‘EASTER SHOULD be a time of shameful reflection for Christians – because, undoubtedly, Jesus of Nazareth gave his life in vain.” Thus ends David Adams recent article, a litany of the many appalling failures of Christians.
On one level, it is hard to disagree with him. The failures of Christians are well-documented. It is true that the message of non-violence that Jesus preached has often been completely ignored. It is true that the concept of torturing people in order to “save their souls” was barbaric. It is true that the failures of the Catholic Church to protect children are atrocious.
But is that all there is to say about Christianity? On the occasional times that I read the responsorial psalm in my local church, I see the faces of decent, good people looking back at me, struggling to raise their children well and contribute something to the world. Their stories and motivations are entirely absent from David Adams’s column.
He does acknowledge the existence of a few good Christians, but they are, according to him, “almost entirely absent from the higher echelons of the vast empires, on all sides, that have the cheek to masquerade as the receptacles and manifestations of Jesus’s true word”.
Is that entirely fair? Can this sweeping condemnation be applied, just to give one example, to Archbishop Rowan Williams, who has announced his impending retirement as archbishop of Canterbury? Are all senior clergy hypocrites and empire builders? I am not trying to operate some kind of cosmic weighing scale, which if it tips in favour of goodness among Christians will render David Adams’s objections meaningless. Failures and scandals remain failures and scandals.
It is interesting, however, to read psychologist Jonathan Haidt. He started out disliking most religions. He remains a secular atheist. However, as he researched his chosen area of moral psychology, he kept coming across evidence that did not chime with his own biases.
As a moral psychologist, he was aware that many of our decisions are made on the basis of intuitive emotions, which we then rationalise after the event, usually by selecting evidence that agrees with our original decision.
He did not want to fall into this trap, so he carefully analysed the data, and came to this conclusion. “Surveys have long shown that religious believers in the US are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people. Most of these effects have been documented in Europe too.”
He cites work by Arthur Brooks that shows “religious believers give more money than secular folk to secular charities, and to their neighbours. They give more of their time, too, and of their blood.
“Even if you excuse secular liberals from charity because they vote for government welfare programmes, it is awfully hard to explain why secular liberals give so little blood.”
Of course, the positive aspects of religion are not confined to Christians, although they are of the majority religion in both the US and Europe. Nor am I in any way suggesting that people who do not believe in a god are not moral or caring.
Yet it is also true the message of Jesus has shaped our civilisation, underpinned our notion of human dignity and rights, and prompted countless acts of kindness and care.
I suspect that none of Haidt’s research would cut much ice with David Adams. Interestingly, although he claims he does not know much theology, his condemnation of Christians is essentially a theological one. Jesus has died in vain, because Christians fail so signally to be other Christs.
But perhaps his test is too focused on achieving perfection. There was a very interesting discussion on the The God Slot, an RTÉ Radio programme, addressing the meaning of Jesus’s life, death and resurrection in a much more expansive way.
I have a soft spot for The God Slot, and not just because my son has been interviewed a couple of times on it. RTÉ is under pressure at the moment, and rightly so, because of some of its current affairs coverage, but it is easy to forget how many excellent programmes are produced by the broadcaster, often on a shoestring.
Yesterday’s edition gathered Mark Patrick Hederman, Abbot of Glenstal; Barry McMillan, lecturer in theology and ethics; Mary Grey, University of Wales emeritus professor of theology; and Rev Ferran Glenfield, rector of Kill o’ the Grange parish.
It was great to hear an intelligent discussion, led by Eileen Dunne, where various reasons for Jesus’s death, ranging from the traditional idea of ransom for our sins, to a feminist reading that saw it as a challenge to patriarchal violence, were discussed without rancour. There is a listenership for calm, respectful discussion, and not just on religious topics.
The one thing that all the contributors agreed on was that Jesus acted out of love, a love so deep that it is hard to even begin to comprehend. Even in the case of the David Adams’s article, it is touching how much he admires the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, and acknowledges that love.
I think, though, David Adams is missing something. Christians are not believers because they think they can perfectly emulate Christ, but because they are painfully aware of their complete inability to do so on their own, and their need of forgiveness over and over for their selfishness and hard-heartedness. He lives.
Happy Easter.