Bishop Alan Wilson has an interesting review of Philip Pullman’s new book The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ
I haven’t read the book, so I am relying here on the bishop’s review. As far as I can tell from that, Pullman has taken the 19th century speculation about the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith and turned them into two separate people, brothers but very different. Indeed there seem to be elements of the Prodigal Son story mixed in. But it seems that Pullman’s good man Jesus represents the real original man from Nazareth, and his scoundrel Christ is a caricature of what the church has turned Jesus into.
Bishop Alan quotes at length Pullman’s version of Jesus’ prayer in the garden:
Lord, if I thought you were listening, I’d pray for this above all: that any church set up in your name should remain poor, and powerless, and modest. That it should weild no authority except that of love. That it should never cast anyone out. That it should own no property and make no laws. That it should not condemn but only forgive. That it should not be like a palace, with marble walls and polished floors, and guards standing at the door, but like a tree with its roots deep in the soil, that shelters every kind of bird and beast and gives blossom in the spring and shade in the hot sun and fruit in the season, and in time gives up its good sound wood to the carpenter, but that sheds many thousands of seeds so that new trees can grow in its place. Does the tree say to the sparrow “Get out, you don’t belong here?” Does the tree say to the hungry man, “That fruit is not for you?” Does the tree test the loyalty of the beasts before it allows them into the shade?’
So far, so good. But I was disappointed at the Anglican bishop’s response to this:
Amen! This is a rather C of E ecclesology; The Church is anything but perfect, but always in need of necessary reformation. This comes from its interaction with the society it serves, not some infallible magisterium. …
No, Bishop Alan, Pullman’s Jesus is not commending the Church of England. It may not have an “infallible magisterium”. It may have become relatively poor, recently, but not by renouncing riches or giving generously, only by being inept at holding on to its wealth. But it still owns huge amounts of property, and makes its own laws or gets the government to do so for it. Many of its buildings are precisely “like a palace, with marble walls and polished floors”. Its bishops (not Bishop Alan, at least yet) still wield secular authority in the House of Lords. And if its official leaders are no longer quick to condemn, that lack is more than made up for by the pronouncements of some of its clergy and lay people.
If the church wants to show the love of the real Jesus to atheists like Pullman, it won’t do it by boasting that it is not as bad as those Roman Catholics with their “infallible magisterium”, but by doing something about the points which Pullman actually puts on the lips of Jesus. May the church indeed become
like a tree with its roots deep in the soil, that shelters every kind of bird and beast and gives blossom in the spring and shade in the hot sun and fruit in the season, and in time gives up its good sound wood to the carpenter, but that sheds many thousands of seeds so that new trees can grow in its place.
I take your point, Peter — it’s a bit of a fair cop! I don’t think I suggested Philip Pullman is an Anglican, or a good Anglican ecclesiologist, but that his “Jesus'” concept of what a church would be was peculiarly “C of E” English — implicit and all accepting. It certainly appealed to you, as it did to me, as a picture of what the Church could be. I have to say, however, that I don’t share, and suspect you don’t, Pullman’s scornful rejection of all the elements in Church that his “Christ” describes elsewhere in the book.
Thank you, Bishop Alan. I do see part of what Pullman is looking for in the al accepting nature of the C of E, or at least of large parts of it. As I wrote, I haven’t read the book, so I hope no one takes me as approving of parts I haven’t even seen.
I suspect the Eddie Izzard “C of E” concept of Church is something PP imbibed at School and College… The book’s a searching but vauable read. I have to say that PP’s account of the resurrection (cooked up by Twin 2 to sell Twin 1’s doctrine to the world) contains more narrative paradoxes than the real thing! For example, twin 2 uses his identical appearance to Twin 1 (which (inexplicbably) none of the disciples knew about before then) to sell the resurrection to the disciples on the Emmaus road, then scarpers to the coast, settles down and never bumps into anyone again who thinks he must be Jesus…
There is another interesting review of Pullman’s book in The Guardian, by no less a reviewer than Archbishop Rowan Williams. Thanks to Sam Norton for the link.
More on this topic in a new post at Bishop Alan’s blog.
Actually, there exists much support for the Bishop’s position. The whole Jesus story has its origins in Indian mythology with the esoteric twins Sanat and Sananda Kumara. Sanat was the Christ of India and represents the lower or base chakra, his name being an anagram for his true identity. It is this myth which is at the root of all the ancient savior tales like that of the Persian god Mithras. It was said that his polar opposite twin, Sananda, was to be born in flesh in Israel which led the Magi to believe that Mithras was to become incarnate so they visited Israel. It was therefore believed that Jesus was this individual who represented the crown chakra or the only way to the Father. To learn how the Romans usurped the ancient scriptures of Yeshu and the Nazorean religion and proclaimed them the revelations of their godman Jesus Christ visit; http://www.nazoreans.com