Previous Post -Future of the Emerging Church
When I stepped out of the theatre after watching James Cameron’s record breaking film “Avatar”, I was conflicted. Without question this movie raised the bar with respect to the experience of cinema. It was visually stunning and engaging. It kept my attention and, on the merits of the brilliant technology used for the 3D experience, I was drawn into the science fiction world of the Na’vi people. If you are going to see this film at all, it should be seen on the big screen in 3D.
That being said, I also left feeling dissatisfied and, frankly, pissed off. First, there was this nagging feeling that I had seen this film before, some scenes explicitly familiar. It was only later when a friend mentioned “Fern Gully” that it became laughingly clear. (If you haven’t seen “Fern Gully”, but have seen Avatar, it would worth the laugh to watch it to see the parallels). I was also bothered by how both the “good guys” and the “bad guys” were portrayed. The Na’vi culture seemed like a pop culture buffet of indigenous worldviews, dripping of the “noble savage” that I thought we had long since moved past. The military men were so evil, I half expected them rub their hands together maniacally and break out in a Bela Lugosi laugh. I had hoped for (though not expected) something of more substance in this visual masterpiece. And I was disappointed.
Recently, the film has drawn fire from Conservatives who denounce the film for a liberal propaganda machine designed to push some nefarious agenda. Scot McKnight points out 5 complaints about the film, asking for his readers input (for which this post is my extended reply). Note, I’ve changed the order Scot listed them, putting “Worship of nature” directly after “Pro-environment”, as I feel they strongly inform each other:
- Pro-environment
- Worship of nature
- Anti-religious
- Liberal, left-wing agenda
- Anti-military
Pro-environment: There is no question that the current cultural interest in environmentalism is foundational in this films message. While I am sure that Cameron believes in this cause, I’m also convinced that it was included because it is a highly marketable idea these days. As someone who believe that we are not caring for creation in the way God mandated us to, I resonate with this theme. However, I am not an “environmentalist” per se. I believe that Christians need to understand and practice a relationship to creation that surpasses the activism of the environmentalism, even though I believe it is an issue of injustice that Scripture requires us to respond to. I think people (both Christian and otherwise) are looking for something beyond the activism, which leads into the next point.
Worship of nature: Cameron’s generous blending of shallowly appropriated indigenous culture/belief with popular environmentalism is quite apparent from the get go. There is no question that the Na’vi people of Pandora hold to a pantheistic belief system that is informed by Gaia-type worship. This connects well with the environmentalist theme, as the Gaia hypothesis has been a notable influence in the movement. From a Christian standpoint, there are beliefs put forth that are clearly contrary to what we believe. While this should makes us more intentional about talking about such differences, I don’t see that they should be viewed as a threat.
However, we should make note of this synthesis of environmentalism and spirituality. As mentioned above, there is a clear longing in our culture for something deeper to inform our environmental convictions. I believe this is borne from an undefinable conviction that we are connected to creation on a spiritual level. Not in a Gaian, new age sort of way. Rather, our connection to creation as laid out in Scripture has been lost to the often gnostic leanings of Western Christianity. If Cameron’s film is a threat, it is because we have failed to offer a meaningful alternative. So much more could be said about this one, but for the sake of space, I’ll move on.
Anti-religious: After the last point, this one seems even more ridiculous. At best, this critique comes from an understanding of religion as highly formalized institutions (which makes the integrative spirituality of the Na’vi suspect). At it worst, this critique is borne from a fear of any idea or belief that is not explicitly Christian- and by Christian, I mean Western, modern Christianity. In an increasingly pluralistic world, Christians need to learn to better relate to people with differing beliefs. This is not to say we should not argue convincingly for our own convictions, but rather recognize and address the posture of suspicion and fear that informs our responses.
Again, Cameron shallowly picks and chooses from indigenous beliefs here, offering a romanticized mishmash of spirituality. This, in itself, is a greater threat to people than the actual beliefs themselves. I would rather people explore a spiritual belief system in depth than to be lured into something through romantic and shallow appropriation of ideas. I suspect that many people have embraced Christianity for the same reasons, usually to ultimately ill effects for the larger Church.
Liberal, left-wing agenda: This complaint has two parts. To the first, that the film is liberal, there is no question. By this I mean that there are values that are championed in the film that are more commonly (though no exclusively) championed on the political left. Cameron doesn’t strike me as a man whose politics would be too hard to pin down. However, as someone who doesn’t fall clearly into either the so-called “right” or “left”, there is not threat here. If you equate Christian belief with a predominantly right-wing political stance, then we disagree strongly and this point is moot (as it is if you equate Christianity with the left). Let us also not forget the marketability of left leaning ideas in films, clearly influencing the direction the film would take.
As for it having a “left-wing agenda”, I can only roll my eyes. Whenever we want to demonize something, all we have to do is accuse them of having an “agenda”, colouring the whole thing in a questionable, conspiratorial light. If Cameron had an agenda with this film, I suspect it would be for it to be commercially and popularly successful. Would he be happy if the film made people more mindful of environmental issues or military policy? Of course, but I hardly think that was at the top of his list nor worthy of accusations of subversion. Like other religious beliefs, we have to learn to live alongside other political ideologies as well, careful not to demonize (or venerate) any one perspective.
Anti-military: As a Christian with strong Franciscan and Anabaptist leanings, I hold a strong critique of military powers and of violence in particular. That being said, I did feel that the characterization of the military in the film was over the top. While Cameron says he was not trying to parallel the US military, I cannot see how it would be possible for any viewer to NOT come to that conclusion. In addition to the disrespect it shows to honest soldiers, it allows us the scapegoat of identifying “sin” in only extreme categories, thus freeing us from responsibility. Further, as someone who advocates non-violence, any caricatures undermine meaningful discussion about the myth of redemptive violence. While this film takes advantage of the publics disillusionment with military involvement in Iraq, it is by no means anti-war. Though not unexpected, it was still disappointing.
Much more could be said about this film, such as the white man still being the ultimate hero, identifying with the indigenous people in well-intentioned, but incredibly condescending ways. As I said earlier, it was a visually stunning epic that kept my attention like few other films have. Should we uncritically embrace its message? Of course not. In all things we need to be discerning and careful. Should we dismiss it or embrace it as mere entertainment? Only at our own peril. Movies function as a deeply influential mythology in our culture, shaping the way we think and act. Again, we need to discerning and careful. However, to use this film as ammo to fire at our perceived political and/or religious adversaries is both foolish and counter-productive.
