Why Christianity Need Not Fear Pullman

Spoiler Alert for Book Three, The Amber Spyglass

The Golden Compass hath no existential despair like a Nietzschean essay. The weeping and gnashing of teeth that has followed the arrival of the new movie, based off Philip Pullman’s first book in the “His Dark Materials” trilogy, is an unnecessarily emotive response to a series of books that leaves the theological door wide open.

Yet, problems abound: dishonest, panentheism, and works righteousness are all championed.

Before coming to why the third book in the series, The Amber Spyglass actually opens up a lot of possibilities for theological reflection, the few serious problems should be considered.

The allegorical names of the two main characters, Lyra and Will are perhaps less virtuous than Bunyan would have chosen, more likely they would have been characters that would have tried to dissuade the good man Christian from continuing his journey to the Celestial City. Nevertheless, Lyra lies with conviction and regularity, and Will, in fact, personifies the human will. And these are certainly not qualities that I want my future children to cherish and revere.

Second, the whole series is founded on a Spinozian panentheism. As Pullman writes, “Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself. Matter love matter. It seeks more about itself, and Dust is formed” (31). A friend recently wrote a note on the Golden Compass and curiously entitled it, “God dwells within you, as you” which is from the neo-chic-spirituality book, Eat, Pray, Love by Liz Gilbert (191). And this is in fact quite close to what Pullman has in mind. This is the difference between form and substance. The insidious and disastrous move unassuming Christians can make is that we are part of God; that we, as it were, share in the substance of God – rather than the image of God. Pullman tries to persuade readers to this uncouth perspective. Christians, yet, are called to participate in God’s life and goodness, not animate and actualize God’s life. Gilbert’s silly spiritual self-help wants to obliterate all particularities slowly making ‘religion’ a type of bland mind-set that is created by a universalizing transcendent; the absolute worst of mysticism.

God does not dwell within us, as us. One of God’s gifts is the gift of agency, of particular identity. Christian identity is always formed by the Imago Dei, and certainly sustained by the power of the Holy Spirit, and reality constructed properly from the participating of the sacraments. In this way Christians participate in God’s life, but we are never God, and God is never us (at least in any univocal sense).

Third, Pullman at the end of his book argues for a type of works righteousness. The story argues that grace (funny word for an atheist to use) is freely given to children, but is lost as they become adults. They must work to receive back the grace that was lost in adulthood. Pullman renders ‘grace’ a skill to be honed. Though what grace is, where it comes from or why one must work for it as adult and why children are given it freely is never really explained. Looking closely he seems to almost equate grace with gaiety and frivolity: asking us to look over the Nietzschean precipice and naively smile at the dark nothingness, which Pullman asserts as something desirable. He writes, “When we’re alive, [the Church] told us that when we died we’d go to Heaven. And they said that Heaven was a place of joy and we would spend eternity in the company of saints and angels praising the Almighty, in a state of bliss. That’s what they said. And that’s what led some of us to give our lives, and others to spend years in solitary prayer, while all the joy of life was going to waste around us and we never knew” (320). Thus, Pullman demands the cheerful nihilism – the artistic taming of the horrible - that is the mantle of the postmodern man; Christians can only reject such a naïve proposition that leaves no room for the good news. Worse Pullman cannot see that a life devoted to God isn’t one that deprives one of joy. At the very end of the book the character Mary says definitely that there is, ‘no purpose’ in life, but that, ‘there is now!’ (491) – (at which time all the emo-bohemian-fundi-liberals rise to their feet and applaud, and if you listen closely the anthem of ‘Rent’ begins an encore, “No day, but today”). But for what? For the recognition that we all are hopelessly mired in immanence and materialism? No thank you. As Mrs. Coulter laments during the book, “I can’t bear the thought of oblivion. Anything than that. I used to think pain would be worse – to be tortured forever – I thought that must be worse… But as long as you were conscious, it would better, wouldn’t it? Better than feeling nothing, just going into the dark, everything going out forever and ever?” (380). And who could not resonate with such a thought. How precious is life that we’d rather endure the vicissitudes of immortality (no matter what they are) rather than renounce such a gift. But this doesn’t work for Pullman because after death there is only a universal consciousness; where all individualism is forever gone.

Yet, after all these concerns Pullman is postmodern and with that there is room for the post-secular… room to resurrect the metaphysical. And even Pullman recognizes the power of the Christian narrative and sees how necessary its appropriate is to make his own fanciful fiction function.

Mrs. Coulter at one point pontificates, “Well, where is God if he’s alive?” And why doesn’t he speak anymore? At the beginning of the world, God walked in the Garden and spoke with Adam and Eve. Then he began to withdraw, and he forbade Moses to look at his face. Later, in the time of Daniel, he was ages – he was the Ancient of Days. Where is he now? Is he still alive, at some inconceivable age, decrepit and demented, unable to think or act or speak and unable to die, a rotten hulk? And if that is his condition, wouldn’t it be the most merciful thing, the truest proof of out love for God, to seek him out and give him the gift of death?” (328). Later two angels say that the true creator withdrew from the worlds he made to consider the ‘deeper metaphysical questions.’ Which suggests that even the creator speculates on the existential… leaving room for the sublime, unknowable noumenal. Yet this Kantian outlook need not be where Christians draw the line. Tradition and Scripture point the epistemological event for Christianity – the incarnation. And as such the ineffable was given a historical name and the wholly other was made particular. The Christ event fully disclosed the transcendent God into the immanent world. What Pullman offers though is the possibility that God might exist – pointing to the fact that he’s really a postmodern agnostic. And much of knowing God is apophatic such that Christianity has always had a place for the agnostic it is just usually called the mysterious.

In the end of the book, in a particular touching passage, Mrs. Coulter adopts quite explicit Christian language. She says, “I told him (the antagonist) I was going to betray you, and betray Lyra, and he believed me because I was corrupt and full of wickedness; he looked so deep I felt sure he’s see the truth. But I lied too well. I was lying with every nerve and fiber and everything I’d ever done… I wanted him to find no good in me, and he didn’t. There is none. But I love Lyra. Where did this love come from? I don’t know; it came to me like a thief in the night, and now I love her so much my heart is bursting with it. All I could hope was that my crimes were so monstrous that the love was no bigger than a mustard seed in the shadow of them, and I wished I’d committed even greater ones to hide it more deeply still… But the mustard seed had taken root and was growing, and the little green shoot was splitting my heart wide open, and I was so afraid he’d see…” (405).

It is not surprising that humanity is capable of evil. What is surprising is the abundant capacity to love, even where and when love was absent before.

So often popular theologies are promulgated upon the question: ‘whence does evil come?’ How foolish it seems because the question that seems far, far more interesting and perplexing is: ‘whence does love come?” The question is raised by Pullman’s character, but Pullman doesn’t have answer except perhaps some bland Spinozian conscious substance. But the real answer is God, who truly showed His love through the creation of the world and incarnation of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Political Blogging - Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

I have not shied from my absolute resolve for Illinois Senator Barack Obama's campaign for democratic presidential nominee.

So assuming I had money, I would put it where my mouth was: in Intrade.

Right now (January 17, 2008 5:00pm cst) the Intrade price for Obama winning the democratic nomination is 40.5 (or $4.05 for each share). I'd put a $1,000 on Obama which buys about 247 shares of Obama stock.

I'd do this because he's going to rebound with two wins in Nevada and South Carolina. And his Intrade price will rebound.

So why wins in Nevada and South Carolina for Obama?
1) A federal judge today ruled against the suit that attempted to close the Stripe's nine at-large caucus sites. Adam Tanner reported the story for Reuters. This is a boon for Obama. Further, the attempt itself created intense ire among voters who saw it as an attempt by an embittered Clinton camp at disenfranchising low-income and service sector workers, and moreover probably solidified the culinary workers around Obama.

2) African American voters are beginning to break overwhelming for Obama. In Michigan nearly 70% of all black voted 'uncommitted' (essential a vote for Edwards or Obama). See the exit polls from CNN's Election Center 2008. If this number is even remotely close to what happens in South Carolina Obama will win by double-digits (yeah, yeah, I know you've heard this before).

3) The head to heads don't lie: Obama is the most electable candidate for the general election. Real Clear Politics has the numbers. Hillary Clinton might be 'change' for some liberals, but for most conservatives her 'negatives' are here to stay and they are at times higher than 50%. In the general head-to-head polling Obama does 2% better (than Clinton) aginst McCain, 7% better against Giuliani, 6.5% better against Mike Huckabee, 10% better against Romney, and 4.5% better against Thompson.

4) Finally, Obama is getting the endorsements: Claire McCaskill (IA), Patrick Leahy (VT) and Ben Nelson (NE). These are for the most part representatives from conservative leaning states, and reinforces the support that moderates have for Barack Obama.

The morning after the South Carolina race I'm going to 'sell' the stock at 8am cst.
I predict that his number will be 60%. This would yield about $481 in profit.

Who else wants to speculate? Predictions anyone?

Update: (January 19, 2008)
Hillary Clinton won Nevada, but it would be a bad time to sell. Barack Obama is at 32.2 right now (meaning I'm down $205). However, the Nevada race wasn't bad for Obama. If anything it reinforced two (well, three) things.
1) Black voters are now breaking for Obama; watch out for South Carolina.
2) Latino voters are still not ready to vote for a black candidate.
3) Clinton's cronyism is still going strong; late yesterday and earlier today she and Bill were ratcheting down expectations by ancedotally suggesting that there was union voter supression.

South Carolina will go to Obama. February 5th looks unnervingly wide open.

Update:
With Barack Obama winning South Carolina the Intrade stock jumped though not enough to make up the loss. Cashing in at the current rate of 38.0 the lost per share would have been $0.25 and with 247 shares totals a loss of $61.75.

Nevertheless, 5th is still wide open and watch to see how momentum plays.

Political Blogging - Clinton's New Role as Lady Macbeth

The problem is you can't trust Clinton. Hillary Clinton. She wants it too bad, and you wonder what she's willing to do to get it. Meghan Daum's opinion article out of the Los Angeles Times argues just this. Like a Lady Macbeth wanting the throne for herself, you wonder the lengths she might go... and if she needs to divide the democratic party in the primaries, and more deeply entrench the two parties in the general to win election so be it.

This isn't personal anecdotally commentary. Just turn to Nevada to see what I'm talking about.

An article in today's Las Vegas Sun written by J. Patrick Coolican, David McGrath Schwartz, Michael Mishak reports that a lawsuit has been filed that would close 'at large' caucus sites located on the Strip. These at large sites were added to allow shift workers the opportunity to still participate in the January 19th caucus.

Certainly if the suit is upheld by the courts it would disenfranchise workers, and disproportionately culinary union workers who only days ago threw their support behind Barack Obama (as I wrote in Unions or Bust?).

So who would file such a suit? Clinton associates, no surprise. As the article reports:

The plaintiffs have ties, albeit indirect, to the Clinton campaign. Dan Hart, chief political consultant to the state teachers union, has run Reid’s campaigns in the past and is currently an unpaid adviser to him. Some of the activists were active backers of state Sen. Dina Titus’ failed 2006 bid for governor. Titus, a Democratic national committeewoman, has endorsed Clinton. She did not return a call seeking comment.

As The New York Times reported Saturday, the teachers union’s deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, was a founding member of Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council.

Clinton's campaign impishly responded, "[The suit] is not for us to decide. We just want the process to be fair."

Obama admonished the legal suit.

Yet, what make this all the worse. Is that Clinton herself admonished the Iowa caucus because it excluded some from participating in the process. After spending months and millions in Iowa, she left the state in third place. The next day she started spinning her loss, and what a cyclone it was.

David Yepsen, chief political writer for the Des Moines Register wrote:

Clinton's professed love for Iowa proved short-lived. By Friday, she and her staff were dissing Iowa's caucuses.
She told reporters in New Hampshire that "this is a new day. This is a new state. This is a primary election. You're not disenfranchised if you work at night. You're not disenfranchised if you're not in the state."

The at-large caucus sites on the Las Vegas Strip were added to help mitigate caucus disenfranchisement, which the Clinton campaign castigated Iowa for. Now, that Obama has the culinary workers endorsement the Clinton camp doesn’t seem to care if there is caucus disenfranchisement. When she began her presidential campaign she said, “I am in it to win it.” She forgot to add, “…whatever the cost.”

The day after Iowa Clinton made a statement that she was "the most innocent." Trust me, at night she washing her hands, stammering, "Out! Damn'd spot. Out!"

Update (Sunday, 3:51pm)
Clinton is now claiming that the racial concerns shared by numerous black leaders across the country were engineered by Barack Obama's campaign. The response came when Hillary stated (quoted from Poltico.com):

“Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done.”

Mr. Clinton stated around the same time that Senator Obama's campaign, "Is the biggest fairytale I've ever seen."

The next seeming gaffe came when State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said that Obama would have to do more than just 'shuck and jive' at news conferences.

Clinton went on Meet the Press (see video) with Tim Russert and made this comment:

"Clearly, we know from media reports that the Obama campaign is deliberately distorting this,” she said. "It is such an unfair and unwarranted attempt to, you know, misinterpret and mischaracterize what I’ve said."

Obama responded, as reported by Fox News:

"I didn’t make the statement. I haven’t remarked on it and she, I think, offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King’s role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous. I have to point out that instead of telling the American people about her positive vision for America, Senator Clinton spent an hour talking about me and my record in a way that was flat-out wrong,” Obama said.

There is sure to be political fallout over this development. It must be noted that I could not find a comment by Obama on the aforementioned statements by the Clinton or Cuomo.

Political Blogging - Unions or Bust?

After writing yesterday that Obama received a big endorsement from local Culinary Union some question its importance even while controversy has erupted in Nevada over the issue.

A friend commented,

Though Obama might win Nevada because of the big union endorsement out of Nevada, but (sic) Clinton also has won her fair share of union endorsements.

Of course my friend is correct. The unions have fallen for Edwards and Clinton. Clinton has already captured a number of national union endorsements, including: the American Federation of Teachers, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers and others.

Yet this isn't roadblock, but a backdrop for Obama, placing into relief the type of political machine he has already overcome to win the most delegates in Iowa and tie in New Hampshire. This is how blogger David Swanson sees it, which was picked up by Democrats.com.

The culinary union, part of the national union Unite Here, endorsement for Barack Obama will carry with it get-out-the-vote foot-soldiers for the caucus, but also, and perhaps even more importantly a signal to Las Vegas, Nevada, and the rest of the country that this race is not a Democratic-crowning of previous First Lady Hillary Clinton.

With that said, political intrigue has engulfed the culinary union's endorsement. Reported by Jon Ralston from the Las Vegas Sun, Assemblyman Ruben Kihuen, who endorsed Clinton in November, whispered to Clinton, "I cannot emphasize to you enough, Senator, how the Hispanic workers in the Culinary are loyal to you. They are loyal to the Culinary, but they will vote for you." The Hispanic vote will be crucial for either candidate to win Nevada. However, what Clinton's yesterday door-to-door campaigning (in a heavily-populated culinary union neighborhood) tells us is that old-school politics are far from dead. The need for people on the ground to muscle and move the vote on caucus day is needed.

If Obama did so well in Iowa and New Hampshire without the union machines, one has to wonder what he can do with them in Nevada.

Update:
If you haven't heard Arizona Governor Napolitano has endorsed Barack Obama. This comes just a day after Senator John Kerry placed his support for Obama.

Political Bloggging - Kerry, Richardson and Unions

Breaking news this morning and it cuts both ways for the two leading Democratic candidates. 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry will be endorsing Barack Obama in his bid for the presidency. MSNBC reported the Associated Press story only moments ago. The Massachusetts Senator is a welcomed addition to the union endorsements that Obama garnered yesterday and the night of the New Hampshire primary, where he lost to Clinton by 2%.

The other developing story is that Governor Bill Richardson is expected to be dropping out of the race. Richardson was, "a former congressman, secretary of Energy and U.N. ambassador, Richardson presented himself as an experienced problem-solver with impeccable international credentials" as reported by Nicholas Riccardi from the Los Angeles Times. In a race where it has been about change v. experience, he was the real beef. If he bows out of the race it might lead some to speculate if his votes will flow to Clinton, who has tried to precariously position herself as the candidate for both change and experience. No word yet if he'll endorse either candidate, but if he does expect Nevada to be shaken up. The endorsement by a Latino governor of a Southwestern state will surely influence a southwestern state primary. Or, does the fact that in Iowa Richardson's caucus-goers defected to Obama's camp on second and third rounds make the annoncement a boon for the Senator from Illinois?

Finally, don't forget Intrade.

Forgetting the fiasco of New Hampshire, Intrade is almost always right. Right now Obama is projected to win both Nevada (65% certain) and South Carolina (75% certain). No new polls yet out from Nevada, so most of this must be coming from union endorsements.