Yet There Is Method In It

“But I don’t even believe in Jebus!”

A classic quote from the Simpsons, where Homer, forced into missionary activity for his failure to honour a donation to a PBS fundraiser, takes the path of Peter and denies belief.

Rowan Williams (now Archbishop of Canterbury) once said of the Simpsons it “is one of the most subtle pieces of propoganda around in the cause of sense, humility and virtue.” and continuing in his review of a book “The Gospel According to the Simpsons” says “Mark Pinsky manages to decipher the code without deadening the humour which is quite an achievement.”

All comedy, indeed all narratives and utterances and communications are according to the postmodernists codes.

And in that very Simspons quote above (biblically inspired and borderline sacrilege) lies the essence of the coding in humour. Who would have thought (I didn’t until recently) that Jebus was actually the name of the city of Jerusalem before King David conquered it?!

The theological value of the Simpsons lies in its ability to do three things in particular. It presents the Simpson family as a religiously observant family (note this does not make them saints) and thus reflects the reality of life in America and other parts of the world. Secondly it conveys a variety of moral dilemmas in its storylines (without being preachy or even committing to one particular worldview). Finally it treats institutional religion with the same satirical criticism as it treats all institutions – the “Church” has its faults just as does freemarket Capitalism, but it does not propose the abolition of religion nor promote Communism.

Laughing about religion is important – particularly in the abrahamic religions where humility is presented as a virtue. But is it possible to go too far?

I think the problem lies in an inability to decode the Gospel (if you are Christian) and an unwillingness to read the text existentially. Jesus as the scriptures point out is human, and a part of humanity is humour. But few people seem to talk about Jesus in the vein of a comedian or teller of jokes.

Why is this? Well three possibilities. Some of what Jesus says or some of the Gospel narrative is serious (Crucifixion is particularly difficult to satirize without arousing cries of insensitivity – irrespective of the religious aspect to Crucifixion it is one should imagine a fairly painful and nasty thing to have happen or to witness). Some of the humour that Jesus uses is perhaps lost in transcription (you had to be there to get it), lost in translation, or simply lost in encoding for the modern reader. And of course some religous believers amplify an aspect of their religious heritage to the dimunition of another (thus the divinity of Jesus is preciously guarded by the morally sensitive, but his teachings to turn the other cheek, his dire warnings of the persecutions suffered on his behalf are forgotten).

I think the first and last point are the most relevant regards causing and taking offence and as has been discussed on this blog ad nauseum there is certainly room for a little leeway on both sides. One can cause offence but one can also seek to be offended and self-censorship (the only kind that has any worth) can be practised by all parties.

Elton Trueblood an American Quaker theologian wrote an interesting book called Humor of Christ (sic) on the subject of a joking Jesus. He suggests that indeed some parts of the Gospel narrative are intrinsically unfunny and that it may be rather difficult to find any humour in certain parts of the narrative. But he says it is a misconception (often peddled by humourless Christians) that it is all to be taken seriously and that there was no comedy at all in Jesus’s teachings.

He describes Jesus’s humour as being ironic, sardonic, and on occasions where needed sarcastic. Thus the inconsistent Peter (he of the prophesied denials) is nicknamed “the Rock”. The parables are full of sly, wry and absurdist and surrealist imagery, beam and mote, gnat and camel, camel and the eye of the needle (to mention just a couple of examples). Trueblood concurs with my suggestion (or vice versa) that there is probably also a great deal more humour that has been lost in translation.

I certainly will need to re-analyze many gospel texts in order to see if there is plenty more humour available. Matheww 24:28 for example is cited as an example of Jesus’s self-deprecating humour. Describing his ability to draw a crowd he says “Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.”

However as Pinsky argues a joking Jesus is not the same as a Jesus joke and perhaps it is at this juncture we must return to the problem of offence (caused and taken). Trueblood offers perhaps the best descriptive advice on the matter when he says:

” The only kind of laughter which can be redemptive is that which goes beyond scorn to recognition of a common predicament.”

It is for that reason that I have always found Father Ted funny, and find much in the Life of Brian that is virtuous. But it is that thin balance between laughing amongst ourselves (both believers and unbelievers together) at the hypocrisy, or idiosyncracies of those persons or institutions that hold themselves up as a paradigm of virtue, and the more sinister scornfulness that seems a predicate to prejudice of the most vulgar kind. How many ‘attacks’ on Islam are less about the religion and its values than about the cultures that have embraced it?

I guess I havent really added anything new to this debate. After all what price freedom? But perhaps I would repeat my old adage that the concept of “rights” is really a concept about competing values. The right to freedom of speech is put in peril next to the right to freedom of religious belief, or freedom from persecution. Once the debate turns to “rights” inevitably the argument becomes circular.

Well now I need to wrap it up – before this post becomes circular. Clearly some notion of balance is required but wherein can one find the common denominator that everyone of belief or nonbelief can adhere to and agree with? My only suggestion humbly proffered – but pessimistic of already – is a retreat from notions of objectivity and the embrace of subjectivity.

Here is my long overdue book review on Richard Harries “The Real God“. Published in 1994 it is a short work on the philosophy of religion and basic theology by the then Bishop of Oxford Richard Harries. The full title of the book is The Real God: A response to Anthony Freeman’s God in Us. Thus this may be seen as being part of a dialogue, however to Harries credit it is not necessary to have first read the other book in order to make sense of this work.

This book is essentially a Realist apologetic for Christian belief and its remit is neatly summed up in the blurb by the question “If God exists, how can we know this?”

Immediately this should get materialist atheists and varying degrees of agnostics interested as the question seems to imply discussion on the physical and empirical basis of theistic belief. This should also interest students of “language games” who may wonder at the degree to which Harries seeks to straddle the science-religion divide. (Note this is really a false dichotomy – as Wittgenstein rejected the notions of islands of discourse – similarly in terms of hypothesis and narratives of origin religion and science have somewhat overlapping interests).

Significantly though this book was not written with the average Dawkins supporter in mind – and predates the “God Delusion” by some years. It may be interesting and informative to compare the different God-hypothesis both authors present (but thats a whole ‘nother task!)

Primarily as noted this book was a response to Anthony Freeman’s “God in Us”. Freeman was an Anglican priest and member of the “Sea of Faith” theological school who argued from a postmodern perspective about the human origins of religion. He eventually left the institutional church after
arguing that God as a metaphysical entity was not real, but that God was a projection of human ideals.

The Sea of Faith network have been variously described as Christian Atheists and Christian Humanists. Though as befits a postmodern school of thought they evade precise definition by virtue of holding many differing views without proferring any particular orthodoxy. Perhaps the most important position they do hold in common is that irrespective of the divine or human character of religion, the reality or non-existence of a deity, religion can play a positive role both personally and socially.

Harries responds to this with the intent that he is going to present a realist thesis on God. And although I have more sympathy for arguments that come from a via negativa (a negation of talking about the attributes of God) and am described variously by many as an anti-realist, I must confess that I enjoyed Harries arguments and style of writing.

He begins by exploring the character of God. What type of a person or being is he? Interestingly he is not concerned with obscure theological points (like how many angels can dance on a pinhead) but with human projections of divinity. He argues quite sympathetically that one of the prevailing themes in modern secularism and irreligiosity is liberation from an oppressive judgemental and rule-weilding God. And then goes on to propose that the projection of the divinity that we make (as reflected in art, prayer and theological themes) changes with society. Thus at different stages of history God the creator dominates moreso than God the judge etc. An example he gives is the Medieval triumphalism of God the King – an image that has less impact, significance and relevance to the modern mind.

This interesting chapter serves to illustrate that the conception of God is multifaceted as indeed is our experience of religion. And thus it is a reminder both to the individual believer, to the unbeliever who has left religion and to the religious institution itself that theistic-themes need to be constantly re-explored, re-invigorated and re-described.

Over a series of posts I will continue this review focusing on the various themes that Harries presents, and particularly at those themes that are of interest to this blog, and finish with some of my concluding thoughts.

Part 2 will deal with belief and disbelief, specifically with attempts to argue from design, and the psychology of belief and disbelief and its irrelevance to the notion of “proof”.

Part 3 will explore a postmodern analysis of faith.

Part 4 will deal with talking about that which we call “soul”, existential fulfilment of our lives here and now, and miracles and the laws of nature.

Part 5 will explore rationalism, the nature of scientific proof, relatvism, the eschatology of genuine “truth” with regards certain philosophical speculations and an apologetic for Christian Rationalism. Plus some concluding notes from me.

More links from the Only a Game blog where a series of reviews of Charles Taylors “A Secular Age” has been posted.

Here are the links to parts 5 & 6 which cover “The Nova Effect” a theory defining secularism as spiritual pluralism and “Religion Today” (speaks for itself).

Well worth a read. Charles Taylor is a very unconventional theistic philosopher and provides a sensible rationale for the cohabitation of the varieties of religious belief alongside and within secularism.