Christianity: A History is the biggest project I have commissioned during my time at Channel 4. It’s almost unheard of for a mainstream broadcaster to dedicate eight hours of prime time television to Christianity in this way. I think it’s fair to say that it’s a big risk, but a risk I really wanted to take.
About a year ago, both the head of C4 and I talked about ways of making the channel’s religious output feel special and stand out from the norm. The best way forward, I felt, was to bunch things together and make big statement projects, creating “must watch” moments; the kind of projects you just don’t see anywhere else. The first project in this new era featured both The Qur’an and The Seven Wonders of the Muslim World. Broadcast during one week in July 2008, these programmes really stood out and felt extremely relevant.
At the same time, I started to plan the next big project. A few production companies tried to sell a number of ideas but one idea stood out for me – Pioneer Productions wanted to tell the history of Christianity from an alternative perspective, and with particular relevance to Britain. It was an intriguing idea and felt like an exact fit to what I was looking for.
This project has been a mammoth undertaking for the producers – eight programmes, eight different presenters, multiple locations and continents, numerous directors, eight individual programme consultants, various lawyers, agents… and of course they had to deal with me! The end result of all this hard work is a series I am very proud of. Christianity: A History demonstrates just how seriously we take the subject of religion at Channel 4, and I believe it is exactly the sort of grown up and inquisitive programming our audience both asks for and deserves.
As with all religions, the history of Christianity is not a simple one. It contains dark moments, compromises and great achievements, and features life changing heroes and villains. I feel that now is the right time for Channel 4 to present these stories in a way that will inform our audience about how this faith has shaped our world, and more specifically, our nation. I’m not making such a grand statement for the sake of it, but rather to demonstrate an acceptance that we cannot understand our world today without realising how it was shaped.
Two examples of Christianity’s impact on the modern world are the Reformation and the Crusades. Without the Reformation we may not have become a Protestant nation with many of the characteristics, language and structures we take for granted today. And the Crusades? One of our presenters, Rageh Omar, argues in his film that we’ve forgotten its importance in the west, but that in the Muslim world, the brutality of the Crusades still resonates in the hearts of many Muslims and in the rhetoric of Al Qaeda.
So, Christianity: A History is not just history – it’s a lesson about today and an attempt to shed light on the history of a faith that continues to shape the destiny of all of us in some way or other. I hope it does that and that enough viewers get something from it. I don’t expect everyone to love it, but I expect it to make most viewers think, which can’t be a bad thing can it?
Update – Feb 24: For more on this, please take a look at Aaqil Ahmed’s video response your comments.
Commentsoldest first
Channel 4 can’t you get experts who know their bible better? The baptism of Jesus is mentioned in all 4 Gospels contrary to what your expert James D. Tabor stated. Also Jerome Murphy O’Connor says that the Messiah would be warring but in Micah 5 where His birth at Bethlehem is prophesised peace rather than war is inferred. Wheeling out a proper born-again believer on your shows would be too big a miracle/controversial for terrestrial TV in this Godless age!!!
Regarding the documentary on the Reformation on Sunday 8th Feb 2009, I thought that it gave an unbalanced account of things – witness the fact there was no-one to counter Dr. Paisley’s assertions – maybe Ann Widdecombe thought it best to let sleeping dogs lie!! Also, regarding that utterly smug guy who organised the Lewes processions on Bonfire night each year, for him to say that he makes absolutely no apology at all for burning effigies of the then Pope – well, i wished Ann would have punched him to be honest! If he had said that about an Imam or a Rabbi or any other religious leader, it would never have seen the light of day in a Britsh TV programme, or newspaper for that matter. If the Catholics are accused of paranoia, then on this (and other) evidence, they have good grounds for doing so! Good for you Ann, for having the courage to stick to your beliefs in the face of much bitter public opposition.
This one threw me too at first, but when I checked the Gospel of John carefully I realised that it never actually refers to Jesus being baptised, it only mentions John baptising people, Jesus coming to him and John talking about him. I found this very interesting because it shows how easily our preconceptions can colour what we think we are reading. I do agree though that the series as a whole contained numerous errors and was therefore a bit misleading, but to be fair the series didn’t present itself as a factual documentary only a collection of personal opinions of various well known people, not all of them academics. Personally I thought the most misleading episode was the second one in which Michael Portillo appears to repeat some of the errors in “The DaVinci Code” regarding the first council of Nicea.
While I was pleasantly surprised by the fact that Cherie Blair sees the future as not related to the pomp and ceremony of traditional church-going (as per the Book of Christ, by the way), I find it unfortunate that she is described as a “staunch Catolic”.
That does not compute.
We are now aware of many inconvenient truths:
1) The Bible was written by men, not a God
2) The books of the Bible were selected by men
3) There are myriad organised religions and factions within factions of each
4) If one of them is right, and that seems unlikely, it is very well hidden
among all the others
5) Given our beliefs it seems unlikel that all the followers of the other factions are doomed
Mrs Blair seemed to be interested in a non-denominational approach similar to the USA, which would be a big step forward in my view but there is something lacking in that to my mind – a blind, bland faith of not very well defined form. And to be honest it smacked very much more of popularity than conviction.
What I would like to see is a move away from popularity… an attempt to “get at the truth”. Perhaps a joining with science to look at the spiritual nature of Man and try to advance our knowledge and understanding rather than come at this with preconcieved ideas as is the case today.
The days of churchmen as leaders of a community, pontificating from on high (and sometimes from very far away as with a Pope) are gone.
And it concerns me to see Cabinet members voting their Catholic religious conscience – the Pope cannot be allowed to vote in British cabinet. If they cannot put that aside then they are not fir for office in my view.
Instead, let’s see the various denominations come together to examine the God question together with a view to moving towards enlightenment and understanding rather than telling us how it is – because, guys, we already know that you know no more than we do.
They won’t all join in at first, a few to begin with perhaps… but others will join later when they see that it is the way forward and everyone knows it.
Before that can happen people must be prepared to put aside the ingrained belief systems that they were brought up with – even indoctrinated with – and look at this from a clean-sheet perspective.
Hope this helps.
this programme deeply disturbed me, how can a programme called Jesus the Jew, then go on to talk about the Holocaust and the ghettos. This was another title for how the Jews have been victimised over the centuries.
I enjoyed watching Jesus the Jew but I am saddened that Howard has such a chip on his shoulder. I appreciate that the sins of the (Christian) fathers have caused such a problem but recently much repentance has taken place in recognition of this. I look forward to when we can provoke the Jews with our demonstration of love toward them.
Howard Jacobson in his expoloration into the history of Christianity, identifies the apostles as the early Christians who started the anti-Jewish ‘campaign’. I am a bit confused, if I’m not mistaken the apostles were Jews too!!? Think about it and like me we won’t be bearing the guilt for generations to come.
Once again, this programme haps back to old wounds and pain to stir negative emotions. History tells us that humans like killing each other for all sorts of reason and religion is an excuse. As an intelligent man Mr.Jacobson should know better and recover to make this world a better place for mankind.
I was disappointed and felt it was more of a FEEL BAD programme than a history programme. It is not important to hear how Christianity affected a few media personalities, What the world needs now is peace not hatred!
You are correct Paul, the twelve apostles and all but one of the writers of the new testament were Jewish. This may be the reason why the NT is full of references to Jewish beliefs, customs and concepts, almost all of them positive.
‘Christian’ anti-semitism resulted from a departure from the Jewish roots of out faith, misinterperation of scripture, and the adoption of pagan beliefs, bought about by constantine.
It resulted in truly shameful and henoius acts by people who claimed to be christians, but did not follow the teachings or principles of the very faith they professed.
Shanta,
The New Testament letters of Paul and the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus tell us that Jesus himself had Jewish and Gentile followers. So,there were Galilean, Jewish and Gentile followers. Each was bound to react in their own way. The Gentiles had an anti-Semetic slant and we know this because they through Paul asked Jews and Galileans to give up the Abrahmic covenant of circumcision. Basically, asking the Jews to give up circumcision is low level form of anti Semitism.
Peter I cannot agree with your conclusion that:
“The Gentiles had an anti-Semetic slant and we know this because they through Paul asked Jews and Galileans to give up the Abrahmic covenant of circumcision”.
From Pauls letters it very much appears to be the other way round….the Jerusalem Church led by James could not accept the new Gentile Christians unless they became circumcised. Paul however, was more forward thinking and having realise circumcision was not a requirement of faith in the Gospel of Christ, did not demand that his Churches in the Gentile world adhered to this Jewish religious law despite the fact He was a Jew and circumcised.
You have misrepresented the situation, the question of circumcision cannot be held as proof of Gentile anti-semitism.
As for the program, it was also full of misrepresentations and the conclusion that the Gospels had lead to the holocaust is absoultely rediculous and Channel 4 should really appologies for this. It doesn’t give much hope for the rest of the series.
I was so moved by this programme. I am a Methodist and a Local Preacher, and have been a Circuit Steward. I have met so much predjudice and politics, and have been confronted by hypocrisy and un-christian behaviour within the church, – past and present. We forget the truths, that we are all God’s children, and that there was no division of Judaism and Jesus.
I have taken time off preaching,partly due to health and a feeling that I was barking up the wrong tree, just continuing in the old tradional ways.
I have always believed we should get back to the Gospels and cut out the overlay from the Church of Rome and also all the hypcrisy and the nasty fundamentalism.
The words are there, we believe, just live th life and know the Holy Spirit in ourselves.
Then – noreal need for commandments and punishment, as – if we love God and loved one another, we should never harm each other.
Bit muddled this, but I have that horrible ‘ful virus, and am doing my best.
Congratulations on such a wonderful programme an insights!
I should like to spend weeks discussing and listening to Howard Jacobson.
Programme too short.
I think we have some Jewish blood in our family, trying to trace it .
Rachel Meinke
Hey at last a comment i agree with!!
As Jesus himself said God is LOVE not anything else (certainly not a seperate entity to ourselves) as this is what causes the problems!
If we all realised God was inside each one of us then surely wars etc would cease as we should not kill God!
Jesus also said ‘I am the way’ which i take as meaning ‘I am the way’ for all of us individually so i am certain he meant ‘ i am the way , you are the way, we are the way!!) Just look inside ourselves to see the truth!
Somewhere in the bible it tells us not to be misled by men etc… So we should not really pay to much attention to the Bible as it has been written and edited by man. There are some important messages in the Old and new testament but most of it is complete TOSH!!
I was looking forward to watching this programme being interested in seeing how the history of Christianity stemmed from the Jewish faith. It started off very well and several parts were both interesting and challenging, particularly the presenters comments on the importance of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem and how this was described by the Gospels, and also the baptism of Jesus. However after the first 25 minutes the programme seemed to completely change direction and rather than a perspective on the history and Jewish theology of Christianity become a counter-attack on the anti-semetism from the church beginning with the Jewish apostle Paul, and ending, rather distastefully and perhaps irrelevantly in my opinion, with the apparent role of Christianity in the Holocaust. I feel all this really distracted from the potential of this programme and I hope the remainder of the series keeps more to what the producers promise. One other point I’d like to mention is that I and most if not all Christians I know are very clear in the necessity of Jesus and the Christian religion being firmly grounded in Judaism rather than what the presenter would have the public believe that Christians deny the roots of their religion in Judaism.
I was taken aback by the bitterness that the presnter expressed. Christians do not blame Jewish people for killing Christ. Christ was crucified by the establishment, for telling them that they were not living as God wanted them to.
Christianity does not exclude Jews they exclude themselves by not recognising Jesus as Gods son. John Baptised Jesus,who said we should believe and be Baptised and Jesus said that we should remember Him by breaking bread and drinking wine. These things are in the Gospels and do not originate from Paul. Christians are taught to love everyone and do not hate anyone.
I felt that tonights programme was biased and racist. Jesus was born and died a Jew. He came to reinforce the Old Testament and not to replace it.
In Love
Philip
Philip,
I agree with your assertion that christians do not blame the Jewish people for killing Christ. Surely His arraignment, death and resurrection are fundamental pillars of the theological narrative of the religion. Judas and the Jewish community were, therefore, merely playing their part in the story.
A very interesting programme. However, as a 63 year old practising Catholic I have always understood that Jesus was a Jew and that the history of Christianity starts with Judaism. Indeed, we always have a reading from the Old Testament at our Sunday Masses and use the Psalms in daily Morning and Evening prayer. I deeply regret the treatment Jews have received from Christians in previous centuries and pray that we can work together in the future for a peaceful world.
I am a practising Anglican who found the first programme of this series an excellent window on a view of Christianity and have no doubt the rest of the series will be as thought provoking and informative. It has never occurred to me personally to be anti-semetic as I was brought up in (and I hope practise) a belief that everyone is equal in the sight of God. Perhaps this is naive or superficial but it is how it is for me. I look forward to the next in the series.
I watched your programme Christianity. A History. Nobody has denied that Jesus is a Jew born and brought up by a Jewish parents. If you do not believe that He is the Son of God, that is your right, but do not blame Christians for what happened to the the Jews or what is still happening to the Jews. When Jesus was alive He said the greatest commandment is LOVE, love all whether you are Jew, christians, muslim, black, white or whatever you maybe. Even you are support of love gays, hate the sin, but you are to love the person. Jesus said God created both day and night, both good and bad. And God created all things. If you are complaining about Jews being proscuted for killing Jesus, what was the BLACK MAN proscuted for taken as slaves, torn away for mothers, fathers, husbands. Instead of putting blame on each other, why dont we find aways of living in love, unity and peace for all mankind. Jesus was a Jew born into a Jewish community but what He left for us is the most important thing LOVE ONE ANOTHER. LET THIS BE OUR OBJECTIVE AND GOAL IN LIFE LET THIS BE A LEGECY THAT WE LEAVE FOR OUR CHILDREN INSTEAD OF HATE OR I AM BETTER THAT YOU. WHERE HAS THIS THINKING, ATTITUDE GOT US. NOWHERE BUT LIVING IN HATE. AND WHAT DOES HATE BRINGS NO PEACE, NO JOY, NO HAPPINESS. Your programme is nice but l would rather see a programme that teaches LOVE whether Jesus was a Jew or not is not important, but that He promoted LOVE and PEACE this should be a thing of Joy to the Jews and that a Son of there is known and love all over the world. Is it that the Jews are feeling guilty, because l and many others do not blame them for Jesus death. Who do l blame for all the black people that were killed during slavery. Jesus said let the past be in the past but look onto the future. We cannot change what happened the Gospel had to be fulfilled. Let us work together for Peace and Love. Use the power and opportunity that God has given you to unite the world together in LOVE AND PEACE. THANK YOU
GOD BLESS YOU.
What a great presentation by Howard Jacobson ” Jesus the Jew”. I thoroughly enjoyed the 1st programme of the series and look forward to the others. A breath of fresh air in this polarised world.
I watched the first episode tonight and I was a little confused as to the aim of the program. Was it to suggest that Christianity is nothing more than the creation of alienated jews? Was it for christians to think that actually they are closer to Judaism than perhaps they thought? Either way the choice of a Jewish person to write and present is from the start always going to be one sided, perhaps a chinese atheist or communist would have been more objective. Secondly with the current conflict in Gaza I feel that the program should perhaps not be a critical analysis of the origins of Christianity but perhaps a critical analysis of the jewish claim to Palestine. This is something current, relevant and a topic that many perhaps dont understand. The factual findings would surely be too much for mainstream UK media and therefore I doubt the cutting edge producers of channel four would have the balls for it!
This interesting programme made some valid points about the history of Christianity and Judaism, but surely knowlegeable Christians and Jews know most of this already and those not of a religious leaning probably think ‘a plague on both your houses’.
I felt that Howard Jacobson’s stance was a bit ‘us and them’, which is understandable, but doesn’t it miss the point about Jesus Christ. I am not a devout Christian but from even a cursory reading of the New Testament it is obvious that Jesus’ point was that there is no ‘them’…. we are all ‘us’.
Seems he went out of his way to befriend the reviled people. The parables of the samaritan, the Roman soldier who had faith, the prostitute.show what he meant. He knew full well that the scribes and lawyers ,Roman and Jewish, were out to trap him,but the fact that they were Roman (or Jewish like himself) was irrelevant.He instructed that people should ‘Render unto Ceasar etc and not disobey the ancient Jewish Laws either.
I’ve often thought that Paul was responsible for much of the mischief.
I’m not sure how objective the first episode was? Of course Jesus was a Jew! Is this such a revelation? This program isn’t about Jesus the Jew – it should be called ‘The Jewish perception of Jesus and Christianity.’ All I think I’ve learnt is that some Jews resent and dislike Christianity. Is this helpful?
What is the piece of music that ends the first programme from ?
Unfortunately I am reeling from this programme, which I thought was another of the chain of Christian Bashing Programmes on over the Christmas Period. It was badly researched and ill informed. Most true Christians do not believe this conspiracy theory and indeed know Jesus was a full Jew, but became a ‘light to lighten the gentiles’. The Nazis were not Christians, they were evil thugs and also many Catholics and Protestants died in concentration camps. The Church arranged the escape of more Jews from these countries than anyone else through a network of religious houses, something Communist writers later tried to refute.
It would be good to have real Christian Scholars on the programme, so that two atheists don’t sped an hour trying to discredit Christianity which is what the programme is for I think.Luckily most people will ignore this very shallow programme.
I look forward to the next seven programmes in this series. Starting at the beginning with an objective and eloquent man as Mr. Jacobson sets the tone for the whole series in my view. I found his delivery informative, enlightening and re-assuring since I respect all faiths other than those presenting overly fanatical and radical points of view leading to misunderstanding and intolerance.
I have just watched Jesus the Jew. Very interesting, but not a balanced view. There were no interviews with evangelical theologians and (even more importantly) none with Messianic Jews (i.e. Jews who have become Christians).
I really do try to watch programmes with “Christian” in the title with an open mind, But I have never seen such a load of pants (im struggling not to profane!) How many more out of context verses could you fit in an hour? As a born again Christian with quite a good knowledge of the New Testament, as soon as a verse was mentioned i was thinking “here we go again” what about the verses before and after. To be fair i wasnt expecting much more from Channel 4, which in my eyes has an anti-Christian adgenda, how about you you spend eight weeks showing the life of mother Teresa, or a program on how my wife was healed by Jesus? or how faith in a loving peronal God and saviour changes peoples marriges, familys and outlook on life. This world is in for a shock when Jesus the Messiah comes back.
Interesting first episode but nothing new in the Jewish roots of Christianity, if you’re a Christian actively interested in your faith – you can’t make sense of it without knowing that!
Disappointing that Tabor featured so prominently with no counterbalancing view though. Christianity centres on the ressurection – without it, there’s no point being Christian.
All religions have stupid people within them that act stupidly though (as can those with none). This doesn’t excuse the terrible things done in Christianity’s name over centuries, but says a lot about why humanity needs guidance in order to act well towards one another – acting as Jesus teaches is countercultural now after nearly 1500 years of Christian-origin culture in the UK as it was in first centry Jerusalem.
The show was interesting in reminding Christian that Jesus Was/ Is a Jew. But it also contains misintepretation/lies about Cristian perceptions of Jew, e.g when claimed that yellow was a color use to depict traitor in Christian paintings hence the yellow star to identify jew during the war…Yellow IS the color christian use for the halo that surrounds Jesus, Mary, the holy Spirit and all the saints. This doc was purely tabloid style, and NO attempt to deepen understanding between the two faiths which are so complementary…many christains have aslo been martyred because of their beliefs.
I am a Polish catholic and I have to admit mistakes were made by school/church when I was being educated about my religion. It was only after reading a few books when I learnt that things are not as simple as presented at religion lessons. I found Howard Jacobson’s view on Christianity very interesting and giving some perspective on my religion. However, I was very resentful of one sentence: “For some Christians it [Holocaust] was pay-back time”. First it was said that Holocaust was in no way a Christian crime; it was also said that Christians suffered greatly in Holocaust (which is true – my grandparents did suffer greatly); a few sentences later – that for some Christians it was pay-back time. It scares me that Christianity and Holocaust were put in one program about Christian religion. We (Christians) have a lot to be ashamed of (e.g. crusades), but Holocaust is NOT one of those things – it was driven by far from religious ambitions of a sick man and those who followed him.
Dear sir/madam
Once again you seem to think that Christianity is a western religion, and not one that came and comes out of the east.
Howard Jacobson like all others before him has never read the holly book in its original Greek. The roman church is just the roman church and to keep the old myth that it is the one and true Catholic Church perpetuated is abhorrent.
The western church is just that i.e. the western church, why do you not explain to people the meaning of the word catholic. Universal is not rome. Howard Jacobson to my mind is struggling with his faith as a Hebrew, or with his past from Eastern Europe, no one should take away the rite of free thinking and of free speech, put then no one should under estimate the feeling of the Greek Orthodox Church who has stayed constant to the belief of one universal church (catholic church).
When ever British television talks about Christianity it always come from the slant of the west, it is the west who has started holly wars, it is in the west that the holocaust was perpetrated, it is the west who aliened it self with other faiths against its fellow Christians.
Jesus would have spoke Aramaic with Greek and maybe some Latin, Jesus was and will always be Hebrew, Jesus is in the heart and not a play thing of religion, if Howard Jacobson is some how trying to find him self, then let him be private about it, or at least enlist others in his work on TV.
I like to thank you for you time
Yours truly, Renos Hajittifis
I enjoyed seeing Howard on TV again. I am glad I watched because I learnt something new. A lot of work obviously went into the programme which is probably why I enjoyed it. Well done! I have no complaints seeing that it was about Christianity. I was not surprised by the obvious Jewish objections to Jesus being the Messiah. However, it did disappoint me that Howard did not have the imagination to pretend Jesus was the Messiah. If Jesus were the messiah then Howard could demand Christians and Muslims concede Israel (the nation) to the Messiah if not to the Jews. Jesus was not just a Jew but needs the Jews/Israel if he is to be considered the King of the Jews or the King of Israel. It must be humiliating to be king of a country that does not exist.
The programme was about Christianity and it rightly and unavoidably drifted to the Apostle Paul. It is so annoying to see that. Howard/Jews prefer to concede to Paul rather than concede to Jesus of Nazareth. I wonder why!!! Jesus divided the Jewish nation once before and no doubt Jewish leaders fear he will do it again and so we get a blanket denial. In this instance Howard is another victim. I think it is possible to reverse the affect Paul had on Jesus’ religion. I think it is easy. In view of the conflict in Gaza I have two reasons not to feel sorry for the Jews. In Howard’s interview he says we should know about Christianity as much as it is possible to know. In view of the history of Christianity the programme was knowledgeable and informative but what about the Jesus religion.
Christianity: A History
This was a disappointing first episode, highlighted by the fact that ‘expert’ opinion was often deeply flawed.
School days RE and a quick skim through the New Testament would equip most with the knowledge that Paul did not initiate the key Christian rites of Baptism and Communion. Jesus himself gave the command to share bread and wine “in remembrance of me”. He also commissioned the church with the command to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit …” The gospels record this as happening before Paul’s Damascan experience. Whilst Paul clearly had a vital mission taking the Good News to the gentiles, he was always sensitive to God’s leading and we see that he did as God directed.
There is much more to say on the issue of Jewish interpretation of prophecy. The hundreds of further prophecies pointing clearly to Jesus were left very much unexplored in this programme. Similarly, the significant rise in those coming from Judaism to Christianity as Messianic Jews deserved a mention.
I await the next episode with interest.
I enjoyed watching the first programme of “Christianity – a history” although most of the content I already know. As a commited Christian I am ashamed of the history of our persecution of the Jewish people. I do,however, rejoice in the knowledge of the deep and solid roots of Christianity in Judaism and the fact that Jesus, Yeshua, was a Jew. As Christians we cannot have or understand the New Testament without having the Old Testament – the Jewish Scriptures. We also have a great deal to learn from Jewish spirituality that places God at the centre of every aspect of our lives
Paul/Saul was also a Jew and I did feel that the programme at least “glossed over” his Jewish background prior to conversion and at most ignored it. Until his Damascus Road “experience” he was a cruel persecutor of the Jews who followed Jesus. In the letter to the Philippians 3 verse 5-7 he outlines his Jewish credentials. In view of the comments made about Paul and his influence on Christianity and Biblical content, in your programme, I feel that who and what he was should have been made a lot clearer.
This first programme was obviously very well researched & there was plenty for people of all faiths & none to consider. For me, the most interesting moment in the film was interview with the Cardinal in the Vatican, a moment that I think shows the distance still to go before the Catholic Church truly understands the mostly negative impact it has had on the world.
Having read the producer’s comments on Christianity – a History, I commend his ambition to look at Christian history in a grown up manner. Sadly, after the first episode, I remain unconvinced that we are going to see grown up programming, or anything but the most extremely selective of histories. At no point are we told who the intended audience is – on the part of the producer or the narrator – nor what knowledge is assumed. Thus, we are told that Jesus was a Jew, and that baptism was a Jewish ritual – as if this is extremely shocking, yet to most church goers these ideas are commonplace. A second criticism is that the narrator sets up paper soldiers, and picks his academics to agree with him. He has a problem with the apostle Paul, and interviews someone who announces his belief that Paul renounced Torah for faith. This is excessively simplistic, and we were not privileged with any high profile defenders against his accusations. I hoped there might be a response from Rowan Williams or Tom Wright – but of course they are too cautious to offer a useable soundbite – and it is the soundbite that television thrives on. A final point – any culture, religion or belief system can be made to look culpable by examining the actions of its adherents during the middle ages. As such there seemed to be demonising of christianity as a whole in a programme that condemns demonisation. How odd.
I thought this show was about the history of Christianity yet it turned out to be the History Of Jews disapointing program
An honest examination of the religious labyrinth,and it’s oftentimes lack of integrity. Howard Jacobson’s intelligence and sensitivity makes for an outstanding collaboration. I have always found the inherent obfuscation of the Bible to be a turn-off, except for Genesis and the wonderfully”batty” Revelations. When I was five, I demanded a Bible but that’s when the questions began.
I keep away from dogma because it’s really scary. I hope you get an appropriate reward!
Very Best Wishes.
I regret to see that the 8-part programme on Christianity: a History describes its aim as giving an ‘alternative view’ of Christianity. Christianity can stand continuous re-examination in the light of new study of the bible, literature and history, but I feel entitled to doubt that the series will be scholarly and impartial if its declared aim is to give an ‘alternative view’.
And so to the first programme, on the subject of ‘Jesus the Jew’, presented by Howard Jacobson on Sunday, 11th January.
Two ideas came over to me as running through the whole programme.
The first was a constant referring to the bad opinion of Jews and Judaism that often pervaded the policies of Christian Church leaders and Christian culture, and the cruel conduct of Christians towards Jews that this often caused. I share Jacobson’s abhorrence for this and welcome the climate of respect for Judaism and Jewish communities and individuals which, especially since the Second Vatican Council, has replaced this intolerance where it existed,
The second point repeatedly introduced by Jacobson was that Jesus was a Jew, a practising Jew, urging the full observance of the Jewish Torah, and a very great Jewish prophet (when the New Testament records are shorn of what Jacobson sees as false Christian accretions), but for Jacobson he was not the Messiah, not the Son of God, not God. He makes Paul the villain of the piece (from the Jewish point of view), blaming Paul for changing the charismatic Galilean holy man (but no more than a holy man) into the Divine Saviour.
I am afraid that Jacobson’s treatment of the New Testament leaves much to be desired. For example, when he deals with the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, Jacobson says never a word about the divine revelation quoted substantially the same in Matthew, Mark and Luke: “This is (or: you are) my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”. This text resonates with a wide range of Old Testament prophecies, in Isaiah 42, Psalm 2.7, Gen 22.2, and many more, which find their fulfilment in Jesus. The same ideas appear again in the Transfiguration accounts later in Jesus’ ministry, and become key points in the trial and crucifixion accounts. Jesus always speaks in the Gospels with supreme majesty and authority: “You have heard it said (in the Torah) … but I say to you.” The majestic last command of Jesus to his apostles shows that the Christian baptism which his followers were instructed to practise was something far greater than the Jewish baptism which Jesus did indeed undergo (though that baptism set the Father’s seal on Jesus’ ministry): “ All authority is given to me in heaven and on earth. Going, therefore, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and behold I am with you all days, even to the end of the world (Matthew 28.18-20).” Note that the word ‘all’ is repeated four times – it is found in these four places in the original Greek. I invite Jacobson to study not only the works of Luke and Paul (which he is not free anyhow to discard as he likes) but all the other writings of the New Testament to see how they see Jesus as fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies of God’s plan for his Messiah.
On this point, namely the way in which Jesus fulfils Old Testament prophecy, I have to disagree fundamentally with Jacobson. I shall limit myself, for reasons of space, to one consideration. I adduce as evidence two books written within a few monts of each other, in 1999/2000. Both are heavily in debt to Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship. One is by Michael O Wise: The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Jesus. The second is by the Jewish scholar Israel Knohl: The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (S.Mark Taper Foundation Book in Jewish Studies) .
As the titles show, both authors claim that in the century before Jesus, at the time when the Dead Sea Scrolls community existed in Qumran, Messianic claimants were making exactly the same claims that Jesus made, and which the New Testament writers reinforced by an unending stream of yet more confirmatory and explanatory texts. I believe however that both books fail badly in their attempts to identify someone as a precursor-Messiah before Jesus. Anyhow, they choose different candidates as their first-Messiah! I refer the reader here to my review of these books on amazon.co.uk (I use the name ‘trini’.)
I end now by quoting from my review of the Knohl book.
“”” Knohl’s identification of an actual Qumran-Messiah is very problematical. But he is to be congratulated for stating boldly that the New Testament claims for the Person and Work of Jesus Christ are not Christian inventions, but were already part of the Essene expectations. The Synopsis of the book where it is advertised on the amazon website ends thus: “This book should reshape our understanding of Christianity and its relationship to Judaism.” It does – but it reshapes it by solidly supporting Christianity’s claims for its Messiah. Knohl quotes Geza Vermes from Jesus the Jew, (1981): “Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection, appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Judaism’ (Knohl, p. 106, Notes). Knohl says (p.2): “In this book I intend to counter these claims. I propose to show that Jesus really did regard himself as the Messiah and truly expected the Messiah to be rejected, killed, and resurrected after three days, for this is precisely what was believed to have happened to a messianic leader who had lived one generation before Jesus”. “”””
This view contradicts Jacobson’s main point, that Jesus’ messiahship and divinity are just Christian inventions. But I do say: No, to Knohl’s claimant; yes, to Jesus Christ.
This is a very thought provoking series. Is it possible to download the text of each episode Or will there be a book produced? It is something I should like to read and think about.
Sarah
I am not aware of any plans to produce a book around the series, but will post on here if I find out anything positive. And thanks for the nice comments!
Paula
What a superb opening episode tonight,Ive always thought Jesus wanted the Jews,his people to become better Jews,as opposed to starting a new faith.Howard Jacobson is an excellent broadcaster,and seems a genuinely nice man,bravo,I hope to catch further episodes,Anne Widdecombes trip to Lewes should be good!.
An interesting programme which set out Jewish objections to parts of the gospels but which, frustratingly, did not attempt to seek redress here in the UK. Here the Queen is still head of religion and could approve the publication of an ‘addendum’ or similar on the gospels for example. In the programme the interview with an Italian priest produced the expected result as it would in a ‘bible protestant’ area of USA. I can understand the gospels being ‘left as they are’ but footnotes have been added to Gospels for the past 50 years. I am thinking of the footnotes to the Revised English Bible where St Marks gospel ends with an empty tomb and the footnote that ‘many of the oldest documents end here’ or similar. I would like to see an interview with Canterbury on why notes cannot be officially added to the gospels in the light of new evidence. For example we now believe that St John’s gospel was written after the two major massacres of the Jewish people by the Romans and most synagogues wanted no more talk of ‘non obedience’ in any form to further upset the authorities and they started turning people out of the synagogue for saying that Jesus was the Messiah. So they are ‘the Jews’ in that instance. In St Matthews gospel the alleged words of the mob accepting blame down to their children is fatuous and many would accept that, but there is no ‘official’ comment. It is quite likely that Jesus was a Zealot or at least was associated with them and perhaps much of the ‘anti Jewish’ content is fact ‘anti Pharisee’ or ‘anti establishment’. This would be like Jesus being a member of the IRA and ‘the Jews’ would be ‘the Government’ and its ‘agents’.
I think that the Church of England could play a very important role here. That Church is always ready to accept such comments on a one to one basis but there seems to be no ‘response’ to calls such as this to acknowledge what has been learnt. What might be needed is an official commentary published which is approved at top level. Clarification would do us all good.
I thought it was a very good program, informative and interesting. Yet I was saddened to see that it was fairly one-sided. For example, there were many stories told of the atrocities that Christians have done to Jews down through the ages, and yet few (if any) told of the times when Christians have sought to save the Jews, for example Dietrich Bonhoeffer in WWII.
Yes Christians must stand up and take responsibility for the atrocities that have been done in the name of their Messiah, but at the same time their triumphs must also be told.
I will watch this series with interest, thank you for taking the time to put it together.
Thank you for an excellent program – well produced and thought provoking. Congratulations to Howard Jacobson on his presentation of such a challenging issue.
Really good program, which I enjoyed. Think that the history was a bit weak though, the context of the New Testament writings didn’t seem to be brought out clearly. For instance Paul before his conversion, was a Pharisee persecuting mainly Jewish believers in Christ and Jews in terms of the diaspora were I believe about a fifth of the population of the Roman empire.A lot of the New Testament seems to include Jewish believers in Christ addressing other Jewish believers, albeit gentiles were addressed as well. I think some such context might have helped us arrive at a more balanced picture of what was happening when the New Testament was written. Look forward to the next program.
I thought as did many others in their comments that it was biased and appeared to state that those of us who are Christian – I am a Roman Catholic – do not know the foundation of Christianity. I was taught my religion in a humble school in Manchester but I have always known that Jesus was a Jew and that my religion is founded in Judasism. I was very dissappointed in Howard Jacob’s presumption that I didn’t.
I was deeply offended and disgusted by some of the openly racist views expressed by the persons in this programme. Insinuating that the Holocust could be linked to the anti-sematic views of the Christians, and that many felt it was “payback” time for the Jewish people were offensive to all Christians and upset me greatly.
The first part of the Programme was informative and I liked the presenter and his pragmatic views very much. It then decended into a racist literny against Christians and their history. As a christian, I found this programme insulting and upsetting.
Dear Sir/Madam
I watched the Jesus is a Jew programme yesterday and there were some inaccurate information being portrayed by the so called historical experts.
One of them said that Jesus’ baptism was only mentioned in 2 out of 4 Gospels when the truth is that it is mentioned in Mathew, Mark and Luke but not John. Also the New Testament does not say that Jews are devils.
Christianity is an extension of Judaism but it is not motivated by hatred of the Jews.
If such a T.V programme was made about Islam then there would be riots. Some people argue that Mohamed was a paedophile (I do not think this) but such comments would never be allowed on Channel 4!
Regards
Thank you howard Jacobson, I would say that you did make some sweeping assumptions though. I have always understood Jesus and disciples as practicing Jews. I also feel that there are symbols in Jesus’s ministry that i would not get as a gentile because they were directed at the Jews. However, please explain Matthew 16 vs 13-19, and all the parables that jesus told about the wedding guests and the vineyard owner where my understanding is that Jesus was referring to Gentiles. Do you feel that Jesus’s ministry was exclusively for the Jews? If so then i feel there are many contribitions in his message.
I enjoyed last night’s programme and felt that it raised historical issues which can’t be swept under the carpet, although they do no longer represent the views of the majority of 21st century Christians. As the comments on this site show, iit is impossible to reach a definitive viewpoint on the history of Christianity. At times Howard Jacobson had me nodding in agreement and at others shouting at the television – but such is the nature of theological debate. Over the course of 8 programmes it should be possible to produce a range of views and help people to gain new perpectives, but I would be very disappointed with Channel 4 if I were to agree with everything said. For me the strength of your religious programmes are that they inform and make me think through ideas I already hold, formulating clear arguments against the views expressed which I disagree with – the activity I miss most since graduating with a degree in Theology. Thank you to all the presenters and producers.
The program certainly stood out and was different, because it was so outrageously biased, badly researched and badly presented. Just what was the point of having all the biblical stories illustrated by some laughable ancient film footage There are many excellent dramatisations they could have used, the only conclusion I can think of is that it was done in a crude attempt to make the Christian story appear ridiculous. I won’t be wasting my time watching any more of it.
Based on the first programme, if I was Aaquil Ahmed I’d be demanding back the fees I’d paid out to the ‘8 individual programme consultants’ and be glad that it was not about a writ happy institution otherwise the ‘lawyers’ would be busy. As pointed out above, the number of factual errors was appalling. Some of the statements were so defamatory that if they had been made about Muslims people associated with the programme would now be fearing for their lives.
A poor programme.
oh no – here we are again with yet another “let’s knock Christianity off it’s perch with an alternative view of religion” programme.
Like a great number of other viewers, I was looking forward to an illuminating and educational series – how disappointed I was.
Under researched, inaccurate, biased, in short everything I hoped it wouldn’t be.
I can’t wait for the programme with Rageh Omar – blaming the current Al Qaieda terrorist attacks on the Crusades! While I will agree that history (and Christian history at that) admits to a lot of massacres and what would now be considered as crimes against humanity, let’s also bear in mind that the driving force behind Islam then was the sword. Mohammed himself, after trying to start Islam, had to flee Mecca for Medina, and then spent 13 years at war. The Crusades, rightly or wrongly, came about because of the warlike intentions of Islam, and the desire of countries at that time to reclaim the Holy Land, which had been captured by Islam. A bit like World War 2 in the middle ages.
To say then that the acts of terrorism today are as a result of that is a bit like saying that although Hitler started the war by invading Poland, and killed over 6 million people in concentration camps, he was actually in the right because we bombed them in retaliation.
Forget the politics and the oft-misguided “alternative ” explanations, and investigate properly.
Moving on – the Gospels are historically accurate – proven by numerous non-Christian sources dated to the first century. They are full of detail, quoting eye witnesses by name to miracles and events. If they had been inaccurate, they would have been discredited immediately. Likewise, if Jesus had not risen from the dead, surely both the Jews and Romans could have proved that by providing the body – after all they were guarding the tomb.
And ask yourselves one more thing – Judaism was tolerated by Rome – Christianity was not. Christianity was also not tolerated by the Jews. To be a Christian was to risk jail, beating, or death. Anyone who believes a story may be prepared to die for that story, but 11 of 12 apostles, who would have actually known whether the story was true or not? If you knew that a story you were telling was a lie, would YOU die for it?
God Bless
I feel this was another excuse to attack Christianity…again..on television. I was frustrated and angry at the lack of fairness in the programme which was a biased one sided arguement (in favour of non Christians) where a lot of false assumptions were made.
If channel 4 wanted to make a programme attacking and distorting facts about Christians and Christianity they should not have tried to hide it under the title of Jesus the Jew.
I do not understand why it is acceptable to heavily criticise Christianity in this way but tread carefully when approaching other religious views.
Howard Jacobson says Christians were not responsible for the holocaust but implies they paved the way for it, which for me is a contradiction and a roundabout way of saying Christianity is to blame.
I expect honesty and fairness not bias. If the rest of the series is a sly dig at Christianity then I will be most unimpressed.
Very interesting programme, though ambigious in the extreme (which I hope is reversed in the next 6 episodes).
I can’t help feeling that it was aimed at creationists and born again christian fundamentalists, as a Catholic I have always knew that Jesus was a Jewish, along with his family and apostles.
The Jews were Gods chosen people dont forget.
I agree woth some of the comments already made above.With all thats happening in todays world i would like to know why the west is hated so much by certain groups.It mostly comes down to religion so what better way to understand than to watch, “A history of christianity”. I expected a programme which the title promised , instead all i seen was an attack on christianity.I have no religion though i do believe in God.Linking christianity to the holocaust is just plain wrong.I may just be showing ignorance,though to me a more apt title would of been, “100 reasons for jewish people to hate christians”. If this is how we stand as a world race now,then we are in big trouble for the future.
Rather than “A history of Christianity” this programme should have been called “The Jews’ answer to Jesus”. As a Catholic I was taught from the very beginning that Jesus was born a Jew, that he was presented at the Temple at the age of 12 (was this the origin of Bar Mitzvah) that his knowledge of the Old Testament was profound, that he taught in the synagogue and that all his disciples were jews. Time after time Jacobsen selectively quoted from the New Testament to make his pro-Jewish, anti-Christian point. Jesus came to make us “a new creation”, to teach us to “love one another” to “make disciples of all nations” and as a saviour for all mankind. To imply any connection between Christianity and the Holocaust was particularly disgraceful when proof abounds of the role of Christians in sheltering Jews and doing all they could to help them.
Paul, who seems to have been selected as the villain of the piece, was a devout Pharisee and Jew who enthusiastically devoted himself to persecuting the followers of Jesus after his death until he, himself, found himself confronted by the vision of Jesus and given the role of taking his message to all people,
Jesus’s family did not oppose Paul; a reading of “Acts” makes it quite clear that while there were initially disagreements on the interpretation of the Law, they were later convinced of the rightness of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles.
If this is a sample of “the History of Christianity” Channel 4 should really be ashamed of the lack of research and reliance on propaganda. I just hope that future programmes will be more balanced.
The word “Messiah” means “Saviour” or “Liberator” – the Old Testament perception was that this meant a saviour in the physical sense, a liberator from oppression. Jesus was indeed a liberator above all liberators, but it just wasn’t in the way prophecies had been interpreted before.
I don’t know why the producer of this series, quoted above, thinks he was taking a great risk. I am an unbeliever butbut think Christianity has had such anaan iimportant influence on British history that that it should be examined and discussed frequently.
Howard Jacobson increased my sympathy for the Jews and I consider it a great pity that the Israelis have disappointed us politically since 1948.
A thoughtful programme. The acknowledgement of Jesus’ Jewishness is an important element of Christianity that is often missed. The content of the programme was largely excellent and Howard Jacobson was an engaging presenter.
My only gripe would be about the editing which had a sensationalist ring to it. Before every advert break it cut to someone saying something sensational just to make sure we came back from making our tea to watch the next bit. For me this detracted from a serious and thoughtful broadcast that covered some interesting theological and historical points.
My final point is that humans are capable of truely evil things. Anything that is as old as Christianity (or any other faith) is going to have some skeletons in it’s closet. However I don’t think that Christianity or any other religion practiced properly leads to the evils highlighted in the programme. It’s people’s selfishness that does. I think the programme tried to make that point.
Interesting but totally mis-informed on how Christian’s view Jew’s. He seemed to only want to convince us that we still blame Jews for Christs death and nothing they can do will change that, each expert appeared to already have an axe to grind, or maybe a book to promote. Why don’t channel 4 ask Christians what they believe and how they view their association to the Jewish faith.
Disappointing, however I see from above comments that plenty of other true christians have already expressed their disappointment over this first programme’s obvious bias and not-so-hidden agenda. Perhaps I was childishly expecting a proper look at the history of the early christian church, rather than one man’s axe grinding grounded in so many incorrect assertions about not only Jesus, but Paul, the gospels, etc etc. Come on Channel 4, lift your game, don’t pander to these morons!
I find it mind boggling that people who have made comment here cannot see the link between the anti semitism perpetrated by the early church(for the reasons outlined by Jacobsen-early Christianity needing to distance itself from Judaism to appeal to the gentile world) and its ultimate conclusion-the Holocaust.2000 years of hatred had to come from somewhere-and whether Hitler was a practising Christian or not is irellevant-the anti jewish feeling was ingrained.I also find it strange that people quote from ancient texts,written by superstitious,religious fanatics(who believed the world to be flat,epileptics to be possessed etc)to validate their point of view,as if they were the latest report from CNN.We may as well believe that Osiris carts the sun across the sky everyday as quote the prophet Isaiah to validate a point.A very good show.
I think the point most people are really trying to make is that this was irrelevant to the title of the programme. I don’t think anyone has denied the previous faults perpetrated in the name of Christianity. By the title of the programme was Jesus the Jew. I therefore expected to hear how the Jews viewed Jesus. Who they thought he was if not the Son of God and if not then what are the Jewish faiths interpretation of Jesus in the light of the claims of Christians related to the Old Testament’s prophecies. Instead, as others have pointed out, the programme seemed to be a platform for a counter-attack at the Christian faith. It was not presented as the producers promised.
This guy just spent an hour moaning about one religion, Christianity, when his own is just as bad! He expresses his bitterness by giving examples of how Jews have been downtrodden in history, most of his examples coming from the bible. What he fails to grasp is that the bible, being a work of fiction, is not a reliable text on which to base such bitterness. What this programme showed more than anything is that if there was no religion in the world, there would be much less tension. There is no religious group which has not committed crimes against humanity at some point in its history, including his. Just read today’s papers!
Mr Jacobson wrongly inferred not only that Christians were responsible for the Holocaust, but that Christians living in the UK today feel that the genocide of 6 million Jewish people in World War II was deserved and a good thing.
As a Christian living in London in 2009 I was very angry at his statements.
If these allegations were made against any other religious or minority group it would be seen as racism. I would like Mr Jacobson to know that Hitler was an atheist NOT a Christian.
Had Mr Jacobson done a programme which was less one sided and more informed he would have realised that Christians living in the UK today fully understand the Jewish history of Christianity and have great respect and love for all Jewish people. Jesus Christ was Jewish and claimed to be the Son of God; how can true followers of Jesus Christ have anything but love for the nation into whom God chose his son to be born ?
Channel 4 programmes are usually of a high quality so was amazed and very disappointed that this one had so many factual inaccuracies – mostly picked up in previous comments. No excuse for misrepresenting facts. Hope the next 7 programmes are much more balanced and accurate.
Geza Vermes, Reader in Jewish Studies in the University of Oxford, ended “Jesus the Jew” (1983): “The positive and constant testimony of the earliest Gospel tradition leads to …… another figure: Jesus the just man, the zadduh; Jesus the helper and healer; Jesus the teacher and leader, venerated by his intimates and less committed admirers alike as prophet, lord and Son of God.
A powerful programme for those with open ears. As a committed Christian, I have long felt that Judaism has been expunged from religious history. Theology – that great curse of Christianity – has has been a most divisive influence. However, the rise of Zionism, with its “master race” creed, and the espousal of “the ruthlessness of Joshua” has been to a large extent the cause of much of the anti0-Semitism in the workd today. Yes,we do remember Deir Yassin.
Well i’m off to kill myself because i’m a christian and supposedly we hate the jews, we kill em’ because we dont like em’ and we do not recognise Jesus of Nazareth as a jew. Great job channel four for demolishing any bridges that have been built over time. What absoulte bull excrement. Produce a programme from impartiality not arcaic ideals that should have been dispelled long ago. Tell the story sure but call the programme Jesus from a jewish point of view or one jewish guys view of jesus and christianity not a broad swipe accross the board. The programme is neccessary but misguided and in short..racist. Some denominations riot for less.
This was an interesting programme, but raised some questions about the way followers of different faiths are conveyed.
I have been a Christian for 32 years and in all that time have never met a Christian who has expressed anti-Jewish sentiments. On the contrary, we are taught that our faith is rooted in Judaism and that the Old Testament is just as important as the New. We know that God chose to show His love and faithfulness to the Jews as His chosen people, and they have a very special place in our hearts.
It is true that atrocities have been committed against the Jews throughout history in the name of Christianity, which is extremely sad. But of course, it should be recognised that a true Christian, following the commandment “Love your neighbour as yourself” (a pivotal part of Christianity), would not persecute others. We are to show love and acceptance to others, not cruelty and rejection.
The disciples were Jewish, and most were killed for preaching faith in Jesus. Many Christians are also persecuted and killed today, e.g. in China.
I enjoyed watching this programme, but it would be great if Christians were represented in more balanced way, with less generalisation and maybe a little more research?
What a disappointing programming. It was nothing more than a vehicle for the presenter to vent his feelings. It was full of people putting their own views forward as fact rather than their own interpretation. It was nothing more than tabloid reporting that sought to try and evoke anger and resentment. There is no doubt that so-called Christians throughout the ages have done awful things, but this is through the sins of the human, rather than anything else. We need to get back to the basics of the bible, rather than making up our own rules based on picking verses out of context. A very, very disappointing program indeed.
As I lifelong Christian, I was appalled at the repeated assertion that Christians hate Jews as being responsible for Christ’s death. This is totally illogical and beyond comprehension for a faith which teaches love for God and love for neighbour as the two most important commands of Jesus – neighbour, of course, meaning all human beings. Furthermore, the conviction of Jesus was by a few Jews in Jerusalem at the time of his trumped up charge and trial and enabled the prophecy to be fulfilled. How could any invididual since that occasion possibly be to blame? On the contrary, I have always understood that it is I who crucify Jesus when I forget his Kingship and disobey His will
Let us love one another as He taught.
hi -the program certainly opened my eyes to some of the terrible things that Jews have suffered from some Christians/ Christian institutions. I personally had never realised how bad this was and am very shocked and sad about this. I acknowledge as well that many of the presenters of the program had had negative personal experiences.
That said, I thought the program did make a lot of assumptions about what Christians think of Jews and the faith’ s Jewish heritage. I am not anti-semetic and have great respect and interest in Jewish heritage and Jesus as a Jew. Did the program researcher ask many Christians what they actually thought?
Will the rest of the series on ‘A Christain History’ be ‘A history of all that Christians ever got wrong’. Is it fair to present any religion in this one sided vision on prime time television. Should we not be working more to build bridges of understanding rather than erecting walls of fear that many people of all faiths are trying to tear down?
A very interesting and challenging program. Somewhat disappointing that Howard Jacobson is in the opinion christian ‘persecution’ of the Jews was the foundation or justification of the Holocaust. I have never heard any individual or Church, blame the Jews for Christs death.
Chistianity certainly has a lot to answer for through its history in particular the crusades and inquisition to name but two.
There were many other Jewish messiahs before and after Jesus – would Jesus himself only be a figure of interest to historians as another messiah figure if a religion did not form in his name?
Interesting to note that in such programs/debates the 1,700 year old Nicene Creed is rarely if ever mentioned – in particular the line :
“crucified under Pontius Pilate” – it does not say “crucified at the request of the Jews”, but no one blames the Italians for the crucifixion!
I’m very disappointed with this programme. No interviews with people who have had a life transforming encounter of the living Christ, more importantly, no interviews AT ALL with messianic jews (Jews who still retain their Jewishness whilst accepting that Christ is their promised OT Messiah), muddled comments on baptism, no reference to the prophecy in the OT (The Jewish Bible!) from Isaiah 53 of a suffering servant,I,E,. JESUS. This was just a negative follow-on from the Christmas day programme wheeling out liberal wooly theologians who focus on one prophecy from Micah and then try to disprove it to support their own beliefs on who Jesus really was . They do not mention other key OT prophecies which clearly point to Jesus. They don’t even seem to believe the Bible themselves! How then can their analysis be trusted by the viewer as truthful? Please Channel 4 try to get your facts correct and just for once present a fair and balanced programme on Christianity!
Jesus was a Jew. Amen to that. loved this first episode. Like others, though, I don’t think the programme interviewed widely enough to uncover current Christian thought on the subject. E.g. talking to Messianic Jews (Jews who have become Christians) would have been interesting.
The history of most religions is appalling. Can’t argue with that. And yes no doubt it in some way influenced what happened in the Holocasut, but I felt the programme was critiquing a Christianity of the past (even if it was justified).
Most modern Christian theologians and scholars base their whole arguments on Jesus being a Jew and that understanding the Jewishness of Jesus leads to a proper application of his teaching. Getting a non-English speaking Vatican theologian to give the official line seemed to show your hand a little. And why with all your research budget, were you quoting from a translation of the bible that is 500 years old? There are plenty of modern translations around. Or was this just another subtle way of discrediting anything the writers of the NT said? They aren’t the only ones who can spin the story when they want to!
I agree with earlier comments that channel4 has been woking on an anti-christ agenda for some time now. The material presented was dishonest, misleading and inaccurate. Again anyone familiar with the new testament can clearly recognise Jesus’ claim to divinity. He wasn’t just ‘teaching Jews to be good’ but he told many that their ‘good works’ were not enough to erase a lifetime of sin and that they should seek mercy from God, through him (alone) to achieve salvation. It was also prophesied in the old testament that God would bring salvation to Jews and Gentiles, Jesus claimed to be (and was) that messiah. In respect of the ‘crimes of christianity’ as put forward by the presenter I was somewhat lost for words. My principle has always been – you can’t call yourself a brain surgeon, if you can’t perform brain surgery. There is a difference between a claim and the truth. As a vet is to animals, a shepard to sheep, so is Jesus to christians. There is no diploma you can take to certify your christianity so anyone can commit mass murder and claim to be mother teresa. You should be able to tell christians by their love. Hopefully people can see wolves in sheeps clothing. You don’t need Channel4 to teach you about chritianity and Jesus – you are responsible for your own soul. Check ‘always be ready dot com’ for a real christians view of Jesus and the bible.
As a Christian I have always understood and happily accepted the fact that Jesus was Jewish. Despite all the differences between Christianity and Judaism that have arisen since the time of Jesus, we have one vital thing in common. We believe in the same God. The commandments given to Moses are the foundations of every Christian community. The Jewishness of Jesus is most definitely not “the guilty secret of Christianity”.
I was interested to listen to the explanations of why Jesus was not the Messiah. Howard Jacobson told us that Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed by the Romans within a few years of the crucifiction of Jesus (70AD). Not long after this, Jews were barred from living in Jerusalem and the newly created Roman province of Palestine. If you listen to the program you would believe that this fall of Israel was engineered by St. Paul who became the Christian “victor” over Judaism. The fall of Israel was as a direct consequence of Jewish actions. Over the years what is now Israel has been a land of conflict and struggle. As I write this, the conflict still continues with more people dying each day. In contrast the Jews that followed the teachings of Jesus have spread his teaching to every corner of the world. Rather than being subdued by the Romans, Christianity was eventually adopted by the Romans and has flourished ever since. To quote from the program: “You don’t get the title until you finish the job”. History would suggest that Jesus was indeed the Messiah and his teachings have led to salvation of the Christian continuation of the Jewish faith.
Like others that have commented on the program, I believe some of the arguments were incorrect and certainly did not represent my Christian opinions of Jews. I have to say that I found it offensive to have my faith held up along side of Nazi Germany. Howard Jacobson seemed to struggle in differentiating between the word of God and the acts of man.
Having said all that, the program has made me look at my faith from an alternative point of view. As a result, my beliefs have been reconfirmed and for that reason I thank you for the program.
I found Howard Jacobson’s documentary superb, and was glad that Prof James Tabor pointed out St Paul’s manipulation of Jesus’s message.
What I found appalling was that the Roman ghetto existed until 1870 and that Jews were not granted full citizenship until then. Jacobson looked decidedly uncomfortable while in Rome, and I cannot blame him for that.
Christianity has a lot to answer for, particularly as one church referred to the “perfidious Jews” in a prayer.
I look forward to seeing further programmes in this series, but thank you Mr Jacobson for a most enlightening initial programme.
I am sick of Ch4’s anti-Christian agenda. why are they allowed to get away with such programming? does it not infringe on the law we passed in the UK which incited hatred of a particular group.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of history, Christian history , theology… would know that his was a load of rubbish. Just another attack on Christians and Christianity. No other religious group would tolerate such an attack, why should we????
Once again Channel 4 has produced a provocative programme. It is high time that the Channel stepped up to the mark and produced quality Christian religious programming which accurately reflects the teachings of the religion. The deconstructionist doubt which is being propagated bears all the hallmarks of heresy. Mr Ahmed and Channel 4’s agenda is encouraging a culture of doubt and does not present to the public a true picture of Christianity. It cannot really qualify as religious programming since it does nothing to inspire people about the truths of Christianity. The first programme contained very poor scholarship and much of the content was inaccurate and laughable. Do your research, Channel 4! It is as much a question of accurate historiography as it is simply consulting the Church about what she teaches. The theology is totally muddled. It reads like the Da Vinci Code. One place to start would be to get Christians to talk about their own faith – and by that I do not propose Cherie Blair!
Here is a little research.
The New Testament book of Acts mentions “Pharisees which believed”. Josephus the Jewish historian wrote “many of the Jews were drawn to him”. The Roman historian Tacitus states the Christianity or religion he writes about started in Judea. The gospels name Nicodemous, Joseph of Arimathea and Jarius.
The Apostle Paul referred to them as “men of reputation” and I would suggest they were men who did not need to special-plead apostleship.
For all of Howard’s rejection of the messiah I think those Pharisees/Rabbis knew best and certainly knew more about Jesus of Nazareth.
It serves Judaism and Pauline Christainity to remain in denial of the facts which as I see it are patently obvious. Their perception of messiah was neither Rabbinical nor Christian.
My husband and I watched this recorded programme this evening, which we were both looking forward to. We are both Christians from different faiths and were saddened and upset by many of the comments made against christians especially when the halocaust was mentioned, as we have visited Ausvich and were deeply moved by the plight of the jews. This programme came across as totally a one sided view for perhaps a small majority of people. I was bought up as a Roman Catholic, and was taught to love all people of different races and religions jews included.All persecution is not and should never be acceptable. I am sorry that this gentleman feels as bitter as he does. Jesus was a jew and gave Peter the right to head up the Christian Church, when he said “Peter upon this Rock build my church” which was not mentioned in the programme at all,and was the true beginning of christianity.
Erm……
I know my comments have already been made but I needed to add my own. I’m shocked and saddened how much opinion in this program is displayed as fact. Howard Jacobson has clearly got some hang ups about Christianity but more to do with Christians. I’m aware that people calling themselves Christians have done horrible things to Jews but this isn’t “historical” and therefore suggesting “true” Christianity. The lack of scholarly accuracy is highly shocking for a show portraying itself as documentary. Early in the show, one of the guests said that Luke, in his gospel, made up the census. But there is evidence of a census in historical Roman writings of the time. This show would be more accurately titled “Christianity: My Opinion”. Why couldn’t we have some Christian scholars describing Jesus’ Judaism, for example Dr Mike Ovey of Oakhill College, London or Dr Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham (I think). Why does a show like this have the freedom to display such lies about Christianity? If this were done about any other faith, the channel would have to make a public apology and be fined by OFCOM. I’m not bothered about that, I just want truth to be made known and not surpressed. If Aaqil Ahmed wanted to take a risk, why not risk putting some true believers on the telly. I know I sound really complaining, but this was a real shocker!
I want to thank you Channel 4 for taking the risk and puting on this programme It, along with many other explorations into faith and worship, find them very timely. I too find myself at 49 years old struggling with all the answers.Having had my own Damascus moment, For me it was like falling in love ‘ I believe so I may understand’ Looking forward to the rest of the programme.
Great programme… It really shows how religion teaches prejudice and creates bigotry. Next programme should be how on how the human race should grow up and start loving and respecting all regardless of creed, colour, gender or race, which is very lacking in all major religions of today.
This comment is a good display of prejudice and bigotry. Of all things, Christian teaching cannot be thought to preach intolerance of other colours/races.
Would the programme have not been better called “Christianity, a Perspective” rather than a ‘History’? I found there to be precious little history and a lot of opinion.
A lot of the comment was dressed up as fact – for instance that the custom of Bread and Wine was presented as being new with Paul but in fact this practise stretches right back into early Jewish history to Melchisedek, and is part of Jewish ritual even now.
To call this programme a ‘history’ does great injury to the word. I only pray that Mr Portillo will be more interested in accuracy.
As usual channel 4 have dispensed with journalistic objectivity, and launched into thier usual vitriolic diatribe.
Rather than findind people who actually know what they are talking about they simply wheel out the usual ‘experts’ who simple agree with everything they say.
I am beginning to think that this channel is so blinded by thier own irrational hatred they they are totally incapable of engaing in any kind of reasonable discussion, and instead simply resort to distortion of the facts and outright lies.
From a Christian who loves Jweish people, and supports Israel
Yes, also a prime example of media phroaghanda which creates just this kind of prejudice and bigotry. You are right, the human race has not gorwn up, or we would not be so easily brainwaghed into hating certain groups.
Is Aaqil Ahmed a Muslin ? All his programs seems to be very pro- Islam and very bias towards Christianity.
When you say “Jesus the Messiah” became “Jesus the Christ” you are showing your lack of understanding. Messiah is the transliteration of the Hebrew word in the Old Testament for the expected Deliverer and means “The Anointed One.” “Christ” is the translation of the equivalent Greek word which also means “The Anointed One”.
I was very disappointed with this program it is so biased.
Had to comment!
Messiah is a politico-religious office and Christ is a spiritual office. One is the Saviour of Israel and the other is the saviour of the world.
Peter, your wrong, Christ is simply a translation of Messiah and would be used by Greek speaking Jews as a Greek translation, it has the same meaning as Messiah and all the conotations that come with it.
Paul in his letter to Timothy said Jesus had “..preached unto the Gentiles” and was “believed on in the world”. This fact about Jesus and non-Jews is supported by the historians Josephus and Tacitus. So not only was Christ originally a word for word translation “Christ” was used to refer to Jesus before as well as after the crucifixion.
The thing is messiah and trinity do not mix. However, Christ makes the Greek connection with “logos” or Word. “Christ” is not the problem here but the connection with logos is. There is a very real danger the word logos has abused the meaning of Son of God.
OK, it was quite entertaining, but can someone please tell me where I can find a factual, objective (non-biblical – non christian) historical contemporary reference as to ‘Jesus’ having ever existed as a person?
I agree, it was entertaining.
The nearest such reference comes from the Jewish historian Josephus. He could have and one assumes would have interviewed high priests with first hand knowledge of Jesus. (Well wouldn’t you?)Jesus was by then the most famous Jewish person that ever lived. Thing is, people say the famous remark about Jesus was added later by a Christian. But those people are stupid because Josephus identifies the real issue and that is “if it be lawful to call him a man”. In fact, those people are mad because it says the Gentiles were drawn to the Messiah. In which case Jesus compromised the office of Messiah and was a liar and a fraud. (Of course, the understate the part played by Gentiles.
I think Pilate is a good example. He conceded that it was lawful to call him a man. We have archeological evidence for the existence of the Roman Governor. The 2nd nearest to “evidence” for the existence of God.
How about it Channel 4, a programme about the evidence for God.
Josephus, first centuary Jewish Historian mentions Jesus a prophet from Gallilee….however, your need for non-christian proof suggests you do not have much trust in the Biblical manuscripts. Your level of mistrust is unfound. The Biblical manuscripts are poured over by thousands of historians and scollars, christian and non-christian and yet the scollarly conscientious is the manuscript tradition and documents we now have are very reliable, as is the wider historic proof found in the writings of the second centuary early Church fathers. We have more evidence that Jesus existed than Julius Caeser. The meaning of his life death and resurrection are a question of faith. In reference to his resurrection, the most respected and unrefuted arguements is by NT Wright in his book The Resurrection of the Son of God. If you have a year or two to read it
. Alternatively read the Gospels, see the passion Jesus had for people and his desire to die on the cross to save people from their sins. Then Acts, which demonstrates how the apostles were willing to suffer and die for the message of good news that Jesus died for our sins so that we might be welcomed into a new everlasting relationship with God our Father, and that everyone who accepts his death for them and believes that he rose from the dead to demonstrate his power over death, will recieve eternal life in heaven. This was no crazy message made up by madmen, it is the truth that so many have died and gone to heaven, hoping that others might recieve the same hope and joy.
Zyloth, I’m afraid you’re at the tail-end of the curve here. Skeptics who questioned the existence of Christ, Pilate, Chaiphas (High Priest) have been laughed out of the Universities a long time ago. There is more evidence for the life of Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar (~65BC). Also much of the Bible has been verified by numerous archealogical finds. Remember this scandalous “History” we watched wasn’t about denying Jesus’ existence. Once you take the time to read more current objections to Christianity you may come to realise that there is much truth in the book. Here is a link (or two):
http://www.4truth.net/site/pp.aspx?c=hiKXLbPNLrF&b=2902063&printmode=1
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=0
Assuming you didn’t know, now you do.
The references from Josephus are themselves the subject of much doubt by many historians and therefore cannot be taken as factual. It is more likely that ‘the Church’, interpreted any slight reference and included it thereafter. I still maintain there is no proof Jesus ever existed.
If you do not accept the Josephus comment in any way whatsoever the only thing left is to argue Jesus’ association with Pilate.
We know Pilate existed. The historian Tacitus mentioned historical Pilate in connection with Christ. Tacitus has his own version of events so “Christianity” was not his source. It is an attack on the gospels to say the “mischief” began in Judea, and not Galilee. Also, the Christianity referred to as a “pernicious superstition” existed before the death of Jesus, which means before Paul. Tacitus was in his own mind a serious historian and so I am assuming he got it right.
The equally meagre offering by Josephus tells in its own way the same Jesus story. Many of the Jews were drawn to Jesus. Not exactly Christ killers then! It started in Judea and it started with the Jews drawn to him. The Christian myth about Paul is again exposed because Josephus says many of the Gentiles were drawn to Jesus. Josephus also mentions Pilate. One historian speaks in context of Rome’s history and the other in context of Jewish history so I am discounting the idea of a conspiracy.
I wrote a first comment on this programme on the day that it was aired, 11th January, and I would like to round off my thoughts about it, having given it a lot of thought for the past five days.
I think that the programme should not have been aired. I repeat, for a start, that its aim to give ‘an alternative view’ of Christianity was a mistake. I feared that the programme would not be of the scholarly standard that the subject demanded, and unfortunately that proved to be the case.
I say with regret, but very firmly, that Howard Jacobson was not the right person to present the pogramme. The programme was meant to be on ‘Jesus the Jew’. It should have been an investigation into how Jesus is represented in Christianity’s founding documents, the New Testament, with due consideration of the Jewish religious position from say 150 years before Christ to 150 years after Christ, and including the religious and political background of the period. Surely, the programme should have investigated the reasons why a group of practising Jews, the apostles and first followers of Jesus, including Paul, became convinced (especially by the constantly-affirmed resurrection of Jesus) that Jesus, who was indeed a thoroughly Jewish holy man, was in fact the expected Jewish Messiah, and more, Son of God and God himself. This was the foundation programme for the 8-part series, and the case for the Christian claim that Jesus is the Messiah is the absolutely central point in the whole series. Yet this point was never investigated. It was mentioned, but swept aside by Jacobson. For him, it was all Paul’s invention – end of story.
Yet that is not the end of the story. I regret to say that Jacobson did not show any in-depth knowledge of the New Testament, nor, for that matter, of the purely Jewish world of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the century before Christ, and during his lifetime too. I repeat that scholars today, both Jews and Christians, accept that the claims made by and for Jesus in the New Testament for a suffering, dying, rising and Saving Messiah, were thoroughly Jewish concepts (see books by Israel Knohl and Michael O Wise which prove this matter in detail). These ideas developed and expanded, and within Judaism itself, the original ‘conquering liberator’ idea of early Jewish messianism. Christians found these updated ideas fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. They did not invent them out of thin air.
I point out, as I did in my first comment, that so strong were these modified and developed messianic ideas that both Knohl and Wise thought that they were already fulfilled in two other Jewish holy men in the century before Christ. It is very important to note that Jacobson said that Jesus could not have been the Messiah (he said that Jews are still waiting for the Messiah – but I add, not all Jews) because Jesus did not accomplish the triumphant, Davidic, conquering political salvation of his people. Yet how much more truly could this be said of the supposed pre-Jesus Messiahs of Knohl and Wise. They have certainly vanished without trace. But Jesus’ Messiahship has been a historical success, from his day to ours.
I conclude with the comment that the subject of the often cruel treatment inflicted on Jews in the course of history should not have been the main point of the programme, though Jacobson tended to make it so. We needed, but did not get, a proper discussion of Jesus the Jew in his first century context and considered as the founder of Christianity. The Jewish first ‘pillars’ and missionaries of the Christian Church saw Christianity as the full flowering of Judaism.
Hugh W Scott:
Howard Jacobson was a good choice simply because he has a clear idea. We need that for a debate. I think Howard chose what not to include and so I do not see a lack of expertise. Many Jews do see Jesus as a failed messiah and it is a comment on Christianity. So, its legitimate.
I liked the presentation although I would have argued Jesus did meet all messianic expectations the Jews have. Jesus did “accomplish the triumphant, Davidic, conquering political salvation of his people.” He did that by putting a mechanism in place. Anyone who believes Jesus is the messiah is obliged to concede to him his Israel. Glorify the Son and all that! Jesus is the King of the Jews by decree of Rome and anyone who believes he is the messiah ought not to resist his will. Like Naaman we might need to settle for a couple of bags of earth in order to worship their God. Can you imagine being excluded by God because he still has a thing for Israel?
Hugh,
A lot of thought indeed! Me too!
But I liked Howard’s presentation. It reminded me that Christianity does not own Jesus of Nazareth or have exclusive rights over him.
Whatever Sadducee Jews, Pharaisic Jews, Messianic Jews, Essenes or Zealots believe or believed it does not change the fact that Jesus managed to win official recognition as the King of the Jews. Jesus is a messiah is a matter of fact.
In spite of this, Howard was right to use the Bethlehem or Nazareth argument to show up the inconsistencies. Howard was right to say none of the messianic prophecies were fulfilled in any obvious way. Even if he was born in Nazareth it did not stop Jesus becoming Messiah. As for prophecy we can claim it by saying Jesus came by way of an IVF concept, an embryo transfer in Bethlehem.
I think your criticism of Howard is harsh. Quite simply, Christianity is not the be all and end all it likes to think it is.
You say that Christiaity does not own Jesus of Nazareth. Christianity simply proclaims that the final revelation of God’s plan for mankind is that God has come down to earth as man, as the man-God. The fulness of this final revelation of the Person and teaching of Jesus Christ is to be found in the Catholic Church, to which every human being is called. The Catholic Church wants to share its understanding of Jesus Christ with every human being. He is the Way and the Truth and the Life.
Peter Raj:
A quick further reply. You say to me: “I think your criticism of Howard is harsh.” I reply: I stand by my criticism, that Howard Jacobson did not come over as a top-flight scholar on the New Testament, nor even, I suggested, on the crucially important Jewish background documents of Jesus’ time, the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Qumran community. In both of these areas I will trust my expertise against Jacobson’s. Therefore, I stand by my view that Jacobson was the wrong person to present the programme. Furthermore, his programme never carefully examined the evidence for the Christian belief that Jesus is the expected Jewish Messiah. It seems to me that a Christian scholar should have been given equal time with Jacobson, to co-present the programme. We heard Jacobson’s rapid dismissal of Christianity, but no one presented Christianity’s claims. (The occasional ten-second interviews with Christian scholars did not fill this gap.)Those in Channel 4 who commissioned the programme are seriously at fault for allowing this one-sided presentation.
You say, in another comment (which my computer doesn’t seem to let me access directly to comment on) that “Howard Jacobson was a good choice simply because he has a clear idea.” But what if his clear idea is a wrong idea?
I was intigued by this programme. Born and brought up Catholic, I have been realising recently that the church has not followed the path that Jesus intended. I believe that Jesus was an excellent Jew, an excellent teacher and brought the word of God to those who were getting it wrong. He did not intend for his future followers to move so far away from Judaism, just to give Jews a better understanding of how to serve God. The early church moved too far away from Judaism and it really is a shame… Jews who believe in the message of Jesus represent what Jesus wanted more than Christians who misunderstand the Jewish nature of Jesus Christ.
OK. I have just finished watching Michael Portillo’s hatchet-job on Constantine. There is much to say about it. But let me summarise succinctly. It is a travesty of historical scholarship. As an academic myself, I cannot believe that any academic agreed to be associated with it. Indeed, that might explain the absence from the programme of all of the leading published writers on the period. It is as if almost of the research and publications of the last 25 years on 4th century Christianity had never happened (there are echoes of Alister Kee’s 1970s work that are almost uncanny…).
There are quite simply too many historical and theological howlers to mention (including a 19th century Romantic impression of the Temple of Diana that conveniently omits all reference to temple prostitution, ritual pederasty and child sacrifice) . But what was most representatively striking from an academic perspective was Portillo’s citation of Augustine. I calculated that the most towering intellect of the era received 55 seconds. A simple case of individual selection? No. The point is that careful attention to Augustine overturns the central hypothesis of the programme. For in Augustine’s thought and ministry we see not the synthesis of Church and State but its reverse: what Robert Markus’ 2006 volume calls the invention of the secular. It is Augustine and the 4th century Church which create the separation of the spheres of Church and State, the sacred and the secular, establishing each in its legitimate domain. This is the signature of Western Christianity’s understanding of politics and explains the almost complete absence of theocratic forms of government in the Western political tradition. Incidentally, the suggestion that this separation existed in the pagan Empire is laughably absurd. As well as emperor, Constantine was Pontifex Maximus: high priest of all the religions of the City. It was in this capacity, btw, and not as Emperor that he called the Council Nicaea. Before accepting any of the anti-Catholic tosh in this hopeless programme, read Robert Markus (or any number of writers of the last 15 years).
Does this series get any better? Any more intellectually credible?
I just watched the 2nd part of the series. Great documentary. I would really be intersted in further description of the todays Christians with the first Christians before the empowerment of Church with the Roman Empire, Constantine & Theodosios II. eg when excatly the Christians starting eating PORK unlike their older brothers Jews, the old testaments commands &Jesus himself? When did they start claiming that Jesus was not just the MESIAH (=MESSENGER) as promised from prophets in the Old Testamens, but more important the SON of God? When did they start using PICTURES & whatsmore STATUES of Jesus etc, whereas this was prohibited throughout the Old Testaments & from Jesus words in the Gospel & considered IDOLOLATRY? Where Pope’s power fits in Jesus teachings of equality in front of God? What abouth the Indulgence & Absolution Certificates?
So many questions!
People who were suspicious of the fact believed he was the Son of God when Jesus asked how it was that the Son of David (meaning Messiah) and the Lord of David (you know who) are the same person.
A personality cult relies on the “personality” and not its adherents. Its up to me to eat or not to eat bacon, either way Jesus does not change. Seeing that Christianity started as a personality cult your question is absurd. As for using pictures, I imagine it was with the first Sunday School.
AS for the Pope thing I am afraid the institution undermines the original personality cult and so amounts to a no no.
Dear Sir/Madam
Once again your program on Christianity concentrated on the west; Byzantium is and was the founding of the modern organised Christen Church, Byzantium reinstated the bishop of Rome, Byzantium has kept to its origins.
Do you people know the meaning of the word Catholic and do you know the meaning of the words when spoken from the Greek? I do not think so. This is the second programme that refers to the word Catholic as if it meant the Roman Church. The Vivlos, (The Book), The Evangelion, The Bible, are from the Greek and not from Latin. The word Orthodox and Orthodoxy are Greek and in the Christian context is the word used for the original Church of Constantine, by the way every thing in the early Church was spoken and written in Greek and not Latin.
The western Church is the one that split; the western Church started the crusades, the western Church (Rome) handed over Jews to the Nazis. Christianity is Catholic, the Church is Catholic (Greek for Universal, not Greek for Roman Catholicism and definitely not Greek for Pope, who by the way is an Archbishop that had to bow down and kiss the hand of the head of the Greek Orthodox Church when apologising for the outrages committed by the Roman Church against the Greek Orthodox Church). Look back in history and find out when the Archbishops of Rome started calling themselves Pope, Papas, and Farther of the Church Mr. Portillo.
Byzantium was East and West, but with Greek culture, Byzantium’s emblem was and is the two headed eagle, all Orthodox Christian Churches have it to this day, and even some countries have it in there flag and symbols of Christian statehood. To state that Rome and the Roman Church is Orthodox is not fact Mr. Portillo.
History, (a Greek word) is not precise, but it is all we have so please make programmes that have at least some historical facts. The Church of Agia Sophia was desecrated and turned into mosque by the Ottomans when Constantinople’s was sacked, why was this not emphasised more strongly Mr. Portillo. Lets not offend Turkey, a country who’s faith has also killed countless people
The Eastern Church stacks up against any other religion in the world, we of the Orthodox Church are fed up with the constant downgrading of Christianity.
I wonder if channel 4 takes the same liberties when it comes to Islam or other religions.
No I think not.
How long do you won’t us to turn the other cheek?
Yours truly, R. H
I really have enjoyed both programmes. However, I was wondering why the programme last night did not highlight the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is just as important as the one in Rome.
Since I am not sure what the other programmes will be . . I still wonder why there hasn’t been time spent on indicating what happened when Paul took this Jewish sect to Rome. Christianity is full of pagan holidays: i.e. the Saturnalia, or some call it the Winter Solstice, then there is Easter (Passover), then the trinity, the virgin birth, christ being called the good shepherd . . this all comes from Ancient Egypt. We see depictions of the virgin birth at Luxor Temple and at Deir el Bahri. The term the “good shepherd” was in use at least since the 4th dynasty to refer to Egyptian kings, the gods of ancient Egypt existed in a trinity, Amun, Nut and Khonsu are just one example.
The cult of Mithras which was popular with Roman soldiers had a dying god and his rebirth . . .this iconography is part of the myth of Christianity . . in its efforts to gain converts and it its efforts to create a new religion . . it borrowed from virtually every religiton in the Middle East. Please I would like to see these issues addressed.
thank you
Just as with the previous episode, key point missed was that becoming a Christian doesn’t immediately reform the person, so with Constantine, why does Mr portillo assume he would be the exception. It can take years to conform to Christ and it is always an on going process.
I make the same criticism of the Portillo programme on Constantine that I made on the Jacobson programme on Jesus the Jew. In both cases, Channel 4 is wrong to have only a presenter who disagrees with Christianity. At the very least a believing Christian scholar should have had equal programme time with the unbelieving presenter. Neither programme presented the case for Christianity. This is really unforgivable. Should Channel 4 now abandon this unscholarly, one-sided and therefore misleading series?
I take issue with other aspects of Portillo’s programme. Although Constantine’s conversion and his establishment of Christianity as the state religion did mark a watershed in history, Portillo never tried to see if it had any benefits not only for the state but also for the Church; nor did he ever suggest how or why it might have happened differently.
Christianity was obviously seen by its followers to be true. As Portillo quite properly pointed out, Christianity had already spread widely through the Roman Empire, Constantine’s mother had become a Christian, and Christians had become influential in the state. But he doesn’t go on to ask, what then was the state to do about this? How were Christians to behave as part of the state? Were Christian believers never to express their views or take office in the state? Were Christian officials (even the Emperor) never to let their religious views influence their policies? Was it not inevitable that a highly organized Church should develop to cater for the empire-wide Church? Without really examining alternative possibilities, Portillo concluded that what actually happened was unfortunate.
Also, the Roman Empire was a state, like every other state that surrounded it. On the question of war, Portillo did not examine adequately what the now-Christian state was supposed to do, if its survival was at stake. Was it supposed to just fold up and cease to exist?
Believing politicians and believing churchmen must necessarily interact in the life of the state. Of course, the relationship between Church and state will always have to be carefully worked out and constantly adjusted. But people have to live out their church beliefs in the state. We do not and cannot have two entirely separate spheres, especially where there developed a unified religious belief among all the citizens of a state, and where religious beliefs and practice were considered to be of supreme importance. Also, politicians legislate in areas such as family law, lying, killing, stealing, etc. on which the wisest words ever said are to be found in the Ten Commandments. Is the state to reject every one of these wise words? Are they not also the wisest secular words ever said?
Portillo never came to grips with many such points. His very last words were something like, “Was Constantine a bad thing? My view”, says Portillo, “is that power is for politicians, not churchmen. So Constantine gets my thumbs down.” On the whole, “Portillo gets my thumbs down.”
I can say confidently that serious scholars of the New Testament see the roots of Christian belief to be in the Jewish writings of the Old Testament, and not in the pagan myths around them. Of course the Jews and Christians lived in contact with other peoples and their myths, and knew something about them. But Judaism and Christianity have a history and a set of beliefs of their own, which they consider to be the revelation of the one true Creator God, and which differ fundamentally from any other religious beliefs. All of this is established over and over again in scholarly Christian biblical scholarship. Specifically, the Mithras cult is not the origin of Christianity, nor in any way a serious influence. See, for example, the 900-page book, An Introduction to the New Testament, by Father Raymond Brown, published in 1997, which deals with this issue several times. Unfortunately, there is no paperback edition of this book, and it will set you back about £20 new or used. But buy it and settle down to some serious and exciting New Testament study.
Christianity is not true but expedient. The original manifestation of ridiculous and delusional creationism was Gnosticism. Ridiculous because modern Big Bang cosmology does not rely on an omnipresent entity emanating an omnipresent universe. The new universe has a centre. Judaism is the cult of Yahweh + creationism. The belief that God is like a man (Yahweh, Zeus, Thor, etc.) is paganesque and it too is considered ridiculous. (The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins) God is a man does not work because man comes under creature and not creator. So St Paul made concessions to creationism and St John, another creationist, conceded Logos. Christianity is creationism + Jesus. Very expedient!
Josephus gives it away when he says, if it be lawful to call him a man. Jesus said
“But now you seek to kill me, a man that has told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham”. So, Jesus also said he was a man and in the same breath in context of being God. The response from the creationists was to attempt to stone him and it was because “thou being a man makest thyself God.” Jesus was the man who said “Abraham rejoiced to see my day” and “Before Abraham was, I Am”.
Paraphrasing Josephus, is it lawful to call Yahweh a man?
We do not want Christianity to be true but to be honest!
Christianity is a hybrid (paradoxical) belief system where creator or god is both a man and an omnipresent source of matter. a
The belief that God is like a man (Yahweh, Zeus, Thor, etc.) is paganesque and it too is considered ridiculous.
I think you will find that Heathens do not think Thor is a an actual man all our Gods including Thor are seen as personifications of nature
“Christianity: a history” is a worthwhile series. It, in a subtle form, carries on from where Richard Dawkins left off with his “The Root of All Evil”. The difference being Jesus clearly existed but scant consolation when Christians are given Howard Jacobson’s version. In this series Christ is yet again a literary invention and it is hoped more Christians will volunteer for re-hab!
Disconnecting the historical Jesus from the theists or creationists leaves them with just a god delusion. It is Christian creationism and only Christian creationism which is marginalized. Judaism and Islam do not lend themselves to such an easy attack. So, where atheism has failed it is hoped post-Dawkins good sense will prevail.
But all theism was rendered anachronism in 1929 when Edwin Hubble revealed the universe is expanding. Dawkins uses evolution as the basis for his atheism and profound scientific reality does make creationism artificial-reality and superstitious, a delusion. (Before 1929 people were entitled to creationism as their version of reality because we all need a version of reality in order to have assumptions which make life that much easier.
The worst fear for Christian fundamentalists has to be someone applying the anti-theism to the “Christ” story in a retrospective way and thereby completing their break with Jesus Christ. This is why they are fighting the teaching of evolution in American schools.
It is possible to argue Christ himself was anti-theism. There are 3 such statements. The Son of David is also the Lord of David. Jesus had privileges Abraham did not. So, how about a program which argues the cross is a legal statement, Jesus has a criminal record (his crime being identity theft i.e. claiming to be Yahweh) and Pilate the Roman Governor conceding the argument or “truth” that Jesus of Nazareth is the King of the Jews. Personally, I think this would amount to evidence for the existence of God.
Is tonight’s programme supposed to be aimed at children? It is awful! Oversimplified language, as if we are all three years old and need to be jollied gently into the subject; a very oversimplified take on the history of Christianity spreading into Britain and of what it replaced. Honestly this has the feel of a schools programme. D minus, Channel 4.
Robert Beckford used to have our respect, as practicing pagans we were very impressed with his impartiality however, the episode ‘Dark Ages’ is so full of faults as to defy belief, He mentioned the God ‘Oestra’, this is incorrect, ‘Oestra’ is in fact the name given to the ancient British Goddess ‘Bridgit’ at Spring,
I have just been watching your programme presented by Robert Beckford on Christianity and the Dark Ages and must point out a major error he made about Christian belief, then and now.
The views of the Venerable Bede and others on the inclusiveness of Christianity would have always based on Bible teaching and therefore would never have included homosexuality as anything but a sin nor
would he have approved, in a modern context, Islamic beliefs as acceptable. The first is expressly forbidden in the Old and New Testaments. and the second because Islamic teaching about Jesus directly contradicts Christian belief about His being the Son Of God and secondly denies that He was cricified at all.
However, as Christians have always believed, even if we disagree with people about their religious beliefs we still have a duty to love them and pray for their conversion as fellow man and women
If our beliefs as Chistians,on the concepts of right and wrong, cease to be based on the Bible, we are making up our own theologies.
Sent at 9.18pm on 25th January 2009.
I enjoyed the Beckford programme on ‘The Dark Ages’ more than the first two in the series Christianity: A History. I offer some comments.
# 1 First, the programme was initially announced as being on The Dark Ages, and only later was it described as a programme on how Christianity created a new Britain during the Dark Ages. Beckford never explained why his programme said nothing at all about what was happening in the continent of Europe during the Dark Ages (roughly 400 AD to 1000 AD), which would have been hugely interesting, but spoke only of what happened in Britain and Ireland during that period. Although the making of Britain during that period was fairly well described by Beckford, the wider all-Europe history should also have been explained in a History of Chrstianity. Why did Channel 4 mis-describe this interesting programme?
#2 Second, once again the programme lacked any discussion of the Christian religious position. The intrinsic religious superiority of Christian beliefs over the religious beliefs of the pagan immigrants, Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Vikings, was never mentioned. For Beckford what led to conversion was largely the fact that the native English populations under the banner of Christianity at various times conquered their pagan foes in battle, and this ‘proved’ that the Christian God was stronger than the pagan gods. I recognize, however, that Beckford did a good job in describing how eventually a properly religious understanding of Christianity grew, especially in the North-East (Lindisfarne etc.) and Alfred’s kingdom in Wessex
# 3 Thirdly,There was a screaming need for maps, e.g. of Saxon and Viking conquests, and Alfred’s kingdom. Perhaps there should have been a permanent mini-map in one corner of the screen. Also, when new placenames or tribal names are mentioned, they should be flashed on to the screen.
# 4 Fourthly, congratulations on a generally informative programme. What breaks my heart, however, is my belief that all of this essential geography, history and religion would have been probably incomprehensible to the last two or three decades of British schoolchildren, because the educational esctablishment has decided to exclude all three areas, more or less, from the school curriculum. There is no longer any background information in the general population on these vital aspects of our past as factors in our Britishness.
How on earth can a programme about the conversion of England NOT EVEN MENTION Aidan (or Chad for that matter)?
In his programme on Christianity in the Dark Ages, Robert Beckford constantly elided Britain with England and Englishness. Does he not appreciate the difference between the two? He also referred, in glowing terms, to the development of a Christian British state under one language (English). Doesn’t he realise what a disaster this was for the peoples of Wales, Scotland and Ireland who struggled to maintain their own languages in the face of such a monolithic entity? For such a keen supporter of multiculturalism, Dr. Beckford seemed to show a curious lack of cultural sensitivity towards the identities of the Welsh, Scottish and Irish in his Anglo-centric take on the history of Christianity in the British Isles.
I agree with H D Jones in that I found Beckford’s analysis of early British Christianity both generally suspect (no clear explanation of nature of Celtic Church for example) and nauseatingly Anglocentric. I had hoped that someone whose roots were not English might have been capable of a genuinely British perspective. He may believe in all those English virtues and that England has subjugated the other people of the British Isles to their great benefit, but the non-English British, still after all those centuries managing to resist absorption, surprisingly do not do not see it that simplistic way. RDM
Dark Ages was at last a program which reminded me why I used to be so proud to be a Christian. The England of St Cuthbert’s time has to have been the greatest theocracy of all time. Religion has to be a sincere pursuit of superficial (pagan) and profound reality or what people think is profound reality. It was never better achieved than with “England”. Christ is obviously the key in bringing the two realities together.
So why did Robert ruin an excellent program by ending it with talk of “evil” and the power of the cross. We do not need fictitious or made up enemies. We do not need saving from delusions. We can celebrate the heritage for its own sake.
Next time you make a concession to creationism or the Holy Doctrine of Divine Omnipresence I will complain.
What an absolute travesty today’s program was! The Saxon ‘invasion’ information was 20 years out of date. The Saxons, Angles and Jutes did not replace Britain’s east coast population. The may have invaded but like the Normans later on, they mixed in with the local population. As for the building of churches on pagan sites being part of some clever marketing plan, what a joke! Pagan sites were destroyed and replaced with Christian buildings as part of a subjugation of the local population. Early Christian expansion in Britain was all about power, and of course wealth, in the form of taxes. The early church was more brutal and bloody than any ‘religion’ that preceded it. There were plenty of genocidal Christian ‘jihads’ back then. But of course the victors write history and it is only in recent years that anyone has dared to challenge the veracity of the Christian church’s records.
Throughout history Christianity, Islam, or whatever form the ‘one’ god takes has blighted civilization like cancer sickens the human body.
Well said!
Do they remember the crusades!!
I found the “Dark Ages” episode offensive.
The portrayal of the pagan Anglo-Saxon ancestors of England as evil, with dark gods of a violent religion.. while on the other hand showing Christianity as the guiding light that brought such sinners out of those dark times is ridiculous.
Mr Beckford can’t know his history of this period very well since those Dark Ages were not as Dark as one might think after watching this program. One thing that is for certain is that Christianity has caused more bloodshed and violence over the years than all our pagan ancestors put together!
Not only was this episode biased in one direction by a Christian theologian but it also failed to show a balanced view of paganism in this country which is so very often shown in a bad light despite archaeological and historical evidence to the contrary.
I don’t know why I am shocked when I watch such programmes as they are always biased towards Christians. As soon as the “Dark Ages” are mentioned all they can say is the same old rubbish that they were all barbarians and constantly fighting. It makes me so angry. Well from what I can see from our so called wonderful Christians is a world of constant conflict. The only reason the powers that be wanted Christianity was for power and money and it still is today. I am a proud practicing Heathen/Pagan and I am sick to the back teeth of been portrayed as immoral etc. It is about time Pagans were represented in the media by people who know what they are talking about.
Annoyed from Yorkshire
I am glad that I wasn’t the only person offended by this theological indulgence. For the sake ‘balance’ shouldn’t Channel 4 offer British citizens some truly British history? I have just begun researching pre-roman/pre-Christian Britain in order to unearth more of Britain’s ‘hidden’ history, particularly pre-Christian religion. I am reading Frances Pryors’ Britain BC, although this is mainly archaeological material, I also intend reading The Mabinogion. Wouldn’t some of our earliest tales be an excellent topic for re-discovering our roots.
Alternative perspectives give us a well rounded view and I am grateful that Channel 4 provides them.
Could you please reinstate the “oldest/newest” toggle, or at least set the default as “newest” comments. I dont wish to be cynical, but it gives the impression that there are no new comments when one comes onto the comments page.Is this what the Commissioning Editor wishes to portray?
Also thank you to Robert Beresford for reminding us that the so-called “Dark Ages” were a myth. The Book of Kells and the Lindisfarne Gospels today still outshine anything the Islamic world ever produced in 1400 years.
Christianity has shaped the modern world that we live in today, from secularism (”render unto Ceasar”) to individualism (salvation in christianity goes to the individual, not the nation) to democracy (we are all equal under Christ).It was the Christian West that ended slavery and instituted The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Non-christians in the West enjoy rights that Christians in China and the muslim world can only dream of. I would like to see a more positive emphasis on Chrisitanity’s contribution to Mankind.
.
Having just watched Rageh Omar in the Crusades episode of Christianity: A History, I am glad that this report was given of some of the historical origins of the suspicion and dis-ease that exists between the peoples of the East (whether Muslim, Jew or Christian) and the West (whether Christian or other). However, the researchers for this programme may not be aware that there has been a 3 year project from 1996-99 for Christians from the West to retrace the route of the First Crusade 900 years earlier and to offer an apology to Jews, Orthodox and Muslims who were all killed by the Crusaders on their way to Jerusalem. Details of this ‘Reconciliation Walk’ can be found from the Youth With a Mission website. A helpful book on this subject was commissioned to educate and liberate Western Christians. It is called “The Cross Became a Sword” by Fred Wright ISBN I 900475 006. It might be most helpful to have further discussion and debate on these matters within Interfaith Fora around the nation.
What is Channel4 doing ?
Words directed toward the native and organic faiths of this land- Heathenry and Paganism as being evil- Mr Beckford is he only reading the version of history he has been told to read- well its plain and obvious he has bias and is Not impartial in his view of what is Paganism. The nature of social manipulation through ideology, iconography and the political manifesto of the ‘holy roman empire’, being foisted on the the indigenous peoples of western europe and the hundereds of years of bloodshead and misery that it brought seems to evaded having any mention at all.
I’m sticking with the local Gods- after all they are for local people !
Mr Beckford- go and find a Pagan Coven or attend a Heathen Blot and educate yourself.
Bernard Nash.
I couldn’t believe I was watching a serious documentary when watching the third installment of ‘Christianity’. The facts and perspective of this programme were so out of date they could have come from a Victorian school book. To portray the early history of Britain in such an out moded way with hordes of invading germanic pagans and ‘Celtic’ christians is utter nonsense. Beresford identifys an ethnic divide between the British and English that has been systematically debunked by advances in archeaology and genetical science. Unfortunately the early history of Christianity in Britain is an integral part of the origin myth of England and was never as clear as the simple ‘facts’ presented in this programme. Disappointed.
This programme shows why Channel 4 has lost credibility as a public service broadcaster. The person who commissioned it states that he wanted to take a risk and produce a programme that was ‘not just history’. In truth he has produced a series that is nothing like history, because he has deliberately chosen people who will present a partisan and inaccurate view of the history. This is not an ‘alternative view’, it is the same shallow nonsense that we have come to expect of Channel 4. It is not only financially bankrupt, it is intellectually bankrupt too.
I don’t know if Mr Omaar is deliberately leaving out crucial information in order to produce anti-western propaganda but if he considers this programme to be an accurate discussion of the causes of the crusades then he should never be permitted to work on decent television again.
Perhaps the reason that he prostituted his credibility is to provide his masters at C4 with the sort of “controversial” anti-western viewpoint that they always adopt in any west v (anywhere else) story.
Whatever the reason, when facts are manipulated in the way that they have been here, then bigotry is the only victor.
Where was the discussion of the real reasons for the crusades?
• The development of Islam from the 7th Century onward.
• The Islamic holy wars of conquest that ensued across the middle east, Africa and into Europe,
• The constant pressure of the Islamic forces on Constantinople
• The attempts to support one half of the Christian world by the other.
Shame on you Mr Omaar and shame (yet again) on Channel 4.
If the Channel wants a slice of public money then maybe you should stop acting like juveniles.
“What are you rebelling against Johnny?”
“What’ve you got daddy?”
Pathetic.
I think that the Programme did miss some vital info as mentioned re: Islams aggresive rise to begin with.
However as I Christian I agree with the programme and God/Jesus must be ashamed of the way so called Christians behaved. However Muslims must not use this as an excuse for terror.
It was surprising to see a programme about the Crusades which did not mention the Christian armies’ massacres of Jews, both in the European cities from which they set off for the Holy Land, and in the Middle Eastern towns and cities through which they then passed. The Jewish people should not be written out of this history, which had important consequences for Jewish-Gentile relations. The only reference to Jews in the programme was by a contemporary opponent of the modern state of Israel; a state which has come into being in response to many such experiences of oppression.
Yours sincerely
Dr A. Summers
Tonight’s episode on the crusades failed to take in that the crusaders slaughtered all the Jews as well. Also it concealed the divisions of Islam with the Turks coming from Asia minor and then the Sword of Islam ‘Tamerlane’ slaughtering the whole of Damascus. Is everyone in Europe the descendants of Normans?
Thanks to Rageh Omah for a very informative and balanced episode this evening. It has long been obvious to me that the Crusades still colour the Islamic view of “the West”. The crusades were a shameful episode in the history of Christianity though it’s sad that both sides can’t acknowledge, nearly 1,000 years on, that they grew out of a very different view of the world and of religion than prevails nowadays in Christianity (though when you look at some manifestations of Evangelical Christianity you wonder whether we might be regressing). It would be sad if the thoughtless utterances of ignorant politicians and others pushed Islam further down a path that Christianity trod so long ago and now should apologise for.
I have just watched Rageh Omars program. I thought it gave an excellent insight of the views of the Muslim people of the Middle East.
It certainly convinced me that my views of religion are correct. There may be a God, “BUT” religion is of mans making for his own benefit.
I say this because most wars and atrocities are carried out in the name of religion. As Rageh’s program showed no religion is exempt from this accusation. Rageh talked about the Crusades, but just look at history. Look what the Catholic’s did in South American in the name of Christianity. Then you have the way Cromwell treated his people in the name of God.
You may have guessed that I’m not a religious person just a man on the street, who believes everyone has the right to live in piece.
If there is a God I’m sure he would never condone what man as done in his name in any religion.
‘what was unique about the christian crusaders was that they saw their holy war as an act of Christian devotion every bit as important as prayer’ is what the singularily misinformed presenter of the fourth episode of this series claims. Far from being unique, this concept is almolst directly copied from the islamic concept of holy war- Jihad the fith pillar of Islam.
I realise that this is a program about Christianity, but why is it that the view of the Crusades is always that of a terrible evil act of Christian aggression? Certainly it was a bloody and brutal conflict, costing the lives of thousands of innocents, but how many more such conflicts were fought, not by Christians, but by Islam? Put in its context, a Christian world menaced by the newly resurgent Almohads in Spain, the ravaging of the eastern territories of the Byzantines by the Sejuk Turks, and the destruction and desecration of the Holy Sepulcure itself, it is preposterous, truly astoundingly ridiculous to see the Crusades as an act of imperialism. Consider for a moment, that right up until the 17th century, the Ottoman empire appeared poised to utterly consume Christendom- Islam was the powerful aggressor in most of its wars with Christians, and only in the Crusades was the pattern broken.
I could not agree more. The Koran is the only major scripture which says, in effect, that if unbelievers will not convert they should be confronted with violence. Muslim armies had conquered the Persian empire, took Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Turkey from the Eastern Roman Empire, overran North Africa and Spain, and raided beyond the Pyrenees until they were defeated at Poitiers. They slaughtered or enslaved hundreds of thousands of people in these territories. The Crusades could have been depicted as defensive wars against a frighteningly succesful enemy, but the programme and presenter preferred, irresponsibly, to play up ‘Western’ aggression and culpability. This will only have fed the victim mentality which is so prevalent in Islam today and reinforced the view that we in Europe ought to be ashamed of our past. When will Islam acknowledge and apologise for its violent history?
I appreciate that this is a hard-hitting series on Christianity( and all the better for being so)
but you would expect a journalist like Rageh Omar to maintain some intellectual integrity.
At the very least, he might have read some books on the subject.
An historical timeline on the subject would have shown the following:
In 674 muslims attacked the Holy Christian city of Constantinople and did so again in 717.
In 711 muslim armies attacked Christian Spain.
In 732 a muslim army attacked Christian France.
In 846 muslims invaded the Holy City of Rome and even looted
St. Peter’s Basilica.
In 965 muslims attacked Christian Sicily.
We could also mention the white Christian slave trade that the muslims inauguarated at this time
( a subject Mr Omar must be familiar with given the muslim slave trade in his own Somalia).
But it was one event above all others that finally aroused the Christians of Europe to finally fight back:
in 1009 muslims totally destroyed the most Holiest site in Christendom –
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
This was followed by increased forced conversion of Middle Eastern Christians to islam
(another topic Mr Omar must be familiar with in the history of his native Somalia).
All these events took place long BEFORE the First Crusade in 1096!
Pope John Paul deserved a mention for his apology to the muslim world for the Crusades.
When are Christians, Hindus, Budhists and others ever going to receive an apology from the muslim world for their bloody Holy Wars ?
The Crusades had a start point and an end point. Islams 1400 year Jihad has never ended because it is one of the Pillars of the muslim religion.
Finally to compare 11th Century Christianity to 21st Century Islamic Jihad shows how preposterous Mr Omar’s position actually is – how can the Crusades explain the current Jihad in India, the Jihad in Thailand,
the Jihad in the Phillipines the Jihad in Darfur and Southern Sudan and
even the present Jihad in Somalia ?
Ps, really enjoyed the interview with the tell-it-like-it-is Robert Beresford.
It is just a pity that Rageh couldn’t bring himself to see the faults of his own religion in that bloody episode of history.
The series so far has been a complete “whitewash” in terms of any contemporary assessment of the subject. Instead, certain individuals have been allowed to express their own particular viewpoints, – rather than a balanced approach to any real historical situation.
Perhaps Channel 4 could address the situation by re-making a series of programmes which actually depict a balanced view on the history of Christianity based on much of the modern information which is now available,
I have found the series interesting and it raised some new points of view. However, I have a major problem with the series in that Channel 4 would never produce a series that questions / undermines Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc in such a way. Why pick on Christianity? I liked Mr. Omar when he was at the BBC but his Crusades programme disappointed me. It is right to mention what our side did wrong and that those Christians were fundamentalists but I doubt you would see Channel 4 having a Christian walking round a holy Islamic site criticising the actions of Muslims. What about Islamic invasions of Europe -there should be a programme on Christianity’s success in resisting total conquest by victories at Poitiers and Vienna. As others have said the Crusades should be seen in that light. Lands such as Turkey and Palestine were Christian before the Muslims came on the scene and won it by their military brilliance.
I am writing primarily regarding the recent episode Sunday 1st Feb. I am not a great writer so please forgive my poor attempt to express my concerns as a responsible person. The 1st 2 programs I found interesting, i sadly missed the 3rd – mac so cant catch up, so I was disappointed with the 4th which I had recorded and taken the time to watch a few times. I do not want to be critical of R Omaar’s attempt, but I would say that the subject and history and origins of the Crusades is such a huge topic that it was unfair to all to try and put it in to one episode. And unfair on him. Also in acknowledging some of the myths (beautifully and sensitively voiced,) it was important to then go on to say what the truths are – and too often this was avoided. As a documentary it should correct misinformation and myth rather then just acknowledge it. Also to jump from the 1st Crusades to the 20th Century is absurd. In making this program today it is necessary to be honest and communicative in a way that is sensitive to all the World community and all viewers. And we need to agree to be different and to hold different views and view points, but to be honest always….so I comment only this 1)To discuss the 1st Crusade fairly is impossible without first conversing re . the reasons for and the nature of the spread of Islam previous to that…and the real fear that came with it 1b) including the choice of building of the Mosque in Jerusalem… and reasons for the choice of site 2) Having spoken about the 1st Crusades it is also necessary to communicate the response to it, and subsequently the causes and outcome of the 2nd Crusades. 3)It is necessary to discuss the feeling left by the 2nd Crusades on all religions affected. 4) Before the 19th century we have the periods of the Inquisitions- horrific for Moslems and Jews. How do you jump from the 1st Crusade to the Modern world regardless of certain “myths”… people who have little or no knowledge of history really risk being misled in this episode. 5) Also, as somebody has stated above the Crusades is expressed as being a war against Islam only, it was not… not in Europe and not in Jerusalem and the Holy Land 6) The 1st Episode in it’s honesty, risked offending some Christian viewers, but dared to challenge some peoples preconceptions and misconceptions that they may previously have had. I understand R. Omaar’s not wanting to risk to do the same thing … and I understand his diplomacy … but rightly or wrongly I also sensed a fear to do otherwise. At times in interview he seemed to me in his facial expression to become somewhat overly emotional. Also, In talking about Christianity and Islam and Jerusalem, he repeatedly neglected to remind us by whom Jerusalem was built as the Holy City, inc. Temple, by whom it was destroyed and it’s people tortured, occupied and many then displaced for how many years ?, and very briefly the events leading up to it first being taken up by the Christian faith and then by the Moslem faith as a Holy city. In effect he erased the Jewish history and neglected to acknowledge so much. All this could have been said in 1 short sentence. In effect it neglected to acknowledge the builders of Jerusalem, and the fact that there was always a Jewish presence in Jerusalem, which continued even after the Roman occupation, destruction and dispersion. 7) It did not highlight the true tribal nature of the communities living in that area…. which is so relevant.. there was not one united Arab Muslim community as he suggests but instead the constant fighting for power between the different groups from different places. I think this was simply to big a topic for him.
I do not know what will be in the final episode, but it should take time to string and connect each program in the series together – and create a coherent summary in 1 program, and it would be very appropriate if the different presenters were shown to be having some dialogue between themselves…discussing what they have learned, how fascinating and what it means for today…what they and we the world community do with it …not to do this final program would be a terrible let down to the whole series, and to us…the viewer. Finally, it is wrong to refer to East and West, and it is wrong to refer to Western Jews. Jews are neither Eastern nor Western, after the forced dispersion by the Romans occupation and the hundreds of years of persecution by so many , Jews simply moved to live wherever they and their families could hopefully survive .. where they ended up East or West is not of any relevance to R.Omaar’s program… and is misinforming…and in my view a show of ignorance. So my final view re this and all the programs in series waits on the last episode – hoping that it will be an honest, beautiful and empowering summary for all it’s viewers.
Rageh Omah’s programme should be compulsory viewing for any Western politician involved with the Middle East. I have long felt that we (Britain and the USA) blundered into Iraq with little if no understanding of Muslim sensibilities. At no point did the programme condone Muslim extremism, but it did show us that Western thinking needs to develop an understanding that is sadly lacking at present. As a practising Christian I am deeply saddened at the extent of the atrocities committed during the Crusades. How could a faith founded on love, forgiveness and humility turn into such an institutionalised, politicised and frankly brutal monster? To be fair, Mr Omah did make this point. The Crusades were a travesty of what Christ intended. This programme (and the series as a whole) may be challenging and uncomfortable viewing for us, but I would encourage Christians to watch them with an open mind. Thank you Channel 4 for an intelligent, balanced and relevant series which has certainly made me think.
Christianity is based on an ideological or mythological “Christ”. Howard Jacobson made this point. We know it is the case because the expedient St. Paul said we no longer know or wish to know Christ after-the-flesh. Christ to some degree is a literary invention or a literary device for creationism. (New Testament contradictions confirm the literal and literary christs.)
Mr Omah through his comment about Christ being nice has confirmed he is suffering a creationist delusion and is a victim of the holy doctrine of divine omnipresence. His program had nothing to do with Jesus the Jew let alone of what he intended. (Michael Portillo would vouch for this.)
What you saw was two forms of creationism in conflict and Pope Urban was right to be offended by the daft Jesus at least one of those ideologies has.
Peter, the Crusades were a defensive war to reclaim Christian land that Muslims had violently conquered.
It might be better if that history lesson was compulsory for Middle-Eastern politicians.
The holy land belongs to the Messiah. He staked a very visible claim upon it. It is neither Christian nor Muslim land. It is not for one to take and the other to reclaim. You are offering a history lesson in creationist delusion.
Even Jews are obliged to concede the land to the office of Messiah. Christians and Muslims must concede it to the person of Messiah. Middle Eastern politics is nothing more than just paying lip service to Messiah. Now that’s a real travesty.
Messiah is Christ without the holy doctrine of divine omnipresence.
The Reformation was an Industrial Relations dispute in the Religious B***sh** Production Sector.
When is a sane and atheist critique on these philosophical aberrations to be aired?
Ann Widdecombe’s programme was very interesting and surprisingly unbiased, apart from one misleading aspect. My home town of Lewes in Sussex is not completely anti-catholic, unlike the impression she gave. The Cliffe Bonfire Society is only one of several, all registered charities, which exist in Lewes. None of the others carries burning crosses or burns any Pope. I’m sure I’m not the only Lewesian who was annoyed and offended by this inaccurate and incomplete depiction of Lewes Bonfire Night!
I have throughly enjoyed this series as the presenters have looked at the religion from their personal perspective but have gone to great lengths to see other positions and educate the viewer.
Ann Widdecombe’s episode was therefore a huge disappointment to me. Instead of looking at one of the bloodiest times on Christianity’s history with any hint of objectivity, she attempted to lay the whole blame on Protestants’ intolerance of Catholicism. Did I blink and miss the section on the Counter Reformation? Was it really necessary to try to reopen old wounds in Northern Ireland by showing the Orange Order but to say nothing of the role of extremist Catholicism?
During the history of Christianity, it seem to me that one of the lessons of this series is that every faction has done terrible things. Hopefully we have learn and can go forward to a more peaceful and tolerant future. Ann Widdecombe’s appalling contribution does not help that aim one iota.
Ann Widdecombe’s programme is a tribute to an understanding of true Christianity and as a Catholic, I am bloody glad that she has converted to Catholicism. Like Tony Blair and Malcolm Muggeridge, each and every such prominent conversion is the good Lord working through his people to further allay the fears and misconceptions of all non-catholics.
Seán Greene
I have found the series interesting, if missing vital elements.; How can you miss athanasius and the debate between Jesus as man and God out of Michael Portillo’s programme? However I am completely puzzled as to how a report of the reformation can miss out on Calvin, Tyndale and Wycliffe. Concerns about the malpractise in the Catholic church were not limited to Luther, but he became the standard bearer. The difficulty of this series is that populist narrators are taking us through their points of view – developing myths and calling it history. Academics could give us a history, but this series would be best described as “Christianity – a personal view.” With that title, it would be a good programme. as it is, it should be brought to court under the trades descriptions act!
Ann Widdecombe’s episode was a disgrace to the series. She attempted to minimise the corruption in the Roman Cathoic Church throughout, confining her comments to dispensations when in fact it was much much wider than that. She also said that the St Bartholomew’s Day and subsequent massacres of Protestants in France left about 10,000 dead when the true figure was in excess of 30,000. Finally she introduced the subject of Northern Ireland extreme protestantism into a programme which was supposed to be on the subject of the 16th C schizm in Christianity. C4 should be ashamed of this farrago of bias, distortion and inaccuracy. Please let’s stick to real historical facts in a series which presents itself as historical!
Following Mr Anderson’s comment about ‘extreme protestantism’, it’s a shame the presenter didn’t mention that while Mr Paisley holds a Reformed evangelical faith, not every Protestant does so. Indeed, where was the mention of Calvinism and Arminianism understandings within evangelicalism? These were more historical aspects related to the Reformation than C20th-C21st Northern Ireland. Martin Luther uncovered the central Apostolic truth, the good news, the gospel, that salvation is solely by repentance and faith in Christ’s sacrifice. This is clearly given in Paul’s letter to the Romans (a letter in which, by the way, the Apostle urges unity between Jewish and Gentile believers). The presenter didn’t seem to understand the gospel, the core issue of the Reformation, which is a shame. Ephesians 2:20 states that the Apostles laid the foundation of the church; therefore there are no apostles today.
havent been able to watch the previous episodes but was looking forward to Ann Widdecombe’s programme since she is a convinced Christian. However while she did occasionally say there were good things about the Reformation her emphasis seemed to be largely on the bad things eg massacres and Orange Order marches. The billion protestants in the world would not have been encouraged to see the re – formation of their faith on a more biblical footing in the 16th century presented in such a negative way.
I agree with other comments that this series can not be called a history as it seems full of subjective- and largely negatively subjective – viewpoints about certain periods of Christian history.
Viewers watching these programmes with no prior knowledge of the events would surely get a very negative view of the Christian faith. Since we get convinced atheists allowed to talk freely about atheism on tv cant we have convinced Christian historians talking about these events in a balanced way-bringing out the positive side and not just the negative?
It seems like the presenters hav e been deliberately chosen to be confrontational and to emphasise the negatives about Christianity- which seems to be the party line in much of the media today.
An interesting series of rather vitriolic interpretations of segments of history selected to attempt to disprove the existance of God as far as I can see. Having seen 5 of these programmes I have yet to see anything to do with Christianity! A lot of religion is being used to justify the presenters’ own positions (which is an obvious thing when no single presenter has any form of balancing commentator). Get rid of the religiousity and start talking about Christianity and the series may then justify the title.
This series is presented as “a history” but it is no such thing. None of the presenters seem to have bothered to consult the rich modern scholarly writing which has addressed their topics. Rageh Omar and Ann Widdecombe gave us clumsy tabloid accounts which ignored facts and, as importantly, the historical contexts within which the Crusades and the Reformation occured. Rather than allowing us to understand modern attitudes about the deep past, these programmes are ignorant if expensive rants which reinforce prejudices.
I thought the programme on the reformation was biased in catholic favour and was sparing with the facts.The roots of the english reformation can be traced back to the lollards and wycliffe in the late 14th century and their translation of the bible. Ironically it was the friars who introduced preaching into england in even earlier days bringing the spoken language and pulpits into churches.Furthermore the programme implied that the monasteries were cut off in their prime when they had peaked by the end of the 13th century and had largely been in decline for years hastened by english patronage favouring collegiate endowments.The reformation could only have taken place because no body could be bothered enough to oppose it.The majority of monks especially the senior ranks, priors etc were rewarded not punished, only those that opposed henry were harshly dealt with, most meekly relented.The programme did not mention this or that Henry was given title Fidei Defensor or indeed that this pope was succeeded by another who excommunicated henry for his divorce and this pope was held prisoner by Catherine of Aragons relative Francis, thus forcing his hand in short I felt that the programme fell short on well known information on vital historical events.
You made yet another concession to the God delusion or holy doctrine of divine omnipresence when the program entertained the idea that it is possible to have a personal relationship with Jesus.
Sympathizing or siding with Jesus is not the same thing as having a personal relationship. Believing him and in him because of the cross does not need to manifest itself in a delusion, an intrusive and invasive Creationist spiritual God delusion.
It is possible to put Jesus back into a politico-religious forum. Martin Luther said salvation is based on faith but Richard Dawkins says faith is evil. Maybe Christianity should stop relying on faith and instead rely on the mandate “King of the Jews”. Maybe it is time for Christianity to adapt and assimilate the anti-theism of atheists. The reformation is on-going and probably because it is not a Catholic institution.
More precisely, Christians believe salvation – us being reconciled to God – is based on Christ’s sacrifice: it is received by repentance and faith in Him (that we can’t achieve it by doing anything ourselves). If, as Christ claims, our deepest problems are not mental or even emotional but relational, His solution is logical, as far as I can see. Just because a group of people states that God doesn’t exist, or that He is not omnipresent, or that there won’t be a day of reckoning, doesn’t mean they are right (ask the Jews!). After all, there is such a thing as collective denial. Once, I watched a journalist interview Mr Dawkins in his home, and even though I tried to listen to Mr Dawkin’s views, I found his manner to be cold and bitter, which made it hard for me to listen to him. Special evolution is easy for us all to accept, but general evolution (and evolutionism) depend upon the physical constants such as c and radioactive decay not having changed significantly over the millennia.
These series completely ignore Eastern Christianity.
Remember that the champion of Christianity in the Middle-Ages was not Rome but Constantinople. Furthermore, anyone wanting to witness the Church unchanged as it was following the Council of Nicea just needs to step in an Orthodox church.
Signed: an aetheist interested in historical accuracy.
Can I please reiterate my earlier point.
After looking at your timeline, I found no sign of, among other missing milestones, the conversion of the Slavs, the loss of the great centres of Christianity that were the Near East or Egypt, the sack nor the fall of Constantinople.
This is occidentalist to the extreme.
Kwarme made some good points, but insisting on making it sound like African domination of Christianity like some kind of great coup was somewhat ridiculous. In a continent (europe) where the majority of people are no longer controlled by religion, who cares? His points about the brutality of colonial missionaries also seemed ignorant; is he not aware that most of Europe was also converted by bloodshed and brutality? The last place in Britain to be “converted” was the Isle of Wight, where the native pagans were slaughtered, man, woman and child, and replaced by “good” christian folk!
Anne Widdicombe was also at fault, claiming that all Protestantism began with Luther, is she unaware of a 14th century phenomena known as the peasants’ revolt? Is she also unfamiliar with the likes of Bishop Jewel, who was espousing Protestant doctrine in Britain before the time of Henry VIII?
I also thought Kwarme could have done more to illustrate the negative influence of Christianity in Africa, where children are condemned as witches and the catholic church furthers the spread of HIV by discouraging the use of condoms.
Get your act together C4, I’m not a Christian (though I happen to think some of the teachings of Jesus are, intellectually beatiful) but even I can spot the holes in this series!
I have just watched the Ann Widdecombe episode which unfortunately yet again seemed to follow the previous pattern of presenting a highly personalised, one-sided view. Sadly, this series is lacking in any kind of scholarly/ academic clout and does not deserve the to include the word ‘history’ in its title. Like Ann, I left the church of my childhood and family but in my case the move took me away from the church of Rome to the free church. The decision was painful but necessary and I was surprised that Ann did not highlight some of the reasons that informed my choice – may of which were voiced at the time of the Reformation. Papal infallability, the misinterpretation of scripture to suggest that Christ proclaimed Peter the first pope, the idea of the church and its sacraments as the route to salvation rather than justification through faith, teaching based on church tradition and the sayso of the church fathers rather than scripture, the worship of Mary and the saints, corruption and the misappropriation of wealth, the double standards of the papacy and its attempts to control believers, etc, etc were just some of the areas that led to my feeling that I could not keep my integrity as a Christian and stay. I could continue … suffice to say that this episode was sorely lacking in balanced content and focused mainly on Ms Widdecombe’s blinkered view of her church. Whilst I acknowledge that there are many committed and devout Catholics, like Ms Widdecombe many have not been taught to ‘examine all things critically’ – Catholics rarely have a good knowledge of the bible. Hence they often fail to understand the foundations of their faith and how far many church teachings are from the teachings of Jesus. The Reformers did understand this.
Suzy I wasn’t overly impressed with Anne’s episode and I’m a Catholic… but she at least flew the flag for Christianity unlike most of the ‘intolerant tolerant liberals’ that have narrated episodes. By the way I came out of 17 years of modern Protestant church believing, teaching, and preaching to embrace the ancient faith… My conversion came about by way of seeing that Protestantism is found wanting with regard to scripture and is found drowning in terms of historical veracity. I would love to converse with you some more about this. Other than that go to christiansreunited dot com and listen to other protestant ministers and lay people who have also embraced Catholic Orthodoxy. Every blessing
To David A.
Pretty rich of a Roman Catholic to talk of historical veracity and the ‘ancient faith’.
Three concepts for you to juggle with: the Vulgate, Papal infallibility and the promotion in ‘tradition’ of Peter over Paul by the bishops of Rome.
Delusion upon delusion upon delusion. I have a theory about the Holy Spirit. It was invented by creationists to stop the belief that God quite literally is a man, namely Jesus. The sign of a dove simply identifying Messiah was corrupted to introduce a mysterious enabling power. This reliance on the said power saves Christians from the real controversy. In the words of Josephus the historian “if it be lawful to call him a man”.
Is it lawful to call Yahweh a man or do we avoid the issue by putting it all down to the Holy Spirit?
Kwame is dangerous because he does not know who Jesus is or what happened 2,000 years ago.
In fact, there are references to the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, as well as in the New. For example, on that first Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples and they all prophesied in other human languages, the Apostle Peter related the phenomena to a prophecy in Joel chapter 2:28-32. As for creation and propagation, I have shared some of my points elsewhere on this comment form. Whether someone is allowed to call Yahweh a man surely depends on the laws of free speech for their state. Josephus, of course, was referring to the laws of ancient Rome. According to the Torah, God ‘is not a man’ (Numbers 23:19) – and this was spoken by a prophet from outside Israel!
In Kwarme’s episode, I was surprised the inclusion of worshipping Mayan gods with Catholic rituals was presented without the rather obvious fact that this is forbidden by the Apostles’ teaching, in the New Testament. Similarly for traditional African practices. Forcing people to accept a religion isn’t Jesus’ way, as again the New Testament teaches. Friends, we need to differentiate between genuine and false Christianity.
Kwarme seems to have quite missed the fact that one country in Africa – Ethiopia – has been Christian far longer than anywhere else in the world – and they still are active believing Christians with wonderful traditional liturgy in which they all take part.
Did you miss the whole section where he visited Ethipioa and said this was the place that had been Christian the longest then?
Christianity is a creationist delusion. This is self evident if God/Yahweh is a man. In John 8 Jesus says he is a man and he also says he is I Am or Yahweh. For Yahweh it is correct to say God is not a man. But that all changes when Yahweh becomes the man Jesus. This is the legend of the much anticipated Messiah, God and man.
Unfortunately, people like Kwame have a vested interest in creationism and maintaining the delusion and so they redefine hysteria as the holy Spirit. Not all instances of emotional response are down to the “Spirit” just like Jesus wilful campaigning cannot be put down to the Spirit. If the Spirit does exist then one can reasonably expect the Spirit will not undermine or usurp the Messiah. But Christianity does!
I’m a baptist minister and I really love this series. The clarity with which each programme makes it’s point is challenging and relevant. Balanced, detailed history is useful academically but doesn’t make good telly! Church history was never meant to be dull and dull this programme is not!! I also love the way it allows people from different perspectives present – the crusades episode was spot on. Whether you agree with it or not, that’s how many Muslims think about the west. Well done channel 4!
This series is not about Christianity – it’s mainly about discrediting it! Evangelism for atheism or other world views. Hardly an unbiased approach. What is going on? – it looks like a sustained attack on Christianity by those who control the media. Why not let Academics who really know the subject (unlike Blakemore – is he really an expert in the history of Science and Christianity? – No, he’s a neuro-scientist) and who Believe, present programmes instead of enemies of the faith? Give us fair right of reply – or are you scared your superficial arguments will be torn down? Sure let the critics have a go but not without more than the odd sound bite of reply and slanted shots of anachronistic Mennonites apparently demonstrating the passe nature of Christianity. Heh – there are a good many scientists who Believe!
Peter Blakemore’s presentation contained the same old chestnuts of atheist misrepresentation so beloved of Dawkins et al. Eg One of the martyr myths of atheistic scientism – the Galileo story – much more complex than presented. In fact it was caused partly because the Church was wedded to the ’science’ of the day, Aristotlean ideas from the Renaissance, and not primarily Scripture that a problem was caused. The vast majority of Natural Philosophers (the Scientists of their time) rejected his views (he was a scientific ‘heretic’ primarily) also and the Church thus viewed him as mistakenly and belligerently undermining it’s authority at a time when threatened by the Reformation. It shut him up under house arrest. Galileo remained a theist remember. Way before Galileo Augustine in 5thC, I think, had suggested a non-literal view of Genesis which he thought may have represented Ages of Time. Accomodation with observations from nature is as old as the hills. The Bible doesn’t force anyone to believe in a geo-centric universe or that the earth is 6000 yrs old.
Who would defend all the Church’s actions? The Church was, and can be now, a Political entity and as such an abusive power structure – not real Christianity. In fact it has probably been real Christians who have suffered most at the hands of the Institutional Church down the ages – not witches, Jews or scientists.
Programme was skewed to present the current quasi-religion of Materialist Scientism (the reverential awe-filled music when viewing the Almighty Hadron Collider – like something out of the old Planet of the Apes!) as the only rational choice. This new faith has filled the vacuum and it is is as protective of it’s orthodoxy as any religion – dare question Evolution and see where that gets you in Academia. All science does is throw up a new set of unanswered questions with each thing it discovers. Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem (which I don’t profess to understand!) apparently shows that even Maths is limited in how far it can go to prove anything let alone science. Quantum uncertainty. The moment before the Big Bang (and my how like Creation ex nihilo that is!) is unreachable by using scientific laws as they all break down before the singularity and how can you probe it with instruments that rely on those natural laws? Can’t. So where’s the complete Evidence for atheism? – mystery will always remain because science is limited – it’s a tool for looking only at our material world. It is a mere unproveable philosophical position – a faith – that says it alone can lead us into all truth. There’s ‘evidence’ for Christianity and God – lots – but it may not lie within the scientific method as it’s an inappropriate and limited instrument. God cannot be put in a test tube as cannot a singularity.
In part 6 of the series the presenter Kwame Kwei Armah says ( at approx. 16min) about the Virgin Mary “…she lived and died in Palestine”. Since the term ‘Palestine’ was first used for this region by the Romans when they renamed it “Syria Palaestina” after the Jewish revolt of 132-5 AD, saying the Virgin Mary was born there is like saying Karl Marx grew up in the European Union.
I find it hard to believe that a fact of this significance could have been overlooked in the research put into this programme so I am inclined to believe it was made as a political statement. This insidious re-writing of history is unacceptable.
It was interesting to watch professor Colin Blakemore reveal his complete bias against anything Christian. He spent quality time on arguments for Evolution,and its proponents, and sought to make Christians look like fools. Your anti-Christian agenda is clearly apparent Channel 4.
At least one of the Christians needed no help to look like a fool. One came across as honest and wise – but would horrify the fundamentalists.
Great programme by the prof on 22nd Feb. Scientific reason will win over religious faith in the end. One thing science does is that if more evidence emmerges it reflects and changes accordingly. Appendicitis is resolved not by faith but by reason aquired by a questioning and curiosity of our existence. I would not recommend prayer in any religion as a solution!!!!
Your programme tonight was bias and had nothing to do with christianity. Dr Blakemore was just another arrogent scientist who can’t get his facts right.Science cannot and never will be able to dispute christianity. How the world was made and Darwins theory are just guesswork by people who think they are clever. If Darwin was right, Where’s the proof. Blakemore and Dorkins are idiots. They think because they passed a few exams they know what is what. When are you going to air a proper and true programme about christianity.
As a Quaker, I found Blakemore’s programme fascinating but must ask : surely Mystery is part of the World, and that which is not explained by Science is still in part explained for some of us by our Faith which lies beyond Science?
In the Colin Blakemore programme the most interesting parts were the Christians – the screwy Creationist, the Jesuitical Catholic (not a magic book but…) and the Sea of Faith person who ,to an atheist, seems the most honest.
In an interesting presentation, Colin Blakemore made the mistake of confusing “the Bible” with “the Church” and “Christianity”, which are people’s interpretation of the Bible. The Bible ad Science cannot be in conflict, but people’s interpretations of them can be. Where in the Bible does it say that the earth is stationary (Copernicus)? Nowhere. Where does it say that the parts of the body have no function (Harvey)? Nowhere. Where does it say that natural selection does not happen (Darwin)? Nowhere.
Colin thinks Darwin is the main threat to Christianity, but I can’t see that there’s much conflict between Darwin and the Bible. Darwin apparently believed that all humans have descended from one human source: the Bible says the same and calls them Adam and Eve. The huge diversity of human beings that we see to-day have developed from a single source: both sides agree on that. If this is evolution, then evolution is implicit in the Bible.
Then there’s Darwin’s “Tree of Life”. This is illustrated in a diagram in chapter 4 of On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. It consists of a horizontal line representing an arbitrary time. Under the line, Darwin wrote the letters A to L representing species belonging to a genus. Above each letter is a small tree; some trees have many branches, some few or none. Each tree represents the development or variation (evolution) of that species through time, represented as 14 periods. So Darwin’s “Tree of Life” is not one tree but many trees. This agrees with the biblical account of creation. Genesis chapter 1 says that, in the beginning, God created all living things “according to their [various] kinds.” Let the horizontal line in the “Tree of Life” represent Creation. The letters A to L then represent a tiny example of the hundreds and thousands of different “kinds” of life that God created. The trees above each letter show how those kinds developed, some with many variations, some few, but they remained within their kinds, and perhaps we’d recognise the original kinds from their surviving descendants to-day.
However, there is another meaning for evolution, the belief that all of life has descended from the first “primitive cell floating around in the primordial soup”. Darwin introduced this theory with the words, “I can see no reason to limit” the process he’d argued for so strongly in the previous chapters to species and genera: why not extrapolate it back through families and orders and so on? Is “I can see no reason to limit” a scientific statement? No, of course not: it is conjecture. This is what I understand by the term evolution and it does not follow from the previous proofs for natural selection. This version of evolution cannot be replicated, it cannot be observed, it tells us nothing about the past and predicts nothing about the future. It is not science, it is a leap of faith, speculation, and the surprising thing is that eminent scientists such as Prof Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough seem to have missed it. There is a very clear limit – the original “kinds” created by God.
Jason Lisle may not have proof that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time, but what proof has Colin that they did not? However, I couldn’t agree with Jason in rejecting evidence just because it SEEMED to contradict the Bible: either the evidence was being misinterpreted, or the Bible was being misunderstood in what it SEEMED to say on the subject.
New Testament evidence is based on eyewitness accounts: of course, there was no human eyewitness to the creation of the universe, nor was there to the Big Bang, so we’re both in the same boat there. Except that, if God exists, he was an eyewitness and he could have told subsequent generations about it (as we believe he did.
All these TV programmes based on religeon versus science ever try prove is that one is right and one has got it wrong. What both sides perpetually fail to address is the real issue
IE: HOW & FROM WHERE did the universe, of which we are all a part come from? We as an expression of creation AFTER the BIG BANG cannot comprehend the concept of NOTHINGNESS – The furthest we are able to take our imagination to is the point of ‘I exist therefore I am’ – What scientists and religeous folk should be addressing is WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE THE BIG BANG – BEFORE CREATION – BEFORE US – f rom where did our universe spring? What was/is behind the door BEFORE the BIG BANG NOT WHAT HAPPENED AFTER.THE BIG BANG. It is the ‘Mystery’ before the BIG BANG that holds the answer to everything.
God – obviously. That’s the definition of God – that he has existed eternally and was there before the Big Bang (or whatever).
I don’t understand why this programme and similar programmes with Richard D. on the show always have prejudice and conclude that science and Christianity can not co-exist. And again why they kept interviewing those “Christians” who seems not familiar what they believe. I am sure there are many other Christians out there can ask the presenter’s question in more scientific way. The Christians’ believe have no contradiction to the science. When they interviewed the scientist in the creation Museum, it seems the presenter misinterpreted his opinion. Please Please Please note that Evolution is only a hypothesis. No evidence to prove some assumptions made in the evolution. correct? Can it still classify as science approach? I am not expert on the evolution but not against this hypothesis. What is the most important thing is to let people know the detail of evolution and creationism and let them choose what to believe instead of keep seeing Richard D. on the show criticising and querying the “victims” picked up by someone deliberately
I think the good Professor and a good many of these academics mic Christianity up with Catholicism. These two practices are almost mutually exclusive. You cannot be a Catholic (Roman or Protestant) and be a practising Christian. The teachings, beliefs and practices are different.
Sorry?? I was born and raised a Catholic and was a practising Christian… And what is a Protestant Catholic?? I think you may be a little confused. Catholicism falls under the umbrella of Christianity.
I was astonished at the lack of knowledge on the non existent evidence for evolution and the overwhelming evidence for creation. Could Colin not have interviewed some of the intelligent design scientists . The whole of the sedimentary layers with fossils says one thing – a massive worldwide flood – there is no other way for billions of a creatures to be locked up in stone. Some of these supposed 70 million year old fossils still have blood flesh and bone meaning they are only a few thousand years old . Not a single transitional species has been found – even Darwin said there should be thousands. DNA and RNA are immensely complex codes which could not possibly have arisen in any soup – no code has ever been found that has not been written by an outside intelligence – there is so much evidence for a young earth which was created has Colin not even looked at this. The timescale of the sedimentary layers are destroyed by polystrate trees and curved strata – google up a creation website and at least give us an unbiased programme – did Dawkins come up with one piece
of this so called evidence that we all came from a single cell . This is impossible – no living matter especially not as complex as a cell formed itself without a designer . The programme was a biased rant against true Christianity with many useful idiots being selected to make Colin look good
I have just watched the episode about Christians and scientists. I found that it was poorly presented and did not really cover any of the arguements for creation and did not allow anyone to challenge the theory of evolution. I find the whole Evolution – Intelligent Design debate interesting so have read a lot on it and have had to accept that evolution as we are taught it is still only a theory, and one that has never been proven. Richard Dawkins is supposed to have said in January 2005 “I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection” and he is the most famous anti-creationist scientist I know of. Add that to the fact that the programme was presented by one of his friends and it was never going to be unbiased.
So far I have found the series Christianily a History very informative & well balanced. But I took exception to tonight’s one on God & the Scientists as it was so blatantly one sided with a presenter who did n’t believe in God & was eager to dismantle Christianity.No real chance was given for a creationist scientist such as Ken Ham or Dr Grady McMurty to present the other side of the coin This episode has rather destroyed my confidence in what until then I found a fascinating & balanced series
Christianity: A History – Colin Blakemore
Copernicus the creator of Science? – Galileo the first scientist? – has Colin Blakemore not heard of Greek, Chinese and Arab science pre- Renaissance? Does he not know the origins of mathematics (inc. algebra) and astronomy? Has he not heard of Archimedes or Pythagoras?
From his summary, it is clear Blakemore is sceptical about religion. So why does he promote the Christian Church’s denial of the scientific contribution of the Islamic world before the Renaissance? Has he not watched any of Channel 4’s excellent programmes on the subject, correcting the historical inbalance?
Watching the science episode was a visual pleasure. Polarisation and accomodation betwixt science and Christianity came over clearly. I thought Colin was unfair and far too suspicious about religion evolving through accomodation. His example of the atheist theist priest was not worthy of the program and a little bit Richard Dawkins.
The program mentioned Greek thinkers who by the way gave us “creationism” which was then a brand of theoretical science. Cosmology has since changed and Big Bang has been accomodated, never mind evolution. But how about “accomodation” going in the opposite direction? How about dis-establishing a few scientific myths?
Here’s an idea for a follow up program. How about science accomodating Jesus Christ? For a start we would have to jettison the creation stoy found in Genesis but that would still leave us the interventionist God of Abraham. Apparently, of all Jesus’ famous acquaintances Abraham was the oldest. The interventionist God starts with Abraham and so here is a God outside of science’s jurisdiction.
i was excited to think channel 4 was to give us a good programme about the History of Christianity, but as the weeks go by the content is so bad that to be honest it’s credibility is poor.
why on earth have a fundamentalist aethist comentating on The History of Christianity. He obviously thinks all christians are idiots and that science has all the answers. Why didn’t you call this weeks episode a “History of an aithiests point of view who’s soul goal is to slag of any christian walking the earth and the only answers are the ones he believes. Please don’t insult my intelligence by having an aethist talk about The History of Christianity.
why not have a fundamentalist Christian give a programme on the History of Aethism get my point. This programme was SO one sided it was just boring. does science have all the answers no why because science is controlled by us feable human being. Please be balanced and at least show both sides of the coin.
By the way that wonderful machine that was to reacreate the Big Bang BROKE in Switzerland last year. Hmm let me think do I want my money to go to a big bang machine or to feed the millions of staving people? How does science explain love, joy and peace? or are these just a bunch of chemicals. God help his family. I just think al of the episodes I have watched so far poor lacking substance and balance.
There is no need to attack christian and say they are a bunch of idiots but we’re not. This is playground stuff.
Very poor. I think I’ll watch paint dry it’s probably more interesting.
Colin Blakemore’s one on Christianity and Science really didn’t seem to go anywhere. Well – it went to Italy and then to the Natural History Museum and then to somewhere in America then back to Switzerland and then to England and managed to say absolutely nothing on the way. The producer must have been aware of this and hit the panic button. Richard Dawkins was introduced and placed next to a dinosaur fossil (there were lots of dinosaurs).He said novel things like “I don’t believe in God” and …er…that was it. Fat good calling Dawkins in so off we go again.
The Devil may have all the best tunes but the most interesting television interviewees, tonight at least, were all Children of the Light. The creationist scientist who explained why scientific enquiry was not only still meaningful but motivated by his faith in a literal reading of the Genesis story. The elderly vicar from the no-one’s-ever-heard-of Sea of Faith Network who interpreted his faith purely at a symbolic level. Apart from the actual existence of Jesus who he said probably existed. Colin Blakemore, a noted neurobiologist,really didn’t seem to know enough about the other half of the equation – Religion- to get the thing firing. He certainly seemed baffled when someone mentioned the Creeds. His dad had attended evensong once when he was bored and that was about the extent of his knowledge of the opposition. A basic introduction to theology might have helped him out a bit. The desire to lay knock out blows may have been there but the ability consequently wasn’t. He had a go at the nice guy with a beard because the Church had accepted change and then implied that only science of the two was happy to change. The producer must have demanded the big ending – the drifting around had to stop. In some unannounced church Blakemore was filmed by the cameraman from the ground up – beyond his towering crutch and flaring nostrils we could see an altar and The Cross. ‘Twas to be an Apocalyptic Utterance to be Sure – Listen Up People – “Someday I believe through the Magical Power of Scientific Guesswork – that a Certain Neurobiologist might Discover this Little Thingy possibly in the Front Left of the Heady Weddy (that’s where he actually pointed but the thingy wingy could be anywhere and anythingywingy and at any time) And this will show unto the peoples why God is Need and Need is God. And then where will you be with yer Popes and yer prayers…eh?…eh?…eh?”. The End. Amen. Amen
My verdict. Not very Good. But I still watched it. So not a complete failure in telly terms.
Last night’s programme on ‘Science and Christianity’ was a disgrace. It was very biased and propaganistic and as usual has the ‘high priests of atheism’ versus some completely obscure looney young earth creationist in order to paint a very distorted picture to present to the bewildering public!
It is CLEAR that the majority of the Bible is metaphorical and that includes the four corners of the earth, the earth being the centre of the Universe and the creation allegory.
I think it is high time that we determined the actual mechanism by which evolution works rather base our views on the axiom and paradigm that Neo-Darwinism is. It would be nice to see evidence of transmution of species, it would be nice to simulate evolution on a computer, it would be nice to reconcile Darwinian mechanism with what we see in the data and what would be actually mathematically possible in the Darwinian chance game!!!
With respect to the origin of life and chemical evolution; it would be nice to know how just DNA and gentic code could evolve since nothing in science can demonstrate this.
The cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact. A bio/anthropocentric teleological view is becoming more and more and more appealing to scientists in the light of modern research which shows the living cell as the most powerful computer, code to only come from a mind and blood clotting, bacteria flagella, feathers, wings etc to be irreducibley complex.
I have watched several in the Series on Christianity with interest.The programme on Christianity and Science was puzzling.The selection of contributors was careful to avoid any scientists who combine their scientific knowledge with strong Christian belief and yet there are many who do so.There appeared to be a need to keep this view from the programme.The biased presentation of the debate created an impression of insecurity in Colin Blakemore.
Special evolution – the God-given ability for species to adapt within their kinds – is easy for most to accept (if humans ascended from apes due to survival of the fittest, why are there still apes around today?!). But for the theory of general evolution (let alone Evolutionism) to be true, the physical constants such as those for radioactive decay and the speed of light have to have remained constant over the millenia, since the creation. There is evidence that they haven’t, and every honest scientist will seriously consider this evidence. Related to this, many thinking, scientifically minded people deduce the fossil record was deposited during the Noahic flood. By the time we reach the end of the programme ‘God and the Scientists’, experimentation and data have been left far behind and replaced by a religion centred, ironically, on science (and of course theology is a science!).
My friend Alice was on the God and the Scientists, I was so proud!
I have to confess that after watching all episodes to date I don’t recognise the Christian faith from what has been shown. I am perfectly aware of the shortcomings of the Church during the past two thousand years but really your presenters have, by and large, just spent the time in attacking Christianity and have not, by any stretch of imagination, given credence to the central tenets of Christin faith and the achievements of Christians down the ages.
Unfortunately the series has just spent time in knocking Christianity, very often using presenters who are only interested in undermining it.
Presumably you will follow up this series with similar approaches to Islam and Hinduism. You would get some interesting reactions if you followed the same path!!
The history of Christianity’s relations with science has been a regrettable one as Prof Colin Blakemore’s programme shows. But I don’t think dogma is the preserve of religion only. The 20th century has shown that dogma can dominate politics and more recently we have seen how the financial markets have been subject to a self-distructive dogma!
Prof Blakemore asserts that science can provide us with the only authentic understanding of the world and that some day in the future neurology will explain the human being and even our propensity for religious faith.
There is a recent trend amongst some scientists, with their considerable empirical knowledge, to critique religion while stepping obliviously over the works of great philosophers such as Kant, Locke, Berkleley and Schopenhauer. It may be that because of recent advances in science and technology, scientists think that such philosophical works have been superseded. This is not true. The big questions of what we can know about the universe and ourselves are very profound and are still a work in progress.For example to say that science can and will provide the deepest and greatest knowledge is in effect to say that the whole of reality (no small thing) resides within the empirical sphere of experience, within the human senses and intellect. Not withstanding the technological wizardry of modern science, Kant noted that there is no basis to conclude that our human experience and the whole of reality occupy the same sphere. Moreover, what is delivered to our consciousness is the product of our bodily and mental apparatus and takes the forms it does because of the nature of that apparatus. Therefore, we can only know phenomena, how things appear and act, and not Noumena, the nature of things as they truly are in themselves. Melvyn Bragg recently asked a scientist. ‘What is Light? which was the topic of his programme. The guest answered that science does not explain the nature of things but rather explains how they act and react. The question then remains. How can one perceive the Noumenon, the true nature of Phenomena? The great founder of Yoga Philosophy Patanjali states in his Yoga Sutras. ‘Yoga is the cessation of the modifications of the mind’.
Consciousness ordinarily takes the form of thoughts, feelings and sense experience. Only when the mind is unaltered does it ever have the chance to look at itself. When it does it finds that profound knowledge is to be found there, in fact the very nature of consciousness is to know. The religions of the East and many Christian mystics have discovered this truth and it is described similarly in the Bible as ‘Be still and know that I am God’ .
Science has discovered the underlying unity between matter and energy but has yet to recognise the underlying unity of matter, energy and consciousness. But science can only ever look at the effects of consciousness, not its nature, as long as it remains in the empirical realm. As a Profession of neurology no doubt Prof Blakemore is endeavoring to understand the human being. But because empirical science works with physical phenomena as it’s source it judges that consciousness is caused by the brain. But this is just an assumption, there is no scientific basis for it. The mystic traditions of religions show that pure consciousness is the nature of the soul, exists in its own right and is the culmination of knowledge.
As St Paul states…
‘For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am known’ (I.Corinthians 13 v 12)
A belief in God has been portrayed in the programme as superstitious and unfounded. However, to believe in God is a rational and balanced statement about the nature of reality and what lies beyond the horizon of our experience. It is simply to say , the knowledge, joy, love we are seeking within our daily experience, within our microcosm, exists in the macrocosm as well. Just as time and space go on into infinity, so does consciousness, knowledge, love, joy and creativity. And that knowledge and love is aware of Itself, How could it not be? To say any different is just to put mankind at the centre of the universe, and see where that gets us.
Clever stuff! But your belief in God is belief in a certain type of God. Profound stuff but at some point in the argument it all becomes artificial and superstitious because your belief / ideas turn God into a delusion. All rubbish if it turns out God inhabits the superficial world at a superficial level.
Jesus of Nazareth is the King of the Jews whether you Christians-cum-Gnostics like it or not.
I am a little dissappointed with this series: It has had a tendency to dwell on what is wrong with the Christian religions and allows atheism and agnosticism too free a rein.
For example, in the last episode, with Colin Blakemore, a far more interesting debate could have been engaged, for the benefit of the viewer, with the Jesuit priest/scientist who clearly understands orthodox Christianity rather than (extended) interviews from people with somewhat extreme and unusual beliefs.
As a cradle catholic, I found the series interesting, but uninformative.
Yesterday Professor Blakemore outlined the Copernicus/Galileo discoveries without setting them in their historical context.
At the beginning of the sixteenth century the church was comfortable in its own skin and was the master of all that it surveyed and so was quite happy with new scientific discoveries.
A century and a half later it was infinitely more paranoid. Rome had been sacked twice by the French and Germans. Much of Northern Europe had been overrun by militant protestants. With the assistance of the Spaniards and Venetians, the papacy had narrowly avoided defeat at the hands of the Turks. Finally a bloody religious war that involved the whole of Europe had been concluded with the slaughter of approximately a quarter to a third of the population of Germany.
Although one may not be sympathetic, under these circumstances, one can understand the church authorities being hyper-sensitive to any intellectual activities by followers, which could be perceived as undermining the political authority of the church.
One crucial difference between Copernicus and Galileo, not highlighted by the program, is that Copernicus published his findings in Latin so restricting them to an academic audience, whereas Galileo insisted in publishing his in Italian at the height of the Thirty Years’ War.
I think the episodes cover very well the history of the Catholicism. Still I have to object to calling this documentary Christianity. Christianity means Catholicism and Protestantism, but aren’t you forgetting Orthodoxy? Or maybe you’re not considered that Christian religion. I think the documentary paints a good picture of Catholicism, but it’s misleading to say that that is the history of Christianity.
Great point, please refer to my earlier comment about Eastern Christianity.
The Roman Catholic bias is overwhelming.
I am constantly amazed by scientists who refuse to do their research and bring out the old chestnuts one bein that the Earth and everything in it was created in six ‘days’.
The original text should be translated as period and no necessarily periods of the same length.
It follows then that dinosaurs and humans could exist in the same place but in not the same time.
As for the existence and crucifixion of Jesus Christ, this is a fact of historical record – Josephus.
I could say more but I would love to speak with any one of these presenters face to face.
You wouldn’t involve this guy would you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski
OR, Stephen Meyer, David Berlinski, Michael Behe, Michael Denton etc etc etc. Oh no, just keep it biased and make Christianity look bad based on Colin’s biased faith!!!
The programs “The Qur’an” and “The Seven wonders of the Muslim World” make by Aaqil Ahmed were very fair to Islam, when it comes to “Christianity:a history” we don’t get the same fairnes.
A massive irony was Blakemore’s swipe at animal rights activists. He presented their campaigns against him as “Science under attack”. This is akin to saying that the Nazi scientist Joseph Mengele has been attacked because he was a scientist. In Blakemore’s case, it was not science that was under fire but animal abuse. There are animal rights campaigners who are themselves scientists. I don’t agree with extreme harassment, but the reason Blakemore was an object of their attention was his experiments including one where he sewed up the eyes of tiny kittens. He also wants to lift the UK ban on experiments on great apes. It was the height of irony that he spent part of the programme in indignation at the treatment of scientists by the 16th and 17th century Roman Catholic Church while he is blind to the fact that he is now a 20th -21st century establishment figure carrying out and supporting abuse of living creatures in the name of his god “Science”. In The Independent in the1990s Blakemore wrote an article in which he said that all animal protection societies should be banned – including the RSPCA. Remind you of anything?
It has taken me two days to calm down before responding to this programme – such was my annoyance at a peak-time programme that seemed to be out to both confuse viewers and undermine the Christian faith at the same time ( shame on the ‘Vicar’ who barely believes in Jesus ! ) I am currently involved with the running of an Alpha course and I really hope none of the people from that group had the misfortune to see this programme. For anyone unsure of their beliefs/faith I can only imagine the damage this programme must have done. Prof.Alastair McGrath should give a response to this programme like he did to Dawkin’s ‘God Delusion’ book – at least the balance would be redressed.
I watched part 7 of “Christianity: a History” with interest but was disappointed at the misrepresentation of both “God” & the “Scientist”! To talk of Roman Catholicism as if it was the only “view on the block” as far as Christianity is concerned is deceptive. Many Christians look on the the Catholic church with its medieval corruption & pomp & ceremony as a departure from the simplicity and power of the early church. I would not wish to defend the indefensible. So far as “the Scientist” is concerned both Profs. Colin Blakemore & Richard Dawkins should be honest enough to admit that there are many of their colleagues who hold the view of “intelligent design” & point out that as one eminent scientist put it “evolution might explain the survival of the fittest but does not explain the arrival of the fittest”.
As a Christian with an interest in science I looked forward to Sunday’s programme as I have enjoyed the series so far. Colin Blakemore then proceeded to make a series of unsubstantiated statements that should get him thrown out of his chosen profession. “In the Bible it says the earth is at the centre of the universe” Where? There is a statement God created the heavans & the earth but it was written with an earthly point of view. If the was a Jupiter creation story I would expect it to begin God created the heavans & Jupiter. What was meant by ‘The Church’?
The Orthodox Eastern Church
The Roman Western Church
The Church of England ( founded because Henry wanted an heir & his hands in the till that was the monastries)
The Non Conformist Church ie Chapel
Baptists Methodist etc. Why the sneering when people do not believe in actual days. Jesus was a rabbi & taught in the rabinical style using symbols. it’s OK for scientists to use symbols E=MC2 ( know it should be raised forgive my keyboard) x = (a+b+c) r=radius etc, so why sneer at other who do the same thing? Why is it that fundamentalist Biologists (Dawkins) & fundamentalist Christians have this problem over Evolution v Creation. If the days are taken to be periods of time the Bible & Evolution come in the same order so what are we arguing about? During this year of Darwin,don’t forget it’s also the anniversary of William Smith the father of Geology 1769-1839 some credit for him PLEASE?
Evolution V Creation is an important debate because it attacks God. So who do we blame for this creationist God. The Church or churches are partially responsible but the real blame has to go to the Bible.
The opportunity exists to finally rid the world of creationism. Big Bang and not evolution has made their God redundant. God is not inherent in all of creation like some source material unless he is expanding with the universe but the expansionary force liberates him from having to hold the universe together. There is no argument for Logos not like there used to be. The new God can be a definite being remote from creation. Evolution makes him remote but Science wants to make a broad attack against this God.
Science does not seem to realize the remote God begins with Abraham and not before. Yahweh is the Bible’s interventionist God and Abraham is the beginning of his intervening in the affairs of men. It is not possible to account for this God before his intervention.
Science /Atheism should attack theism with the Bible’s original concept of God, the God of Abraham. It should proclaim “I Am” as an anti-theist phenomenon. If we are going to attack theism it will be a lot easier if we unmuddle the Bible.
Apolgies to Anne
During excellant programme I was most upset about the hate mail she was getting. I do not normally apologise if I can’t do anything about it. This is why I did not agree with Tony Blair,another convert, apologising for the slave trade but doing nothing about the unfair trade laws that exist today. However I have many RC friends & I would not want them to be treated that way, so at the beginning of Lent from a Baptist to a Catholic I do apolgise for the way you have been treated. I do not agree with all your views & sometimes find your manner irritating, but then I’m sure I irritate people too. I do believe God created you as you are & has put you where you can do His will. God bless.
It is really unfortunate that respectable scientists choose to portray religion and science as two incompatible forces in order to promote personal beliefs such as atheism. Atheism is not a scientific theory or a scientific fact. It is a belief like theism. It is truly a great pity that some scientists promote atheism as the “scientific”, “rational” way of interpreting life and the universe.
Colin Blakemore’s historical review of the science/religion relationship appears to be somehow biased. Bruno was burnt as a heretic but not simply as a result of his scientific views. His religious (anti-Catholic) views played a big part. His science was mistakenly seen as part of his “heretic” beliefs. Perhaps it is a mistake to regard him as a martyr of science.
Also, the presenter did not seem to take seriously the view that there are Christians who see evolution as part of God’s design and failed to mention the diversity within the Christian faith. For many Christians the story of Creation has only a symbolic meaning.
However, although Darwin considered Natural Selection as a blind force some Christians believe that evolution is a purposeful mechanism designed by God. Perhaps that is where the main dispute lies: Darwin’s luck versus God’s providence. What biology calls chance and accident regarding evolution, might be the design in God’s scheme that modern biologists have not detected yet due to their limited, though evolving, knowledge.
The documentary stressed there is no creator according to the Theory of Evolution and therefore Christianity must be disqualified as a rational approach to reality. However, the presenter said nothing about the common grounds that modern physics and Christianity share! The Big Bang Theory has reinforced the argument that the universe has a beginning (cosmological argument) and the “fine tuning” of the universe has strengthened the argument that there is design (teleological argument). So, modern physicists do not dismiss God as a figment of our imagination but consider her/him/it as a plausible explanation of the world.
I think that drawing a dividing line between religion and science does not do justice to either…
Your arguments are logically unsound…
Atheism is not a belief system like theism. Amoral means an absence of morals, atheism means an absence of belief in a deity. An absence of something does not automatically imply the existence of something else. Atheists do not believe in any deity; what they do believe in is otherwise ambiguous.
Evolution is not a design process, nor was it designed, by definition. Saying that evolution was designed by someone, god or otherwise, is like saying that odd numbers exist by virtue of even numbers. They are two discreet entities that fill a space.
You cannot argue that an incomplete argument (i.e. that of biologists) will eventually discover something entirely ‘left-field’ (i.e. that god is the creator of everything), just because the argument or theory is currently incomplete. Whilst this cannot be absolutely argued against, it is so unlikely that no rational person will believe it. Just to be clear, I am not saying that no rational person will believe in god, I am saying that no rational person would believe that the culmination of the study of biology will result in god.
The big bang theory certainly suggests that the universe had a beginning and evolution certainly explains a diversity of life on earth. Any design work in this space, however, must have been executed by a third party, who must either exist outside of it or have evolved, like us, as part of it. If the designer exists outside of the universe then there can be no agreement with science, which is quite clear that we cannot perceive of or be affected by anything beyond our universe. If the designer evolved as part of the universe then it is evolution that created the designer, not the other way round.
Please do not treat my arguments with contempt as they are meant constructively and presented from a position of logic. I have no specific agenda unless the pursuit of logical truth is one!
Evolution is just too wide-ranging in its meaning and often the protagonists are at odds because they have different understandings of the word. There is no problem in believing in evolution in the sense that, when bacteria develop” resistance to antibiotics, this is evolution: the bacteria are still bacteria. However, believing that all life on earth has evolved from the original protoplasm in the primordial soup is a matter of faith since it cannot be observed or proved by experiment. It was indeed only a speculative comment from Darwin, even if he did try to make a case for it in the last ten chapters of “Origin of Species”.
The biblical description of creation is fully compatible with the theory of natural selection, but starting with the ‘kinds’ made by God, not from one original organism.
I would like to thank channel 4 for a very informative and thought provoking history of christianity. I must say I was very shocked with the violent aspects of it’s history. I would like channel 4 to make programmes on other religions aswell, such as Hinduism and Buddhism.
I found myself wondring why C4 felt it had to give air time to a rerun of the Dawkins Delusion, which I’m coming to think is a symptom of obsessive behaviour. A balanced presentation should have given time to someone of the stature of Alister McGrath or Keith Ward ( to name but two of the considerable number of people who could have shown where the holes are in the arguments put forward)
Yes there are very bad points in the history of most religions, as there are in most secular political institutions. It seems that the really low points come when the religion gets mixed up with what Walter Wink calls ‘The powers that be’ and finds itself compromised into supporting and approving the methods used to enforce control. Perhaps faith is really only true to itself when it is sacrificial, giving itself to the poor and disadvantaged, not concerned with triumphalism and power. But that sort of religion hardly fits the Blakemore / Dawkins predudice, and makes less of an easy target.
I am 78 years old and have had a scientific education. In addition I am a Christian.
It is clear that the Scientists who are Atheists do not understand the reasons why we hold to our beliefs.
Almost two thousand years ago it was emphasised that ‘Faith’ does not depend on the obvious, as otherwise faith ceases to exist. One definition from the book of Hebrews illustrates this:
‘To have Faith is to be sure of the things we hope for,
to be certain of the things we cannot see’.
That people of all ages have had difficulty with the idea is illustrated by the use of the word; it occurs 197 times in the 122 pages of the letters section of the New Testament. That is, the section devoted by the early leaders to explain their faith and to encourage the early believers.
Christians believe that a feature of God’s character is a wish that His followers do so, not because they are forced to do so, but because they see in Him someone who is worthy of their trust and who represents all that is good and true.
Thus if the world or mankind were created within the last 10,000 years then modern discoveries would ensure that His existence was irrefutable and faith would not be necessary. The natural world must not compel belief.
As God wanted to hide his activity in the creative process how else would he do it than use the mechanisms we are discovering?
Perhaps one feature that separates the thinking of the believer and the atheist is the different attitudes to the newly discovered ‘god gene’. There is evidence that we all inherit a gene that predisposes us to believe in the supernatural, in a god or gods. To the atheist this demonstrates that there is no god to the Christian it demonstrates that God discretely helps us on our way towards a sound faith.
Why is Cherie Blair allowed to air her theologically illiterate views in this way? What next? The Archbishop of Westminster lecturing the country on the future of the Bar? Drivel from a woman who advocates abortion & contraception is wirthless. She will have to give an account of herself one day, as will we all.
As someone who worked as a church minister for 24 years I felt Cherie Blair’s programme was interesting and thought provokiing
Well done to all.
I know Willow Creek Church but many have tried to start similar churches in the UK without great success.
What kind of church could work for white, unchurched middle class Brits?
Where should the church keep its convictions and where must it change?
The Programme by Cherie was very stiff and focused on community churches almost to the point that they seemed to be sponsored by her.// However we must remember that the Church should follow the teachings of Christ.. and the leaders or Apostles of His Church were men ordained to his Holy Priesthood.. Women have a beautiful role as mothers and nurturers of Children.. why is that so belittled by women today.. Also she mentioned that the Community Church had the largest venue for Church at 7000.. when the Church of Jesus Christ has a Hall which seats 23000.. It is interesting that Cherie is a Catholic.. but seems unhappy with it.. perhaps she would be better to join.. or even start a Community Church..lol
This has been a great series but tonight I found Cherie Blair’s approach to presenting made the episode unwatchable. Her way of looking and talking to people she interviewed left me feeling she truly didn’t care about them or there beliefs. She portrayed herself as though we should be grateful she turned up. Channel 4 , please don’t ruin any other programmes and use presenters who genuinely care about those involved in their programmes.
Dear Ms. Booth,
I have just finished watching your programme in the Channel 4 Christianity series, and I wish to express my deep dissatisfaction with what I saw.
I can understand your desire to move the Christian church in Western Europe to a position where it speaks more fully to the modern experience. I can also see that there are some examples to be found of churches that have already done this, and the Willow Park institution in Chicago seems to be one.
However, to speak of the current American experience of Christianity without mentioning the evangelical right goes beyond anything that can be excused as carelessness. It is a deliberate and disgraceful selection of the facts, and everything in you that is feminist or liberal should be deeply ashamed.
The Christian church in America is in a deeper, more terrible crisis than it faces in Europe, where it is suffering only from dwindling congregations. In America it is overseeing an inexorable rise of hatred – towards homosexuals, towards the teaching of science in schools, towards secularism — and this is growing. It does, as you would like to see happen in Europe, fill its churches to bursting. And it is certainly vibrant. But it is Christianity in name only, and I suspect it will prove a much harder nut to crack than that of European apathy.
All of this, you are well aware of. Yet you chose to whisper not a breath of it in your programme but instead to present some liberal examples as though they were the sole face of American Christianity. This is an abuse of your position as a broadcaster.
Perhaps you thought there was not enough time to open that particular can of worms. But that is a poor excuse; there is always enough time for an honest documentary to present both sides of a question. I’m sure you would be shocked to enter a courtroom and discover that either the prosecution or the defence lawyer was missing. So it is with a good piece of journalism. Your omission is inexcusable.
Dear Gillian,
I agree with much of what you write but I think you might have missed the fact that Willow Creek is not as liberal as, I also, initially thought. Willow Creek founders believe that homosexuality is a life style choice and not an orientation with which a person is born. A search of the Chicago Press reveals that the downtown church has been embroiled in controversy. I really don’t know whether Mrs Blair is disingenuous or a sloppy presenter.
This was the programme I looked forward to the most; but I was very disappointed with Cherie Blair’s highly selective approach, particularly her enthusiasm of the mega churches of the USA as models of contmeporary Christianity. Yes, they are they have a highly modernist style and culture but by and large their theology is extremely conservative, if not fundamentalist – e.g their esposal of creationist views – and so do not help people to grapple with issues around the credibility of Christian belief, which for me, is the greatest challenge to the Churches today. And Mrs Blair did not deal with this at at all. I also found it it very odd that if she is so sure tht the survival of the mainstream Churches in the UK depends on their renunciation of tradition and wholehearted embracing of change as exeplified by USA mega Churches like Willow Creek, how she remains comfortable as a member of such a traditional Church as the Roman Catholic one. Her presentation was too glib. In her zeal for modernisation she seemed to throw out the Church’s baby with some of its cultural bath water.
Cherie Blair’s offering was good in that it attempted to bring women into the affairs of the churches of UK. Is it not generally known that the Scottish Presbiterian church has deeply involved women for many years having had a woman as Moderator of the General Assembly, and currently many excellent women ministers of the church. The work of management and running our churches is shared equally. I hope you are also aware that our church welcomes to our communion services those of other churches eg Roman Catholics. We look forward to a reciprocal arrangement some day.
I am glad that Cherie and I agree Jesus Christ is God almighty. I would go further and say Jesus defines God. I believe the Jesus trial (further to John chapter
was all about that and so when Rome’s legal officer said “Behold the man” it was jurisprudence. When Pontius Pilate affirmed the King of the Jews it was for the controversial and disputed messiah a mandate. For us, with our limited knowledge of messiah, it is evidence of what happened 2,000 years ago.
It is simply awesome the impact this individual has had and Channel 4 has captured something of the Jesus “Big Bang”. In its own way Channel 4 by putting the spotlight on Christianity has glorified the Son. But Channel 4 still owes Jesus for Richard Dawkins’ The Root of all Evil” and militant atheism.
I suggest another program. We have archeological evidence for the existence of Pilate. Would you believe it, another inscription! We have the testimony of two historians who link Pilate to Jesus and confirm facts of the story conveniently overlooked by the gospels. Their facts provide a means of qualifying the gospel facts. Legend has it messiah is also God and so Pilate’s inscription to Jesus might amount to evidence for the existence of God.
I have just watched the final programme in this series and was left very dissapointed. Far too much emphasis on the roman catholic church. The programme seemed more biased towards the roman catholic churches inability to present the gospel of Jesus in a relevant and challenging way, to a modern society. If that was the aim, the episode should have been entitled the future of the roman catholic church.
Whilst some reference was made to the anglican church, no mention (I might have missed it) of the non conformist denominations in the west, There is a very different dynamic at work in that they are not so institutionally hidebound and so constricted by tradition. They can have more of a flexibility to respond.
The roman catholicism is but one tradition/denomination amongst many. It is not the ‘Church’. The ‘Church’ is the body of Christ i.e. believers/christians.
A favourite quote of mine is ‘Tradition is the living faith of the dead. Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.’
Cherie Blair’ presentation was the most illogical argument I have heard in a long time and frankly I worry about the quality of the British legal profession!
She starts by claiming the decline of European Christianity is due to its patriarchal heritage and a failure to modernise and adopt liberal values. Then she lauds the success and growth rate of the (highly illiberal, patriarchal and theologically conservative) American “mega-churches”!
Then she claims Christianity is the solution to most social problems like excessive materialism, family breakdown, racism, crime and anti-social behaviour. She lauds the much higher religious observance and belief of America but fails to come to terms with the fact that on almost any measure America has more of a problem, not less, with these issues than “godless” Europe! Surely if religion is the solution to these problems then the more religious country ought to be doing much better than the less religious one?
Blair was not quite bad enough to overtake Kwame Kwei-Armah (so mired in cultural relativism he could not even bring himself to condemn human sacrifice) as the low-point of this series, but she came close. The high point? Surprisingly (for me anyway) Anne Widdicombe!
Well, the series has talked about history, has lumped all western Europeans into the generic class of ‘christian’ has had diatribes from Jews, Muslims, Atheistic scientists and Roman Catholics but has missed out on discussing the central tenet of Christianity – Christ. Christianity is not a religion, it does not have rites (those are entirely man-made and irrelevant to your standing with God) and it is not an ethic grouping, because you are brought up as a catholic does not make you a Christian any more than if you were brought up as a Jew or a Muslim – indeed, being brought up as a Christian does not make you one! You become a Christian when you accept that Jesus, the Son of God, is Lord.
Where is the church going wrong – not in liberalism or feminism or acceptance of homosexuality or women priest, these are all irrelevant. The church is going wrong in not proclaiming that Jesus is Lord and that following Jesus should be the norm for the nation,
An interesting series but the title should have been “Religion, a history”
I watched the final programme yesterday evening and was left with an overall impression of Christianity being in terminal, irreversable decline. The American mega churches clearly meet a need for people to belong to and have a sense of community. I thought Cherie Booth/Blair lacked any coherence in her views and I was surprised at some of them given her husband’s complicity in the deaths of many people in Iraq.The series confirmed many of my doubts about exactly what religion in general stands for and that apart from basic moral values it has very little to offer to open minded, intelligent and informed people not swayed by myth and superstition.
I was quite surprised last night to find myself noticing that Cherie’s words stood out from all the other tv I have seen this year as being particularly full of tricks, blunders and inexcusable bias. Does she really believe in this stuff, or is it less about truth, more about producing her kind of change? Godel would have taken about 30 seconds to dismember her script I imagine.
I havn’t yet watched all of the programmes but have seen most of them, including the last presented by Cherie Blair. At no point have I felt that I was watching an objective “History of Christianity” apart from the episode on the Reformation well presented by Ann Widdecombe. The series should really have been called “Views on the History of Christianity” as the series was so far from objective that the very word “history” is wrong. Basically the emphasis overall was on the negative impact of Christianity. Even Cherie Blair presented a ludicrously one-sided and negative programme on the decline of the Church in the West. Too much emphasis on the Roman Catholic church – not nearly enough on the growing (and they are growing) number of evangelical, community and house churches or the international impact of programmes like Alpha which originated at Holy Trinity Church, Brompton (one of the many churches which has packed congregations every week and offers worship and fellowship every bit as good as Willow Creek without the benefit of the amazing purpose built complexes which many American churches enjoy. Yes, we would like Willow Creek here and yes, it would make a diffrence to how people think of “church” but things in England are not nearly as depressing as she paints. Hasn’t she heard about women priests and bishops?
Cherie Blair said nothing about the way that the government led by her husband has allowed The Christian faith in particular to have the odds stacked up against it in the form of political correctness which forbids the display of crosses, plays down the meaning of Christmas and Easter almost to vanishing point(and even condemns the offering of private prayer). ,Energy, enthusiasm, imagination, openness and welcome to all are key and that is what the Anglican and Catholic churches have to address. The Methodists and other community churches are already further along the road.
It was disingenuous of Cherie Blair to bemoan the decline in Christianity over recent years, since her husband was Prime Minister for ten years when Christian values were marginalised by the government. For example, the government refused to acknowledge that the best setting for bringing up children is marriage –
children with their father and mother married to each other – although this is the clear teaching of the Bible and the tradition of this country.
The government has also passed the most anti-Christian series of statutes ever enacted: civil partnerships (marriages in all but name), a Gender Recognition Act which requires, in limited circumstances, that a married couple divorce, and an Equality Act that, ironically, has forced Catholic adoption agencies to give up their convictions or shut up shop.
One of the problems of the Roman Catholic Church is that it imposes burdens not contained in the Bible, which is what Jesus condemned the religious leaders of his day for doing (Luke 11.46). Where does the Bible forbid contraception? Where does it tell priests not to marry? On the contrary, if anything they are expected to marry (1 Timothy 3.2 and Titus 1.6). Haven’t priests been abolished anyway by Jesus’s resurrection? On the other hand, they disobey clear commands of Jesus, e.g. the prohibition on giving anyone the title ‘Father’ (Matthew 23.9).
The priest had the answer: the Gospel and Jesus. What a good idea if the RC Church were to strip off all the layers it has added over the centuries and stick to preaching those two!
Oh, come on Cherie, leave Christianity and the true faith and believe to someone else really believe in it and follow it as how it should be, because, NEVER JESUS’ HANDS COVERED WITH BLOOK, Mrs. Blair. and (Bosh)’s Friends.
Never Jesus’ Hands covered with blood Mrs. Blair it you are truly believer
If you’d like to see commissioning editor Aaqil Ahmed’s response to your comments, please take a look at his video on The TV show blog and let us know what you think… Thanks
I would like to congratulate Channel 4 on their choice of Ms Blair/Booth for their final programme in this series. I felt that her reputation for unvarnished greed, for willingness to associate with those whose reputation for corruption is unchallenged, and her marriage to a man whom most consider to be a war-monger revealed the reasons why for most of us “Faith” is irrelevant. Her idea of reviving church attendance is to substitute large scale gatherings of community singers, who appear to have no coherent belief system. I look forward to the”Blair-Booth Ministry” of the London Dome.
The Willow Creek Principles mentioned in the final program can be imported into GB, but it’s no quick fix. the church I was in began by looking at it’s services & making them Seeker Friendly so if someone walks in off the street they understand what’s going on. Begin by watching Mr Bean & in particular the one where he sits on the front row of an Anglican, but could be any, Church. He does not know: the 1st verse is played through before you stand up, where the repeats are, which bits are men only in well known carols, that you do not share sweets with your neighbour during the sermon. What do you do in your Church? Do you make it clear the the offering is for those who attend & support the Church, that you don’t expect visitors to pay to come to church
Do you encourage people to stay for tea afterwords & then not speak to them. It’s so easily done with all the all the things people expect of us on a Sunday
Then ask : What does our community need? How can we help provide this? Are people aware of what we do during the week? Do they know we have a Mums & Tots group – is it at the best time? Does the community see us as irrelevant? This ones dangerous you may have to talk to them & ask questions & you may not like the reply.
The churches could work together to tidy up your estate – see http://www.thenoise.org. You could give them a free Bar B-Q or post cream eggs through the doors around you. Willow Creek works because of where it is & in Chicago there were several rich people to provide start up funds. They have seeker services on Sunday,several of them,but they look after their own by midweek teaching. That’s why you should begin by looking at what you do, where & when you meet (does it have to be 10{30&6.30 on Sunday, a chapel I* know in Wales because they come from a spread farming community parents & children meet on Wednesdays after school) & tidying up your act. Then you can go out into the place where people are to tell them you are not archaic & irrelivant, Honestly it’s time well spent
First of all, I would like to congratulate Channel 4 for having the courage and imagination to commission this series, which, on the whole, I have enjoyed and found stimulating. It has certainly inspired a lot of healthy debate, judging from the varying comments on this site.
However, I have two major criticisms about the series that in my opinion have prevented it from being truly seminal. These are:
1. The last episode presented by Cherie Blair sadly was not up to the standard of all the previous episodes. Either blinded by her own prejudices or naivety, Mrs Blair gave American evangelicalism far too easy a ride in suggesting that it could provide some lessons for Christianity in Europe.
Firstly, it was too simplistic for Mrs Blair to suggest that Christianity in Europe was generally failing. One only needs to visit countries such as Poland to witness the power that the established Catholic Church still wields over the people, in a uniquely nationalist way.
Secondly, although it is fair to say that Christianity played a significant part in the civil rights movement in the US, she omits to mention that the powers that resisted and opposed this movement in the deep south were themselves greatly influenced by a very conservative form of Christianity – one that still exists today, and that in fact played a major role in getting George W Bush re-elected in 2004, supporting the very un-Christian bloodbath he unleashed in Iraq.
Thirdly, I find it curious that she should hold up the Willow Farm church as an example of a form of worship that could save the future of Christianity. She mentions that modern materialism is one of the reasons why western Christianity has dwindled in popularity. Is the irony of what she says not lost on her when visiting a church that is built like a shopping mall, where worship is conducted in a cinema-like auditorium and where parishioners can meet up beforehand in Starbucks-like cafes? Does not the existence of such a church highlight the problem with modern materialism rather than provide a cure for it?
Most importantly, no questions are asked about how such an establishment is funded, what happens to any profits that are made, and how the pastors are remunerated. There have been too many scandals about TV evangelists in the US – Jim Bakker, Jimmy Lee Swaggart and Pat Robertson to name a few, for such questions not to be posed.
2. The lack of any consideration of the Orthodox Church – this is an important branch of Christianity whose story needs to be told for any so called “history of Christianity” to be truly representative. Perhaps Channel 4 tried but failed to find an Orthodox presenter for any of the episodes. I think a suitable episode for such a presenter would have been the one about the dark ages, when the story of the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic churches may have been discussed. The excellent Robert Beckford could instead have been asked to do the final episode on the future of Christianity, which I’m sure he would have done a far better job of than the hapless Mrs Blair.
I found the whole series very informative and enjoyable.
The problems is I have defineltely gone from agnostic to complete atheist.
Not something that I believe the makers intended
This was a great series, informative, interesting and technically superbly executed. I think I spotted one or two howlers but on balance I came away having learned a lot. For me, Portillo was the best (which I wasn’t expecting at all) and Cherie Blair was easily the worst as her arguments were incoherent.
I have just watched Cherie Blair and have to vent my spleen. Why is this woman given air time? She begins by telling us Christians have been maginalised in recent years. Whose fault is this? Oh yes her husband’s Labour government with its relentless PC drive towards inclusiveness which has left local councils unable to display Christmas lights. She talks about the allienation of women – where were her interviews with Cof E female vicars? Oh this was all from a catholic point of view! What about the role of Christianity in Eastern Europe under the communists? Surely wherever there is oppression as for the African Americans also the church flourishes. And finally the UK has a hugh benefit system which doesn’t exist in the USA, so naturally when in need people here turn to the state not the church.
Leave a comment
* Required field.