DUDES! Get in touch with your feminine side.

This post is for guys.  Dudes.  The macho ones.  The ones who must be THE MAN.  You know who you are.  It strikes me that much of who you are is defined by what you don’t do.  You don’t read sappy books or watch sappy movies (and if you happen to by accident, you roll your eyes), you don’t write or read poetry, you don’t dance, you don’t go shopping for clothes, you don’t use hand lotion or exfoliate.  Sure there are manly things you do.  You hunt, fish, drive big loud cars, and try to speak in an unnaturally low voice.  But, hey, girls can do those things too (other than the voice thing), so big deal.

Well, I’ll stop the description of the total stereotypical dude right there and turn my attention to the broader principle: that every man, woman, and child is ultimately feminine.  Masculine and feminine is rather defined by degrees as far as we are usually concerned.  Men are only “masculine” because they are more masculine than women.  Some men are more masculine than others.  But on a purely objective scale, all may be defined as feminine.

What is masculine and feminine?  Well, first what is it not?  It does not refer specifically to the biological.  Men are men, and women are women, and there is a clear definition there.  Rather, the masculine and the feminine is a function of speech.  It does not describe anatomy, primarily.  Rather, it describes function of action.  The masculine acts.  The feminine is acted upon.  The masculine is initiates and the feminine responds.  This is common to virtually every language.

And that is why we may rightly say that ultimately all mankind is feminine.  Because we are, and are to be responsive.

C.S. Lewis says, in the context of a discussion of the priestly role of men:

Only one wearing the masculine uniform can (provisionally, and till the Parousia) represent the Lord to the Church: for we are all, corporately and individually, feminine to Him.

There is definitely something to be said for this.  The reason why all the human race is ultimately feminine is because God initiates.  Man responds.  When God breaths life into dust and speaks the imperative: live, man lives.

Likewise, Christ initiates His covenant with us, His people, and we respond, receiving Him in faith.  Each one of us as an individual received the call of God and responded to Christ’s sacrifice.  Corporately, we, the Church, are the Bride.  Christ initiated this relationship on the cosmic scale as well, taking on our humanity and coming to redeem his beloved.

We were lost.  Dead.  He revived us, and we responded by living.  Jesus’ Bride receives Him in faith and in love.  The Church is forever “she” to Him.

So what does that mean for us guys?  Well, first, be masculine in relation to those who are properly feminine (women).  Masculinity initiates and leads, protects, guards, and courts.  That is the picture God has painted in His creation of humankind.  That is why men are to take the commission and to represent Christ to the Church corporate, as Lewis suggests.

Second, get in touch with the feminine.  By this I mean: submit to God’s ordained authority of Church, family and government.  Don’t be so caught up in your masculinity that you forget that you are feminine as well—that you refuse to receive and respond, insisting on always being the initiator.  For we all must receive and respond to Christ.

Therefore, cultivate responsiveness.  If that means watching a sappy movie or two, taking a dance class (which actually is an exercise of a man’s masculine, which I might write about at a later date), or reading and actually feeling poetry, so be it.

. . . we are dealing with male and female not merely as facts of nature but as the live and awful shadows of realities utterly beyond our control and largely beyond our direct knowledge. Or rather, we are not dealing with them but (as we shall soon learn if we meddle) they are dealing with us.

Further reading:

C.S. Lewis on Priestesses

Origin of Speech, by Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy

“The Screwtape Letters” Radio Theatre Audio Drama VIDEO-Preview

This is a first-ever-online sneak peak video of Radio Theatre‘s dramatic audio production of The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis, starring Andy Serkis.  I currently have a semi-exclusive on this preview, simply because it hasn’t yet been uploaded anywhere else.

For those of you who don’t know who Andy Serkis is, the last time you saw him he probably looked like this. For those of you who don’t know who
C. S. Lewis is . . . um, please leave now.

It’s an exciting product, and I’m really looking forward to this coming into Tyndale House Publishers’ warehouse this October (for those who don’t know, that’s where I work). Hopefully there will be no delays and we can hit the Christmas shopping season full force. I know I’m planning on getting a few copies.

UPDATE 9/18/09:  IT’S UP!!!  The Screwtape Letters campaign is underway.  Visit Screwtape.com and check it out!  I will keep this article sticky for another week before letting it drop to its normal chronologically arranged place on my blog.

UPDATE 12/15/09:  Had to take down my file because it was hogging the bandwidth on my hosting server.  I’ve embedded the official Tyndale YouTube feed here for your viewing convenience.  Enjoy!

Prince Caspian (or, Andrew Adamson learns how to make a movie)

One’s opinion of Prince Caspian will depend greatly on what one is expecting. If you are hoping for a line-for-line book to screen translation of C.S. Lewis’s original material, go watch the Wonderworks version. You’ll enjoy it a lot more (that’s no slight; I enjoyed those as a kid). If, on the other hand, you’d like to see a masterful expansion of the core ideas in Lewis’s book that begins to approach epic, this is a film to watch. SPOILERS follow. If you continue reading, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Director Andrew Adamson has gotten the hang of things. While The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe strays less from the source material, Prince Caspian is a much better movie.

Adamson and his cowriters have taken many things that Lewis only hinted at and fleshed them out a great deal. Layers have been added to the political struggle between Miraz and his councilmen, as well as to the relationship between Caspian and his uncle. Also fleshed out is the ambivalence of the Narnians about backing a Telmarine prince, descendant of the Conquerer that tried to wipe them out.

Possible (or even probable) character conflicts that were not explored by Lewis are also found here. The friction between Peter and Caspian is a good example. In the book Peter comes right out and assures Caspian that he has no wish to make a play for the throne, and Caspian glibly goes through the story with no unease about four ancient monarchs jumping out of legend just when he is trying to claim his place as king.

While Lewis probably thought these attitudes and actions would serve as good role models for children, a deeper and more mature characterization has benefited the film greatly, and in the end actually emphasizes the desperate need that the Narnians have for Aslan. Because these sons of Adam just can’t seem to get anything right.

Peter is having coming-of-age issues and is understandably troubled by seeing what he considers a foreign invader claiming right to lead the Narnians. Caspian, the rightful king by Telmarine descent understandably feels slighted when he’s shunted to second place when the four Pevensies arrive, and he’s filled with a spirit of vengeance when he finds that Miraz is responsible for his father’s death. This conflict between Peter and Caspian leads to what such conflicts often do: separate agendas resulting in spoiled plans and unnecessary bloodshed.

The cinematography and pacing of the film is far superior to its predecessor. This feels like a film, and not like a random collection of scenes haphazardly strung together. The battles are more convincing, and, as I said before, approaching epic proportions. The effects are more polished. More importantly, I felt that I could connect with the characters better. They are more human and less like cardboard cutout. And not all the characters are so wayward. Lucy serves as the shining light of faith that Aslan is near, and Edmund keeps Peter from veering too far off course.

The only thing that I thought perhaps was overplayed was the attraction between Susan and Caspian. I can understand why they did it (apart from marketing value), and why it works. I was always puzzled about the asexuality of the Pevensies. It is very odd that in all of their years as adults in Narnia, none of them ever marry. If they had produced heirs like other responsible monarchs maybe their kingdom wouldn’t have been overrun by Spanish pirates when they left Narnia.

Now, for the most part, I think the relationship between Susan and Caspian is tastefully done. They are young attractive people, and so the chemistry between them isn’t exactly out of place. Also it makes for a couple great lines (like Lucy to Susan: “What was that? ‘Maybe you’ll need to call me‘?”). But then sometimes it veers off on into a celebration of Hollywood glitz and kitsch. Caspian’s rescue of Susan, while cool, does feel kind of staged.

So what about the message of the film? Is Lewis’s original vision intact? Well, while I think probably Lewis might object to a few things (such as Susan’s active involvement in the battle, though I think he would be happy with Peter and Caspian’s chivalry), the picture of Aslan as savior still shines brightly. As I mentioned earlier, the deeply human flaws we see in the characters only serve to emphasize the need for Aslan. This is no more apparent than at the How (the stone table) where the White Witch is almost brought back from the dead. It becomes very clear. These people are lost without him. Also, Aslan’s absence is felt so sharply that the film very effectively avoids a deus ex machina (the “Dude, where’d the lion come from?” effect) at the conclusion when Aslan finally appears.

Overall, Prince Caspian is a very good effort, and a satisfying film experience. Again, if you’re looking for slavish adherence to the book, you will be disappointed. But if you are open to seeing C.S. Lewis’s story enriched with a complexity not found in the book, this is a film to see. I am no longer worried about Adam Adamson at the helm of Lewis’s classic books. The director has finally figured out how to make a movie, and the series is now in good hands. If the remaining installments show the same level of improvement in movie-making quality, they will become classic films in their own right.