≡ Menu

Dr. Strange — Invitation to the Occult or Gateway to a Biblical Worldview?

doctor-strange-official-photo-picIn a recent Unbelievable podcast, pastor Tim Keller debated atheist Jeremy Rodell about whether humans “make sense without God.” At one point in the show the host reads from Keller’s latest book in which the author makes the claim that “Christianity is the only truly cross-cultural religion” and that unlike Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, which largely exist within specific geographical boundaries, Christianity is represented in every major cultural/geographical center. Christianity is truly “a world religion.”

What makes Christianity so culturally accessible? In his new book, Making Sense of God, Keller references African writer Lamen Sanneh who suggests that “Christianity is less culturally imperialistic than secularism.” Whereas the existing African worldview — one of belief in spirits and invisible powers — would need be jettisoned in order to embrace a materialistic worldview, Christianity allows for the existing African framework to be “reconfigured without being overthrown.”

A reading of the Bible shows that it respects the African belief that there is a vast supernatural realm, full of evil and good spirits, but it also tells us that there is one who by the cross has ‘defeated the principalities and powers,’ because he has procured forgiveness and the favor of God  (Col. 2:12-25)…

So rather than condemning “African belief” because of its spirits and magical systems, Christianity embraces and “reconfigures” the pagan worldview.

Likewise, it is its belief in “a vast supernatural realm,” and the humility one takes to access it, which makes director Scott Derrickson’s new film Dr. Strange so compelling. The only thing Derrickson requires of his viewers to enter the fantastical universe of the crippled brain surgeon / Sorceror Supreme is to jettison their belief that “matter is all there is.” In that, Christian audiences should find much to like about Marvel’s latest superhero incarnation.

In his interview with Relevant magazine The Complex Faith of Dr. Strange Director Scott Derrickson, the director provides a key to the worldview behind his iteration of the comic:

To Derrickson, the allure of Doctor Strange doesn’t spring from a desire to conform the story to his perspective, but rather comes from the places the source material’s view of the universe syncs up with his own mindset. “I can’t help but view the world mystically,” he reflects. “It’s how I see it. I’m not a strict materialist. I think there’s much more to the world than what we see with our five senses. I think I’m a good choice for this material because I see the world that way.” (bold mine)

Throughout the article, Derrickson’s Christian faith is mentioned. This should, I think, be a cause for celebration among believers — a professing Christian directs the #1 movie in America which challenges a strictly materialistic view of the universe.

However, as is sadly par for the course, some Christians are denouncing the film as a gateway to the occult. Perhaps most prominently is Dr. Ted Baehr of the Christian Film and Television Commission who issued a press release stating:

[Doctor Strange is] a dangerous introduction to demonic occult deception. … The Bible clearly warns against the kind of occult practices and sorcery the hero in this movie learns to do, in Deuteronomy 18:9-12 and Galatians 5:20. Also in the movie, the hero’s New Age, occult guru teaches there may be no afterlife, that death is truly the end, and that this is a good thing.

Make no mistake, the good doctor — Baehr, that is — has a point. Not only does the Bible warn against sorcerory and occultism, but Dr. Strange could actually be “a dangerous introduction to demonic occult deception.” By discussing things like chakras, astral projection, and the third eye, the film is without question appealing to “real life” mystical jargon. Unlike Iron Man or the Hulk’s attempt to explain the fantastical through science or physics (imagined, for sure), Dr. Strange uses contemporary esoterica as a springboard for the character’s powers. In fact, the source material specifically tapped into the then culture’s drift from a Judeao-Christian worldview. From the Guardian:

The character rose to prominence just as the American counterculture was beginning to dabble in forms of spirituality outside of the Judeo-Christian establishment. The adventures of Stephen Strange tapped into eastern mysticism, psychedelic trips into alternate realities, and the absolute certainty that there is more to existence than what you can see with your eyes.

Isn’t this enough grounds to legitimize Baehr’s condemnations? How can Christians enjoy a film whose central devices appeal to Black Magic? Allow me to provide several reasons why Christians need to step back and take a breath.

In their fantastic expose, The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of the Inklings, authors Philip and Carol Zaleski highlight the role that fantastical literature, myth and fairy tales, played in C.S. Lewis’ conversion.

Lewis “was open to the preternatural, but remained deaf to supernatural claims. This could not have been a comfortable position. Those who delight in mythology and fantasy already have one foot in a spiritual cosmos.” (pg. 77, bold mine)

However, it was Lewis’ “delight in mythology and fantasy” that awakened something inside him — “the possibility of worldviews beyond strict materialism.” (pg. 84)

First let me suggest that films like Dr. Strange serve not as a template for orthodoxy, but as a gateway to a worldview “beyond strict materialism.” In the same way that “the Bible shows that it respects the African belief that there is a vast supernatural realm,” so the world of Dr. Strange embraces and invites viewers into a world beyond the strictly material. No, there is no savior awaiting us in this world. There are no winks at Scripture to remind the viewer that the director is guided by a biblical worldview. And there is no open renunciation of occult elements. Rather, the gateway into Dr. Strange’s fantastical, supernatural world is humilty. The access point for Doctor Stephen Strange into the world(s) of the fantastic is not occult technique, but first and foremost, an ego-crushing accident that maims his hands and sends him soul searching. We are reminded throughout the story, as we watch the brain surgeon’s quivering hands, that surrendering our egos and embracing our woundedness is often the gateway to something transformative.

This idea of Christianity allowing for an existing philosophical framework to be “reconfigured without being overthrown” is a key to how Christians should approach films like Dr. Strange. Yes, there are references to non-Christian and occult elements. However, in a world where Science and quantum physics has materialists now questioning the nature of existence, even reconfiguring their calculations to include a supernatural world outside us is a nudge toward a biblical worldview. In the same way that Lewis’ belief in mythology and fantasy were a gateway to a belief in a biblical worldview, Dr. Strange’s jettisoning of strict materialism — even though it springboards off the mystical arts — is a step away from the dead end of Scientism.

In his interview with Relevant magazine, Derrickson is clear about not forcing his own religious perspective into the film’s narrative. Rather, he seeks to appeal to traditionally opposing camps where “religious ideas and scientific ideas overlap.”

When pressed to consider how his Christian faith influenced his work on Doctor Strange, Derrickson observed that he’s gotten away from the impulsive need to express his own point of view as he’s matured as a filmmaker.

“In this age where the word ‘Christian’ conjures up angry, vocal, closed-minded Christians and the word ‘atheist’ conjures up images of angry, closed-minded atheists and all of these terms just become fighting words,” Derrickson says, “I really liked the idea that the comics and the movie therefore could just be a third thing where we’re talking about magic and we’re talking about mysticism and we’re talking about possibilities and other realities and places where we all know religious ideas and scientific ideas overlap, even though we’re not really playing with either in this movie.”

In the simplest sense, Dr. Strange can work upon viewers in the same way that Norse gods, fauns, and water sprites worked upon C.S. Lewis… by helping the seeker place “one foot in a spiritual cosmos.” Articulating that cosmos, its nature and constraints, is another story.

A second rebuttal to the condemnation of Dr. Strange is this: The fictional portrayal of ANYTHING evil or questionable can be dangerous.

Can Dr. Strange lead one into the occult? Absolutely! But ANY film or work of fiction that depicts ANYTHING evil, weird, different, or questionable can lead just about ANYONE into something unhealthy. Films that include the use of guns might influence someone to use violence. Films that include drug use might influence someone to use drugs. Films that include sexual immorality might influence someone to lust and pursue an immoral lifestyle. Films that include suicide might influence someone to commit suicide. Films that include depictions of street racing might encourage someone to street race. Films that include racism might encourage someone to be racist. Films that… oh, you get the point. At what point is the artist free to depict evil, immorality, and spiritual misalignment without being responsible for the viewers’ interpretations?

In fact, in my article 7 Ways “Clean” Fiction Can Hurt Us, I concluded:

The desire to keep our minds focused on what is “pure, lovely, and admirable” is a great thing. Heck, it’s biblical! Nevertheless, that same Bible says that Satan disguises himself as an “angel of light” (II Cor. 11:14). In other words, Satan is more likely to deceive us with something that looks good (“clean”), than something that looks evil. Just because some stories are free of profanity, violence, and nudity, does not make them impervious to spiritual deception. In fact, the desire to read only what is “free of profanity, violence, and nudity” may itself be a spiritual deception. (bold in original)

Even films/fiction that are portrayed as “safe,” “clean,” and “family friendly” can depict an image of life or people that is absolutely unhealthy. Perhaps this is why some have even described Christian romance as “emotional porn.” Point being, “God’s Not Dead” might be just as spiritually deceptive and dangerous as “Doctor Strange.”

This is why we need discernment.

Here’s one final thing about Dr. Strange that, I believe, keeps it from being a gateway to the occult — the powers on display are completely and utterly comic book in nature. This is a freakin’ superhero movie, folks. I mean, we’re talking about dissolving worlds, creating time portals, and using universal energy to spontaneously create whips and shields. Taking my grandson to this movie would not require a follow-up lecture on why he should not try to levitate. It’s the broader lesson, the one about not swallowing anything whole, about discerning an artist’s worldview and seeing past the obvious, about not require paint-by-number fictional narratives, that is the lessons many Christians appear to struggle with.

So in the same way that Keller sees Christianity as “less culturally imperialistic than secularism,” Dr. Strange offers  many viewers the chance to to have their beliefs “reconfigured without being overthrown.” While some might cite the references to mysticism or an absence of overt biblical references as an indictment, the film offers a portal into a world where “a vast supernatural realm” is at our fingertips. If only we can surrender our trembling, broken hands to the possibilities.

{ 6 comments… add one }
  • Travis Perry November 17, 2016, 1:15 PM

    Good article, very informative. I haven’t seen the movie, but the quotes you shared and statements by others make it clear that Derrickson intended the movie to combat the materialistic view of the universe common in the West, probably in hopes that just taking a step away from materialism would in and of itself have the potential to do good. And I would have to agree it has the potential to do good and will have done a morsel good even if it even pulls just one materialist away from the brink to eventually find the light of Christ.

    I also agree that most Christian criticisms of the movie are misguided. They believe that the mere exposure to the Occult or non-Christian spiritual practices potentially put a Christian at risk of falling under demonic influence. I think this objection is hogwash. Movies that portray the Occult bear no risk to a Christian who does not actually attempt to participate in the Occult personally. “Greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world.”

    However, your quote concerning African spiritual views makes it clear that the materialism Derrickson took on with the film is not actually a universal problem. In Africa, only a small percentage of people doubt the reality of the spiritual world–most are already convinced spirits are real, far more than are currently Christian. And in the West, the materialism that C.S. Lewis saw as the enemy of faith, which he sharply addressed in his writing in numerous places, proved to be (after Lewis died) just ONE of many ways the West was deviating from Christianity. The rise of a new type of spirituality in modern West came in a major surge, a surge that the original Doctor Strange comics benefited from/participated in.

    Modern humankind is not JUST driving towards materialism, as Lewis thought (Yes, I am saying C. S. Lewis was wrong about something). A vast wave of counter-culture among modern people, one that is very large and powerful, more than most Christians know, refuses to accept materialism but ALSO rejects Christianity. Instead this counter-culture movement seizes at various alternative ways of looking at the spiritual world, ways we can lump together as “The Occult” for this discussion.

    It’s so ironic for me to say what I just did to an author who has written stories that feature various forms of the Occult and portrays them as malevolent. Perhaps you think the subject of your writing is only fictional, with no basis in reality. But I assure you, there are real people worshiping Santa Muerte. Real people are killing and sacrificing other human beings to Santa Muerte, though most Occult practices are nowhere near so brutal. But even the ones which are “benevolent to others” are a hazard to those who practice them–they literally separate a soul from God.

    What if I told you we can prove that a materialist watching Doctor Strange has a small percentage chance to abandon materialism based on this film, say 1% just to give it a number. Let’s say then that we could prove that instead of becoming a Christian, 95% of those who abandon materialism because of Doctor Strange will become a follower of Santa Muerte? (whereas 5% of the 1% would embrace Christ?)

    If that were true, would we say then that the movie is doing good in sum total? I think most Christians would say, “no.”

    Of course we can prove no such thing. There is simply no way for us mere mortals to know what long-term spiritual effects this movie will have. But is it unrealistic for me to think that Doctor Strange in fact supports the Occult more than it does Christianity? Not at all, the Occult is what the movie is ABOUT, though not very realistically from what I gather (although me focusing on the Santa Muerte cult in particular was deliberately off-base).

    I suppose one could argue that 5 percent of 1 percent is better than nothing and even Santa Muerte followers might come to Christ someday. Maybe. Such reasoning however ignores the young people who are not really materialists at all who could potentially decide, like NASA engineers who started out watching (unrealistic) Star Trek, that (unrealistic) Doctor Strange inspires them to find out how REAL sorcery works.

    So the objection that Doctor Strange has the power to give the Occult a good image and bring potentially thousands of young people worldwide into Occult practices who perhaps would have become Christians otherwise (note I said “thousands,” which would be out of hundreds of millions of movie goers worldwide–this is not hyperbole) should not be dismissed with a wave of the hand. And I honestly feel you have downplayed the danger of making the Occult look cool and sexy to this particular world we live in, via this particular movie.

    I am certain from your statement and others like it that Derrickson had good intentions in directing this film. I also am certain this movie poses no risk to Christians who watch it. But those are not the only issues. Materialism is not the only enemy and the risk is greatest to those figuring out what they will believe, not those us who have already decided.

    The good intentions and lack of risk for Christian viewers do not add up to the movie being more potentially good than potentially bad. I understand the point of view you expressed in this review, Mike, but I’m asking you to thoughtfully reconsider it.

    • Mike Duran November 18, 2016, 6:31 AM

      Appreciate the comment, Travis. I basically agree with you about the potential danger of this film. The occult and Eastern religion are framed in a favorable light. My disagreements — at least, insofar as they would result in publicly condemning the film — revolve around the following points, most of which I stated in the article and am simply reiterating:

      1.) Many things portrayed in film/fiction can potentially negatively influence others. (I use this argument mainly because it’s the prelude to my next point.) So if we worry over the mention of chakras or astral projection in Dr. Strange, we should also worry over many, many other references to perhaps more subtle but equally dangerous ideologies and practices portrayed in film. Furthermore, if we oppose the occult portrayals in Dr. Strange, why not oppose the magic/spells/sorcery in Harry Potter, LotR, and Narnia? (I’m not convinced that the “They’re clearly fantasy!” argument is legitimate and doesn’t also apply to Dr. Strange. See #4.)

      2.) Requiring artists to spell out everything (i.e., denounce all portrayals of evil) moves art out of the realm of art and into didacticism. (Also it should be noted that the film veers from traditional Hindu thought by portraying certain things as morally wrong and evil. Dr. Strange’s foe is a powerful mystical being known as Dormammu, Lord of the Dark Dimension. Pure Eastern thought is rather indifferent to moral bifurcation.)

      3.) The director is fairly outspoken about his faith and intent with the film. For me, this amounts to a lot. I will concede that I am unsure how orthodox Derrickson is in his beliefs. Nevertheless, professing himself a Christ-follower leads one to import a lot of assumptions about his claim to eschew materialism in favor of a mystical view of reality. (I would also apply this to myself regarding my own books. When confronting ambiguity about my portrayal of spells and occultism in a given story, I trust the reader gives me the benefit of the doubt when I profess disavowal of such practices.)

      4.) The incredible comic book nature of the movie launches it quickly out of the realm of “this is possible” to “this is a superhero movie.” This point is huge for me, Travis. It’s probably also where your opinion of the movie would benefit most. After an hour and a half of zooming through psychedelic worlds, levitation, summoning dimensional space apertures, and conjuring particle shields, it’s pretty obvious that any grounding of the occult in reality is simply a fictional springboard for a superhero/comic book tale (much like rudimentary physics is employed in much sci-fi as a framework for something extra-ordinary.)

      Anyway, much to talk about here. I appreciate your comments.

  • JaredMithrandir November 17, 2016, 10:29 PM

    Have you looked into the Makuya movement from Japan?

    It is also important that The Bible is UNiversalist, it does not condemn unbeliever to Eternity in Hell.

    • Mike Duran November 18, 2016, 6:34 AM

      Jared, I don’t really want to get into a big debate about Universalism, but I disagree that the Bible advocates it. While it may not condemn unbelievers to an eternity of eternal anguish (I’m sympathetic to the belief about annihalationism/conditional immortality), the Bible clearly says that everyone will not be saved.

  • JaredMithrandir November 18, 2016, 5:54 AM

    Think about Dr. Strange is how much it reminds of specifically the claims of William Schenobleon, about Trasyugothian Magick.

    How do you feel about Christians watching Anime? I’ve been watching a lot of Fate/ lately.

Leave a Reply