so this blog has been quiet for a while. i got terribly bogged down in my last semester of seminary as i was trying to graduate. other factors contributed to this, but since graduation is over i hope to have a lot more time to devote to blogging.

perhaps there is no better return to blogging than an experience that really gets your juices flowing, for good or bad. this definitely happened with me as i sat in the theater watching the latest film adaptation of C.S. Lewis’s masterpiece, The Chronicles of Narnia. the film in question is the second installment of the franchise and is based on the book Prince Caspian (PC hereafter).

let me start by saying that PC the book is my least favorite of the Narnia series. i can’t exactly pinpoint why, i just don’t enjoy it near as much as i do the other six books. that’s not to say, however, that there aren’t some really great moments in the book, and of course it is here that we first meet my favorite character in the series, Reepicheep. so because it’s my least favorite, if there was any film where much could be changed without my really caring, it would be PC. this of course being under the assumption that an attempt would be made to preserve the underlying message and intent of the author in such a film.

sadly, however, what was done by the filmmakers to this book is, frankly, atrocious. the narrative of the film is largely unrecognizable to someone familiar with the book. so much has been changed, so much has been added, and the message and intent has been completely removed that it’s a wonder that this film can even be called “Prince Caspian.”

putting what was done to the actual story aside for a moment, the film, as a piece of art, is also horrific. the film is basically a Michael Bay version of PC (and i say that as a fan of Michael Bay films) where cheap thrills and violence are the order of the day, and the story is a secondary matter, almost an afterthought. the effects in the film, though better than those of the previous film, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe are not very well done and the film seems to be a pretty poor, cheap ripoff of the Lord of the Rings films, especially in the first ten to twenty minutes of the film.

with the exception of a few bright spots, the actor who plays King Miraz in particular, the acting is pretty painful. two of the children, Lucy and Edmund, are alright, but Susan and Peter are just awful. much of the dialogue is awkward and stilted and there just doesn’t seem to be much chemistry between them. it almost appears as if they don’t want to be there. Liam Neeson, much more in this film, is unconvincing as Aslan (more stilted dialogue here), and perhaps the biggest disappointment of all was the noble mouse Reepicheep. i was skeptical on Eddie Izzard providing the voice, and for me it just didn’t work at all. of course this might of had to do with more stilted dialogue. i mean it literally sounded to me that when Reepicheep spoke there was someone pushing play on a tape recorder and then pushing stop when the line was finished. that’s how awkward and disjointed the dialogue was.

so as a piece of art on its own, the film, while mildly entertaining, is just not very good.

many people around the web have commented on and detailed the points at which the film strays from the book, so i won’t take the time to do so here. if you want to know, it’s not that hard to find. the changes, as i said before, are so numerous that it’s a wonder that this film can even be called Prince Caspian. it’s also a wonder that Douglas Gresham, Lewis’s step-son, allowed such a raping (in my opinion) of this story to take place.

i actually wasn’t that surprised at the changes in themselves, but i thought enough of a vestige of the book and the author’s intent would remain untouched. however, if the filmmakers couldn’t get the conversation in the Beavers’ house right in the first film, i don’t know why i expected the more profound parts of this book to be handled with care and delivered faithfully (how you can mess up that great line of Aslan’s, “every year you grow, you will find me bigger” is just beyond me; “as you grow, so do i,” the line in the film, means nothing even in the same vain as what Lewis intended. ugh!)

i will mention one specific change, however, that i actually thought was an interesting and good one. many people are incensed at the invented romance between Susan and Caspian that the film portrays, saying that Lewis would never have approved of such a change. they may be right, but i think the change is actually in keeping with what Lewis tells us of Susan’s later life. the kiss she plants on Caspian, that so many are outraged over, shows the beginning of Susan’s pursuit of worldly things. in The Last Battle we are told that Susan is no longer a friend of Narnia and that all she cares about are “nylons, lipstick, and invitations.” so concerned with becoming an adult, Susan rejects the childlike wonder of Narnia in pursuit vain worldliness. her romantic interest and bold kiss in the film gives us an idea of where Susan is going, especially since this will be the last we see of her (assuming the filmmakers remain mostly true to the story for the remainder of the films, something that seems much more in doubt after this latest chapter). so i actually like that change and think it suits Lewis’s intent pretty well.

overall, though, i really did not like this film and i would have no problem with it being the last adaptation from the Narnia books. i shudder to think what the filmmakers will do with The Voyage of the Dawn Treader and The Last Battle.

on this day in 1892, the greatest author of 20th century was born. in commemoration of this event, The Tolkien Society sponsors a worldwide toast for folks to show their appreciation to the good professor, his work, and the legacy he left behind. a fantastic tradition and one i plan to practice until the end of my days.

in addition to later raising a pint, i am celebrating by watching the three extended editions of The Lord of the Rings films in succession (something i’ve never done before and am excited about) as well as breaking in the new pipe that i got for Christmas.

“the professor!”

first, i must say that i really loved this book. yes, there’s controversy about it, and i’ll address that in a bit, but on its own merits this book is very well done. it’s a believable “world creation,” the characters are engaging and very complex, the story takes a lot of interesting turns, and the book doesn’t end…….well it doesn’t end, really, as it’s the first of three parts, but the ending of this first part didn’t really turn out the way that the reader probably would have expected it to. i like that in books. i know some people like everything to be all neatly tied up and explained, but i’m not like that. i love books that lead me in a certain way throughout, only to blow away all my preconceived notions of how the book should end at the last minute. i like books that leave me guessing and let my imagination try to fill in the holes. fiction, anyways. that’s not a desirable trait to have in non-fiction books. but i digress.

i loved this book. if you’re unfamiliar with the book or the film, this is the story of a young girl named Lyra. kind of a fitting name, actually, as Lyra is also a liar. a big one, at that. but she does know when she needs to be completely truthful and would probably say that she only lies when it’s absolutely necessary. Lyra has an uncle, or someone she believes to be her uncle, named Lord Asriel who also happens to be a world famous explorer. in this sort of alternate universe from our own, Lord Asriel, while exploring the far reaches of the North and trying to discover the truth behind Dust (more on that in a second), is taken capture and imprisoned by Gobblers, who also happen to be stealing children and performing experiments on them. little by little, Lyra learns what is going on and she sets out to help the stolen children and to free her uncle. aiding her in her task are her daemon (again, more on this in a second), an exiled armored bear, and a an alethiometer, a small golden truth-telling device that much resembles a compass, thus the title of the book.

i should say here that if you have not yet read the book or seen the movie and do not want to be spoiled, then you should probably read no further. so proceed at your own risk. (more…)

Darrell Bock, professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, offers some helpful advice on how Christians should respond when there’s a “groundbreaking discovery” like new gospels, ossuaries, tombs, etc., or when popular books take the world by storm to debunk Christianity or attempt to “kill God”. too many Christians, he says, too quickly resort to anger and dismissal, rather than openly and honestly engaging the issues that come up. he offers advice to a wide range of Christians, leaders and lay people, but his advice to individuals is most helpful:

Rather than seeing new media reports as conspiracies to rail against, why not see them as opportunities to discuss faith with friends and neighbors who will find them intriguing? Only we mustn’t do so with an angry or dismissive tone. Rather, we ought to respectfully explain the historic Christian view. Becoming equipped for such discussions may require seminars organized by local churches. Imagine churches working together to help believers contend for the truth in their communities.

of course, as he suggests, being able to explain the historic Christian view takes a concerted effort to become educated, to which he charges church leaders to undertake, but given today’s culture this is something that must be a priority, especially if the church is to continue to carry forth the Great Commission, not only to the far reaches of the earth, but to our immediate communities and cultural contexts. and it’s the Great Commission that i think is the heart of the matter.

Bock’s article is great and i highly recommend reading it. however, i think that while Bock does an excellent job with covering the “how” in getting to the point where Christians, lay and leader, can engage these things, i think he fails to rightly convey the “why” in getting to the point where Christians can intelligently respond. now that may be an unfair charge since his main intent was probably to focus on the “how”, but i’m afraid that a cursory reading of the article could leave people thinking that we need to be educated for education’s sake and to be able to engage the issues of the day intelligently so that we can put those nasty pagans in their place.

but if that’s what one comes away from the article thinking, then the point has been missed. if the motive of engaging the culture is simply to win arguments and appear intelligent, then this is a quick road to engagement becoming heated, tense, and hurtful. in this situation, the engagement, intellectual and informed though it may be, is no better than what is too often the current Christian reaction, namely holing ourselves up and cursing the darkness.

rather, Christians should pursue this education and these engagements of the culture, first, out of love for God, and, second, out of love for one’s neighbor. not for the purpose of winning arguments, but for the purpose of winning hearts. not in the confidence of one’s own knowledge and learning, but in the confidence that God, through his Holy Spirit, is at work in and around them, and it is he alone that opens the mind to discern spiritual things (1 Corinthians 2).

so it’s ok to read The Da Vinci Code or see the movie. it’s ok to read His Dark Materials or see The Golden Compass. it’s ok to watch National Geographic documentaries about tombs and lost gospels, and no one is going to hell for doing any of this. rather, Christians will be living up to their calling to be light in the midst of a dark and twisted generation. so, as Bock concludes his article:

the next time you hear an earth-shattering announcement about Jesus from the media [or hear about the next bestseller that seeks to undermine the Christian faith], don’t get angry. Rather, take three deep breaths, sit down with your Starbucks coffee, and…prepare yourself for the opportunities it presents.