Narnia — The Horny Princess Warrior

Last week, I attended the Prince Caspian movie along with most of the families who are part of the Church I serve. A few observations.

1.) What’s with the collagen treatment on the lips of Anna Popplewell (The actress who played Susan)? When you compare Anna’s lips from the last Narnia movie with this one you can clearly see that Anna’s lips went through a growth spurt that Wilt Chamberlin could’ve only envied. When she laid a kiss on Prince Caspian at the end of the movie I was afraid that the guy was going to disappear in those lips, never to be found again.

2.) The writers of the script turned Lewis’s Susan character from being a soft spoken but wise Queen to a horny warrior princess. She went from being the Queen of Sheba in Lewis’s book to being an in heat Annie Oakley with a bow in the movie. On the transformation of Susan from being a Queen of Sheba type in Lewis’ book to being Annie Oakley with a bow in the movie the Director of Caspian, Andrew Adamson, made his views known.

“I know C.S. Lewis didn’t think women should fight, but I have a different view about how strong or assertive women should be. That was something I discussed and said there was no way I was making a film that says that.”

You know if Adamson wants to make a movie about his different views about ‘how strong and assertive women should be’ why doesn’t he first write a series of books called ‘The Chronicles Of Adamsonia,’ have them become treasured volumes and bestsellers to generations of Christians, and then make them into a Movie instead of defecating on the Chronicles of Narnia by injecting his modernistic Worldview onto a book that was decidedly not infected with modernity?”

3.) What gives with the kissing scene? This was another example of Adamson injecting his modernistic Worldview on to a book that was essentially medieval in its setting and flavor. I seriously doubt that most Christians thought about that scene as that kind of thing is the norm among our 15 year old girls today but it really isn’t a role model we should want most of our 15 year olds emulating.

4.) The character development was awful! You never got a sense of the refusal of ‘doubting Trumpkin’ to believe in Aslan. The film created no wonderment at Trumpkin’s loyalty in spite of his disbelief. The Nick-A-Brick character was completely flat and barely revealed the nature of his treachery. Peter comes across as a tyrant who will brook no counsel and who never repents of his boorish behavior. Reep-a-Cheep was the character that was perhaps most true to the novel. He was my favorite character in the movie.

5.) The character development could’ve been pursued somewhat if the script writers hadn’t decided to invent, whole cloth, a scene that is not in the book. The whole invasion of the Castle was yet another example of Hollywood try to improve a book instead of just telling the story of the book. This scene contributed nothing to the plot of the movie (though it had its due sense of daring and excitement) and it was used to despoil the Susan character by turning her into an assassin. You know, as I think about it, I think Susan had more kills in the movie then Caspian, Peter, and Edmund combined.

6.) Nick-a-Brick, who in Lewis’s book was the villainous ‘Black dwarf,’ was played by a White guy while the heroic Centaurs and Minotaurs were played by Black guys. Coincidence?

7.) The invented scene ended with the entrapment of a large Battalion of Old Narnians trapped behind the Castle Gate, who you knew were being slaughtered by Miraz’s army. It was a bit intense for children.

All in all if you could view it as a movie that had nothing to do with the book it was OK. The thing that gripes me is that these movies make their money by attaching themselves to the books. If they want to make stand alone movies that have nothing to do with the books then let them have at it. But if they are going to make Movies and suggest that they have anything to do with the books besides a few character names then it would be nice if they actually had something to do with the books.

Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull

Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull

1.) Sex outside of marriage turns out well for all involved

There is such a commonness about this state of affairs that it is easy to miss. In the film Indy knocked up the leading lady 20 years prior to the time shown in the film and suddenly discovers 20 years later that he has a son. Everything went just perfect for the damsel who was pregnant out of wedlock in 1937 (appx.) and the son grew up to be a mostly well adjusted young man whom Indy looks on in pride.

That is not the way it usually works in real life folks.

2.) Mankind received its intelligence from Alien ‘god like’ beings

This is a common theme for Spielberg. If you recall, he explored this theme in his films E.T. and in Artificial Intelligence. Spielberg is a Cosmic Humanist of some sort (remember the force in his Star Wars films) and that comes out in this flick. What I find interesting at this point is the correspondence between the Worldview in this film as it touches origins and the Worldview of some of the ‘scientists’ that Ben Stein interviewed in ‘Expelled.’ In both the Indiana Jones IV movie and from interviews in ‘Expelled’ you have a Worldview on origins explicated that holds that intelligence on earth and perhaps mankind itself came from Space Aliens.

I think we need to be very aware of this Worldview on origins that we are seeing from both the intellectual community as displayed in ‘Expelled’ and from the pop-culture as displayed in the recent Indiana Jones movie.

The answer to the question ‘How do we know’ is ‘We know because of the revelation of Space Aliens.’

3.) Knowledge is the ultimate treasure

At the end of the flick Indy makes some kind of observation that the inhabitants of the long deceased culture that they are searching for found its value in treasure, which knowledge was the highest expression of. This wouldn’t be so bad except obviously knowledge is not related to the God of the Bible but rather it is knowledge as measured on a humanistic scale.

The answer to the question ‘What is our ultimate value’ is, ‘Our ultimate value is knowledge apart from God who made us.’

4.) Women are physically tough.

From the pony tailed cheerleader in the 50’s sock hop Malt Shop who slugs the guy who slugged her boyfriend (with a right cross that would make Joe Frazier proud) to the female Communist villain to the Mother of Indy’s son, all the women roles in this film are men’s physical equal. No need to protect the women here.

File this observation under anthropology.

5.) The Issue of Myth

Clearly the movie deals with the myths that govern a culture. What is interesting here is that while many today in our post-modern culture will tell you that it doesn’t matter if the myth is historically true or not (since there is no capital ‘T’ truth) the myth that is initially seen as just being another myth (Indy initially says, ‘it’s just a story kid.’) ends up being not only Myth but also historically true. This is interesting because increasingly I am finding Christians who are saying that it doesn’t matter if the creation account is true or not since it is our guiding myth or that it doesn’t matter if the miracle accounts are true or not since they serve as our guiding myth. What is important, according to these folks, is that we show non-Christians the superiority of the Christian myth over other myths. Yet, even in a mind candy film like Indiana Jones there seems to be some recognition that myth needs to correspond to historicalness in order to be anything more than a ‘story.’

Indiana Jones is a fun adventure movie in the Spielberg strain. It’s worldview is decidedly messed up but what epistemologically self conscious person watches movies in order to be informed in their Worldview?

Defending ReformedTheology From R2Kt Attacks

Dear Herbert Goforth Marcuse,

Let’s start with a definition of culture.

Culture is the outward manifestation of a people’s inward beliefs.

Culture thus reflects and incarnates the God and the theology that it worships. As such culture is hopelessly theological and while in itself not redemptive it does reflect some kind of theology. The R2kt insists not only that culture is not in and of itself redemptive (something all Reformed Christians agree with) but goes on to insist that it isn’t theologically rooted and imbued, as if it is a-theological. This is more than unfortunate.

Your letter seemed to affirm the idea of a ‘wall of separation between Church and State. The Puritans never agreed with the pagan idea of a wall between church and state. The puritans believed that there were two distinct realms, (one responsible for ministering grace while the other was responsible for ministering justice) but that the realms were complimentary and interdependent. The Puritans never held that the Church should have a wall between itself and the State and later protestants wanted a wall only in order to keep the State from meddling in the affairs of the Church, not to keep the Church from influencing the State. Frankly, the idea of a ‘wall between Church and State’ is a pagan idea and one that isn’t possible anyway as the current arrangement in this country reveals where the Church is located in the government schools and serves as the State Church.

The idea that ‘by looking for religious significance not in this world but in the world to come, liturgical Protestantism lowers the stakes for public life while still affirming politics’ divinely ordained purpose’ is an idea that creates a kind of platonic dualism with religious significance, including what happens in Church, being placed in the upper story while the ‘common realm,’ including what happens everywhere but what happens in Church, is located in the lower story. This is why it is often accused of gnosticism. This argument completely divorces nature from grace seeing them as two completely different and irreconcilable realities. Now, to be sure, there is always the danger of over identifying nature with grace not making the necessary distinctions between the two but the danger of one extreme doesn’t justify embracing the danger of R2kt virus. The danger of immanentizing the eschaton isn’t solved by making the eschaton so transcendent that it touches only the cultus.

Second, you quote somebody who talks about politics as the divinely appointed means for restraining evil but ‘evil’ is a theological category. In order to know what evil is we need Christian theology to inform the magistrate as to what evil is. As one example of the problem here, Natural law, in a community of homosexuals, is not going to restrain the evil of sexual license. So, even your quote above advocating R2Kt virus must presuppose my position in order to deny my position.

Third, since Theocracy is an inescapable category and since we are living under one even now, I see nothing un-Biblical in desiring a Theocracy that is increasingly reflective of Biblical categories then one that is increasingly reflective of the values of Marx, De Sade, and Freud. I am amazed at your disparaging attitude that Christians should desire the Kingship of Jesus in the communities in which they live.

Fourth, Woodrow Wilson had divorced Christian anthropology and soteriology from His eschatology and as such he was a defacto operating humanist. Accusations against him don’t lay a glove on post-millennialism. In a biblical post-millennial theology it is Christ who is bringing His Kingdom to earth and not in your words, ‘his followers who are trying with their human effort to build utopia.’ Therefore your criticism on that count doesn’t stand either, though as a functional a-millennialist I am not surprised that you would accuse post-millennialism of being just another brand of Oneida type utopianism.

Fifth, it is true that the R2Kt virus does define morality but only on an individual and personal level. They may say that murder is wrong but they dare not, if they are consistent, proclaim from the pulpit during the preaching of the Word, that killing Jews is wrong for that is something that belongs to the political realm and so not something that the Church should speak to since the Church’s responsibility is to proclaim personal salvation as found in Christ. As such, Church members are free to advocate killing Babies or not killing Babies in the public square and if R2kt virus types are consistent they will not be disciplined. Now, it may be that they will be inconsistent and speak to the issue but given their position if they are consistent they will follow their own theology and recognize that the Church as the Church has no voice on these matters.

You may indeed voice your concerns as a Christian in the public square on a host of issues. You may even contend that your position is THE Christian position proving it from scripture. BUT theoretically it is the case that a person who shares membership with you at the local R2kt Church can voice just the opposite view as yours, likewise proving it from Scripture and likewise insisting that theirs is the truly Biblical position. And since the Church as the Church can’t speak to such issues believers are left without a Word from the Lord and with each man doing what is right in his own eyes.

Give my best to the family,

Pastor Bret

Just The Way Things Work

A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher. (Luke 6:40)

Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it. (Proverbs 22:6

Between Kindergarten and 12th grade the average child in the average government school will have sat for 14,000 class hours. The government school education is uniformly decidedly anti-Christ. Now, this only considers the saturation time in Government catechism that our children are being dunked in. It does nothing to consider the additional hours that are dedicated to reinforcing this teaching in government anti-Christ schools by other cultural outlets (i.e. — extra-curricular school activities, media outlets, etc.).

Given this reality, Christians ought to fall on their knees and praise God that there is any witness that remains within the Church.

Another point we ought to ponder here is that the Proverbs and Luke passage are merely recognitions of the way reality works. If you saturate beef in a mustard base Barbecue sauce sauce your beef will have a mustard base taste. If you put cake in a refrigerator with an open fish container your cake will taste like fish. Similarly, if you saturate a child in our culture the child will be a signpost for the culture. Christian parents have to begin to realize that you can’t counteract the 14,000 hours of class time that is augmented and reinforced by other cultural megaphones with a few scriptures memorized (usually out of context) in an AWANA program or by making sure their children attend Church and youth group twice a week. This is especially true, given that many of our Churches are led by people who are themselves cultural signposts.

The Church in the West continues to lose its children, and we are losing them because Proverbs and Luke 6 are true. It is true that regeneration is a supernatural act of God but when we allow our children to be trained by pagans we are committing the sin of putting the Lord thy God to the test, and thus we shouldn’t be surprised that God doesn’t visit them with effusions of grace.

For generations Christian parents have lamented that they have lost their children. For generations we didn’t realize how the culture was fighting against our Christian convictions. Well, now we know.

In light of this knowledge how can we continue to turn our covenant children over to the false gods for instruction and training?

A Open Response To HGM — RtKt

Herbert Goforth Marcuse,

Keep in mind that I am not opposed to two Kingdom theology. I am opposed to radical two Kingdom Theology. Princeton certainly was two Kingdom (as am I) but they certainly were not, in any shape way or form, radical two Kingdom. For pete’s sake Herbert, much of Princeton was post-millennialist. You can’t be post-millennialist and be radical two Kingdom theology.

The idea that there is no neutrality is something I got from Jesus who said, “He who does not gather with me, scatters” and “You can not serve two masters” (he didn’t mention that it was possible to be neutral and so serve no masters). There is no such thing as neutrality Herbert … no such thing in any realm or sphere. One cannot go to the ‘common realm’ and think that in the common realm positions will be pursued and ideology developed (which is the animating catalyst for those positions) that is not beholden to some God or some Theology. Culture is not neutral, never pluralistic, and is always the public declaration of a peoples cultus and theology. This is why we can speak of ‘Christian Culture,’ ‘Hindu Culture,’ Muslim Culture, or even Balkanized culture (synonymous with R2Kt culture). Indeed, even the position that culture is neutral, that it should be pluralistic, and is not the public declaration of a ethnos’ cultus and theology is a declaration of that people’s cultus and theology — and it is a declaration of a cultus and theology that is not Biblical. When you attempt to pluralize the public square Herbert (something that can never be achieved for very long without brute force — think Tito’s Yugoslavia or Stalin’s Soviet Union) the consequence is that there must be a god that arises that serves as the god of the gods. This god is THE god in the culture and it makes rulings on how far the other gods can and cannot go in the public square. This god in the radical two kingdom virus theology is the State. This theology most assuredly cannot be rescued by ‘natural theology’ if only because in order for ‘natural theology’ to work you must have a homogeneous people who are sin bent in the same direction and so agree on what natural theology reveals. And yet, it is this very homogenization that radical two Kingdom theology is against as it argues mightily for the pluralization of the public square. Herbert, lift your eyes and look at the horizon. Natural law is being used to condone homosexual marriage. Natural law will not get us out of the morass that our culture is in, for by appealing to natural law theory every man will be well grounded to explain that what is right in his own eye is indeed supported by Natural law. And this is because, Herbert, those who advocate natural law theory don’t really believe that those who are receiving the natural law revelation are suppressing it and making a false version of it to support their own sin perversion.

Just this week, at a book sale, I was leafing through a recently released volume on Natural law from one of those chaps at the Acton Institute. In his book I noticed that he cited all kinds of churchmen (Rutherford, Althusius, etc.) who used Natural law. Such citations, given as proof for why we need to return to natural law theory, don’t really hold water for the men they cite were writing and working in an epoch and time dominated by a thing called Christendom. This is important for it explains why their works were able to be received by Europe and by their countrymen. They were received and accepted because there existed a certain homogeneity that Christendom had created. Take their works and arguments and put them in a pagan and non-Christian environment and they would be just laughed at. Natural law theory doesn’t take the noetic effects of sin seriously Herbert.

Herbert, you wrote something in your letter I wanted to quote directly because I find it so interesting,

It is your mockery of Christians, and not just nominal Christians — but the keepers of the “old Princeton” theology, the keepers of Reformed theology in America (that I find so objectionable). You actually make a mockery and a caricature of yourself by attacking them so harshly. And you contribute to the caricature that “feminists and homosexuals” have of Christians, by simply being another Jerry Falwell, pointing the finger and saying “Listen, America,” and America “listened” and now we have George Bush, the stupidest president in history. And you give them the spectacle of Christians killing other Christians in the public forum.

First, I hope that I have cleared up for you that ‘Old Princeton’ certainly was not infected with the R2kt virus. Now, neither do I claim ‘Old Princeton’ for my position but the post-millennial strain that you can find in the likes of Warfield, Archibald Alexander, J. A. Alexander, and the Hodges bodes better for my theology then it does for the R2kt.

Second, as I have mocked with equal gusto the moral majority and the Falwells of the world as I have the R2kt gang I hardly think your charge hits home.

Thirdly, as I think it is a disastrous thing for the R2kt gang to be speaking for Christians in the public square, on this particular issue I hardly worry about the spectacle of my exposing the lack in their reasoning for all to see. If I am really the embarrassment that you claim me to be I shouldn’t think you should be to worried about my effectiveness, though I am humbled by your concern for my reputation.

Fourth, are you suggesting that the way to win God’s enemies is by them seeing how reasonable we are? What standard shall we use in order to determine what is reasonable Herbert? Allow me to suggest that Homosexuals and feminists will only find Christians to be ‘reasonable’ when Christians quit holding that such ideology and lifestyle is sin in the same way that Jews and Muslims will only find Christianity reasonable when we quite insisting that Jesus is the divine Son of God who is the Messiah. There is nobody alive Herbert that wants to be liked more then me but I just can’t sacrifice fidelity to Christ in exchange for being seen as reasonable by homosexuals and feminists.

Fifth, we might be in agreement about the ‘stupidest President in history.’ Still, you have to keep in mind that I was saying that 8 long years ago.

You close by noting that ‘I really should trust that God can save his world, with or without my help.’ I thank you for that reminder. Now, allow me to sign off with a reminder to you. While it is the case that God can save His already saved world with or without my help it is also the case that, for reasons that are quite beyond my ability to fathom, He has condescended to involve His people in His ongoing work of saving His saved world. For His people to retreat in this work because, “God can save His world, with or without them” has a gnostic whiff about it.

You might want to beware of that whiff Herbert.

Thanks for your friendship and your love for me that impels you to warn me of my failures.

Pastor Bret