaps more inspired by her Christian background. But the similarities are greater than the differences. Should your children read Rowling? That’s your decision, the same as it is your decision to let them read Tolkien and Lewis... or not. All I can tell you is that I have read the first three books to my oldest son (being just nine, his mother feels uncomfortable with the murder of Cedric Diggory in the fourth book, so we are waiting)… and we have had wonderful conversations about growing into a mature and godly man because of it.

Friday at the Movies: Where the Wild Things Are

This is the first of what I hope to be a series of blogs on Fridays about movies. Today I went to see Spike Jonze’s vision of Where the Wild Things Are. I must admit great anticipation on my part. Spike Jonze is not for everybody (know as the director of the art house films BeingJohn Malkovich and Adaptation) but I really appreciate him as a director. Also, Where the Wild Things Are was not only my favorite book from childhood, its author and illustrator Maurice Sendak, was an inspiration to me as an artist. His strange and sometimes dark tales and distinctive artistic style captivates me even as an adult. So… expectations were high.

I must tell you that if you are looking for a movie to take your children to, this is not it. Not that its subject matter is simply too adult or too violent (as so many movies marketed towards teenagers are), but it is… scary. Scary in the way a child sees things as scary. When things seem uncertain… when people you trust first let you down… when you’re so upset you feel out of control… that kind of scary. The movie captures well how we as adults miss how helpless and frightened our children feel as we weather the trials of life. This movie was for me as a parent to see my own trials through my children’s eyes. And it was unsettling.

The movie creates a much more developed context for the main character, Max, than is present in the original children’s book and some might get frustrated with the liberties taken (Max’s mother is divorced and has a romantic interest at the house for dinner, Max has a disinterested teenage sister and Max runs away when he is angrily ordered to his room), but I think it depicts well a common family in the United States today. It also sets up quite well the somewhat confusing emotional journey Max makes to the island of the Wild Things.

The movie isn’t perfect. It seems to lose focus towards the middle as all the Wild Things seem to have there own issues and perhaps are playing out different aspects of Max’s own psyche. There are some honestly scary moments as one of the Wild Things truly seems out of control with anger and disappoint. But the masterful rendering of the Wild Things as well as their character development and the layers of symbolism present make this an enjoyable film. What I liked most about it is that it shows the value of true affection even when people do dumb things in relationships. “Love covers all wrongs” Prov. 10:12.

If you are looking for the next Cars or Finding Nemo, this is not your movie. If you like quirky films that try to peel back the layers of our confused hearts to get to the root of a matter, go see Where the Wild Things Are. You'll appreciate the ride.

How Being 'Right' All the Time Destroys Discussion... and Relationships

I was having a conversation today with a person who I not only admire and greatly respect, but who helped shaped my understanding of Christian ministry, particularly Christian Education. He works for a publication company and they are in the middle of revamping some Bible study material. After we talked a bit about the project, we both noted that studying the Bible passage and leading a discussion about a passage were very different things and, sadly, not many Christians actually know how to have a Bible discussion or have a meaningful conversation about their faith.

Some of it stems from nerves. Christians who take seriously the Gospel message of salvation often feel the weight of communicating that message to others in a Bible discussion context: “What if I say the wrong things? What if I don’t know the answer to the questions people might ask?” I sympathize with people who just feel overwhelmed by their perceived responsibility to be the perfect teacher. But perhaps worse than this is the circumstance with folks who do think they know how to lead a Bible discussion because they have all the answers, or at least know better than everyone else in the room.

One is not disqualified from leading a Bible discussion because one doesn’t have all the answers. In fact, if the discussion leader is constantly spouting off all the “right” answers, there won’t be much of a discussion. Too many people who profess to be followers of Christ insist that to be a Christian means you must have an answer for everything: what kind of movies you can watch, what kind food you can eat, how you should educate your children, even how you should regime your infant’s schedule. “There is an answer.” When this attitude is brought into a Bible discussion people quickly fall into a game of “guess the teacher”… trying to deduce what the discussion leader wants to hear. This not only shuts down conversation but relationship as well (is it any wonder that so many non-Christians find relationships with Christians so tedious?).

I have spent over half my life leading Bible discussions in various settings (churches, college dormitories, fraternity houses, homes) and one of my favorite things to say is, “I haven’t thought about it from that perspective before… let me think about that.” Most Christians are terrified of ‘not knowing.’ Why? My experience is, more often than not, that these adherents of the Christian religion believe that being a good Christian means knowing all the right things or knowing all the right rules so they can do all the right things. Let me be honest: I am a pastor, from a family of pastors… I have been a Christian all my life and a student of the scriptures and theology for 20 years... and I am confused all the time!

I don’t mean to say that the scriptures are confusing (indeed its fundamental message of grace and mercy in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is very clear). I do mean to say that I am very confusing and so is every other person I have ever met. We are a jumble of mixed motives, insecurities, noble impulses and base desires. The depths of each human life is so rich and dark, so marvelous and shameful that it is difficult to understand how to honestly submit ourselves to God’s good guidance and love. So, when I was leading a Bible discussion on honoring father and mother and someone asked me, “what does it look like to honor a parent who has been sexually abusive?” I said, “I don’t know. I have never thought about that before but I am sure others have. Let me talk to them.” I am not sure I would say that if I were to get the same question today, but that wasn’t a bad answer at the time. Why not? Because I didn’t know. Because this question might come from a very painful place and to have a glib answer would only disrespect that pain. It communicated that I respect this person enough to be honest about the limits of my own experience and knowledge and that for the sake of this person I am willing to do the work of expanding those limits. It also gives that person room to comment honestly where they are struggling with understanding and applying the scripture. And if people don’t have the freedom to be honest in discussion … even if they are honestly wrong… they won’t speak and eventually won’t come.

My friend from the phone conversation is well known for saying “if people aren’t speaking heresy at your Bible discussions, something is wrong with the way you are leading them” (and, yes… that tells many people exactly who I was talking to but don’t blab his name in the comments section). Leading a Bible discussion is not getting the right answer out there, but having people struggle honestly with the text. A good discussion leader helps them in that struggle, not condemn them for not believing the right things. It would be wise for Christians to take this same attitude into their relationships with people who don’t share their faith. Knowledge is a good thing but “knowledge puffs up but love builds up” (1 Corinthians 8:1). Sometimes the loving answer is “I don’t know.”

Heartbreak and Casey at the Bat

I wanted to share something very powerful in loving people well that I learned... from baseball.

As any baseball fan knows, October is the month of heartbreak. If your team hasn’t done well during the regular season, you’ve been waiting for the season to end to provide some relief and begin hoping for next year. But, if your team has done well, you advance to the playoffs with the hope of winning the World Series! Today, my first love, the Philadelphia Phillies, lost to the Colorado Rockies, and my adopted team, the St. Louis Cardinals, lost to the Los Angeles Dodgers in their respective playoff games. I was reminded of a famous baseball poem written by Ernest Thayer in 1888 called “Casey at the Bat.” In it, the home team, Mudville, is putting their last hope on the “mighty Casey” to bat the winning run in. But the poem ends with:

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in Mudville— mighty Casey has struck out.

“There is no joy in Mudville.” Heartbreak. I know this may seem somewhat comical, but the serious baseball fan knows about hopes disappointed. I remember vividly two games of the 1993 Worlds Series. My Phils were playing the Toronto Blue Jays. In Games 4, I watched relief pitcher Mitch Williams blow a 5 run lead to lose the game 15 to 14. And in Game 6, the Blue Jays scored 3 runs in the 9th inning to win the game and the series. As the runs came across the plate, in silence I slowly walked to the television and turned it off.

What does this have to do with loving people well? When people are heartbroken... over things more series than baseball... don’t try to cheer them up… don’t try to tell them things aren’t so bad… and please don’t tell them that God has something better for them! At least not in the moment of heartbreak… no, let them have that moment in peace. Perhaps a hug or simply be with the person. Somewhere the sun is shining bright… but not here in Mudville. Respect the person’s hurt as they take in the fact that their hopes are dashed. There will be other times to remind people of the good in life… maybe even to say “there’s always next year” (which didn’t come for me until last year… 15 years later… when the Phils beat Tampa Bay). But tonight, there is no joy in Mudville-mighty Casey has struck out. Respect that and you will have loved the person well.

In this way, I am sure that Job would have been a fan of baseball!

For a brief history on "Casey at the Bat" and the full text, go to: www.baseball-almanac.com/poetry/po_case.shtml

Baseball Post-Season

Blogging must take a backseat to the Baseball Playoffs tonight. Go Phils!