UPDATE: Leithart on the movie.
I’m starting to get the message.
It goes like this: The Golden Compass is a movie that promotes atheism to young people. You need to warn students about this movie.
Don’t let me write another word without saying that I have nothing but respect for those who are concerned about young people. I’ve given my life to ministering to them. I don’t want any of them to become atheists. I don’t want any young Christians to lose their faith.
I recognize that some of those telling me to warn young people actually want me to tell them not to see the movie at all or to ever read the Phillip Pullman novels on which they are based. Sorry, but I can’t endorse that approach.
Others simply don’t want young people to be unaware that the movies may be an extension of Pullman’s stated agenda to use his art to promote atheism in the same way C.S. Lewis used Narnia to promote Christianity. That’s appropriate, or at least should be if, after actually being viewed, the movies prove to be such an extension. If they promote atheism in the same way Star Wars promotes dualism I hope Christians won’t waste too much time picketing out front.
I realize that once Dobson, Behr and Christian radio/television get ahold of the atheism connection in The Golden Compass, there will be the usual dust-up reminiscent of The Last Temptation of Christ and The DaVinci Code. But I have to admit, this episode of “Angry Christians Hate Your Movie!” has the potential to irritate me a lot more. Let me explain why.
Last Temptation and DVC were communicating esoteric, off-center views about Jesus that are popular in certain quarters, and which keep various cable channels percolating with third-rate programing. I never felt any of these things amounted to much of a challenge to Christian belief. In my ministry, I’ve met two young people- two, neither Americans- who had any interest in even talking about these conspiracy theory versions of Jesus. That’s not to say that there isn’t more interest than I gauged. I’m just saying that when all is said and done, you have to be fairly inclined against traditional Christian belief anyway- as these young people were- for these films and their accompanying books to get much traction.
Even the best radical Jesus scholars- like Crossan and Ehrman- don’t buy much of what these films were selling. Once you’ve scratched the surface, you have to be tenacious to stick with this kind of revisionism.
Atheism, on the other hand, is another story. Almost every adolescent who was raised within a church or Christian family knows the temptations of atheism. Strong believers testify to going through intense doubts or long seasons of God’s absence. While the apologists do battle with the atheists, I for one have never heard a good atheistic presentation that didn’t revisit thoughts I’d already had and probably will have again.
Another reason to be concerned is that atheists are having a good year, so to speak. The past half decade has seen a collection of best selling books, the arrival of viable atheist celebrities, an assertive and more confident style of atheist debate and an increasing number of “converts” renouncing Christianity and embracing atheism. Some atheists even have a new name for themselves- “Brights”- that separates them from us regular dim bulbs.
It’s for these very reasons, however, that I want my students to see Golden Compass, read Pullman, hear Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens and generally engage atheism. You aren’t going to hide from atheism in the Christian ghetto. Our children can’t be sheltered. We can’t portray all atheists as kooks and weirdos. The “village atheist” isn’t the freak show of a Madeline Murray O’Hare anymore.
I frequently tell my students that I would much prefer they embrace any position honestly than pretend to believe something they don’t really believe at all. Yes, I’d rather have an atheist than a phony Christian. Any day of the week.
I especially want my students to hear the atheist case laid out. This week, my advanced Bible class has been watching the atheistic opening statements in two debates between Christians and atheists. I want my students to hear Frank Zindler’s juvenile genius level contempt for the Bible as he announces stars can’t fall from the sky. (Lewis said that if you aren’t prepared to read a book for grown ups, perhaps you should avoid it completely.) I want them to hear Edward Tabash boldly use the phrase “immoral” when discussing the God he describes as a monster. I want my students to hear atheists say that it’s time for religion to give way to the intelligence and vision of scientists who are going to lead us into the promised land of peace, progress and harmony on planet earth. And I want them to hear all those orgasms over rationality and scary stories about superstition.
You see, I’m firmly in the camp of Chesteron on this one. The more the atheist talks, the more Christianity makes sense to me. When I listen to atheists describe their noble vision of existence in an absurd and meaningless world where their firm and rational grasp on reality can give meaning to all of us who walk the aisle to becoming “Brights,” I’m so grateful for the doctrine of total depravity I could write an entire musical about it.
Atheists are so optimistic about atheism that, frankly, it makes irresistible viewing. “Is he really going to say that religious belief is a mass delusion and a mind virus? Is he actually going to claim that atheists are rational while religious people are weak-minded advocates of faith? YES!! And not the argument from “evolutionary morality.” No way!! Ugh!!! There’s just too much drama. I can barely stand to watch.” I have to listen to Paula White explain that my $70 offering is going to make me $7000 to top some of this stuff.
Lewis put it deftly: Atheism is too simple. If I abandon Christianity, he said, I’ll embrace Buddhism or an eastern religion. Amen. Several times. If there were no meaning, we wouldn’t know there is no meaning.
Atheism has been around for a long time. It’s going be around for a long time to come. It’s going to make more documentaries. It’s going to have more best-sellers. I’m sure it will have its own reality show on MTV. Your kids are going hear from atheist friends, professors and employers. They are going to be a lot less reluctant to portray Christians as a threat to peace and civil society than they were in the past.
You need to get ready for the “new atheism” to become a factor in every facet of our culture. We won’t get ready for that if we protest The Golden Compass or the twenty atheist-friendly Hollywood products that are coming soon to a theater near you.
No, it’s time to love your enemy. (Atheists aren’t the enemy anyway. It’s time we quit falling for every panic monger who wants to tell us that some group wants to “attack the family” or “take away our rights.” It’s not true most of the time, and when it is, Jesus had plenty to say about the blessings of being persecuted.) It’s time to find ways for the light to shine winsomely. It’s time to be a servant for Jesus’ sake. It’s time to give a reason for the hope that is in us. It’s time to turn and face the atheist challenge and not protest, run away or declare war.
Atheism has a powerful appeal when Christians aren’t well taught, honest and engaged. Its message can be potent when you’ve lived like a rabbit instead of a watchman or a witness. Many of the Christians warning us of “Atheists Ahead!” may be afraid their own faith couldn’t survive reading Sam Harris’s book. Atheists make dozens of challenges to Christianity and Christians that are MUCH NEEDED and LONG OVERDUE for consideration in many Christian circles.
If that is the case, then I say buy the atheist nearest you a good dinner, because he/she is doing us all a favor by challenging that house of cards we’re so afraid might get blown over. Remember this: when the atheist finishes making his presentation to my students, they’ve just learned that it makes no difference what they do. It’s all a matter of chemicals hitting the brain anyway, and it goes no deeper. When I finish my presentation, there’s a reason to go to class, to study, to pass, to graduate, to do something with your life and even to continue on with hope if you fail. The atheist says eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. I say remember your creator in the days of your youth, because he will bring all things into judgment.
My talk sounds a lot better when they’ve heard his/hers. Don’t forget that.
Michael,
Great post! You make a lot of interesting insights in your post. I agree with you that it doesn’t help to panic or try and shelter young people from these debates.
What really strikes me about this latest crop of atheists is how moralistic they are. Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins are all wrapped up about how “immoral” religion is and how it is “evil.” But they, and atheism as a whole, never can give any logical reason as to why morality exist in a world without God, or why we should care about awful things that happen in the world. It always boils down to subjectivism or question-begging or in Dawkins’ case calling people names who raise the question of why be moral without God. In the end, all their moral posturing against religion is a bunch of hot air. If I was an atheist, I wouldn’t care a bit about morality. There simply isn’t any logical reason to do so without God. As you say, the choice is between eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we may die or remember your creator in the days of your youth.
This latest fade of moralistic atheism is more emotional than it is rational. And as this interesting article indicates, it is pretty pathetic as well:
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_11_05/article.html
Let’s hope it’s just a fade.
rr
Awesome post, and very helpful approach that obviously comes from working with youth who have incredible “bull-detectors”. Someone just sent an email out to many in our congregation advocating the boycott approach. I’m sending her your essay. And, Now I’m wishing my congregation had to hear an atheist speak before each of my sermons.
I think your apologetics articles, and how we deal with challenges to the faith would be a great seminar topic by you at Cornerstone.
I agree with almost all you said except your dismissiveness of Pullman’s atheistic agenda.
I agree that a public call for boycott would be counter productive. Still, in an easily googlable fashion, Mr. Pullman has been very open, both about his own atheism, and the agenda of his books and his movie.
Surely you see nothing wrong with Pastors at least warning their flock about Pullman’s agenda( which is about as subtle as Mr. Harris’). After all, a parent that allows a child to read Pullman’s books, and watch his movies is going to have to be prepared to have the enevitable discussions that follow.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to have their children in a school such as yours to pick up the pieces
if they drop the ball.
Ray:
>Others simply don’t want young people to be unaware that the movies may be an extension of Pullman’s stated agenda to use his art to promote atheism in the same way C.S. Lewis used Narnia to promote Christianity. That’s appropriate, or at least should be if, after actually being viewed, the movies prove to be such an extension.
I’m a little taken aback that you believe I am “dismissive” of the atheist agenda. Hardly the point at all.
I’m a college librarian and teach courses which include units on censorship. When will people learn that attempting to censor something only provides free publicity and makes more people eager to read or see whatever is under attack? If someone dislikes a book or a movie, ignoring it is usually the most powerful protest that a person can make.
I’m one of those Christians struggling with doubts. Refusing to read what the “other side” has to say out of a fear that it will only feed my doubts isn’t working. I just keep thinking, “Maybe they really know something I don’t. Maybe they really have evidence there is no God.” So far, every time I’ve risked enough to read atheist literature, I’ve come away thinking “Their arguments are weak.” Why do we act like atheists or their ideas might be able to overpower God’s light?
And how can we ever have an intelligent conversation with an atheist if we don’t understand their world view? Atheists aren’t already consigned to hell. They too may accept God if approached in the right way. But Christians whom they can blow off as ignorant almost certainly are not going to be effective.
I wasn’t referring to the atheist agenda as a whole when I said you were being dismissive of the agenda.
You seemed to be dismissive of PULLMAN’S atheistic agenda when dismissing concerns about the movie.
Pullman has been very open that the agenda of the movie is to get kids into his books. What may be toned down in the movie is blatant in his books.
I have no wish to see boycotts or anything else that will make us look silly over this.
Surely a pastor should make his flock aware of the potential issues, and be prepared to discuss those intelligently. No silliness. No DaVinci Code style panic. Just a calm. ” This is who Pullman is. These are his stated goals. This is the book series the movie is based on. Here are the potential issues.”
I agreed with everthing else you said though and wish we had more of your type around.
Out of the park, baby.
As a longtime reader of BHT, (and linked here from there), i find myself agreeing with imonk on this one. I got to thinking, however, about the nature of movies. Movies usually do not attempt to engage the viewer on an intellectual level, but rather immerse the viewer in an emotional appeal. How many movies have you walked out of at the end, and disagreed with the director about who the “good guy” was? You may have been rooting for a bad guy, but it was still the guy the movie had been created to have you root for. Still don’t agree? How many people rooted for Joker in Batman? For Sauron in LOTR? For the cops in Gone in 60 Seconds? So how many Christians, who have a logical answer for atheism, will come out of this movie (series?) rooting for the kids who kill God? As long as you’re aware of the authors/directors intent you can counter the logical arguments. But the emotional appeal the movie makes is much more insidious.
All that said, i will probably watch the movie. I have not really struggled with doubts about God’s existence. I struggle with plenty of other stuff (such as his love for me) but not his general existence. So i agree that engaging atheism, not boycott of the movie, is the answer. But i caution that logic is not the only weapon being wielded by enemies of God. (maybe because truth is ultimately not theirs?)
“It ain’t necessarily so” is sung by the character Sportin’ Life in Porgy and Bess. It’s not from West Side Story.
Great Post. I’ve never been afraid of atheists and their arguments. I fear the Lord which is the beginning of wisdom.
You are so awesome.
What you keep reminding me is that God is above all this petty crap. He is all powerful, while I keep thinking I have to make the list of rules, keep them, and guard the gate.
Go, Michael. Keep shaking me up and making me think.
From Steve R, whose comments don’t come through:
I had the privilege of meeting Philip Pullman in Toronto a few weeks ago. At the time I had not read his books (a combination of distaste for the anti religious themes and a general disinterest in young adult fiction). I can not tell you how impressive the man is (both an intellect and as warm human being). I am now 4/5 of the way through the His Dark Materials trilogy and I can not overstate what a fine and powerful work of art it is. His portrait of organized religion is extremely shallow (Roman Catholics are right to be offended) but his characters are rich and rewarding (especially the villains) and for a brit. He is refreshing free of anti Americanism. Frankly he is at lest as good a writer as Tolkien and twice as good a novelist as Lewis ever was.
His books are extremely moral and strangely haunted by concepts such as prophecy, Destiny, Honor and self sacrifice. As a challenge to my Christian faith I would put it at about the same level as the Da Vinci Code (that is not very) I found my recent exposure to Five Point Calvinism to be much more spiritual unsettling. However these are not in my opinion Children books the tone is very dark the sense of death and betrayal at times threatens over whelm the novels. As a result I would not recommend them to any but the most mature middle school student.
Read the books and see the film for there own sake and you might find a delicious irony in that just as William Blake felt that Milton was of “The Devil’s party without knowing it†Pullman might be on the side of the angels after all.
I agree Christians should not hide, but to be aware of the anti Christian agenda. My “boycott” of this movie is to show hollywood that this is not a movie I want to spend my money on and that sends a message.
People that often oppose our viewpoints as Christians help us become more reformed. The reformation helps us glorify God’s purpose. Without protest we do not examine ourself enough. Without self examination, we tend to start thinking that we are important and become less and less humble, eventually becoming an obnoxious Christian. So bring it on, all challengers, so that we can learn more about God, less of our own importance, and most of all the how to … in running our race in proper proportion.
I am glad that somebody with influence has taken this position. More often than not, these panic buttons of the religious turn out to be much ado about nothing. I don’t know if I will see the movie or read the books, but I will certainly not take interest with any believers who do so.
Transparent honesty and treating kids like rational human beings are always the best policies. Don’t tell just them “what,” show them “why.” Great post.
The rise of atheism in America will continue so long as Evangelical Christians keep screaming about “enemies” that we need to fight against.
Personally, I can’t blame people for questioning the Christian faith when its American proponents are killing homosexuals, declaring jihad against Hugo Chavez, still thinking that Iraq had WMDs that were secretly sent to Syria, still believing that Saddam had some link to 9/11, seeing the cluster-bombing of Iraqi children as reasonable, arguing that there is some “debate” over global warming and that its proponents are secretly trying to return the world to Marxism, and on and on and on.
Secularists are gaining ground not because they are smart, but because Evangelicals have become so reactionary and ignorant and foolish that they have managed to shoot themselves in the foot. Evangelicals in the US no longer have any credibility.
>Personally, I can’t blame people for questioning the Christian faith when its American proponents are killing homosexuals, declaring jihad against Hugo Chavez, still thinking that Iraq had WMDs that were secretly sent to Syria, still believing that Saddam had some link to 9/11, seeing the cluster-bombing of Iraqi children as reasonable, arguing that there is some “debate†over global warming and that its proponents are secretly trying to return the world to Marxism, and on and on and on.
1) Evangelicals are killing homosexuals? What? Where? When?
2) Atheism is all about evangelicals who have extreme right wing foreign policy? What?
3) We all have to accept someone’s view of global warming? What?
4) What does any of this have to do with atheism?
5) My Aussie friend, you are sounding pretty hysterically biased on this post.
Michael,
Amen and well said! I think I’ll be linking to this post from my blog.
God’s Glory,
Lew
The Pursuit Online Store
Charles Finney once said “I cannot believe that a person who has ever known the love of God can ever relish a secular novel…Let me visit your…books. What is here? Byron, Scott, Shakespeare and a host of triflers and blasphemers of God.”
This past week I pulled out an old copy of Hardy’s The Mayor of Casterbridge to read. Bitter Hardy lost faith in God. His novels bespeak a universe without him. Funny thing is, he is always referring to some biblical event, character or motif. He just couldn’t escape the revelation of the one he was trying to kill off.
Anyway, sometimes I feel spiritually uplifted when I read art produced from a heart that doesn’t know God. It is painfully honest on the human condition, and reminds me why I am a believer.
If this is a true principle, these films are nothing to worry about.
I hope the ghost of Charles Finney doesn’t start agitating among Christians over this thing. Let it pass. Forget about it. If you don’t want to see the movie, you can always pull out a good old Hardy Novel. Better yet, get an Ingmar Bergman flick. Not that is a spiritual tonic!
Michael,
I just wanted to say that I found your article refreshing and encouraging, as too often I see knee-jerk reactions from Evangelicals. I was raised in a Baptist home and was a Christian at one point, so I know this first hand. In the name of full disclosure, I am an atheist, but I definitely can agree that characterizing us as the “enemy” is not helping the debate any. Thanks for trying to find the middle ground, where we can have a healthy debate and not fall into the “us vs. them” paradigm.
http://www.topekadiy.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8
July 15, 2007, 12:34AM
Murder suspect says he was doing God’s work
Cypress man is being held in the June death of flight attendant
A Cypress man charged in the death of a Southwest Airlines flight attendant said Saturday that he was doing God’s work when he went to a Montrose-area bar last month, hunting for a gay man to kill.
“I believe I’m Elijah, called by God to be a prophet,” said 26-year-old Terry Mark Mangum, charged with murder June 11. ” … I believe with all my heart that I was doing the right thing.”
Interviewed in the Brazoria County Jail Saturday morning, Mangum said he feels no remorse for killing 46-year-old Kenneth Cummings Jr., whom relatives described as a “loving” son who never forgot a holiday and a devoted uncle who had set up college funds for his niece and nephew. He worked at Southwest for 24 years.
Mangum, who described himself as “definitely not a homosexual,” said God called on him to “carry out a code of retribution” by killing a gay man because “sexual perversion” is the “worst sin.”
Mangum believed Cummings to be gay.
“I planned on sending him to hell,” he said.
———
Whether you like it or not, Atheists see this as a result of religion.
2) Atheism is all about evangelicals who have extreme right wing foreign policy? What?
———-
No. But atheists see both the result of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq as a result of religion.
———-
3) We all have to accept someone’s view of global warming? What?
———-
I need to point out that the largest subgroup in the world who casts doubt on anthropogenic global warming are American Evangelicals.
Meanwhile, 71% of Americans believe in it:
http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm
Evangelicals are too busy believing that there is a debate about global warming – and thus being conned by the right wing noise machine – rather than realising that 99.99% of climatologists (the sort of scientists who actually study climate) believe in anthropogenic global warming.
For atheists, therefore, evangelicals are so anti-intellectual, anti-science and so easily led that they conclude that it is religion that causes this.
———-
5) My Aussie friend, you are sounding pretty hysterically biased on this post.
———-
All I know is that evangelicals are on the nose in America. Many will turn to atheism because American evangelicals have embraced ignorance. We’re moving away from a historical period of “magical thinking” and moving into a more “scientific thinking” one. A Neo-modernist period if you like. People have seen the result of too many unperformed miracles, too many gut-feelings that led to disaster and too many con-men. They’re going to demand that future decisions be based upon rationality and science – and this, in turn, will encourage unbelief and atheism.
Here’s a comic strip that will epxlain to you how many secularists feel today about American evangelicals and their adherence to conservative political ideology:
http://www.irreligion.org/2007/10/20/norway-theyre-all-going-to-hell/
OSO:
The actions of criminals and the mentally ill- in this case one raving murderer- represents evangelicals? Saying evangelicals want to kill homosexuals is simply beyond ridiculous. I generally appreciate your viewpoint, but these reasons are simply “gotchas” from a leftist political perspective. They have nothing to do with evangelicals “causing” atheists. Anyone who chooses their God based on global warming is in a unique category.
iMonk–great post, both in content and writing. Thanks.
In a related anecdote, I have received the panicked “Boycott this movie!” email from my pastor and several members of my church.
The thing is, I haven’t been there for weeks. I’ve been going through some stuff and it has kept me from worshiping at all.
My 18-year-old son, who used to be involved in everything the church offered, hasn’t been there in months. He’s going through his own stuff.
Not one person has noticed our absence. Apparently forwarding hyped email messages are much more important than actually reaching out and asking, “Hey, what’s going on with you guys?”
This is Dobson-promoted Christianity at its best. Sound and fury over whatever cause is currently arousing his outrage, but no love.
LIONS, TIGERS AND BEARS! OH MY!!!
Seriously. Is God as upset about this movie as some in the Christian community are? Are his feelings hurt? Why do we get upset about these type of movies but not about a movie like American Gangster? Michael, thanks for you great post. I’m not afraid of atheists or their movies either.
BOO!!! (you scaredy-cats)
Well put!
Yep. Uh-huh. Thanks for the post!
Ok – so I understand that cries of “boycott” sound hysterical. But what in the world is wrong with Christians saying “here is an author who is outspoken in his anti-Christian beliefs and believes that I am a mind-less idiot following a fantasy God. I, therefore, choose not to support or reward him with my dollars?”
And what is wrong with informing other Christian parents that what looks like a benign Christmas vacation fantasy is actually the work of an outspoken atheist with a very clear agenda (to do for atheism what C.S. Lewis did for Christianity)?
Why is the “extremely moral” and “impressive” Pullman whose villains are “rich and rewarding” seen as the reasonable party here while those who object to his agenda being hidden in a children’s fantasy movie are unreasonable?
Let me add – I’m not “afraid” of atheists. I homeschool and teach others kids in a co-op setting. We discuss (too much, my kids say) the biases, agendas, world views, and philosophies of politicians, cultural figures, literary figures, and even Joel Osteen . And let’s be honest – most kids (and many adults) do NOT know how to reason critically or recognize fallacy, nor do they have anyone in their lives to guide them.
I love BHT and Internet Monk but I think, at times, the in-family tendency to point out the foibles, legalism, and “jump-on-the-bandwagon” inclinations of some evangelicals causes Michael and others to dismiss some legitimate concerns as “panic-driven”.
I am curious how we went from a question of secular movies reflecting current culture to the idea behind all zealous Christians being axe murders. Sounds like someone is living on planet Pluto.
The reason I’m not a-scared of atheism is because it ultimately it’s an emotional decision, based on personal animosity towards God, backed up with logic only after the philosophy has been embraced.
Kind of like Christianity is an emotional decision, based on the kindness of God that leads us to repentance, backed up with apologetics only after Jesus has been accepted. People who truly love God won’t be easily swayed to the wrong direction, even if they watch a convincing movie or read a convincing book.
As for the fence-sitters, they’ll just remain on the fence until something about God attracts them enough to become Christians, or annoys them enough to become atheists. It won’t be a movie. I don’t think the public is dumb enough to think a movie represents real life. The only people who still refer to the ideas in the The Da Vinci Code are the same Gnostics and conspiracy theorists who would believe such stuff anyway.
Love the post, by the way. Keep showing atheists to those kids. Nothing will turn them off to the philosophy more than the lack of grace in its practitioners.
Tamara:
I’m not going to quote an essay that is there to read. I’ve already said in this comment thread that stating the agenda of Pullman is appropriate. I never said it was unreasonable to know what’s in a movie.
If one Christian wants to see or read something and another Christian doesn’t thats perfectly great. But when the Dobson paid culture cops tell us that we all must boycott in order to be good Christians I simply disagree.
I don’t think this web site is considerably less a bandwagon than you’ve described.
OSO, as long as we’re citing anecdotal evidence:
In 1977, during the era of oil crisis, mideast troubles, stagflation, “Late Great Planet Earth”, etc.), I heard several signs-of-the-end-times sermons that discussed global warming and loss of the ozone layer. At the time, the speakers figured it would begin to show up in 10-20 years. (They did not forecast variables such as the improvements in efficiency and emissions controls, nor the increased industrialization of the Pacific Rim.)
All this predated the rise in evangelical political influence, so the sermons called for end-times evangelistic fervor more than a “green” environmental policy. Nonetheless, it was my experience that fundamentalist evangelicals discussed the potential of global warming decades before it was on the radar screen of the secular media.
I was 15 years old at the time, and I remember going home and telling my 50-something atheist neighbor about global warming, and he laughed, “oh, I’m sure old mother earth is much sturdier than you think.”
I agree with the substance of this post, but I find the equating of The Last Temptation of Christ with The Da Vinci Code rather bizarre. Most of the discussion seems on point about DVC, but what “off-center views about Jesus that are popular in certain quarters” was Last Temptation communicating?
Last Temptation takes as its centerpiece the temptations presented by Satan to Christ. This is hardly outre. Milton did the same thing in Paradise Regained. Milton focused on the forty days in the desert, while Last Temptation focuses on the temptation for Christ to save himself: “If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.”
The Last Temptation expands on this, showing Jesus being tempted with an extended vision of the promise of living a normal life: marrying and having children and growing old. He rejects Satan’s temptation, and the movie ends.
What is off-center about this? The controversy at the time seemed to be centered around a brief scene from the vision that made clear where those hypothetical children would come from. This was just childish. There also seemed to be an idea that it is wrong to suggest that Jesus would be tempted. I assumed at the time that these people were wholly unfamiliar with scripture.
My brother has a story about the midwest town where he lived at the time. The local Baptists had organized a picket of the theater, but in a spate of intellectual honesty the minister thought he should actually see the film they were protesting. He came out of the theater and told the picketers to put down their signs and that they should all go see the film.
Myself, I thought it would have benefited from a bit more enthusiastic editing. It could have lost a good twenty minutes without suffering any damage.
Great post! But who says we’re afraid of the atheists? I just don’t see the point in giving them my cash, or funding their projects with the dollars of believers. Acquaint yourself with these books and movies for sure – but there are plenty of ways to do that without supporting the movie commercially at the box office!
I’m a college librarian and teach courses which include units on censorship. When will people learn that attempting to censor something only provides free publicity and makes more people eager to read or see whatever is under attack?
Ever since Last Temptation of Christ, “Let’s Piss Off The Xians” has been a lucrative publicity strategy. Just like the Tara Foundation’s regular “Lord Matriyah” announcements years ago, pushing the button of Christian Culture War Activists is a guarantee of self-sustaining free publicity. You don’t even need to pay the Fred Phelpses anything; just provide the stimulus to wind them up and then just let them go.
Over a year ago, my writing partner (a burned-out soon-to-be ex-Pastor) got in a lot of trouble with the Church Ladies when he joked in his LiveJournal that he was available to provide publicity for authors by putting on his Reverend hat, publicly denouncing your book, and calling for a boycott. (Being contrary, I recommended he make the offer for real and charge for services rendered; he has a wife and three kids to support on what’s effectively minimum wage.)
I am curious how we went from a question of secular movies reflecting current culture to the idea behind all zealous Christians being axe murders. Sounds like someone is living on planet Pluto.
You’ve never been on a blog, Internet chat room, old UseNet newsgroup, and/or listened to Art Bell open up the phone lines at 3 AM, have you? Never mind planet; I don’t know what GALAXY most of the results of those are living on!
I’m an atheist and I’ve read the Pullman books. I’m interested in seeing the movie mostly because it’s got giant armored CGI talking polar bears! Let’s be honest, who wouldn’t want to see that?
My beef with the complainers, and this goes to the people who complained about the Last Temptation of Christ and the Da Vinci Code as well, is that virtually all of them are complaining about what they THINK the film is like rather than what it’s actually like.
The Last Temptation of Christ is a very faith affirming movie. The bit people complained about was a dream sequence that happened when Christ was on the cross. He was tempted by Satan to give up his role, come down and survive and lead a normal, happy family life. Christ ends up turning his back on this Last Temptation and assumes the role of savior.
What kind of Christian would ignore that message? Well, one who hasn’t seen the movie, obviously.
Around the same time there was a great uproar in the Muslim world over Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses”. The parallels were striking, everyone was upset over something, they didn’t know what because they hadn’t actually read it themselves, oh and it also turned out to be a dream sequence.
Somewhere there’s a thesis in those two events for someone.
But anyway, I digress, I’ll judge the Golden Compass once it’s out and I’ve seen it. Not before. For the record the real anti-God message doesn’t begin until the 2nd book and then it gets really strong in the 3rd.
You showed such promise up to this point…
“The more the atheist talks, the more Christianity makes sense to me. When I listen to atheists describe their noble vision of existence in an absurd and meaningless world where their firm and rational grasp on reality can give meaning to all of us who walk the aisle to becoming “Brights,—
You couldn’t resist painting all atheists with the broad brush of hate-filled bigotry. I would never refer to Christians in that manner, as if “the christian” of my imagination represented all Christians, the way Hitler referred to the entire Jewish population as “the jew”.
I you really want to be a Christian, you need to take some time out for reflection and examine your true motives for writing in this way. You are further from being saved than you think.
“1) Evangelicals are killing homosexuals? What? Where? When?”
My guess is he’s talking about the Matthew Sheppard case. Although, to be honest, there have been so many similar events (a la Brandon Teena) that it’s hard to be sure.
When you have people like Reverend Fred Phelps on your side it’s hard to claim a clean image.
“2) Atheism is all about evangelicals who have extreme right wing foreign policy? What?”
He’s saying that the modern atheist movement is a reaction to the ultra-right wing Christian movement in government right now. Some folks are taking the “Bush is wrong” stance point by point and since he claims to be a man of faith they take a faithless stance since it’s the opposite of Bush.
I’d argue that Bush isn’t really a man of faith. He claims to be because he feels that will strengthen his support, but nothing in his actual actions indicate that he’s a faithful person.
There was an article not too long ago where someone said that Bush claimed evangelicals were “useful idiots”.
http://newsblaze.com/story/20061016225150nnnn.nb/topstory.html
Wonderful post. Came across a typical atheist today at the following: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/columns/article/50247/godless/ I commented on it as well. Atheists are predictable in the extreme. They are completely incapable of seeing in themselves the very traits they condemn in the religious. In fact there are few religious folks that can hold a candle to them in terms of arrogance and their smug certitude.
I usually tell my kids or others who are struggling with their faith (which always seems to go back to the very difficult problem of evil and suffering) that if you get rid of God what does that really buy you. It only makes your despair utterly meaningless.
Michael – I read your essay and I appreciated it. I wasn’t disagreeing too much…just asking what the heck is wrong with sharing info about the hidden agenda of this movie?
I’ve received several “warnings” about this movie, which were unnecessary because I was familiar with the book series. I guess my circle is less hysterical than some because none said or even inferred I was a bad Christian if I failed to boycott. They were all in the vein of “a friendly warning” with information “I might want to know”. (direct quotes).
The boycott, BTW, has been called by the Catholic League who probably don’t think of themselves as “Dobson paid culture cops”.
“I don’t think this web site is considerably less a bandwagon than you’ve described.” I’m afraid I couldn’t figure out what you meant by this but I THINK you’re saying that I believe this web site is a bandwagon. What I was trying to say was that ya’ll are very good at pointing out the “jump-on-the-bandwagon” tendencies of evangelicals
…but was wondering if somethings are dismissed as “jumping” before they should be.
Let me close by saying I couldn’t agree more that atheists often seal their doom when allowed to fully express their…can’t say beliefs, can I? But here’s the difference: Dawkins, Hitchens, and company are not hiding their ideas in a dazzling CGI driven movie marketed to 6-13 year olds. You said: “It’s time to turn and face the atheist challenge and not protest, run away or declare war.
Atheism has a powerful appeal when Christians aren’t well taught, honest and engaged.” Yep…but I confess that my 7 and 11 yos, though excellently taught, still lack the spiritual maturity to discern subtle untruths, especially when masked by engaging plots, appealing characters, and clever writing (my teens and college-age daughter can have at it). And isn’t that true of most children that age? And isn’t *that* why the “concerned” Christians are concerned? The ages this movie is geared to and the subtleness of the propaganda? Why would I want to reward someone financially who has only contempt for me?
Tamara
Not for the blog but…Carl from CitiChurch has been removed from Youtube.
Too many visitors from BHT pointing and laughing, I guess.
iMonk:
The actions of criminals and the mentally ill- in this case one raving murderer- represents evangelicals? Saying evangelicals want to kill homosexuals is simply beyond ridiculous. I generally appreciate your viewpoint, but these reasons are simply “gotchas†from a leftist political perspective. They have nothing to do with evangelicals “causing†atheists. Anyone who chooses their God based on global warming is in a unique category.
——–
Hey, I’m an evangelical and I think mentally ill people killing in the name of God is not exactly representative of what I think either.
But what I am trying to put forward is the fact that these sorts of events – violence through direct action (bashing homosexuals), violence through supporting horrible foreign policy (Iraq) and violence through opposing science (the millions who might die because of inaction on global warming) – is all evidence to the atheist that religions cause human suffering.
That’s the logic of my argument here Michael. I’m not defending atheists, but I am trying to point out that atheism and secularism is getting more respect because of evangelical stupidity.
And who do atheists and secularists now see as the defining faces of modern evangelicalism? Fred Phelps, James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Joel Osteen. I rest my case.
K.W. Leslie: Pardon me, but your comment is enough to make a cat laugh. Atheists don’t have any “personal animosity towards god.” They don’t believe in any god to begin with. It’s impossible to dislike something that’s not even there.
And I think you’ll need to define what you mean by “grace” before accusing someone like, say, Daniel Dennet of lacking same.
This is a paraphrase of something wiser men than I have said, but it says something important that religious people don’t seem to understand: atheism is nothing more and nothing less than not having a belief in any gods. They hold no personal animosity for your god any more than they have a personal animosity towards invisible pink unicorns.
Christians are almost as atheistic as atheists are… atheists just happen to believe in one fewer god.
There have been tens of thousands of gods people have believed in over the course of human history, and you only believe in one of them.
If you’re interesting in having an open mind, try this experiment: list at least 5 logical reasons why you don’t believe in Thor, the Norse God of Thunder.
I’d be very surprised if an atheist would make a significantly different list for why they don’t believe in the god of the Abrahamic tradition.
If it’s impossible to dislike something that’s “not even there,” why is it that any atheist’s subsequent discussion about God automatically consists of condescending ridicule?
ANY atheist. Even the nice ones. None of them are willing to civilly accept the theist’s point of view simply for the sake of argument. All of them have to start bashing God and those who believe in Him, either overtly or subtly. They may not even be aware they’re doing it, but the animosity is pretty obvious, particularly to those who happen to love God. It’s exactly like you’re picking on my dad.
If it was nothing more than an intellectual affirmation, there wouldn’t be any of this hostility. But there is, so it’s there. Any theist can see it.
As for Ray’s five reasons why I don’t believe in Thor (other than in the comic books) –
1. Thor hasn’t spoken to me, then later confirmed he spoke to me through an unrelated Thor-follower.
2. Thor hasn’t told me something would happen before it happened, and had it come true in great detail. (And no self-fulfilling prophecy either.)
3. Thor hasn’t inspired prophets to tell me anything that uniquely related to my life.
4. Thor hasn’t healed my relatives of illness in a way that doctors can’t adequately explain, and only minutes after my prayers were offered to him.
5. I haven’t found Thor’s teachings, when properly followed, to be eminently practical.
However, all of these things have happened to me with Jesus.
No one can believe unless drawn by the Holy Spirit. In short, no one can save me but God. I cannot think my way into salvation through apologetics. Nor can I explain someone into salvation without the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
K.W. Leslie: If I “civilly accept” your point of view, then why would we even be arguing at all? It’s not rude to point out the lack of evidence to support your assertions; there’s nothing uncivil about calling nonsense nonsense. If you don’t like to hear it, that’s your concern, not mine.
K.W.: Often times in order to point out fallacies in the concept of God, atheists have to argue to believers from the standpoint of God’s existence being true, simply because many believers cannot accept any other world view. It’s not hatred of God (which is a totally meaningless concept to an actual atheist) its simply begging the question of God’s existence in order to show logical weaknesses in a believer’s idea of God.