From an Atheist's Mouth:

Another British newspaper, another interesting editorial.

Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

Mr. Parris ends with the following:

Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted.

Sounds great. Mr. Pariss sees Christianity as an improvement on the tribal beliefs systems in Africa. But why, if he sees the positive transformation of humans and societies that Christianity can provide, does he remain an atheist? I suspect the author to have a strong Marxist view of religion. From Karl Marx's Contribution to Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right:

Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification... Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

Yes, and Christianity is the good stuff. Maybe Pariss would like to get Africa hooked on the good stuff, at least long enough to extract its benefits, but it seems for him that Christianity remains solely a fantastic means to an end. If it were any more than fantasy, he would perhaps take the matter a little more personally.

Still, on the whole, seeing this acknowledgment of the positive aspects of Christianity is a welcome development in light of all the attention the pathetic harangues of Hitchens, Dawkins, and company have received.

UPDATE: The New York Times follows with its own religion is good and transformative and stuff - you know, if your silly enough to believe in that sort of thing - story.

Carmina Burana? Really?

The linked Telegraph article deals with China's decision to ban Western religious music. What I don't understand is how Carmina Burana fits into that equation:

Cai Jindong, a Chinese-born conductor and professor of music at Stanford University in the United States, was asked to drop a section from Carl Orff's Carmina Burana, an arrangement of raucous Latin and German medieval songs, which he conducted in Shanghai in August.

Not really Latin and German medieval songs, but Latin and German poems set to music by Carl Orff in the 1930's. It is laughable to put Carmina Burana into the category of religious music, given that the full title in English is Songs of Beuern: Secular songs for singers and choruses to be sung together with instruments and magic images.. Coming to a church near you!

Back to the point of the article, I find it an interesting development. It is clear that the Chinese government does not know how to respond to the explosion of Christianity in its country, torn between taking advantage of the obvious social benefits while fearful of its power.

As a fan of Bach, Handel, and Mozart, it is sad to see the restrictions against music as beautiful as Bach's St. Matthew's Passion or Handel's Messiah. At the same time, I understand the move.

Most people in America today do not seem to have an open ear for this "antiquated" style of music anymore, but the glory and spirit present in so many Christian masterpieces is obvious to those who listen. A favorite exhortation of mine from Jesus was "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." I like to think that not only was he being sensitive to the deaf, and maybe a little sarcastic to everyone else, but also talking about a way of listening to really understand the message he was giving. I still remember hearing the Hallelujah Chorus the first time, and my wife thought I had lost my mind the way I fondled my recent purchase of a German import recording of St. Matthew's Passion and insisted on having her sit there while I listened to the entire first half. I can imagine how Chinese citizens, in a country going through such tremendous change, could hear and be affected by the divine message proclaimed within not only the text but woven into the music of these Christian works. And so I understand a fretting government wanted to limit the power these pieces can exercise over its people, or more perhaps more appropriately, God's people.