I was 15 when The Last Temptation of Christ came out in theaters. That's the first time I can remember my normally staid Lutheran church getting too excited about anything. Petitions were circulated - I don't remember about what - people expressed the requisite shock and alarm, the film came out - and then it was over.
Next came The Da Vinci Code book and movie which in the end seemed only to solidify the beliefs people already held; skeptics of church authority and the Bible's legitimacy deepened their skepticism, while churchgoers learned a few things they never knew about early church history.
Now comes The Golden Compass. On its face, the threat seems distinct: the books of Philip Pullman, a children's novelist and self-professed atheist who hates Narnia and despises the Church, are being adapted for films. Are we as Christians about to go down the well-traveled road of alarm, or is this like nothing we've seen before? Is this a dangerous movie, or merely offensive?
The release of the first film of the His Dark Materials trilogy has been cloaked in so much intrigue you have to wonder if Pullman and the folks at New Line Cinema aren't reveling in the commotion. The Golden Compass is not a new story, but it's drawing fresh attention with the screen adaptation, which is due out December 7. A crop of rumors has been stirred up and each builds peoples' expectations - and ultimately the film's profit potential. God is killed in the movie/no, God isn't killed until the third book. The movie is critical of religion/no, the anti-religious content has been watered down. The movie reflects poor theology/the bad theology is only encountered once you read the books. The two main characters end up consummating their relationship/they only fall in love but the rest is an open question.
What is this movie actually like? I don't know - I haven't seen it, and I, like you, can only go on the reviews. Here are a couple:
From the Daily Telegraph: The Golden Compass: An epic grandeur that's hard to resist
From Christianity Today: Fear Not the Compass
And for a good review of the trilogy, see An Almost Christian Fantasy by Daniel Moloney
And if you want a good sense of the cyber-wrangling that's surfaced over the books alone: Amazon.com and scroll down the page.
What is the movie about? That's an easier question. A 12-year-old girl goes to the Arctic in search of her kidnapped friend, accompanied by her entourage, which includes an armored bear (it's fantasy), a band of warriors, a balloonist, and a witch. She also holds the golden compass, which is an alethiometer ("truth meter"), from which she gets her sense of direction (get it?). Central to the story is the concept of Dust, a particle naked to the human eye but attracted to adults. Ostensibly, dust is evidence of Original Sin; actually, it "confers consciousness, knowledge and wisdom", and the Church is therefore trying to destroy it.
OK...so should a Christian see this film, or what?
My answer to that relies on a couple of factors that lie outside of the plotline:
1. Pullman's stated intentions. He has stated that he hates the Narnia books, but his hatred seems to stem more from an aversion to the romantic way in which childhood is depicted than antagonism toward the books' spiritual themes (although there is that, too). In Pullman's world, we just keep getting better and better as we age and discover good and make the world a better place. Childhood is just the first phase, but fulfillment is to be found in adulthood.
Another frequently-quoted Pullman line is the "My books are about killing God" reference (original article here). He said that in 2003, in the context of expressing wonder that Harry Potter books were drawing all kinds of criticism from churches, while his novels were flying under the radar.
Frankly, I'm surprised that everyone's ferreted out these old quotes relating to his written works, when the motive for the film adaptation seems pretty obvious: to make lots of money. Pullman is first and foremost a storyteller.
2. The nature of the Pullman's beef with religion. When I finally got around to reading The DaVinci Code in 2005, it was with the goal of equipping myself to be able to address its errors by the time the film came out. What lay in the pages made that a little harder. Yes, there were historical and theological errors aplenty, but they were all entangled in Dan Brown's agenda to blow a hole in the armor of "The Church" - for him, the Catholic Church. Secret societies, the power to excommunicate, Gnostic Christian beliefs...this is not the stuff of the Church I'm a part of. After a while, I didn't feel very compelled to finish my study nor to defend what he was attacking.
I feel the same way about the straw man Pullman has constructed in his books. "As you look back over the history of the Christian church, it's a record of terrible infamy and cruelty and persecution and tyranny," he said in 2002. Though his grandfather was a minister and his early church experience was positive, he was turned off by history: the Inquisition, the English Civil Wars, the Salem Witch Trials, and other instances of religious power being abused. Of course, all of us have to come to terms with what Power has done in the name of Religion, but Pullman views religious corruption as automatic and endemic; the human failure to exercise power responsibly nullifies any truth the belief system may claim.
It gets to the point where you can find yourself agreeing with each of his objections, yet rejecting his verdict - that the Church is a fraud, and God an invention. Pullman sees nothing redeeming in the Church, and why should he? He has no use for God, or the Church; in his mind, God doesn't exist.
3. The amount of religious content in the film. Even its worst critics will allow that the movie goes easy on religion - according to the Telegraph review, "God" and "church" are words not even spoken in the film. The fear is that kids will be hooked on the movie, and then want to read the books - all three of them - and then detect the spiritual argument that lies between the lines and adhere to it. There's a lot of contingencies there, and it's quite possible that many kids - as it happened with one boy I know - would read the trilogy and just consider it a good story.
Why then, it may be asked, Pullman is hell-bent on destroying religious faith, wouldn't he be more blatant and outspoken about it? The question points to something about the faith of atheists vs. the faith of believers - there's a different level of allegiance in play. Most atheists don't lose a lot of sleep over what others believe - as long as they don't have to contend with it (as in politics or public schools). They're committed in their own minds but pretty indifferent toward the spiritual beliefs of others. Contrast this with the evangelical church, which sees itself entrusted with the mission to change every heart and every mind. So when Pullman says he wants to destroy Christianity, that he is the anti-Narnia, etc., he's really reacting against what he sees as a too-thoroughly dominant Christian worldview and his own limited experience with the Christian Church. He's primarily a storyteller, not a preacher, a politician, or even a philosopher. Please, can we not give this guy more credit and ascribe to him more power than he actually merits?
So, let's all take a deep breath. One movie alone is not going to derail a generation. Apart from whether he'll succeed in communicating an a-theistic message with this film (and presumably two more to come), I just can't see giving him my money to get his message out. Movies come and go. Fantasy's not my thing, anyhow. If it's yours, stay home Friday and rent Narnia, or Lord of the Rings. Or, go see The Golden Compass. Just don't be unaware that what lies underneath the storyline is an empty theology and the criticism of a Church that I don't represent and don't feel compelled to defend.
Info, articles, and thoughts for parents of kids at North Coast Calvary Chapel.
