For a Christian believer, perhaps the most disturbing element of atheism is not that it is anti-God (we see that one coming a mile away and are pretty prepared for it) but that it is anti-human. Because for the believer a human person is something unique, mysterious, miraculous, and created by God with an eternal destiny, atheism must by definition be putting forth a radically different conception of what it means to be human.

As I read these novels, I had the uneasy feeling that the characters Pullman portrays were not “real” people. Of course, in a merely bad novel one gets that feeling simply because the characters are not well realized. But in this case it’s different, it’s as if Pullman is consciously, though surreptitiously, trying to invent a new kind of humanity, one without all the “baggage” of being the loved creation of the Judaeo-Christian God. What most of us would recognize as morality, for one. Most of the characters are not immoral, exactly, or even amoral. But their morality appears arbitrary and capricious, and does not rule out such things as lies, thievery, or cold-blooded murder. It is based on something the author refuses to divulge. It also creates a curious but distinct disorienting feeling of the “what’s it all about?” variety. Although there are a succession of gripping scenes in which we root for certain characters to survive, we can never quite discover what it is we’re supposed to be “rooting for” on the grand scale, unlike The Lord of the Rings, Narnia, or even the Indiana Jones saga, for heaven’s sake.

As human beings, we are very good at criticizing and even discarding the meaning and destiny which are given to us by God. But we are very, very bad at inventing something to replace them. All of our attempts to do so seem to go badly awry, e.g. mediocre novels, cults, totalitarian societies. We simply do not have it in us to create Heaven. But we can certainly come up with several varieties of reasonable facsimile of Hell.

I really loved the movie. And I really love the books. I don’t think polemic destroys them as fiction, although I do agree that it undermines them. I believe that reading the books, watching the films, and taking students (about high school age, I would say) to watch the film and have a conversation are all valuable activities for “Mars Hill” types of Christians. In my review I discuss some specific dangers of the first film that should be pointed out to younger audience members, but that are by no means reasons to stay away. The movie is beautiful, the books are brilliant. Enjoy!

One is from Michael Ward and answers some of Pullman’s attacks on C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia. It’s in pdf form and can be viewed/downloaded at http://www.planetnarnia.com/michael-ward/writing.

Another is from Edward Higgins and Tom Johnson and can be found at http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=4223. This article claims that the His Dark Materials trilogy contains worthy, even Christian, themes, despite the claims of many.

And a third article from Stephanie Paulsell compares the worlds of Pullman and Lewis, showing that there are many similarities in the two author’s visions, especially when it comes to their views on childhood and the function of storytelling/narrative. You can find it here: http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=4206

Again, we at the Foundation do not specifically endorse these resources, but are providing them as part of the discussion.

Thanks! Steve Elmore

This movie is apparently a purveyor of some popular myths about the Christian church, and the corruption of authority structures in general. Believing as I do (and as Lewis did) in the power and spiritual relevance of the imagination, I think the debate about this movie should center less around rational arguments embedded in it, and more around the subversive power of this medium. Myths often hide out in a person’s belief system even if they run counter to it, and film can challenge or confirm them without ever engaging a person’s rational processes.

To me the most reasonable response is simply not to view it. It hasn’t gotten great reviews; the subject doesn’t interest me; I don’t want to support the endeavor financially. And I’m capable of responding to any misunderstandings about Christianity that may arise in conversations with others who’ve seen it, without having to sit through it myself. (I have a Bible and a sin nature, and those are the basic tools needed.)

Making a hubbub of boycotting it seems counterproductive. Boycotts are more eloquent when they’re quiet and uncoerced.

Blessings!

I had never seen or heard of Pullman before Bragg’s interview (which I had stumbled upon by chance whilst flicking through the TV channels), but what became clear and very significant to me, as I listened to him, was that Pullman’s deliberate misrepresentation of the Narnian children’s series (which several people, including Peter Hitchens, have commented upon), and which Pullman referred to as ‘repulsive’ (you could almost see the veins standing up on his neck as he literally spat the word out), did not stem from ill-informed ignorance, but from something that came from deep within him. Something that he claims does not exist but most certainly does - his own spirituality. Something, in Pullman’s case, that is clearly warped.

I do not think I am being narrow minded by saying that, for myself, as an amateur and occasional online commentator, and consequently never obliged to read anything that is not for my own pleasure or for my own, yes, ’spiritual’ nourishment - to pick up any book, knowing it had originated from the heart, head and hand of an individual such as Pullman would render it impossible for me to enjoy.

Before reading Peter Hitchen’s article, and as I have found out more about Philip Pullman over time, I had already come to the conclusion that Pullman does actually believe in the soul and human spirituality. I suspect that he believes in it very strongly indeed and is, in reality, obsessed with it. From the intensity of his social and anti-religious commentary this seems blatantly obvious to me even without reading his fiction.

Peter Hitchens writes in his artcile,

“Pullman uses quite a lot of religious ideas, or supernatural ones.

The ‘daemons’ which appear as talking pets are described at the beginning of the film as visible souls.

Souls? Souls imply eternal life and a judgement beyond this world, surely one of the main things atheists wish us to cease to believe in”.

I believe that Philip Pullman is actually frightened of what human spirituality actually means for himself and for us all in the medium and long term. Human spirituality represents something that will always, in the end, thwart absurd secular ideals and political fanaticism, which in Pullman’s case is represented by such things as moral relativism and feminism. Human minds can be brainwashed to provide assent to almost any absurd lie - for a period. Human spirituality ensures that a sell-by-date will always be stamped on it’s ‘packaging’.

Hatred and denial are thus the feeble and ultimately futile weapons of this quite dreadful and, if truth be told, secretly anguished human being.

Lastly, In an interview with a Washington Post reporter in 2001, Philip Pullman openly stated, “I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.”.

Pullman believes he is liberally minded, forward thinking and consequently claims that he loathes dogma. Vehemently anti-Christian idealism uses dogma of the most repressive kind. And, as far as Pullman’s anti-Christian message is concerned, such attacks, in various forms, have been going on for two thousand years, and are thus very, very old stuff indeed.

Pullman, the books and the movies, represent just one more of history’s countless anti-Christian crusaders (who have always failed and always will), wearing just another style of armor - be it wrapped around a polar bear or nay.

Peter C. (Liverpool, UK)