On March 10th 2004 an article (click here to read it) was written in The Guardian newspaper by the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams praising Philip Pullman and Nicholas Wright on creating the His Dark Materials Trilogy and bringing them to life on stage (respectively). This has caused many raised eyebrows and whispers behind hands due to the books anti-religious themes. Especially as he has gone so far as to call it "a near-miraculous triumph" and suggest it be part of the country's RE studies.
Yet Dr. Williams has spotted something that many of the book's critics have not and that is the non-existence of Jesus Christ in Lyra's world. Therefore in religious terms there has been no salvation, no holy trinity and so has lost the main basis of Christianity. But that is no Dr. William's main point, it is just something to ponder, if you will. What he really asks us is that if we are believers, is the God wew see or read about getting unwittingly killed by Lyra and Will the God that we believe in? Williams sees the books as a warning or another outlook on religion: What if the God we worshipped was real but mortal? Then, that would form a church full of anxiety forever waging a war to keep God safe from any who sought to harm him. That added to the loss of Christ then we have a church violent and ruthless in all it's doings. And so it is, in Lyra's world.
Still many readers as I did would look at the article a little as if he were evading the point and making things suit him. I thought to myself that the book doesn't debate who or what God is like but whether or not God is real at all. The Authority in the book is a fake, an impostor and so if an impostor then who is God? As an atheist Pullman never put forward an answer or replacment making many see this as there being no God, but he still leaves the field open. Who is God? After all the fighting, spying, talking and burning Pullman still leaves the question as open as it ever was. If the Authority was a fake then, to believers, God is still out there and to non believers, he never was.
But then Dr. Williams makes his real point, to him the existence of God is as obvious as black on a white canvas. It is the way in which He is percieved that is distorted and so as a believer he asks: if we believe what kind of God is it that we believe in and if we don't what kind of God do we not believe in?
What many however don't understand is that HDM doesn't criticise religion or faith but it's organised form and it's institutions for example: The Church. It criticises the way it seeks to control everything, the way we think act or speak. Pullman, I think, believes that even those who worship should be at least free to do it in their own way, not according to a set of rules.
Dr. Williams, in my opinion believes that the church has yet to become that bad but it should heed the warning. But he doesn't completely step over Pullman's challenges as he writes: "But this should not be read as a way of wriggling out of Pullman's challenges to institutional religion. I end where I started. If the Authority is not God, why has the historic Church so often behaved as if it did indeed exist to protect a mortal and finite God? What would a church life look like that actually expressed the reality of a divine freedom enabling human freedom?"
The Archbishop doesn't answer these questions though, maybe he needs more time to ponder the answers. He praises the work done on the plays and quite ironically complains that God's death scene wasn't good enough. Yet he seems to be mysteriously unopinionated on the matter of Dust. It is the most singular metaphor for the confusion of good and evil. Is it good that we should feel pain and sorrow, or is it bad that we should feel love and happiness? He talks about what it is and what he supposes it to be, but never actually opinionates on it. Another question remains open.
And so at the end of all the bickering, bitching, discussions and considerings we are still left to ponder life's unending mysteries the same as we ever did.
0 comments - Add yours