jesus christ superhero?

[duke_aldhein]

On tomorrow morning's Radio Sheffield Breakfast, we have a local RE-teacher-turned-academic who apparently 'sees many parallels between Jesus and Superman'. This, the Daily Torygraph informs me, is her idea for making RE relevant to kids who've never been to Sunday School

Comments

[blackcurrants]

I'm currently reading Tyndale's account of trying to get the new testament translated into English:
'A thousand books had they lever to be put forth against their abominable doings and doctine, than that the scripture should come to light. For as long as they may keep that down, they will so darken the right way with the mist of their sophistry, and so tangle them that either rebuke or defyies their abominations with arguments of philosophy and with worldly similitudes adn apparent reasons of natural wisdom..'

the great, lasting appeal of Jesus is precisely that he *isn't* superman. He's not like Krishna or Hanuman, he doesn't fly or pick up mountains and carry them to new spots ... this came newly to my attention when a friend's 6 year old daughter in India regaled me with the Ramayana one afternoon, and then, eager for more excitement, said 'what does Jesus do?'. I couldn't think of a single thing that was superman-like enough to impress her. Though rising from the dead was impressive, she was rather critical of a god who would be weak enough to die in the first place.

[duke_aldhein]

That's a brilliant story! Thank you.

I've been thinking a lot about story-telling - how much more effective I'd be in all areas of life if I told more stories - instead of clambering on to my soapbox-cum-pulpit. In what sense, "effective"? I think I mean what my new friend Anthony calls "gentle power", power without control.

So I'll remember your friend's daughter next time I want to explain why Jesus is nothing like a superhero.

[blackcurrants]

i'm not very knowledgeable about the scripture and all that but what about all those miracles?

[blackcurrants]

oh the miracles are good, I'm not dissing them at all - I'm just saying that.. well, using your spit and some mud to cure a man of blindness is not as exciting/superpowery as flying or lifting up mountains, which some of the hindu pantheon do. Jesus touched people to cure them, or just spoke to them. not so superman-ish, more.. believable? maybe? I mean - he broke bread to feed the 5,000 - he didn't zap it with his laser-eyes.
oooh, now there's a thought...

[duke_aldhein]

Yeah, it's interesting how Jesus's "miracles" tend to be based on the power of relationship, the ability of human interaction to alter people's (experience of) reality, rather than the power of control. (My friend Anthony, himself no Christian, writes about the dynamics of these different kinds of power.)

It's not just the temptation in the desert where Jesus refuses to exercise that kind of (super-) power. There's his response to the people who want him to show them "a sign" (some spectacular demonstration of power): he teases them that they can recognize the significance of a "red sky at night..." but are blind to the signs of what's happening in their own society. On the Cross, he is taunted by people who challenge him to display his power. Even the Resurrection isn't a triumphant jack-in-the-box act, but the strangeness of the empty tomb, followed by that series of healing encounters with strangers in which Christ returns to his friends.

[blackcurrants]

You could see the miracle stories of all religions as a kind of propaganda, whose purpose varies according to who's telling the story. (I make no comment as to the worthiness of this propaganda or those who propagate it) The miracles draw you into the story, titillate your imagination, just as the amazing feats of superheroes do. At least Superman's derring-do is never claimed to be more than fiction, so our reaction to the story is less confused. When people are in difficulty they never entertain the hope that Superman will come along and help them out. Perhaps the fact that Jesus' miracles are relatively low-key just means that it's less of a leap to imagine something similar happening to you. And maybe that thought is just what the herd needs. Who am I to say?

[duke_aldhein]

Plenty of people - most of whom have given its history little thought and less study - have insinuated that religion (as a phenomenon) can be described adequately in terms of a manoeuvre by an elite of opportunists to dupe a docile populus. So you introduce the notion of 'the herd', implying - despite your ironic refusal to comment - that this is how the pastoral hierarchy treats its flock. (Yes, of course, the metaphor is already present in the historical mix.)

But what is troubling about such an argument is that it also depends on the idea that most of humanity can be dismissed as 'the herd'. Because, if they are not docile subhumans, but autonomous individuals with choices, lives, beliefs of their own, capable of resistance, irony, play and more, then the insistence with which the powerless restate their beliefs cannot be explained away so tidily. To suggest that religious believers are simply dupes is to regard them as inert and incapable of thought, which is a view various elites have taken of the majority of their fellow humans, and which has led them too often to the most abhorrent behaviour.

Much evil has been done in the name of religion, especially when it is tangled up with structures that give small numbers of people power over large numbers of people. But to present this as the essential form of religion is a bit like presenting rape as the essential form of sex.

[blackcurrants]

I agree absolutely that the evil done by over-powerful religious figures or hierarchies can't be used as a general argument against religion in all its shapes and forms. And I wouldn't for a moment suggest that organized religions are conspiracies conceived in order to dupe and manipulate docile herds of believers.
However, it is not hard for me to believe (what is important, it is less hard for me to believe than the alternative(s) might be) that, at some point, certain figures in history have exaggerated or invented details in the story of a man's life, quite probably with the express purpose of making that story more powerful and more likely to be taken to heart.
Now that is not to say that those intentions are necessarily dastardly and self-serving. Far from it, in fact. There are plenty of good arguments to be made for the social benefits to be enjoyed by a community that subscribes whole-heartedly and en masse to one religion or another. Individuals find solace and support, and the fabric of society is strengthened as a result.
I wouldn't presume to criticize anyone who holds that view or anyone in the docile populus whose needs are met by religion. However, I would suggest that the frankly utilitarian argument for religion can surely never be enough to make a true believer of anyone. A religion surely loses its power over the individual as soon as it is seen to be a serviceable story, a social technology (however gradually and unguidedly it has evolved). For a religion to be effective, its followers really need to maintain an unquestioning, literal belief in the stories of their religious tradition, as the overwhelming majority of religiously-inclined people no doubt do. But, if you follow what I have said above, then the flock have truly been taken in, for better or worse, by those who contributed to the development of the stories in the first place.
If you do dismiss literal interpretations of religious stories, how do you deal with the language of "belief" and "faith" that so pervades religious discourse?

[blackcurrants]

No comment, Duke?

[duke_aldhein]

In the past three weeks, I've moved house, worked 14 days for the BBC and made three trips to London on other projects, so I haven't had much time to take up theological disputes with anonymous disputants. I will do my best to respond to your comment in the next few days.

[blackcurrants]

Sorry Duke. I really didn't mean to be rude. It's just that my last reply was so delayed I wasn't sure if you had noticed it. I thought perhaps a revised comment count would draw your attention to it. But I wouldn't presume any great claim to your time, seeing as you're clearly a busy fellow.
It's an interesting question, though, so I look forward to seeing anything that you do get round to posting. As for the "anonymous disputant" - I don't keep a blog, I'm more of a trawler and temporary resident of other people's sites, so I don't have a web identity to use. You can call me JJ if you like.
JJ

[duke_aldhein]

Apologies for my bluntness earlier - I'll look forward to trying to explain how I see these things. As you say, an interesting question.

[duke_aldhein]

JJ - I have, finally, attempted to answer your question. I hope you'll forgive the delay, and my tendency to verbal pugilism. And I hope what I have written makes some sense to you.