For some conservative Christian fans of C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia, the idea of God being portrayed as a lion is fine.
As long as he sounds like a guy.
News that three-time Oscar winner Meryl Streep would voice Aslan — the Jesus figure at the center of Lewis’ bestselling series in Greta Gerwig’s upcoming adaptation of “Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew” — led to confusion, anger and disappointment on social media, with some evangelical fans planning to skip the film. It’s set to be released in theaters in February 2027.
Some called the change “blasphemy” or claimed it mocked Lewis’ work, saying Aslan had become “Translan” and a symbol of the broader culture war. Others told their fellow fans to chill out.
“Meryl Streep as Aslan?” wrote conservative influencer Mike Winger in criticizing the move on social media. “It runs counter to the entire purpose of the story. CS Lewis would have a fit and rightly so.”
Your tax-deductible gift supports our mission of reporting the truth and restoring the church. Donate $50 or more to The Roys Report, and you can elect to receive our featured offer, “When Shepherds Prey: Confronting Abuse in Church Leadership—A Call for Reformation” by Ron Cantor. – click here.
The dustup over Streep and Aslan echoes some of the culture war debates over the cast of “The Odyssey” earlier this year, in particular, Lupita Nyong’o being cast as Helen of Troy. But the debate has taken on religious overtones, given the devotion that evangelical Christians have to Lewis — whose Narnia books have sold more than 100 million copies since 1950, and whose books on faith are often cited by evangelical pastors.
For some evangelicals, the Christian author is essentially a saint, said Leslie Baynes, a religion professor at Missouri State University and author of “Between Interpretation and Imagination: C.S. Lewis and the Bible.” Making changes to his work can be like messing with something sacred, she said.
“For many evangelicals, C.S. Lewis can do no wrong, and they have a very close relationship with his work,” she said.
Many fans, evangelical or otherwise, already have a vision of what the characters in the books should look and sound like, she added. And in the Narnia books, Aslan is a Jesus figure. Evangelicals have very clear views of gender, especially when it comes to God.
“I myself don’t have any problem with a woman voicing Aslan, but for a lot of evangelicals, it seems almost like blasphemy,” Baynes said.
“The Magician’s Nephew,” which has been adapted as an audiobook read by British actor Kenneth Branagh, has never before been made into a film or television episode. The book was inspired in part by the children’s books written by British author E. Nesbit, which Lewis read as a child, Baynes said, as well as the creation story in Genesis. It tells how the conflict between Jadis, the White Witch and chief villain in the Narnia books, and Aslan began. And of course, two children play a key role in the story.
Gerwig, the new film’s director, told Empire that in casting the role, she sought “someone who was profound but not pretentious, who had gravitas but not morose self-seriousness. Someone who could communicate depth and pathos as well as joy and delight. I wanted someone who was older than 70, so there was a wisdom of experience, but who also had the capacity of fresh wonder, like a child. And also to be one of the greatest actors to ever do it. That list is not a long one.”
Phil Vischer, creator of the VeggieTales Christian video series and co-host of “The Holy Post” Podcast, told media he was more puzzled than angry at the gender switch for the actor voicing Aslan — British actor Liam Neeson played the role in the trio of early 2000s films from Disney. And he wondered what the change in actors meant for how Aslan would appear in the new film.
“So if Meryl Streep is Aslan … is Aslan a female lion with a mane?” he wrote on X. “Or a male lion with a woman’s voice? I’m not thrilled with either possibility.”
Vischer pointed to a general annoyance with Hollywood rewriting classic stories — as was the case with “The Odyssey” or with the “Wicked” films, which reimagined “The Wizard of Oz” stories. But the case of Aslan is different because of the religious dimension of Narnia.
“It’s more incendiary because this character represents Jesus, and the notion that you would gender switch God or Jesus has been a hot-button issue for 100 years,” said Vischer, adding he is withholding judgment until seeing the final film. “It’s culture war red meat.”
Author Mary Pezzulo, a lifelong Narnia fan, said “The Magician’s Nephew” is one of her favorite books. “It’s the scariest and also the funniest of the Lewis books,” she said, pointing to a scene where the White Witch shows up on a London street and starts a humorous brawl.
She’s not a big fan of Gerwig’s approach to Narnia based on some of the reported changes in the film, which include moving the story time frame to the 1950s, rather than the early 1900s in the novel. But she worries that the backlash against Streep sends a message that denigrates women.
Why, she asks, is it alright for Jesus to be portrayed as a lion but not as a woman?
“You can turn Jesus into an animal, and it doesn’t take away from his dignity,” she said. “But you think it’s offensive to turn (Jesus) into a woman? That just kind of hurts. That’s just a really nasty way to think about women.”
The debate over Streep comes at a time when women leaders in churches are increasingly viewed with suspicion by evangelicals. The Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, is considering a ban on churches that give women the title of pastor. Some of its leaders see women in that role as an existential threat.
Fewer fans of the Narnia books have complained about Kobna Holdbrook-Smith, a British actor who was born in Ghana, playing a cab driver named Frank, a key supporting role in the film. In the novel, the character is from the English countryside and is assumed to be white.
David Regier, an influencer best known for his sarcastic commentary on X as the “Church Curmudgeon,” wonders if the makers of the new film underestimate the close ties between Lewis and his fans. He said he read the Narnia books as an adult and then read them to his kids.
But he also devoured Lewis’ books about religious topics, like “The Problem of Pain,” “Miracles” and “The Great Divorce,” a book about heaven and hell. And in his works, Regier said, Lewis had strong ideas about gender.
“If you’ve had a lot of connection to Lewis, you have a lot of his worldview in you,” he said. “And Lewis was pretty clear about male and female not being interchangeable.”
Still, he thinks some of the online responses have gone too far. “People were calling it blasphemy and things like that. I don’t think I would necessarily go that far because we are talking about a fictional character,” he said.
Via his online persona, Regier had a funny response to the whole controversy.
“I asked who was in charge,” he wrote on X. “They said, ‘Narnia business.’”
Bob Smietana is a national reporter for Religion News Service.
37 Responses
“You can turn Jesus into an animal, and it doesn’t take away from his dignity,” she said. “But you think it’s offensive to turn (Jesus) into a woman? That just kind of hurts. That’s just a really nasty way to think about women.”
In the Bible, Jesus is often referred to as the Lion of Judah. I don’t believe he is ever referred to as a woman. Jesus was a male while he walked the earth. I am not clear on why some people find this fact offensive?
One last point…It’s probably not the best idea to try and change our unchanging God into an unrecognizable female-inspired creature.
Great comment Cynthia. That was my exact thought when I read the comment about evangelicals being okay with Jesus being portrayed as as a lion but not a woman. Many Christians have left orthodoxy in the case of God’s design for men/women so it doesn’t surprise me that they’d be okay with this
On this we can agree, Cynthia. This is a clear attempt at changing something for the purpose of being controversial. And it will largely backfire because a significant number of the tickets they would sell would be to Christians who will not support this.
No, not “often”: just once, in Revelation 5:5.
Cynthia Wright:
Actually, there are at least 150 references to lions in relation to God scattered throughout the Bible.
That’s a different statement from, “Jesus is often referred to as the Lion of Judah.”
You’re right, Cynthia. I was not clear in what I said. My point was simply that Jesus is often linked to lion imagery in the Bible.
Satan is linked to lion imagery, too.
Correction: It’s best not to change our unchanging God into a fictional character. Because that’s what Aslan is: fictional. Unlike Jesus, Aslan has never actually lived or existed. That’s not heresy, it’s just a basic, true statement. I’m sure that C.S. Lewis could never have predicted that in 2026 people would actually confuse the living Lord Jesus Christ with a fictional character he created, but it appears that we have arrived at the most absurd form of idolatry in that a talking lion in a charming, suppositional 20th century children’s fantasy series is now a god that you have decided to worship, and the Narnia series is now a stand-in for the epistles. May God forgive you.
Gilbert Mattingly:
Symbolism. Look it up.
Aslan is a symbol for Jesus, the Son of God. Obviously he is a fictional character (note the “he”), just like Jane Eyre or Frodo or…all literary fictional characters.
The point is not whether Aslan is a real person or not. The point is he stands as a symbol for Jesus Christ. If you have read and read the Bible, you will know that Jesus was a story teller. He used stories to emphasize critical concepts he wanted people to remember and put into practice.
In the same way, Aslan is meant as a teaching symbol for children – he symbolically conveys the nature of God and the sacrifice of Jesus.
Symbolism. Look it up.
I was simply responding to your own established ideas regarding Aslan. You referred to Aslan being voiced by Meryl Streep in a movie as an attempt to “change our unchanging God” which means that clearly it is not merely symbolic to you, as a difference in Aslan’s vocal range = a change to your god! Furthermore, C.S. Lewis was quite insistent that his Narnia books were NOT allegorical, and that Aslan was in fact NOT to be interpreted as a symbol for Jesus Christ. Lewis referred to Aslan as suppositional, a way to explore Christian themes, self sacrifice, and the gospel message without creating a 1:1 allegorical symbolic representation of Jesus. Furthermore, while Jesus was a great storyteller, and so was C.S. Lewis, the parables of Jesus are not directly included in the Narnia books, which again, you seem to be confusing with scripture. Suppositional. Look it up.
Gilbert Mattingly:
Your words: ….”as a difference in Aslan’s vocal range = a change to your god!”
Do you honestly believe a change in vocal range is the discussion topic?
We are talking about changing Jesus into a woman, not changing vocal range.
If you don’t understand how wrong that is, I pity you. And, please, it really does help to tell those of us who read the posts on this site that you are using AI for your information.
“C.S. Lewis was quite insistent that …Aslan was in fact NOT to be interpreted as a symbol for Jesus Christ”
Either Lewis is lying, or you are. The whole “suppositional” exercise was to cram Jesus Christ and his atonement and resurrection into a story of a world with talking animals. The Narnia Chronicles are an explicitly Christian story, whether or not they are allegorical (and the aslan character is allegorical, just as much as John Bunyan’s the pilgrim’s progress, no matter what CS himself said). And any artistic interpretation of it that distorts the Christ figure into a version Christ was not, is fair game to hold reservations against.
Here’s another supposition for you. I’m not Roman Catholic. I don’t think crucifixes or icons are the actual Christ. But if some faux-avant-garde, legend-in-his-own-mind artist created a tryptich full of scenes depicting Christ as a sinner, as a woman, an Egyptian, a family man with 8 wives and 3 kids, a tax collector, a maga hat wearer–in short, anything he’s not–even though I don’t recognize visual art as Scripture, I would be right to consider such a piece of work as intended to desecrate and devalue Christ as sacred, and to offend and provoke Christians who consider him worthy of worship.
The filmmaker could have gender-swapped the titular magician, or his nephew, or anyone else in the story, but of COURSE it was the Jesus figure that got that treatment.
I disagree, Gilbert.
This becomes a situation like when you are purchasing a $50,000 car and the car dealer throws in a $400 previously undisclosed fee for “window coating” at the last minute. (Or tire locks. Or paint coating. The scam changes by dealer.) You object that the price is not the quoted price. They say it’s “just $400. Are you really going to throw the whole deal away for so little compared to the 50k you’re already spending?”
They say it’s “just a small amount”. But if it’s just a small amount, then “YOU concede.” It’s a “small amount”. What does it matter, right? They won’t, obviously, because they want the $400. The “it’s just a small amount’ is just a line to use on YOU.
Making Asln a woman is a very clear and intentional philosophical and theological social point they are trying to make. The laughing and mocking and suggesting “look at these morons getting upset over such a little thing!” Is a line. Just like the $400.
If it’s no big deal, make him male and we can all enjoy the movie together. Then the smiles fade and they say, “No.”
Now we’re being honest with each other.
I made a choice a long time ago that if I like a book, I don’t bother seeing the movie made from it. Too many directors and screenwriters seem to think they are smarter than the original author of the book–but they aren’t.
The Chronicles of Narnia are not Scripture. As far as I am concerned, you do with them as you please. A whole load of fuss over nothing, as far as I’m concerned.
Based on the tone of the opening remarks, it seems the author views the evangelical response as a silly one. How someone can report so thoroughly on lgbtq issues in the church, and seemingly not appreciate the clear difference between an allegory that makes the Lion of Judah a lion, and one that portrays him as a woman, is very confusing and makes me concerned for the personal convictions that would lead the author and the Roys Report to publish such an article.
When it comes to film adaptations of books, I think most people want and expect the movie to be fairly faithful to the authors original work. Fans get outraged all the time. If dune got set in Midwest America, or jane Austen was played by tom cruise, fans would be upset. The time period and casting of Aslan are significant departures from Lewis’s work. And in an allegorical work, changes can completely change meaning. Being upset is understandable.
Unfortunately Art gets reimagined all time. Love it or hate it. Someday every thing will become fair use and your favorite franchise will be used in a way you don’t like. This is gerwigs interpretation of narnia now, not lewis’s
Liam Neeson is still around and able to lend his voice to Aslan but it’s decided to give a male lion with a mane a woman’s voice? Move the setting to 1950’s? When this story is supposed to be set before the other 6 books that have a world war backdrop? It’s obvious the intention is not to be faithful to the original work. Who knows what other changes will be made, maybe Jadis will have a tragic back story making us sympathetic to her being so evil, just like ‘Wicked’ did for the wicked witch of the west? No one is going to go to the theater to see this, it will flop hard. The Magician’s Nephew deserves a faithful to the book film adaptation much like the 2000’s films were. A sad missed opportunity here, it’s evident the respect and love of the books is not on set for this new film. The Magician’s Nephew is more than strong enough a story to put on film without drastic artistic changes. The franchise is not in good hands, unfortunately.
How can anyone judge this decision before they’ve seen the film? Why would anyone care to have an opinion about it or care about other people’s opinions before they’ve actually seen the end result? This is a pretty good example of evangelical (human) thought-processing though: start with the intuitive, emotional response, believe it’s a God-ordained truth, and then work backwards from there to justify it despite not having any evidence.
I could produce a movie about Martin Luther King jr, and announce that mlk would be played by Paul giamatti in a speedo, steve buscemi playing his wife coretta Scott, and claim artistic license to reinterpret his life and the black civil rights movement in lgbtq terms. If I did that, the black community would be up in arms about it and picketing my house–or worse–before the release date. Would you tell them “how can you judge the movie before seeing it” and tell them they’re stupid to opine without having seen the end result?
I’m guessing no. Martin Luther King is a sacrosanct golden calf in American society. Aslan in the Narnia books may be a fictional character, but he is an allegorical illustration of Jesus Christ in the gospels. Do you really not understand why “evangelical thought-processing” movie-goers would find a portrayal of the son of God as female to be repugnant?
I rarely consume anything flowing out of the sewer that is the Anglophone film industry because almost none of it is worth my time, but I’m still disgusted. Gender-swapping and brown-grading characters is unoriginal now to the point of banality, and directors doing it are contemptible.
Always amazed at the “Christian” fascination with Greek mythological content of Narnia, and all the middle earth sorcery of the hobbit.
The sin of the golden calf was mixing the religion of Egypt using an idol to worship GOD … Tomorrow a feast to The LORD Exo 32:5.
They used a golden calf to represent The Most High (You can see this in the Ox Head paleo Hebrew letter Alef, amd shepherds crook letter Lamed name “El”) … HE does not change so … using an allegory full of half beast half man creatures is not a good idea either. HE will not offer a different justice Grace and truth was from the beginning as Christ was in the beginning the Word, with GOD and Was or better yet is GOD.
I read somewhere that we (all Christians, regardless of gender) are the bride of Christ. I guess whoever made that point should also charged with blasphemy.
Well I’m not quite sure where you read that. The ”Chuch” is the Bride of Christ, allegorically.
what makes up the church…
I am not surprised that Hollywood continues to do all they can to change anything about The Christ. It’s absurd that the voice of Aslyn will be a woman. I simply will not watch it. Hollywood has been producing films that please no one but Hollywood insiders for a very long time. Is it blasphemous? Absolutely. Does Hollywood care? No and more than that, they will go the extra mile to denigrate anything having to do with faith, the dignity of a woman, the role of a man and most certainly children–that are viewed only as expendable. So we can scream and cry that it is awful–but it will not matter. And as recent films have proven, it can (and hopefully will) be a dismal failure at the box office but that will be of no consequence as long as it feeds the evil Hollywood agenda.
Nothing at all against Meryl Streep’s shine as an actress. As Aslan is a Jesus figure, I feel the voice should be masculine. In an earlier series, Aslan was voiced by Liam Neeson. That was a standout.
First of all, the Chronicles of Narnia aren’t scripture, so let’s not react as if it is. And even when it comes to films based on scripture, it’s been my experience that Christians are NEVER happy. I’ve read warnings and negative reviews of The Ten Commandments, Jesus of Nazareth, The Greatest Story Ever Told, The Prince of Egypt, and on and on……all based on various preferences and interpretations of scripture (which we have a right to have, as does the director). It makes me understand when Hollywood stays away from Biblical stories (which we complain about too!); we’ll be unhappy no matter what.
My issue is: the film hasn’t even come out! Can we see how this plays out – at least in the trailer? This “quick to anger” reaction does remind me of the complaints about Lupita as “Helen of Troy” mentioned in the article (because NO WAY can a dark skinned Black woman have “the face that launched a thousand ships” based on our interpretations of beauty). After all that campaigning against her, then there was the “oh, it wasn’t a big role and her acting was quite good” response after actually seeing the film ….without a single apology to Ms. Nyongo for the accusations, insults, and prejudgments.
Can we as Christians do better than the world on matters like this?
I didn’t have to watch Titanic to know that the boat sank. Casting decisions published before the release of the movie say a lot about the philosophy and intent of the filmmakers and are fair game to judge, even before the project has been released in final form.
Also, it is appropriate to be revolted by genderbending in the Narnia stories. Several decades ago there was a big brouhaha over “Piss Christ,” a picture of a crucifix submerged in urine. The “artist’s” intent was to take something sacred, the idea of Christ as savior, and desecrate it. C.S. Lewis is not holy writ. But having a girl play a Christ figure is a backhanded way of taking something culturally Christian, and distorting and perverting it.
There is a difference between changing the plot (e.g., making it as if the Titanic never sank, changing a Biblical story) and the casting itself. Has the plot for this film changed? I truly don’t know and haven’t read any comments from critics that indicate they know either. Makes me think there’s a lot of prejudgments and accusations being made of the director. It’s why I say wait.
There is also a difference between having an issue with the casting and attacking the actors themselves. Berating actors for their gender and/or race (in the name of “being a film critic” or – even worse – “being righteous”) should be out of bounds. But we all know, “There’s no hate like Christian love”. The things I’ve seen in the name of “being righteous”…Lord, help us.
If anything, a lot of this is selective and self-righteous. Has anyone gotten upset at the MANY female characters voiced by men over the years? Where were the cries of “gender bending” then? And you mention “brown grading” characters: I see EXACTLY what you’re saying without saying it. So tell us, were you upset all the times Hollywood “white graded” characters? Jason Thomas (Marine and 9/11 hero) was cast as a white man when he is Black, and his is a TRUE STORY (not an allegory or supposition with talking animals). And I can list MANY films, both fictional and nonfiction, where characters were “white washed”; it’s a tale as old as Hollywood itself.
Perhaps we should only see films for what they are: one person’s interpretation of a text/event.
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your position even though I disagree.
“There is a difference between changing the plot…and the casting itself.”
They’re distinct, but both telegraph the filmmaker’s intent. Simply put, casting is a tell and therefore IMO not “prejudgement.”
“Has anyone gotten upset at the MANY female characters voiced by men over the years?”
Yes. That’s why Antigone, Ophelia, and Lady Macbeth are played by women now, instead of the males who were originally cast in those roles centuries to millennia ago–someone realized it was stupid to cast males in female roles. It’s similarly senseless to cast female Meryl as male Aslan today, excepting some queer-adjacent director’s life tribute to Tim Curry’s Rocky Horror Picture Show performance.
“I see EXACTLY what you’re saying without saying it”
I don’t care if you think I’m racist.
“were you upset all the times Hollywood “white graded” characters?”
There is no widespread phenomenon of whites being cast as blacks today. However, I’ll agree that Anthony Hopkins as Othello in a 90’s BBC production was absurd, given the play’s racial themes.
P.S. Based on my interpretation of beauty, Marin Heiskell’s face could definitely launch a thousand ships.
I appreciate your response and see where we can agree to disagree.
But men are still casting female characters A LOT in animated shows and films.
White actors are still being overwhelmingly cast as POC (Matt Damon, Emma Stone, and Scarlett Johansson were all recently cast in roles for Asians); that’s how it is when it’s bankability over all in Hollywood. I just wish there were equal outrage over it all; in 2026 there are plenty of actors of all races to pick from.
And thank you for the compliment. :)
Cue “Ain’t That Amerika” for us, all. This is sickening to infer that Yahshua is a woman! How degrading and humiliating for the human race. He is the Son of man and the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Shalom, Almighty Alahim, Wonderful, The Word of YHWH Made Flesh.
I had respect for Meryl Streep as an actor, she is extremely talented, but when she was quoted saying the women who brought accusations against Harvey Weinstein were not creditable my respect for her judgement diminished.
Speaking of persons generally, the author of this article seems to go out of his way to make people who are unhappy about the Aslan With Mane But Also A Female Voice situation seem over scrupulous, somewhat silly, closed-minded, and borderline idolatrous in their regard for C. S. Lewis. Sheesh. Not enough grace for recognizing the imago Dei in every human to go around today?
No argument from me on the fact that she’s really skilled at reading things other people wrote for her to say, but Meryl has always been rabidly liberal so of course she’d close ranks with also rabidly liberal Harvey.
Just because made common cause with a rapist doesn’t mean she is not good at pretending to be something she’s not.
There is neither male nor remale in Jesus Christ.
Someone said that.
It’s called art and voice acting. Literally a nonstarter. Instead of screaming about persecution (which this isn’t), how about we go out and act like Jesus (like he commanded)?