When Netflix first announced it was adapting C.S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia, everyone asked the same question: “Who are they going to make gay?”

Well, we may have our answer.

According to Empire Magazine, Greta Gerwig has confirmed that Meryl Streep will play Aslan the Great Lion in The Magician’s Nephew, the first film in her planned Narnia series.

The magazine also featured a full-page cover of Gerwig’s new Aslan, depicted with David Bowie-inspired eyes and rainbow-coloured whiskers. Yes, really…

But Aslan is not merely another fantasy character. He is one of the most recognisable representations of Christ in modern children’s literature.

He is the Creator of Narnia. He is its rightful King. He is the judge who confronts evil. He willingly lays down his life in the place of another, dies upon a stone table, and rises from the dead.

Lewis deliberately constructed Aslan’s story to help children understand the person and work of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.

As such, Aslan’s identity matters.

Lewis didn’t write Aslan as an androgynous symbol onto which every generation could project whatever cultural meaning it preferred. He wrote him as a male lion and deliberately invested that character with masculine kingship, authority and Christological significance.

It’s not simply a debate about ideal casting. It’s a question about what happens when Hollywood gets a hold of a distinctly Christian work and decides to reshape its image around the feminist gods of the day.

Gerwig has described her Narnia as a “rock opera,” drawing inspiration from David Bowie and imagining Narnia as a world created through modern music.

But Lewis already created a specific Narnia. He already created a specific Aslan. And he created them for a specific reason.

That is precisely why the story cannot be treated as interchangeable creative material. There is a difference between adapting a classic and appropriating it.

An adaptation asks: How can we faithfully bring this story to a new medium?

An appropriation asks: How can we take this beloved story and make it serve our own artistic and cultural vision?

The former respects the author’s work. The latter defaces it.

And Gerwig’s Narnia looks like defacement.

We can’t help but wonder who, exactly, they are creating this “adaptation” for. Narnia fans? Lewis fans? Christians?

No one is asking for Aslan to be reinvented in the image of today’s transgender culture. Yet that appears to be precisely what Hollywood is determined to do to one of the greatest Christian storybooks ever written.

We don’t need Narnia stripped of its Christian identity and repackaged as another piece of contemporary Hollywood woke fantasy. Lewis fans do not need his characters reconstructed to fit the feminist sensibilities of the moment.

The world already loves the Narnia Lewis wrote. And perhaps that’s their problem. If they could, we know they would cancel Narnia and its Christological message altogether.

But Hollywood has also spent years proving that it doesn’t need to cancel a classic to destroy what made it special.

It can simply take the characters, alter their identities, impose a new ideological and aesthetic framework, and then insist that the result is an improvement.

It’s literary vandalism, and perhaps that is precisely the point. Take something beloved, reshape it until it reflects the new cultural norms, and eventually the original becomes inseparable from the controversy surrounding its remake.

What comes to mind now when you hear the words “Snow White”? The timeless fairy tale, or the cultural wreckage left behind by Hollywood’s latest reinvention?

That is what Hollywood does to the stories it retells: it takes what was beautiful, Christian and beloved, strips away what made it distinctive and admirable, and remakes it in the image of its own ugly gods.

Hollywood does not create beauty from these stories. It inherits what others have created, strips away what made it beautiful, and twists it into something else entirely.

To quote Lewis’ good friend and contemporary J.R.R. Tolkien, “The Shadow that bred them can only mock; it cannot make: not real new things of its own.” Or, as it’s often paraphrased, “Evil is not able to create anything new; it can only distort and destroy what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”

A nation is more than the dirt it exists on. It’s a people bound together by a common heritage, language, culture, institutions, traditions, and sense of belonging.

Immigration might strengthen that nation, but it can only do so when newcomers enter that inheritance and become a part of the national community. Think, for example, of the Biblical story of Ruth.

Ruth was a Moabite, but her loyalty was to Israel: “Your people shall be my people, and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16). That should be the standard for immigration into any nation that intends to preserve its identity rather than be diluted or hollowed out from within. This is what assimilation should look like.

Keep Caldron Pool Online

But immigration without any degree of assimilation will inevitably do the opposite. It will fracture the very society immigrants were invited to join. A country that continually imports people while refusing to demand integration eventually recreates a fragmented country of nations within a nation.

Different communities will eventually live alongside one another, attend different schools, speak different languages, consume different media, preserve separate cultural loyalties and develop entirely different visions of what the country should become. They will share little beyond geography.

But there is something profoundly unjust about expecting the native population to accept this transformation without being permitted to defend the culture and institutions they inherited.

Consider a house. If you invite guests into your home, you don’t expect them to rebuild the house around themselves. You don’t expect them to ignore the rules, reject the customs of the household and establish a separate household inside it. You expect them to respect the home they’ve entered.

Subscribe now

What’s more, if those guests told you they hadn’t accepted your invitation because they liked you or cared about your family, but simply wanted what was on the dinner table, it’s safe to say they wouldn’t remain guests for long.

A nation has an even greater claim to that respect.

Assimilation isn’t hatred. It’s what prevents immigration from becoming a source of permanent demographic fragmentation and division.

A nation can welcome newcomers while still saying: This is our country. These are our laws. This is our language. These are our institutions. You are welcome to become part of this people, but immigration doesn’t entitle anyone to remain permanently separate from it.

A nation without a common identity eventually loses its common purpose. Once citizens stop seeing themselves as one people and instead retreat into competing ethnic, cultural and national loyalties, the bonds of nationhood don’t merely weaken; they disappear.

What remains is not a nation, but a vague population defined by little more than its differences. In the end, all you’re left with is millions of ununified “diverse” people with little in common beyond their competing claims to the same house.