Well, Stephen Fry’s been having a very public go at God. And of course
he’s stirred up some interesting responses: Russell Brand for one!! And David
Robertson the Christian Scientist/Philosopher has a response out there too.
Both
Brand and Robertson make good points. Basically Fry, a clever bloke by all
accounts, has made the mistake of assuming that it would be God’s job, if God
existed, to make and keep the world perfect. That’s what Fry thinks God should
be for. Robertson makes the point that love is what it’s all about and
challenges the Fry point of view by asking what a so called perfect world would
have to be like. Brand challenges the criticism of religions in general that
takes them quite literally and ignores the deeper spiritual message that drives
them. Good for him.
One
of Fry’s criticisms of Jesus is that some his sayings are “twee” and
impractical, like the one about letting the person without sin cast the first
stone. Fry omits to give Jesus the credit for having just saved the life of the
adulterous woman with that little line. And no-one has ever suggested that that
saying should or ought to become the basis for world jurisprudence, least of
all Jesus. Fry also takes the very easy and emotionally loaded line of using disease
in children as a club with which to bash Theism. There are many devout
believers in God who have watched their children succumb to dreadful diseases
and who have not tried to blame God for this.
It
looks like Fry is having a go at the God of Christianity in particular,
although presumably all forms of God are included in his attitude. He does not
pause to think that because of the Christian Faith, he can very safely and
easily say what he does, because one of the hallmarks of contemporary Christian
society is that it offers safety and protection to those even who disagree with
it.
I
know Christianity has a lot of bad stuff to answer for, and that is why some people
who are a bit angry at its still rather venerated position in British society,
feel they can rant at it. But it is
neither wise nor clever to come to a conclusion about something’s validity,
usefulness or worth based on the worst examples of it. (I rather like the way
Brand uses this argument with regard to football!)
