Invalid or Broken rss link.

talkingI don’t suppose he could help himself. ISIS was always going to be in the Archbishop of Canterbury’s direct line of sight. How could he not mention the great scourge of our time and how could he do so without referring to the very thing that makes his slippers squeak with excitement every morning?

Consider: you’re the head of Church of England. Christmas is approaching and there you are, chewing on your pencil with a blank piece of paper resting on your knee. You sigh. A mote of dust dances in a ray of winter sunlight. Lambeth Palace is silent save for Cliff Richard yodelling about bells faintly in the distance. You know you have to address the problem of IS in your yearly sermon. So what do you write?

Well, you’d want something with a religious yet political vibe. You need plenty of Jesus Christ Superstar and just a pinch of Evita. At the same time, you don’t want to empower the villains of ISIS by saying anything they might agree with. You lick you pencil and write ‘beastly rotters’ before you scribble it out. You’ve had a better idea! You’ll take the usual approach and say they don’t represent any religion and they do not express the will of God. Perhaps note some commonality between Islam and Christianity but, otherwise, condemn their barbarity and say that they are doomed to fail. Now turn to hymn 129. Thy Lord Is Thy Hotpot. Job done.

What you probably should not do is give them the full-on biblical with evangelical sideburns. You do not go defining ISIS’s actions in language that makes them all go weak at the beards.

Yet, of course, that’s precisely what the Archbishop did. By talking about their actions in the context of the ‘apocalypse’, well meaning Welby put them into the very quasi-historical timeline that they are constantly seeking to affirm. He might as well given them a certified ‘100% Old Testament barbarity’ sticker with a thumbs up and Colgate smile to camera.

The Archbishop’s statement failed to recognise what this battle is essentially about. From the beginning, the war against ISIS has been one of ideas, thoughts, words and definitions as much as it has been about the bombing. Not describing them as a ‘state’ was a good place to start. Using the phrase ‘Daesh’ was even better, devaluing their cause in their own language even if the word doesn’t grace English prose particularly well. (It always feels like it needs ‘the’ stuck in front of it.)

Islamic fundamentalists are highly attuned to the language of the apocalypse because the apocalypse is precisely what they hope they’re bringing about. If you take a look at the eschatology of Islam you’ll quickly spot how deeply ingrained jihadists are in the most doom-laden rot: earthquakes, thunderbolts, people doing it in the streets like donkeys (they’ve no doubt been to Blackpool). The flag they raise over every captured town, hill, and latrine is meant to be fulfilling one of the conditions of end days, which is that the black standard will spread until they are planted in Jerusalem.

I don’t suppose the onanistic butchers of ISIS are taking a break from their drugs and West Coast American porn in order to give themselves pats on the back because the Archbishop of Canterbury has just given them a namecheck in his Christmas message. Yet it certainly doesn’t challenge the way these barbarians and their supporters think of themselves as engaged in a spiritual mission. If the Archbishop did need to quote scripture, couldn’t he have found one of the juicer passages in the Old Testament involving poultry, pigs, or oxen? Comparing them to Herod, one of the most prolific and cruel butchers in the Bible, is like giving them a tick by their name and a ‘excellent progress’ at the bottom of their end of year report. Certainly, the war with ISIS needs more religion about as much as an archbishop needs a bigger hat.

David Waywell writes and cartoons at The Spine.


4 Comments on "Apocalypse, Doh!"

  1. Don’t you think David you are being too harsh on the Archbishop? Isn’t he entitled to jump on the proverbial bandwagon like the rest of us?

    • Thanks Nehad. You are not the first person to think I’m being harsh (or simply wrong) but I’ve read and reread the Archbishop’s Christmas message and I still can’t get on board with the Archbishop’s message.

      He’s trying to redefine ‘apocalypse’ as if he can simply redefine it as something good and therefore take away the magical power of ISIS. “What the shepherds glimpsed that silent night outside Bethlehem was an apocalypse, which means an uncovering of God’s final purpose for all the universe.” In contrast, he argues that ISIS seek their own and different apocalypse which is “an unveiling created of their own terrible ideas, one which is igniting a trail of fear, violence, hatred and determined oppression”.

      This is not just horrible theology but lousy philosophy. It is the same relativism that leads people to argue over the meaning of ‘art’ or ‘beauty’ or ‘good’. How is an amputee or the family of somebody murdered by ISIS meant to feel if we say that the horror of ISIS is really the ‘uncovering of God’s final purpose for all the universe’? Either way, God is punishing people cruelly in the name of his ultimate purpose.

      What annoys me are lines like this: “We do not deny tyranny and cruelty, we do not compete with it: rather, we overcome as we allow ourselves to be defined by God’s true unveiling, transformed by His invading love.”

      No, sorry. We should not ‘allow ourselves to be defined by God’s true unveiling’ and I want no part of any God who expects me to stand aside feeling ‘love’ whilst brutalities are committed in the name of theology. What kind of God is it that punishes us in barbaric ways in order to be rewarded later? He/she/it isn’t my God and it annoys me that human cruelty can be dismissed as simply a product of divine will.

      I much prefer your arguments about Assad and Iran which are about ordinarily people making political judgement for geopolitical gain.

  2. I do appreciate your response David and I share your thoughts. Let me just say this: ISIS rank and file have been duped into believing they are on a grand mission to establish Allah’s rule on earth via ISIS and its Caliphate. The laughable thing is that the top controllers who direct ISIS operations and tell its spokesmen what threats to announce, when, and against whom, are secular men working with and for the Syrian/Iranian Military Intelligence to achieve political ends that serve Tehran, Damascus and Moscow. These guys are not in the battle fields of Raqqa and Ramadi but in 5-star hotels enjoying the secular pleasures of life and spreading the message of “global terror” in the name of Allah at the behest of their handlers.

    • I agree absolutely, Nehad. *All* problems are secular problems. There is nothing in this world we have to deal with that has a supernatural origin. And I mean nothing. The only thing that theism brings to the table is a blind devotion to faith, which is an absence of evidence and therefore cannot be countered with evidence. What the Archbishop said, though obviously well meant, perpetuates the superstitious nonsense that feeds ISIS and the wider conflict. As I’ve written before, I think fundamentalism of all kinds can be defeated by education, technology, and improved standards of living. Desperate people will believe in anything. We need to make them less desperate.

      The real news of Christmas was that al Baghdadi is still alive. I was so sure he’d been killed in an airstrike, though I’d thought that the previous half dozen times there were reports of his demise.

1 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. ChairThe Spine | The Spine

Leave a comment

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please consider if you're contributing to the discussion before you post. Abuse and general negativity will not be allowed to appear on the site. This might be the Internet but let's try to keep things civil.

Your email address will not be published.



This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.