I see. I take your point. Still think it's exaggerated, though.
You know, I spent the first seventeen years of my life as a Christian. During that time I was taught all the Qs and As in the Baltimore Catechism. I knew the entire mass in Latin. Learned The Lord's Prayer, Hail Mary, and Apostles' Creed. Had all the sacraments. Never cracked the Bible nor did anyone else at my church, best I recall. Didn't have a clue that other Christians read the Bible rather than memorizing doctrine.
I didn't catch any of the references made during the discussion of Narnia. Does that mean I "never heard anything about Christianity"? Seems to me that kids in different churches are taught different things. Some programs prepare kids for all those literary references and some don't.
Not too long ago I saw a quiz for cultural literacy on Christianity. I was surprised at how many I got right. That was because the questions were really, really easy. And I suppose they were easy because the quiz was making the same point you are, the lack of cultural literacy.
I make no claims of more than a passing familiarity with the subject given that I've been utterly unreligious for more than forty years, but it seems to me that, if I don't know anything more about Gethsemane than that Jesus prayed there before that fateful event, it's a bit much to say I "never heard anything" about Christianity. (Gethsemane may have been one of the questions on the test.)
As for my friend who saw Narnia, I met him thirty years ago so I'm vague now on what he once told me about his religious training. I think he was not raised Christian but got into it on his own for a while in his teens, then moved on. I don't think it could be said he "never heard anything" about Christianity, either.
Change of subject. Just finished watching Book of Daniel. I caught a few things that might rankle. For example, his first sermon was about how we shouldn't worry too much about avoiding temptation. But by and large it seemed inoffensive to me, not that I have the sensibilities to judge such things. It seemed pretty healthy to me, for a soap opera, and quite warm. The family was way more normal than the Bluths, for example.
Maybe the folks who are unhappy about it misunderstood and were expecting a more overtly religious show rather than a less-edgy soap opera with a churchy setting. I can understand how Book wouldn't live up to those expectations. But it had considerably less edge than most TV fare; it just wasn't all sweetness and light like Touched By an Angel or Ghost Whisperer. |
