The cultural imperialists at the BBC

The Daily Telegraph reports,

Guidance from the broadcaster’s ethics specialists suggested that the modern phrases “common era” and “before common era” should be considered as potential replacements for Anno Domini and Before Christ. (src)

I don't intend to suggest that this is political correctness gone 'differently sane', one Radio Four comic described a another story at the weekend. It's not politically correct at all: in some ways, it is far more 'Christian' than BC and AD. Let me explain.

BC and AD come, as we all know, from 'before Christ' and 'anno domini', referring to the period before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth and afterwards. The key point about the initials is that their full meaning has been generally forgotten. Anno domini means 'the year of our Lord': the problem is that not everyone would agree with the description of Jesus as their Lord. People may think they know what 'before Christ' means; though it is generally forgotten, I suspect, that 'Christ' isn't Jesus' surname, but rather a claim to a particular religious significance as the Messiah of Israel.

Since the meanings have been roughly lost, wider society tends to treat them as meaningless signifiers which allows us to locate events in history by appeal to a single event: the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Saying 'AD' does not entail confessing Jesus as Lord, nor does 'BC' require an acknowledgement of him as Israel's Messiah.

Is it politically incorrect to do this? No more so for Western culture, deeply influenced by Christianity, than for Arab cultures to date things by Muhammad's hajj, or some Eastern cultures with reference to the Buddha. And it has the advantage over the latter of being a fairly incontrovertibly historical event which is reasonably well-placed in the timeline. Bear in mind that in locating events with respect to Jesus' birth, we do not make any claim about the importance of Jesus for any individual. At most, the claim is that his birth has been important for Western culture. The endurance of Christmas must surely put paid to any denials of that fact.

So what of the proposed replacement? The phrases '(Before) Common Era' still locate events with respect to the birth of Jesus: we all know this, even if the 'modernisers' try to deny it. But in replacing the phrases, they add something: his birth now marks the start of the 'Common Era'.

They claim that this event is common to all: whatever your creedal or cultural background. Well, good on the ethics unit at the BBC for asserting the universality of the gospel of Jesus Christ for every man, woman and child on the face of the earth. Good on them for asserting that each of us has a share in his birth—I await their similar announcement for his death and resurrection. Good on them for calling Muslims, Jews, agnostics and plain old atheists to acknowledge his importance to their own lives. But if you want to avoid religious or cultural imperialism, you might do better than, in effect, to declare Christ to be of such cosmic significance that he is common to us all.