New to FriendlyChristian.com? Check out the FAQ page to learn about the site. Wondering who the heck I am? The My Story page is a great place to start. Thanks for stopping by!
Click here to subscribe via RSS.
Click here to have posts delivered by email.
This message will automatically disappear after your 3rd visit.
I went to see the movie The Golden Compass yesterday. The movie version doesn’t incorporate all the plot complexity and subtlety of the book but I enjoyed it nevertheless. The effects were well done and Lyra was perfect – smart, brave, loyal, kind and feisty!
The rest of my comments are about the trilogy His Dark Materials which begins with The Golden Compass. It’s hard to comment on just one book (or movie) since I’ve read the whole trilogy. (But I won’t include spoilers)
Reading His Dark Materials (in 2002) was a powerful experience for me. I found myself very caught up in the story and characters and didn’t want it to end when it did.
More than that, it did the very thing some Christians fear; it drove a deeper wedge between me and conservative Christianity.
Not because Pullman’s church is viciously evil and his witches are good - although they are. Rather, because his story resonated with me more deeply than conservative Christianity did any more.
In conservative Christianity the point is to pledge allegiance to the right side. That’s enough to save you for eternity. And hopefully you’ll behave in ways that reflect which side you’re on. It’s never really clear how much your actions matter, since God will ultimately triumph, period. Except that whether other people are saved for eternity may depend to some extent on your efforts to convince them to join your side. So that inevitably should become your first priority.
By 2002 I was pulling away from this belief system. I wanted to be deeply connected to this life and everything good it has to offer. My life seemed more messy and complicated than the black and white absolutes of conservative Christian belief. The hard lines it drew didn’t seem compatible with grace even though it claimed to be all about grace.
Pullman’s story is very affirming of this life and the beauty of this world. And I agree with him that the greatest threat to this world is people who have power over others, who are so dogmatically certain they‘re right that they could be going completely in the wrong direction and never notice.
Conservative Christianity tends to condone people having power over people and using it as long as they are ‘on God’s side’. As Brian McLaren helpfully points out in Everything Must Change, that’s a major misinterpretation of how Jesus envisioned the Kingdom of God. It’s how the Roman Empire and the Pharisaical religious system (according to Jesus, according to the Bible) operated. Jesus came to subvert that type of system, not to uphold it. He proposed a better way, based on serving, not on being served.
What if, instead of boycotting Pullman’s books and movie or being defensive about them, those Christians were to read them and ask themselves “Is Pullman right about anything? Has he identified anything about the church that is evil? Is he upholding any values which we as Christians also uphold?”
For me the answers to all of these are definitely ‘yes’. There is much love and redemption (and sacrifice) in Pullman’s trilogy. If that was the point of the Christian story, I don’t think Christians would have anything significant to complain about in Pullman’s trilogy. Why isn’t it?
Popularity: 4% [?]
Loading ...
[...] The Friendly Christian: What if, instead of boycotting Pullman’s books and movie or being defensive about them, those Christians were to read them and ask themselves “Is Pullman right about anything? Has he identified anything about the church that is evil? Is he upholding any values which we as Christians also uphold?” [...]
Thanks for the reflections. I had heard of the trilogy a while back but never read it until the movies were coming out; I finally read the first book last weekend and found it intriguing and exciting. I have not seen the movie yet.
What you said reminds me of what a respected professor once told me: look for grace in everything you read. We might be surprised where we find grace (and truth and other things).
Peace.
I am very concerned about a couple of comments that you made….
“In conservative Christianity the point is to pledge allegiance to the right side”
Who told you or where did you find this information? How did you come to find out the point to conservative Christianity?
“And I agreed with him that the greatest threat to this world is people who have power over others….”
Is this really the greatest threat to this world? To make a statement like this seems bold. Did you find this in the bible?
Thanks Dave.
YME if you are concerned about what I wrote you’re welcome to show I’m wrong using whatever justification seems appropriate to you.
Helen, I appreciated your words concerning some of the faults within certain forms of Christianity. I haven’t seen the film yet, but I would consider myself a ‘conservative’ Christian, and wouldn’t have any problems watching it. What I’ve heard is that the author of the book on which the movie is based has a very anti-God agenda. I’m not sure that is much to be threatened by. People have been attempting to disprove God’s existence for sometime now, and so I find it unlikely that some random atheistic author/philosopher is going to stumble across some secret insight that everyone else has overlooked for centuries.
At any rate, I’m getting away from the point of my comment. I’m commenting because I think you have painted Christianity with much too broad a brush, and in doing so have made assertions about ‘conservative’ Christianity that simply couldn’t be true about all conservative Christians all the time. Your generalizations about Christianity simply can’t bear the weight you are attempting to place on them.
There are more than a few conservative - even evangelical! - Christians who would share the same concerns you voice… obsession with establishing the dividing lines of the lines of who is in and who is out, using power (specifically religious power/influence) in ways that oppress, and lack of appreciation for the goodness of the life and creation we’ve been given. You mention McClaren, so surely you are aware that there are people who are thinking, committed, (mostly) orthodox Christians who don’t see what you have espoused and a strong orthodox belief about Jesus the Christ as being mutually exclusive. You might give N.T. Wright’s Simply Christian a read. I think McClaren would credit Wright as having shaped much of his thinking lately.
However, your comments about pledging allegiance to the ‘right’ side, are a bit too reductionistic. It sounds like the familiar plea of “can’t-we-all-just-get-along”. In contrast, the Bible does seem to be very concerned with people understanding and pledging themselves to the right (God’s) side. My guess is that you might argue that the ‘right side’ that they are referring to in the Bible is the side that views life and spirituality in the terms you’ve expressed – servanthood, tolerance, and goodness. And to be sure, if pledged to the right side, those would be wrapped up in pursuing what the right side is all about. But the Bible does seem to place a great deal of emphasis on this allegiance being personal (i.e. to a person) and not just allegiance to some vague, abstract set of moral platitudes – no matter how noble they might be.
I guess my main problem with your comments is that you portray conservative Christians as being “black and white” in their thinking, which ironically reveals your own tendency to making things black-and-white… at least as it relates to Christians. Maybe I’ve misunderstood what you were trying to say?
I don’t think the movie did the book justice……
Helen - I wasn’t attempting to prove you wrong and I hope I didn’t come across that way.
Initially the comments stirred up some feelings of concern and made me wonder about where your comments came from. I was trying to turn those feelings into questions. I was asking for you to validate the conclusions you had reached and how you had come to these conclusions.
I apologize if I offended you….I will try again.
Can you explain how you came to the conclusions that I pointed out in the earlier post?
YME, sorry, no, you didn’t offend me…but I don’t really have time…I was a conservative Christian for 16 years so what I wrote is based on my first-hand experience.
It’s my opinion what the greatest threat to the world is. I’m not going to try to prove it, but I think Hitler iluustrates it well. His dogmatic certainty plus his position of power which enabled him to implement his ideas made him extremely dangerous to the world and it wasn’t until the world began to realize and mobilize and enough people united against him that he was stopped. And it was too late for millions of Jewish people.
Maria, nor do I.
tj, I wouldn’t call Brian McLaren a conservative Christian in any sense of the word. And when I called NT Wright a conservative Christian on my own blog the other day everyone disagreed with me.
So, yes, I know about them and I wasn’t thinking of them when I wrote what I wrote. (Even though I do consider NT Wright conservative in some senses)
The conservative Christian belief system is black and white, no matter what you say; it’s heaven or hell, there are no other options. I can’t think of anything more black and white than that.
Helen - I am glad that I didn’t offend you. I kind of felt like I was getting off to the wrong foot in here. I am a straight shooter so sometimes people take what I say as an attack. I just take the approach that I call it like it is.
I think it is fair to say that the statement “In conservative Christianity the point is to pledge allegiance to the right side” was made with no real proof and can be discarded as baseless and witout merit. I was concerned when I originally posted because I suspected that the statement was made that way but wanted to give you a chance to prove otherwise before I exposed it for the what it is, unfounded.
As far as your statement “And I agreed with him that the greatest threat to this world is people who have power over others…” I think you, me and everyone else has the right to voice their opinion. I think that it is clear that you do not have any grounds, facts, or supported conclusions that give this statement credibility other than it is your opinion. There is nothing wrong with that. I was just curious to see if you were just making statements or was there “meat” behind those statements.
I am sorry again if I came across as offensive earlier. I just wanted to engage you in discussion about the statements you had made.
YME since when did “I don’t have time” mean the same as “my statements are unfounded”?
Now you are being offensive - by not taking me at my word.
Helen - I must have missed something again. You stated “what I wrote is based on my first-hand experience.” Did you not read what you wrote? Am I missing something?
You did say that you didn’t have time but then you went ahead and said “I was a conservative Christian for 16 years so what I wrote is based on my first-hand experience.” Writing on your personal experience alone leads me to say that the statement is unfounded not because you said you didn’t have time.
Let’s say….I had a friend that was an Atheist and we had been friends for 16 years. Later in life he raped and murdered someone and I said that the point of Atheism was to rape and murder….someone would ask how did I come to that conclusion. My statement would not be accepted with any value if I said that my experience of 16 years with my Atheist friend lead me to that conclusion. There has to be more than that.
I am sorry again if I have offended you but this is getting a little silly. You said, “Now you are being offensive - by not taking me at my word.” I am suppose to take you at your word. What world are you living in? If you told me that you are the tooth fairy, am I suppose to just believe it without questioning or looking into it at all? Come on…that doesn’t make any sense.
I am new here but I have to ask…Is this normal for you to post statements you can’t adequately defend or support? What value does this provide to the site?
Whatever.
yeah helen,
) that those professing faith generally tend to be more open-minded - less black and white - than others. certainly not always, but frequently enough.
all i was really saying was that rejection of christianity isn’t synonymous with being open-minded or having the ability to have nuanced understandings of god and faith. more plainly, an atheist can be every bit as ‘black-and-white’ as a christian. particularly when it comes to christianity! i’ve certainly met lots of people from varying faith and non-faith backgrounds, and it has been my own experience (not that i would want to use my own experience to establish what is universally true
also, it is unfair to use the old hitler argument to demonstrate the latent evil within christianity. there are all atrocities that have been committed in the name of christ throughout history, no one denies it. all i think it proves is that humanity is capable of great evil. however, christians have done more to advance the cause of the oppressed than any other world religion out on the market. while some might argue that christians perpetuated slavery, it was christians who were most influential in abolishing it. or some might say that christians has encouraged male dominated society (and one could certainly cite examples), but it is christians and christ himself who have elevated the status of women more than any one else. in fact, womens’ rights likely wouldn’t be what they are today if it hadn’t been for christians who advanced their cause. same could be said of civil rights, class-ism, or a host of other issues. don’t hear me saying that christians are perfect, VERY far from it. however, if one were to take the issues that most everyone today would agree as are values that humanity should hold dear… equality, tolerance, compassion for the poor, etc… i’m fairly certain that one would discover that christianity has (with notable exceptions) done more to advance those causes than other social or religious groups.
i’m not really looking to get into a debate here, i just think you should acknowledge that your prejudice against christians keeps you from seeing that there might be anything positive about the christian faith. the whole baby and bath water thing. like i said, i’m a christian, for a number of reasons too lengthy to get into here, but i certainly wouldn’t want to say that just because i have ‘pledged allegiance to christ’ that other religions or philosophies don’t have anything helpful to say.
well that was way more than i intended to say… mainly that first part, i guess.
tj wrote:
I’m not going to acknowledge that because it’s not true. I have no idea why you think I think there’s nothing positive about Christianity, because I certainly didn’t say that anywhere.
tj -
sorry, but this is a ridiculous assertion to make, as i don’t believe you could ever prove it (i.e. prove great thinkers and leaders were really christians as opposed to theists/deists/weren’t just paying lip service to a theocratic system that gave them more influence/power/status). you could also make a case for political systems being more influential over rights (think democracy, capitalism etc.), and if you’re really interested i’ll look up the name of a feminist muslim who gives a convincing argument for the prophet Muhammad having a greater impact on the rights of woman in his time/culture than Jesus ever did.
all i think it proves is that humanity is capable of great things (even if they’re christian!).
@Helen
I am a little disappointed with your last response to me as well as this post in general.
This is a great place to come and discuss/debate issues. There are so many things that we can learn from each other. Christians, Atheist and anyone else can come here and share thoughts and feelings.
BUT, there has to be a certain level of logic and reason applied to these discussions. A person can’t come on here and make statements without some type of justification. That is unproductive.
It appears that you just make statements to make statements. You can’t defend them or support them. Your thoughts don’t seem to have, well thought, or purpose.
Your comments would be accepted and invited if they had meaning to them. They could spark conversation if there was some backing to them. I am just guessing but I think most everyone on here welcomes open minded, constructive debate and is willing to get to the end and say “we agree to disagree” or even “i see what you are saying” or “I disagree” or whatever. We like that but….it can’t happen if you just say things to say them.
I think your comment, to me, about feeling offended because I don’t take you at your word, speaks volumes about what you expect. This isn’t a place that the “authors” comments should be accepted as fact. Your comments should be willing to be challenged and questioned and they should be defendable and supported. Expecting people to take what you say as the way it is….is silly.
YME, good luck finding someone who has time and is willing to engage with you on your terms.
Actually I really thought the Magesterium was more like political correctness. (People telling you what to do? Forbidding open inquiry? Anyone?) I thought of the camps for children more as the reeducation camps of communist countries, and the “oblations” in line with say the “socialist lobotomies” of Cuba.
The idea of an illicit tool to show you the truth in a time of “universal deceit” was positively Orwellian. All this of course I might have more readily gotten from a good movie and script, which GC was absolutely not!
I have to say too that this pretentious work could never ever hold a candle to christian trilogies such as Narnia or Lord of the Rings. Which came across ironically as far less preachy and missionary than Compass. What is it about atheists forcing their nonreligion on everyone else? Remember it was fundamentalist Chiristian Milton who championed a Free Press in his works.
Francesca, the Magesterium could represent any oppressive controlling dictatorship, yes - the movie is against any of those, whether atheist or not.
I think it’s much better written than Narnia and it came across to me as less preachy, not more - but, each to his/her own.
What is it about this trilogy that made you think atheists are forcing their nonreligion on others? If it’s ok for CS Lewis to write about Narnia and JRR Tolkien to write about Middle Earth, what’s wrong with Philip Pullman writing about other worlds and Dust?
Fwiw, there’s more to the book than the movie. It’s more subtle and complex. Maybe you’ve read both - I’m just saying.