The Golden Compass

Thank you for the honest look into this book and movie. I think often people, and this includes all people- not just Christians, reject anything that is remotely contrary to their worldview. It's human nature and makes sense, but I believe it can be very dangerous at times-especially for followers of Jesus Christ. In my experience the things that relgious people have rejected and shunned, Eminem and The Da Vinci Code as examples, have truth to expose if one will look at it critically. I wonder at times if it is because we, as a society, don't want to put forth the effort to think critically that we reject things contrary to our worldview so quickly. Again, thank you for taking the time to think critically and analyze this work. I too will be checking out this book and movie to decide for myself. (**To clarify and possibly placate, I am not necessarily promoting this film/book for children as I have not read it and am not a parent.)

this is a stupid article..the movie bashes what it means to be christian and you deem it thought provoking?..harmless? all this does is stir up up more hatred for the church. not to mention they, "kill god".. maybe we should stand in opposition with a bit of boldness. this is what annoys me about many so called postmodern views..its so hip and trendy to defend things that are anti christian and point out what is wrong with the church..and deem them thought provoking..lets call it what it is..anti christian..

One of the reasons the book/movie is thought-provoking stems out of the fact any anti-Christian themes were probably written by someone who is not Christian.

Because of that, they don't have the frame of reference to realize those themes might be evil. By calling it 'anti-Christian', we simply attack rather than dealing with the heart of the matter, which is that these books were likely borne out any number of painful experiences with church life (whether that church life is Christian or another faith, I'm not sure).

This isn't a 'post-modern' way of viewing things: 1 Corinthians, chapter 5 discusses how we are to behave toward non-believers.

I've never understood the intense need for Christians to defend their faith adamantly against critics outside (and inside) the Church. If those critics were treated kindly, and we listened to them more, maybe we'd become more accurately aware of the role God has for us on Earth.

A few things. I have only seen the movie, but am planning on reading the novels when I get the chance.

First, what truth did DaVinci Code have to expose. That is ridiculous! You are right about one thing, the Church should not have reacted the away it did, but only becuase it had nothing at all to react about. That film/book was based on laughable psuedo-history, trying to take itself seriously.

Second, they do kill God. But frankly, I would kill the God Pullman kills as well, becuase it is an imposter God. For this I would recomend "Killing the Imposter God: Philip Pullman's Spiritual Imagination in His Dark Materials" by Donna Freitas and Jason E. King. It is a thought provoking (and scholarly) examination of Pullman's novels.

Finally in response to the article, Hans Kung, in "On Being A Christian", adresses the sins of the Church. "the Churches had neglected for too long their critical function as the moral conscience of society, had upheld for too long the union between throne and altar and other unholy alliances with the ruling powers, too long acted as the guardians of the political, economic and social staus-quo...concerned less with men's freedom and dignity than with their own institutional positions and privileges." We says that we need to embrace Christianity for what it truly is "radical humanism...with more humanity, freedom, justice, dignity in the life of the individual and society."

What I fail to understand in this debate is why Christians get all up in arms when a secular movie displays an alternate world view. If we as Christians are able to produce movies such as Narnia in the hopes to open eyes to Christ why do we feel inclined to be appalled when someone else does the same thing for their views. Are we so entitled that we deserve to share our beliefs and others are not allowed to share theirs? If you do not agree with the teachings, then don't watch the movie. To cause such an uproar over an issue such as this does not encourage nonchristians to think about the movie critically, it makes them think about Christians critically. You want your view heard, watch the movie and have discussions one on one, do not air a blanket statement that something is Anti-Christian.

Wow. This is awesome! I'm glad my article has generated so much discussion.

Now, while the film and book advance anti-church themes, I do feel our response is important. How can we learn from these critiques of the modern church?

I haven't seen the movie or read the books, but my son (13 years old) mentioned it at dinner the other night. He just summed it up in his typical matter-of-fact manner. "Mum, in the movie they kill God." "Yes, I hear that happens," I said. "Like that could happen," he replied. "God's awesome!"
Sometimes I think we try to protect our kids from things that are anti-God or 'anti-Christian', when those things often provide perfect opportunities to discuss and challenge them on where they stand and how they would talk to their friends about this stuff.

I may be the black sheep here, but I really liked the movie. And I am looooving the book.

He's got the alternate reality thing down pretty good. In this world the reformation never happened, so the catholic church theocracy never became challenged. So eventually.... John Calvin became pope! Ha! I laughed so hard when I read that. He combined corrupt power with strict fundamentalism. (John Calvin ruled Geneva, Switzerland and put many "heretics" to death for not complying with his Christianity. He is the father of "Calvinism.")

After his death, the papacy dissolved and in the power vacuum formed the magisterium.

Anywho, his depiction of the "church" of this alternate reality is not truly a criticism of the church today, or particularly followers of Jesus, but of strict power-hungry religious organizations. (So am I?)

I'm only 1 book in - but keep in mind:

What a piece of literature says does not always represent the author's purpose. It is the nature of communication. If I had kids, I would totally let them read this. I'd hope to spur on some helpful conversation and reflections on the past mistakes of the church! (Or the mistakes of alternate reality churches)

Chris

How many times in the past have we won somebody over to Christ by boycotts and protests? Shouldn't we be knows for the people that stand for something instead of against it? Shouldn't the essence of our existence be more focused on how to live in such a way that people can't write stuff like "The Golden Compass" because we are so much like Christ. Instead we as the Christian church have not lived the message out as we should. I say, keep discussing. Keep wrestling with what it means to be a follower of Christ. Even if an "Atheist" has to provoke it...

A friend of mine wrote in her blog: "I find it interesting that churches thought it was a good idea to ban a movie in which they are...portrayed as an entity that bans things." I find this statement very true--and sadly funny. After being intrigued and excited by the trailer for the movie this summer, I read the His Dark Materials trilogy and loved it. Absolutely. And as "Guy" said, the characters don't kill God the Creator, they kill an impostor authority. Maybe that makes a difference to some...maybe it does not, but does my fondness for the world that Pullman so deftly created make me less of a Christian? I don't think so...and I don't really care if anyone does.

One of the best ways to answer challenges like Compass and the controversies engendered is to engage in a project like BWC. One thing the church definitely needs is elevated dialogue with secular Westernism--and before that a more clear distinction between itself and that Westernism.

We need an answer to the dialectical demagoguery of personages like Christopher Hitchens and Pat Robertson (it remains to be seen who will fill the void left by Falwell), and what we're doing now feels something like what I would imagine that to be. Maybe the greatest challenge, however, is building bridges between this ground of neutral dialogue and our fundamentalist brothers and sisters. I find that there can be a reactionary tone in the effort to foster such dialogue, and my sense is that we are not really inviting everyone to the table until we enter the conversation in selfless love rather than in reaction to extremes.

Spiritual darkness is real, and so I hesitate to balk at people who have a problem with Rowling, Pullman, or whoever. In some ways, the burden of proof is on us who want to say, "Yeah, I know this stuff wouldn't be great in real life, but I love this book anyway." I'm not sure that the redeeming values of fantasy literature and radical skepticism are obvious enough to the average American Christian for them to be written off as "just a fundamentalist."

Posting at BWC can be like preaching to the choir sometimes (I don't mean to suggest that all BWC readers think the same), but commending Rowling to my Harry-Potter-intolerant mom over Christmas dinner would be a task requiring a bit more effort of thought, prayer and love.

Thank you for this article. It is evident that it took a great deal of love and courage on your part to write it...this is what the world needs: people to thoughtfully consider what we face daily via the mass media, our friends and our interactions with the world.

I never heard much hype about the book until New Line Cinema decided to make it into a big movie.

I didn't watch the movie yet due to busy schedule but from what i heard and read,the movie is pretty much an eye opening to all christians.

True enough i encounter a lot of "christians" who judges and discriminate others and use their "christian powers" to gain some political stance and power as well.

Well, i can't say they are pseudo-christians or real christians who doesn't know a thing about repentance(that's a little ridiculous i know) but the world viewed them as one, C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-n, Christ follower that is...

Sadly but true, todays most so called christian behavior is the complete opposite of that of the scriptures.

I don't know how anyone can say they loved the movie or even liked it. The movie was horrible. They shed so much of the soul of the book that the movie ended up as just a shell of the book it was based on. It was like one of the Lord of the Rings movies being cut in half and Peter Jackson removing all of the references to the "ring." Check out Atlantic Monthly's brilliant article on "How Hollywood saved God" for something truly thought provoking and read the book... save your money on the movie and go see 'Juno.'

JC...I think you are kind of missing the point of the discussion here. This discussion is not about the type of "The book is way better than the movie" snobbery to which you are pointing. The discussion here is really much bigger than a simple movie critique. No doubt, many of us will read the books, and while there may be many significant things left out of the movie there remain plenty of challenging ideas to discuss.

I haven't read the book or seen the movie, but from what I can tell, no one has brought up the fact that Pullman is presenting a humanistic philosophy. I've been reading Francis Schaefer lately and he addresses Pullman's beliefs. Pullman starts with Man as the beginning and end of knowledge. God is made up by men. An idea of men. Not the creator and certainly not a Personal Being. "God" in Pullman's worldview, is simply a made up idea in the heads of many men, especially the church. Therefore, seeing all the bad things done by the church in God's name, Pullman says that "God" needs to go. The idea of God needs killed if people are really going to make progress and stop being so primitive. Pullman believes only in Man and has no room in his worldview for a Creator of men. Man is the end all and be all of the world, his own god.

Pullman doesn't believe in God in the first place. He certainly doesn't believe in the God of the Bible and in Christ. Pullman says that God is dead, but really Pullman is dead.

It is only right that people in the church stand up to a film or book and say, "hey, that's not true." Pullman's philosophy is a dead end and doesn't jive with reality. The church has the responsibility to stand up for the Truth, to oppose the Forces of this world and defend the Truth, not always necessarily for the church itself, but for those not in the church, who are seeking the truth.

Even though sometimes people do it badly, it is important that an Orthodox Christian position is presented to the world, about it's beginnings and events. It's just a shame that more of the less reactionary crowd doesn't speak up more in public, instead of letting guys like Robertson and Falwell be our voice.

There are professors, scholars and people of great faith in God who could make a great impact on the world if they would give a public proclamation in defense of Christianity. I'm not talking about writing a book or being on Christian Radio. I'm talking about writing in newspapers and going on Secular radio. We need more of that desperately in our country as well as others.

Christianity cannot be defended with words, the truest testimony to Christ comes in daily, deliberate living. Love untill asked why.

First, for all you movie and first book only readers, please keep in mind that while the first book does not take place in our world future books do so our concept of religion is actually dealt with at some point. There are as many capital C churches as there are parallel worlds (including ours) and all are portrayed as oppressive and manipulative.

I have not seen the movie yet but I have read the 3 books and this is what I get from the trilogy. Ultimately there is no god. Conscious and rational beings came in to existence automatically and the first declared himself God (called by many names) to seek power and prescribed religions in all future worlds to maintain his power. Dust is not actually original sin. It is more like rational thought or concentrated knowledge including the knowledge of self. As you grow older and your life is more focused you get more dust. Based on my reading I think ultimate attacks on Christianity and the Church from the book are that religion is a human creation and that the church seeks to prevent the acquisition of knowledge or the honest pursuit of scientific truth.

The first attack I will leave to theologians and apologists, and I will focus on the second. It is no secret that the Church will suppress or fight scientific study if it threatens currently held beliefs. Think of Galileo and Copernicus. Today, the Bible-toting Christian is pitted against the Lab-coated Evolutionist with red-eyed fury and politics shifts power back and forth between camps not unlike the days of the Inquisition. Jesus fish eat Darwin fish that eat Jesus fish in parking lots across America. Pullman is right, this happens. So what should be the Christian response be (in my opinion)?

First, admit it. Yes, the capitol C Church can and has and does screw up sometimes. Second, don't take part in it. Seek scientific truth not only to break our culture's stereotype of an uneducated or ignorant Christian but also to better yourself and learn more about God's universe. Do not fear scientific discovery or attempt to stifle science education because you feel it undermines your belief system. If you think that your child will turn from God because he reads "millions of years" in a science text and "7 days" in the Bible you should talk with him about what faith actually means and how the scope of religion and science differ instead of throwing out the science book to protect him. Also, you may choose not to believe in evolution but science done using evolutionary theory as a model is advancing medicine and other technology. At the very least acknowledge the good in that and do not criticize others who use the best tools they have to make the world better.

Read the books. It is good to be forced to think about your faith once in a while.

I just saw this movie (haven't read the books) and apologize for my tardiness. Apart from all the 'political' aspects of this movie, it felt forced and rushed, like a deeper, more elaborate book that should have been a 3 hour movie, but was rushed into 1:40. Also, the main character, Lyra, has a golden compass that is touted as showing the 'truth', but when she gets into trouble (meeting the polar king) she lies. Struck me as a slightly incoherent story to present this person as the purveyor of truth, yet lying to save her life.