Where Does 'The Golden Compass' Point ? (by Gareth Higgins)
Here's the good news: The Golden Compass does not promote atheism. It isn't going to steal your children. It does not signal the end of hope for religion in the West. That's the good news. Here's the bad news: it promotes the same, shallow "don't touch my stuff or I'll kill you" message that appears in so much of popular culture. But more than this, in spite of delightful visual imagery, and a couple of performances in which it's clear the actors are having fun (an icy Nicole Kidman, and the great English theatrical knight Derek Jacobi to name two), it's simply a boring film.
At its centre there is at least an attempt at exploring interesting territory – we are in a parallel universe in which everyone is accompanied by a 'daemon' – an animal representation of their personality, and a comfort in times of trouble. Meanwhile, a shadowy authoritarian body, "the Magisterium", is abducting children and performing daemon amputations. Too much daemon, too much free will, too little for the Magisterium to do.
The religious resonances are obvious, but the film doesn't make any explicit commentary on Christianity. Rather, its enemy is the misuse of power to force people to think or act against the exercise of freedom. The image of severing our connection to that which keeps us in a state of wonder is a powerful one; and The Golden Compass does a good job of reminding us just why children can sometimes understand things that confound adults.
But, as is typically the case with such large canvas "family films," the antidote proposed is nothing more than violence on a massive scale. I have not read the acclaimed Philip Pullman books on which this film – the first in a trilogy – is based, so I don't know where the story leads, or if the huge fight at the crescendo of the movie is proportionate to the text. But while the film of The Golden Compass is angry about religious and cultural imperialism, its response is strangely Nietzschean – the reassertion of individualism and the use of physical brute force appear to be the only answer it can think of.
At the same time, it's so muddled as a film - having clearly been made by a studio breathing down the talented director Chris Weitz's neck, with scenes ended before they're finished, and a script that doesn't seem to know where it's going - that it maybe shouldn't be taken anywhere near as seriously as some angry activists think.
It's surreal watching a film like this, for you feel like you're being told something over and over again that you already know: religious power can be a dangerous mix, and so needs to be handled with care and be accountable to the community. This film wants to think that religion and power can never be used for good; and yet, in its unthinking embrace of survival of the fittest/might as right philosophy, it may actually end up on the same side as the neocons and religious imperialists it seeks to condemn.
Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Gareth,
You had me until the very end where you took the pot-shot at neocons.
Do you have any idea what a neoconservative is? Or is it just your generic name for "anything I think is bad?"
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | December 6, 2007 10:27 AM
"You had me until the very end..."
That's probably because up to that point you were in the twilight zone and had forgotten why you frequent sites like these. See? Your programming's working just fine fella ;-)
Posted by: Bruce | December 6, 2007 10:52 AM
Bruce,
I honestly don't know what you are referring to by programming. What happened was Gareth Higgins had managed to create some common ground on the limitations of an atheist narrative and the misuse of violence, which he then squandered with an ignorant remark about neocons. One very badly chosen word blew up an otherwise interesting essay.
The obsession with neocons continues to plague Sojo and derail any chance at creating a new, thoughtful Christian left.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | December 6, 2007 11:25 AM
Frankly - this is one flim that I will see. I will wait till it is in the $1.00 theater a few miles from my house because I will not add to their bottom line. I am interested in how they handle the story and the editing. The author is very anti Christian faith.
'...survival of the fittest...'
cute cheap shot - whatever. I wonder what you would have said about let's say...The Sound of Music and the neocons.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | December 6, 2007 11:46 AM
"The obsession with neocons continues to plague Sojo"
Pot? Kettle?
Your eagerness to defend has only served to highlight your own ignorance in this area. You really should do a little research on Philip Pullman. He's from the UK. Try Google. Or Wikipedia.
Posted by: Bruce | December 6, 2007 12:02 PM
His Dark Materials is my favorite fantasy work, alongside The Time Quintet by Madeleine L'Engle. Phillip Pullman may think he's an athiest, but his philosophy is basically the same as Paul Tillich. Anyone who is troubled by Pullman's supposed atheism should read Marcus Borg, John Spong, or Matthew Fox and realize that there are approaches to Christianity which make the same points as Pullman.
Although I agree that the myth of redemptive violence distorts even Christian fantasy like Narnia and the Lord of the Rings, in this case, the battle is not important. As the book progresses, it is clear that the key to the universe is the relationship between the two young characters. The real question is whether they finally have their first sexual encounter at the end of the book, and whether that act of love saves the universe. Against Milton's epic, Pullman depicts man's first sexual encounter as an embrace of the goodness of the universe and a necessary step in creation.
Saving the world with sex instead of violence is a brilliant theme, one that is imaged in Revelation as the bride comes down from heaven to join with her spouse in a new garden. Pullman reminds us what our images of redemption really mean--even if he doesn't want to.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 6, 2007 12:30 PM
Bruce:
I don't get your point. I've looked into Philip Pullman's bio and I see nothing that would indicate he's ever said anything about neoconservatism. Higgins' swipe at neocons, coming as it does without any explanation, still seems quite gratuitous.
Ashpenaz:
If your writing was meant to be reassuring, it wasn't.
Bishop Spong is one of the most radical theologians in the history of the Episcopal Church, an extremely divisive figure who may well be the single person most responsible for the current divisions in the Anglican Communion.
Matthew Fox was dismissed from the Catholic Priesthood for his heterodox teachings and eventually ordained in the Episcopal Church by Bishop Spong.
Marcus Borg is less blatant than Spong but he was NT Wright's opposite number in "The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions" in which the two laid out two very different understandings of Christ, with Wright laying out the orthodox view that evangelicals hold to.
Spong and Fox, in particular, are two theologians who are very much at odds with evangelicals on core matters of theology such as Christ's unique divinity and the essential accuracy of the Gospels as historical documents.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | December 6, 2007 1:30 PM
Wolverine - It's not just evangelicals those gentlemen are at odds with. It's most of mainstream Protestantism and Catholicism as well. When you get to the point of denying the divinity of Christ you're sort of moving out of Christianity and into another faith altogether. Basically, the "I'm going to make this up as I go along to suit my needs" faith.
Posted by: Eric | December 6, 2007 2:25 PM
Ashpenaz,
One problem with your critique. Spong and Borg are not Christians. And if you think that they are, and that sex will save the world, I think I can safely say that you are not one either.
Posted by: Debario | December 6, 2007 3:37 PM
A review that centers on the "huge fight at the crescendo of the movie" begs comparison with other narratives which end in climactic battles. Narnia, or maybe the book of Revelation...
Posted by: Hobbes | December 6, 2007 4:03 PM
I agree that the swipe at neocons was unnecessary. I'm tired of Americans fighting Americans and Christians fighting Christians when there is so much work to be done.
As far as the movie critique: Read the books.
I kept waiting for the author to make the point that God is a force for good, even if His works have been mishandled and His name has been misused.
Nope. Ultimately God is revealed as a decrepit old fraud who dies as soon as He is released from the prison Satan put Him in. Yikes.
Pullman seems to worship knowledge and free will. Of course, God made both of those things, so they're good when used as directed. But their unfettered use led to the original fall.
Even if the movie doesn't delve this far, I expect book sales to see a nice bounce. Parents should understand the theology behind the series before they buy.
Posted by: ginab | December 6, 2007 4:13 PM
Okay, folks, let's not get caught up in irrelevant tangents. Thanks ginab for getting things back on topic.
What Gareth fails to mention in a mostly thoughtful essay is this: Many Christians are not so much concerned that the film itself will promote a rejection of religion among the young, but that it is essentially an advertisement for the book series. The strategy appears to be this: kids, after seeing the movie, will ask their parents for the book trilogy for Christmas, and the parents will assume that the trilogy is as benign as the movie. According to several accounts I have read, there is one book in the trilogy in fact does ridicule God and faith quite blatantly.
Christians, even ones of a theologically liberal bent, need to be more alert to these kinds of influences. There is essentially very little to stop children's authors from trying to negatively influence children--after all, advertisers have been doing it blatantly for decades.
Posted by: I and I | December 6, 2007 5:12 PM
"A review that centers on the "huge fight at the crescendo of the movie" begs comparison with other narratives which end in climactic battles. Narnia, or maybe the book of Revelation..."
But remember that the huge fight at the end of Revelation happens BETWEEN VERSES. Yup. The message is clear that it is God's battle and it is a slam-dunk.
One can (and should) criticize human use of "redemptive-violence" as a solution to problems without conflicting the Revelation example.
Posted by: steve | December 6, 2007 5:14 PM
Borg and Spong are Christians. Their theology is essentially a popularization of Tillich, Bonhoeffer, and Bultmann. I, too, am a Christian, and, yes, I believe sex is frequently used as a symbol of salvation in Scripture, so I can say that "sex will save the world." That's what a Bride and a Bridegroom do, you know.
Pullman, whether he knows it or not, is representing the philosophy of Abelard, where the Fall was good and necessary for man to grow spiritually. This is popularized in Fox's Original Blessing theology. Fox is an orthodox, active Anglican--it's too bad the Catholics couldn't find a place for him. I'm glad my church could.
Pullman also presents the best portrait of a gay relationship in his depiction of the love between two male angels. He shows the holiness of their deep spiritual bond. Again, I find this image as one which is meant to open minds to the all-inclusive love and blessing of God.
I think there are those on this list who worship the Old God, depicted as a withered old man who no longer knows who he is and is simply propped up as a figurehead for a Church whose goal it is to destroy people's souls and freedom. The fact that you call someone God doesn't make him God, Pullman would argue, and I would similarly say that just calling what you worship Jesus doesn't make him Jesus. In the book, the withered old man is destroyed by a simple breeze of fresh air. I suspect that many of the idols on this list will be destroyed by the same breeze.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 6, 2007 6:23 PM
Ashpenaz,
Abelardianism is a heresy, rightly condemned by the Church at the time. Such a fundamental misunderstanding of the Christian message puts you out of the faith, I'm afraid.
Posted by: Ben Wheaton | December 6, 2007 6:48 PM
Ashpenaz
I'm not familiar with Tillich and Bultman, and I'm inclined to give Borg some benefit of the doubt if only because he and NT Wright were able to work together. But Bishop Spong has about as much in common with Bonhoeffer as Sauron has in common with Papa Smurf.
Let's put it this way: if a bishop were to decide to actively do all in his power to tear a communion down, he'd be hard put to match the sheer destructive power of a Spong.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | December 6, 2007 8:17 PM
The Anglican Church accepts Abelard as a member of the communion of saints. I suspect Roman Catholics have gotten over their anger. The concept of Original Blessing, while minority, has its fully orthodox adherents. And, incidentally, I didn't say what I personally thought about Abelard or Original Blessing--I'm simply saying that's what Pullman is talking about, whether he knows it or not.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 6, 2007 8:44 PM
I read the books and I don't rememebr there being any sex. There is a peck on the cheek though and the young 'couple' decide to separate from each other for ever in the best interests of the multi-universe.
And it's not God who dies in the book but an angel who pretended to be God. And he's not murdered, he disintegrates in a gust of wind while they're trying to help him.
The biggest anti-Christian message is where an ex-nun in the third book describes why she left the faith. It's not a big deal.
What I haven't heard mentioned is that Pullman is also highly critical of science. His story is spread over two main worlds, one where Calvinism conquered Europe and established church rule and one which is recogniseably our own where science takes the place of the church and where all the evil committed against children is committed by science.
Also, the third book ends with the girl going back to her 'church' school where the people love her and care for her. How's that for an anti-christian message.
Be Blessed,
Posted by: Trent | December 6, 2007 8:56 PM
While it's not entirely clear Lyra and Will had sex, the assumption is that they did. They are clearly changed when they come back from their walk at the end of The Amber Spyglass. And because of what they did, Dust--that is, experience and knowledge--is freed. They have eaten of the Fruit of Knowledge and they have been saved.
It is a reverse image of the Eden story, in which sex, at least according to Milton, leads to the Fall. In Pullman's universe, sex is redemptive. I would argue that Jesus' use of Bride and Bridegroom imagery suggests that sex is redemptive as well. Pullman's idea that the universe is saved when two young people respond to their natural urges is much more profound than the myth of redemptive violence which C. S. Lewis relied on for Narnia.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 6, 2007 9:43 PM
On the Random House website they interview the author.
Here's the link:
http://www.randomhouse.com/features/pullman/author/qa.html#q6
Here's what he said:
Q: What stance do the books take?
A: "Underlying the trilogy there is a myth of creation and rebellion, of development and strife, and so on. I don't make this myth explicit anywhere, but it was important for me to have it clear in my mind. It depicts a struggle: the old forces of control and ritual and authority, the forces which have been embodied throughout human history in such phenomena as the Inquisition, the witch-trials, the burning of heretics, and which are still strong today in the regions of the world where religious zealots of any faith have power, are on one side; and the forces that fight against them have as their guiding principle an idea which is summed up in the words The Republic of Heaven. It's the Kingdom against the Republic.
And everything follows from that. So, for instance, the book depicts the Temptation and Fall not as the source of all woe and misery, as in traditional Christian teaching, but as the beginning of true human freedom something to be celebrated, not lamented. And the Tempter is not an evil being like Satan, prompted by malice and envy, but a figure who might stand for Wisdom.
The myth has allowed me to link together many aspects of the story in a sort of invisible way which might not be apparent to the reader, but which I have found helpful. For example, it explains where dæmons come from, and what happens when we die, and why there are many universes.
And if certain Christian critics are confused by this, and imagine I'm denying the difference between good and evil, then all I can say is that I shall pray for them."
ginab
Posted by: ginab | December 6, 2007 9:54 PM
Matthew Fox was not dismissed from the priesthood nor was he ordained by Bp. Spong. He was dismissed from the Dominican order (a religious community). That did not affect his priesthood. He was RECEIVED by Episcopal Bishop William Swing of California. He did not have to be ordained as he was already a priest and Episcopalians recognize Roman Catholic ordination.
Posted by: Ellie | December 6, 2007 9:55 PM
Wow.
When I clicked on the Rules of Conduct link to see if I had inadvertently broken some rule, thereby disqualifying my last (still missing) post, I got a Beliefnet ad page first.
The ad was for the movie "The Golden Compass."
Shouldn't there be some kind of full disclosure sentence in the above article?
ginab
Posted by: ginab | December 6, 2007 10:14 PM
Wolverine:
"But Bishop Spong has about as much in common with Bonhoeffer as Sauron has in common with Papa Smurf." LOL! Bravo! Spong is indeed a heretic of the most dangerous type.
Ashpenaz:
You and I must be reading different men named Tillich, Bultmann and Bonhoeffer. I see little or nothing in them to equate them with the likes of Abelard, Spong, Fox et al. As well, you have the most bizarre understanding of Christianity and some of its precepts that I have yet seen on these boards. If you truly believe what you are saying, I fear for your soul, and I will pray for you.
Peace.
Posted by: Maani | December 6, 2007 10:25 PM
Ashpenaz, you seem not to have read your Milton, or at least I remember it entirely differently than you do. Pullman says HDM is Milton for young adults, but his version of original sin is strikingly different from Milton's. Pullman's version of self-awareness as the result of sexual feelings parallels the assertion of Anton LaVey in "The Satanic Bible" (p. 47) that Christianity made sex involved in original sin. (This is only one of several parallels between HDM and Satanist literature.)
Of course what is striking about it is that it is so demonstrably untrue. Milton actually celebrates sex between married persons in "Paradise Lost," and his version of the Fall is the same as that of Christian dogma, I believe, in identifying original sin as not having anything at all to do with sex, but rather consisting of disobedience to God. The disobedience, it is well worth noting, was due to Eve's desire to be like God, exactly the thing Pullman advocates with his concept of "The Republic of Heaven."
So Pullman's version and LaVey's version is most definitely not an accurate description of Milton's version of the Fall, but it makes for better anti-Christian propaganda.
Posted by: Rhymer | December 6, 2007 10:37 PM
I've never read the Satanic Bible nor have I had any desire to, so I'll have to take your word for it.
I'm not sure what you've read of Spong, but his theology is clearly referenced with the works of Tillich, Bonhoeffer, and Bultmann. Look in the back of his books for a list of his sources. Spong is actually pretty tame once you get past his controversial style.
I am a fully orthodox, born again, Nicene Creed believing Christian. One of the best parts of my friendship with Jesus is when He introduces me to all his other friends--a wide range of wild and original people inhabiting the Communion of Saints--people like Meister Eckhart, Julian of Norwich, Nicholas of Cusa, Schleiermacher, Kierkegaard, T. S. Eliot, George MacDonald, G. K. Chesterton, Flannery 'O Connor, Walker Percy, etc. etc. all of whom have shown me that there is a wide range of fully orthodox approaches to my relationship with Jesus.
I like Phillip Pullman because he makes me think. His imagery makes me consider the theology of Dionysus the Areopogite and St. John of the Cross, as well as Milton and William Blake. (The best way to understand Pullman and sex and original sin is to read Blake's "Milton." That's where Pullman gets his ideas from.) If you want to call something heresy because it's wierd and confrontational and paradoxical, go ahead. Or you can let Pullman lead you into the wilder parts of God.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 6, 2007 11:17 PM
Didn't the Catholic church once excommunicate people for advancing that the Sun, not the Earth, was at the centre of the planetary structure?
Doh!
Posted by: canucklehead | December 7, 2007 1:58 AM
Speaking as someone who did his Ph.D. on Peter Abelard, I can't think of any place in his writings where he says the Fall was good and necessary. Julian of Norwich said this, but not Peter Abelard.
Abelard is extremely misunderstood. He was not a heretic; he was in fact very devout. His intention (a good Abelardian term) was to clear away all the accumulated junk from 1000 years Christian teaching and get back to the essence of Christian faith. It was his way of accomplishing this that got him into trouble with people like Bernard of Clairvaux, who didn't quite understand what he was doing and why, and who thought all the accumulated junk was necessary.
Posted by: Steve # 2 | December 7, 2007 8:27 AM
Ashpenaz,
Spong denies every word of the Nicene Creed yet you say he's a Christian. I guess that just doesn't make sense to me. But I will admit that you "Sojourners" folks are way to cerebral for me and I'm out of my league. I'm heading back to the Snake Handlers web site.
Posted by: debario | December 7, 2007 10:29 AM
Debario,
You have to understand the subtleties of postmodern theology, the layers upon layers of irony. When Spong says the Bible should only be understood as myth and allegory, that's part of an overall philosphy in which all language is mythical and allegorical, including everything that Spong himself writes.
Consequently, when we read Spong denying the truth of the Gospels, the subtext is that Spong also denies the truth of Spong. In this manner his denial of Christ's divinity is actually a bold defense of orthodox Christian faith.
As you can tell, this is really deep ... stuff.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | December 7, 2007 11:18 AM
For a different perspective (and, in my own opinion, a good one) on this movie, and the trilogy, see Albert Mohler's blog. I don't have the link, but you can easily google it. He spends quite a bit of time, and some good sensible words, on the message of the movie. And, to say the least, Mohler is not comfortable with it. As President of the Southern Baptist Seminary, his opinions are at least worthy of reading, whatever one thinks afterward.
Posted by: joekc | December 7, 2007 11:36 AM
Ashpenaz -
I hurt for you. It's evident that you're more knowledgeable about theology than virtually anybody else here, and that you have invested an enormous amount of yourself in your faith journey (which, contrary to what some would maintain, is a sign of commitment and courage, not a copout).
While I don't necessarily agree with people like Spong (or even Bultmann, whose desire to demythologize the New Testament strikes me as throwing out the baby and keeping the bathwater), I realize that they have addressed genuine problems that more "traditional" theologians have largely ignored. As tradition continues to march forward (which tradition always does) it will sort through their ideas and decide which to accept and which to reject.
The same is true of Pullman. What is obvious to me in reading this thread is that Pullman's critique of the dogmatic, inquisitional nature of much religious faith is only being substantiated by the reactions of many here. So my advice to those who are so eager to write you out of the church is to loosen up. The truth has nothing to fear from an open mind, but the very essence of faith is destroyed the minute we close our minds to something we dislike or disagree with simply because we dislike or disagree with it.
Posted by: Another nonymous | December 7, 2007 12:29 PM
"Felix Culpa" is the theological term for Pullman's approach to the Fall, again, whether he knows it or not. Google that term and you'll find a whole bunch of famous Christians (including Abelard) discussing whether the Fall of Man was a good and necessary thing.
On Spong--I've read most of his works and I have never seen him anywhere deny any part of the Creed. Even you would say would say that phrases like "right hand of the Father" and "came down from Heaven" are in some sense metaphorical--unless you believe Heaven is literally in the sky. If we know that at least some of the creed is metaphor, who's to say where metaphor stops?
Spong simply sees the Creed as a poem or sacrament which points to a greater truth. If you can show me a passage where Spong actually out and out denies the Resurrection, I'd love to look at it. Spong says exactly what Paul says--our current bodies are not like our resurrection bodies, so it's hard to describe them. If you find something in Spong which goes beyond that to an actual denial, I'd be more than happy to read it.
Pullman, like Spong, wants us to smash our creeds and idols and get to the transcendent, wordless reality beyond them--rather like Aquinas, who at the end of his life looked at his Summa Theologica and called it words of straw.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 7, 2007 12:34 PM
Ashpenaz - These statements are taken directly from Spong's writing:
1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
You can agrue that he's correct if you want, but you can't argue that he's a Christian.
Posted by: Eric | December 7, 2007 1:16 PM
Ashpenaz said:
"Felix Culpa" is the theological term for Pullman's approach to the Fall, again, whether he knows it or not. Google that term and you'll find a whole bunch of famous Christians (including Abelard) discussing whether the Fall of Man was a good and necessary thing.
Respondeo:
I googled and found nothing that linked Felix culpa specifically to Abelard. I also searched the Patrologia Latina Database and found no use of that term anywhere in Abelard's works. I know it's not in his Romans commentary, which I've spent the last 15 years working on, and which, if it was anywhere in his works, would be there.
Posted by: Steve # 2 | December 7, 2007 1:50 PM
Wolverine wrote:
"Consequently, when we read Spong denying the truth of the Gospels, the subtext is that Spong also denies the truth of Spong. In this manner his denial of Christ's divinity is actually a bold defense of orthodox Christian faith."
Wouldn't it have been easier to have written nothing at all? Thanks for the help though (I think.) Speaking of thinking, all these comments remind me of one of the Beatitudes: "Blessed are the Intellectuals."
Posted by: debario | December 7, 2007 1:55 PM
Abelard promoted the "moral influence" theory of atonement, which, while not using the exact phrase "felix culpa," recasts the fall of man and the atonement as good and necessary things because they cause us to love God more. The idea of Felix Culpa, whether that phrase is used or not, is an idea common to many medieval theologians.
I've read Spong's list of theses. They are very cleverly worded, aren't they? He never denies resurrection, for instance--he denies, rightly, the idea of resurrection as resusitation, an idea which is backed up by Paul. He reminds us that the Incarnation is not like Jupiter dressing up as a hobo and visiting Greeks--but the Incarnation is the presence of the Ground of Being in human history. If you study the theology behind each of his theses, you will discover the now commonplace theology of Tillich, Bultmann, and the "religionless Christianity" of Bonhoeffer. I'm glad he writes in a way which has challenged and confronted you--I hope you're up to the challenge.
I think Pullman would be a fan of "religionless Christianity" if he didn't have to wade through so many Monophysite idolaters to get to it.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 7, 2007 3:50 PM
there is a god and i don't care what that movie says i beleive there is a god
Posted by: Larry | December 7, 2007 4:10 PM
Ashpenaz said:
Abelard promoted the "moral influence" theory of atonement, which, while not using the exact phrase "felix culpa," recasts the fall of man and the atonement as good and necessary things because they cause us to love God more. The idea of Felix Culpa, whether that phrase is used or not, is an idea common to many medieval theologians.
Respondeo:
Abelard was not the only person talking about "moral influence" in the 12th century. In fact, I'm not sure "moral influence" is a good term for what Abelard, Bernard, and William of St. Thierry said about Christ's life and death provoking (that's the term they use) our love for God. And again, having studied Abelard for many years, I don't think he would call the Fall "happy."
Posted by: Steve # 2 | December 7, 2007 4:30 PM
Eric, could you share a link with the Spong quotes?
Posted by: I and I | December 7, 2007 4:50 PM
The author of the book that inspired the film said this:
"I'm trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief."
Gareth ignores this, which makes his critique irrelevant to this blog.
I concur that Bishop Spong is not a Christian. He denies Christ's deity. That makes you a non-Christian in a non-negotiable sort of way.
Posted by: kevin s. | December 7, 2007 11:17 PM
Eric,
Why is it that one cannot call Spong a Christian? Is not the definition of Christian a follower of Christ? Thus cannot those who interpret the Christ message differently have equal claim to call themselves Christians?
While I have no problem in having theological disagreements, I think it is dangerous if one denomination or philosophy tries to usurp the word "Christian" to the exclusion of others.
Cheers,
Peter
Posted by: Peter | December 8, 2007 10:28 AM
None of us here are the judge of one another's fate before the Throne of God. I, for one, have no wish to be such a judge.
On the other hand, we can and must judge statements of humans against what God has said. When one says vaguer and vaguer things about God, and vehemently (though eloquently and politely, as Ashpenaz and perhaps even Spong have done), it seems to me and many others that they have moved beyond the God of the Bible, revealed uniquely and definitively in Jesus, and are creating one of their own devising. As Pullman clearly has done in his misleading and book-promoting deception. Enjoy it if you wish, but beware! Violence exerted on behalf of individualism is indeed the only response available in the world he has created, devoid of God and good.
Christian can mean "one who identifies with the mass of Christians as a whole" or one who, forsaking all others, is following the Jesus depicted in the Scriptures the Church has recognized through the ages. From your posts here, it seems to this weak and fallible soul that Ashpenaz is the former but not the latter. If Ashpenaz is the equally polite poster that is defending the Mormon golden tablets under the "Mitt Romney speech" thread, add that to my dossier of evidence. Which I submit with a feeble attempt at humility, much as Aquinas did in dismissing--but not really--his Summa as "straw."
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 8, 2007 12:29 PM
Actually, I have forsaken all others and am a friend of the living Jesus who is depicted in the Scriptures the Church has recognized through the ages, who is living at the right hand of God right now, and is here with me watching "America's Most Smartest Model." He and I are both rooting for Andre. (Of course, He roots for all of them.)
I'm sorry that you are afraid of people who like to ask questions and challenge authority and think outside the box and welcome new ideas. I'm glad my friend Jesus loves that sort of thing.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 8, 2007 12:55 PM
Glad to hear it! I have no fear of you or of debate or I wouldn't be here.
Nonetheless your beliefs are well outside the range of Biblical orthodoxy. God is the judge of any significance that may have, not I.
Blessings,
Witness for Peace
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 8, 2007 1:13 PM
I love this discussion. it's fascinating. I am a contemplative so i don't have a problem w/ Spong or Fox. I don't pretend to assume the state of someone's soul. Only God can sort that out. So I would offer some unsolicitied advice. Stop worrying about Ashpanez's salvation. He has faith. God is the only one qualified to determine what that is. So for you folks that are afraid for his soul stop. I know you don't mean it that way but it's condescending.
p
Posted by: payshun | December 8, 2007 2:19 PM
Hi,
Your definitions of Christians are interesting.
If we are to take "one who identifies with the mass of Christians as a whole," to be a valid definition of Christian might we have to exclude such people as Bonhoeffer in Nazi Germany, while including those who advocated slavery in the confederate states?
Your second definition states that one must follow the Jesus depicted in the Scriptures of the Church. Is this definition limiting? Does it depend on taking the scripture as the literal word of God? Can one who has honestly came to a different understanding of the Christ story call themselves a Christian?
Peter
Posted by: Peter | December 8, 2007 3:14 PM
I believe the Nicene Creed--is that enough orthodoxy for you? I am completely Biblically orthodox, esp. those parts where Biblical figures ask questions and challenge authority, you know, like Jesus and the Pharisees. I am also able to see non-Christian art as a springboard for discussion, you know, like Paul in Athens. I can stand before people who call themselves believers but are in fact idoloters, like, say Jeremiah. I am much more orthodox than say, T. D. Jake's Oneness Christology, or Joel Osteen's Prosperity Theology, or Tim LaHaye's Dispensationalism. In fact, I think Pullman is closer to the truth about God than any of those three. How about you? I'm calling you out as an idolater and Monophysite. How do you defend yourself?
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 8, 2007 3:51 PM
Bonhoeffer said something like "When Christ calls, he bids you to come and die." The shame that attends upon following him differs in time and place. "Peter," I suppose you must be referring to Bonhoeffer's shame at being identified with those who called themselves "German Christians" but actually were pagans worshiping themselves and their leader's delusions of power.
As for church attenders in the antebellum south, I need to read Fox-Genovese's "The Mind of the Master." I don't know. Certainly whites were behaving in a hideously un-Christian manner. In addition to the injustice of the institution itself, they overlooked the Ten Commandments by tolerating the near-universal rape of slave women, and the destruction of families. So how could they be "Christians" and condone such grievous sins? An embarrassing question. On the other hand, today's "enlightened" society is skeptical about so much in the Bible, yet we look the other way while the descendants of slaves slaughter one another in ghettos. We still haven't affirmed the role of the black male, who wasn't the father of his own children in the slaveholding South, and who today is discouraged from doing anything more than using a condom or paying child support. Yes, the reasoning is to ease the shame of single motherhood, but the effect has been to discourage marriage and deny its benefits to many of the descendants of slaves. So are we really better than their former masters? Or just more sophisticated?
My blessings for the Lord's mercy upon us...
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 8, 2007 3:58 PM
Well, I didn't mean to cause offense. I said God is the judge of the significance of your beliefs,
but now it seems you're asking me judge. I won't, except to say that I certainly hope you are more orthodox than most of those you mentioned.
Peace!
Oh, and I plead profound ignorance on the Monophysite charge if that was directed
at me. How does it relate to our discussion?
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 8, 2007 4:19 PM
Actually, I asked you prove you are not an idolator or a Monophysite.
A Monophysite is someone who believes in what Walter Wink calls "God in a Man-suit." Jesus is simply God dressed up like a man--He looks human, but He really isn't human in the way we are. He's God Himself winking at us behind a human mask.
It's an attitude that rejects everything human as somehow inferior. Here's how you can tell if you are a Monophysite: Did Jesus know whether quarks existed? Did Jesus know how to make a pizza? Could Jesus say Hello in Lakota?
Your answer to these question reveal why Pullman's, and Tillich's, and Bonhoeffer's, and Chalcedon's, understanding of Jesus would frighten and upset you. You have created a Monophysite idol out of Jesus. As Pullman suggests, you need to let that idol dissolve in the breeze so you can find the transcendant reality behind it.
After you post your answer to those questions, you can guess my answer. My answer will be the perfectly opposite, fully orthodox opposite of yours. :)
Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 8, 2007 4:32 PM
NO more guesses from me about you!
If someone asks Jesus these questions in Palestine in 30 A.D., I guess he would answer no, no, and no. But as to Pullman's utility at breaking down our idols, I'm a bit concerned. His avowed intention is anti-Christian. If you can get some good out of that, fine. Personally, I admire all sorts of no-Christian art, for which I have been scolded, trust me. If art can be shown to be anti-Christian, I worry. But I don't worry about anyone's soul, as has been suggested above. I don't even worry about my own, for God is sovereign, loving, and merciful. When I mentioned God the judge, I wasn't invoking the imprecation "God will judge you!" but merely making a declaratory statement. But wrong beliefs do have consequences, some of them complicated and deadly serious. This is what I was referring to in my indictment of liberal callousness towards those in the ghetto, even as they condescend to them and lavishly enable self-destructive behaviors.
Goodnight!
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 8, 2007 4:57 PM
Hi,
"Witness for peace" could you please elaborate on why it is you beleive that liberals are callous towards those in the ghetto? And how they "enable self-destructive behaviours?"
In my experience in churches the more liberal ones have been the ones far more concerned with issues of social justice and equality (i.e. helping people in the "ghetto"), and I've found them to be freer of condescension as well. Perhaps you have had different experiences, I'd be interested to here your point of view.
Thanks
Posted by: Peter | December 8, 2007 10:57 PM
I meant hear your point of view. (I'm a moron)
Posted by: Peter | December 8, 2007 11:07 PM
1. "...The image of severing our connection to that which keeps us in a state of wonder is a powerful one; and The Golden Compass does a good job of reminding us just why children can sometimes understand things that confound adults."
There are many in the metaphysical community that beleve in spirit guides, guardian angels and ANIMAL guides. They are as close to us as Jesus, Muhammed and Buddha are to everyone else. Spirit guides, guardian angels and ANIMAL guides aren't meant to keep people in a state of wonder...they are allies and sources of knowledge.
2. "The religious resonances are obvious, but the film doesn't make any explicit commentary on Christianity. Rather, its enemy is the misuse of power to force people to think or act against the exercise of freedom. The image of severing our connection to that which keeps us in a state of wonder is a powerful one; and The Golden Compass does a good job of reminding us just why children can sometimes understand things that confound adults"
As a Native American, I don't carry the weight of my ancestors on my shoulder; however, I don't forget either.
This film is accused of being "atheistic" in the US of A. I have yet to read the book; however, I did see the movie. As someone living in a "free" country, I was happy to see that witches, or the feminine, were free, flying, and fighting. That a child could think outside of adult rule and determine a course of action for themselves (we give them so little credit now). I was glad to see that...like the play "Wicked", animals weren't put in their places in the food chain, and had as much to contribute to this world as much as christians do...at least Hindus respect life, not belittle it.
As a Native American, I'm appalled at the force that Christians and Catholics have taken against this film/book. Both religions in the past have spent much time practicing Atheism themselves. How you ask?
Atheism is either not believing in a god or gods, or suppressing the religion of those that do.
The colonization of Africa, America and now Iraq mirror that statement.
Native Americans (many in my family) were separated from the their families and sent to boarding schools where they were punished and sometimes beaten if they uttered their native language or prayed to their respective spirit or god for help or guidance...if that god weren't Jesus.
African people were brought to our country and had their families separated from them. As well as converted to Christianity through force.
That elements outside of Christianity are given power and freedom of spirit is allowed to be viewed as a movie is wonderful. Let it be.
Posted by: Protected_by_Daemons_and_Ancestors | December 9, 2007 2:48 AM
You are certainly not a moron! I will elaborate on my generalizations and doubtless make my own typos.
Churches and individuals vary widely in their response to poverty in the city. I was referring to the context of the liberal approach to poverty. I certainly don't have the solution, but both sides need to drop some of their cherished assumptions. Conservatives need to recognize that money, and lots of it, still needs to be spent. Liberals need to be honest about why all their money has been more or less wasted, instead of demonizing conservatives.
During slavery, black men were not the caretakers of their children, the master was. (Regardless of whether a black man or a white rapist was the bio father.) In effect, welfare policies have continued this break between fatherhood and responsibilities. Meanwhile, we uncritically allow rap "artist" to lavishly promote misogyny and irresponsibility. The very institutions that those in the inner city WANT strengthened--marriage and local business--are those we strangle with regulations, and laws that lower or eliminate welfare if you're married. And, it wouldn't hurt for conservatives to consider ways to decriminalize drugs.
My blessings upon those who minister in the midst of all this, whether they are liberal, conservative, or too busy to worry about labels!
For God's SHALOM,
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 9, 2007 8:56 AM
"Thus cannot those who interpret the Christ message differently have equal claim to call themselves Christians?"
Not necessarily. Surely you can conjure a few easy hypotheticals, but suffice to say, simply deciding who Christ was and choosing to follow that Christ is simply self-worship. By your definition, you can literally choose any attribute you like, ascribe it to Christ, and consider yourself a Christian.
"Did Jesus know whether quarks existed? Did Jesus know how to make a pizza? Could Jesus say Hello in Lakota?"
Yes, yes and yes. Doesn't mean he was God in a man-suit. There is no reason to draw that conclusion.
Posted by: kevin s. | December 10, 2007 1:20 AM
Hi Kevin,
"Yes, yes and yes" might be the right answer. I was guessing. But since Jesus said "No one knows the day or the hour, not even the Son" I'm wondering if my threefold "No" might possibly be right, although its bearing on this discussion seems rather tangential ;-)
Blessings,
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 10, 2007 6:09 AM
A hearty Amen to the rest of your Post, Kevin S.
This could be one of those "Could God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift" arguments. A better answer might be Yes, no, and no, since quarks were involved in creation, but the other two are specific to cultures which didn't exist at the time.
Blessings and a wink, pun intended,
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 10, 2007 6:17 AM
Kevin,
I think that you are right that one shouldn't simply say that Christ represented whatever they want; that would constiture self-worship.
However, I think many people, when they have been honest with themselves, have rejected the gospel as literal truth and have searched, both their hearts and other sources, to come up with a rounded picture of what Christ was, and what he should mean for us today.
Are you suggesting that unless we accept the gospels as literal truth, we are misrepresenting Jesus, and cannot be called Christians?
Cheers,
Peter
Posted by: Peter | December 10, 2007 10:50 AM
Hi Peter,
I can't answer for Kevin, but my gut reaction, and earnest hope, is that most of you are sincere believers, in spite of "wandering from the faith and piercing yourselves with many difficulties." (Forgive my paraphrase.) I have some friends locally who seem depressed, but can't let go of a modernism that mires them in a joyless skepticism. Joylessness isn't the measure, but the bitter fruit, of their (near) unbelief.
Blessings and Peace,
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 10, 2007 11:18 AM
Hi,
"Witness for Peace," at the risk of trying to categorize someone too easily I beleive that you are a conservative/evangelical christian.
What I find somewhat humorous about your posting, (and certainly this viewpoint is shared by many) is that you seem to think that anyone who has a different vantage point is "piercing themselves with difficulty" or "joyless."
Perhaps this comes from a fundamentalist belief which paints differing philosophies as sinful. And from a Christian perspective a sinful life is at heart a joyless one. I would suggest however that this is not the case, that the Christian experience is fuller and happier when you feel open to new vantage points, to be able to change your mind on certain things. The rigidity of many churches, makes them (in my view) closed off from society, and in a way intelectually dishonest. If I were to be in that environment (and I can only speak for myself), I would be joyless.
Cheers.
Posted by: Peter | December 10, 2007 4:16 PM
Nope, I was speaking particularly of my friends. Maybe I should've said "a symptom" rather than "the symptom." The consequences of unbelief are too numerous to list! Doubtless some consequences are not unpleasant at all.
"Openness" and "uncritical agreement" are vastly different. My openness to to new ideas has led to accusations of being a crazy radical more times than you can imagine. Why do you think I subscribed to Sojourners for ages and ages ;-)
Posted by: Witness for Peace | December 10, 2007 5:38 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?