Watched "Polar Express" with the girlfriend this afternoon. It's hard to give it an unalloyed thumbs-up or thumbs-down.

First, the minutae: The atmospheric effects and light were quite wonderful. Anything with a solid, flat surface was well done. Kudos to whoever did the flat surfaces. The snow and wind was excellent, though the wind's direction, which was usually the exact same direction and speed as the train, was completely improbable. But hey, it's a movie, and that was a dream sequence.

While the boy's face was done well, most the children were, well, rather unnerving. For example, when the protagonist gets on the train, the little girl across the aisle appears to be looking entirely in the wrong direction. The body movements were wrong, all wrong. Particularly the waiters on the train, who served hot chocolate in a most frenzied fashion. Santa was particularly creepy. Much too much Tom Hanks -- even though I generally like the guy. And I say this as a huge fan of "Castaway".

The plot was extremely minimal. Lots of minutes of "Hey! We're on a roller coaster! Which way will we turn next? Whee!!"

Now, regarding the core message... again, this review is written from a Christian perspective, so you may not agree if you come from another perspective. But in the interests of diversity...

Some will see this movie, consciously anway, as only a film about a kid on a train going to see Santa. If that's your take, good for you. But I can't help but notice that the film itself invites us to see a deeper meaning. Is it really about trains? Of course not. So why think it's really only about Santa, too?

I'm clearly not alone in noticing this. Some, seemingly those with a vested monetary interest in that angle, see it as a kind of Christian, evangelical film.

I don't. I see it the exact opposite way. I have no idea what the book's author (Chris Van Allsburg) intended. Nor do I claim any of the film's creators or participants intended the following, nor do I claim they had anything but the best intentions and motives. But nontheless, here is how I saw it...

(Warning: This contains mild spoilers. Avert your eyes now if this concerns you. You've been warned.)

Synopsis

Santa is the theistic God. In a scene where the elves watch video monitors, it's clear he sees us when we're sleeping, he knows if we're awake. He knows if we've been bad or good (so be good, for goodness' sake!) Santa judges us, and knows all about us. He cares. He's a good, jolly, likeable guy. He gives people gifts when they need them.

But, of course, the movie also tells us, he doesn't exist. There's not a lick of evidence in the real world for that proposition. All the evidence points to the contrary. The protagonist boy is a rational, thinking person. Through science and evidence, it becomes clear to him that God Santa doesn't exist. His "sin" is revealed to be doubting, as the puppet in the train accuses him. He is wrong for being rational and thinking.

So our boy is a materialist. Materialism is the rational response to the evidence, but it is not good enough.

The "Polar Express" train is a vehicle which brings us to God, in his residence -- heaven. The North Pole, that is. The angels -- elves -- are gathered around, about the business of God. Worshipping God. Rejoicing to be in his presence. But the boy cannot see Santa, and cannot hear the bells, until he believes.

The boy's moment of "conversion", of belief, is not based on reason nor evidence. He simply decides he will believe. Once he believes, he can see Santa. He can hear the bells.

Back in the real world, we learn that this is just a vision, an hallucination. Even the boy's experience of having torn his clothing is shown to be false. He has found no real evidence, just a possibly-deceptive, subjective illusion. (This is apparently the only kind of evidence possible for belief in Santa God.)

Rationalism, science, is also the annoying boy who knows it all. His sin is arrogance. He is told he must have some humility and learn. From unverifiable, possibly-deceiving visions, of course.

In the end, at the most important moment of the film, the conductor tells our boy that there are many different trains which go many different places. In other words, there are many different religions. And, the conductor concludes, it doesn't matter which one you pick, as long as you board one.

The most important thing is simply to believe something. Anything. Religions are, of course, all equally good, in that respect. Or equally false, perhaps. Having faith itself is the main or only benefit, the object of the faith is utterly unimportant.

And the true spirit of Christmas is already to be found in our heart.

What does it all mean?

That's the narrative I saw it, and I couldn't help but see it.

If so, is that message helpful, hopeful, or good?

Some of my readers may see this film as being faith-friendly. I, perhaps being a grinch or curmudgeon, instead can't help but see this is as deeply hostile to biblical Christian faith. Again, not that I accuse the book's author nor the filmmakers of being intentionally so. But the interpretation I saw seemed obvious to me.

First, isn't the Santa experience the perfect way of teaching materialism?

The child's whole culture tells him or her Santa exists. Even his most trusted advisors, his parents. Of course, Santa's existence is a physical impossibility. People just believe it because it's a nice idea. Wouldn't it be nice if a kind, jolly celestial soul were looking out for you?

Once the child learns they can be burned/deceived about Santa, and that even their parents were part of the deception, the next logical step is to assume the same about God, who is just Santa under another name, with the same characteristics, located in heaven instead of the North Pole.

There are two "faith-positive" responses one can give to this crisis.

The first is the one orthodox Christians have given for ages: To argue that the evidence for God or Jesus does, in fact, exist, and exceeds that for alternative explanations. You may or may not agree, but that's beside the point: rightly or wrongly, Christians believe biblical faith is rational, and say the evidence is either neutral in favor of Christian positions on the God, the bible, and Jesus; evidence they readily produce.

The Christian bible takes this tone, too, written as though the evidence for the life and resurrection of Jesus was plentiful, powerful, and easy-to-find at the time, and that those who didn't want to examine it were instead blinded, and simply not considering all the evidence.

But the film doesn't take any such tact. Instead, regarding the evidence, it comes down firmly on the opposite side, that of the sceptics: The rip the boy thought he put in his robe was never really there.

The bell-gift is not direct evidence, either. It is just a gift, like the others; it could be easily explained as a co-incindence. As such, is an example of synchronicity, an occultic phenomenon in which mundane events happen at the right time to confirm spiritual insights.

So, in the end, there is still no direct physical evidence. Disbelief is still a rational response to the evidence. The rip wasn't real, the bell-gift could just have been a coincidence, there was no ticket to prove he'd ridden the train.

Yet "The Polar Express" does not let the rational materialist off the hook: The puppets on the train accuse the boy of the sin of "doubting", and another child, "science boy" (as I will call him) is annoyingly guilty of the sin of arrogance. Materialism is not enough.

In the end, the film teaches us, we should have some kind of faith anyway. Even if the only evidence comes through a dream or vision, we should trust that experience. Even the message of that vision contradicts reason or the evidence. If reason leads us to disbelief, we should have a flight to the irrational, and an acceptance of spiritual "experiences" to lead and teach us.

Once again, this is closer to the New Age method of indoctrination than the Christian way. In the New Age, there is tremendous emphasis on gaining theology through experience, including (and especially) through shamanistic spiritual visions and journeys.

In contrast, Christianity doesn't rule out spiritual experiences, but warns people that the message of the experience must be evaluated rationally before being accepted. A message in plain contradiction to the facts should be rightly rejected as not being true or reliable, however apparently persuasive the spiritual experience behind it. For example, a prophet who gets prophecy wrong should be rejected.

Another Eastern mysical concept is the "spirit guide", an avatar like the conductor or the hobo, who can guide a person through a spiritual journey and will instruct the person on what theology they should adopt. In "The Polar Express", the friendly conductor who teaches the boy what he should think about each experience, and ultimately tells him what theology to accept. And the darker hobo also plays a similar role.

In contrast, Christianity assures each believer that the Holy Spirit begins work in their heart. Although the outward signs of this are visible, the process doesn't involve any reliance upon mystical visions or theology imparted through guides who appear in such. The actions of the Holy Spirit are seen, but, unlike a "spirit guide", He is not perceived directly.

So once again, if we see this film a parable about belief, the techniques for gaining spirtual enlightment or insight depicted are far more compatable with occultic belief than Christianity.

Next, it's interesting to note that the boy, the conductor (the "ordered" or good spirit guide), the hobo (the "chaotic" or darker spirit guide), and Santa Claus (God) are all really Tom Hanks. Again, this has an amazingly strong overlap with New Age or Eastern mystical theology, in which God is really just us, we are divine already, and -- according to some sects -- our spirit guides are also really just different manifestations of our own higher self. And once again, this is the opposite of Christianity, which teaches that God created things outside Himself. Though God sustains all creation, it is separate from Him; we are not inhertantly divine, nor are we made of the same spiritual stuff.

At the most important moment of the film, the conductor tells the boy that there are all kinds of trains (religions) going to different places. He says it doesn't matter which train you board, going where -- the most important thing is simply to believe something.

This dogma is not merely non-Christian; it is, in fact, historically hostile to biblical Christianity and Christians.

Pagan Rome, for example, held the same belief. The Roman empire absorbed all kinds of different gods, and recognized them all as valid. All were expected to be acknowledged, honored, and worshipped. Jews and Christians, though, had this annoying belief that if one religion was true then another which said the opposite was then false. "Tolerant" Rome could not tolerate this kind of "atheism"; thousands of Christians paid for that rational-yet-exclusive religious assertion with their lives.

So, again, whatever good intentions may have been meant by the makers, the belief-system being taught here -- which is becoming increasingly popular today -- is one which was responsible for great bloodshed and persecution against orthodox Christians and Jews.

The conductor's words also imply that the object of the faith -- the destination of the train -- is fundamentally unimportant. All destinations are equally good; the object of one's faith is comparatively unimportant. Instead, it is the riding of the train -- having faith -- which is of first importance.

Again, whether this is true or not, this is diametrically opposed to Christianity, which emphasizes the object of faith -- Jesus -- as being of profound importance. To a Christian, having faith in your dog as your "higher power" may help an alcoholic dry out (or may not -- I don't know what controlled studies have to say on that point) but Fido is not believed to equally provide salvation from sin. Christians believe there is "no other name under heaven" by which people must be saved.

Last, the boy is encouraged to look "within" to find the true meaning of Christmas. But once again, this is diametrically opposed to the Christian message and understanding of Christmas: That God, who created the world, came from outside us, to save those He created, but his own "recognized him not" (John 1). Christian salvation, righteousness, and enlightenment comes from the God outside, not from a god within.

Instead, once again, as mentioned above, the message of the movie is closer to that of the New Age movement which teaches us we are God already, divine already, and all we have to do is recognize it, and seek the "divine within". "God" and we mortals are manifestation of the same thing.

And, once again, I'm not here meaning to abitrate between these two systems, but just point out the movie chooses and teaches the one which is favored by occultists, and is quite the opposite of Christian understanding of the "true meaning" of Christmas: that while we were enemies of God, and were fundamentally corrupt within, God took on human form to teach us -- from without -- and save us -- in a manner we could not. We had insufficient resources within to save ourselves. Salvation came from without.

So, in conclusion, while the movie has many fun things about it, and some technical flaws as well, and is done in a friendly tone, the ultimate message is certainly not compatible with orthodox Christian faith.

Instead, if it leads people to any kind of faith, it's one more compatible with New Age occultism or pagan Rome than orthodox Christianity.

And since Christmas is -- hate to say it, but it's true -- a Christian holiday, "Polar Express" is, in effect, yet another mechanism to detach Christmas from its Christian meaning, and re-shape it into something wholly different, pagan, and historically hostile to Christians and orthodox Christianity.

As this is targeted, apparently, at malleable children who are just discovering Santa isn't real, and are no doubt tempted to think about what that means for God, it is particularly pernicious.

Merry Christmas, everyone.