There were two very interesting discussions at the Muse today. Adrian was highlighted in his devout support for the movie The Golden Compass. (Listen here.) I personally disagree with him, and think The Compass is an unhelpful movie to see, as it promotes an atheistic and anti-Christian worldview, and is particularly disturbing in it's restructuring of the demonic, ala Buffy. Pullman understandably doesn't seem to take it seriously, and I fear this could lead to children likewise not taking the demonic seriously, but thinking of it as something cute and intimate.
However, I think Adrian raises some very good points, particularly that Pullman's writings don't portray real Christianity as evil, but rather Pullman's own image of religion. As I contemplate it, the religion I hear described in Pullman seems to be less like Christianity and more a technologically-advanced version of the 1st-century Jewish religious hierarchy, existing for its own sake and to force people into a rigid, controlled life. Except even in 1st-century Judaism, there was more of a desire to follow the ways of God, however misguided the religious leaders were in their attempts.
The second broadcast today was focused on the letters of C.S. Lewis, and what we could learn about him through them. (Listen here.)There were a lot of great insights and letters, including the famous one where a mother is concerned that her son is liking Aslan more than Jesus. At Minute 52:36 you can hear my asking the question about Lindskoog's allegations against Harper. (Harper controls the Lewis estate, and Lindskoog has lead the allegations against him that he has engaged in fraud, inserting himself into Lewis' life to an extent that went far beyond Harper's limited experience with Lewis.)
Frankly I found Kim Gilnett's response disappointing, as I don't feel it completely addressed the subject. Yes, Gilnett brought up some good information on the reliability of The Dark Tower. But Lindskoog's attack is so vindictive yet overwhelming in it's evidence, that one would desire more of a response, particularly in regards to the evidence that Hooper wasn't actually in Lewis' life, and that he excludes all researchers from the Lewis estate unless they accept his version of events. Maybe Lindskoog is wrong, but I would love some evidence in rejoinder from the Lewis estate. And Gilnett seemed to respond with a simple rejection of Lindskoog's points, without evidence. Indeed, as I relisten to Gilnett's response to my question, I am struck that he doesn't provide any support for Hooper's presence in Lewis's life except for the last few months (the very point in contention), and that Gilnett has only praise for Hooper, similar to what Lindskoog suggests is necessary to do research on the Lewis estate. This is not to besmirch Gilnett in any way, but rather to point out that his response may be carefully nuanced.
Go to 1:02:11 to see the amazing final chapter to the child who liked Aslan more than Jesus, when Gilnett met him as an adult.