I arrived for around 6.35PM, though the course itself started at the advertised time of 7PM. Costa Coffee had been approached to stay open until 9PM to accommodate the course. The venue had some distinct pros and cons, more of which later.
I decided to partake in a quick drink before events began, and ordered at the counter, where I was promptly asked if I was there for "Bible Group" by the server.
Not knowing quite how to take this comment, I was thankfully rescued by her slightly more savvy colleague who clarified that she meant the Alpha Course. I confirmed that I was.
I certainly wasn't there for Bible Group. That carried an entire raft of presumptions and connotations that I was frankly unwilling to countenance at that point. I knew what she meant, I suppose, but I wasn't quite ready to identify myself as part of a Bible Group which conjured images of bearded men discussing obscure passages of the gospel with dowdy women over tea and garibaldis in dusty church halls.
There were already a small group of people gathered at this time, and as I anticipated, it wasn't long before I was approached and welcomed by some of the course administrators/leaders.
I was vaguely aware of some of them through visiting the Kerith church previously. In case alarm bells are ringing at this point over my objectivity, I should state that I was very much there in an observational capacity. The analogy I used at the time was that it was rather like attending a football match, sitting right in amongst the home fans, when you don't support the team at all.
Besides, none of them recognised me, and I was perfectly open and happy to chat as I would with anyone else.
Part of me had to beat down the suspicion that this was all part of a wider and more intricate 'recruitment drive' - as if their friendliness was disingenuous - a deliberate ploy to make it more difficult for people to openly disagree with them. Almost as if it would be a slight on their hospitality to take issue with anything they said. This was clearly a tad irrational and I discarded that pretty quickly.
In due course one of the leaders stood up and gave a quick speech. He briefly covered the theme of the first session, which was due to be an examination of who Jesus was.
I found what he said on a few accounts rather flawed to say the least.
He stated that Jesus was a historical character. I hadn't really accepted this, and still don't to be honest.
He stated that there was historical evidence for his existence. I don't really accept this fully either. I'm a history graduate and I happen to know a bit about the reliability of sources and the nature of "evidence". Evidence is an extremely misleading word to use without qualification in an ancient context. It certainly doesn't pertain to proof. It pertains to "what's left". That's not quite the same as "evidence" that would stand up in a court of law. What's more, there is far from universal acceptance about the accuracy of the "marquee sources" of Christ's existence.
Josephus is widely considered to have had his account tampered with by later Christians.
Tactitus has been the subject of speculation that he wasn't even talking about Jesus, and Suetonius the same (this Wiki gives a decent primer - but in the interests of balance I should say that Wikipedia equally isn't the best source to use and should be considered a pointer for further reading).
Maybe the most bewildering comment that the speaker made was that the bible describes "blood and water" flowing from Christ's side post-crucifixion and that this was therefore somehow proof that it had really happened.
The problems with this are myriad, but I would definitely be more inclined to believe it if a) Christ was the only person in the history of the world to be crucified and b) he was the only person in the history of the universe to have been skewered in such a way post-dying. As he was, even by Christian reckoning, not the only person to have been crucified, it's a fair bet this phenomenon had been witnessed quite a few times with individuals over which there was no claim to divinity.
To his credit, the speaker did state that the people in the room did not have all the answers.
I was content to listen and make a few notes at that point.
Afterwards, everyone split into three roughly equal groups.
Without over-stressing this point, I personally think that the background noise and lack of space really presented a major obstacle in the way that the discussion progressed - I couldn't hear a great deal of the conversation that occurred at the opposite end of the "lozenge".
Anyway, the “dramatis personae” of my group were (names changed for privacy - I only mention some basic information on age and background in order to give a little character to them for the reader):
- Roy– a 50-something gentleman, oddly reminiscent of Dennis Norden, attending for "curiosity"
- Margaret – avowedly already a Christian, around 40 years old, a suggestion of a foreign accent
- Jeff – mid-20s, tall and shaven-headed local chap who by his own admission was "99% a believer"
- Delta – a young member of the Kerith church, she was there to help deliver the course
- Steve - a guy in his 30s with a Mancunian accent, he was already a Christian by his own admission, and stated that his family had all attended the course
- X - a mysterious random girl who turned up late and therefore didn't get to introduce herself
- Des - 30s, a Lancashire accent, stated he was there "under duress", which amused me greatly
- Ernie – a very friendly guy - another member of the "Jesus Team" which I am going to start using as shorthand.
- David - The main Jesus Team leader of the discussion, a very personable guy with an American accent, and clearly quite educated on the subject - I think at one stage he inferred that he had attended university in the US in completing a theology degree or something similar, and this did seem to show through, as he was pretty articulate and well informed
- Keith - A South African guy of about 50 who was attending to accompany his friend, who was
- Thomas - Extremely tall chap, again a current churchgoer, also South African, perhaps in his early 40s
- Me - (Jim) - early 30s, a self-confessed cynic, there out of curiosity. I was told that I was "in the right place".
This surprised and irked me a little. The course had been intended as an introduction for non-Christians hadn't it? Why were so many people who were already in various degrees secure in their faith attending this course - "an Introduction to Christianity"?
This did, I freely admit, make me feel rather defensive from the off in addition to the generally uncomfortable environment. It wasn't that I needed numbers on my "side" - it was that in logical terms, I was given less chance to participate than I might have, in the interests of getting everyone's views and accommodating everyone's chance to speak. It struck me as akin to turning up to the cinema and being stuck in a bad seat behind a lot of people who had already seen the film.
First off was a quick round-robin of whether Jesus existed in the opinion of each person. I was the sole dissenting voice, in that I stated I didn't think he did. This was actually a slight misrepresentation of my own position. My position is that I don't know, and that neither does anyone else with any degree of certainty by conventional measurements. I think the environment and the demographics of the group had made me slightly more strident than I had intended to be.
Responses to this ranged from unease, to shock, to stating that most biblical scholars (and "even Dawkins") agreed that he was a historical figure. I didn't cede this exactly, again being aware of the limitations of the evidence, but this led us onto the next identifiable component of the discussion.
The conversation moved to the by-now famous quote of CS Lewis and a big part of the "Alpha rationale" for Jesus's veracity. The quote in question is as follows:
CS Lewis
The reactions to this were interesting after a slow start. Margaret interjected with a slightly puzzling defence of Jesus against a claim no-one in particular was making - that he was a "looney". She derided the ignorance of people who made this claim, making a salient point that experience of "madness" could be defined as quite relative. She spoilt her point a little later on by scoffing at Hindus for "worshipping an elephant", which undermined her insistence that knowledge and enlightenment was so important.
Something I found increasingly frustrating, but not entirely unexpected, was how each member seemed to frame their thoughts on these issues via the prism of their own experience. Whilst it might inform their opinion and explain things to themselves, it's not particularly helpful in a wider context. In this case, the question of Jesus's existence (or not) is not contingent on what happened when you were a child, on whether you had personally experienced religion or where you were born and what your parents did. It's a human imperative to share this information to explain your point, but it's rather irrelevant when you're trying to establish facts rather than perceptions. Nonetheless, we perservered. Des in particular skirted the very point I later brought up, by saying that the definitions were too narrow.
After some time, I spoke up and pointed out that the entire quote was in my opinion terminally disingenuous. That it makes several assumptions and also presents only 3 "logical" outcomes which are entirely fabricated within a system of cause and effect created by the author. I was interrupted slightly by Eric who agreed and made a point that I am unfortunately unable to recall, but which was along the lines supporting the thrust of Lewis's argument anyway. I accepted the possibility (whatever it was) and then put forward a hypothetical suggestion that there might be a 5th, 6th or countless other explanations. I stated that if there had been a historical figure called Jesus, it's perfectly possible that he was a very charismatic and clever political antagonist, never claimed to be the son of God and that this was conferred upon him afterwards (something I've since found has been partially corroborated as a theory). I also stated that it was possible he was simply a symbol for a movement or an embodiment of an ideal. As a parrallel (one I have just created, though I wish I'd thought of it at the time), there have never been lions in England, but they appear on our national coat of arms and football shirts. To accept Lewis's logic, you had to accept Jesus ever existed, which of course was pretty problematic in the first place given my previous position.
The conversation moves on, with a cursory nod to this possibility, in particular by Des who seems impressed by the point.
Jeff now spoke (the 99%'er), stating that he went to church and was impressed, but had trouble reconciling how happy everyone seemed. To me this was a telling point - the inference that there was something troublingly false about the entire church going community.
I thought to myself "Amen to that" and then mused on the irony.
Of course, Jeff's comment was a wild generalisation, but it's also as valid as anything else that was said. He seemed to imply that church had focussed on being a welcoming and unified "whole" at the possible expense of authenticity of feeling among the communion. Or that it was a club for happy people. This is speculation of course, and I am wary of interpreting things that weren't intended.
Comic interlude #1 happened about now:
Roy at this point launched into a mini-tirade "The thing is, only the most extreme and stupid American people believe in the creation happening as in Genesis. "
He was saying this to someone he clearly didn’t realize was an evangelical American Christian who I reckon it was odds-on believed in creationism. I think I was the only one that noticed, but it made an interesting point - that many outsiders to the Christian faith in the UK don't realise and cannot believe that anyone in this country would for a second believe something like creationism. I don't know if it's covered in detail on the course, but if it is, he's in for a shock I think.
The conversation meandered onwards and Ernie brought up an interesting point - or an interesting conversational gambit, depending on your viewpoint. The crux of his point was that no-one could show me Jesus. That our experience would be different in each case. This struck me as rather convenient. Delta also spoke to say that she had experienced Jesus and considered him 100% real. This struck me as unhelpful - again it was centred on personal experience, and it also meant that to contradict her was to call her a liar.
To even discuss facts in the face of such personal and spiritual "evidence" seemed like a real problem suddenly.
I didn’t get a chance to say anything about every religion swearing by “experience” of their particular deity, and that if she’d grown up in Afghanistan she’d have no doubt been just as devoted a muslim. I felt this might have been incendiary, and disrespectful, and in a sense was just as insubstantial an argument as any about "experience" might be.
The second comic interlude occurred about this point in proceedings. An exchange occurred that was quite brilliant in its all-round confusion.
Des: [makes a point about faith, referencing a self-defeating aspect of Dawkins' own writing].
{slight pause}
Keith: What did you say? Is he the guy who wrote about the universe?
{puzzled silence}
David: I think... that was Stephen Hawking?
Keith: No, the guy with the monkeys.
Simon: No, that was Charles Darwin.
Keith: Ah right. Thanks.
From Dawkin to Hawking to Darwin in one smooth evolution.
And then the group wrapped up.
All in all I would give the first course a 4/10. Too many people not interested in a discussion but just thinking it’s some kind of Holy "Jeremy Kyle" exercise, when that really wasn't meant to be on the agenda.
The key issue was that it was too noisy and too crowded though - without these it would have been a higher mark.
I hope that next week will see the space addressed a bit more effectively, or alternatively that the numbers will thin out.
Jeff now spoke (the 99%'er), stating that he went to church and was impressed, but had trouble reconciling how happy everyone seemed. To me this was a telling point - the inference that there was something troublingly false about the entire church going community.
I thought to myself "Amen to that" and then mused on the irony.
Of course, Jeff's comment was a wild generalisation, but it's also as valid as anything else that was said. He seemed to imply that church had focussed on being a welcoming and unified "whole" at the possible expense of authenticity of feeling among the communion. Or that it was a club for happy people. This is speculation of course, and I am wary of interpreting things that weren't intended.
Comic interlude #1 happened about now:
Roy at this point launched into a mini-tirade "The thing is, only the most extreme and stupid American people believe in the creation happening as in Genesis. "
He was saying this to someone he clearly didn’t realize was an evangelical American Christian who I reckon it was odds-on believed in creationism. I think I was the only one that noticed, but it made an interesting point - that many outsiders to the Christian faith in the UK don't realise and cannot believe that anyone in this country would for a second believe something like creationism. I don't know if it's covered in detail on the course, but if it is, he's in for a shock I think.
The conversation meandered onwards and Ernie brought up an interesting point - or an interesting conversational gambit, depending on your viewpoint. The crux of his point was that no-one could show me Jesus. That our experience would be different in each case. This struck me as rather convenient. Delta also spoke to say that she had experienced Jesus and considered him 100% real. This struck me as unhelpful - again it was centred on personal experience, and it also meant that to contradict her was to call her a liar.
To even discuss facts in the face of such personal and spiritual "evidence" seemed like a real problem suddenly.
I didn’t get a chance to say anything about every religion swearing by “experience” of their particular deity, and that if she’d grown up in Afghanistan she’d have no doubt been just as devoted a muslim. I felt this might have been incendiary, and disrespectful, and in a sense was just as insubstantial an argument as any about "experience" might be.
The second comic interlude occurred about this point in proceedings. An exchange occurred that was quite brilliant in its all-round confusion.
Des: [makes a point about faith, referencing a self-defeating aspect of Dawkins' own writing].
{slight pause}
Keith: What did you say? Is he the guy who wrote about the universe?
{puzzled silence}
David: I think... that was Stephen Hawking?
Keith: No, the guy with the monkeys.
Simon: No, that was Charles Darwin.
Keith: Ah right. Thanks.
From Dawkin to Hawking to Darwin in one smooth evolution.
And then the group wrapped up.
All in all I would give the first course a 4/10. Too many people not interested in a discussion but just thinking it’s some kind of Holy "Jeremy Kyle" exercise, when that really wasn't meant to be on the agenda.
The key issue was that it was too noisy and too crowded though - without these it would have been a higher mark.
I hope that next week will see the space addressed a bit more effectively, or alternatively that the numbers will thin out.
No comments:
Post a Comment