A thoughtful response to the Golden Compass
13 Dec 2007
I’ve seen a few emails doing the rounds, asking Christian’s to boycott the new film ‘The Golden Compass’, mainly under the premise that the stories author is an ardent atheist, and anti-christian.
A sure fire way to make people watch it, and have people think Christians are unstable fundamentalists.
Now it’s a few years since I read his books, and I enjoyed them, and found the ‘doctrine of creation’ he articulates in the books, more christian than the forms of christianity he rails against. And there’s the rub for me; Pullman writes against a form of Christianity that is a parody, something of his own ‘monster making’ (much as Richard Dawkins does).
This is not a book by someone who understands ‘real christianity’, and is seeking to undermine it, but someone seeking to hit out at his caricatures of Christianity, which most Christians would not associate with any way.
And the argument that christians should avoid the film because he’s an atheist, are bizarre. Does every christian choose a film on the basis of whether someone is an atheist or not? Probably not.
For a thoughtful look into the issues of Pullman’s anti christian sentiment, with a free download, and chance for me to plug/recommend again the superb Mars Hill Audio, go here.
Tagged: Atheism, Mars-Hill-Audio, Movies, The Golden Compass
26 comments
Trackback
Comment by brett jordan
9.20 am on 13 Dec 2007
I’m always pleased when another highly public ‘Christianity destroyer/disprover’ arrives. It provides me with opportunities for discussion that would otherwise not happen.
And, at the risk of sounding triumphalist, Christianity is an extremely robust faith that has survived 2,000 years of ‘latest big things’, it is unlikely that Mr Pullman’s work is going to trouble it unduly.
Comment by Tim Shableys
9.36 am on 13 Dec 2007
Excellent response to these emails.
I find it hard to equate the Jesus of the new testament with the kind of behaviour that causes Christians to gang up on people, and to respond agressively and thoughtlessly to the latest “Christian cause”. For me, this kind of behaviour is the most striking caricature of Christianity that there is.
In terms of resolution conflict (possibly a good idea?!), rising up in a reactionary way, and therefore reinforcing each others stereotypes, probably isn’t going to get anybody anywhere.
Comment by fernando
1.27 pm on 13 Dec 2007
I blogged (again) on Philip Pullman today. Not sure that I agree, based on the interviews I’ve read, that he doesn’t understand Christianity. He’s certainly far better informed than folks like Dawkins or Hitchens. However, I do agree that what he assails in the books is something of a coarse construct.
That said, the kind of ideological totalitarianism that he wants to sink is something that I also have a strong dislike for, whether it manifests in the church, or the state, or the local “community.”
It seems to me that those of us of a postmodern/emerging kind of bent are more likely to find Pullman to be something of an ally, or at least a welcome conversation partner – a bit like a literary Slavoj Zizek.
Comment by steven hamilton
2.38 pm on 13 Dec 2007
i like the rowan williams approach…we – as the Church – would have much to learn from this, ‘caricatures’ to avoid so we do not become the oppressive church that he accentuates…
Comment by Helen
3.23 pm on 13 Dec 2007
Jason, you’re right – Pullman writes against a parody. But he’s writing fiction, so he’s not obliged to describe the church as it really is.
I would love to see more Christians respond thoughtfully to the trilogy and less superficial knee-jerk reactions.
A good response from Christians, imo, would be “If the church were how Pullman describes it then we’d be opposing it too. In other words there is a lot Christians and Pullman can agree upon. Especially Christians who understand what Brian McLaren means by saying some Christians buy into the wrong framing story; and/or who agree with Greg Boyd about how ‘kingdom under’ not ‘kingdom over’ is Jesus’ way.
I wrote about the trilogy on my blog here: The Golden Compass.
Comment by Paul
8.41 am on 14 Dec 2007
I haven’t read the book and I probably won’t go see the film, but not cos of any boycott. in fact, i’m almost tempted to read the book and go see the film to see what all the fuss is about.
Comment by Jason
8.47 am on 14 Dec 2007
Seems hollywood took out much of the anti-religious sentiments, compared to the book. They did the same to the atheist as they do to christians :-)
Comment by Paul
8.48 pm on 14 Dec 2007
i think that’s called dramatic license :)
Comment by Helen
12.07 pm on 14 Dec 2007
You’re tempted? Must be Satan :-)
Seriously, I hope you do read it Paul. I’d love to read your thoughts about it. I think it’s an excellent piece of fantasy fiction and I also think he upholds many values which mattered to Jesus, according to the Bible – whatever some Christians say.
Comment by Paul
8.48 pm on 14 Dec 2007
well i had my fingers burned with harry potter, i went and read the first book to see what all the hype was and thought it was a kids book. I’m assured that all the others are much better, older and darker but that first one put me off.
Then again i never really liked the narnia books either, guess the only trilogy for me is still the lord of the rings ;)
Comment by Helen
2.53 pm on 15 Dec 2007
Paul, His Dark Materials is aimed at an older audience than Harry Potter, which, as you say, is definitely a kid’s book. From a literary point of view I think it’s way better than Harry Potter. I’m not going to say His Dark Materials is better than Lord of the Rings. I think they’re both excellent. And I do recognize that the vilification of the church and God in His Dark Materials is something Christians need to decide whether to read about. That’s obviously not an issue in Lord of the Rings.
Comment by Helen
1.05 pm on 14 Dec 2007
This is an example of how ridiculously wrong some of the Christian objections to the movie are: I just read this in a review by Ted Baehr:
What’s bad about the movie, therefore, is not overt atheism. That comes in the later books in the three-part series. What’s bad is that it creates a heroine who is selfish, willful and stubborn to such a degree that she does not express love, kindness, joy, peace, or any of those other wonderful virtues that help us put others before ourselves. The Good News of the Gospel is a message of love and forgiveness, not a message of control.
How could he have missed that Lyra put herself in danger to rescue her friend Roger? Lyra is one of the most unselfish people in this movie.
Comment by Omelas
7.25 pm on 14 Dec 2007
While I’m saving the movie to see with the rest of the family next week, I have started into the book…
[spoiler]
In Chapter 2, it’s revealed that the Papacy itself was long ago dissolved by Calvin (who presumably won that long ago theological war), and other religious strutures arose afterwards.
The alternative view of Christian authority that seems “under fire” in His Dark Materials isn’t one Christians in modern times would recognize: it’s a Christianity that was never divided away from the control and power of secular government. It’s a world that still is basically ruled by a modern version of the Holy Roman Empire (minus a Pope).
Strange that the protesters of the trilogy of books end up defending that version of Christianity, long after it became extinct in the real world. Is this something they actually want to go back to?
Comment by brett jordan
7.31 pm on 14 Dec 2007
The Mars Hill podcast is excellent… thanks for the link Jason.
Comment by Helen
12.47 pm on 15 Dec 2007
I listened to the podcast. It was thoughtful but very biased and not entirely accurate. At one point the speaker says all the witches in the trilogy are good, which most definitely is not true. In the first book we encounter witches who have sided with evil.
The speaker complains about Pullman seeing people (beings) in black and white but to me CS Lewis’s characters are more black and white than Pullman’s – so why not criticize CS Lewis even more than Pullman for that?
Also he asserts that Lyra never learned that lying is morally wrong – she only learned the pragmatic lesson that you can’t always get away with lying. As best I recall the third book doesn’t specify whether she learned a moral or pragmatic lesson; I certainly assumed she learned a moral one when I read it.
His comments about Lyra’s character in general are very one-sided. Lyra is brave, loyal and unselfish. In a world in which adults have proved profoundly untrustworthy, she has to rely on herself (and increasingly, the alethiometer aka the Golden Compass – and Will, once they team up) and her own methods of doing things. This doesn’t mean she is ‘bad’. Through no fault of her own she has been raised in a college, where she is allowed to roam free much of the time, and not especially taken care of, rather than by two parents. She is understandably self-reliant and not especially ‘domesticated’.
Much of Lyra’s effort in the first book goes into rescuing her friend who was kidnapped. Unless I missed it, there wasn’t one word in praise of her for wanting to do this and carrying it through at great personal danger. When Jesus lays down his life for his friends that’s noted and commended – but when Lyra puts her life on the line for friends all that’s noticed is that she lies to deceive adults when expedient. Her bravery, loyalty and unselfishness are not commented on. This is very inconsistent.
The speaker points out more than once how disappointed he was about the direction the third book took; he feels that Pullman ruined a great story with his ‘agenda’ and personal hatred of Christianity. I disagree. Also, ironically, I feel that the speaker’s own feelings get in the way of him giving an unbiased review.
The thing that puzzles me most of all about the trilogy is: suppose you found out you were worshipping someone who was evil. Would you just keep doing it anyway or would you change direction? Surely you would change direction. Unless you were so consumed by lust for power and control that you were going to stick with the Being who has it, evil or not.
I think this is what Pullman is saying. I can’t really believe Christians disagree with this. And I’m disappointed Christians seem unable to get to this in analysing Pullman’s trilogy because his labels and metaphors are too offensive to them. I don’t see how Christians can be as missional as Jesus intended unless they find a way to set aside being offended and hear what people outside Christendom are saying – and affirm them when they get things right. Such as, abuse of power is wrong. Which is one of the main messages of this trilogy. It’s also something some Christians seem to have been confused about throughout church history – so no wonder Pullman’s abusive institution, in his fantasy, is ‘the church’.
Comment by Jason
1.21 pm on 15 Dec 2007
A detailed and comprehensive post Helen, thank you.
It’s interesting what people hear in that podcast and in comparison with the reading.
You are obviously inclined to a charitable reading on Pullman, and I know I am despite his out of the book comments about Christianity.
However do you not see/think/hear that for many Christians, someone who publicly claims to want to undermine their faith, might make them inclined to find him something they want to avoid?
Can you extend your atheist sympathies and empathy towards the Christians in this process? That’s not meant to sound critical, just that you do seem to see the good in Pullman and the bad in Christians, when it comes to discussions like this.
I just wonder how and if ever you see things flowing the other way…in other words, what could Pullman do better than he does, and where is he disingenuous to Christianity?
Comment by Helen
2.19 pm on 15 Dec 2007
Thanks Jason – you asked me excellent questions.
I do understand that some Christians might want to avoid the book. I don’t have a problem with that: whether to engage on a specific issue is a choice.
What I’d like is that Christians who choose to engage or warn others off something they believe is dangerous: a) do read the book and/or see the movie so their comments are based on first-hand knowledge (I know the podcast speaker did and I appreciate that) and b) make every effort to be balanced. I’m not convinced the podcast speaker did that. But it was a thoughtful review and I appreciated him saying that Pullman was a great writer.
And yes, Pullman could have made different choices. He could have not been so vindictive about the church. He could have not depicted God out to basically fit the Biblical description of Satan. He could have been kinder to Christians.
But I always wish Christians would lead by example, since they make the greater claims (imo). There is so much villification of atheists by Christians out there that it’s hard to think they have set Pullman a great example of how to be generous about someone else’s beliefs/nonbeliefs.
If Christians claim the high moral ground then surely the only consistent way to behave is to lead by example in generosity and kindness. If they don’t then, yes, it makes sense to appeal to Pullman and other atheists “Be kinder to us – show us how!”
It’s hard for me not to be biased…I admit that. I appreciate you challenging me to be as balanced as possible just as I’m asking the same of Christians.
Comment by brett jordan
1.24 pm on 15 Dec 2007
Good to hear your comments Helen… would be fascinated to hear what Ken Myers’ response would be… to me, the important thing is that it is encouraging intelligent debate
Comment by Helen
2.21 pm on 15 Dec 2007
Brett, I’m all for intelligent debate and certainly the podcast is more thoughtful than most Christian critiques I’ve heard/read of His Dark Materials.
Comment by Josh Heilman
10.28 pm on 18 Dec 2007
Jason, thanks for your thoughts. I loathe knee-jerk “Christian” bandwagon response. It angered me with the Harry Potter series and especially with the DaVinci Code. I thought that too many Christians wrote off great pieces of art/literature as well as conversation starters.
But while “The Golden Compass” looks to be a very interesting movie and book series (I’d like to see it, but don’t tell too many evangelicals…) what rubs me wrongly is the marketing aimed at children here in the US. It’s one thing to market a movie with not-so-subtle undertones at a wide, adult audience. I applaud that. Adults, at least in theory, are rational and capable of discernment. Though it’s not enough for me to condemn a movie (I don’t think I could ever do that…), the hopes of the author and the marketing by the studios raise some concern for me.
Our church staff decided that we would not come out with an out-and-out condemnation of the movie (thank God), but rather use it as a teaching moment for parents. We encouraged them to be active, involved in their children’s lives; to know what they read, watch, talk about, etc., and then to use those times as teaching moments. If they decide to watch “the Golden Compass”, watch it as a family and discuss it with the children. That seems to me a balanced idea…
Thanks for the blog there.
Josh Heilman
Comment by Jason
7.51 am on 19 Dec 2007
what a refreshing approach by your church :-)
Comment by jusouo
3.01 am on 6 Jan 2008
What are some other important lessons lyra learned other than that lying is wrong? And support with examples of what happened in the book/movie in the golden compass
Comment by Robin Parry
11.36 am on 7 Jan 2008
I very much enjoyed the Golden Compass movie. The more intreaguing question is how movies 2 and 3 will handle the increasingly overt anti-Christian plot. Movie 1 deliberately toned down that side of things to avoid offending Christians but it will not be easy to tone it down in books 2 and esp 3.
A well informed, level headed guide to a Christian assessment of the novels is a book by Tony Watkins at Damaris called “Dark Matter: A Thinking Fans Guide to Philip Pullman”. No knee-jerk stuff there.
Comment by Robin Parry
11.45 am on 7 Jan 2008
Here is a sobering thought
Pull man did get things wrong and does need a gentle Christian response. But perhaps Christians, instead of getting all defensive, also asked what Pullman may have got right about us.
Here is a sobering question:
Is there any way in which Pullman might be an unintentional prophet to the church?
Comment by brett jordan
12.02 pm on 7 Jan 2008
Yes.
Comment by Helen
2.09 pm on 7 Jan 2008
Robin wrote: Is there any way in which Pullman might be an unintentional prophet to the church?
I think so – but only if the church is willing to learn from someone like Pullman. And being willing to learn doesn’t mean the church has to ignore what they think he is wrong about. Only to consider, is he right about anything – like you said.
I’m not sure they’ll be making the rest of the trilogy – it did way worse in the US than they were expecting. Probably because they assumed more name recognition than the book really has over here. A bad error in judgment, imo. Even the negative Christian publicity didn’t get that many people to the movie. ;-)
I know it did better in Europe but I think they needed stronger US sales to be profitable.
Comments are now closed.