Is Harry Potter and Narnia good for the church?

Boanerges,

First of all, why is this relevant to the thread about TCoN and HP?

Secondly, I am not ashamed of the movie we have produced, and I will gladly talk about it. To answer your question, no, Michael is not a pastor. The synopsis never stated Michael was a pastor.

He is a member of a church. The movie deals with how Michael's sin destroys his family. It deals with the reality of this situation. A lot of times the "coming out" process is portrayed as a freeing experience, where everyone is better off in the long run. We portray the situation for what it really is.

BTW, if you were to look at the pictures on the website, you would see that the man playing the pastor, Marco DiGeorge, was not the man in the picture with his wife. Michael was played by Robb Maus. These pictures are on the same page as the synopsis, in fact, they are right next to it. You can also go to the cast/crew page to see a complete list of the cast.

Filmproducer

[ December 10, 2005, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Filmproducer ]

 

filmproducer wrote:
If someone wants to see TCoN, for entertainment purposes, let them do so. If someone wants to debate the Christian themes that are present in the movie, or the books, so be it, why does it concern you?

natters wrote:
you can stay home and pray "God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this Narnia-goer."


It concerns me because I care. In spite of what appears to be harsh words, I am grieved because it is increasingly evident that the church refuses to separate herself from the world. She is more of it, than apart from it. As Jesus prophesied through Paul - many will fall away from the faith following fables and heresy that itch the ears.

1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

 

Boanerges,

Here is some additional info. for the film that can be found on the Filmmakers page, in the Director's notes.

 

Why I care - some added commentary . . .

The great falling away is not about those who choose to willingly deny Jesus. It is going to come through deception, false teachers who proclaim they are of Christ, false doctrines, heresies, false teachings, signs and wonders. It will encompass everything and anything that has the appearance of God.

The great falling away will sound like God, look like God, feel like God. It will come via the "spirit" which many will believe is the voice of God. It will come disguised in truth and entrap masses of christians because the world is flooded with false teachers and prophets, and many heresies.

The great falling away comes by one small compromise upon another - until they are heaped up and fill the mind, the heart, the soul with things that are not of God. As Jesus said - even the elect will be in danger of falling away and many will escape as through the flames.

The great falling away comes when christians refuse to separate what is of God, according to His Word, and try to fit pieces of the secular into their lives, believing that God will use anything and everything and turn evil into good. This is not what His Word says.

The great falling away will creep into life from every angle that satan can manipulate. For those who believe that God will use or wink at magic, fanatsy, and witchcraft - whether it be in books, on TV or in the movies, because they are "just entertainment" or a "move of the spirit", or an "allegory" of the Bible - they have bought into the lie, that God will use the works of satan to proclaim His pure and holy Gospel.

Why do I believe that all of this is the great falling away? Because at one time I had compromised the truth, bought the lies, and fell away from contending for the faith by following those teachings that tickled the ear, that felt and sounded like God, that made me believe that God would allow me to use the anything this world has to offer in my pursuit of Him. That is why I care.

 

I found this to be an interesting review of "The Lion......"

www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/lionwitchwardrobe.html

I plan to see it tonight. Sounds like it has been well-done although the reviewer in my link thinks that there were elements of various personalities that were changed too much, including that of Aslan, and some were downplayed too much, such as Professor Kirke. He says some memorable scenes and quotes from the book are missing altogether in favor of new battle scenes. Nevertheless, he sees it as a well-done movie.

Either in this thread or another, rsr correctly explained that "The Lion...." is not allegory. Rather it has imagery that points to reality in our world. Some of C.S. Lewis's own views on what he was doing, though, seem to have changed somewhat as he developed the series.
But it is not a theology textbook or a sermon.

But neither is it anti-Christian. It tells of sacrifice and redemption. C.S. Lewis was a Christian, I believe, and his world-view is expressed in the Narnian world he imagined.

Sure, some Christians will make too much of it. But this one will be in Sunday School and church tomorrow, and Narnia will not be mentioned there.


Karen

 

Karen wrote:
"But neither is it anti-Christian. It tells of sacrifice and redemption. C.S. Lewis was a Christian, I believe, and his world-view is expressed in the Narnian world he imagined."


Do you believe then, that all views of sacrifice and redemption point to Jesus if the medium attachs itself to Christianity?

 

No, I do not.

But many works of literature point to Christ in some manner. Works by such people as Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and other great Russian writers, for example.

Did they get it all right? No. Are they useful? Yes.
Is everything literary useful? Of course not.

Do some people have literary and creative abilities to enrich the world? Yes.
Is it on a par with Scripture? Absolutely not.
And all, for the Christian, must be judged by Scripture.

Karen

 

Karen wrote:
"Do some people have literary and creative abilities to enrich the world? Yes.
Is it on a par with Scripture? Absolutely not.
And all, for the Christian, must be judged by Scripture."

So if it must be judged by scripture and fails the test, then how is it useful?

 

I guess it depends on what "the test" is.
I'm not sure what you are asking. We live in a fallen world. No human composition will fail to have flaws. In my opinion, that does not mean that the ONLY thing we can read is the Bible.

Many of us should read the Bible a lot more than
we do. And it is inerrant, and our guide.

However,I do not follow the viewpoint of many Christians of 100plus years ago that all novel reading and creative depictions are to be avoided, period. (And more Christians today seem to hold that view than I had originally thought.)

So back to your question. What test?
For example, Philip Pullman novels are anti-Christian. I avoid them. I enjoy Hans Christian Andersen fairy tales.
Greek and Roman mythology can be properly studied and even enjoyed without believing they depict reality in any way.

Karen

 

Karen wrote:
"So back to your question. What test?
For example, Philip Pullman novels are anti-Christian. I avoid them. I enjoy Hans Christian Andersen fairy tales.
Greek and Roman mythology can be properly studied and even enjoyed without believing they depict reality in any way."


In the context of Narnia, many christians believe that this is imagery or allegory of Jesus. Then the book/movie must be put to the test of scripture, if it going to be used to witness the gospel.

For instance - originally, you had posted that one of themes of the movie was sacrifice and redemption. If the "allegory" in the movie does not stand the test of scripture, than how does that represent the gospel accurately?

 

I've been gone and do not have time to read all the pages of this thread, but happened to see this.

The wise men were both astronomers and astrologers because at that time, astronomy and astrology were the same thing. Men looked at the "stars" (they called the planets stars, having no concept of a planet then) and noticed the ones that moved more quickly and in a pattern (the planets) and believed that such special "Stars" were gods or the homes of gods. They also measured how they moved and noted their positions at certain times of the year, near each other, etc. This calculation is related to astronomy. So the two were the same.

Giving meaning to the "stars" and their position is astrology and the Magi probably gave advice to the Persian rulers based on positions of the stars (planets).

However, I do not think God used astrology to get the Magi to Herod or to Jesus. Astronomers are in dispute over what caused the "star" in Matt. 2 because so far, no planetary conjunction would have been bright enough to be seen in that part of the world at that time to have made this kind of impression (two books by astronomers who studied this came out a few yrs. ago saying this). There are many theories on it - I happen to believe the magi saw a supernatural star that God used to lead them first to Herod (so he and his advisers could know the prophecy about the Messiah being born in Bethlehem and would be without excuse as to His birth), and then to Jesus, where the star "stood over" the dwelling of Jesus.

 

I've been gone and do not have time to read all the pages of this thread, but happened to see this.

The wise men were both astronomers and astrologers because at that time, astronomy and astrology were the same thing. Men looked at the "stars" (they called the planets stars, having no concept of a planet then) and noticed the ones that moved more quickly and in a pattern (the planets) and believed that such special "Stars" were gods or the homes of gods. They also measured how they moved and noted their positions at certain times of the year, near each other, etc. This calculation is related to astronomy. So the two were the same.

Giving meaning to the "stars" and their position is astrology and the Magi probably gave advice to the Persian rulers based on positions of the stars (planets).

However, I do not think God used astrology to get the Magi to Herod or to Jesus. Astronomers are in dispute over what caused the "star" in Matt. 2 because so far, no planetary conjunction would have been bright enough to be seen in that part of the world at that time to have made this kind of impression (two books by astronomers who studied this came out a few yrs. ago saying this). There are many theories on it - I happen to believe the magi saw a supernatural star that God used to lead them first to Herod (so he and his advisers could know the prophecy about the Messiah being born in Bethlehem and would be without excuse as to His birth), and then to Jesus, where the star "stood over" the dwelling of Jesus. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for that comment, Marcia!! I believe, too, as you must---that the star was supernatural---had the star been just a natural one----what does one suppose the Wise Men did during the daylight hours when the natural stars are "dimmed down" by the brightness of the Sun???

 

2 Kings 23:5 And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven.

 

The ancient Sumerians wrote about Venus, and realized that it was different than the stars, and the Greeks wrote about the planets as early as the 6th century BC. This is when they were first written about, not discovered, as we have no way of knowing when they were discovered unless they were written about.

Now, they were called "wandering stars" and other names (the word "planet" simply means "wanderer"; the ancients did not understand what they were, but they knew they were different. The ancient Greeks had things figured out enough to predict eclipses, etc., and they knew the Earth was round, and some of them had the size of the Earth reasonbly well figured out. (Some of them were way off, as well.) However, most of them were Earth-centric.

Because these stars stayed withing 8 degrees of the ecliptic, they were the important parts of the zodiac. (In fact, the zodiac is defined by the space within 8 degrees of the ecliptic because that's where the motions of the planets stay.) So, saying that they didn't know that these were other worlds like ours that were orbiting the Sun, is technically true. But, they were aware that they orbited the Sun, and they knew they weren't stars, and in that sense, they did know. But, no matter what, they have been distinguished from stars since several centuries BC, that we know of.

Eratosthenes had a reasonably good measurement of the Earth by the 3rd century BC, Aristarchus had the distance to the Moon figured out about the same time, but because they couldn't figure out an important angle, they couldn't figure the distance to the Sun, but they knew that it was much further away than the Moon. Now, only five of the planets besides Earth can be easily seen with the naked eye, and they were all known by the ancients. They are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

But, to say they didn't know about the planets flies in the face of what we know, based on secular writings, if nothing else.

Since 2 Kings 23 was written in the 6th century BC, I suppose it's possible that they were ignorant of things that others in the world new, but I would find that odd, since so much of Paganistic worship was based upon the planets.

On the other end of the scale, the ancient Greeks had some understanding of the elements and atoms.

 

Since we were on the topic of movies, and whether they were good for the church, I just wanted to check out what you were doing on film.

OK, any thoughts?

 

Hope of Glory, when I said they didn't know about planets, I meant that they did not have an understanding of gases on planets and the physical makeup of a planet vs. the physical properties of a star. I realize they had some astronomical principles in place. Thanks for your info.