From Kicking at the Darkness:
I’m chasing the mystery.
That’s a healthy response to The Golden Compass, from a blogger who finds the movie’s Magisterium more reminiscent of the New Atheist authors (“who discourage and deride any and every exploration of faith”) than of the Church. It’s a considerably better balanced view than, say, this:
Censorship is based in fear. If you are afraid that something you see or read may threaten your faith, do not see or read those things. But leave my freedom to choose alone.
Pullman himself spoke in similar terms, with the Chicago Tribune last weekend:
I’m not concerned with shutting anybody up, stopping anybody from reading any books, even the “Left Behind” ones. I don’t believe in doing that, because I’m a democrat. People who want to tell other people not to read such a book or see such a film are dictators. There is no place for dictators in the world I want.
None of the responses I’ve seen to this book and movie have suggested taking away anyone’s freedom to see them. When the “censorship” card gets falsely played in this way, I wonder who is the fearful one. The concerns and warnings I’ve seen against The Golden Compass have been informative appeals made to readers’ values. What’s frightening about that, I wonder?
The Chicago Tribune interview also contains this fascinating exchange:
Q You’ve said in the past, “I can’t get rid of God. I don’t believe in him, but he won’t leave me alone.” And I’m wondering, with the spotlight a little brighter this year, if you’re feeling the same way or if you’ve thought differently about this?
A I don’t know, I hadn’t considered that. If I came out suddenly, if I gave you an exclusive and I said, “I believe. I change my mind. I believe.” — do you think these excitable people would change their minds?
. . . The questions that arise when we talk about God are so big, so profound and so interesting, we can talk about them for a long time without exhausting them. Even an atheist can talk about them for a long time without exhausting them.
From the perspective I’ve described, I’m still an atheist who has a great deal of the Christian in him. I have the heritage of my grandfather’s church, with the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer and all that stuff.
There’s also the continuing interest — the sense of wonder in the face of the physical universe. The great mystery. Questions such as: Is there a purpose to the universe, or is there none? Why are we troubled by this question? We are troubled by it, even though we know, objectively, there isn’t a purpose.
Seeking wonder–that’s not just for atheists. Kicking at the Darkness knows, and I agree: I, too, as a follower of Christ, am “chasing the mystery.”
This will likely be my last post on The Golden Compass, unless some unexpected news pops up. Before long it will simply fade from our awareness. (How often has The DaVinci Code crossed your mind this week?) Our local librarian said Pullman’s books languished on the shelves, not at all popular, for ten years before the movie appeared on the horizon. They may be hot now, but they will fade again.
The truth and mystery of God in Jesus Christ has lasted a long, long time, and will outlast Phillip Pullman. As I said in one of my earliest posts on this topic, God is not concerned about threats Pullman may be making on his life. Christians, let’s keep telling the true story of Jesus Christ. If we do that, The Golden Compass will take care of itself.
Technorati Tags: Golden Compass, His Dark Materials, Phillip Pullman
Tom writes, “None of the responses I’ve seen to this book and movie have suggested taking away anyone’s freedom to see them. When the “censorship” card gets falsely played in this way, I wonder who is the fearful one.”
Tom, wasn’t it you who said that the books shouldn’t be in public schools? Isn’t that censorship? Aren’t you the one who’s afraid that reading the books might “confuse” people you love?
Also, you write, “Seeking wonder–that’s not just for atheists.” But I think that was Pullman’s point, that we all, for whatever reason (you say God, I disagree), share that sense of wonder. Why can’t we unite around that?
OS asks,
Nope.
Right. I didn’t say they shouldn’t be in public schools, in libraries for example (though not in elementary schools–the themes are way too emotionally mature). I said they shouldn’t be required reading in public schools.
There is an established standard there, and I suppose you could call it censorship if you like. Lots and lots of books are censored in the way I’m thinking of. I couldn’t make Bill Bright’s “How to Experience God’s Love and Forgiveness” a text for required reading in public schools.
More on a parallel (in one way) with Pullman’s books, I seriously doubt you could get away with requiring “Pilgrim’s Progress” in curricula. (It’s not a parallelism of quality; but both works, from their respective theological points of view, speak of religious/anti-religious experience, growth, and salvation.)
So in regard to American public schools I’m just urging a consistent application of a standard.
I have a concern, yes. There are people who don’t know church history very well, for example, and think that millions were killed in the witchhunts or the Inquisition; or that the Christians were the first aggressors in wars we now call the Crusades. They might be confused and think that Pullman’s picture of the church is more accurate than it is. I’m not “afraid,” though. I have full confidence that the truth is stronger than Pullman’s fiction.
I’d love for us to unite around “seeking wonder,” because I think that search, carried out with an open heart, leads to God.
I do call that censorship, Tom. However, I do understand your point about separation of church and state (at least, I think that’s your point about books with religiou themes being prohibited from schools as part of the curriculum.)
In regard to your other point, though, there are people who aren’t fully informed about a lot of things. Should people who aren’t fully informed about all the history of, for example, WWII, be “protected” from reading a book about the Holocaust? If you really believe that your truth is stronger than Pullman’s fiction, why not encourage people to read the book?
I don’t encourage people to read the book because a) it’s not helpful in view of its grossly distorted picture of God and religion, and b) I didn’t think it was very good fiction. I would rather someone read 1984, or Lord of the Flies, or Camus’s The Plague if they want to read something non-theistic.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, Tom, and to express it to others, but frankly, my response is, “Who are you to say whether it’s ‘not helpful’? Who are you to say whether it has a ‘grossly distorted view of God and religion’?” That’s what *you* think; those are *your* opinions on the matter. But the *whole idea* behind non-censorship is allowing people to form their *own* thoughts and opinions. We don’t need you to tell us what’s helpful or not.
Wow, ordinary seeker! You asked me why I don’t encourage people to read the book. I answered that question. Now you’re making it about censorship again!
Please, now. I wasn’t answering “Why do I want to censor the book.” You didn’t ask that (this time), and if you had, I would have said (again) that I don’t want to censor it. The question I was answering was why I don’t encourage it.
You’re proving my point: the censorship card gets played when it really doesn’t apply at all!
Now, who am I to say what I said? Well, I think I’ve established with considerable documentation that Pullman’s view of Church is distorted. I don’t think anybody would defend the view that his view of God applies accurately to reality. So who I am to say this really doesn’t make much difference. I’ve been pointing to the facts.
You’re right, Tom, I’m making it about censorship. You said it could be censorship, and I agreed that it is. So, I am not making it about censorship when it isn’t.
And is there something inconsistent in this, in your 2:08 comment:
If there’s some principle by which you don’t need me to tell you this, doesn’t it also apply to whether I need you to tell me this?
Let me be clear. There is an unspoken premise P in what you said, and that premise is that there is some principle by which you don’t need me telling you what you did. I don’t necessarily accept P. I don’t even know exactly what P is in your mind.
But I suspect that if P is a reason you don’t need to hear my opinion, then P may also be a reason I don’t need to hear your opinion.
Again, let me reiterate: P is your reason (whatever it is). It’s not mine; and if P says that I don’t need to hear your opinion, then I reject it.
My point: look at what you’re saying. Apply your own principles consistently to your own speech; don’t just throw them at others without looking to yourself at the same time.
Your 3:16 pm comment is very confusing. Remember, I answered a question about why I would not encourage a book. You applied my answer to a question that you did not ask, and that I did not answer, a question about censorship.
You’re proving my point.
Re-read what I said at 6:33 am:
When I said you could call it censorship if you like, I probably should have added this: Nobody else calls it that. They call it things like age-appropriate education, content-appropriate education, separation of church and state, and so on.
There are a lot of books that don’t get taught in schools, for these reasons and many others. We don’t usually call it censorship. If you want to, you can; but I’m not going there, and nobody else does either when it’s for reasons like these.
I think a comment from OS just got lost here–it showed up in my email but not here. I was trying to do a spiffy new thing with the comments pages, it didn’t work, and I did a quick restore, but apparently not quick enough.
Tom, in the comment that got lost I said that you were right, that I was confusing two different things that you said, and I apologized.
Thanks, OS. That makes more sense.
I am thankful for the information to help make an informed decision on what this movie/trilogy is about. It is an attempt to discredit what the true believer knows to be “truth”. I am not surprised that it is being highly promoted to children in our public school system, just as anything promoting Jesus as Saviour would be censored without question. It leaves room to explain the truth of Jesus to people and the evidence for the Bible, just as the DaVinci code did. We have a great chance to show God’s love to people, our most important job on this earth according to the Law, the Prophets and Jesus Christ. Children, though able to be misled, are also precious in God’s sight and although there is a great outpouring by Christians to want to protect them, they will face even greater trials than this in the days and years to come. We can’t lose sight of the fact that God is ultimately in control and will protect His own and we need to pray and continue our most important job, as I mentioned above.