Prince Caspian and Open Theism
May 19, 2008 – 7:03 am by sntjohnny. Filed under Blog, General.Some friends took issue with a statement by Aslan to the effect: “We can never know what would have happened.”
Aslan of course is a type of Christ. And Christ is God. The idea that God could not know what would have happened smacks a great deal of some modern trend in theology called ‘open theism.’
The book, however, has Aslan saying something quite different: “No one is told what would have happened.” In the same package of insight, Lewis shares through Aslan, “One is only told their own story.” [these are paraphrases]
That comment was the only one I saw in the movie that came across as ‘open theistic’ so I suppose that some writer moved to try to condense some narrative without giving thought to what they just said. There is a difference between the ideas. The Book Prince Caspian is rock orthodox solid. The other is experimental… and most likely will fall away as most ‘innovations’ in theology do.
There is some wiggle room here for the movie quote. Aslan is a type specifically of the second person of the Trinity and that person asserted that there were some things known only to the Father. The quote could be construed as an example of Aslan’s kenosis. That is me being generous.
Anyway, I just wanted to set the record straight. I got some search hits on open theism and Prince Caspian so I was prompted to speak on it. The book communicates the notion that another possible ‘future’ is not known to us and will not be told, but God knows it. The movie communicates the notion that even God doesn’t know it. When in doubt, the Book is authoritative.
I don’t suppose we can expect Walt Disney to get every nuance of theology dead on, but I don’t see why they couldn’t have just lifted the direct quote without modifying it.
My review of this movie is forthcoming.
4 Responses to “Prince Caspian and Open Theism”
You make an interesting connection between the film and open theism which I hadn’t thought of. This does of course highlight a reality that nothing is certain until it happens, even in God’s reality. However, God is infinitely intelligent and always knows every possibility for every choice and every contingency. So to that extent, I think you are correct in assessing the line in the film.
As for open theism, I recommend some primers starting with “Letters from a Skeptic”. Approach it with an open mind for exploring a theology that is consistent and portrays God as a beautiful and loving being instead of an ugly monster that wacks people.
By Debra on May 19, 2008
Thanks for your comments, Debra.
I have read the book you mentioned. I don’t think I can follow you in your assessment that the alternatives speak to an ‘ugly monster that whacks people.’ I am not a Calvinist.
It wasn’t the intent of my post to discuss the merits of open theism, per se, so much as it was to point out that the book did something differently than the movie. And just for the record, I cannot take credit for making the connection. Others mentioned it and then I got the search hits, and then I spoke on it.
By sntjohnny on May 19, 2008
Lewis had some amazing explanations for “the way things came to be…” of course he would not call his explanations authoritative, but they continue to be amazingly insightful nonetheless
By patrick on Jun 4, 2008