Now complementarians are upset about Meryl Streep voicing Aslan

The internet is ablaze with the news that Greta Gerwig has cast Meryl Streep as the voice of Aslan in the upcoming adaptation of C.S. Lewis’ The Magician’s Nephew.

It’s a decision that has been met with an overwhelming evangelical response of outrage. Conservative pastor and scholar Joe Rigney used an anti-trans slur to describe the casting choice, calling it the “humiliation and hatred of what is True, Good and Beautiful.” Christian Nationalist pastor Joel Webbon joined in, calling Hollywood “demonic” and claiming “They’re transing the Jesus lion.”

Others were less offensive but still adamant in their objections. Speaking more than a year ago, when the casting choice was just a rumor, Allie Beth Stuckey called Aslan’s maleness “representative of the gospel” and said having a female actor voice the role would “discredit” the whole film.

Commentator Jon Root called the casting an “attack on Christianity.” Mike Winger said the casting “runs counter to the entire purpose of the story.” Still others compared the casting choice to the major plot point in Lewis’ The Last Battle where a donkey in a lion skin pretends to be the great lion.

All these criticisms come down to one thing: Aslan is a male lion; Meryl Streep is not.

Well, nobody really has an issue with the “not a lion” aspect of it, it’s more about the “not a male” part.

Just so we’re clear, the conservative argument appears to be that it’s fine for a lion to be a representation of Jesus. What’s not OK with them is if Jesus represented as a lion is represented by a woman.

“The overarching assertion conservatives seem to be making is that it is improper for a woman — even her voice — to be a representation of Jesus.”

By making the voice of Aslan come from the mouth of a woman, Gerwig has launched the latest battle in a conservative reactionary culture war about larger issues of patriarchy, male headship, gender identity and spiritual authority. And while some voices are more inflammatory than others, the overarching assertion conservatives seem to be making is that it is improper for a woman — even her voice — to be a representation of Jesus.

The problem of representation

To understand his contention and respond to it, we first need to understand who Aslan is — both within C.S. Lewis’ Narnia and what that fictional character is intended to represent. Simply put, Aslan is Jesus. Not even an allegory for Jesus, although we could argue semantics, but an actual representation of Jesus.

Lewis considered his Narnia books to be what he called “supposals” and wrote that Aslan is “an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, ‘What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia and he chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as he actually has done in ours?’”

This insistence that Aslan is not an allegory but a direct representation seems to be driving a lot of conservative response. Aslan must be male because Jesus is male. And while I think he would have been baffled by the tone of many of the criticisms to Streep’s casting, I do think C.S. Lewis would have agreed.

In an essay titled “Priestesses in the Church?,” Lewis makes the case that women should not represent God. Lewis’ argumentation is much different than most conservative complementarians today. Lewis readily agrees that women can preach. He assures us that “no one among those who dislike the proposal is maintaining that women are less capable than men of piety, zeal, learning and whatever else seems necessary for the pastoral office.”

For Lewis, women are capable and competent to do the work of priesthood, but they cannot be representative of God. He bases this argument on the metaphors he sees in Scripture: God is presented as a father, Christ is presented as a husband, Jesus is called God’s son. Therefore, maleness is symbolically necessary to represent Christ. Aslan must be male.

But why?

The problem is that Scripture itself doesn’t treat gendered imagery quite so rigidly. What if a woman can represent Christ without becoming male? Lewis, and the complementarians that follow him, root their arguments for representation in the male-centered metaphors in Scripture. But those aren’t the only metaphors.

Scripture repeatedly describes God using feminine imagery. Isaiah compares God to a mother comforting her child. Deuteronomy describes God as a mother eagle caring for her young and even speaks of God as the one who gave birth to Israel.

In the New Testament, Jesus uses stories to talk about himself in fictional ways. In Luke 15, Jesus is asked why he eats with tax collectors and sinners. One of the stories Jesus tells in reply envisions himself as a peasant woman, sweeping her house in search of her lost coin. At another time — and this is the only time Jesus himself analogizes himself as an animal — he refers to himself as a mother hen, speaking of his longing to gather his people “as a hen gathers chicks under her wings.”

“Feminine representation should not automatically be disqualified from representing God.”

If feminine imagery can reveal something true about God, then feminine representation should not automatically be disqualified from representing God.

Lewis (and other complementarians) could respond that these are metaphors. That is true, but it begs the question of why must the priest’s maleness be more than metaphorical. Why must a priest — or a voice actor representing a lion that represents Christ — share Jesus’ sexual characteristics but not anything else?

Lewis’ answer might be that Christ’s maleness is not incidental to his identity but is symbolically bound up with his relationship to the church as Bridegroom to Bride. But that simply moves the question. Why must that particular metaphor be embodied in the priest, especially when Scripture itself uses feminine imagery to describe both God and Jesus? Lewis’ response can simply be that it is substantively different without offering much of anything in the way of why.

A wider representation

In fact, creating Aslan as a lion undermines Lewis’ whole argument. Lewis intended for Aslan to be as much like the historical Jesus as possible, just placed into a setting like Narnia where the primary populace is talking animals. Christ is incarnated as human because in this real-life world Christ came to represent humans. Aslan is a lion because in the fictional reality of Narnia, Aslan has come to represent all talking animals. Lewis is saying the second person of the Trinity reveals themselves to their creation in a way they can identify with and understand.

Greta Gerwig’s Aslan, then — to mimic Lewis’ own stated goals — should reveal Christ in all his glory to us, presented to us in a way that makes us feel represented, identified with and seen. Meryl Streep’s feminine presence adds to that idea of representation.

Additionally, while Lewis likes to draw a straight line from Aslan to Jesus, the Aslan of The Magician’s Nephew is also portrayed through imagery strongly associated with the Holy Spirit. Aslan brings Narnia into being through song while “a light wind, very fresh” begins to stir. He then breathes a “long, warm breath” upon the creatures, giving them life and thought. In sum, Aslan’s portrayal evokes not only Jesus the Son, but the Holy Spirit — which often has been associated with feminine imagery.

The lion still has a mane

We can argue about whether or not Gerwig’s decision is economically prudent. It’s an odd choice to knowingly alienate a core audience of the story being adapted. We also can argue that artistic representations should be faithful to their source material when they can. We can debate if the glam-rock aesthetic will work on screen. Personally, I’m not sure what I think about some of the casting choices or artistic renderings. But what I cannot argue is that Streep’s casting is wrong because her voice cannot represent the divine.

And, according to Gerwig, the choice wasn’t even primarily about gender. She wanted someone with wisdom, gravitas, depth and joy — qualities she associated with Streep and with the Aslan she wanted to create. We know nothing about how Streep’s voice will be portrayed. Maybe it will be great. Maybe it’ll sound weird. Maybe it’ll be absolutely perfect. We’ll have to wait and see.

But however Streep approaches the job, one thing isn’t changing. Aslan is still Aslan. He is still a lion. He is still male. He still has his mane. He is still the Christ figure Lewis created. Whatever theological or cultural subversion some conservatives are attributing to the casting goes far beyond what is actually happening on screen.

So never fear, conservatives. Put down your pitchforks. Rest assured that, while I assume it will not make an on-screen appearance, the Jesus of Narnia still has a penis.

 

Josh Olds is a public theologian and pastor for those disillusioned with institutional church. He is the creator of the small-group video series “Year on the Mountaintop” and a featured contributor to Fostering Hope: A Prayerbook for Fostering and Adoptive Parents. Follow his work on Facebook or at JoshOlds.com.

 

Related:

Why Elon Musk thinks Christopher Nolan has ‘desecrated The Odyssey’ | Analysis by Josh Olds

Is Nolans’ Odyssey woke or a worthy warning? | Analysis by Josh Olds