Guest blogger Tony Watkins is the author of "Dark Materials: Shedding Light on Philip Pullman's Trilogy 'His Dark Materials.'" This is the first of several blog posts he will be contributing to Idol Chatter about the controversy over the Dec. 7 release of "The Golden Compass," based on the first book of Pullman's trilogy.
Nothing grabs public attention better than controversy in the media, so New Line must be delighted at the fuss over "The Golden Compass." It's hardly surprising that some Christians don't relish the prospect of three blockbusters based on Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy. Director Chris Weitz may have downplayed the religious aspects of the story, but that in itself rings alarm bells in some quarters. Is this an insidious attempt at "selling atheism to kids," as claimed by Bill Donahue of the Catholic League? Is this a "safe" film designed to lure unsuspecting kids into an atheist trap? "When parents don't find the film troubling, they're going to buy the books for their kids as Christmas gifts," Donohue protests. "They're doing it through the back door, in a stealth fashion, because each book becomes more provocative, more aggressive and more anti-Christian."
I can understand, but don't share, the concern. It's easy to downplay religious aspects of the first book (though Weitz hasn't done so entirely: "Magisterium," the evil entity against which the heroes are fighting, is a religious term, and there is still talk of a connection between Dust and original sin). But I fail to see how the same can be done with "The Subtle Knife" and "The Amber Spyglass," the second and third books in the trilogy. The rebellion is not a struggle against an earthly totalitarian regime, but against the Authority himself. Æssahættr, the subtle knife, is not merely a blade that opens doors into other worlds; it is the God-killer.
Weitz knows this, of course, and admits that he had to compromise in order to get "The Golden Compass" made. He has said:
Whereas "The Golden Compass" had to be introduced to the public carefully, the religious themes in the second and third books can't be minimized without destroying the spirit of these books... I will not be involved with any "watering down" of books two and three, since what I have been working towards the whole time in the first film is to be able to deliver on the second and third films.Nevertheless, he dismisses suggestions that he's pursuing an atheist agenda as "a ridiculous idea." He maintains that Pullman's story is an attack on totalitarian authority, not on religion. Daniel Craig, who plays Lord Asriel, agrees: "These books are not anti-religious. Mainly they're anti-misuse of power--whether it's religious or political." (Curiously, what everyone seems to have forgotten is that, above all else, these stories are about growing up. That's a subject for another day.)
Philip Pullman gets steamed up about claims that "His Dark Materials" is atheist propaganda. "To regard it as this Donohue man has said--that I'm a militant atheist, and my intention is to convert people--how the hell does he know that?" he demanded in a Newsweek interview. Well, to be fair, Pullman once told the Sidney Herald that "my books are about killing God," and the Washington Post that "I'm trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief." They're comments which fairly smack of militant atheism. No wonder that Donahue and others are cynical about Pullman's insistence that "I am a story teller. If I wanted to send a message I would have written a sermon."
Pullman can't have it both ways: Does he have an agenda beyond storytelling or not? My feeling is that he doesn't, at least not consciously. He enjoys being provocative, and I suspect that those oft-quoted comments were intended to provoke a reaction in the days when he was only just becoming known internationally. His agenda, such as it is, in telling the story is to explore questions which he considers are the "most important of all": Is there a God? What does it mean to be human? What is our purpose?
Inevitably, he comes at those questions from a particular angle because he is an atheist. But such questions are absolutely fundamental and we should neither be afraid of asking them, nor of considering someone else's answers--even when they are profoundly different from our own. If we believe that our answers are the right ones, we should engage through calm, reasoned discussion, not through closing our eyes, blocking our ears and telling everyone else to do the same.
Boycotting is a deeply negative, counter-productive strategy. Truth can stand for itself, so I am convinced that a healthy Christian response is to listen seriously, respond positively where we can, critically where we must, and always in a way that's characterised by grace. Knee-jerk reactions, hurling abuse, and scare-mongering benefits nobody, and brings disgrace on the church.
For Idol Chatter's complete coverage of "The Golden Compass," click here.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
The "Ancient of Days" is another name for the One true God of the Universe. That is the God that this man kills in his book. Who else could he be talking about? I am not going to argue with all of the confused and will not judge those that do not believe as I do but I will not support someone who wants to "kill God" in my children (or anyone for that matter)by paying to see his movie and buying his books. I understand that my enemy has a way of making himself appear beautiful and it also says in the bible to avoid even the appearance of evil. By the way - to those quoting the old testament - when God sent Christ into the world, that was a NEW COVENANT and those old ways/laws became obselete. I don't pretend to be able to wrap my mind around all the encompasses the Beautiful One but I do know that this One IS perfect and IS at the same time full of grace and did what He did in order that NONE would perish but that their spirit would be able to carry on with Him into eternity. He created us in order that we might have relationship with him. We choose to seperate ourselves from this Beauty by denying the truth when it is presnted to us. Unfortunately some of those who present do it in an ugly, judgmental way.
I want to reply to the person that started his post "What about the Bible's call to touch not the unclean thing". First of all, there are no contradictions in the Bible. Secondly, he is right that any person, regardless of how horrific or severe the sin, can ask for God's forgiveness on his deathbed (IF given the opportunity to make it to a deathbed without being killed instantly, unexpectedly) and be saved. By God's grace are we saved through faith in His son Jesus Christ. When we ask Jesus into our hearts to forgive our sins and save us, we are covered by his blood at judgment day and therefore none of our sins "count against us". Heaven help this person see his/her misinterpretation and fall to their knees for forgiveness and salvation and avoid the firey end awaiting those who believe as this person does.
Seems to me that any god that can be killed isn't God as i understand It.
Why not go see the movie with an open mind and decide if it is good for your child.
Peace, Nora
It was never stated in any of the books or said by Pullman that his purpose was to kill the Christian God. He only attempts to display the hypocracy of an overly-oppressive religion. By saying this, I too, do not mean to bash Christianity. I am a devout Christian myself, and I still vastly enjoyed the books and at the same time enjoyed the movie which certainly contained no reference to the Christian church. The main message of the book, I believe, is the importance of knowledge and being able to think for oneself, not allow others to think for you. This is a lesson every person should learn, and I salute Pullman for including this message in his books. Clearly, most that oppose the books have no even read them, and they, too, are allowing others to think for them.
As a Christian, I am often disappointed with which ideas seem to be offensive. As others have pointed out, the offense is usually perceived second hand by someone who has not read the material. First, the "god" that is killed is not the creator, but a usurper. Second, Pullman uses Christian imagery for a repressive regime because the Christian imagery is what is most familiar to him. He acknowledges that theocratic power used for oppression, mutilation, and even murder is not unique to the history of Christianity. It is power, religious or political, that corrupts. Third, Pullman actually speaks about his belief system more like a humble agnostic. He sees no evidence of God (perhaps as God is usually conceptualized)in his limited experience, but acknowledges that there is vastly more to know than he knows or will ever know. Finally, if you finish the trilogy, you may find that Pullman understands very well some things that religious people forget -- the depth of responsibility that comes with freedom of choice, and the power and integrity of perfect love. Atheist? That may depend on how you define the term. Please decide for yourself.
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.