Skip to main content

Why The Lion King?

People are often surprised when I tell them it's my favorite movie. They suspect me of some kind of silliness, which I grant, is not a huge leap. But it's legitimately a great movie. When we begin, we are witnesses to either a baptism, or an anointing, and it isn't clear which. We see the ray of sunlight fall upon the boy who would be king, and we are invited to draw the obvious conclusions from what is left of our religious heritage.

We meet King Mufasa, who remains the moral center of the film throughout, and from whom all the good characters derive their authority and example. As I like to say, the morality play is straight up; we identify with the good characters, and are repulsed by the bad ones. When Simba gets in trouble, his father calls to him in the darkness; he steps into the huge footprint left by his father. There's a whole commentary about fathers and sons written into those wordless seconds.

The problem of the film is gut-wrenching; if you have never seen it, it will move you.

Simba finds two funny friends in the desert, and I can't say it better than Simba: "Timon and Pumbaa; you'll learn to love 'em." Simba and his friends learn that we can't stay where we are, even when it's comfortable.

It's funny when it needs to be, and it's serious when it needs to be. Everyone has duties to perform, even when we must face the past to perform them.

It's the Joseph story with lions. You get a little Shakespeare, political intrigue, and great songs. You need to see it, if you haven't.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un