Some thoughts on The Golden Compass

A couple of months ago, one of the pastors in town brought attention to a movie, The Golden Compass, coming out in December. It is based on a book of the same title, first the His Dark Materials trilogy.

At that time, I decided to find out for myself what Philip Pullman, the author, really wrote. When something can be of such controversial nature as this book trilogy and movie are, I believe it is important to not place too much faith on information from other sources (which are far too often biased in one extreme or another). I checked out all three volumes and read through them, in the span of around 15 hours.

I bring this up again because today, I received an e-mail (a forward of a forward) from the Alaska Conference regarding the upcoming movie release. In the forwarded section of the e-mail, a reference was made to The Golden Compass being anti-Narnia and also it about being "killing God."

Mr. Pullman, in interviews and in his own essays, has voiced his disdain for C. S. Lewis and the Narnia Chronicles. However, to leap from that to saying that his trilogy is anti-Narnia seems a difficult logical leap... I suppose one can say it is anti-Narnia because Narnia is based on the presupposition that divinity exists and the supernatural is at work, whereas Pullman's work presupposes only naturalism (as any good atheist would).

In regards to "killing God," if God was really like the god described by the trilogy, and if religion was really like what it depicted in the books, I would be an atheist and anti-religion also. In my opinion, the trilogy isn't about killing God or gods... Based on the presupposition that God and gods don't exist anyway, it's about putting away the notion that divinity exists.

If Christians believe that this world was created and is sustained by God, Pullman believes that science (naturalism) can and will eventually explain everything. If Christians have faith in God's workings, Pullman places his faith in the workings of science and nature.It's just the object of faith that is different. Just as Christians seek to understand more the object of their faith, the characters in Pullman's work also tries to understand better their objects of faith. In this respect, my opinion is that the trilogy is very much about the need for humans to have faith in something. For Pullman, again, it is naturalism.

Another major criticism laid against Pullman, the trilogy, and the movie is that it is anti-Christian, and particularly anti-Catholic. I'll agree that it can easily be interpreted that way. But primarily, Pullman is writing a polemic against religion's abuses and about how (religious) systems seek to serve and protect itself. Throughout the trilogy I found myself nodding in agreement with Pullman's criticisms of religion, religious systems, and one of their specific examples: Christianity. Catholicism, being the largest, most visible, and having the longest history in Christianity, naturally bears the brunt of criticisms. It's not that the Catholic church is necessary worse than any other religious system -- it's one that is most easily identified and criticized.

One final point to consider before moving on to how I think Christians ought to respond...

Some of the online criticisms I've read note that Pullman is trying to "evangelize" children into atheism. That may be true. And if so I believe he has as much right as anyone else to try to "evangelize." If the Christian belief system is so fragile that it cannot withstand the assaults of atheism, then Christianity has no business claiming to be a worldview, let alone claiming to be the best.

I don't ever recall Jesus asking his disciples to go into all the world and "defend me and the Father." What I see recorded in the Bible is Jesus saying, "Go into all the world and speak the truth about me -- speak about how I've changed your life." I'm reminded also of Daniel 3 -- the story of the three Jews in Nebuchadnezzar's furnace on the plains of Dura. Their response was basically the same: Nebuchadnezzar, your challenge is against our God. We don't need to defend him. He is powerful enough to defend himself. But even if he chooses not to, we will remain loyal to him.

I think what I mentioned in the previous paragraph should inform and shape our response as Christians. If we react impulsively (and in fear)against the movie and the trilogy, we only prove the author (and other atheists) correct in their arguments that Christians (and other people of faith) are narrow-minded, judgmental, opposed to freedom of information and choice, controlling, seek to quash anything that threatens their beliefs, etc.

My opinion is that Christians should use incidents and works of this nature to inform us, to instruct us where we might deserve criticism, and to open dialogue with those who might think differently. We should use these opportunities to humbly admit that we as individual Christians have failed to live up to Christ's standard, that we as a group (the Church) have also failed to live up to Christ's standard. And then we should try to direct the conversation to the ideal of love.

Underneath all that Pullman writes in the trilogy, the main theme is the importance of love and compassion. (This comes through in the third book, at least in my mind.) I don't know if what he writes is his personal belief, but I read somewhere regarding authors of novels that they are revealing their inner self in their works. If that is true, then Pullman wants to believe that the universe runs on love and compassion. When these are violated, the universe falls apart. This is common ground that true Christ-followers share with Pullman, and perhaps many other atheists. Rather than attacking and criticizing them, this can be a starting point for further conversations.

An interesting additional point, particularly for Seventh-day Adventists is in regards to the Christian beliefs of the body, soul, and spirit. Many Christians believe in these three being distinct and, as the teachings about the spirit going to heaven right after death show, the implication is that each can survive separately. The first book in the trilogy takes this doctrine to its logical conclusion. If the body is evil and the soul is good, why not actively bring about their separation? (Where the spirit goes is addressed in the second book.)

Adventist Christians (most -- I leave room for those that don't) believe in the wholism of the person -- that the soul described in the Bible consists of both the body and breath of life (spirit) -- that one cannot be separated from another, and together form the living entity that we call soul. As soon as one element disappears, all cease their existence, except in the mind of God. In a backwards way, Pullman's work shows the absurdity of believing in the idea of separate body, soul, and spirit; and affirms the Adventist belief on this matter.

I end this series of thoughts on The Golden Compass with the warning I began: If you are going to discuss this topic with someone, I encourage you to personally and carefully examine the primary materials (i.e., all three books of the His Dark Materials trilogy) and reach your own conclusions. Depending on hearsay (or hearsay of a hearsay) will undermine your own credibility and the credibility of Christians in general. (And that goes for using my thoughts here. These are meant to encourage you to examine the work for yourself.)