"Christians are the realists here. We see the depth of the problem. It is so deep that humanity can sometimes even believe that deicide is a good thing. It is so profound that mankind can believe they’re the good guys and God himself is the bad guy."
I think a question to ask, in part because I think that Pullman’s agenda killed the narrative integrity, is that does Deicide generally kill the art as well. That is, does it negate something essential in the understanding of what it is to be human, to be mortal, fallible, and struggling under those dilemmas?
You are correct in bringing this down to the problem of sin. Humans want to sin, to go their own way, to be under no obligation to live in a way other than what their hearts desire. So, a simple-enough solution (though nonsensical) is to slay the Judge. If humanity does that, all the sins go away, they think. But that is not how it works. The "wages of sin," death (Romans 6:23), still enact their penalty, and there would be no Redeemer to lift it by His sacrifice and God's grace. Deicide would doom humanity, no doubt.
Beautifully done! It has always seemed to me that, for all the high sounding rhetoric about freeing man from sin by ushering a new age free from God, and in their mind guilt and shame, which would then lead to a more evolved humanity, what the “deicide” crowd actually wants is not a world free of sin, but just one where nobody notices what they’re up to. I don’t know how any thinking or observant person could believe that free of God’s moral direction sin wouldn’t multiply to horrible effect. How many historical examples are needed to show the folly of that view?
There is a fine line between taking spiritual warfare seriously and becoming overly preoccupied with analyzing darkness. The New Testament emphasis is actually much simpler and more demanding: resist the devil, stand firm in faith, renew the mind, and remain in Christ. The focus is not the creativity of evil, but the sufficiency of Christ.
Wonderful post, definitely insightful and gave me the right words for why I *hated* Sandman (after reading the whole thing through...because the entire thing was a gift. Not a good reason, I know).
Your coining of the term Deicide makes me wonder if there should be another subgenre within Christian art. We have the books that point out the folly of Human Nature and Sin (That Hideous Strength, Crime and Punishment, etc), and books about the folly within the Occult (again, That Hideous Strength along with all the novels of Charles Williams). And of course books about Grace and Redemption (Anna Karenna [in a way], The Divine Comedy, and to a degree, the Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles of Narnia).
However, what would a Christian art piece look like if we took Deicide and flipped it on its head? Something like "the Death of the Wisdom of the Demons" (thnéskó tén sophian daimonou--but ok, that doesn't shorten like Deicide, but the idea is there. And, forgive my undergrad greek skills). Something that's not about the death and replacement of God, but about the death/defeat/binding of the "gods" (demons) and perhaps something about the reordering of the world away from them and toward God.
Upon reflection, the Lord of the Rings fits this model to a degree.
I think where Gaiman differs from Pullman is that he seems very simply to relish different myths and storylines. I also think the structure of Ragnarök looms large in his work, and one can see the sort of hapless Loki kind of peaking through his work and also Good Omens.
Gaiman was raised Scientologist and seems to cross-index a lot into a lot of various paganisms and demonology, so though I don’t deny his literary talent, still I am surprised that Gaiman so radically changed his own ending. At the very least it's sort of disrespectful to Terry Pratchett... and at the worst it's kind of Luciferian.
But then again, even a skim through Gaiman’s Sandman comics will let you know where he's at religiously... it's a VERY dark place and he's definitely carefully studied a lot of intricate demonology. No bueno.
He's been accused of sexual assault and other related things by multiple women, including the nanny of his children. His response is that the relations were consensual. That may be so, but it's still not a great look, even if true. It's sad that his name is connected to Terry Pratchett, as he seems to be a pretty big degenerate. Ick factor, indeed.
I mean. The allegations are no surprise considering the content of some of his work. But his actions definitely soured a lot of really great writing that he did. What a jerk.
It's like when was astonished that Ryan Adams (not to be confused with Bryan Adams) was verbally abusive. A person is like, you have listened to his songs, right?
Fascinating read.
Love so much of this. A bunch of these gems -
"Christians are the realists here. We see the depth of the problem. It is so deep that humanity can sometimes even believe that deicide is a good thing. It is so profound that mankind can believe they’re the good guys and God himself is the bad guy."
I think a question to ask, in part because I think that Pullman’s agenda killed the narrative integrity, is that does Deicide generally kill the art as well. That is, does it negate something essential in the understanding of what it is to be human, to be mortal, fallible, and struggling under those dilemmas?
You are correct in bringing this down to the problem of sin. Humans want to sin, to go their own way, to be under no obligation to live in a way other than what their hearts desire. So, a simple-enough solution (though nonsensical) is to slay the Judge. If humanity does that, all the sins go away, they think. But that is not how it works. The "wages of sin," death (Romans 6:23), still enact their penalty, and there would be no Redeemer to lift it by His sacrifice and God's grace. Deicide would doom humanity, no doubt.
Thank you for this sobering read. I’ve just added The Man Who Was Thursday to my library holds list.
I’m glad! It’s one of my favorites (it starts slow though, be warned!)
Okay, but the end!!! I mean, I know "dream" is in the title, but it does let one down.
Au contraire! I thought the end was the best part! No spoilers but it's a deliberate allusion to Dante's paradiso and Job.
I concede… but only because this is your Substack. ;)
I’m glad because I really don’t want anything spoiled for me!
Beautifully done! It has always seemed to me that, for all the high sounding rhetoric about freeing man from sin by ushering a new age free from God, and in their mind guilt and shame, which would then lead to a more evolved humanity, what the “deicide” crowd actually wants is not a world free of sin, but just one where nobody notices what they’re up to. I don’t know how any thinking or observant person could believe that free of God’s moral direction sin wouldn’t multiply to horrible effect. How many historical examples are needed to show the folly of that view?
💯
"That Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." John 3:19
Perfect.
Very well done. I’ve appreciated this series.
There is a fine line between taking spiritual warfare seriously and becoming overly preoccupied with analyzing darkness. The New Testament emphasis is actually much simpler and more demanding: resist the devil, stand firm in faith, renew the mind, and remain in Christ. The focus is not the creativity of evil, but the sufficiency of Christ.
Wonderful post, definitely insightful and gave me the right words for why I *hated* Sandman (after reading the whole thing through...because the entire thing was a gift. Not a good reason, I know).
Your coining of the term Deicide makes me wonder if there should be another subgenre within Christian art. We have the books that point out the folly of Human Nature and Sin (That Hideous Strength, Crime and Punishment, etc), and books about the folly within the Occult (again, That Hideous Strength along with all the novels of Charles Williams). And of course books about Grace and Redemption (Anna Karenna [in a way], The Divine Comedy, and to a degree, the Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles of Narnia).
However, what would a Christian art piece look like if we took Deicide and flipped it on its head? Something like "the Death of the Wisdom of the Demons" (thnéskó tén sophian daimonou--but ok, that doesn't shorten like Deicide, but the idea is there. And, forgive my undergrad greek skills). Something that's not about the death and replacement of God, but about the death/defeat/binding of the "gods" (demons) and perhaps something about the reordering of the world away from them and toward God.
Upon reflection, the Lord of the Rings fits this model to a degree.
"Deicidists say that in the near future, we will somehow achieve all the blessings without the blesser." Nonsense.
Great post. Thanks!
I think where Gaiman differs from Pullman is that he seems very simply to relish different myths and storylines. I also think the structure of Ragnarök looms large in his work, and one can see the sort of hapless Loki kind of peaking through his work and also Good Omens.
Gaiman was raised Scientologist and seems to cross-index a lot into a lot of various paganisms and demonology, so though I don’t deny his literary talent, still I am surprised that Gaiman so radically changed his own ending. At the very least it's sort of disrespectful to Terry Pratchett... and at the worst it's kind of Luciferian.
But then again, even a skim through Gaiman’s Sandman comics will let you know where he's at religiously... it's a VERY dark place and he's definitely carefully studied a lot of intricate demonology. No bueno.
He's been accused of sexual assault and other related things by multiple women, including the nanny of his children. His response is that the relations were consensual. That may be so, but it's still not a great look, even if true. It's sad that his name is connected to Terry Pratchett, as he seems to be a pretty big degenerate. Ick factor, indeed.
I mean. The allegations are no surprise considering the content of some of his work. But his actions definitely soured a lot of really great writing that he did. What a jerk.
Yeah, it's almost like studying demonology doesn't do wonders for one's personal morality! 🤣
It's like when was astonished that Ryan Adams (not to be confused with Bryan Adams) was verbally abusive. A person is like, you have listened to his songs, right?