 |
| Fast disappearing in modern Britain |
Have
you heard what Don Thompson president and CEO of McDonald’s said about his
restaurant's most famous product the other day?
In
a candid interview he admitted that he sometimes had doubts about the burgers. “To be frank, I cannot ignore what my body is telling
me. Last time I ate a Big Mac it sat in my stomach like a stone for the rest of
the day. I can’t help feeling that there’s something basically wrong with a
food product that bungs you up like that. And then there’s the gas!”
It’s
easy to imagine what happened next. Hundreds of franchise owners around the
world jammed telephone lines to McDonald’s HQ to express their outrage and demand
the immediate resignation of Thomson. Several dozen went so far as to make
their feelings known in person by hopping the next flight to Oakbrook, Illinois.
One
such was Anjay Manchoo of Bombay.
“I
can’t tell you how betrayed we all feel by Don’s revelation of his secret
doubts. If he feels that way he should never have accepted his position in the
first place.”
Sandra
Sossej of Little Rock Arkansas was livid and even more uncompromising at
Thompson’s betrayal. “He’s got to go! There’s
no place in McDonald’s for a president that doesn’t have 110% faith in our merchandise.”
As
you will have guessed, this is all a fantasy cooked up by me.
No
McDonald’s president would ever publically utter any doubts he had
about the nutritional value of his company’s products. Not only would it be a terrible
betrayal of his duty to the company that employed him and the many thousands of
people around the world that depend on McDonald’s for their livelihoods. It
would also be manifestly stupid and result in his getting such a bum’s rush out
the door that he would likely be the first McDonald’s ex-CEO in space.
Archbishops
of Canterbury on the other hand are another matter.
Just
last week the Most Reverend Justin Welby who currently occupies the role admitted
to his own personal doubts on the very existence of God. When asked if he ever
struggled with doubt, the Archbishop replied: “Yes I do. I mean there are
moments where you think, ‘Is there a God?’ ‘Where is God?’ “
Later
he expanded on an instance of misgiving. He’d been jogging and thinking about
all the suffering in the world when the question popped into his head: “Look
this is all very well but isn’t it about time you did something, if you’re
there”
Then
he acknowledged that Christians have problems explaining why God permits
suffering in the world.
A
couple of observations:
Faith
While
expression of public faith is important for a McDonald’s CEO, it’s absolutely
vital for an Archbishop of Canterbury. This is because whilst McDonald’s has
products that you can taste and evaluate for yourself the Church of England’s
product is invisible and entirely a matter of faith. If the Archbishop of
Canterbury doubts the existence of God, his church has no product.
In that context the lack of reaction to the Archbishop's remarks from offended clergy and worshippers tells its own story about the moribund state of Anglicanism.
In that context the lack of reaction to the Archbishop's remarks from offended clergy and worshippers tells its own story about the moribund state of Anglicanism.
Injustice
The
Archbishop’s claim that Christians have trouble with God allowing suffering in
the world is Kardashian in its puerility. It’s Christianity 101 that God
has granted humanity free will. That is the choice to do good or evil.
Obviously if somebody chooses evil somebody else suffers. This is the logical
consequence of God granting us free will. Would the Archbishop prefer if we (like
Muslims) didn’t have free will?
As
regards suffering and injustice, Jesus makes it plain that we should not expect
justice in this world. We are to consider only the next world where all the
injustices of this one will be righted.
The
only way that injustice could be difficult for a Christian to explain would be
if he didn’t believe the Bible.
And
this is clearly the basic problem with the Archbishop. He’s groovy with all the
Christmas card conceptions of a hippy Jesus being exceptionally nice to
everybody. The only problem comes when this Christianity comes into conflict
with his progressive principles. How can he talk about all the injustices of
this world being compensated by eternal bliss with a straight face if like a
good progressive he believes only in the here and now?
The
Archbishop’s greatest fear is clearly not the supreme being. What his remarks
reveal is how scared he is that his liberal buddies should think that he really
believes all that ridiculous God stuff.
That’s
why the Archbishop of Canterbury says what a McDonald’s CEO would never dare
to.
Is
it really too much to ask that of the head of the Anglican communion should
believe in God? Or failing that, that he should behave at least as well a McDonald’s
president?
Brilliantly put!
ReplyDeleteJohn, I think you will find this essay relevant, not for its main subject, Islam, but as a critique of religious leadership as it pertains in the West today. The stand-out passage for me comes towards the end: "It’s particularly unnerving when the narratives about Islam and immigration subscribed to by so many bishops match up with those of secular leaders whose main allegiance is to the church of political expediency."
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link. It's an interesting piece, but I wasn't persuaded by the point that Christian leaders felt they were defending all religion when they defended Islam.
ReplyDeleteLike all good liberals they can't bring themselves to face the reality of the true nature of Islam. They can't bring themselves to do it because that would mean facing up to the need to fight it root and branch. Much better to hope for the best and pretend that Islam is a religion just like Christianity or Judaism etc...
Yes, I think it's a bit of stretch to posit that Christian leaders won't criticise Islam publicly because they are worried that any criticism they make concerning Islam will redound upon their own faith. I expect it has more to do with their liberal outlook, which, at least in their minds, is grounded in compassion, reasonableness and inclusivity. If such conceits underwrite liberal self-belief, it is hardly a wonder its practitioners are deaf to any suggestion that they are deluded or mistaken. And should anyone venture such a suggestion, they can be easily disarmed with, "Where is your humanity? Have you no compassion? Muslims are people too!
DeleteThe Higher Criticism to which Christianity has been subject since at least the 19th Century is long overdue for Islam but, obviously, it cannot come from any quarter other than Islam itself; otherwise, it is an attack and an affront. Conceivably, an attack could be mounted on the grounds that Islam is not a religion, but a totalistic ideology that merely uses the language of religion and the unconscious, archetypal forces that attract people to conversion and a new way of life, in order to replicate itself and spread. But who is going to do that?
I am English, but not Anglican because Atheist and Agnostic. I do not care if the Archbish gets his knickers in a twist - that is the fate of all Holy Writ twits - to quote from a good arabic source - The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on, nor all thy piety nor wit can lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it - FitzGerald version - as well as I can remember it. IF you are so foolish as to nail your intellectual colours to the mast of some old text, then you are going to end up with egg on your face: and the longer you cling to the ancient runes, the sillier you are going to be. Christianity has reached its "Best before" date, and passed it by a good few centuries: once Gutenberg allowed reliable copies, ( an advance now abandoned by the internet, NB ) and thus critical (rather than obedient,) scholarship, Holy Mother Church lost her ability to stfle criticism, murder critics, and bend the teachings to whatever was necessary. And one of the meanings of "necessary" is a shithole. And what's sauce for the Christian biblical goose is sauce for the Islamic Koranical gander: a plague on both their houses.
ReplyDeleteI sign as Chris Goodwin, because I have had to log in as Anonymous - not because I am afraid of the flack, but because I do not recognise all the other alternatives.