Episcopal fluff
The Bishop of Oxford seems to be in an irritable mood.
For a Christian it is always too early to give a final verdict, for only at the end of time will all be known, or as Tony Blair put it, it must be “left to God’s judgment”. It is strange how this standard piece of Christian orthodoxy should arouse such ire amongst the cultured despisers of religion just because it came from a Christian prime minister. They should have been worried if it hadn’t.
No it isn’t. It isn’t strange at all. It’s the taking it for granted that is strange. We know it’s a standard piece of Christian orthodoxy, of course, but that’s just it – it’s a standard piece of Christian orthodoxy and it’s a fairy tale. Our ire is aroused when people take for granted that an invented person-like yet mysterious agent will ‘at the end of time’ deliver a judgment on Tony Blair’s decisions. The bishop probably wouldn’t find it strange if people got irritated because Blair said his decisions must be ‘left to Harry Potter’s judgment’ at the end of time, but Christian orthodoxy is supposed to transform fantasy into the unremarkable. Well it doesn’t.
Yes, I prefer to rely on reason rather than eternity, if that is how you insist on putting it…But this is not all the mind does. When you and I read art critics we are looking for more than an ability to argue rationally. We want discernment and discrimination. If you like, we want sensibility as well as sense. This involves the mind to the full but not the mind alone. It is the same when we are thinking about moral or spiritual matters: the whole person is involved.
But what does that have to do with theism? (It is atheism that Harries is railing against.) Nothing, as he goes on to admit himself. But then what, exactly, is his quarrel with what he so elegantly calls ‘the attack dogs of the new atheism’? It’s hard to say. They think moral progress is possible. Harries prefers John Gray. Hmm.
Thanks Ophelia! I was so annoyed after reading the exchange between Harries and Jenkins that it put me off my food! I guess Jenkins felt he had to use the kid gloves, but I fear he let the old bishop get away with too much. As you point out, the absolutely staggering insouciance of Harries’ idea that, of course, we’ll have to wait an eternity for some judgement about Blair’s (and his government’s) decisions regarding Iraq is, not to put too fine a point on it, bullshit! And when he goes on to say (or was it before?) that he would expect that Christian cabinet members had prayed, surely someone’s gasket should have blown! I mean, these are decisions that affected the lives of millions. And accountability for them is postponed to eternity and to the eternal to which some of them may have prayed! Give me strength!
OB: Today I got your book, “Why Truth Matters,” and “Persepolis,” from the local Library. Good old Ballymun branch had both of them in stock. I hope with all the regeneration that has gone on in that specific downtrodden area of Dublin – over the last five years or so – that the people there will also be further rejuvenated in having availed of both Marjane Satrapi’s book and yours and Jeremy’s.
Mind you, I spilled some ice-cream all over Persepolis’ beautiful red hard book cover – whilst lifting my bag from the next seat to me to let a Canadian/Korean person sit down.
What a start! I thought I saw a black map of Britain & Ireland on the back of the cover as I was browsing? Or is that just my imagination?
GT, most politicians almost always get away with logical contradictions, that is why religion is still not dying out rapidly
I knew that JoB’s comment reminded of something:
Gore Vidal
Washington D.C.
Working politicians tend to be tolerant of one another, realizing that one man’s conviction is another man’s heresy, which was why it was helpful not to have too many convictions.
Marie-Therese, Persepolis is fantastic. There was an interview with Satrapi a few weeks back in the Observer. You can find it here if you haven’t seen it already.
She doesn’t seem to have changed that much since childhood. “Young Marjane is a stroppy, piss-taking, veil-wearing Marxist-anarchist who embraces her many contradictions with self-absorbed relish” Apart from the veil-wearing obviously!
To my shame, I must confess I still haven’t read Why Truth Matters…
On scrutinising closer the blobs on the back of the cover of Why Truth Matters, I discovered that they were not in fact the maps of Britain and Ireland. At first glance, it just seemed that way.
I would love to know the denotation behind the bulb and the contiguous black blobs, etc on the milieu of the back/front cover of the WTM’s book. It is so captivating and absorbing to peruse… On discussing it with some other people, we rather came to some conclusion. It being that the bulb represented light and light equalled Truth and that all the flies of life were to the light drawn. Moreover, all the splattered blobs were deformations that were twisted, buckled, splattered, and blinded by the truth.
“Marjane Satrapi gusts into the room like a hurricane. She is a tiny woman propped up on huge white platform heels.” (Guardian)
For some reason I thought she was very tall.
0B, encountered her in person – so would know best about that matter.
Thasnks for the link, Arnaud.
I will definitely buy both books. It would be great to (sometime) get them both authographed by the three very talented authors.
Hint, hint nudge, nudge!
I wonder would that request be difficult with respect of Marjane Satrapi?
The animated film version of Persepolis is on general release at cinemas in Ireland.
I saw it last year at an Irish film festival – and would thoroughly recommend it to everyone.
It is such a gem of a film.
Tiny?! She’s huge! She’s like a lumberjack or a truck driver. (And I mean that as a compliment.)
Not, then, in keeping with the subject of this thread, a bit of fluff?
Hardly. She’s big, she’s fierce, she’s powerful. ‘Tiny’ – what a joke.
If the Guardian is referenced here in connection with something positive, I am intrigued.
Is “Persepolis” funny as well as a gem? Personally I can only stand serious if appropriately combined with funny.
DFG, “She fills the room”, I guess was the point in the Eastern time zone. You can do that and be tiny. In fact, my neighbour was tiny & literally a truck driver, but nobody ever picked a fight with him. Nor did he with others which I have to say I still admire.
DFG – I said go away. I wasn’t kidding. I want you to stop posting here.
Pardon, OB?
Where did you make this request?
The link to this area states that it is a place to where you can disagree. So is it or not?
JoB,
Comprehend your point on filling the room, just raising the issue that physical stature is admired for some resaon.
Anyway, it appears that OB has banned me. So will probably have this post pulled, so anyway, thanks for your clarification.
DFG, yes, this is a place where you can disagree, and that’s why I told you via email that I am fair game, but Marie-Therese is not.
On the other hand, disagreement is one thing and talk of my foetid corpse is another. That comment rendered you finally persona non grata here.
So, Persepolis, is it funny?
Strange chap, Richard Harries (and likeable – I’ve met him, briefly). At the end, he admits that his god is completely unknowable; and then says he has faith that it’s both crucified and risen. Strange how intelligent people can compartmentalise their minds like that.
I rather like his question “whether the values we most cherish go with the grain of the universe or are a brave cry against it.” The whole universe is maybe too great a challenge for some amusingly unhairy apes on a tiny planet. But just on that planet, I’d go for the cry against the ‘eat other life-forms before they eat you’ grain. I realise that I don’t know what the conventional answer of Christians is. Do they go with the grain, because the universe is just an embodiment of their slightly de-clawed version of YHWH? Or what?
http://www.sonyclassics.com/persepolis should give you a taste of the film. Listen to the original soundtrack/music, which is terrific. One can get the feel of it – even if one does not speak French.
Make sure, if you go to see the film, that you see the original French soundtrack version with English subtitles – as opposed to the redubbed English one.
Perceptibly, the film’s topic is not at all hilarious. Nevertheless, in saying this Marjane with her bubbly, humorous a hoot personality (for the most part) comes across as being very funny indeed. The intrepid/mischievous/insubordinate uproarious behaviour of hers emphatically has the audience laughing a lot.
Cannes in 2007 awarded Jury Prize to the film.
“Embroideries” is also another memoir about Marjane Satrapi growing up during the Islamic Revolution.
“Strange how intelligent people can compartmentalise their minds like that.”
Indeed. His whole side of the discussion is riddled with compartmentalization. There’s a riotous bit where he says the idea that heaven is mostly populated by people who were never born is absurd. As if the idea that heaven is populated by people who were born is not absurd. As if the idea that heaven exists at all is not absurd.
Had a few moments, and was going over some old discussions. If anyone is still following, I think the remark about going with the grain of the universe comes from Stanley Hauerwas’s Gifford Lectures. I think it’s entitled, “With the Grain of the Universe.” Of course, it’s supposed to be about natural theology, but it’s not.
I like the phrase – but there’s no need to be a theist to want to go against the grain of the universe. Dawkins is an against the grainer – that’s why he often points out that he’s a passionate Darwinian in science and a passionate anti-Darwinian in morals and politics. Pretty much anyone with any morality at all is an against the grainer, because it’s natural for everyone to be greedy and selfish at least some of the time.