Out of Egypt:

say what you will, at least they're teaching kids about svalbard...

So, yes, I finally finished reading the Pullman series. I should've waited to comment till now, though I still believe in principle that one doesn't have to read everything in order to have an opinion on it. But my assessment of the books is much more complex than Pullman's antipathy toward Lewis and Tolkien would have made me believe.

I will never use the narrative tropes of his novels as guides for my own life, as I do the Ringbearer's wound in The Lord of the Rings or the idea of the Crooked versus the Straight in That Hideous Strength or the prince's enchantment in The Silver Chair. Pullman's moral imagination is too confused to serve as an inspiration in that respect. Still, he does present the wonder and the complexity of the world in which we actually live more successfully than either Lewis or Tolkien. Their characters are, for the most part, drawn more simply and their settings do not evoke quite the same sense of pleasure in the material. Pullman sees the particulars better than his Christian counterparts, and his effort to piece them together into a coherent whole is impressive. But in the end, I am not convinced that romantic love and common decency is really enough to sustain the universe.

It is fascinating to me to see that the Cross is never mentioned in Pullman's series, nor is the Incarnation. Pullman's critique of Christianity is well-taken insofar as it is an attack on the "theology of glory" - the worship of a distant God, a God of power, a disembodied God who bids us be like Him. The theology of the Cross is not touched by this critique. The Incarnation as God's fullest revelation, humility as His power, the Cross as the light in which we see how we are all victimizer and victim - these truths remain. I wonder if Pullman has ever read Rene Girard. If he did, perhaps he would recognize that not all Christians seek authority; rather, that the message of the Gospel is quite opposite. For we worship a God who is most glorified in the glorification of His people and the blessing of His creation - a God beyond envy, who calls us to participate in His life. He entrusted the Church with His Gospel, though it has often been lost, and the message of liberty turned into a license for oppression. For the highest things are the most destructive when corrupted. Earthly tyrants are not as sinful as spiritual, nor is the lust for wealth as sinful as the lust for spirituality.

Very well-articulated. Thanks for reading the books. :)

Posted by: funke at December 19, 2007 7:47 AM

On the other hand, your last sentence strikes me as somehow gnostic...?

Posted by: funke at December 19, 2007 7:48 AM

Good thoughts. I just finished reading the trilogy myself and rather liked the overall story, though thought his perspective was so confused and even schizoid. If the world of Christian faith were the one Pullman conceives, then I'd be fighting alongside Lord Asriel. Indeed that false world with its false God is an idol we, as Christians, need to shed.

So I think you're dead on in what you say about Pullman's target - a "Christianity" without a cross or incarnation, an idolatrous theology of glory. Yet you're right, I think, about the instability of Pullman's alternative, which strikes me as deeply indebted to the very Christian values that he's tossing out with the bathwater - self-sacrifice, true story-telling, loyalty, love, enjoyment of the good creation, etc.

After all, the incarnation accomplishes so much of what Pullman wants in terms of affirming the goodness of the material world and the concrete particularity of lived experience and moved forward to the sacrifice of the cross.

Posted by: garver at December 19, 2007 9:04 AM

Sarah, I should've have expressed myself more clearly, but I was trying to be pithy. What I mean is that it's worse for someone to seek after God's favor, as if He could be bought or sold, than to seek after wealth, and it's worse for someone to claim authority over people's eternal destinies than to claim authority to imprison them. I'd be happy to clarify further, but I think a conversation would make my point clearer than a blog comment can.

Thanks for your thoughts, Joel. I completely agree. Pullman seems to think he's attacking Christianity, but he's really attacking a popular corruption of it.

Posted by: Evan Donovan at December 19, 2007 7:33 PM