Church Reflections: Good Omens

-Rev Melissa Fain-

David Tennant is absolutely one of my favorite actors. From Doctor Who, to Broadchurch, to Jessica Jones. Oh, and Duck Tales!  I haven't met a project I don't fall in love with when he's one of the stars. This is also true of Good Omens. I believe his typecast is to take characters we wouldn't generally like and make them, at least, relatable if not make us completely fall in love with them. His effortless performance of Crowley gave me sympathy and understanding towards demons. I blame great writing, and great acting. Let's look deeper into Good Omens, and understand why a minister is praising it today.

Synopsis- without spoilers

​Good Omens was originally a fun writing project between Terry Prachett and ​Neil Gaiman. As they put it, "It was a summer job. We had a great time doing it, we split the money in half, and we swore never to do it again. We didn't think it was important." (ix, Good Omens 2006)

The best summary I can give this book as a general reader is as follows: 
It is a fun take on the end of the world as seen through the eyes of a demon, an angel and a few humans. 

My summary as an ordained minister in good standing looks like this:
It is a fun take on the end of the world as seen through the eyes of a demon, an angel and a few humans.

It's the exact same, because this is, by and large, an innocent book. My younger self would have been deeply offended to read it when it was first published. Of course I was completely and totally super Churchy back then and drinking their Kool-Aid, which was always purchased on clearance and heavily watered down. That last bit would have been a footnote in homage to the book, where the footnotes are probably the best parts to read.

What I'm trying to say is that it's not a serious book. It's not out to dismantle the church. In fact, the Prime series momentarily stops on the crucifixion of Christ, and it's not funny. There's a brief moment of respect, and the story continues. It didn't go into the Divinity, but it didn't have to. I got it, and hopefully other Christians will get it too.

The point the story makes- with spoilers.

While I can write a nice and accurate summary in one sentence, I can also do the same with the point:

Humans have the capacity to inflict great punishments on themselves, or achieve ultimate love and peace. Choose wisely.

That was two sentences, but I realize there's more. If we obliterate what we hate, we won't have anything good, because the context will be gone.

The second point was reached by a group of four children, one of the four being the Antichrist. Take that for what you will. The idea of good must be understood within the lens of evil is an old idea that was born in antiquity. Many have written against it, while it's still raised as a serious idea today.

​This book is not an attack on organized religion, it's an attack on literalist theology. 

Notice what makes them angry and find the reflection.

Honestly, our reflection is not in this series, but how those within our numbers reacted to the Amazon Prime Series. (Yes, I said those "within our numbers," I'm not going to play that game where I exclude Christians because I don't agree with their point of view.)

1. The voice of God: We are hardwired to believe God is a booming male voice. It's not because we have any Ancient Near East sound recordings of God talking to Moses, or one of the Prophets. It's because if the voice is female we are delving into the image of God. Our physical view is only part of how we see the whole of something. Sound, taste, smell, and feel also play parts in the whole picture. When the Christian world get's upset about a tone of voice, it might as well also say, "We don't respect that voice." In reality, most of us don't. Why do you think Google, Amazon, and Microsoft chose female voices for their AI. They are non-threatening, and therefore, you feel like you still hold the power when you are asking them those random questions at three in the morning.
2. The power of friendship: The book actually spends a couple of sentences explaining how demons and angels are not really male or female. Yet, one of the issues was this belief that Crowley and Aziraphale are apparently "gay."  We, as a society, deeply fear males bonding beyond light friendships. I first encountered this as I was reading "The Wind In The Willows." Both Mole and Water Rat are extremely close friends. When I googled their relationship I saw as recently as last year the relationship was considered privately gay. I decided to engage this subject in a safe and private forum, and (with the help of friends) I came to this conclusion:
   The written word comes alive on two levels. First the writer brings the word to paper (digital or physical) and second the reader breathes life into those words. This isn't always a good thing, and we can go into the term "shipping" on another day. I've got feelings regarding that rabbit hole. On a good note, breathing life into the text is a sacred duty. We give life to the author's work. I had to take a step back from Mole and Water Rat because I discovered my systemic misogyny.  (Yes, gals can have those too.) Culture shuns deep masculine friendships. It's dangerous because over time males have transferred those deep friendships to only their spouse, leaving a vacuum everywhere else. If Crowley and Aziraphale had feminine bodies the subject of sexuality never would have been broached. They were deep friends, like Mole and Water Rat. How readers have breathed life into that relationship is a relationship between the reader and the words on the page. I don't think it was the intention of the writers, but it doesn't make the individual translation any less real. 
   That said, I want to sit with the knowledge that two creations, neither of whom were created to have a sexual identity, were created to have a deep friendship. It was because those creations were given a male form, our social construct assumed it was a sexual relationship. Our culture, in it's current form, cannot see male friendship for the sake of male friendship. If we are going to see any identity as right and good, we first need to have a healthy view of all types of friendship, especially the non-sexualized version between two friends of the same sex.
   Christians, making presumptions based on a friendship, have outed themselves as also suffering from systemic misogyny.  It's a very ugly reflection.
3. General Society has a reflection too: The secular world wants to see Christians as stupid. We gave them a big steaming pile of stupidity when a group of Christians set up a petition to take Good Omens off Netflix. Only one problem: Good Omens is not streaming on Netflix. It's on Amazon Prime. I got a good chuckle out of the whole thing, until my husband aptly reminded me it plays into their narrative. No one is out to raise up the intelligent Christian who is acting from a place of love. It's not that we don't deserve it. We do. Christians can be very stupid sometimes. It's just, we are not just stupid. There are smart, caring, loving ones out there too. Reflecting back into the secular world doesn't look too pretty either. Maybe we should both look into that.

The Point.

I sat on this post an added week, because I think this subject deserves some reflection of my own before I publish.

• Whether we are Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, Jewish, or something else, we should also think before we jump on those opinion trains. We shouldn't be jumping into opinions because it fits our narrative. We should be about doing something because it's right. Knowing what is right is something that requires research and thoughtful action.
• If someone tells you a work of fiction is "from the devil" ask how they know. I always question whether those who are boycotting books have any context for the story in question. I think Outlander is far more dangerous than Good Omens. I can say that because I have read both, and have reasoned opinions to back my claim based on personal experience. 
• There are bigger issues in this world worth our time. I want to leave you with the first point of the book Good Omens. If you only take away one thing from this, take away this: Humans have the capacity to inflict great punishments on themselves, or achieve ultimate love and peace. Choose wisely.