As a scholar of religion, a liberal Christian (yes, we do exist), and a lover of great fantasy literature, I am deeply saddened by the growing wave of fearful-to-the-point-of-hysterical online chatter about Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy, which was sparked by the upcoming Dec. 7 release of the film version of the first book, "The Golden Compass."
Just last week my fellow Beliefnet blogger Rod Dreher fed the frenzy. His Crunchy Con post waxes poetically and mournfully about his "children losing God, especially before they have a firm hold on Him," particularly" to the work of a man who openly says he wishes to destroy God in the minds of his audience"--and thus, according to Dreher, who threatens to suck all the happiness out of life. Dreher ends with an insulting generalization about liberals, and how "because liberals refuse to take God seriously, [we] have trouble understanding people--Jews, Muslims, Christians and others--who do."
Give me a break.
I’m a liberal and I’m a Christian. I also take God seriously. Very. And so does Philip Pullman.
One of the things I love most about Pullman’s trilogy (aside from the fact that it is one of the greatest literary treasures of our time) is the thought Pullman gives to God. Pullman spends more time--far more, I suspect--contemplating the divine, the nature of God, and how we conceive of our relationship to God than most Christians do in an entire lifetime. He has gifted us with a provocative, stunning fantasy that revels in the deepest of cosmic questions, and they are questions near and dear to the heart of Christianity.
And my contention, as a scholar, a Christian, and someone who has read the trilogy more times than I can count, is that the telos of Pullman's "His Dark Materials" is to save God, not kill him.
Take that, my fellow fearful Christians.
The soundbyte that everyone loves pulling from Pullman (so to speak), that his books "are about killing God," I would amend to say that his works actually are about challenging a certain corrupt, destructive image of a god-who-is-not-really-a-god at all--and I'd add that the "killing" he speaks of is not actually killing at all (but then, you need to read the books to find out why--do your homework, people).
Woven throughout "His Dark Materials" is a stunning retelling of salvation. So, yes, that soundbyte about killing God is a tasty tidbit to cycle and recycle all around, but it only succeeds in scaring Christian parents across America into "saving" their children from one of the best reading experiences that lies before them in their young lives. I suspect that Philip Pullman might rather introduce them to a vision of the divine that will speak to their lives and a generation next who craves a God for our times.
I know that’s what he did for me. But then, I read the books. Did you?
Perhaps it's not so much that liberals don't take God seriously and therefore can't understand people who do, it's more that believers and the faithful who aren't afraid of challenges to traditional images of God and to interpretations of their faith's story and message, and who desire a lively dialogue about faith and not a pre-determined one--we get villainized as godless.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Thank you so much for this article. You put into words what so many of us who are Christians and HDM fans were thinking. Thank you for giving another side to this never-ending argument.
Thanks for writing this article. It is very interesting to see how people react to certain films. I don’t have children of my own so I cannot comment from a parent’s perspective, but I can comment from a Christian perspective. We do we accept the killing, nudity and swearing in movies and say “it is only a movie” but we don’t accept a movie that challenge our believes. So what if Philip Pullman is an atheists? Is he the only one? Who of us would first go into his house for dinner before judging his thoughts on paper.
I believe that we should renew our minds by the Word of God and should support value added debates, not to proof our religion, but to give hope.
I went to see the movie today with my children, even though my in-laws were horrified by the very thought of the movie and would pray for us if they knew we took the kids to this movie... and thought it was great, and I saw it as spiritual and moving... non church maybe, but not non God ... I personally love God very much but do not love the church, so I identify with the theme of this movie...
The church has been and still can be very corrupt... NOT God but man in the name of God. Far too many Christians are closed minded and need to open their thoughts up to a bigger picture. I feel sorry for them, and their small reality. Do they have so little faith that a movie would really jeopardize anything???
I also agree about all the violence and other bad themes is movies we all just accept, but put out a movie that challenges the Church, also like the Da Vinci Code, (which my family also won't watch) and watch all the small minded church goers freak out...
Thanks for the good article.
Actually, Marcia, Pullman addresses that there is a distinct absence of the Christian God (although the book never names it as "Christian") and even questions whether God has a mortality or has chosen to watch man's reaction (using his free will) to the current situation. And, while it is never explicitly states which one is what is happening in the book, it allows the reader to draw a conclusion from the clues they have found while reading. Like most literally classics, it is open to interpretation for the reader to ponder and puzzle on for time to come. Pullman's theme is the choice between what you are told and what you discover yourself.
And NEVER has Pullman ( I'll remind you the author of said book) said that the Christian God was a false one, just that he does not believe in him.
The author of the article is either disingenuous or a fool. She writes in her recent review: "The British author, Philip Pullman, has said openly that he is an atheist...and...These books are deeply theological, and deeply Christian in their theology." The author's contention is silly on its face. Further, the tired contention that "orthodox" is about power and control is so worn and lame that the author is reduced to relying on full-time doofus Christopher Hitchens for its support. "Orthodoxy" is orthodox because it is vital and holds the fullness of the Gospel together. The postmodern spin attempted by the author tries to overemphasize some parts against the whole--Spirit vs. Father and Son, female vs. male, etc... thus illustrating the very problem and limitation of heterodox opinion: it is reductionist,it reduces the Gospel to "ideas" to be "contemplated" usually in favor of some trend or fad, rather than life to be lived, and so is distorting.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.