cynicalbastard

Two of my more esteemed peers have been blogging on xianity over the last couple of days. Garry at curious hamster has been relating the story of Media Watch and their latest attempt to stop Jerry Springer: The Opera being performed. Meanwhile, that nice Mr. N. Monkey has been criticising a Polly article about the Narnia film (available from torrentspy should you not want to bother going to the cinema), and has had some very astute comments in response.

Let’s start with the obvious. I go to church. Not every Sunday, but not Easter and xmas either. Me and t’beloved make it every three weeks or so. I got baptised earlier this year. I’m a proud anglican. Some of my friends (including the host of this site) are, let’s say, not so happy about that. Not because I’ve become in any sense ‘born again’ (as you can tell from previous posts). But because of the fears and misunderstandings surrounding the christian religion. Which have come out in the analysis provided by both of the above-mentioned posts.

So, I’m answering them somewhat obliquely, and mostly answering the points raised in the comments to Nosemonkey’s post (especially a typically brilliant post from rachel from north London). Firstly, the decision I took to get baptised was because I finally decided that xianity wasn’t a choice on a landscape for me, it WAS the landscape. To be a yorkshireman, a European, I shouldn’t be playing with religions from the Far East. Within xianity, there is as much spirituality, as much mysticism as you can get from any of the mystery religions. And, this is the religioon of my fore-fathers/mothers. And therefore is part of me.

Which brings me to Problem No 1: White liberals who criticise xianity for being ‘airy-fairy’ and then go off into the realms of mystical religions where the whole basis is gnomic sentiments deisgned not to make sense ( try reading some Zen koans sometime).

xianity can be mystical. Read The Imitation of Christ. A stunning book with as much beauty and spirituality as the Hagakure or the I Ching any day. Hey, read the Gospel of John. Similarly.

Within xianity, you can be a mystic, you can be a realist, you can be, hey, yes it’s true, effectively an atheist.

At least as far as the ‘average’ person would understand you. Which brings me to Problem no.2, ‘Fluffy Christianity’, which is the subject of Rachel’s comment. What is taught in Sunday schools, and what is understood by most even quite intellectual members of society is a form of xianity that bears little relationship to ‘high’ theology. Noticeably, the Bishop of Durham writes ‘fluffy’ books as ‘Tom’ Wright and ‘high theology’ as NT Wright (and for anyone interested in religion, I recommend the latter). Within high theology, the ‘death of God’ movement has been mainstream in the past thirty years. It is possible, as I do, to not believe in an after-life, to not believe in a ’second coming’ (and to question whether this was ever believed until the mid-third century), and to still believe that Christ’s message offers the best way of understanding and touching God/Love/agape.

For that’s the point. Inherent within xianity is tolerance, and understanding. And it is the only religion (except for made-up versions of paganism) that really allows that. Within the biblical tale is the story of Thomas, the doubter who was allowed to remain within the apostolic fold, was allowed to comment, but wasn’t burnt, wasn’t tortured. This, it seems to me, is a thread of freedom. And within protestantism, the idea that individuals can access God is vital. The birth of protestantism is about access to language, to the Bible in the vernacular, to the ability (yes, within an established church) to re-interpret a sacred text for today. Oh, and for access to God through a personal connection, without following rules. Protestantism offers freedom. Anglicanism even more so. It is no surprise that the great democracies of the world (whatever their faults) are all protestant. Look at the other great religions and one sees rules at every point–this is how one must be for access to God. This is how one must act for access to God. Anglicanism says, no, one mustn’t BE any particular way, one is still entitled to have a relationship with God. And that’s why Mediawatch have missed the point so supremely.

Which brings me to Problem 3 friends and liberal commentators who criticise something they’ve never studied, and have no idea about. People who would rather read the qu’ran than the Bible. Who have a vague memory of sunday school and nuns with rulers, and seek to condemn on that basis, who say ‘Christ was great, but Paul distorted everything.’

Have you read Paul? Until Paul, xianity was a superior and elitist sect of Judaism. Paul opened it to the Gentiles. Paul democratised it. Paul saw the possibilities.

But the misunderstanding of Paul is another of the liberal confusions over religion. It’s one of those ‘passed down’ myths, which doesn’t hold true. But the whole subject of the chattering classes having no grasp on history, any more than they do on maths or science, is going to be a recurring theme herein.

…tbc