One indicator of changing attitudes to Christianity is the lessening degree of outrage over the evergreen argument about replacing BC/AD with BCE/CE in dates. Yesterday’s Telegraph had the latest iteration of this hardy perennial. It was a relatively restrained and educational account, despite a word from zombie archbishop George Carey.
A number of [school] authorities have already adopted the policy, while several more are reported to be considering making the switch from the traditional to the more politically-correct chronological form compulsory.
Compare this with the version in the Evening Standard some 15 years ago, and one can see that a choleric splutter is on its way to becoming a resigned shrug.
In what could be seen as their greatest victory to date, politically correct campaigners have succeeded in getting schools to scrap the Christian calendar.
The traditional Western system is not without its problems: not least that Jesus of Nazareth was probably born some 4 years before Christ. But the alternatives have their problems too.
For me, the biggest objection to replacing BC/AD with BCE/CE is that it is fundamentally dishonest. For better or worse, we have a global dating system because the world was pretty much conquered by Christian imperialist powers who could enforce European Christendom norms on the rest of the globe. Calling the time since the approximate date of Jesus’ birth “Common Era” as though this is a matter of mutual agreement, and nothing to do with a particular history of faith and conquest, is simply untrue.
In functional terms, the Christian system is no better or worse than the Muslim, Jewish or any other. We could even all decide to add 753 to all our dates and go back to the mythical AUC (from the foundation of the city – ab urbe condita) of the Roman Empire. However, we are where we are because of a very specific Christian history that indelibly stamped its mark on the globe.
Yes, it can be replaced, but replacing it with a somewhat fraudulent name, while keeping the same dating system seems to me to be simply an act of intellectual dishonesty. It is a refusal to acknowledge the imperialist and religious history which has brought us to this point.
There is no common dating system based on anything other than historical contingency, and surely it is better honestly to acknowledge the specific stories and circumstances which have shaped the world in which we live, like it or lump it, than to gloss the often bloody reality with this seemingly objective and thinly consensual patina of neutrality.