Oh I Just Can't Wait To Be King! (Part 3)

Lyrical Philosophy

Let me get this straight. You know her, and she knows you, but she wants to eat him. And everyone's okay with that? DID I MISS SOMETHING?

- Timon

The score of the film adds a great amount of insight to the understanding of the film as it is classified as both an Animated Feature and a Musical. “Nants ingonyama agithi Baba Sithi uhm ingonyama Siyo Nqoba Ingonyama nengw' enamabala” the opening lines to the film are Swahili meaning “Here comes a lion, Father. Oh yes itʼs a lion. Weʼre going to conquer, a lion and a leopard come to this open place.” This chant is repeated for more than a four minutes as the sun rises and Simba is christened. This opening song informs the view as to what the story is going to be about. It also displays an idea that the earth is one, there is some spiritual other that directs life but persons walk in. This form of compatabilism is evidenced by the later lyrics “It's the Circle of Life and it moves us all, through despair and hope, through faith and love, till we find our place on the path unwinding.” Through the film Simba is moved by the circle of life, yet he must “take his place in the circle of life.” There is indeed room for some Hakuna Matata, but not to the extent that apathy wins the day. One can see where Pinski gets the idea that Hinduism influenced this film. Life is cyclical in this film, however the Hindu concept of reincarnation is not found interestingly enough. Instead there is a concept of disembodied immortality found in the later portion of the film which seems to draw more on a neo-platonism than Hindu concepts. Mufasa has escaped the body and is “guiding” his son Simba. One can see a link to the Star Wars series where though apart from the body Obi-wan Kenobi guides Luke Skywalker.

“I Just Canʼt Wait to be King” captures the ideal of absolute independence, even though it is used as a distraction in the film. “No one saying do this... No one saying be there... No one saying stop that... No one saying see here... Free to run around all day... Free to do it all my way.” This is the childish idea of complete independence; actions without consequences. It is important that this song is placed just before Simba and Nala enter the Elephant graveyard. Minkoff brings Simbaʼs idea of a life without consequences and independence to a state of complete dependence on Mufasa for salvation. Also Simba is forced to face the consequences of placing not only his own life in danger but also Nalaʼs. He must face his disappointed father and learn his small paws are not ready to fill Mufasaʼs prints. Unfortunately for Simba this lesson must be learned over and over. It takes the death of Mufasa, years in exile, a stern word from Nala, and the advice of Rafiki to allow Simba to finally understand what it means to be King. That with that greater independence he so longed for, come greater responsibilities. This harkens back to the words of Christ, "Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.”¹

All great films have a villain and The Lion King does not disappoint in this respect. Scar is a pinnacle of treachery and villainy. The song “Be Prepared” shows the depths of evil the human (or lion) heart can attain. Arrogance, cunning, and deceit are all displayed in the lyrical philosophy of this song. Scar sets himself above the Hyenas, calling their minds “warthog's backsides.” He continues to display cunning and deceit when he states he is planning “the coup of the century.” This of course he fulfills when he kills Mufasa in the gorge scene. While Simba in “I Just Canʼt Wait to be King” was seeking independence, Scar represents blind, cut throat ambition. While the two songs have much in common, their starting points are different.

Another philosophical song is “Hakuna Matata.” Indeed Hakuna Matata “means no worries” and is a “problem-free philosophy.” This is the philosophical outlook of Timon and Pumbaa which can basically be summarized as “Stuff Happens.” After the death of his father Simba seems to try to deal with the pain of that death by avoiding life. Here Minkoff seems to be delving into the psychology of loss. Simba grows up, literally and figuratively to the tune of this song. This is a very common way for many people to deal with loss. Unfortunately if the story of The Lion King teaches us anything, it is that the philosophy of Hakuna Matata does not work and is not fulfilling. It is merely the band-aid placed over the soul. It lacks the power to be lived. It is for this reason that Simba returns to Pride Rock. In this sense, in the aformentioned clash between the east and the west the west comes out ahead.

The final lyrical song of this film is a piece called “Can You Feel the Love Tonight?” This is the only lyrical song that takes place when during Simbaʼs adult life.² Exploring the nature of what can be expressed in a relationship this song deals with brotherhood, the past, and coming of age. The song is less of a love song that one might expect for a song with that title. Nala is seeking to see Simba become great, but Simba is unable get over his past. The song asks the question why lies, or omissions of truth are acceptable in a relationship? There is also some verbal irony in the lyrics Timon opens the song with a statement about disaster being in the air, Nala and Simba are in a silent fight yet the song continues “Can you feel the love tonight? The peace the evening brings. The world, for once, in perfect harmony, with all its living things.” All the characters at this time are in conflict, even if it is only a minor one. Minkoffʼs inclusion of this song suggests that in the course of interpersonal relationships persons often view them with rose colored glasses on.

---

1.) Luke 12:48 (English Standard Version)
2.) The Circle of Life is repeated at the end but only the chorus and no new lyrics are added.

Oh I Just Can't Wait To Be King! (Part 2)

Plot View Points

I'm gonna be the ruler of most everything around, from the grandest of the

mountains to the humble common ground, my reign will be a superawesome thing. Oh, I just can't wait to be king!

- I Just Canʼt Wait to be King - Elton John Version

While many films may seek to expand philosophy or show different philosophical views The Lion King touches the soul in a way that these other films can only hope to do. This seems to be due to its ability to connect to an audience on different layers. The first layer is, of course, the basic story outlined above with fun little lion cubs instead of people. This layer appears to be made to resinate with children, yet it is this layer that allows the film to grasp the depth needed. A smooth lake often hides its true depth from its viewers until the waves begin to crash. The second level of understanding is where the film gets interesting. Annalee R. Ward suggests that much of the story resembles the Creation, Fall, Redemption paradigm of the Christian Tradition.¹ She believes that there are several places indicating this the first of which is the opening scene where the good king Mufasa, representing God, having a son and ruling over a beautiful land where everything appears to be at peace. The second motif is when Simba is told where he can go, “everything the light touches is our kingdom,” however Scar, representing the tempting serpent, twists Mufasaʼs words stating that “only the bravest lions” go to the “shadowy place.” A place expressly forbidden to Simba by Mufasa. In a step away from the biblical narrative, likely for feminist reasons, Simba tempts Nala to go to the “shadow places,” a reversal of the biblical story. Yet true to the bible, both Simba and Nala know what they are doing is wrong and do it anyways, much like Adam and Eve. This is the beginning of Scarʼs plot to kill Mufasa and Simba, taking his place as king.² Indeed, Simba is exiled from Pride Rock and Scar does become the King, much like Adamʼs exile and Satanʼs reign as the God of this world.³

The third motif is Simbaʼs flight, he is in the desert wandering and is saved by Timon and Pumbaa, much like Mosesʼ flight from Pharaoh in Exodus 2. However the story would not be complete without a return of the King. After years of carefree living, Simba, like Moses, receives a vision from God, that is Mufasa, telling him to “take his place in the circle of life.” So Simba journeys back to Pride Rock to claim his throne. He finds that the beautiful world he loved was destroyed, however he must fight for it because if he doesnʼt “fight for it who will?” Simba finally defeats Scar, but does not deal the killing blow, rather the hyaena hordes betray Scar. The story ends with Simba returning from the dead, metaphorically speaking, as the hero and warrior savior of the Pride Lands and a new creation of Pride Rock, much like the new Jerusalem of
revelation.⁴

Yet there is also an eastern element to the story. This element is represented by the lifestyle of Timon and Pumbaa. Their way draws upon the Taoist idea of Wu Wei, or living at harmony with nature.⁵ Timon and Pumbaaʼs philosophy takes over Simbaʼs life from the time he is very small until he is all but fully grown. This lifestyle, epitomized in the song “Hakuna Matata” shows a real and working philosophy of apathy. That is a philosophy that will not go contrary to nature but rather much like Wu Wei go with the flow of lifeʼs river.⁶

Moreover, Rafiki the wise shaman is the bridge bringing these eastern and western ideas together. He is the priest who preforms the “baptism” of Simba, but also teaches Simba that his fatherʼs spirit lives within. Rafikiʼs major scenes seem to involve the combining of these two worlds into a more pluralistic world. The “baptism⁷” of Simba occurs while the “Circle of Life” is playing in the background. When Simba meets Rafiki before his vision of Mufasa, Simba is engaged in a crisis of existential proportions. He is at a moment where he cannot simply “Hakuna Matata” away his past. Rafiki from the Lotus position begins to explain to Simba who those touching the lives of others live within. This image seeks to combine the western idea of God living within, with the eastern idea of ancestor worship. Finally at the end of the film, Rafiki once again dons the mantle of priest to preform the “baptism” of Simbaʼs daughter Kiara again to the tune, the circle of life.

Still the religious east-west reading of the film is only the second of many levels within the film. There is a different east-west reading that some critics find attractive. This reading see the film as one of conquest. Mufasa was the good king reigning over Africa. He and his ancestors represent many years of unadulterated reign over the African continent. Scar symbolizes western nations ruining this unspoiled land. Simbaʼs journey is then to be understood as Africaʼs struggle to find itself and his return as the regaining of Africa by Africans. This may be seen most clearly in the election of Nelson Mandela, who was of African Royalty and elected in the same year as The Lion Kingʼs release.⁸ While this is an interesting reading it does leave certain portions of the film unexplained. There is also a LGBT reading of the film emphasizing the relationship between Timon and Pumbaa is not one of mere friends.⁹ Others believe there is a large element of racism being promoted through this film, due to the casting of the hyenas.¹⁰ This seems rather strange as James Earl Jones was cast to play Mufasa.

Mark Pinskiʼs view on the story is much different from that of Ward. Pinski sees the story as much less influenced by the Christian tradition; instead his view is that Minkoff is drawing on the Hindu tradition, citing the lyrics of the opening song, “The Circle of Life.”¹¹ He also sees certain aspects of the of Scar and Mufasa as economic ideas. Scar is viewed as a welfare state, promising free meat to the hyenas. Scarʼs rule is symbolic of the Soviet Russian state, with the hyenas as the proletariat and the lions as the bourgeoisie.¹² This view is quite interesting as it ultimately condemns communism as a bad system that will cause ruin to the land. The emphasis on strong and wise authority is shown to be of the utmost importance since Scarʼs state falls to pieces in the few short years of his rule. Accordingly many Marxists would suggest that Scarʼs reign was not a pure communism, rather a Stalinism.

---

1.) Annalee R. Ward, Mouse Morality: The Rhetoric of Disney Animated Film (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2002), 14-17.

2.) Ibid.

3.) Genesis 3:23-24 cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4

4.) Ward, 17.

5.) Jennifer Moore, Understanding Taoism Origins*beliefs*practices*holy Texts*sacred Places (London: Watkins Publishing, 2011), 34.

6.) Ibid.

7.) This “baptism” appears similar to those seen the the Anglican, Roman Catholic, or certain Presbyterian churches. However rather than crossing Simba, Rafiki simply creates as single line across his head.

8.) Mark I. Pinski, The Gospel According to Disney, (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 159.

9.) Ibid., 157.

10.) Henry A. Giroux, The Mouse That Roared, (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1999), 105.

11.) Pinski, 154.

12.) Ibid., 154-55.

Oh I Just Can't Wait To Be King! (Part 1)

Introduction

From the day we arrive on the planet and blinking, step into the sun.

There's more to see than can ever be seen, more to do than can ever be

done. There's far too much to take in here, more to find than can ever be

found. But the sun rolling high through the sapphire sky keeps great and

small on the endless round.

- The Circle of Life

“Oh I just canʼt wait to be King!” proclaims Simba, the young lion prince of the “Pride Lands” in Disneyʼs The Lion King.¹ This Disney classic has captured the hearts and minds of millions of children and adults around the world. Yet at its core this film is filled with deep philosophical truths that everyone wrestles with in their daily lives. Issues such as pride, our relationship to the world, a sense of community and duty, vengeance, love, it even contains a philosophy of apathy. These ideas are conveyed through the dialogue, imagery, and especially the music of the film. The score is wonderful and adds such depth to the story and the ideas being expressed that not mentioning it first would be remiss.²

The story sightly resembles a tale we might hear of in Shakespearean theater, the greedy uncle kills the king, and appears to have killed the prince, blaming a disaster. Years after assuming the throne, the self-exiled prince returns with some encouragement of a mystical guide. After showing mercy to his uncle, the uncle turns once again on the prince only to be killed at the hands of his own minions. The prince reclaims the throne and reigns as a good king. Indeed the story is rather boring on its own merits, yet the movie grossed over seven hundred seventy-five million dollars worldwide³ and took home the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical.⁴

There must be something more to this story than the simple plot, and while it was well animated, the animation alone would not be enough to captivate the millions it has. The film does not fall into the what Film-Philosopher Slavoj Zizek would call “Pornography” therefore the question as to the captivation is of the utmost importance. This is where the philosophical resonance that other films seek to achieve comes in.

---

1.) The Lion King. Theater viewing. Directed by Rob Minkoff. Burbank: Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment, 1994.

2.) The Lion King won the Academy Award for best score in 1994 as well as the Golden Globe. See: http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org


3.) "The Lion King (1994)." The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110357/ (accessed May 10, 2011). It is also the highest grossing Animated Disney film world wide to this day.

4.) "HFPA - Awards Search." OFFICIAL WEBSITE of the HFPA and the GOLDEN GLOBE AWARDS. http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/film/25384 (accessed May 10, 2011)

This seems appropriate for this blog.

Is Grape Juice for Communion a Sin? from Canon Wired on Vimeo.

Love Et Cetera.

Through my current situation and changes in my life I have been contemplating the difficult concept of love. Moreover while there are 18 inches between the head and the heart this idea has captivated both. Through it all I remain convinced that true love is eternal and unconditional. Love is a commitment not merely an emotion. Some commitments are forced. We often love our family not because of a physiological imbalance of chemicals in our brains, but because they are the ones who we must deal with, we must talk to. We develop a desire to love these people for their own sake and not what they can do for us over time. When a father loves his son it is not out a need of the father for the son, however when the son is young he needs his father. It is only later in life that children begin to love their parents not for what mommy and daddy can do for them but because of who they are. Don’t get me wrong it is not that the children are not still grateful for all their parents have given them and will continue to give, but they do move past this contractual form of love to something greater.

There are really only two types of love, though each has certain subcategories. The first type is that contractual form of love. I dare say this is not love at all, it is more of a business arrangement. The two people involved in the relationship get something from one another and thus only love each other in so far as their end of the deal has been met. You could perhaps fit all human relationships into this category though many will strive to be free of it.

When it comes to the relationships between two members of the opposite sex the most basic form of contractual love is chemistry as love. Chemistry is not love. Chemistry will come an go throughout any relationship. However when chemistry is strong and confused with love the relationship becomes very, very contractual. It is as if each partner is saying to the other, “I will continue to love you so long as I have these urges.” People who can move from one relationship to another very quickly often view simple chemistry as love. This is the lowest form of love and does not even deserve the title. It is lust. While no one can deny in a truly loving relationship there will be chemistry to define the entire relationship by it is to doom it from the start. Also it is not clear to the one who holds this view that this is the view he or she holds, we often flatter ourselves into thinking we are far nobler or loving than we actually are.

The next pitfall people face when entering a contractually loving relationship is that they are forced into love or feel like they should fall in love. They want to fall in love. To quote Anberlin “you’re in love with love.” This understanding of love is the idealist view of love. I love the idea of being in love you with you as the cliche goes. This version of love again is simply a modified view of lust. It breaks down to chemistry. Love should feel like this or that. The idea of the person in the mind of one who holds this view regarding love is often that the other is a princess in a castle or a white knight ready to rescue her. It is more difficult to break off this form of love because while the idea and reality clash, the one who holds this view, will see the ideal as the reality. They will fight with their entire being to hold on to the ideal which was never there in the first place, or they will throw the relationship away because their partner cannot live up to the ideal. This form generally starts when a partner chooses the things about the other they like and views them as the entirety of the partner.

The next view of love is what i would call the truest form of human love. This form loves the other person for who they are. This love is as unconditional as a human can get. They love the other for their sake. The best example we have of this type of love is Christ and his Church. Christ’s particular redemption of sinners shows us the great depths of this love. This love is self sacrificing and always seeking to bring the beloved into a closer relationship with the lover. This is the love that according to Paul never fails. This tricky statement does not mean that the lover will always succeed in bringing the beloved into a closer relationship with them. We are not God and do not know perfectly what will bring specific people into a closer relationship with them. However that is the aim. That the person loved is brought into a closer relationship with the person loving, and also with God. Some might argue that this too is a contractual form of love. I must disagree. This form of love, while seeking the betterment of the relationship is not contingent upon it. The only contingency is the well being of the beloved. I should note that the well being foremost involves their relationship with God through Christ. Yet even if the other rejects both you and Christ, the love for them does not cease. This love is a commitment not a contract. This love says, “even if you wrong me, even if you leave me, even if you kill me I will love you and do what is best for you. While it is my hope that you will grow more and more Godly each day, that our relationship will grow and change into something far more and far better than we can imagine, even if it does not, I will love you.” Someone once equated being in love to walking into a candy store, “you walk in when there’s candy (chemistry, the ideal, etc.) and even when there’s no candy (chemistry, the ideal, etc.) you still stay until the candy (chemistry, the ideal, etc.) is back.” I would simply add that being in love means you stay in the candy store even if it shuts down. Anything else would simply be a business arrangement, a cold contract.

*Disclaimer* I do realize that there are certain situations where a relationship needs to end or be placed on hold. Home violence being chief among them. I am not advising people in such situations to simply stick it out for the sake of love. No indeed i would advise them to get out of that situation but not stop loving the abuser and hoping they would repent and turn to Christ.

Let me know what you think.

What does Porneias in Matthew 5:32 mean?

In any study of marriage one must deal with this verse first because it comes from a passage right after Jesus says lust is adultery, but also because depending on how porneias (πορνειας: often translated sexual immorality, or marital infidelity) is defined we may have a contradiction in the Bible!!! I of course am talking about Paul allowing for divorces for something else, abandonment or separation (χωριζεται) from a Christian by an unbeliever. So here not only do we have a problem of lust being considered adultery, which would in some sense make lust porneias, but we also have Paul going against Jesus! Jesus only allowed divorce for porneias, and only porneias; Paul is now allowing divorce for other things? There are three possibilities either Jesus lied, Paul was mistaken, or our interpretation/translation of porneias is often wrong. I am going to opt for the third, since I want to maintain if at all possible that Paul was writing holy scripture, and Jesus is truly God's only unique son.

I feel that the easiest way to deal with this apparent contradiction in the bible is to look at the usage of porneias. Has it been defined to narrowly by good bible translations such as the, ESV, NASB, NIV(2000), KJV, NKJV, HCSB, and better translated by translations that I might not prefer such as the NIV(1984), NLT, GWT, have gotten it right? This is a question we will have to answer. The best way to answer this may be to look at the usages of porneias (porne) in both the New Testament and the Greek Old Testament. Porne and it's derivatives occurs only 56 times in the New Testament and a mere 161 times in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament). However if we look specifically at porneias it appears only 12 and 15 times respectively. We will start here.

Starting with the Old Testament porneias appears in three basic categories:

1. In Genesis 38:24 it is used to mean sexual immorality.
2. In Tobit 4:12 (a non canonical book) it is used as mere sexual urges.
3. In Hosea 4:12 it is used as unfaithfulness or apostasy (toward God.)

In the New Testament we most clearly a reaffirmation of sense 1 (1 Corinthaisn 5). We don't see any affirmation of the Tobit passage, I would argue because mere sexual urges are not sinful. It is unclear from current bible translations if there is any place in the New Testament where unfaithfulness or apostasy would be how the word porneias ought to be translated. I would argue that there are at least two passages where this is the most preferred translation the first is Hebrews 12.:16 (Hebrews 12:16 is not the identical word, but they share the same root, and same idea, for our purposes we can simply say that pornos (πορνος) means a porneias man.) Yet was Esau sexually immoral? Was it sexual immorality to sell his birth right, as the context would suggest? No, Esau was not sexually immoral to sell his birth right, however he was unfaithful when he sold it. First he was unfaithful to himself, he was also unfaithful to God. God had given him this good thing, yet in His providence God saw fit to allow Esau to be unfaithful with the stewardship of this good gift from God.

Likewise I think this is also a better translation for the Matthew 5:32 passage. First because Jesus is all about high standards in Matthew 5, notice his you have heard it said, but I tell you statements. Looking on a woman with lust, that's adultery, being angry at your brother, that's murder. Divorcing your spouse for anything but sexual immorality, while that is a high standard for the victim, it is a very low standard for the sin spouses can commit.

Follow me on this thought experiment for a moment. In a marriage covenant a spouse promises love, honor, cherish and protect their spouse, forsaking all others and holding only unto her or him, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, as long as they both live. Pretty basic vows for a wedding. Now lets say that the husband beats his wife. Is that sexual immorality? No. Is it marital unfaithfulness? Of course! Let us take Paul now, if an unbelieving wife leaves leaves her believing husband; she goes and joins a Buddhist monastery, has she committed sexual immorality? No! Has she committed marital unfaithfulness? Yes! Therefore do Paul and Jesus agree, of course they do!

"But Matt, doesn't this open the door too wide, isn't this the type of thinking that brought the No-Fault Divorce to America in the first place?" Perhaps it played a roll; however there is a big difference between I am not happy with my marriage I will try a new one and my husband beats me or my wife abandoned me but has not been sexually immoral therefore I cannot divorce him or her.

Just some food for thought, later I will hopefully get in to unpacking what I really wanted to touch on today which was unpacking Matthew 5:27-29. Yes this kinda was backwards, get over it.

If something no longer works should it be removed from the equation?

Man: My armor does not crack, it has no holes nor weak spots. It is not prone to rust; yet while it protects perfectly from without it traps me perfectly within.

Voice A: Did you think you could obtain the joys of love yet never suffer its pains?
Voice B: Of foolish man, you are worthless and dumb. You do not matter and cannot even see you're nothing more than a beggar.

Voice A: You have become commonplace.
Voice B: An interesting book placed upon the coffee table of life, often talked about, but rarely, if ever, used and read as you once were.

Voice A: Your purpose has changed.
Voice B: You no longer captivate, you cannot command, you now look pretty, like a single tile of a mosaic. While necessary, never so necessary that you might not be replaced by other stones.

Voice A: Indeed. You used to be the entire picture.
Voice B: A single piece is all that remains.

Voice A: Will you recapture your former glory?
Voice B: In doing so you may destroy the artwork altogether.

Voice A: Indeed you must replace the other tiles.
Voice B: Will this not make them as you are now? Angry? Frustrated? Ready to sacrifice the portrait for the sake of self?

Man: Wretch that I am! Oh Lord what should I do?