Pullman's Fall and Redemption

Pullman’s Fall and Redemption

Pullman’s view of the Fall and Redemption is where he really draws close to Gnostic myth. There are quite a few Gnostic texts that describe their view of the fall and redemption, we see a story that is very similar to Pullman’s story. The Serpent is actually the aeaon Sophia, who tempts Adam and Eve to rebel against the Demiurge who created the world. Of course, Pullman’s Authority is described as not creating the world. But, the female tempter comes in the role of Mary.

Here is the confusion for me and where Pullman’s view of Christianity falls apart completely. Mary, a lapsed nun, is supposed to tempt the children to do something (and to be truthful, I could not figure out what she was tempting them to, sex? What? Pullman never makes it clear).

She receives these instructions from angels and then she has a long, rambling conversation with the children on why she has lost her faith. Apparently, she lost her faith because she tasted some great food and got horny. Even more, I guess she thought those things were incompatible with being a Christian, although we are never told why. The way it is written, we are supposed to believe that Christians everywhere believe the material world is bad, sensuality is bad (sexual and nonsexual sense in mind here), but once we taste all of that, we lose our faith. At least, that is what Pullman says Christians and the church and god teach.

So, in his view, the “Fall” was listening to these people. And to get back to redemption, we need to all love food and sex again over the idea of God. Now, I realize I am overstating things to be funny, but I am really not far off Pullman’s point of view in these books. Even more, knowledge will be the agent of salvation, tasting, touching, and all of that will save us from the idea of God, because God and Christians are against all of these things.

This would be all fine and good if such a thing were true. The problem is, it is all a complete and utter misunderstanding of the Christianity as it is presented in the Bible, and the first three chapters of Genesis. Christians have never, at least on paper been against the material world. It is quite true that there have been many people in the church who display a neurotic weirdness about it, but hey, we are people and we are all neurotic about something. However, Christianity has always loved food, love sex, love the material world and we get it all from the one who created us. Just read the first two chapters and see how much God declares what He has created. If the God of the bible were the god that Pullman is putting forward, I would rebel too. But He isn’t so I am not worried about it. Pullman seems intent on confusing what Christians have gotten wrong about the god of the bible.

But even more critically, especially in the area of redemption, Pullman’s god seems to have no interest in redeeming people, rather, all He wants is for people to follow the rules. But the real God the Bible talks about, entered the world as a human and sacrificed Himself to Himself. Grace is forgotten in Pullman’s stories. The incarnation is forgotten, which is odd, as it is the ultimate confirmation God loves the material world, and made it holy.

The next post will be about Pullman’s moralism. It is an interesting question that will shed light more on what Christians mean when they deny the flesh versus what Pullman means.