Orthodox Christian Reviews on Music and Movies
Christian Music
Articles and reviews about Orthodox Christian music.
Celebrate the Feasts by Gigi Shadid
Have you ever wondered why there is not much
Orthodox Christian music out there for our youth?
While Christian music is plentiful, there is a great need for music that is written especially for our Orthodox youth. As a current school teacher and former Youth Director at my parish, I have found that one of the most effective teachers is MUSIC. TEACHING CHILDREN is the main purpose of my music, both the “Fruits of the Spirit” CD and “Celebrate the Feasts” CD.
“Celebrate the Feasts,” includes original Orthodox music for children (songs 1-11) and also feast day Troparia and various hymns of the Church (songs12-27). The songs in both CD’s can be used to enhance Sunday School lessons, can be taught at Vacation Bible School, Family Nights, sung at campfires, or can be listened to at your leisure. However you choose to use these CD’s, your children will learn more about their faith as a result. These songs have been kid-tested at several church programs and at various camps -- and really do work!
Peter Jon Gillquist - The Cross Culture Project II
|
Cross Culture Project II produced by Peter Jon Gillquist. Set Me Free, the first album by Peter Jon Gillquist, paved the road for this Orthodox recording artist who has dedicated his life to Christ’s Holy Church. Peter Jon has released five albums that include Set Me Free, Ancient, Live At The Village, Real, and Lands Unknown. According to Peter Jon, his favorite album recorded was Real. “My favorite CD so far is Real. It was written at a very difficult time in my life, and is heartfelt to the core. I like to know and be known, as I suppose anyone does in their heart, and I feel Real was the collection of songs that most accurately communicated the state of my growing-pain stricken soul at the time of release,” said Peter Jon Gillquist. For the most part, many people want to listen to music that is not only pleasing to the ear, but also inspirational and behind it holds a sense of truth. For this reason, Peter Jon envisioned a compilation album that featured several talented Orthodox Christian Musicians. In 2001, he began contacting musicians across North America in hope of creating a CD of music by other Orthodox Christian Artists. What he did not realize is that this was the beginning of something so highly anticipated by all music lovers. It spread like wildfire and over time he had a long list of responses. With the help of his wife, Kristina, and the parish St. John the Evangelist of Beaver Falls, PA, twelve songs were selected and released as the first Cross Culture Project. This album has done exceptionally well and is now in its second printing. |
||
|
“We were hoping to create awareness among the Orthodox that it is a good thing to use one’s gifts for the benefit of others in the artistic realm of society, while supporting the creative efforts of our own brothers and sisters in the Faith,” said Peter Jon Gillquist. One can only admit that music from an Orthodox point of view is unique. It has something valuable to say about Christ to our society searching for solid answers. The Cross Culture Project is not intended to be dogmatics on disc; instead it was intended to act as a bridge to peak outsiders’ interest in the Church while encouraging the Orthodox in the process. |
|
|
|
The Cross Culture Project I - Features Ron Moore, David Teems, Peter Jon Gillquist, Jimmy Santis, Dn. John Oliver, Phil Nasr, Joyful Sorrow, Chris Hillman (formerly of The Byrds), Justin Mathews, Benjamin Andersson, Andrew Anthony, and the St. Innocent's Academy Singers. |
The newly released and highly anticipated Cross Culture Project II, consists of folk, folk-rock, jazz, alt-country, and rock. The CD features Justin Mathews, Moses Murray, Ron Moore, David Teems, The Strawmen, Great Glass Elevator, Franklin Tait, Mark Shuttleworth, Duke & Dawn, Hunt Sidway, Gigi Shadid, Joel Weir, Greg Floor, and Peter Jon Gillquist. The Cross Culture Project II is available at St. Romanos Records. All proceeds go to benefit domestic outreach and evangelism endeavors including, hopefully, more volumes of the Cross Culture Project. Don't forget about the album that started it all, The Cross Culture Project I. Find out more. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fruits of the Spirit - Teaching God's Children
|
|
||
|
If your child attended Vacation Bible School or any church camp for that matter, you probably have heard your child sing God is the Boss while on a drive home. God is the Boss, which is the first song on the CD, "Fruits of the Spirit" by Gigi Shadid, was actually inspired by her own personal prayer life. This aspiring musician, who graduated with a degree in Education at the University of Houston, uses music to teach her students. She taught in the Houston, TX public school system before becoming the full-time Youth Director of St. George Houston. |
||
|
Across America, the mainstream Christian music is virtually all protestant. Many songs are actually based on Scripture, but there is a drastic need for Christian music based on Orthodox principles and theology. Gigi, one of the many Orthodox Christian musicians, is trying to help promote Orthodox Christian music. |
||
|
Ever since childhood she always wrote songs. Her ability to write meaningful songs stands true as shown through her first album. “I believe that the words in my songs are somewhat simplistic, but have much substance and teach deep truths of the Holy Orthodox faith which is missing in popular Christian music.” Gigi Shadid. “I was involved in Vacation Bible School at my church and our sister Greek Church for years, and it was my job to teach the music. We used Group Publishing Company’s VBS program. Although some of the songs were totally Scripture based and legitimate, I found that the kids were willing to sing any song, even if it was hokey and lacked any real substance. By the third year, I was frustrated and wanted to know why there is not catchy Orthodox music for children. I was inspired to do something about it ever since. Now, I know of several Orthodox churches that have incorporated the “Fruits of the Spirit” CD into their VBS and church school programs,” Gigi Shadid. |
||
|
Singing at Camp St. Raphael |
Her favorite song on the album is the title song, Fruits of the Spirit. Written at Camp St. Raphael during the Pentecostal Season of the Church, one of the priests attending gave a spirit-filled sermon which was the inspiration to the song. One hour later she wrote the song. With hand motions and catchy phrases, kids truly enjoy this one. Actually, some of the hand motions were actually created by the kids Gigi said. |
|
"Fruits of the Spirit" includes songs such as Full of Grace, a beautifully written song of the Theotokos which truly is from an Orthodox perspective. Other songs featured on the CD are Windows to Heaven, Golgotha, and Peter on the Water. We encourage all to listen and to support the spread of Orthodox Christian music. Gigi and her husband Fr. James Shadid, of the Antiochian Archdiocese, currently reside in Wichita, KS. They are expecting their first child God willing early April 2006. She is currently working on her second album. You could purchase online at StRomanosRecords.com or download an order form at gsquareproductions.com. |
||
The Da Vinci Code : An Orthodox Perspective
|
||
FREE ADVERTISING FOR THE EVIL ONE: THE CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO THE DA VINCI CODES
|
By V. Rev. Fr. George Morelli, Ph.D. If you ask me what other movies have been released in the past few months I do not think I can think of one. But I sure know about the Da Vinci Codes. A survey in one of my local television stations the day before the movie release indicated a whopping 80% of the respondents were planning on viewing this film. On a national news broadcast that same day I heard that among Americans polled the majority believed the contents of this so called ‘fictitious’ book were true. It was also reported in increasingly atheistic Great Britain the ‘belief’ in the veracity of the book and film was even greater. I do not know one national or local newspaper or Television newscast that has not broadcast the Christian outrage over the book and film. The lure of the forbidden fruit. What is banned is enticing. There have been many reputable scholarly responses to the content of the book and movie. This reflection is not to restate what is readily available. (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/GOAJudas.php). My purpose is to lament that those who call themselves Christian would rise to the occasion and respond to challenge and keep this book and movie at the forefront of the news. One important psychological lesson: the greatest way to disrespect something or someone is to completely disregard its or their existence. In actuality this is exactly what secular society wants to do with Christ: disregard and ignore Him. Movie and TV actors and actresses are pictured eating, drinking, driving cars, fornicating, committing adultery, murder, theft laughing, hugging, expressing political opinions etc. When was the last time going to church, saying mealtime or bedtime prayer was incorporated into the average primetime script? Except for politically correct ‘new age’ beliefs or ever popular Islam, anything Christian is eschewed except something that in most modernist anti-Christian society will attack and bring down Christianity more directly. Hence the popularity of the so called ‘Gospel of Judas,” “Gnostic gospels” and the Da Vinci Codes. The Holy Spirit can bring good out of what is seemingly evil. As of this writing the critic and audience response to this film has been less than spectacular. Is it possible in a stunning turn around secular anti-Christian audiences will unknowingly do the work of God and bring down the work of the evil one? It is possible the blatant falsity of such books, films and pseudo-gospels and will have an opposite effect and somehow through God’s grace viewers will see the real Christ and his church. I pray it is so. In a previous article on Making the Orthodox Church Smaller? (Morelli, 2006, http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/MorelliChurch.php.) I cited the words of St. John Chrysostom: For it is better to offer our accustomed prayers with two or three who keep the laws of God than to sweep together a multitude of transgressors and corruptors of others . . . For there is not, nay there is not, another life we may find free from all evils, but this alone. And you are witnesses who know the plots in king's courts and the troubles in the houses for the rich. But there was not among the apostles any such thing. “So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. And day-by-day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved" (Acts 2: 41-47) . There are sharp declines in people who identity themselves as “Christian” yet alone “Orthodox Christians”. It is possible the Holy Spirit want ‘genuine committed Christians to make up the body of Christ and do His work and not be enticed and fooled by the fictitious history and heresy like “Da Vinci and the so called Gospel of Judas.” The prophet Zephaniah tells us that in times of shameful deeds and rebellion even in the worst of times God will have " a faithful remnant" among us: "On that day you shall not be put to shame because of the deeds by which you have rebelled against me; for then I will remove from your midst your proudly exultant ones, and you shall no longer be haughty in my holy mountain. For I will leave in the midst of you a people humble and lowly. They shall seek refuge in the name of the Lord, those who are left in Israel; they shall do no wrong and utter no lies, nor shall there be found in their mouth a deceitful tongue. For they shall pasture and lie down, and none shall make them afraid." (Zeph. 3:11-13) God's Remnant will reject the values and treasures of the secular world, and remain His people. This faithful remnant, the Anawim, guarantees the future survival of the Orthodox Church, by committing themselves to his word in, thought deed and action. In today’s terminology they may makeup a counterculture. The Orthodox Church and faithful Christians may find themselves among this zealous few, who maintain and witness Christ in this world beyond the secularist mainstream. Thus in the words of St. John Chrysostom it may be better to have 2 or 3 than the multitudes (even those who call themselves Orthodox Christians. This will take great commitment, founded on deep prayer and connection with our spiritual church fathers, being united to the mind of the church, (http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/MorelliOrthodoxPsychology.php) a heart and mind enlightened and illumined and focused on Christ, fed by the spiritual food of the Holy Mysteries. To be part of the Anawim of Christ will require by grace the great gift of Strength and Fortitude from the Holy Spirit. In Christ all the Da Vinci Codes and so called gospel of Judases in the world have no meaning. Let us aim to be Christ’s committed remnant. |
CONSPIRACY AND MYSTERY - The Da Vinci Code and the Truth of Jesus Christ
By John Stamps +++
This article originally appeared in AGAIN Vol. 27 No. 4, Winter 2005.
http://www.conciliarpress.com/
If you like conspiracy stories, you’ll love The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, which has sold over 17 million copies. That’s a lot of conspiracy theory being consumed by readers all over the world. Sony Pictures will release a movie version in May 2006, with Ron Howard directing, Tom Hanks playing the internationally renowned Harvard “symbologist” Robert Langdon, and Audrey Tautou as Langdon’s sidekick, Sophie Neveu.
If The Da Vinci Code were just one more paranoid-but-entertaining tale of individuals terrified by clandestine multinational institutions masking their evil intentions, it’d be hardly worth mentioning. But its overwhelming popularity and strong anti-Christian message have shaped the perceptions of many people about Christianity, presumably including some who should know better but don’t. An angry and suspicious public seems fascinated by, and hungering for, anything anti-Roman Catholic.
I confess, I liked The Da Vinci Code as a detective story. I fully expected to detest it, but was hooked by the second page. Other than the story being set in Paris rather than Memphis, The Da Vinci Code reminded me of a rip-snorting John Grisham thriller. If you’re into mysteries, what’s not to like about one secret society viciously murdering members of another secret society that is threatening to expose the biggest secret the world has ever known?
But here’s the rub. Dan Brown's revisionist "history" of early Christianity is blasphemous to Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox alike. The premise is that one mysterious cabal, Opus Dei, is trying to keep another, the Priory of Sion, from revealing that Mary Magdalene wasn’t just a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth but His wife. The legendary Holy Grail is not a chalice but her secret tomb. And Sophie Neveu ends up being not just Robert Langdon’s sidekick. She’s really the great-great-great-granddaughter of Mary Magdalene. Oh yes, and also of Jesus.
The Da Vinci Code and the Humanity of Jesus
I found the sheer silliness of The Da Vinci Code exasperating. For instance, the use of the word “symbologist” to describe the profession of Robert Langdon reminds me of the Tin Man’s honorary degree of Th.D., “Doctor of Thinkology,” conferred by the Universitatus Committiartum E Pluribus Unum in The Wizard of Oz. I have an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary and studied at Yale Divinity School, and I have never heard of a “symbologist.” Is Brown pulling our leg? Why can’t Robert Langdon just be a professor of comparative religion, or perhaps semiotics?
For all Dan Brown’s claims to historicity and attention to detail (the opening of the book proclaims that “all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate”), The Da Vinci Code is sloppy and ultimately disingenuous. Brown clearly relishes the shock value of informing readers that everything we thought we knew about Jesus and the Bible is actually the result of a chilling conspiracy.
But Brown’s distaste for the Roman Catholic Church has caused him to play fast and loose with historical detail. For example, Sir Leigh Teabing, a character in the novel who I thought at first was a good guy but who later turns out to be a very bad guy, intones solemnly these dubious claims about Nicea and the New Testament:
The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not magically fall from the clouds. The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great. In 325 AD, he decided to unify Rome under a single religion: Christianity. Constantine needed to strengthen the new Christian tradition and held a famous gathering known as the Council of Nicea. Until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by his followers as a mortal prophet . . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal. Jesus’ establishment as the Son of God was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicea. A relatively close vote at that. Nonetheless, establishing Christ’s divinity was critical to the further unification of the Roman Empire and to the new Vatican power base.
Brown’s paranoia about “the secret the Vatican was trying to bury in the fourth century” is a bizarre anachronism. He makes the New Testament canon and the divinity of Jesus sound like the insidious result of dark papal intrigue, when the Vatican as we know it wouldn’t exist for many more centuries. By obsessing about Vatican machinations, Brown creates an account of early Christianity that is weirdly skewed. The Council of Nicea in 325 was largely an Eastern Ecumenical Council, with very limited Western representation—over 300 of the 318 bishops represented the Eastern Church.
Dan Brown displays considerable chutzpah in his garbled mixture of truths (“the Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven”), half-truths (the vote at Nicea was not close: 316 bishops against two, Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia), and outrageous disinformation (“Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote”). Suffice it to say that historic Christianity answers Jesus’ fundamental question, “Who do men say that I am?” (Mark 8:27), without lapsing into two equal-but-opposite errors:
- “He’s a man, he’s just a man,” as a sexually frustrated Mary Magdalene sings in the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar.
- He’s a god disguised as a man. He only seemed to be human.
Teabing characterizes Nicea as the first time the Church ever thought about divinizing Jesus. This assertion is simply wrong. Jesus of Nazareth is confessed as Lord and God in the first-century pages of the New Testament itself (for example, in John 1:1; John 20:28; Philippians 2:5–6). If anything, Jesus was such a godlike figure in early Christianity that the real question posed by orthodox and heretic alike was: Just how human is Jesus?
Many Christians through the ages could not fathom how God could suffer and die on the Cross. One solution that the Church rejected quite early—the heresy of Docetism—was that Jesus only “seemed” to die. To this very day, while denying His divinity, Islam still refuses to accept that Jesus actually died on the Cross. In an extended harangue against the People of the Book, the Qu’ran states that the Jews only deceived themselves when they thought they had killed Jesus—“they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them” (Surah 4).
But mainstream Christianity, Latin and Greek, consistently refused such a superficial resolution to the paradox that God the Son died on the Cross. Jesus’ humanity was so real that His death could be dated in space and time. Adapting the language of St. Luke and St. Paul (Acts 4:27; 1 Timothy 6:13), early Christian creeds confessed that Jesus died “under Pontius Pilate.” In a letter to his friend Cledonius, St. Gregory Nazianzus in 382 summarized the orthodox response to doubts about Jesus’ true humanity in an elegant formula that has become axiomatic for orthodox christology: “What is not assumed is not healed, but what is united with God is also being saved.”
Jesus’ divinity did not swallow up His humanity, as though His human nature were a drop of water falling into the infinite sea of deity. God the Word Incarnate assumed a fully human body, soul, mind, and will. St. Gregory cogently argues that any human dimensions Jesus did not actually possess would not be healed in us. After all, human beings are not angels. We’re “amphibians,” so to speak, composed of flesh and spirit. Our redemption is less than complete if God does not heal us at precisely those points where sin has gravely injured us. If the whole person is wounded, the whole person needs healing.
During the next four centuries or so, the Church consistently applied the axiom of St. Gregory Nazianzus to clarify just how human Jesus was in the Incarnation. If there is any human dimension—flesh, soul, mind, will, or energy—that God did not assume in the Incarnation when He became flesh in Jesus of Nazareth, then our salvation becomes a tragic fiction. If God the Son is not fully human, then we are less than fully saved.
The twin mysteries of Incarnation and Resurrection reveal to us that salvation is not from the body—the central tenet of all religions and philosophies that doubt or deny the goodness of the material creation—but God’s salvation of the body. We Christians don’t long for the immortality of the soul, a hope owing more to Plato or Plotinus than to Jesus Christ, but as St. Paul confesses: “Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body” ().
If Jesus of Nazareth is not God incarnate, the confession that He is somehow “Savior” is not just presumptuous but blasphemous. Only God can save us (Isaiah 63:8 LXX). And He wills to save us by partaking of our flesh and blood (Hebrews 2:14). God saves humans where sin has injured us by becoming human Himself. God became what I am, that I might become what God is. We call this mystery “divinization,” or in its Greek form, theosis.
Theosis possesses its own fearful symmetry with Incarnation, what St. Maximus the Confessor describes as God’s “blessed inversion.” Our own deification is the flip side of the Incarnation of God the Word. St. Gregory proclaimed this marvelous exchange in one of his famous theological orations: “He remained what He was; what He was not, He assumed.” He remained God but became Man. And as God became human without ceasing to be God, so mere mortals are deified without ceasing to be creatures. God created us to be His glorious reflection, in body, soul, and spirit. He wants to give us by grace everything that He is by nature. Without change, God became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth (John 1:14). And without ceasing to be creatures, humans are made divine.
Dan Brown’s alter ego, Sir Leigh Teabing, breathlessly asserts there were over 80 gospels purged from the historical record. Church historians offer various criteria for a book to be included among the 27 of the New Testament canon: Was it publicly read in worship? Was it apostolic? Was it part of an approved list? Did it conform to the rule of faith? But there’s one truly compelling reason why pseudo-gospels like the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Philip, or the Dialogue of the Savior were excluded from the Church’s canon of Scripture—they undermined her experience of the fullness of the mystery of Jesus Christ. The spurious gospels collapsed that perfect tension between His divinity and His humanity into wishy-washy compromise.
To do justice to the Jesus worshipped by the Church, both East and West, we must confess that He is fully God and fully human. We cannot dissolve this paradox without grave injustice to the mystery of Jesus Christ. The “Jesus” depicted in the rejected gospels might be a fair-to-middling gnostic enlightener. But he’s not the Savior who saves us where we need it the most. Our shattered humanity desperately needs God’s healing touch, right down to our very toenails.
Decoding Symbols but Not Perceiving the Mystery
The Da Vinci Code is as much an intellectual challenge as it is a good thriller. With Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu tracking down clues all over Paris and London, I was spellbound as I too tried to piece the clues together so I could also solve the mystery of the Holy Grail.
Some mysteries are easier to solve than others. You simply need to gather all the clues you can find in order to solve the crime. But other mysteries require considerably more effort. Robert and Sophie had all the pieces of the puzzle they needed to open the locked box at the heart of the story right under their noses the entire time. They just didn’t know how to fit the pieces together: “[Her grandfather’s] final password—those five letters that unlocked the Priory’s ultimate secret—would prove to be not only symbolically fitting but crystal clear. If this solution were anything like the others, it would be painfully obvious once it dawned.”
Figuring out the exact combination of letters that opens the cryptex but doesn’t destroy the papyrus map that leads to the Holy Grail is essentially an exercise in advanced problem solving. If you figure out the code, you figure out the mystery. Once we discover that “APPLE” is the password, any nitwit can unlock the cryptex. It’s not a mystery any more. In the conventional sense of the word, mysteries are no longer mysteries when we have solved them.
At a conservative estimate, my wife Shelly reads over 100 mysteries per year. She’s so clever that she can typically figure out who the villain is by the time she reaches the middle of the book. But some “whodunits” she can’t figure out until the last page, or sometimes even the last paragraph. For any story worthy of the mystery genre, dogged persistence isn’t enough. We must also exercise considerable ingenuity to solve them. If you’re exceptionally clever, you’re worthy to solve the mystery. As Robert tells Sophie: “If you’re smart enough to read [the code], you’re permitted to know what is being said.”
The Da Vinci Code shares here the conventional view of mystery shared by most people in the world. But when Christians say that God is a mystery, we don’t mean a code that we can crack or a secret that we can discover. There are no sleuthing techniques we can perfect. Figuring out the mystery of God isn’t like hacking into someone’s computer. When it comes to knowing God, the skill set required to solve, for example, the Murder on the Orient Express counts for very little. When Christians insist that God is a mystery, we mean something entirely different.
God is mystery in the deepest theological sense of the word. For even when God has revealed Himself, He still remains hidden. If the Pharisees had snapped a digital photo of Jesus dying on the Cross, they still would not have seen what the Roman centurion saw when he confessed, “Truly this Man was the Son of God!” (9). On the plane of human history, God is veiled from our view. Everywhere we look in the very human life of Jesus—His birth, miracles, crucifixion and Resurrection—God remains shrouded from human scrutiny.
God’s revelation is not as if He has blurted out a secret that He can’t take back. When God reveals the deep truths of redemption, the mysteries do not stop being mysteries. In fact, they become even more intensely mysterious. St. Dionysius the Areopagite’s letter to Gaius describes this paradox of revelation:
The Transcendent has put aside its own hiddenness and has revealed itself to us by being a human being. But He is hidden even after this revelation and is hidden even amid the revelation. For this mystery of Jesus remains hidden and can be drawn out by no word or mind. What is to be said of it remains ineffable; what is to be understood of it remains unknowable.
When we behold the Lord of Glory lifted high upon the precious and life-giving Cross, we contrast the faith of the Roman centurion with the complete and utter incomprehension of Pontius Pilate. Pilate does not recognize the kingship of Jesus; it is a mystery veiled right before his very eyes. When God reveals Himself most clearly, He still remains hidden.
Believe it or not, the historical evidence for the New Testament as we know it today is remarkably good. But no matter how thorough his research, with no stone or page left unturned, no amount of historical or archeological evidence would reveal to the historian that the man Jesus of Nazareth is actually God Incarnate. With great wonder, Isaiah exclaims his own inability to understand what the Holy God is doing in Israel’s history: “Truly You are God, who hide Yourself, O God of Israel, the Savior!” ()
The Triune God as revealed to us in grace and love is a mystery over whom we have no control. Not even the highest ranks of the seraphim and cherubim can understand God in His essence. We can only know God in His revelation. But even then, God remains inscrutable, His judgments unsearchable, and His ways past finding out (Romans 11:33).
In the anticlimax that is The Da Vinci Code, the leads in Robert and Sophie’s quest for the Holy Grail peter out. They don’t find the relics of Mary Magdalene buried in the chapel vault. The cache of Holy Grail documents they hoped would once and for all expose the lies and fabrications of the Roman Catholic Church is nowhere to be found. Their quest hits a dead end. Blinded to any alternative view of the evidence—i.e. what the Church, both West and East, has believed everywhere, always, and by all—Robert Langdon, world-renowned Harvard “symbologist,” ends up with a faith no more credible than that of the wildest Appalachian snake-handler. Obsessed with symbols, he cannot perceive realities.
Dan Brown’s treatment of the Christian Faith is stunningly obtuse. His disregard for historical detail and his rabid anti-Catholic prejudice blind him to the deep mysteries right under his very nose. The Incarnation of God the Word is mystery par excellence. But God is certainly not a mystery we can solve. We cannot reduce the mystery of God to mere decryption. But if we have eyes to see and ears to hear, mystery—genuine mystery!—surrounds us. Only God can reveal God, and in His light we can see light.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Stamps is currently Senior Technical Writer at BMC Software in Sunnyvale, California. He holds a BA in Greek from Abilene Christian University, an MDiv from Princeton Theological Seminary, and did work towards an STM in philosophy of religion at Yale University. He is married to Shelly Stamps and attends St. Stephen Orthodox Church in Campbell, California.
This article originally appeared in AGAIN Vol. 27 No. 4, Winter 2005.
The Chronicles of Narnia - The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
Below are a few movie reviews by fellow Orthodox Christians.
Surprised with Joy: Why The Chronicles of Narnia Succeeded - By Constantine Nasr
Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe - By Jani Barker
C.S. Lewis's Narnia and the Education of the Christian Imagination - By Herman Middleton
Surprised with Joy: Why The Chronicles of Narnia Succeeded
|
Surprised with Joy: Why The Chronicles of Narnia Succeeded
By Constantine Nasr
Two years ago, the media world enjoyed a distinctive controversy over a small movie directed by a big Hollywood giant. Oddly, the film, The Passion of the Christ, became a reversal of roles for Mel Gibson. Gibson, often considered a Goliath in his own right, became the David in an odd twist of fate that even Hollywood storytelling could not have conjured. Yet Gibson’s constantly-attacked film overcame and went from panned underdog to popular behemoth. Was this merely because a movie audience was eager to watch brutal torture scenes shot in a dead language? Or was it because, at the root of it all, the population at large was hungry for something a little more spiritual?
William Goldman, one of cinema’s most respected writers, coined a phrase that could be applied to Gibson’s predicament: “Nobody knows anything.” In Hollywood, where people live on trends, this might be true, but not in real life, where most people have convictions. Could anyone have guessed that Gibson’s Passion would result in a huge boom for the presence of Christians in the secularized movie world? It shouldn’t have been, because Christians do make up a large percentage of the public.
At the time, no major studio wanted the movie. 20th Century Fox agreed to distribute it on home video because they had an existing distribution deal with Gibson’s Icon Productions. Maybe Gibson knew what he had, but regardless of success or failure, he wasn’t swayed. He sunk his own money into a film he needed to make. He was criticized before and after the release. Prior to the release, he told this author that he may or may not star in another film again. Whether this is true or not, this cinematic icon has yet to act in another movie.
What does this have to do with C.S. Lewis’s The Chronicles of Narnia? A good deal. In fact, Passion’s success confirmed what the makers of the new Narnia film had hoped: that a mainstream Christian film could make money at a time when saying “Merry Christmas” can cause public outrage. Does anyone really know anything?
Christian films are a strange breed, definitely a mixed bag at best. While many in Hollywood found the Biblical epics to be a challenge, both creatively and thematically, they made money for years. In the last couple decades, the television and home video became the primary home to dramatic Christian stories, often to very little success. When Gibson’s film hit, Hollywood again saw money in the name of our Savior, and new TV films were quickly made, without taking any new steps in the direction of storytelling (ABC’s Judas comes to mind). What did make an impact were the unnaturally successful adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
With Peter Jackson’s faithful adaptation of The Lord of the Rings and the successful and popular Harry Potter films, it became evident that fantasy stories taken from revered works might be the first major cinematic wave of the 21st century. Jackson’s dedication to Tolkien’s text and J.K. Rowling’s creative involvement in her own adaptations seemed be elemental in making these translations (for better or worse) work. And at this point, we have Narnia, both grand fantasy and pure Christianity.
For years, fans of C.S. Lewis’ imagined world have awaited a big-screen, big budget adaptation. Maybe they are second only to Tolkien’s fans, which got a very big surprise in the respectful way that Jackson handled his material. But even when the dust settled and the rights were handed to the production company, Walden Media, and the distributor, the Walt Disney Company, the question remained: Could Lewis’ vision, a story in which Christian themes were not simply in the background but thrust in the forefront, survive in a major Hollywood movie?
I have not studied in detail Narnia’s production history. I am sure that it is a complicated one. But I think that I have, like many, the beginning and end of the story (which sometimes is all that matters): the beginning is Lewis’ book, pure and full of life; the end is the film that has been released, and it is a surprising, wonderful achievement.
Before The Return of the King was released in 2003, the rumors became fact in the announcement of a big screen adaptation of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, to be released by Christmas 2005. Sadly, the belief persisted that much of the Christian themes would be stripped away from the story, to make its appeal broader. This brought great concern to fans of the books and Christians everywhere. How could one remove the Christ-like nature from Aslan, or even alter elements of the narrative which parallel Christian tales and teachings? Would Lewis’ story remain intact, or would it be as stripped of God as Troy was stripped of Homer’s gods?
The story seems simple enough. A young girl slips into a fantastical land called Narnia via an old wardrobe, where she discovers that its inhabitants are under the domination of a terrible Witch. When her siblings join her in this new world, they are told that they are part of an age-old prophecy to save the kingdom, but in doing so, they must face their own personal fears and frailties. It is only when Aslan, the great lion and king, gives them hope and strength do they find the courage within themselves to defeat evil and save Narnia.
In this quick overview, we see that Lewis, from the outset, decided to work with a story that all people, young and old, could understand. This doesn’t mean to suggest that Lewis was a simple writer. He could write amazingly complex treaties, such as “The Weight of Glory,” and on the other hand find a way to distill the essence of Christian theology in a work like “Mere Christianity.” Yet for many, it is within Narnia where we find his most personal truths.
Lewis’ close friend, author Dorothy Sayer, said that “the Narnia stories reveal more about (Lewis’s) personal religion than any of his theological books, because he wrote them more from the heart than from the head.” Many people who write about Narnia will often use the word allegory to describe the author’s true intent. The real truth was that Lewis sat down to tell a good yarn and happened to infuse his tale with his own beliefs. This is the skill of most great writers. He called the supposals, as opposed to allegories, because he disagreed with the accusation that he disguised his faith with fantasy, as if he intentionally tricked his readers. “Let us suppose,” said Lewis, “that there were a land like Narnia and that the Son of God, as He became a Man in our world, became a Lion there, and then imagine what would happen.”
Surprisingly, the film’s success stems from its attempt to keep the story pure. The tale is a delicate balance of remaining true to the very dialogue and narrative in the book and the necessity of cinematic translation, in other words, realizing the full filmic breadth of this story. Not only was the script faithful to the very text itself, it was translated in the fundamental spirit of Lewis. This includes adding more dramatic emphasis to the chase by the White Witch, or giving a remarkable romantic dimension to the Beaver couple.
These changes are elements that seem to be both appropriate to the film’s dimensions and necessary for an audience’s need to relate to characters and feel the intensity of their emotions. Even Lewis himself would have appreciated the opening sequence, which elaborates on the air raids of London, and specifically enriches Edmund’s pain at the loss of his father. When Aslan utters the phrase “It is finished” at the film’s highpoint (dialogue not from Lewis’ book), these welcome new-yet-familiar words seem appropriate…and good.
The finest achievement of the film is, of course, the world of Narnia and the cinematic incarnation of Aslan. I do not use the word “incarnation” lightly, because of its theological implications. The necessity for Aslan to become as real as any character, as was Gollum in the Rings trilogy, was paramount to the film’s success. Aslan, for all intents and purposes, is Narnia and all it embodies. For, as Lewis said himself, Aslan was responsible for pulling the other six books out of him (as much as he was for creating Narnia in the first place).
Aslan is majestic. His presence is felt even before he arrives on screen. This is no easy task. Digital artists, like all artists, continuously try to explain the difference, and the greater challenge, of recreating a real animal on film versus conjuring a beast from their imagination. Most people know what a lion should look like and how it should move. But how does a lion speak, show compassion and love, and act majestically? The animated Aslan succeeds in ways the animated Yoda of the Star Wars films does not; ironically, Yoda, the all-wise, is an imaginary character who has no basis in the real world, and his performance should be more forgivable. To fail in realizing the full beauty and awe of Aslan would have been a detriment to the Narnia experience. Thankfully, the untamable great Lion is as real as its human co-stars.
The adaptation is, sadly, not without flaws. This lies, perhaps, in some of the weaker performances of the supporting characters. Surely every character is not as complex as the children, and the story itself was never intended to be as thematically complicated as Tolkien’s work. Coupled with some weaker composite effects shots, the film hits a few kinks at times when you think it is on the road to being as effective as one could hope for. But these are minor criticisms at best, considering the original fear of losing Lewis in the mix.
I am not attempting to suggest that Andrew Adamson’s adaptation is any substitute for Lewis’ written tales. The imagined world conjured by cinema magic can never create the individual perceptions of each reader. However, the success of the film is that it does stay true to the basic visions that many Narnian fans will find familiar. (At the very least, the performances of the children, particularly Georgie Henley as Lucy Pevenise and Tilda Swinson as the White Witch, are what I envisioned when reading the tale as a child.)
It is well-known that Lewis and Tolkien were friends and colleagues, and were part of a small circle of writer/intellectuals informally called the Inkings. These Oxford friends would gather together to share their worldviews, as well as the stories from their imagination. Both men wrote in defense of the fairy story as the honest way to share the most human and “realistic” of fictional tales. Lewis was most likely inspired by Tolkien’s “The Hobbit,” which at the time became a very successful book for children. Oddly enough, Hollywood would have to see the success of Middle Earth before making the leap into Narnia.
Critics have erroneously compared Tolkien and Lewis, particularly with their fantasy tales. It could be said that their work is rooted in the same universe, but certainly each wrote on different planets using different languages. Both men were Christian – Tolkien having helped convert Lewis from atheism to Catholicism - but each man had different reasons for telling such stories. Again, with regard to Hollywood, the filmmakers saw opportunities to tell stories rooted in deeper traditions than the latest cookie-cutter, safe cinematic sequel.
It is also unfair to deem Lewis’ story too simple. Lewis was an advocate of the child within us all, and it is appropriate that he chose children to be main characters in his tales. He was in many ways reminding us of Christ’s teaching that we must be like children to know and enter the Kingdom (Matt. 18:3). He also perhaps was commenting that children understand and have the purest concepts of faith, and when they lose sense of the child within (as the Pevensies did when they grew up), they will lose their way in Narnia (and in the world as we know it).
While Lewis also advocated a clear-cut good and evil world, it is not without complexities. This is one area that his critics (and critics of the film) have it wrong. What is more complex than a boy betraying his siblings because of his desire to be loved? Edmund’s descent, in the book and in the film, is, in many ways, more complicated than that of Gollum in The Lord of the Rings. Gollum’s actions originated in greed and lust; Edmund, it could be read, acted out of a need for love, acceptance, and a hope of a better life. After all, the White Witch did trick him with good things, as evil often does.
Lewis does not preach in his book; his characters act and by their actions we understand that goodness (and therefore, the Right path) is the better choice. In “The Abolition of Man,” Lewis taught that Christ-God, and in this case Aslan, commands certain things because they are right. He is meaning the moral law, and this law naturally springs from God because it is right. For children, this law is hard to grasp, just as the consequences of actions against that law are hard to accept (such as the demanded sacrifice of Edmund to the Witch). But, like all things created, evil (as personified by the Witch) does not know the Deeper Magic (the laws of God written before time created), and we (like the children) can’t comprehend the laws that command even Aslan himself.
These are not simple things to consider, even for adults. Edmund’s desire for Turkish Delight is a bit more complicated than a kid cravings sweet things.
* * * * *
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe has done incredible box office business, and the word of a sequel is, much like Aslan, on the move. Walden Media was smart enough to option the entire seven book series, and rumors are that a second and third film will be shot back-to-back (as was done with Rings and the Matrix sequels). Will these popular Christian stories have any effect on the popular attack on Christianity that we see in our world today? Should we as Christians be paying attention to the way popular culture (in the form of “The DaVinci Code” and its host of imitators) or modern scientists, historians and so-called theologians offer revisionist theories about our Savior? There is need for concern. And there is a need for Aslan.
There are many possibilities to where this series might go. But unlike the fans of Harry Potter and its impending seventh and final story, Narnia fans know how the stories unfold and how they will end. This series began under the guidance of David Gresham, Lewis’ stepson, and thankfully has not become an auteur’s arena to create his or her alternative vision of Narnia. Lion is a bold beginning, and hopefully with competent filmmakers, performers and craftsmen dedicated to staying faithful to the intent of Lewis’ art, then the forthcoming films may transcend the variables of interpretation and remain a tribute to lasting impact of one of the most influential Christians of the last century.
Constantine Nasr is a writer/filmmaker who currently produces DVDs and documentaries for New Wave Entertainment. His most current work is the Batman Movie Anthology Collection for Warner Bros. He attends St. Nicholas Cathedral in Los Angeles.
|
Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
|
Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
By Jani Barker
Movie-goers who crave quality entertainment that doesn’t compromise moral values received a gift this Christmas season with the release of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. From the opening air raids in WWII London to the culminating battle scene in which the forces of good creatures--unicorns, centaurs, fauns, assorted animals, a few human children, and ultimately the lion Aslan--fight an evil White Witch and her malevolent followers, this movie is packed with action. Viewers also enjoy fantastic creatures and gorgeous scenery in this delightful film, based on C. S. Lewis’s classic fantasy novel for children.
When the Pevensie children—Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy—are sent from their London home to the country to keep them safe from the air raids, they encounter challenges and dangers surpassing those they had left behind. Exploring their rambling new home, young Lucy stumbles through a wardrobe and into an amazing new world of Narnia, filled with all kinds of fantastic creatures and the evil White Witch who makes it always winter, but never Christmas. In one of the most magical scenes of the movie, and one of the few times the pace slows for even a moment, Lucy takes in this most unexpected destination. Her wide-eyed wonder at the breathtaking sight illustrates how aptly Georgie Henley was chosen to play a character known for her innocence, faith, and joy.
Other characters are also well-cast. Lucy’s siblings are believable in their skepticism over her accounts of the new world and in their journeys to become the kings and queens of Narnia they are destined to be. Tilda Swinton makes coldly regal White Witch—equally effective when seductively tempting Edmund with Turkish Delight, demanding Aslan to comply with the law of the Deep Magic and give up the traitor whose blood was her property, or gloating over her apparent victory.
With a fairy-tale plot simple enough for children and drama enough to appeal to an adult viewer, this movie is fun for the whole family. (Parents of children under eight may want to consider whether the violence—though never a bit gory—might be too intense for their youngsters.) It’s entertainment that Christians can enjoy guilt-free, too. Not only does the movie lack the common bad boys of profanity, illicit sexuality, disrespectful repartee, and blood & gore, but positively good values ring through the movie’s themes. Though his siblings’ pain at Edmund’s betrayal is palpable, their determination to rescue him shows that family sticks together, even when a member behaves badly. Edmund’s transformation proves that traitors can reform. The amazing power of love comes through in Aslan’s redemption of Edmund. At the nighttime sacrifice, with knife poised for the kill, the Witch tauntingly desires Aslan to look where love got him, but the audience sees the joyful triumph of self-sacrificing love that comes with his resurrection in the morning. These potent lessons are not sugar-coated pills foisted upon viewers with a heavy hand, either, but are woven smoothly into the action of the movie.
A question that lovers of the Narnia novels must have: Is the movie true to the book? The filmmakers promised a “faithful, fantastic” adaptation, and to a great extent, they delivered. The book’s essentials of plot, characterization, setting, and theme come through in the movie. In any adaptation, some minor changes are necessary to make the story work in the new medium. Starting with a scene of the London air raids was a smart move to make the context real and reasonable for an audience far removed from World War II. The concerns the Pevenskie children in the movie have for their absent parents, Susan’s rationalism, and Peter’s doubts about his leadership ability add dimensions to their characterization, while some dialogue changes bring in the one-upmanship quips common to contemporary movie protagonists. The Lucy of the book, who accepts Peter’s apology for not believing her tale of discovering Narnia with a simple “of course” and handshake might serve as a better exemplar of Christian forgiveness, but the girl who turns her siblings’ words against them in mild taunts before making peace with them would be more recognizable and admired by most members of today’s audience, while her sweetly mischievous grin takes the sting out of her words.
The biggest changes between the movie and book versions of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe lie in the much brisker pace of the movie’s action and the diminished focus on Aslan and the power behind the magic governing Narnia. Those unfamiliar with the novel would have to work to find grounds of complaint against this good, entertaining movie, but the book-lovers might regret the omission of favorite scenes such as the game of tag after Aslan’s resurrection or the curtailment of drama and humor in scenes such as Aslan bringing back to life the creatures the Witch had turned to stone. Admittedly, doing justice to these episodes would have detracted from the tension the movie was building toward the final battle between the Witch’s forces and those of the good Narnians—a battle covered in just a couple pages in the book, but comprising an exciting twenty-minute climax to the movie—but the missing scenes would have offered joyful and colorful cinema at least equal to the battle footage that replaced them. An earlier scene from the book, in which the Witch has sharpened her knife and is seconds away from executing Edmund when a rescue party arrives--which seems verymuch in keeping with the movie’s focus on suspense--was omitted, perhaps considered too intense for a family film. Whether the plot changes made for the adaptation are good, bad, or neutral depends on the taste of the viewer.
Though less immediately obvious than the movie’s increased emphasis on suspenseful action, the diminished focus on Aslan’s power is perhaps the most significant change, for Orthodox Christians, in this adaptation of Lewis’s novel. Despite both widespread faith-based promotion of the movie as a Christian film and sometimes virulent attacks from secular reviewers for its Christianity, Christian elements in the book are consistently downplayed in the film. Director Andrew Adamson states, “the book has been interpreted by different people according to their own individual belief systems, and I think we’ve made a movie that’s the same. . . . Whatever you got from the book, I do think you’ll get from the movie.” Similarly, producer Mark Johnson notes that Lewis himself said that The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was not a “Christian” book, adding, “if you want to find all kinds of Christian symbolism in it, it’s certainly there, and if you don’t, you don’t” (http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2005/thechroniclesofnarnia2005-interview.html). Certainly, interpreting The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe as merely Christian allegory in which Aslan = Christ, the White Witch = Satan, and so forth would be misguided, diminishing the majestic scope of the Gospel and detracting attention from many aspects of Lewis’s imaginative fantasy as well. Yet Lewis wrote from a Christian mindset and an imagination baptized in orthodox (if not Orthodox) Christianity, and many aspects of Aslan’s character indicate that the lion is indeed a Christ figure.
(In an Again article, the Rev. Robert C. Stroud explores Lewis’s relationship to Orthodoxy: http://www.conciliarpress.com/again/content/view/25/9/9/; Herman A. Middleton’s recent article in Again magazine describes Lewis’s use of the literary device “supposal” to illustrate eternal truths in his stories and illustrates Aslan’s role as a Christ figure: http://www.conciliarpress.com/again/content/view/76/27/9/9/.)
The Aslan from the movie is a wise, caring mentor, a noble king, and Edmund’s savior—but much of the power and authority he bears in the book is shorn from him. Prophecy of Aslan’s return and the resulting defeat of wrong and sorrow is cut from the Beaver’s dialogue, as is all mention of Aslan’s father (and source of the Deep Magic), the great Emperor-Beyond-the-Sea. The movie-Aslan inspires much less awe, especially from his enemies, than does his book counterpart. When he goes, in the book, to make his willing sacrifice, the horrific ogres, hags, and other evil creatures send up “a howl and a gibber of dismay,” fearing to seize their unresisting prey, yet scarcely a tremor is seen in the movie. Indeed, the White Witch is presented in terms almost of equality with Aslan. Both Witch and Aslan refer to the Deep Magic that governs Narnia, which Aslan tells the children governs their destiny and also his own, and both are acknowledged to have been present at the beginning of Time, when the laws of the Deep Magic were inscribed on the Stone Table. After Aslan’s resurrection, he muses that the Witch had “interpreted” the Deep Magic incorrectly, and thus failed to anticipate his overcoming death. In the book, however, we learn that while the Witch’s knowledge extended to the dawn of Time, Aslan knew of a deeper magic from before Time began.
These comments about the reduced Christian implications of the Narnia movie should not detract from all the good of the movie. While the filmmakers didn’t present the full majesty of Lewis’s Aslan, they did capture most aspects of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and did so in an entertaining movie well worth viewing. Any movie that gives us a compelling story of love, redemption, and an innocent savior who suffers for another’s sin, and, in doing so, overcomes death, defeats evil, and restores life to the world is a gift that must bless our society. If you haven’t seen the movie yet, go. Encourage your friends to go. Make the movie such a success that more episodes of the Chronicles of Narnia will be filmed. Talk about the fun, the fantasy—and how the story can make you think about your faith. And if the Magic of Narnia stirs your imagination, pick up Lewis’s novel and glimpse the deeper magic in its pages.
And then attend Divine Liturgy and encounter Truth more amazing than any fantasy and a King far greater than Aslan.
|