Monty Python and the Holy Grail & its Deep Satire on Christianity
Finally, I watched what was once a cult classic movie the 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'. My first impression is that 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' isn't so much a comedy movie. It walks the line between a parody and satire. The difference between parody and satire is that parody isn't meant to have any value beyond its comicality. On the other hand, satire goes beyond the comic to be a critic eliciting often a subversive change in opinion.
I take the position that Monty Python and the Holy Grail is more of a deep satire than a fluffy parody. On the one hand, it takes Christian symbolism and treats it with an utter irreverence. And then it also makes a parody of Medieval traditions and British history, which I wouldn't get into on this post.
The comical King of Britain goes about recruiting Knights for a castle. In his journey he witnesses the plight of the common people and does not care at all. Then he has the vision from God, God telling him that as he lived in times of 'great turmoil', and he had to find the 'Holy Grail'. The satire here pointing to the idiocy of the overly 'christian' solution to the dire social problems of the day. This satire against the symbols that represented Christianity in the medieval times, and still do today, continues throughout the movie.
Why People Make Fun of Christianity?
Some Christians may say that this is just comical movie, one shouldn't take this too seriously. I would agree and disagree meaning, I think there should a good deal of judgement exercised on this matter. I think we should respond to this as a Christian. Complacence shouldn't preclude our response. The Christian response shouldn't be in trying to boycott or ban the movie, but rather to carefully critic it and acknowledge where it is right and critic it where it is wrong. Thus we bring the light of Truth into the matter.
When people 'make fun' of Christianity it is not because there is nothing else to be made fun of, but because they are subversively making a 'statement of judgement' about Christianity. Voltaire the rabid anti-christian famously said, "the first christian was the first fool who met the first priest". Doesn't the vision to go on the quest of the holy grail in Monty Python have a Voltarish spiel to it? Nothing is just 'simple fun', more often than not, there is more to it.
Straw man or the Giant?
All satire has to have its element of truth. The Church in the medieval times was overly obsessed with relics of the likes of the Holy Grail. So there is some truth upon which the satire is built. I can't more agree with the folly of the medieval Christian's obsession over relics. On the other hand, I should also like to state that the bigger truth that the satire misses is that the quest for the Holy Grail was more a misuse of Christianity than what it really stood for. The quest for Holy Grail is a straw man which represents the Giant that Christianity was and still is.
A classic example of true Christianity of the medieval ages was the work of the Benedictine monks. The historian Michael Jones says that without the work of the Benedictine monks in sustaining agricultural development to fostering literacy, Europe would never have become a formidable civilization.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, the Catholic Church was to a considerable extent wrong in that it was after power. It used many contrivances to retain power, obsession over relic being one among them. In as much as the satire is against this part of power mongering medieval Christianity, the satire is valid and warranted. But the problem is that neither the movie nor the audience takes an approach sophisticated enough to make this key distinction between the Straw man and the Giant.
Dual Line of Attack - Narrative & Symbolism
Some Christians may still object to my 'over analysis' of the movie that one should bother about having to make some sophisticated distinctions over a movie. I beg to differ. There are two levels at which the movie, I believe, is very subversive against Christianity.
1. At the level of narrative.
2. At the level of symbolism.
First on the level of the narrative, the human mind likes simplicity. It is easy to make something into 'all good' or 'all bad'. It is easy for non-Christians to look at the misuse of Christianity and use that as the straw man to condemn all of Christianity. The movie ends with entire narrative representing the medieval Christian enterprise being written off as being stupid, out of date and something that serves no better purpose than comic relief. The police representing 'modernity' come in to take over this 'holy bunch' and expose them for what they really are a bunch of fool that go about a quest guided by superstitions.
On the level of the symbolism, the movie riles against the 'symbols' which to the popular masses represents Christianity. Symbols are important part of human life. When an American sees a baseball bat and a ball, it evokes some emotions just as an Indian would feel when he sees a cricket bat and ball or a Brazilian would when he sees a soccer ball. Symbols often represent something which is invisible like for example the wedding rings represent the invisible covenant that the husband and wife share. For the Christian, communion, the vestments of a monk or a priest and the medieval icons serve as symbols that point religious ideas and feelings. To denigrate such overtly Christian symbols in the minds of impressionable audience is, I think, a subversive act of associating disparaging emotions/feelings towards Christianity. Given that most decisions most human being make is emotion based this is no small deal.
In fact, this form of narrative and symbolic attack on Christianity in some ways achieves something similar to what the militant atheists of the 21st century of the likes of Richard Dawkins want to do - they seek to make Christianity look so stupid that none will think it worth even a consideration. Interestingly, the fact that these militant atheists conveniently chose to ignore is that, but for the work of the Catholic Church and Monasteries of the medieval times, the western civilization wouldn't have developed into an enterprising, intellectual and compassionate civilization that it is today (as against, for example the Middle Eastern civilization which stands for everything that is the opposite to the western liberties).
Christian Response
Christian response should be a two pronged rebuttal.
1. At the level of narrative.
2. At the level of symbols/arts.
First, we need to understand that when Christians misuse the Christian Truths they purportedly stand for (as the medieval Christians did with their obsession with relics), we end up feeding more fuel into the fire that burns the straw man (power mongering Christian) and assumes it has cut-down the Giant (self giving Christlike Christian). To not allow this to happen, we need to be self-critical of how we 'live' as Christians in the world. Our goal is to live Christlike. In as much as we detract from Christ-likeness we shall hurt the image that Christianity has. It isn't for no reason Christ said in John 13 that we should love each other as Christ loved us, others would 'see' that and praise God in heaven. When non-Christians sees the narrative of Christlike life, that is when they get attracted to Christianity. They mostly don't really care what we preach or say, it is the narrative of our lives that matter.
Second, the devil entices people by using symbols/images in the culture. This is because as human beings we respond better to symbol/images than words. Why do you think we have 'traffic lights' and not 'traffic words'? Some symbols/images are overtly unchristian like for example pornography. Some other symbols/images like NFL, movies, books draw people to themselves. People celebrate them, often attributing to them the worship that belongs to God. The question is how do Christians fight this symbolic battle in the culture? It shouldn't be by boycotting NFL, movie or books. Rather it should be by engaging them in a way that 'shows' how these symbols point back to God. This is where it gets into the arts. Back in the middle ages, the Church dominated the arts scene, perhaps to an unhealthy level, but that played a big part in Europe remaining Christian for so long. Unless Christian do something about captivating people's need for beauty, imagination and worship in 'everyday life', our gains, if any there are, will not be long lasting. Unfortunately, most Church are focused on the short-term 'number game' (focusing either on how many people come to their church or on how many churches they can plant) thus losing sight of the long term strategy of helping people 'live life to ALL its fullness' with an appreciation for beauty, imagination and worship.
See Not Just Hear
Christ did not just say 'let him that has ears hear', He also said, 'let him that has eyes SEE'. What do we Christians have to show? Nothing much really, not so much in terms of our sacrificial Christ-like lives, not so much in terms of our symbols/arts either. We mostly spout out some hot air as the monk in Monty Python and the Holy Grail does when he preps to bless the 'holy grenade' which will kill a rabbit. He does so with all seriousness he can muster. But alas, he has lost the audience. Or should we say he has lost the 'lost' audience. The 'lost' can take whatever Christians say and make it to mean anything they want, thus making laughing stock of us, or worse, see us as a people group which needs to be neutralized, by hook or by crook... and if need be by jokes, for the betterment of the society. Think I am joking... go figure! (actually read books about history and know the 'signs and the times' we live in and you'll know how the Church has been/is being neutralized)