I certainly don't want this to turn into a thread about Harry Potter - we already have a post for that. But, I came to the conclusion in that thread that the HP books aren't for younger children who cannot tell the difference between reality and the imaginary wizarding society created by Rowling. Given the release of the later books, I'd expand that to say that children who have a propensity to violence might ought not read the books, either, since it can get pretty violent.

This is difficult since the HP books are marketed towards chidren. I think that the same approach should be taken to Golden Compass. I'm still thinking through this, so I'm open to criticism, but I think that taking a child who is too young to talk about the overall spiritual themes of the GC books - whether they're apparent in the film or not - would be a bad idea. This is difficult considering most five-year-old boys would love to ride a killer polar bear.

While Hollywood may have stripped down themes of anti-religiosity, I would guess that if they stay true to the book in other ways, it will be difficult to hide the nuances of the themes since the books were written, it seems, to expressly "kill" God.

I love Nicole Kidman, as an actress, but I'm not going to take her word for it. Still, I think if the Catholic church were truly being bashed, they would already have come out railing against the film. After all, it opens in less than two weeks.

Continuing the ot discussion...

...Quaid, do you think that the tales of Hans Christian Anderson, or even The Chronicles of Narnia, are also not for children who can't tell the difference between reality and the imaginary magical societies of those works? And certainly the Narnia stories praise solving one's problems by killing the bad guys far more than the Potter stories.

Also, my wife is a very mature believer (though not as excited about abstract theology as I) and didn't see any atheistic themes in the Pullman trilogy. (I joyously and enthusiastically disagreed, but that's besides the point.) Yet she is obviously not being brainwashed by Pullman.

Personally, I think taking kids to Pullman could be an excellent way of beginning some very meaningful conversations about deeper matters of Christianity. But if they don't understand what's going on, I don't see how they're going to magically become atheists. The main thing, I think, is encouraging them to talk about the questions as they come up.

I think one of my biggest concerns is that by viewing this movie I am in essence supporting Pullman's "ministry" -- and he has made it very clear that his wish is for children to see this movie and "reject the kingdom of Heaven" -- That is a fire I'm not willing to play with.

The same folks who criticized Narnia for being Christian propaganda are going to be the ones reacting incredulously to claims that Compass is atheist propaganda.

As is what often happens with young adult fiction that is made into a movie, this is going to be heavily pushed in schools. Kids are going to want to see the movie, teachers will want to take them to the movie and then read the book. Folks like the ACLU and their ilk may have been able to raise their hackles about Narnia in school, being Christian-oriented, but atheism is not really a "religion" in the eyes of society.

C.S. Lewis wrote that a child who has read about Aslan in Narnia will discover a familiarity with Christ. What is Pullman intending with these books? To plant seeds of doubt about the nature and love of God.

I think the ideas and theories Pullman promotes need to be discussed in every Christian family. Know the enemy, know what you believe---and why.

But I will not give a dime to the man, either via purchasing his books, viewing the movie, or in any way supporting him. Sure, his movie and books can be a springboard for discussion. "Boogie Nights" can be a springboard for discussion, too.

Any loving and slightly creative Christian parent can find God-honoring ways to discuss the issue of atheism which doesn't involve lining the pockets of Pullman OR the movie studio. We don't need his brand of hate to know we are hated. He didn't invent atheism. He seems to have taken it to a new level, however.

I will not give a dime to the man, either via purchasing his books, viewing the movie, or in any way supporting him.

Amen to that.

"I will not give a dime to the man, either via purchasing his books, viewing the movie, or in any way supporting him."

But why?

We give millions of dollars to atheist football coaches, comedians, &c. Are you saying we should boycott everyone who isn't a Christian? Or only those who are willing to be honest about what they believe and how it conflicts with Christianity?

I think the point was not necessarily that Pullman is not a Christian, but rather he is a militant atheist - he has made it his mission to attack Christianity and proselytize for atheism. This is different than a football coach who's mission is to help a team win, who happens to be atheist.

I would agree with Inklingstar. Let's take this even a step further. If the guy who owns the local gas station happens to be a Muslim, I am not going to stop giving him business because of that. But if I find that he is channeling all of his profits to Al Queda, I would stop going there and just visit the next nearest gas station (even if it too was owned by a Muslim - as long as he was not supporting militant causes with his profits). Militant causes - be they Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Hindu, etc - need money to advance. The atheistic beliefs of some football coach are not going to advance because the get a little extra money from you.

There is a line where we need to stop supporting people with our finances. That line might be different for different people, but we need to be aware of it. The temptation for us is to take a movie that might otherwise be entertaining and find ways to justify still seeing it. If you happen to be a SciFi fan like myself, something like The Golden Compass will be extra tempting to justify. And I'm not saying that it is totally wrong for any Christian to go see it. But if you have to justify to your self that it is okay to watch, then it's time for a heart check.

Crossbow:

I guess the difference is that I draw the line between honest debate and, say, buying bombs.

But I see your point.

Also, point of fact: even though I don't have time to write much, I tend to think of myself as a Speculative Fiction *writer*. As such, I find Pullman as an ally of sorts--authors who want to take Christianity seriously and assert a strong moral argument are rare these days. What Pullman says about Christianity, as much as he may hate it, strikes me as a far more accurate than what most atheists I know say. For him, Christianity is something more than a straw man.

And that, really, is why I find novels like His Dark Materials or Wicked fundamentally worth reading. Such stories are honest and thoughtful enough to serve not only as a mirror (as much as we might hate it) to the ways in which sinful humans spoil Christianity's witness, but as echoes to the eternity God has put in the hearts of men.

And, just so you know: Pullman's anti-religious views are moderate among SF authors. H.G. Wells was much more extreme, as was Arthur C. Clarke. Lewis, incidentally, enjoyed (and rebutted) both throughly--and his literary mentor Chesterton enjoyed nothing more than long, rambling debates with Wells. So at least I'm not alone on the issue.

"The Golden Compass" isn't appropriate viewing or reading for my kids. They are young, new Christians. Refusing to see it isn't a boycott.

Refusing to see it is simply making a choice where to spend my money, based on my values and beliefs. I don't go down to the local strip club district or skulk around casions for the very same reasons. I don't buy pot from the college kids a few miles away. Am I boycotting them?

I don't buy eggplant because I don't like eggplant. Boycott! I don't want to see "The Mist" or "Knocked Up" either. Guess I am boycotting those, too?

Plus there is this issue, which seems to have been forgotten in the rush to defend the guy who wants to "kill God in the minds of children":

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. Luke 17:2 KJV

Well, said Gretchen. One other thing. I'll be interested in seeing the reviews--from the previews, it looks like it might be a standard Hollywood action flick bomb. We don't need to bother boycotting something that's not worth seeing in the first place. :) Nor do we need to create controversy publicity for something that would die a natural pathetic death without any help.

As parents, one of our most crucial jobs is to critically interact with our children and with the media that they consume. To challenge and expose them to things in the right time--which will be different for each child. There is a time for protection. And a time for teaching them what's out there and how to deal with it. We need to give them the tools they'll need to be able to grow into faithful, discerning, Christian adults. That said, I don't think that there's anything that we could get from Pullman that we couldn't get in a more useful, less poisoned form somewhere else. I commend your active, thoughtful parenting.

Gretchen and Sara:

Good points both. I probably should moderate my original statements--the role of parents is to wisely shelter their kids and provide healthy training for them, and deciding whether or when they watch/read Pullman's trilogy is part of that. I applaud you both there.

We may disagree on Pullman's literary merits (i.e. virtues for opening discussion on truth), but even I agree discernment should be used with regards to children and the trilogy.

As far as my boycott comment: YOU may not be boycotting the films, but Gretchen and Mariner were advocating just that. I don't see any other way to take their comments about "not giving a dime" to Pullman. I think we need to draw the line between "my children are too young/spiritually immature" for Pullman and the more aggressive stands of early posts.

As for Luke 17:2, there are two issues at work here.
1) As Christ points out in verse 1, such stumbling blocks are inevitable. Letting older children encounter them in fiction sends a signal that such thoughts are to be dealt with rather than ignored. This means they are more likely to have a reasonable response when their friends make similar claims at school/in college if home schooled.

2) Pullman will have much to answer for to God. I don't see how that applies to me, except that as an author I will try to conserve the good from Pullman's writings (as from all authors) and argue against the bad.

From what I've read, it sounds like the movie itself will be fairly innocuous fare - no worse than most other Hollywood fantasy type movies - largely stripped of Pullman's underlying atheism and retaining only a generalized anti-authoritarianism.

But even if I'd be ok with my kids seeing the movie, I'd be a lot more concerned with them reading the books, where Pullman's philosophy is much more strongly on display. At least not until they are more mature readers and thinkers. And if a kid loves the movie, it's pretty likely he or she is going to want to read the books. So for this and the other reasons well-stated above, I'm going to say no thanks to the Golden Compass. Not as a boycott, but as a rational and informed decision.

In case any of you are interested, Wheaton’s Alan Jacobs wrote a review of the final installation of Pullman’s trilogy. I don’t think it’s available online, but this excerpt from a blog post mentions it:

"In an article in The Weekly Standard entitled The Devil’s Party Alan Jacobs discusses Pullman and his attempt to turn the Creation story on its head. Since it is no longer online, I wanted to give you an overview of what I consider Jacobs devastating critique.

Jacobs, a professor of English at Wheaton College, understands that we are dealing with a first rate writer in Pullman. He describes the trilogy as having marked Pullman as “a writer whose talent puts him in the league of Tolkien, LeGuin, and Alexander.” Jacobs also asserts that the ability to create “what Tolkien called ’secondary worlds’ - complex environments sufficiently like our own to be recognizable but sufficiently different to generate excitement and wonder” is consequential because books of this nature “offer not just a story but a world, and the lesson they teach is not just a moral but a worldview.”

Jacobs believes however, as does Moloney (see previous post), that Pullman’s worldview hampers his storytelling:

“Whichever party readers support in the ancient contest between God and Satan, they will be disappointed to see how often, in the Amber Spyglass, the tale’s momentum is interrupted by polemic. Pullman’s anti-theistic scolding consorts poorly with his prodigious skills as a storyteller. In imagination and narrative drive, he has few peers among current novelists. for such gifts to be thrust into the service of reductive and contemptuous ideology is very nearly a tragedy . . . Pullman the storyteller has also been cheated - by Pullman the village atheist.”

Jacobs takes his critique beyond mere storytelling, however. For Jacobs, Pullman’s talent masks a fundamental dishonesty. Pullman’s worlds are just as manichean as the fundamentalists he despises, the roles are just reversed:

“One sees a number of unequivocally evil people in these books, and one sees a number of Christians, and these are always - always - the same people.”

As I mentioned in the previous post, in the end Pullman’s worldview hijacks his entire narrative. It is not just his anti-religious views either, but his politics as well. Jacobs notes that Pullman’s entire conclusion is tied up in a romantic view of humanity that refuses to see the reality of the last 100 years; refuses to admit the tragic, if unintended, consequences of so many idealistic crusades:

“This sentimental refusal of historical understanding leads directly to the Manicheanism of Pullman’s moral vision: closed versus open minds, tyrants versus liberators, the vicious Church versus its righteous opponents.”

Jacobs again:
“The luminously gifted Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy is a work so imaginatively potent that it has already inspired the kind of loyalty given to the secondary worlds of Tolkien and other fantasists. But a story so thoroughly sentimental and manipulative doesn’t deserve that loyalty. Pullman’s readers shouldn’t overlook the deception, conscious or unconcious, that lurks at the heart of his beautiful, misbegotten endeavor: “The rhetorcian would deceive others,” as Yeats once put it, “the sentimentalist himself.”

Chestertonian Rambler? I'm confused about where I ever called for a boycott of the movie? I stated (and yes, I am blockquoting myself):

But I will not give a dime to the man, either via purchasing his books, viewing the movie, or in any way supporting him.

Operative word: "I"

I never encouraged others to follow suit. In my first response (#5) I did state that there are other avenues Christian parents can explore when they wish to discuss atheism with their children. That is not calling for a boycott. That is simply pointing out the obvious. Pullman didn't invent atheism.

Anything can be a springboard for discussion. That does not mean everything should be a springboard for discussion. More reiterating: Why is Pullman's brand of atheism so compelling? Because it's "literary" (although that is debatable, too, if I am reading Karl's comments correctly)? Because it's prettier and features more talking polar bears than a Marilyn Manson concert? Atheism saturates. You don't have to look far to find it, which is why I find it odd when people hold this up as the big chance to introduce kids to atheism.

Sorry if it wasn't clear, but the 2nd of my two posts above is a cut and paste from someone else's blog. After the first intro paragraph (written by me), the narrative voice of the post is that of the blogger, and he quotes Alan Jacobs' review as well as others, and references earlier posts that he had made on his own blog regarding Pullman's works.

I don't think that post suggests that Pullman's atheism is compelling, but rather that he is a gifted writer who writes a compelling story. It's the story that is compelling, not the atheism. Jacobs (with whose literary judgment I rarely disagree) does find some "literary" elements to critique in Pullman but he also gives credit where it is due, noting that Pullman is a gifted writer of fantasy, in the same league (as a creator of a believable, compelling secondary world with believable and compelling characters) as the best who have written in that genre. What a shame his gifts have been put to such a use.

As far as my boycott comment: YOU may not be boycotting the films, but Gretchen and Mariner were advocating just that.

To second Gretchen, we weren't saying anything of the sort. (Incidentally, Sara is my wife, and she and I are basically on the same page on this one.) For my part, I consider it unfortunate that Philip Pullman has made as much money as he has pushing fundamentalist atheism, and that's a cause to which I will not contribute. (It should be noted, that wouldn't even necessarily require never reading his books; we do have libraries and second-hand shops, you know.)

Christianity Today has a feature article on The Golden Compass and Pullman's other works:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/december/12.36.html

I read the first book and thoroughly enjoyed it. The anti-religion themes that I saw I read more as just that than as anti-God or anti-Christian. Of course I understand that he takes the kid gloves off in the 2nd and 3rd.

I support those that won't take their kids to it. I've a 7 year old that I wouldn't let see this because I don't really think it's appropriate on any level for a child that age. Too much violence and other mature subject matter. Given say another five years and the opportunity to talk about it afterwards and I'd be game.

Pullman is quite good and I look forward to seeing this movie when it comes out on DVD (or maybe in the $2 theater). Polar bears in armor and flying in cool looking dirigibles sounds like a fantastic matinee to me.

Gretchen and Mariner--

Once again, I made a logical error. Although the word boycott technically means "To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion," but I was using it in the sense of "band together" in response to your very individual decisions.

Mea culpa.

In any case, I think I'm realizing that my childhood was more sheltered than I'd thought--my first encounters with atheism came from fellow students and engendered a sense of guilt about merely allowing myself to be exposed to the idea. One of the reliefs of childhood was discovering that the respected Christian C.S. Lewis had a different view--that ideas often only have the power the hearer chooses to give them, and that censorship often creates fear.

This doesn't mean I think kids should be exposed to everything--just that I see the dangers of both an overly-strict and overly-lenient placement of the "line."

In the case of Pullman, the reasons why I find him compelling and worth paying attention to are based, of course, on my reading of his works. Perhaps there are better places to start the discussion. Certainly there are, for some people. I'm just a literary bloke (so Pullman's good writing certainly helps), and my judgment call was that Pullman's work encourages the right questions far more than the wrong questions--even if he gives the wrong answers.

In any case, the books have one distinct advantage over the films: they're really quite difficult to read, far more complex and convoluted than most works of "adult" fiction. From that perspective, they are self-censoring; that is, available only to children who have well-developed reading skills. Though that, I think, may certainly be a bit of a rabbit trail.

C.R.--

I certainly understand about the shock of coming out from an over-sheltered childhood and your desire that kids not be stunted in their growth in the name of protection. It's interesting to me the wide variety of ways in which kids react to things. In my case, protection was being encouraged in the idea that those whose views were "wrong" were unpardonable idiots. That their views were to be treated with utter disdain. Censorship created not fear, but contempt. Perhaps not any better, but certainly very different.

It seems to me that the tension being expressed here is the classic one between artistic value and subject matter. I applaud the discussion. I think that it's one that we all need to consider seriously from both sides on a regular basis. Am I reading things that are literarily worthy? Am I reading things that are feeding my soul? Growing me as a disciple of Christ? Developing my mind? There are not too terribly many books or other expressions of art that do all of those at once. And how we choose to answer those questions and what works we find beneficial to help us grow is going to be different for each of us and different for ourselves at various times in our lives. Simply reading the reviews of Pullman's work makes me literally sick to my stomach. I know that his subject matter would not be good for my soul. That says more about what I know affects me spiritually than it does about my ability to appreciate his craftsmanship. On the other hand, I can appreciate J.D. Salinger's profanity littered work and simply filter out the profanity. There are other people who can't--who have legitimate issues with that sort of language and who will make the proper choice not to expose themselves to it. And, in the long run, I know that I'm not going to have time to read and interact with all the things that I know are literally worthy and will feed me in other ways too, so why should I spend time on something that will quite probably do me harm?

Next up on my reading list: rereading some of the wonderful fantasies of Patricia McKillip, several works by Michael Chabon, a couple of books on children and worship and incorporating children into the life of the church, getting my Roman histories back out . . . oh, and inevitably (with three small kids) the complete works of Eric Carle, Richard Scarry, Sandra Boynton, Mercer Mayer, etc . . .