Avatar and the ‘new’ evolutionary religion
A movie review
by Carl Wieland
Published: 5 January 2010(GMT+10)
Warning! This review is a spoiler if you have not seen the movie and intend to do
so.
Movies, no less than painting, literature, and other expressions of popular culture,
both reflect and influence the worldview of the age and society that produces them.
Films in particular (especially box-office hits, as Avatar will doubtless
be) can have considerable power to further shape a society’s worldview—a
set of beliefs and assumptions that are widely held as ‘givens’, even
if subliminally so. To be most effective at this, a film should not depart too far
from what is already held, but rather build on the foundations already laid, reinforcing,
deepening and extending the ruling paradigm—to further embed the vision of
what their makers think the world ought to be like.
The story of Avatar unfolds in a future age when scientists and soldiers
are involved in a mission from Earth to the fictional Earth-like moon Pandora. Their
task is to obtain supplies of an immensely valuable mineral. The substance’s
name brings one of the few corny touches to this cutting-edge computer graphics
techno-spectacle—Unobtainium. Presumably it’s, um, not readily available
back home.
The progress of this mission is being frustrated by the local ‘savages’,
which in this case are lithe blue-skinned humanoids, about 3 metres (10 feet) tall
with long semi-rigid tails. All are fine physical specimens, too, with nary a spare
tire, drooping jowl or buttock between them regardless of age—perhaps it’s
all that exercise leaping around in the forest canopy.
Can’t lick ‘em? Join ‘em …
Part of the strategy to subdue the natives, so that the resources they live atop
can be more easily exploited, is an old one—infiltration. Simply sending humans
to infiltrate the Na’vi is not likely to work, though, given the physical
differences between the exploiter and the exploited.1 But hey, this is the future, so it’s no big
deal for the corporate bigwigs to hire a few scientists and be able to upload the
consciousness of selected humans into Na’vi ‘avatars’. In computer
gamespeak, an avatar is a virtual alter ego, a new identity that is controlled
by you but does not even have to look or be like the real you.2 The avatars in this case are biological entities
which, though they contain some human DNA, are basically Na’vi bodies. When
the person whose DNA a particular avatar contains is cocooned inside the appropriate
machine, they lose consciousness, and their mind inhabits and controls their Na’vi
avatar instead. When the avatar goes to sleep, the human wakes up, and vice versa.
Indigenous peoples are supposed to be more innocent and pure than the rapacious
greedy inhabitants of western civilization.
Corporal Jake Sully is a paraplegic ex-marine, the identical twin of a now-dead
scientist who was transporting his persona in and out of one of these Na’vi
bio-avatars. Because he has the same DNA, Jake is chosen to continue his brother’s
mission, despite being untrained for it.
He meets team member Grace Augustine (played by Alien’s Sigourney
Weaver), a tough-talking, chain-smoking scientist who herself slips in and out of
the brain of a Na’vi double, and has begun to master the language.3
Avatar’s bad guys
We’re introduced early on to the film’s chief villain, Colonel Quoritch—a
tough, heavily muscled military-type head of security. The colonel is itching to
use force to impose upon (or dispose of) the locals. His swaggering John-Wayne-shoot-‘em-up
approach, (coupled with blond crewcut and square jaw) presents a crudely stereotypical
caricature of what is allegedly wrong with US militarism. Later in the film, Vietnam
echoes become obvious—right down to the sounds and images of futuristic versions
of Huey choppers flying low above the jungle and carrying gun-toting grunts. The
Pandora equivalents of the ‘gooks’4
within that jungle, the Na’vi, also have massive napalm-reminding flames rained
upon them by the invader.
Other ‘villain themes’ unfold; for one, the greedy multinational corporation
driving the operation, in league with the military. The tie-in with Iraq (a more
recent US military venture where the boundaries between army and private commercial
interests were said to be sometimes blurred) seems intentional, with mention of
“shock and awe” and even daisycutter bombs (the colonel tries to use
them to punish the locals for resisting).
The deeper theme is of course the historical tendency of technologically advanced
societies, in their drive for resources, to use force to impose their will on indigenous
cultures, as symbolized by the Na’vi. Such cultures are, in the current version
of Rousseau’s5 ‘noble
savage’ myth, held to be in a wonderful ecological harmony with nature. Their
peoples are supposed to be more innocent and pure than the rapacious greedy inhabitants
of western civilization (like the earthlings that come to Pandora having ravaged
and destroyed their own planet).6
In tune with nature
We are supposed to get the anti-technology vibes of this deep green religious message
while sitting in heavily air-conditioned theatres enjoying the most high-tech movie
computer graphics to date.
The moral of the story seems to be that if the citizens of modern hi-tech cultures
were to repent from our wicked ways, we might not only be able to avoid further
destroying our own natural world, we would also enjoy spiritual wholeness, including
a oneness with nature. It seems we are supposed to get the anti-technology vibes
of this deep green religious message while sitting in heavily air-conditioned theatres
enjoying the most high-tech movie computer graphics to date. To add to the irony,
the Avatar marketing machine has no qualms about teaming up with McDonalds.
This multinational is a favourite target of environmentalist claims that it causes
developing nations to grow more beef by razing, er, forests inhabited by, ah, indigenous
people. But back to the film …
In contrast to the military-industrial axis and its blundering plundering, scientist
Grace and her team are meant to be the more enlightened, progressive thinkers of
their time. They urge more nuanced ways of overcoming native resistance to mining—including
allowing more time to let the avatar program attain its goals of engagement and
persuasion. Through their science, they have begun to understand the value of Na’vi
culture—particularly, the way these forest people relate to the natural world.
The film’s implication is that the Na’vi (the undisputed ‘good
guys’ throughout) understand the truth about life, namely that everything
has a spirit, and all living things are interconnected into one big whole, which
is essentially their ‘mother earth goddess’, Eywa.7 (Grace has even discovered that each tree of Pandora’s
forest has electro-chemical connections to many other trees, which together form
a massive network, like the synapses of a huge brain. Prince Charles would have
loved that part of Avatar.)
Avatar promotes a (not-so-) new evolutionary religion
To retain a sense of the spiritual, once the Bible has been rejected, the creation
itself (nature, the universe) has to be imbued with a sense of the ‘divine’.
This blatant push for a return to neo-pagan animism/pantheism in Avatar
is a common component of the ‘new religion’ of our evolutionized times.
Most people today unfortunately believe that we are an offspring of nature, an effervescence
of the universe, not the creation of a miracle-working, prayer-answering, truth-revealing
personal God. The logical conclusion to draw from this, if it were true, is to be
an outright atheist/materialist like
Richard Dawkins. Notions of ‘spirituality’ just arise from evolved
mechanisms within our brain. But those like Dawkins, though very much on the rise,
are still relatively uncommon. This is probably because most people do not like
to face the meaninglessness of this viewpoint. So to retain a sense of the spiritual,
once the Bible has been rejected, the creation itself (nature, the universe) has
to be imbued with a sense of the ‘divine’. This has triggered a major
return to Eastern monistic thinking in the West—mostly in the form of New
Age beliefs, even if only at the ‘Oprah’ level of sophistication.8 Such beliefs marry naturally
with today’s hyper-environmentalism, and Avatar successfully blends
them into a very alluring package. Like other sci-fi ET flicks, it will also, unfortunately,
tend to reinforce the belief that ‘aliens’ could have evolved on other
worlds, and thus the New Age deception that they are visiting us with messages of
peace and salvation.9
Being ‘one’ with nature, Na’vi style
Incidentally, the Na’vi’s ability to commune with nature is greatly
helped by a special anatomical device they all possess, in common with many other
creatures of their world. It’s sure to make any New Ager envious—a sort
of biological USB cable with which to literally ‘connect’ to those other
creatures at will and so share their spirits, as it were. It also comes in handy
for controlling the beast you happen to be riding. When they are not bounding through
the treetops at dizzying heights, or swaying while chanting to their nature-goddess,
the Na’vi are either flying astride pterosaur-like creatures, or riding what
are meant to remind us of horses (even though these animals live by sucking great
slurps of nectar from giant flowers).
At first, Jake sympathizes with the colonel, but not for long. Cut off from his
scouting party while in his avatar body, he encounters the world of Pandora’s
biology—at once amazing, fascinating and dangerous. The not-so-subtle message
is that evolution has generated a whole new array of creatures in response to the
different environment of this other world.
He encounters a Na’vi girl, Princess Neytiri, who saves his life and then
gradually introduces him to the ways of her kind. He progressively falls in love
with her and her ‘people’. Changing sides, avatar-Jake, joined by the
progressive scientists, eventually leads the Na’vi in rebellion against the
Earth invaders in a final climactic battle. It ends with the nasty earthlings dispatched
back to their ecologically ruined home planet minus the (now definitely unavailable)
Unobtainium.
Avatar: a rollicking good story
The graphics effects of Avatar are truly stunning; the unearthly biology
of Pandora is convincingly real. Regardless of what one might think of the film’s
underlying themes, Avatar has all the elements to make a story work, and
the way director James Cameron (of Titanic fame) weaves them together,
it does work.
Timeless themes abound: evil, in the form of injustice and oppression of the weak
by the strong, is triumphed over in the end; romance blossoms despite initial opposition;
fantastic discoveries are made; and dangers are met and overcome by the hero and
heroine. And of course there’s the final apocalyptic, future-deciding battle
of the forces of light and darkness, with ‘good’ finally triumphing.
As usual, the battle becomes narrowly focused on a decisive, personal clash between
the leaders of the opposing sides. In this case, that means the Colonel and Jake.
The former inhabits a giant robot controlled by his movements; the latter inhabits
his avatar body that also moves as he wills it to.10
Almost as interesting and diverse as the film itself will be the blogospheric reaction
to it, including in the Christian corners of the net. The real world is, of course,
far more complex than a struggle between earth-destroying capitalists and tree-hugging
pantheists. Christians divide along socio-political lines, too, and where
one Christian review will tend to condemn the film for its obvious glorification
of paganism, another will seek to defend it by focusing on other aspects more in
tune with the gospel. One can even find those who see deliberate evangelical messages
in it (the same happened with Star Wars and Superman); these will
attach great significance to such things as the head scientist being called Grace
Augustine, and more (see later).
However, any great storyteller will seek to tap into a whole range of motifs and
evoke images familiar to the audience, whether biblical or otherwise—and director
Cameron does just that. Here’s a quick list, with expanded comments, of the
ones I could find and jotted down just after exiting the theatre (I’ve likely
missed several). It starts with the biblical ones:
As he explores this biological wonderland with the innocence of a child, Jake’s
long blue avatar makes us think of Adam in Eden, especially when he samples an attractive
piece of fruit offered to him by his ‘Eve’.
The lush jungle-forest of Pandora. The name of this moon-planet comes from the Greek
myth of Pandora’s box, which, like the Genesis account
from which it may even be derived, is about the entrance of evil into an
originally innocent, trouble-free world. As he explores this biological wonderland
with the innocence of a child, Jake’s long blue avatar makes us think of Adam
in Eden, especially when he samples an attractive piece of fruit offered to him
by his ‘Eve’. The forest even has its own special tree of spiritual
significance, the Tree of Souls. The Eden parallels have limits—things here
eat each other, and the Na’vi hunt animals. (OK, they feel sorry for them
when they kill them, but it’s probably not much consolation for the prey.)
Jake11 is chosen instead
of his brother, and ends up rescuing a people. He does so by becoming one of them
(as in Christ becoming part of the human race to be our kinsman-redeemer). Also,
in the end, Jake becomes ‘born again’ as his avatar.12
The budding romance between Jake’s avatar and the Princess Neytiri is initially
disapproved of by both ‘families’; despite his Na’vi features,
he is obviously not of the same kind (he can’t even speak the language), let
alone of royal blood as she is.
The lone crusader who co-opts others in a long struggle against ruthless, environment-destroying
corporate power and greed on behalf of its victims, the relatively powerless ‘little
people’—finally becoming their triumphant hero.
- US military excursions vs indigenous resistance
See the comments earlier about Vietnam and Iraq.
- Mythological forest-dwellers—Pan, satyrs, etc.
To the earthlings inside their base on Pandora, the Na’vi are the mysterious
and dangerous ‘people of the forest’—out there somewhere, vaguely
threatening yet strangely alluring. Their pointy ear anatomy brings to mind illustrations
of the Greek forest legend of Pan (the god playing those pipes) and the related
satyrs, albeit minus the horns and body hair. Seeing a Na’vi joined (via the
bio-link mentioned earlier) to the ‘horse’ he is riding reminds me of
the Greek centaurs, the top of a man emerging from the body of a horse.
Jake Sully’s exhortation of his troops before the battle is Mel Gibson’s
William Wallace doing the same, down to the blue-painted face.
- Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Well, this one may not have been deliberate, and the imagery wasn’t as surreal
as that movie, but it came to mind watching avatar-Jake and the Na’vi leap
around and fight in the forest canopy.
The ruthless military leader that comes to wipe out the natives, only to be wiped
out by them. The idea that indigenous ideology boosts environmental responsibility
is especially pervasive in relation to Native Americans. So it’s not surprising
that related imagery dominates, with stereotypical ‘Indian’ haircuts,
bows and arrows, and ululatory war-whoops among the Na’vi.
The native princess who befriends John Smith (Jake), the outsider from the strange
and hostile invader group, and teaches him the ways of her people.
In short, images/motifs derived from or paralleling the Bible are certainly there
(which can be useful in discussions). But so are those from lots of other sources,
all presumably utilized (‘hijacked’ might be less gracious) to serve
the film’s larger aims, namely making money by providing memorable entertainment.
At the same time, its makers almost certainly see themselves as doing ‘good’
by strongly pushing the dominant religious vision of our time.
Genesis vs the eco-paganism of Avatar
In this vision, the Bible’s Genesis-based framework of reality is an enemy.
People were not made in God’s image, as Genesis declares—they are outgrowths
of nature. Since all creatures evolved from organic soup, it’s not just apes
and monkeys that are our relatives, but ultimately grasses, worms, fish and fruitflies—all
part of one organic whole, all derived from ‘mother Earth’. In this
view, the evils and injustices of our world do not arise from human sin and greed
so much as they derive from a non-recognition of this biological connectedness.
Death is not nice, but it’s not an intruder into perfection, it’s always
been there for millions of years. So death is ‘natural’, and when we
die, we can look at it, as do the Na’vi, as simply recycling that ‘borrowed
energy’ back into the life-chain, or earth-goddess, or whatever one wants
to call it.
To the true believers of this vision, the idea that mankind was meant to exercise
(responsible) dominion over nature to benefit humanity (Genesis 1:26) is an eco-evil. Those who believe it are,
at the least, in urgent need of re-education. This religious emotion is behind at
least some of the passion in today’s anti-creationist crusade, which is sometimes
so vituperative, that one can see them wishing that we creationists could be ‘shipped
out’, like the defeated baddies in Avatar.
Bible believers, no matter how much they might share concerns about the pollution
caused by thoughtlessness and greed, can’t come at that whole ‘biological
connection, sacred earth’ thing. The pagan concept of the ‘sacred grove’
(shades of the Na’vi swaying and chanting to their nature goddess among the
roots of their sacred tree) is foreign to biblical Christianity—it is the
God of Creation who is sacred, not the products of His creation, which deserve respect,
but not reverence.13
Christian peace vs Avatar peace
Christianity teaches that personal peace will come from peace with God, via the
propitiatory sacrifice of God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. The reason we need
peace with God is all there in Genesis—because our first ancestor introduced
enmity between us and Him. But, despite the best efforts and hopes of Miss Universe
contestants, total “world peace” will only come as the Curse is removed
and God restores the world to the sin-free, deathless perfection that it once lost.
Indigenous peoples are supposed to be more innocent and pure than the rapacious
greedy inhabitants of western civilization.
The vision underlying Avatar, conversely, proposes that peace will come
increasingly as we accept our place in nature, as an evolved part of the natural
order. In that belief system, pagan societies have largely been the victims of the
oppressor Christians—whose dysfunctional culture and false beliefs have prevented
them from understanding these ultimately superior close-to-mother-nature cultures.
There are grains of truth buried within these caricatures (for example, few would
claim that the record of dealings with indigenous peoples by Christians, whether
at a national or individual level, has been always exemplary). But these grains
of truth only heighten the danger that viewers will have a lowered resistance to
accepting various errors, such as believing that a neo-pagan understanding of the
world is much closer to the ‘truth’, the alleged ‘biological realities’
revealed by evolutionary science. Or believing that Christianity, rather than having
been a huge overall benefit to the world, served instead to delay the onset of some
coming golden age of human-nature harmony.
Conclusion
Christians who see Avatar with their ‘worldview glasses’ firmly
on (in addition to their 3D ones14)
will not just be seeing a brilliant sci-fi film. They can use it wisely to spark
some really important discussions about how it links to the great religious and
worldview conflicts of our age, of which the Genesis/evolution issue is at the core.
This can lead naturally (meaning in an unforced way) to sharing the gospel about
the One who came into the real world, not the fantasy world of Cameron’s Avatar,
to rescue us.
Readers’ comments:
Joseph A., United States, 5 January 2010
As usual, a great breakdown of how we as Christians should view this type of material.
While I have not yet seen Avatar, I plan on it, with of course a renewed perspective
that this article espouses.
Ken B., Australia, 5 January 2010
Avatar is a Sanskrit word meaning Incarnation. It is in everyday usage in Hindi
and Nepali and probably in other languages in the Indian Sub-continent.
On the web, many people are asking why a Hindi word is used as the name for the
film. I guess its use just gives the (false) re-incarnation idea a bit more profile,
reflecting and encouraging the growing acceptance of that idea in the West. Ironically,
people in the West think re-incarnation sounds great, whereas the Hindu and Buddhist
would do anything to get off the endless cycle of re-incarnations, with all the
pain and suffering and sense of hopelessness it involves.
Carl Wieland wrote back to him:
I was aware that the reason that computer-game avatars are called that is because
Hindu deities appeared as avatars. It can be called an ‘incarnation’
of the deity, but is really best expressed in English as a ‘manifestation’
of the deity. More like an illusory appearance, rather than the deity made flesh.
So it makes good sense for computer-game illusory characters to be labelled ‘avatars’,
and this is probably where the film derives its name from. [A footnote
was added as a result of Ken’s email—Ed.]
Probably not quite the same as human spirits being repeatedly made flesh after their
death as in ‘re-incarnation’. But in the sense that this is just one
more way in which Hindu religious concepts are being pushed, it’s a point
to note. And I agree with you totally re the irony in foolish fad-following western
embracing of such notions as reincarnation.
Stuart M., Australia, 6 January 2010
I enjoyed the film. I found myself agreeing with much of what you said. Fantastic
breakdown of the movie, done by a person with an open mind who sees a movie for
what it is. Well done with the review. I hope to read many more!
Johann J., South Africa, 6 January 2010
Brilliant article about James Cameron’s Avatar movie. I saw the movie—and
it was great! Must say that the world view glasses really work well and that I’m
definitely going to use this opportunity to further God’s kingdom by spreading
the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Preston G., United States, 7 January 2010
That was the best movie critique I’ve read in a great long while. Good job!
Your analysis of the movie very insightful. THANK YOU!!
Joshua L., Australia, 7 January 2010
This movie is incredible and I loved every minute of it. I read your review and
found it very interesting, it made me think about the ways that others may interpret
it in a certain framework. So would u recomend the movie to others to watch?
Carl Wieland replies:
Thanks very much for your feedback. I tried to give enough information so that Christians
can make an informed decision about whether to watch it or not. But I think one
can glean from my last paragraph that I was not negative about people seeing it,
provided that they have their ‘worldview glasses’ on, in which case
they can even use it for good. From some of my other comments, I think it is probably
obvious that I enjoyed it too, as you did.
Gavin C., UK, 8 January 2010
Great job with this review! I sent the link to a number of my not-yet-Christian
friends who have seen the movie with me, it will help them think biblically rather
than with an evolutionary mind set.
Wayne G., Australia, 9 January 2010
What a terrific review. I’ve seen the movie and you put into words a lot of
the thoughts that I had about it but expressed in a much more eloquent way than
I am capable of. Thanks.
Dallas M., Canada, 10 January 2010
I have not seen this movie and probably won’t. For why would a servant of
the Lord Jesus subject themselves to the many misuses of our Kings name? (Psalm
1:1, Exodus 20:7) Not to mention all the other unclean words (Ephesians 5). I mean
we would be using the very money that God allots to us and paying someone to corrupt
our minds the very thing 1 Corinthians 15:33 warns us of. Would it not be like having
friends that hate your family, yet you hang out with them. This is unthinkable.
But we will go to a theater and pay to watch things that dishonors our great family,
and father GOD.
Carl Wieland responds:
Thanks for your email. This is of course an ongoing issue for the church and for
Christian individuals and families. To what extent can we be both “in the
world”, yet not “of the world”? Is the best way to exercise our
Christian responsibility to our fellow man (and to fulfil our mandate to reach out,
make disciples, etc) to isolate ourselves and our families from the popular culture
entirely, or to be able to engage the culture head on by understanding it, analyzing
it, utilizing it, etc. (provided that it does not involve frank immorality on our
parts, of course)? I don’t think it’s a simple black and white issue
with glib answers. It’s why, while stating how good a job the film’s
makers had done in their storytelling, I encouraged Christians to see it with their
worldview glasses firmly on. The whole point of doing the review was because many
Christians will either see it and/or be in contact with people who have. The hope
is that the insights can be used for the glory of God.
I recall being strongly affected by the late Christian philosopher, Francis Schaeffer,
who used art, even the lyrics of popular music, to help him understand what the
culture was saying, thinking, how they saw life, eternity, mankind, the divine and
so on. This then meant that his writings to try to reach them were far more relevant
and effective. In my experience, his books were instrumental in the conversion of
a number of people I know. His own walk with the Lord gave no evidence that he was
in any way tainted by the culture he sought to understand and to reach. Rather,
it gave him an even greater heart to reach them with the truth of the gospel. (Unfortunately,
it seems he never really resolved the ‘long-age and Genesis’ issue satisfactorily),
his legacy would have been many times more powerful if he had).
Having said that, one has to be careful not to use such arguments as some sort of
‘carte blanche’ or ‘open slather’ for any amount of entertainment-imbibing.
It can easily be an excuse for “Let me have my fun, and who cares about the
potentially corrosive influences of Hollywood?” These are not easy times nor
do I see easy answers, and it is probably a matter of ‘case by case’.
There are good Christian websites that do reviews of movies, we have chosen to do
this one only because of its special relevance to our ministry. You will notice
that we left it to individuals and families to make their own choice, hopefully
helped by the information.
Timothy F., Singapore, 10 January 2010
Very good article. Some other things of relevance to Christianity in the movie which
I wish to mention are the following:
1) I’m not the only one to notice that the name of the Avatar deity seems
very close to and appears like it might have originated from the name of God translated
as LORD in the KJV Old Testament. (But I’m not sure how to check this.)
2) In the Avatar movie, Jake goes through a gradual process of initiation into the
Navi tribe. First he meets the princess, learns the way of life of the tribe, and
goes through a sort of ceremony in the process. BUT he doesn’t actually get
FULLY transferred to the Navi body until right at the end of the movie. This seems
very similar to Christianity where there are about one or two events of special
significance first (accepting the Lord, and baptism) and then the rest of Christian
life tends to be quite gradual and slow, but finally, at the end, one gets a new
glorified body at the resurrection. The sequence somewhat parallels the Avatar movie.
3) Jake was paralyzed and therefore his human life was not perfect. Christians also
recognize the inherent imperfections in the current life and thus yearn for the
brighter future that God has promised to us. Jake even chose to continue with the
Navi tribe despite having an offer from the Colonel to get his legs back.
4) You can say the Avatar deity CHOSE Jake by giving the sign where the seeds of
the Tree of Souls landed on him. Likewise in Christianity, Christians are predestined
and chosen by God.
Carl Wieland responds:
Many thanks for your email. You make some interesting points. “Eywah”
is somewhat close to Yahweh, or Yehovah; probably too close to be a coincidence,
but another way in which the film’s makers are taking familiar elements to
make the film and its message resonate more in the culture.
Jeiel S., Netherlands, 17 January 2010
In my opinion, the story is powerful precisely because it resonates with our human
condition.
The Na’vi are sinless creatures in Paradise, living in close fellowship (direct
contact) with their God, Eywa. Nobody dies, since they live on with Eywa. When sin
intrudes, Eywa provides a redeemer and, ultimately, it is Eywa who brings victory.
If the Na’vi had been portrayed as lying, stealing, cheating and murdering
creatures (as we humans are), the story would not work.
C.S. Lewis said that, in our hearts, we have never desired anything else than heaven.
Pandora embodies the heaven of our desires.
From your review, I had expected many evolutionary references, but found none in
the movie: no remarks on how Pandora’s biology had evolved.
Eywa, having much more neurons than humans, is portrayed as a supreme intelligence
who manages life on Pandora. Perhaps she intelligently designed Pandoran life? How
else would every creature be able to connect to her.
And if the Na’vi were just evolved pond scum, they would not be worth saving.
Carl Wieland responds:
Thank you for your email. Yours is an interesting take, and perfectly reasonable.
One of the things I was trying to get across is that biblical themes are there,
but are simply part of the story-teller’s art, i.e. the film was not made
by Christians trying to make a biblical parable or a hidden gospel message. All
great timeless themes, as you put it so well, ‘resonate with our human condition’,
I suggest that if it were not so, they would not be such recurring, classical motifs.
Re evolutionary references—I would have been surprised if there had been any;
evolution is just assumed these days in most sci-fi films, overt references would
tend to look corny, as if one was restating the obvious.
I see it more like this: our age, our culture, is thoroughly ‘evolutionized’,
so that certain themes that assume an evolutionary worldview are just there permeating
everything. At the same time, we have those universal spiritual longings. The Bible-believing
Christian believes that they reflect our human condition because of the Fall. (Which
is one way of explaining why we ‘resonate’ with certain redemption themes,
as you have eloquently pointed out). The committed atheist materialist explains
them in purely materialistic terms. But the vast majority just sort of blend evolutionary
beliefs together with their spirituality-yearnings in a quasi-mystical New-Agey
way. And of those, some, instead of understanding or accepting the hopelessness
that a Darwinian (and hence materialistic) worldview brings with it, actually try
to infuse a basically evolutionary view of reality with some sort of hope, some
sort of redemption. That can be through group redemption, or through environmental
salvation, or the whole cosmos reaching some sort of ‘omega point’ of
evolution, as Teilhard de Chardin put it in his writings. TdC has been called the
‘father of the New Age’, and his spiritual/evolutionary/monistic philosophy
permeated a film that was made towards the end of last century-one that was all
about an evolutionary/spiritual worldview, but did not mention evolution. It was
2001: A Space Odyssey, and it so happens that I read just today that this was the
film which director of Avatar, James Cameron, states was the most influential of
all on his thinking.
Suz B., New Zealand, 19 January 2010
In reading this review what stood out to me the most, is the pagan naturistic beliefs
the entire film is based upon. In which case how can it be beneficial to watch or
dwell upon something that is not God glorifying but in fact focuses on the negative.
By studying God’s word we will be able to recognise a counterfeit, so why
spend time studying something for “conversations” sake. The Gospel should
be able to stand on it’s own feet, it doesn’t need us to introduce it
softly by comparison to a worldly movie. Honestly I was disappointed with this review.
I feel that all it achieves is an argument to make those who ‘want’
to watch this movie feel justified.
1 John 1:15 “Do not love the world
or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is
not in him.”
I know that I should consider this more carefully in decisions I make in what I
watch or spend my time on, it is an exhortation to love the Lord and don’t
we always need reminding of that in our fickle human nature! Please feel encouraged,
this is not a personal criticism, rather serious food for thought and prayer.
God Bless,
Suz
Carl Wieland replies:
Thanks for your email Suzie. This is always a tough line to walk, I suppose. To
be in the world, yet not of it, and not loving it. One has to always examine one’s
heart motives. And you’re right, we do need constant reminders.
Re the gospel standing on its own feet, in one sense the answer is ‘of course’,
but what do we mean by that? Paul himself used wise tactics, for example when he
addressed the crowd at Mars Hill, he used their cultural icons to weave his gospel
story, even quoting one of their poets. If he had been totally ignorant of their
culture and beliefs, he would humanly speaking not have had the impact he had. At
the least, we can feel safe in using the same approach as is set out for us in the
NT by the great Apostle—so long as we are not using that as an ‘excuse’,
as you rightly remind.
Thanks once again for the feedback.
Tania M., Australia, 19 January 2010
I saw this with my husband and we both enjoyed it! As Christians it made us excited
at the thought of how beautiful Pandora is—“man made” then imagine
what Heaven will be like—made by our wonderful God!!
As far as not spending your money to go to the theatre that God has allotted you
(previous entry) I think that is a shame— I think God would like His children
to be able to relate to those that do not know Him in talking about this movie….
it is predicted to win many awards-even perhaps the most ever for a movie!
Honestly think of the wonderful ways God can use you to witness if you allow Him
too. If ever there was a movie to talk about Creation, Heaven, Spirituality or Love
then this movie is it!!
Ivan H., Australia, 19 January 2010
Thank you for the good critique. I saw the movie and amongst all these green/pantheistic
over/undertones I felt particularly uncomfortable when the Navi were worshipping
their ‘Gaia’ planet goddess/god. Is this respectful of the almighty
God? Should we watch this movie?
Noelene H., Australia , 19 January 2010
I have not seen Avatar and have no desire to do so. When I was very young I was
very confused seeing people transformed into animals in movies (not knowing if it
were true) so today still I find such, revolting. We were made in the image of God
and as Christians, are being conformed into His image, taking on His Divine Nature.
Satan is taking unsuspecting unbelievers down an opposite road calling it ‘entertainment’.
Carl Wieland replies:
Many thanks for taking the trouble to comment, I appreciate it.
I can understand how it would seem. I recall being very disturbed when a youngster
at the boys in Walt Disney’s Pinocchio turning into donkeys. The issue you
raise is a tough one for which I don’t have easy answers. Satan can use the
effects of such a movie, for sure. We have been encouraged by reports of people
using their knowledge of the film, with the appropriate ‘worldview glasses’
on, for witnessing to their unsaved friends, who would not otherwise talk about
spiritual issues.
Eli P., Australia, 19 January 2010
The movie is a great spectacle, though, as long as we Christians adamantly put the
word of God as final authority, in its rightful contexts we will not be deceived
by any subliminal messages. I believe Jesus warned us about signs and wonders being
performed to deceive people, even the very elect in God (Matthew 24:24). Could these types of movies with half truths
inside them be the very seeds of deception Jesus warned us of. A note of caution
is, movies that appear to be Godly and true in half may seem right, however remember
that a half truth is also a half lie.
Like all movies, one must view them with a Godly mindset as a guard against any
subtle demonic devices, and some movies (with obvious ratings) should be avoided
altogether.
Pastor David C., Australia, 19 January 2010
The wikipedia article at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis> mentions
Avatar and seems to give some understanding of the “Pandora” worldview
taught in the Avatar film. Not that I agree with it.
Peter W., United Kingdom, 19 January 2010
I saw Avatar and enjoyed it and thought most of the remarks in the article
were very much along the lines of my interpretation but the real message I got from
it is that it is easy to hate people you do not know. Jews hated Samaritans in the
Old Testament, Nazis hated Jews, Americans hate Vietnamese (Goos) Arabs (Ragheads)
etc. In the end the film is not that complex and the idea that it can evangelise
animism is stretching the limit of credulity. If I had to live on earth or Pandora
as they were portrayed I would settle for Pandora.
Carl Wieland responds:
Many thanks for your email feedback on the review. I agree that that was one of
the film’s many messages.
Pandora is obviously meant to also have overtones of Utopia, a desirable
place to live in harmony, with fewer problems, less conflict. As indicated, mine
was a ‘back of the tissue paper’ list of the possible themes.
Like you, I don’t think it was overly complex. Simple, powerful ideas influence
people, not complicated ones. None of the basic themes running through great literature
are complex. But it can take a lot of complex-sounding words to unravel them somewhat.
I enjoyed the film and am appreciating the subsequent feedback, including yours.
Thanks again for bothering to comment.
Ruth W., United Kingdom, 19 January 2010
I have not seen this film, and actually I had not heard of it until I read the article.
I shall not be seeing it , as I cannot understand why any true believer would want
to waste time and money. I should not wish to watch it on TV either. As none of
us know when the Lord will call us home, I prefer to avoid any place that I should
not want to be at that moment. I try to ask myself if what I am about to do or see
is edifying, if not I leave it out. Call me rigid , if you like, but at least I
have peace in my heart.
Jim W., United States, 20 January 2010
One thought I would like to add to your great review of the movie. It is how when
one group of people wants to justify taking what another group of people has, they
demonize the other group. This fabrication has been used to justify destroying another
people group instead of trying to connect with that culture. Even those who have
called themselves “Christians” have been guilty of using this ploy.
Jeannette P., United Kingdom, 20 January 2010
Thank you for an interesting and thought-provoking article.
Your response to Dallas M. from Canada, re being in the world and not of it, reminded
me of Daniel.
Unlike us, he had no choice about being steeped in a pagan environment and being
taught the “wisdom” of Babylon. But he knew exactly where God wanted
him to draw the line. He could study the occult arts with all the other young boys
forcibly taken into exile; and somehow kept his own spirit pure and attuned only
to the Holy Spirit of the true God. Yet he would not “defile himself”
(KJV) by eating meat and wine offered to idols. He could be “in” this
pagan world, and learn to survive spiritually. But to actually become “OF”
it, by symbolically taking it into himself through the act of eating, he could not
do. As Paul said, we can’t drink of the Lord’s cup and the cup of idols.
Amy Carmichael wrote of a young Indian girl who heard just a tiny part of the Gospel
(there was no time for more)but responded with all her heart. Her family persecuted
her because she refused after that to have “Siva’s ashes” put
on her forehead (the sign of belonging to the god Siva). There were some other parts
of the Hindu feasts and ceremonies that she felt unable to join, and would quietly
go outside until they finished. But others she could enjoy with no problem.
She knew almost nothing, yet the Spirit taught her to walk that narrow way in the
wholly pagan society where she lived. She knew that she belonged to the true and
living God of whom she’d heard, and could now worship and submit to no other.
Re this film, I agree that this is an individual decision— for some it might
even be spiritually dangerous to watch. To others it could be a witnessing tool.
So, for those of us who haven’t yet seen this film let’s make absolutely
sure if the Lord is giving us permission to go. For some, (including myself) it
could be TOO enjoyable and fascinating for safety.
Mary M., United States, 20 January 2010
Thoughtful review. Believers of The Lord Jesus Christ must use the Christian plumb
line and ask: What of this understands the nature of God?
Preston C., United States, 20 January 2010
Stumbled upon this on another website. I wanted to provide a counterpoint if you’re
open to hearing it. Writings like this are what frustrate those of us who are agnostic.
For starters, in the “review”, the majority of time is spent using the
movie to argue that this or that is what secularists believe. Then you knock those
straw men down with your beliefs. This may be effective for information a Christian
how to look at a piece of art and not stray from the flock, but otherwise it comes
off as very “us against them.” It comes off as you trying very hard
to show how ridiculous we non-religious are. Willing to even take a movie and claim
that it’s somehow representative of our worldview (as if we even have a collective
one).
Secondly, you walk right by one of the things many of us have the biggest problem
with.
“The reason we need peace with God is all there in Genesis—because our
first ancestor introduced enmity between us and Him. But, despite the best efforts
and hopes of Miss Universe contestants, total “world peace” will only
come as the Curse is removed and God restores the world to the sin-free, deathless
perfection that it once lost.”
I know this is what you believe, but it’s one of the main beliefs that makes
Christianity a non-starter for many of us. It’s hard to swallow that an all
powerful, omniscient god would create the world and all its creatures and then when
one makes a mistake, mark the whole species as flawed for all of eternity.
I’ve heard some Christians say that what you miss if you don’t embrace
Jesus is the understanding of what it is to be loved by your creator and all that
entails. That to me has always seemed to make more sense. It’s a much more
positive message.
On the other hand, Original Sin just ends discussions. No point in trying to convince
me I’m missing out on the love of my creator if my creator is vindictive.
Carl Wieland responds:
Thanks for your feedback. It sounds to me as if you’re trying to tailor the
gospel to what you want it to be, rather than what is. Someone in a different context
said ‘Reality sucks. Get used to it.’
Seriously, though, you may be mistaken in your understanding of the cosmic drama
of creation/Fall/redemption. First, the Creator did not write the whole of humanity
off. Right there in Eden we read of the promise of redemption (Gen 3:15). Secondly, the Fall was foreknown of God, perhaps
not so much a ‘test’ as simply the only way to assure a true love relationship
for all eternity. (Love must always involve the possibility of rejection of love,
or it is not a free choice.) There’s much more to say on that, but perhaps
that will get you exploring our site a bit longer to find out some of the things
we have written on that.
Matthew H., Australia, 20 January 2010
Thanks heaps for a brilliant review! It’s encouraging to read something so
well balanced. I thoroughly enjoyed watching the film with my wife, kids and a friend.
As we walked back home discussion revolved around the apparent underlying themes
such as the worship of creation and so on. Conversation however returned back to
how great our personal God is, and that He is to be worshipped as the creator of
all things. Thanks God for salvation freedom and liberty. It was a great film for
many reasons, but how much greater is Jesus. Thanks again for your review. Matt )
Egil W., Norway, 20 January 2010
Thank you Dr Wieland for a balanced review of Avatar. I saw it last week, and I
think you`re right about the sort of elements blended into the story (Pocahontas,
Romeo & Juliet, Christ-hero etc). I regard it as very New-Age, very eco-neo-pagan
in its underlying message. Of course it may be that these elements are to be regarded
as story-telling devices, more than “preaching”, but I still feel that
the heart of this film is essentially pagan. When that is said, I think Christians
should read your review, keep what you`ve said in mind, and go and see Avatar…to
be informed. Perhaps some day in the future there will be come a long some Christian
filmmaker that makes a multimillion dollar special effects film of Genesis, that
captures the emotional and human impact of this fantastic and historical piece of
literature! Keep on your good work. Blessings from Egil W., Norway
Sam W., Kenya, 20 January 2010
I agree with Preston G’s contention about this being
the best movie review he’s yet seen. Me too. It’s a fair assessment
of a movie, with that bit about New Age teaching permeating all through the production.
Technologically, the movie’s as good a production as any by David Cameron
(Titanic and others). I would also like incorporation of a common religious teaching
and fallacy, reincarnation. Recycling of the “life force” in any individual
is a common teaching of Oriental religion and this should be highlighted-together
with the associated problems e.g. how come human numbers increase, not decrease
or remain constant.
A good review, and enjoyable read too. God bless.
Ann C., South Africa, 20 January 2010
I saw the movie and thoroughly enjoyed it, but then Sci-fi is a favourite genre
of mine. Your review was insightful, as a Christian I need to focus on a point that
I feel was lost in the commentary-God orders us in Genesis to “take care of
our world”, and the desruction that us as humans are causing our world is
not going to be overlooked by God. Yes salvation and everlasting life is for those
who have accepted Christ as their saviour, but it does not negate our respsonsibilities
as inhabitants of this planet and I think to confuse a concern for nature and activism
to preserve the planet on which we live, is ignoring God’s instruction in
Genesis.
Carl Wieland responds:
Many thanks for forwarding your feedback on this review. I actually agree with you
about our responsibilities. One can only focus on so much in an article of limited
length, but that was basically the reason I added my footnote 13 in the review-I
would particularly commend the article the footnote links to, Fouling the Nest.
I wrote it quite a few years ago, but I think the basic stewardship principles it
espouses are unchanging.
PS For your convenience, this link will take you straight
to the footnote 13 in question.
S.M., United States, 20 January 2010
Just received your review of the Avatar movie. Please remove me from your email/mailing
lists and I will no longer be buying any of your products. No Christian could write
the type of review, as you did, on this movie. Your organization is obviously apostate.
Michael H., Australia, 21 January 2010
I was expecting the article to be heavily anti-Avatar, and was gladly surprised
to find an incredibly balanced analysis and assessment. I saw the movie in 2D but
with my Biblical Worldview filters firmly intact. The animation is stunning and
something to behold, it spoke to me of the great creativity of the Father and how
He has given different talents in different amounts to different people. The makers
of the movie are clearly talented in animation. As for the pro-environmentalism
themes and New Age religion … I expected those, so was not dismayed.
Harold T., United States, 29 January 2010
I am totally shocked at the positive review of this movie. How can you be positive
about a movie that has around 50 cuss words (10 taking my Holy God’s name
in vain), nudity (even if it is animated), reeks with new age tones (we are one
with nature), and has no comparison to Christianity. I am always amazed at how Christians
give Hollywood a free pass on everything they make. It’s like it’s more
important to be entertained that it is to take a stand for God. Unbelievable! Most
surveys show that Christians spend about 60% to 70% of the money paid for movie
tickets, and about 75% to 80%; or more, of the movies made are full of filth (pg-13
or r). Isn’t that a oxymoron. It’s unfortunate that we listen more to
man’s words than we do to God’s Word. No wonder the church of the Lord
Jesus Christ is not growing, no wonder that 75% of our teenage kids that go to church
leave the church after they graduate high school, no wonder Christians are so passive
about sin. We have made sin and righteousness very weak words. We have mixed the
world with the church and made it weak. God Forgive us. We are far from striving
to be holy, but striving more to be popular.
The Bible tells us both sweet and bitter water don’t come out of the same
fountain. I really don’t think this movie has any Christian values in it.
It’s just Hollywoods way of putting a little sugar on top of their immorality.
God doesn’t need a movie full of sin to help his ministry. God’s Word
has all the power it needs. There was, also, mention of Daniel and Paul in a couple
of the responses, trying to make positive points to justify having watched the movie.
Well, since he was taken into captivity, Daniel didn’t have! a choice of where
he was at and some of the materials he was forced to read and study. It’s
quite different being forced into a certain environment and choosing to be a certain
place and watching what you choose. He trusted God and did not sin. And Paul did
use his surroundings and observations of the Athenians to make a point about who
God is and to describe Him, but he didn’t mix foul language, nudity, and nature
to make his point. God’s word can surfice on it’s own, without the help
of Hollywood. I know my unpopular thoughts are in the minority, but I will never
believe that God would watch this movie or endorse this movie. God teaches us to
abhor that which is evil. And this movie is full of it.
Carl Wieland responds:
Thank you for your feedback, it is appreciated.
Ironically, some believers criticized us for criticizing the movie, others for praising
it. I think that underscores the point that our review was meant to be analytical
overall, highlighting both the good and the bad points. (I didn’t think that
people needed reminding that coarse language is ‘par for the course’
for Hollywood today, unfortunately.) But overall, I don’t think that this
approach can fairly be described as a ‘free pass’.
The bottom line is that this will be a blockbuster and therefore have a major impact
on the culture, regardless of what we would personally prefer. The hard biblical
balancing act is to be in the world (i.e. separate) while not of it. Our examples
should be Christ (who did not isolate Himself from what unbelievers were doing)
and the Apostles. If we are to engage the culture as the apostles did (2 Corinthians 10:5), tearing down the world’s philosophical
pretensions, then the hope is that the review will assist believers in doing so.
You may be interested (if you haven’t already done so) in checking out the
very broad range of reader’s comments.
Harold T. objected:
With all due respect, I couldn’t help but to respond back to your e-mail.
Saying this is not a free pass is like saying 100 mph winds aren’t damaging.
The chance of Christians holding Hollywood responsible for the content they put
in movies are slim to none. I think anytime a person does not think it’s important
that God’s name to be taken in vain, sorry, that person has become desensitized
to a commandment God wrote with his own finger. I’m amazed that people will
pay to go to a theater and watch actors (who totally do not care about and despises
Christianity), talk filthy about our Lord. As a matter of fact Hollywood goes out
of it’s way to show how it feels about Christians. If I came into your house
and started taking God’s name in vain and using other cuss words around your
family you would probably ask me to quit or to leave. You probably 1st would witness
to me about the Lord (and that‘s a good thing), but if I didn’t stop
what would you do. Let me to continue talking around your family like that? But
on the other hand, is it ok for you to watch Avatar in your home (I’m not
saying you watched it your own home) with the same filthy language in it. Plus,
you had to pay for the privilege to hear the cuss words in Avatar at your own home,
when I could of said them to you for free (just using myself as an example). And
when anyone walks into a theater to watch a movie, they do it of free choice. Then
they are answerable to what they watch and hear.
Trying to compare going to this movie (or any other movie) to the environment Jesus
was in, is a weak point. Where ever Jesus went he was doing the work of the Father.
He wasn’t sitting there being influenced by the immorality of that day. He
wasn’t trying to be entertained. He didn’t put himself in any place
where there was nudity, filthy talk, drunkenness, sex, or other immorality without
telling the people there about God and the kingdom of heaven. Did anyone stand up
and try to witness to anyone while the movie was going on. No? That’s the
difference in what Jesus would do. Correct me if I’m wrong (and I may be)
but there’s no scripture where Jesus put himself in the situation like this.
I just don’t think Jesus would just sit there and take in a movie like this.
God tells us not to let evil things come before our eyes (and I‘m sure he
means, also, what we listen to), it’s not pleasing to him. I’m afraid
that the media (of all types including Hollywood) has done more damage to Christians
minds, and hearts, than almost anything in our society. And yet we still defend
it.
And one other point, I don’t have to see the movie to be able to tell others
about the love of Jesus. Usually people talk about the movies they see, so the opportunities
are many to share God’s love. In my humble opinion if you are sitting and
enjoying a movie like this one, you are enjoying the world. Don’t be surprised
at the negative influence this and other movies have on our minds, especially our
kids. I really don’t think the apostles would watch something with filth in
it just to be able to tear down the world’s philosophical pretensions, they
would only need the Word Of God. I don’t have to do the things the world does
to be effective. Just remember, paying to enjoy sin is one thing (choice), living
in a sinful world is another (life).
Sorry about being long-winded and pointed. I am only a sinner saved by grace. I
just don’t think you give food to a baby and put poison in it, and expect
the baby to stay healthy. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. God Bless.
Carl W.’s reply:
Thanks once again, it’s good to be able to obtain a bit more information about
where you are coming from. I can understand what you say about desensitization,
it is a very real issue. And I agree that it’s not easy to extrapolate the
situation from Jesus’ times to nowadays, i.e. what would Jesus have done in
a moviegoing society? One can put an argument for many possibilities, but I don’t
know how one would determine it with any absolute certainty. Would He have stood
up in a crowded theatre and blasted the audience? And if so, is that how He would
have had His followers behave? What makes it more difficult is that there are things
which He had the authority to do without sinning, such as driving/whipping moneychangers
out, for example.
There are many reviews that mention the bad language, our specialty area concerns
worldview, particularly in relation to Genesis/creation/evolution. The more deadly
poison (especially since many Christians have trained themselves to ‘filter/block’
the bad language of Hollywood, for better or for worse) may be in the subtle antiChristian
worldviews that are being transmitted, which is what I was trying to highlight.
Thank you once again.
Ray N., Australia, 30 January 2010
Good review. We shouldn’t expect a movie designed to make a lot of money and
entertain the masses to be overtly Christian-orientated. I watched the movie more
for the 3D visual effects than the storyline anyway. And aside for the storyline,
it should be noted that James Cameron waited years for technology to reach the point
that he could film in 3D. It is a bit of reverse engineering, cos it’s our
brain that then converts what we see into 3D in our mind. As a software engineer,
I find it amazing how our brain converts 2-slightly offset images into 3D. Can’t
imagine how evolution could ever ‘create’ this ability.
Carol G., Australia, 5 February 2010
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, (CMI)
I was quite taken back by the need for the lengthy and unnecessary splurge on the
film Avatar. Any discerning Christian would recognise the demonic element in this
film—which I note was not even mentioned on the comments re Carl’s review.
His misuse of the term “In the world but not of it” to justify the seeing
of the movie and then using it as an evangelical tool was equally appalling.
My main concern with this review is that particularly young or immature Christians
would be exposed to such an intense movie that could so easily cause an attachment
of demonic deception. So much of mainstream Christianity today is already awash
with deception. Creative streams of error (often in the guise of a just a movie)
are quite obviously intended to lead into an ocean of deception—preparing
the world to accept a universal religion. I would only hope you intend a follow
up and warn people of the impending deception already gathering great momentum,
and about which many Christians seem totally clueless.
1 Thessalonians 5:14-22 partic. v 22.
Yours in Him
Carol G.
Rick A., Australia, 6 February 2010
Regarding S.M.’s comments on 20/01/2010, I would like to say that although
I don’t think it is beneficial to be watching certain movies, (I myself rarely
watch movies), but to call this organization “apostate” is ridiculous.
The many articles that I have read C.M.I. have always asserted that the Bible is
our starting place, which clearly states that God created a world 6,000 years ago
with animals reproducing after their kind, not the alleged millions of years, the
big bang or one animal changing into another, etc.. The Bible is our yardstick by
which we are to measure everything and although this article is my least liked article,
please don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, because the apostate church
is alive and well BUT it is not C.M.I. but the ones who twist scripture to make
it say what they want. Keep up the good work.
Peter J., Canada, 7 February 2010
What a GREAT Avatar comment site. Thank you for your wonderful and heartfelt insights
into this film. The first time I saw the movie I had no idea of its content, but
as a Christian I resonated the most with the redemptive pattern seen in the life
of Jake’s character. After reading the comments section I was a little mortified
when I realized I could not remember any swear words. As for the nudity (quite subtle
actually), I see NOTHING offensive to God in how in some semi-nude features where
incorporated into this film.
As a man who ministers to youth, (ages 11-14) every Sunday, I am even more excited
after reading your web article, as I will be taking about 12 kids with me to see
this movie soon. What an opportunity to discuss what it means to be a Christian
and use this film as a tool to support their walk with Christ. I can’t wait
for the discussion we will have after the movie, and your website and comments has
really helped me organize some great topics. Yes the power of Gods word does not
need any “assistance” from a movie with sinful elements. Nor is there
anything in this movie Christians need to avoid or be afraid of. I will use this
movie to reinforce God’s claims, his truth and his reality in their lives,
and as such how it is imperative that we armour our childrens hearts against false
teachings. Living in this world as ones “set apart” does not indulge
us the luxury of NOT risking exposing them, in a controlled manner, to aspects of
our secular culture. This is a great movie to encourage Christian tweens and teens
to delve deeper into the reality of Christ in their lives, and a powerful tool to
help them understand and speak about God to their secular friends.
Awesome website, Thank you!
Richard J., Australia, 9 February 2010
This was a good review of the movie that I have finally got around to seeing. I
will say to start with that it was entertaining and a good story, though I have
been a SciFi fan for many years. I will also state up front that I am writing as
an agnostic, though have read the bible and attended church in years gone by. My
reasons for leaving are not relevant to this discussion.
One thing I do take issue with is your comment that it suggests aliens could have
evolved on other worlds. The movie doesn’t outwardly suggest evolution, any
more than what we observe around us here implies evolution over creationism.
So if we assume an omnipotent God who created the whole universe we can see, what
is to say that he didn’t create life on other planets-that may or may not
be in our image or live the way we do. I find it a little egocentric to assume that
an omnipotent universal being who can do anything sees humanity as his highest achievement.
An unlimited creator could have created many races on many worlds, all different.
After all, if you are going to create a universe why leave the rest of it empty
apart from this one planet we happen to call home?
Carl Wieland responds:
Many thanks for your feedback. I hear you, but I would stand by my comment that
“Like other sci-fi ET flicks, it will also, unfortunately, tend to reinforce
the belief that ‘aliens’ could have evolved on other worlds, and thus
the New Age deception that they are visiting us with messages of peace and salvation.”
Regardless of whether the film overtly mentions evolution or not, the whole notion
of life on other planets is largely driven by (and in turn then reinforced by) the
sci-fi genre (which many of us are also fans of, btw). Even the menagerie of Star
Wars, though not overtly evolutionary, begs the question of ‘whence all these
strange beings’ and of course there are only two possible answers; made by
God or self-made (evolved). Since most people are more in tune with the latter,
this is how they will tend to take it. Those who are familiar with the Bible’s
account of God creating would often be aware that the idea of life on other planets
is not compatible with the Bible’s grand sweep of creation/redemption - for
an explanation see
Did God create life on other planets?. I would be interested to see how
you find that article, which seeks to present a view consistent with biblical revelation.
Of course, I realize that you are referring to some hypothetical omnipotent being;
we are on about the God of the Bible. For what it is worth, if an omnipotent being
had created the universe, including feeling, communicating human beings, it seems
highly likely that he would have communicated in some way something of the purpose
of it all. The Bible is really the ‘only game in town’ when it comes
to being a candidate for such a revelation (I could go into details about the way
other ‘holy books’ either were derivatives of the Bible or in other
ways seem to not qualify, but others have done a good job of that repeatedly and
the arguments are fairly well known).
Max Z., United States, 13 August 2011
The article, extolling the excitement of the movie, and more-or-less white-washing
it, I fear ends up exposing tender minds to blasphemous language, et al…
as shown in this response:
[Max then cited the first part of the response of Peter J., above, ending at the
point where he says: “As a man who ministers to youth, (ages 11–14)
every Sunday, I am even more excited after reading your web article, as I will be
taking about 12 kids with me to see this movie soon.”]
VERY SAD AND DANGEROUS!
Carl Wieland responds:
I can well understand where you are coming from, though I think ‘whitewash’
may miss the point and perhaps is a little unfair.
As a Christian, one often walks a fine line in such matters, which frequently involve
the application of competing principles where all are derived from scriptural teaching.
Does one simply say of such a popular culture item, in effect, “This is evil
trash, don’t see it”—or does one attempt to give an honest review
that, while pointing out the worldview and false religion issues, gives credit where
it is due for such things as served to make this a cinematic masterpiece, such as
the technology and the storytelling?
I don’t claim anything but fallenness and fallibility in making such judgements,
and we welcome well-motivated commentary, even where we might think it fails to
understand the ‘why’ of any particular approach in a given article.
I would gently suggest that, especially given the fact that such a hugely popular
movie would almost certainly have been seen by these young people anyway, the youth
worker who made the comment was not exposing the kids to any additional
‘danger’. In fact, the opposite. It would have made it more likely that
they could stand firm against the torrent of similar propaganda with an anti-biblical
agenda which is coming at them from all directions, by seeing it more via biblical
worldview ‘glasses’.
Max Z. replies:
All I would like is for the gentleman who intends to take young children to see
the movie, is that he would be getting permission from the parents, and that they
would be informed about the movie’s content. I know I would not have wanted
my four children to see it. I don’t have the reference, but scripture advises
not to set our eyes on things that are not wholesome, that to do so exposes the
mind to … lost the thought, but perhaps you have read that verse.
My final thought is that within the critique, perhaps you might have suggested that
the film is for adults, and that it is not being recommended for children. It’s
possible such a simple phrase would have caused the man/pastor? not to think of
bringing children to the movie.
I very much enjoy your TV talks, and I have purchased Creation magazine
for my various grandchildren.
To which Carl Wieland writes:
I understand about the permission; I suppose I sort of presumed that any youth worker
in a church would get parental permission. And yes, it would have been useful to
make those points, I agree. We’ll arrange to post your comments and this below
the others.
|
Further reading
References
- Not just in appearance, either. Earthlings are unable to survive
more than a short time without a portable oxygen supply in Pandora’s rarified
atmosphere. Return to text.
- The name derives from Hindu religion, where an avatar is a
manifestation of one of the gods (e.g. Vishnu)—usually thought of as an illusory
form, rather than an actual incarnation. Return to text.
- According to media reports, an academic was hired to develop
an entire Na’vi language, like Star Trek’s Klingon or the Elvish
of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings series. Return to text.
- This was the ethnic slur term used by some US military personnel
in Vietnam in a derogatory way to describe the indigenous people—the use here
is (hopefully obviously, hence the scare quotes) not to condone the term, but to
highlight the way in which the film tried to portray ‘military vs locals’
as ‘baddies vs goodies’—by evoking memories of negative aspects
of US involvement in Vietnam. Return to text.
- J-J Rousseau, a French Romantic Philosopher, who is credited
with the idea of the ‘noble savage’. In this sort of mythos, less technologically
advanced societies are more innocent and uncorrupted by the vices and stresses of
‘civilization’. Return to text.
- Perhaps ‘Na’vi’ was designed to sound similar
to both ‘native’ and ‘naïve’ (as in innocent and unspoilt—or
should that be unsullied?).
Here on Earth, evidence suggests that the relative ‘innocence’, both
militarily and environmentally, of indigenous low-tech cultures is more likely related
to their lesser technological capacity to wage war and exploit the environment than
to any moral superiority. Some have wondered whether there is any intended connection
to the Hebrew word nabiy, meaning prophet. Return to text.
- When Jake tries to ‘pray’ to Eywa for help against
the invaders, Neytiri explains to him that Eywa does not take sides in conflicts,
the only thing she preserves is “the cycle of life”. This is consistent
with the impersonal nature-god of the average evolutionary pantheist. Just to make
it interesting, though (or perhaps to further appeal to ‘cultural Christians’),
the film implies that maybe their victory was due to Eywa hearing and answering
his prayer, after all. Return to text.
- Romans 1 contains a solemn reminder of the natural tendency
of the unregenerate mind to worship created things, i.e. the creation rather than
its Creator. Return to text.
- See
www.AlienIntrusion.com. Return to text.
- The subtext in this showdown seems to be: technological connectedness
is bad, biological/spiritual connectedness is good (regardless that it required
technology in the first place). More crudely: hi-tech is bad, lo-tech is good. The
‘baddie’ within the transformer-like robot is eventually dispatched
by arrows, not missiles. Return to text.
- Jake is usually short for Jacob—is this a deliberate
invocation of the patriarchal progenitor of God’s chosen people?
Return to text.
- The Na’vi actually inform Jake, prior to this, that
every person can be “born twice”. Return to text.
- To the thoughtful Christian, the forest may not be wantonly
chopped down at will, but its products may be wisely exploited to alleviate human
need. Where to strike the balance is on ongoing wisdom issue for each situation.
See Fouling the Nest. Return to
text.
- This reviewer may have been one of the very few who deliberately
went looking for a 2D performance of Avatar (Having lost one eye many years
ago, it is not possible for me to see 3D). Return to text.
| You are probably accessing this site because you had questions—just like everyone else. That’s why CMI exists. You can keep the free answers on this site coming.  | | |
|
