Get Sol Invictus (The Unvanquishable Sun) by Damozel |
This conversation between Ricky Gervais and the Archbishop of Canterbury has rattled a few cages and why? Because the archbishop acknowledged what I've known since Sunday school days: the nativity story as we "know" it is a cobbled-together story with elements of myth or legend. Who knew? The Telegraph reported:
His comments came during an interview on BBC Radio 5 Live with Simon Mayo yesterday. Later on in the show, the Archbishop was challenged by fellow guest Ricky Gervais, the comedian, about the credibility of the Christmas story.
It's quite clear if you listen to the conversation/read the transcript that the archbishop (NB: I don't like him) affirmed his belief in Christ and the Bible. His critics don't seem to be sufficiently taking in this part:
Gervais told Dr Williams he was concerned about "brainwashing" of children who are sent to faith schools at an early age, comparing teaching that God exists to belief in Father Christmas.
Dr Williams said faith schools expose children to the full range of human experience and values and he did not believe they indoctrinated people. (Archbishop says nativity 'a legend'; emphasis added)
Part of the problem is that the Archbishop is the most diffident cleric ever. Maybe he was intimidated by Gervais. No doubt he's as big a fan of The Office and The Extras as I am----how could he not be? So he didn't fight back as aggressively as he might have and he got himself as thoroughly and awkwardly ensnared as Andy Millman or Maggie ever did in The Extras.. And this all seemed to be due to simple diffidence, not to any intent on the part of Gervais to trap or trick him.
But he said nothing that I haven't heard every educated cleric I've ever known say. Here's the video:
As you can see yourself, he doesn't really say what the headline suggests; he simply says what anyone who has read the gospels must surely know. Isn't it demonstrably true that the nativity show that is the stuff of pageants is cobbled together out of conflicting accounts within the gospels? Doesn't everyone learn that in Sunday school? Does any educated Christian not know this? It's a charming story which attempts to reconcile differing accounts of the life of Jesus and was invented at a time when it was probably necessary to do so. And, as the archbishop points out, whether you believe in the story of the magi or don't, or whether you believe in the presence of the ox and the lamb, shouldn't matter to a believing Christian.
But of course the Christianists, who are all about the received wisdomhave got their Christmas stockings in a twist, and without even actually reading the transcript or listening closely to the interview first.
For example: The knee of Macsmind seems to have jerked reflexively when he read the Telegraph's rather misleading framing of the issue (that the archbishop challenged the "credibility" of the nativity story). As a result, he responds to what the archbishop didn't really say and didn't really suggest. Macsmind---who holds an honorary degree in theology, feels at liberty to call Dr. Williams "dumb"---writes:
Every year around Christmas - that’s CHRIST-MAS, the media trots out another “theologian” of the faith to get some dispiriting remark about the subject of Christ, and the day that is marked as his birth....
None of this is really news, as there is much “tradition” which is not based on fact, but there is fact - at least as far as the Bible is concerned that should be properly interpreted. So let’s check the story.
“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, Wise-men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and are come to worship him. And when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.” Mathew 2:1-3 (ASV)
By way of disclosure I own a honorary degree in theology. First, the good doctor’s interpretation of “Wise men”, or “stoicheia” in the greek is sometimes translated “astrologer”, but more accurately refers to “elements of learning”. The problem with defining the wise men as astrologers is that it is highly unlikely God would employ astrologers as He forbids contact with such throughout the Bible (Is. 47:13, Jeremiah 10:2; Deuteronomy 4:19).
Sure we are not told there were “three”, there could have been 20. The point is that their purpose in the record was to fulfill old testament prophecies about the Messiah. Their gifts which are detailed in the record, of gold, frankincense and myrrh are specific gifts in the Oriental custom of homage to royalty, thus they recognized the child as such.
We can agree that the birth most likely didn’t occur in December, but most likely a few months later.
Of course, one might quibble that someone with an "honorary degree in theology" isn't necessarily more qualified than the Archbishop of Canterbury to pronounce upon the meaning of the Christmas legend or to put the word "theologian" in quotation marks when referring to the archbishop's credentials, but I wouldn't dream of doing so. (Full disclosure: I do NOT have an honorary, or any, degree in theology). Because the fact is, the archbishop said little to nothing that is inconsistent with the assertions of (Dr.? the Reverend?) Macsmind. (Macsmind)
Crunchy Con has another, and seemingly rather bizarre. objection drawn from Mark Shea.
Still, I think Mark Shea has a good, though not entirely fair to Canterbury, point here:
Meanwhile, down the street, in the mosque and madrassa, other children are being schooled in very definite notions about God and man by people who are not at all interested in the full range of human experience and values and not at all worried about whether Ricky Gervais disapproves. Happily, a man of Gervais' gumption would never think to challenge them, so it's all good. (Crunchy Con)
I'm sorry, what? Because "down the street" certain other religions indoctrinate their children in fundamentalist faith, it's somehow a problem for us not to do the same? And anyway, in the interview, Dr. Williams specifically says that he had his children given a religious education and objected to Ricky G's characterization of this as "brainwashing," so he certainly wasn't arguing against religious education....
"Crunchy Con" says that the quoted material isn't fair to Dr. Williams, so then why does he quote it? What in the world is his point? If we sent all the kids to Jesus Camp, does it follow that the world would be a safer place?
The rest of his note seems to suggest that this is precisely what he means; that instead of wimpy, liberal Christianity which acknowledges the truth of our religion (which is that the text contains inconsistencies and leaves some questions unanswered), we need to provide people with a religion that gives clear answers. Otherwise, how can we win the war on terror?
Frankly, I can't think of a situation much more dangerous than two fundamentalist groups glaring at one another across the barricades. If Iraq had taught us nothing else, surely it has at least taught us that?
But perhaps I am not sufficiently subtle or well instructed in theology to pick up on the subtleties of these arguments by "Crunchy Con" and "Macsmind." I am, after all, a mere liberal.
As for Gervais, I would hazard a guess that if he'd been confronted with a rabbi, a Muslim cleric, a Baptist minister, a Mormon missionary, or Mike Huckabee, he'd cheerfully have introduced the same touchy topics. He's certainly not wanting in courage or frankness (which is why I love him so). I'm guessing that any rabbi, Muslim cleric, Baptist minister, Mormon missionary, Huckabee, or Huckabee surrogate might well be reluctant in future to engage him publicly in such a discussion after watching what happened to the archbshop, through no fault at all of Gervais. (Though I've left the Episcopal Church, I hope nothing bad happens to him. Maybe it won't. This is the gentle, intelligent Church of England. In that church, Eddy Izzard tells us, the most ferocious threat would be, "Cake or death!" Note to fundamentalists and conservatives: Don't click that link! It shows a man in woman's garb, which Deuteronomy expressly forbids.)
Here's my Christmas wish: a world in which political bloggers actually read and reflected before reacting to an article in the press. But I'm not expecting Santa to bring it to me.
RELATED POSTINGS
Comments