Philip Pullman, author of the fantasy trilogy His Dark Materials, has been clear about his intentions from the start. According to an article in the National Review entitled, Sunday School for Atheists,
[Pullman] wants, he once told the Washington Post, “to undermine the basis of Christian belief.”
That he attempts to do so through children’s literature makes his mission all the more intriguing, if not insidious. Now with the soon-to-be release of New Line’s The Golden Compass, first installment in Pullman’s epic atheistic tome, the troops are buzzing.
Snopes.com articulates the gist of the debate, concerns of which have led the Catholic League to call for a boycott of the movie. Likewise, Christian film critic, Ted Behr, summarizes some of the evangelical sentiment:
A reporter asked us if we were going to boycott this movie. Since we haven’t seen it, we won’t boycott it, but since it’s based on a book, THE GOLDEN COMPASS, the first one in Pullman’s trilogy, that can only demean, devalue and diminish life, we do urge people of faith and values not to bother to corrupt their children with this odious atheistic worldview.
I like that word “odious.” Anyway, although many see the movie as a Pro-Atheist Stealth Campaign, it appears that New Line has intentionally backed-off the film’s religious rhetoric. According to Publisher’s Weekly:
As the pre-release buzz gets louder, much is being made of the fact that Golden Compass director Chris Weitz has played down Pullman’s religious themes in his interpretation, to avoid controversy.
So are we getting an “odious atheistic worldview” or watered down anti-religious themes? I dunno. Either way, it’s angered many Pullman fans without blunting the controversy. For instance, Christian Retailing reports:
Best-selling children’s
fantasy author G.P. Taylor has issued an open letter to Americans warning of the dangers of the forthcoming movie The Golden Compass, an adaptation of British author Philip Pullman’s novel Northern Lights (Scholastic) controversial for its anti-Catholic themes.
. . .In an e-mail message this week, Taylor, who lives in Scarborough, England, said that the reason he wrote Shadowmancer (Charisma House/Penguin Putnam) and the other books in the series was because of Pullman and “the damage that his books were likely to do to the Christian church.”
Let me get this straight: Pullman wrote his books in response to C.S. Lewis’ Narnia; Taylor wrote his book in response to Pullman’s Compass. Pullman’s intention is to undo the damage done by Christianity; Taylor’s intention — as is the intention of all those boycotting the film — is to undo / avert the damage done by atheism.
Is it just me or do these authors and their intentions mirror each other? Both want a platform to preach. Both want rhetorical leverage. Both use fiction as an ideological tool. And both want the other silenced. Okay, maybe “silenced” is a bit strong. Yet as much as Christians oppose censorship and applaud free speech, we sure seem bothered about Pullman’s message getting out there. But why?
Lon Allison, director of Illinois’ Billy Graham Centre, once said of Disney’s The Lion, the Witch and the Wardobe, “We believe that God will speak the gospel of Jesus Christ through this film.” Philip Pullman wants the same thing, except that his gospel is anti-christian and the only One speaking is himself. Should we deny him that right?
Why is it we applaud Narnia being made into a movie, but talk about boycotts when The Golden Compass is released? Why is it we swoon over The Left Behind series and curse The DaVinci Code? Christians have been proselytizing with their fiction for the longest, yet when an avowed atheist comes along doing the same thing, we get our proverbial panties in a bunch. Can someone say hypocrisy?
Some argue that what makes Pullman’s work so insidious is that it’s aimed at children and young adults. But don’t Christians do this all the time? Narnia‘s target audience is not thirty-somethings. It’s children. Every Vacation Bible School that ever existed was built off the belief that young minds are impressionable, and shaping those young minds is essential to the propagation of our beliefs. So when we do it, it’s OK. But when an atheist does it, it’s wrong. I don’t get it.
In a democratic society, theism and atheism should be given equal platforms. Deal with it. Sure, it could be argued that the media is anti-religious, that Christians don’t get a fair shake. It’s a legitimate gripe. Nevertheless, the American government has yet to outlaw any religion. In fact, last time I looked, America was one of the most deeply religious nations on earth. While pluralism is a result and benefit of a free society, the give and take of those belief systems can get rather sticky. Which worldview wins out is 
often a matter of persuasion, passion and darned good LIVING.
As much as I want to see Christianity advance, we do not do it through boycotts.
The Apostle Paul stood on Mars Hill (Acts 17) and engaged the pagan scholars of his day. He did not retreat from the marketplace of ideas — and the ideas of his age were as florid as ours. He stood amidst pagan shrines without taking a sledge hammer to Venus and Aphrodite. He did not organize a march against misguided myth-makers. He engaged them. He reasoned with them. He lived his faith.
Pullman’s Dark Materials and The Golden Compass are part of the pantheon of the idols of our time. Yet why don’t we take a page from Paul’s playbook and, instead of picketing, stand up and address the objections and give reasonable, persuasive evidences for our worldviews. I firmly believe that Christian art and Christian reasoning can and should run circles around its atheistic counterparts. But that means backing off the boycotts and confidently entering the marketplace of ideas. Not only must we articulate a sound rationale for theism, as artists we must produce the type of quality work that gives evidence of its legitimacy.
In the end, if Christianity cannot withstand the assault of atheism — and atheistic films like The Golden Compass — then it doesn’t deserve to stand.
Engaging is good. Supporting is not. Adding your dollars (or mine) to the film is money that will finance more Pullman films, more money in Pullman’s pockets. That’s why a boycott is okay. I don’t mean storm the theaters with signs. I mean STAY HOME. Don’t give profits that profit an Anti-Christian.
Does an atheist have a right to their platform. Heck yeah. But Idon’t have to give them another few bucks to enrich them.
Paul preaching on Mars Hill or before the temple of Ephesus, etc, did not add money to the coffers of some temple hooker or put more dough in the pocket of a pagan priest. It was his way to bring light into a discussion.
By all means. Discuss. Bring light. But don’t make the pagan richer in a case where the pagan is an outright blasphemer affecting the minds, possibly, of a generation. I think that’s pretty simple non-action that is not censorship. It’s just not advocating with moolah.
Mir
Hey Mir, great to hear from you! I’m a bit conflicted at this point because the best way to critique a film is to see it. It’s hard to condemn something you haven’t seen. Furthermore, if the filmmaker has backed off the anti-God rhetoric, maybe the movie is more innocuous than it’s being portrayed. Again, we won’t know without seeing it.
Like the DaVinci Code, in the end, the message of the movie is what needs distilled and countered. This is my gripe: Christians seem more willing to organize pickets than to rationally, capably defend their beliefs in a public forum. We would be less threatened by atheism if we were more grounded in our own faith. If the Church’s message was passionate, engaging, and reasonable, it really wouldn’t matter how much money an atheist is making because their message would have difficulty gaining traction.
I agree. I stand and applaud. But I also agree with Mir. What’s unsaid in your post, but said just about everywhere else, is the concern that, as the Narnia movie led people to read the Narnia books, the Compass movie will lead people to read those books. But, again, if our faith is built on something so shaky that reading a fiction book can derail it, is it really faith?
As always, parents should monitor and discuss with their children what the children are reading. How else to teach discernment?
Ah, this is what all those “warning: don’t go see this movie” forwards I’ve been receiving and deleting must have been about. I believe we waste far too much energy on this stuff. How about using all those words and time and money to keep preaching our message and trust God to work? How about plugging along, writing our own stories? Yes, as individuals, we should watch what our kids are watching. But do we want to squelch free speech? I don’t think so. When free speech goes, Christians end up worshipping quietly in basements.
Mike,
I agree. They have just as much right to make anti-Christian movies as we do to make Christian movies. Mir’s point about not giving them money is a good one.
When the Da Vinci Code came out (as a book and then a movie), my wife and I borrowed the book from friends and got the movie from the library, so we could avoid adding to their profits. But we still wanted to see what was in there, so we could argue intelligently, as you advocate.
Even with the Pullman books being aimed at children–can’t parents read and discuss books with their kids?
One nit-picky note on your wording: I’d call this sort of reactionary response a “double standard” on the part of Christians, not necessarily “hypocrisy.”
That aside, I agree with you and with those who’ve left comments. Rather than shield our children, we should teach them to think critically, to understand a biblical worldview, all the while modeling what we teach and praying fervently God will mercifully call them and grant them faith to believe. (After all, intellectual assent to truth can’t save anyone.)
Greater is He who is in us than he that is in the world. We shouldn’t live in fear or suppress free speech. On the contrary, in some ways I’m glad when projects like this one hit the scene, because they stir us from complacency and into public debate.
And yet, I would not take a child to see this movie, and I have no interest in seeing it myself. If I knew I’d have to square off against the director or author, then I’d go, and I’d read all the books. But for general debate purposes, there are plenty of other ways to learn about atheistic propaganda without adding to their financial support. Frankly, I don’t patronize most of what Hollywood puts out there these days. It neither entertains nor edifies. I’m just not interested.
Jeanne, thank you so much for correcting my choice of words. I actually pondered not using the word “hypocrisy” because I recognize the term is often misused. But please don’t look too closely at my grammar, style or punctuation, for I fear you’ll find many a misuse.
This conversation reminds me of the long discussions I used to have with my son, Chris, when he started college. He’s in his Masters now but, as is par for today’s universities, had to endure lotsa liberal professors. But the challenges to his religious / philosophical / political positions became springboards for great debate and inevitably sharpened those positions. In the same manner, one of the best ways to validate Christianity to our children is not to shelter them from The Golden Compasses of the world, but to articulate its errors and give them tools for discerning its untruth.
Thanks for the great comments! Lord bless you all!
After reading the first sentence and seeing the word “insidious,” my first thought was, “How is it more insidious than our own teachings of little children?”
I agree that this should inspire us as Christians all the more to write good books and create good films and paint good paintings and compose good music.
Others have pretty much made the points that I thought about. I am not going to be a big debater on Golden Compass, as I have not read the books. I agree that I shouldn’t be out there shooting my mouth off about them very heavily if I don’t know about them from reading.
However, even though they have a right to publish books and produce movies, I don’t agree with the terminology of having an “equal platform”. This is a capitalistic society with choice. I choose not to support this project with my money and time. Maybe one of these days I’ll have time and inclination to check the book out from the library, but not right now.
I don’t think it is wrong for saying, “Hey, did you realize this guy is an atheist whose stated motive is to be the anti-Narnia?” I’m not going to post all over saying, “Oh my gosh, don’t read/watch!” But some people also reacted to Narnia as a movie saying they didn’t want to watch it because it still had Christian propoganda.
I also think we need to teach our kids to be able to critically think about issues and not just regurgitate our beliefs, because if they don’t own it for themselves, wrestle with it for themselves, then it won’t be strong when tested. Yet, we don’t throw out everything and say “Choose.” We train them in God’s ways, in His word, and realize that they will have to walk it out some day. There will be time for that. I have younger kids, so they don’t need to be exposed to something like the Golden Compass at this point.
Rambling today, sorry. I’d like to be more coherent, but it is truly a Monday!
Mike, as you know from my post on this subject last week, I agree with Jason.
You said In a democratic society, theism and atheism should be given equal platforms. Deal with it. But you go on to denigrate those who choose to deal with it by boycotting it. Why?
Block others from going, try to outlaw it, get the books banned or stop the movie from appearing—these I can see as extreme measures that would be inconsistent with our belief in democracy. But if someone tried to sell your kids poison to sprinkle on their breakfast cereal, would you say, Your choice?
There is nothing wrong with someone speaking from a position of Truth against error. This is the Big Bad Thing Christians do—we claim we know Truth. How dare we. What hubris.
We dare for one reason and one reason only—God gave the world His Truth. It is not equal to any other “truth” and therefore to be put on a shelf with similar “spiritual writings.”
If we truly believe the Bible is true, that Christianity is accurate, then how can we sit casually by and not speak against false teaching? Even when it comes in the guise of story?
As it so happens, I agree with you, Mike, that the BEST way to silence the opposition is to write better stories, ones that will flat out make the stories without a Savior-hero seem incomplete (because they are) and ones that kill god seem wrong (because they are).
Becky
Mike, bravo for standing up. It’s a sticky issue and many of us can see different sides of it. I wouldn’t take my kids to see the movie and I’m not interested in it myself. But I also think it would be really scary and awful to live in a society that didn’t allow the free flow of ideas. I’m so glad we can all discuss and debate these issues.
Hey Becky! I hope I’m not denigrating those who choose to boycott the movie. But from my experience, boycotts rarely work. Not seeing the film, of course that sends a message. But this movie will have no problem garnering an audience. Much like the DaVinci Code, it will distill into pop culture lore and, from there, the real discussion begins.
Actually, most breakfast cereals are poison. Anyway, the difference is that our children are bombarded by ideas and values on a daily basis. It’s not as simple as saying X is evil and Y is not. Often there is nuance. Are we prepared to say Narnia is GOOD and Compass is EVIL? As in most cases of worldly art, it’s a mixture of both. And discerning between the two is the task of the Christian.
Though we claim to know the Truth, in the non-believer’s eyes, it’s still up for grabs. We can thump our chests all we want but, in the end, it still requires Persuasion, Reason and Love, without which all of our boycotts will fall short.
Becky, you rock! God bless you!
Are we prepared to say Narnia is GOOD and Compass is EVIL? As in most cases of worldly art, it’s a mixture of both. Uh, I’m not willing to say that. I am willing to say Christianity is true and atheism is false. I know that paints me as the Big Bad Christian Who Dares To Say She Knows.
Since I believe Truth is absolute and begins with our Creator God, that He revealed Himself—I didn’t do anything clever to find Him—then I’m willing to live with that.
I also have no problem measuring a work of literature by how much or how closely it adheres to Truth.
What I don’t want to see is someone doing that work and telling the rest of us his findings, then as a herd we all fan out and parrot those words.
We all need to engage the culture as God directs us. If some feel that means they “vote” with their pocketbook and refrain from buying movie tickets or copies of the books, I am not about to say they are “wrong” any more than I’m going to say one book is “good” and another “evil.” At least not until I’ve read/seen The Golden Compass and/or the rest of His Dark Materials series.
Presumably you already have since you say it is a mixture of both.
And Mike, you roll! 😀 God’s blessing on you, too!
Becky
I think Mir makes a great point. Mike, you bring up the Paul-Temple example often.
As you know, I disagree with your liberal application of this example. He engaged them. Good point-Let’s do it. But, he wouldn’t have attended one of the pagan services.
I don’t see how Christians alerting your brothers and sisters in Christ about the possible indoctrination of anti-Christian beliefs = an unjustified boycott.
I don’t want to pay someone 10 bucks to insult God. And I welcome these types of warnings. On the other hand, if you feel called to watch or read for the expressed purpose of refuting them, go ahead. It’s not a sin. Someone has to do it.
Asking Congress to ban such books and movies would be wrong. Respectfully wishing for, hoping for, or assisting their failure by not filling their coffers is democracy at work.
There is a big difference between Pro-Christian and Anti-Christian movies and books aimed at children. We are trying to save their souls. They are trying to destroy them. We do it out of love. They do it out of hate.
They have the right to do it. But, they don’t have moral equivalency.
Hi Mike:
Well, first of all, I’d like to congratulate you for your insight. I ran into your website quite randomly (I was looking up other people who’s favorite book was “The Book of the Dun Cow” on blogger) and couldn’t help but post.
It’s refreshing to finally hear a Christian (or, for that matter, any religiouse person) who understands that the most honest faith is the one we choose, not the one that is forced upon us. I think I am a much stronger Christian now that I have doubts and challenges to my faith, than when I was little and in an evangelic school where everything was pretty much spoon-fed to me. Seeing as I was a kid too long ago (I’m 23), I know that the values my parents handed down to me most strongly where those that they let me rationalize on my own. Debate of ideas has always been the key to true faith. If you don’t even question it, why would it be called “faith”?. In fact, if I had kids, I would encourage them to not only watch the movie, but to read the book as well. That way, we could discuss the issues presented in the book, and it would end up reafirmating their faith. What are so afraid of?
A correction: I meant to say, “seeing as I was a kid *not* to long ago, hehe…
Hi Dayle. I do use the Mars Hill account a lot and believe it serves as a wonderful paradigm for evangelism and cultural engagement. It’s been viewed that way, by scholars and Bible students, for a long time. If you want to call my application of it “liberal,” that’s up to you.
I don’t believe anywhere in my posts or the comments that I’ve suggested that we shouldn’t alert people as to the content of the film / book, or that we don’t have the right to boycott / picket. My point is that boycotts usually end up garnering more publicity for the thing in question and defeat their purpose. We’re far better off using it as a basis for dialog, articulation for our own beliefs and the obvious deficiencies of atheism, exercising discernment and teaching our kids to be students of the time rather than reactionaries.
Compass is an easy target because the author’s stated intent is to undermine Christianity. But what of the many books / films, written / made by those openly hostile to God. Where do we draw the line of “support” or “endorsement”? For instance, Tom Cruise is a zealous Scientologist. Every time we see a film by him we are, in a sense, supporting his anti-Christian cause. H.R. Geiger designed many of the sets and monsters for Alien. He’s also an occultist. Aren’t we blessing his beliefs by seeing that movie? Heck, Ghandalf was portrayed by Ian McKellen, an openly gay man. Aren’t we supporting his lifestyle by seeing that movie? It’s far more grey than many Christians make it out to be.
You say, Paul engaged the Athenians, “But, he wouldn’t have attended one of the pagan services.” You are equating seeing this movie, or movies like it, to attending a pagan service. I’d suggest it’s much more nuanced and far less absolute than that. Some Christians see attending any R rated movie or listening to any secular music as pagan. So where do you draw the line? And can it really be drawn that easily?
Finally (whew!), you wrote: “There is a big difference between Pro-Christian and Anti-Christian movies and books aimed at children. We are trying to save their souls. They are trying to destroy them. We do it out of love. They do it out of hate.”
It’s a HUGE leap to suggest that atheists operate out of hate. Hate against whom? Christians? Christianity? But don’t we equally hate atheism? Fact is, atheists are often humanists. Far from trying to willfully “destroy” children’s souls, Pullman believes he is saving them from misguided beliefs. . . just like us. In this, the two sides mirror one another. Rather than pigeon-holing atheist intentions to justify ours (THEY are haters! WE are not! THEY are evil! WE are righteous!), we should be lovingly engaging and rigorously refuting the belief system they espouse.
As usual, thanks for the great observations and discussion, Dayle. Hope I’m not too wet with my “liberal” application. 😉
Don’t get too offended, Mike. I didn’t mean liberal in the modern political sense of the word.
But I do think it’s easy to take his example too far. I think some use it to rationalize their behavior. ( general statement – not aimed at you )
I’m speaking more conceptially here. I don’t equate going to the movie as attending the pagan service. But some Christians might have that conviction.
There are exceptions to everything. My conviction told me not to pay for Davinci Code. Not because I’m scared of the debate. I just didn’t want to give my money to that cause. The argument that we then need to investigate the food chain of all our departing dollars doesn’t work. Convictions do not have to be explained to the discernment of others. Nor do they have to make sense to everyone or follow a black and white formula.
Which is to say: That while I will follow my convictions, I won’t force others to follow mine. To make the blanket condemnation of those who want to avoid this movie is a little fascist. ( once again – please don’t be offended. I like to speak in hyperbole )
Which is to say: I wouldn’t hold it against you if you paid to see the Davinci Code or bought the book.
I didn’t say atheists operate out of hate. My point was that most anti-christian movies and books operate out of hate. These are militant atheists. I’m sure there are exceptions.
Christopher Hitchens claims that he is just trying to save America from Evangelical influence. Maybe he’s being sincere – I don’t know. At least he’s willing to discuss it.
But, he is the adversary. Yes we shouldn’t villify him, but we shouldn’t applaud him either. And yes, we shouldn’t put him in prison for writing an anti-Christian book, but we shouldn’t buy it either. At least that’s my conviction. You are free to choose without fear of condemnation from me.
And, if I am wrong about any atheist’s intentions, I’d be the first to apologize.
If what you’re really saying that you’re tired of being lumped in with the few lunatic fringe Christian groups who make us all look bad, then I’m in total agreement. But, I would posit that you’re giving them more credit than they deserve.
Btw, wouldn’t your life be a lot more boring without me. 🙂
God’s blessings to you.
Dayle