MetaCatholic

Antonio Lombatti asked me if I had the time to take a look at tonight’s BBC documentary on The Turin Shroud. (This iPlayer link will work for the next six days for those who can get the service.) He was particularly interested in what Professor Christopher Ramsey of the C14 testing laboratory in Oxford had to say in the documentary. (Ramsey was part of the team that did the 1988 dating of the shroud to the early 14th century.)

I’ll answer that question first, and briefly, but then say a little more. All Ramsey had to say was, effectively, “We’re always open to considering likely and realistic theories of contamination that might help us refine our work. At the moment there’s no evidence that bears them out.” The particular view under consideration was being put forward by the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado. In brief, they argue that there was some unusual reactions between atmospheric carbon monoxide and the linen of the shroud, which led to a misdating. Ramsey accepts that their theory conjecture offers a possible explanation of how relatively minor contamination could produce a major displacement in the dating. So far, however, there’s no evidence to suggest that such a reaction between linen and carbon monoxide could occur. The team at the Colorado centre are working on finding a way in which they can get similar linen to react to carbon monoxide.

This latter point raises the main difficulty I had with the BBC programme. It essentially consisted of Rageh Omar interviewing a range of people who believe the shroud is genuine and that they have supporting evidence for it. The Colorado team were the dominant participants. Ramsey was, as far as I could tell, the only non-believer in the shroud’s authenticity. The quality of the evidence offered varied considerably: from reasonable point to what looked a little bit like wishful thinking. Most of it was less original than the programme suggested. In this respect the official position of the Vatican is worth noting. The Shroud of Turin is an important devotional object to focus the believer’s attention on the crucifixion, whatever its history and origin turns out to be.

In my view there are two significant arguments against the medieval date, neither of which are conclusive. The first is that no-one has, as far as I know (and indeed as far as this programme told me) worked out how the image might have been created. The second is that (shades of arguments over the BBC Passion) the Shroud almost certainly shows nail marks in the wrists, and possible through the sides of the heels. This would make it unique among medieval (and most contemporary) art. It is an extremely odd thing for a forger to do. Against these arguments, however, stands the carbon dating.

I confess to rarely giving the Shroud much thought. Even if it does prove to be genuine, what does it add, except a rather romantic historicism, and the settlement of Mark Goodacre’s argument with the Telegraph. And for those who want or need to believe then surely it is not inconceivable that the resurrection produced its own surge of inexplicable cosmic energy that forever rendered scientific method unreliable in this, as in all matters pertaining to his resurrection. That would, of course, be deeply ironic, since those who are most passionate about the shroud seem to believe that it somehow provides scientifically testable evidence for the resurrection.

written by doug

I have noted before that I expect my next computer to be a Mac. I think that’s probably the most rational decision for me. But one of the things that has slightly held me back from making the decision earlier has been some of the swivel-eyed enthusiasm evinced by some diehard fanbois. Despite this, most Mac users have been (or at least seemed) quite normal people.

Yet it has been impossible to speak to even a normal Mac user without them trying to persuade you of the benefits that will accrue if you, too, get a Mac. As far as I can see this is nearly universally true. Mac owners can’t seem to stop themselves evangelising for their technology, both its style and substance. In a technological world where fashion and style are also prized, this may sometimes come over as a bit overbearing, or even over-boring, but it hardly ever (fanboi zealots partially excluded) comes over as unnatural.

Compare this to efforts Christians make for evangelism properly so called. By comparison there seems to be something studied about it. The language is often borrowed and artificial, the ideas seem to be someone else’s, the phrases are often hackneyed and inexplicable. Moreover, people quickly learn to avoid the enthusiast for God. Now, no doubt, some of this is due to the fact that God is more demanding than a Mac. But it seems to me also to point to a certain way in which God-talk has become unnatural and often uncomfortable in our society. Evangelism for God needs programmes, encouragement, mission plans and college training.

Intriguingly, it seems to me that I can detect that same dichotomy in clergy and layperson alike. If they are Mac owners their enthusing about their computers is always more spontaneous and natural than their enthusing for God. And it nearly always begins with “Did you know you can do …?” or “Have you seen this?”

I suspect that sort of practical, results-oriented amazement was part and parcel of natural Christian evangelism in the first few centuries, aided (as Mac owners are today) by the sense of being something of a beleaguered minority. It was then, as it is today in many cultures, as appropriate and natural as Mac evangelism is in ours, even if most people remained pagans (or Windows users today).

None of this is intended to point a finger at any particular theological or technological stance. But it does leave me wondering whether the difficulties most Western Christians have with evangelism owes far more to the cultural waters we swim in, than to any theological weakness, or enthusiasm bypass in today’s churches.

written by doug