Arthur: A Vision of a Non-Christian World?
By Gabriel and Nathaniel Bell
(With Matthew Bell)
Based on the Arthur book series, which books are written and illustrated by Marc Brown, the television show of the same name is approaching its twenty-year anniversary. Judging from the fact it has occupied a presumably coveted 5:00pm slot (in our market) on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) network for the past several years, Arthur is a favorite show for many children. We confess that we have spent many enjoyable hours viewing various episodes. Overall, it is well-done.
Arthur centrally involves animal “children,” of various species, living together in the fictional American town of Elwood City. There are numerous, relatable characters that have been richly developed over the years. Despite their bestial exteriors, the characters wear clothing, reside in unremarkable suburban houses and go to their local Lakewood Elementary school.
The eponymous Arthur, around whom most of the many plots revolve, is just a normal “kid” – in the colloquial sense (literally, he is supposed to be an aardvark). In fact, it is a recurring theme – and sometime joke – that “Arthur” is a virtual byword for “average.”
He has lots of friends. The main circle includes Buster Baxter (a rabbit), Francine Frensky (a monkey), Muff Crosswire (also a monkey), Alan “Brain” Powers (a bear) and Shelly “Binky” Barnes (a bulldog). Secondary personalities, including other children, parents and teachers, are legion. The show has even had “guest-stars” such as actors Matt Damon and Philip Seymour Hoffman, writer Neil Gaiman, PBS legend Mr. Rogers and comedienne Joan Rivers. The show depicts the main characters having “regular kid problems” such as those, usually petty, misunderstandings that arise between siblings, over unfinished chores, difficult homework assignments, gossip, bullying, and so on. In all, the children lead conventional lives.
Arthur is supposed to represent “Any Kid.” And, in almost all respects, Elwood City is obviously intended to be “Any Town, USA.”
There is, however, one subtle (or not so subtle) feature, the existence of which ought to give Christian parents pause before they permit their children to sit, uncritically, in front of the literally hundreds of episodes in the show’s lineup. There is seldom any explicit reference made anywhere to anything overtly Christian. At least as concerns the ordinary, daily episodes, there are ostensibly no Christian churches, no pastors or priests and no Christian holidays. [1]
At first glance – and even after consideration – this may seem explicable in virtue of the fact that the show aims to be “all things to all people.” To put it slightly differently, one might believe that the show simply avoids any mention of religion, in order to maximize its appeal. But this is not the case.
Arthur is peppered with religious themes and references – just usually not Christian ones.
There are four categories of example. Number one, there are Jewish references. Indeed, there are whole Jewish-themed episodes. In one, featuring Joan Rivers as “Bubbe” (Yiddish for “grandma”), Francine tries to fast for the Jewish high holy day of Yom Kippur (“Day of Atonement”). We interject that the Christian high holy day – Easter – appears to get not even a slight mention, let alone an entire episode. In another show, Francine juggles her familial obligation to attend her cousin’s Bar Mitzvah (“Son of the Commandments,” a rite of passage for males entering adulthood according to Jewish law) with her promise to appear in a bowling game. The “Brain” (somewhat incongruously, given his inclination toward “Scientism,” see below) even treats viewers to a religious lesson when the term “Bar Mitzvah” is first mentioned. These were not veiled references. Entire plotlines turned on these distinctly Jewish-religious celebrations.[2]
Some might object that Arthur’s producers are merely trying to introduce children to unfamiliar concepts. The assumption, some may think, is that Arthur’s viewers are not in need of exposure to Christianity, but they are in need of exposure to Judaism. This is mistaken. Just consider one metric: biblical literacy. “[T]oday …biblical illiteracy has reached a crisis point. ‘All the research indicates that biblical literacy in America is at an all-time low,’ [Kenneth] Berding, professor of New Testament at Biola’s Talbot School of Theology, told The Christian Post.”[3]
A plausible assumption, then, is that Arthur’s viewers – even if they are members of Christian families – are largely biblically illiterate. It follows, therefore, that after Arthur’s exposition of Jewish concepts, at least some members of the audience possibly will be more familiar with Judaism’s practices than with Christianity’s.
Others might object that were Arthur to depict Christian elements this would alienate non-Christian viewers or even that it would alienate viewers who have denominational affiliations other than those that might be depicted. In other words, some people might think that the show developers had in mind something like the following chain of reasoning.
If we depict religious practice x, then we risk alienating those who do not endorse x.
We do not want to risk alienating those who do not endorse x.
Therefore, practically, we should not depict religious practice x.
However, if this worry were credible, the depictions of Judaism at best seem either anomalous or cases of special-pleading.[4] After all, if the creators of Arthur really believed (something relevantly like) the above argument, then they would not introduce religious themes of any kind – including Jewish ones.[5] Hence, if the above thinking is anything like what concerns producers, then it appears that the Arthur creators ascribe an especial danger to representations of Christianity that they do not apply to Judaism. Why should this be? More importantly, why are Christian parents not disturbed by this?
Judaism is not the only sort of “religiosity” that Arthur characters display. Number two, there is a stream of what we might generically term “occultism.” The word is a wooly one and now is not the time to refine it. We believe that readers can get an intuitive fix on our, admittedly impressionistic usage. Here, the main figure is Prunella Deegan (a rat) in the fourth grade.[6] She does more than just “dabble” in the occult; occult preoccupation is her distinguishing personality trait. Her room is literally riddled with symbols. For example, her headboard displays an all-seeing eye; suspended from her ceiling is an ankh or crux ansata (a ring atop a tau cross) and a taijitu (a representation of the yin-yang). The episode titled "Three's a Crowd" revolves around the grade-schoolers receiving instruction in Yoga from Prunella's mother. Prunella herself has a crystal ball that she uses to “predict the fortunes” of her friends and classmates. Furthermore, and unlike Buster, whose UFO fascinations are usually treated as incredible (strictly speaking) or even risible, Prunella is several times shown having visions that appear to embody accurate information.
Number three, the “Brain”[7] (Alan Powers), a third grader in Arthur’s class, is the resident “science guy.” Although he is sometimes painted as the show’s generic “brainiac,” attention to his character’s development arguably reveals that he is a disciple of what philosophers William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland (among others) have referred to as “scientism.” According to “scientism,” science is treated not merely as a vehicle for exploring God’s world (a position with which Christians can be in agreement), but as “the very paradigm of truth and rationality.”[8] This often comes into focus during situations involving both the Brain and Buster. With Buster, as literary foil, expressing certainty about his own beliefs in aliens, “mega-toads” or the mysterious “Skunkamunka,” the Brain typically rebukes him for credulity in such a way as to suggest that he (Brain) holds scientific evidence aloft as the litmus test for reasonableness.
The Brain is not a Christian,[9] or a Jew (though in one episode, he gives an impromptu lesson on Jewish history), or an occultist. Instead, we maintain, he treats science religiously.[10] In broad brush strokes, we mean that, for the Brain, science could fairly be understood as his area of “ultimate concern” (in the sense developed by controversial theologian Paul Tillich[11]). We recognize that more needs to be said, here. For present purposes, however, we will content ourselves to produce one relevant quotation. In the Arthur episode titled “Friday the 13th,” the Brain has a dream where bad luck overwhelms him and, at his wits end, he shouts “Science, why have you forsaken me!?” Christians ought to recognize these desperate words, which echo the English translation of the Aramaic spoken by Jesus before He died on the cross: Eli, Eli, Lamma Sabacthani, which means “My God, My God, why Have You Forsaken Me?”[12] We trust that the similarity has not escaped readers’ notice. Barring the fact that the Brain substituted the word “science” for “God,” the two statements are virtually identical. We take Brain's substitution to be a telling one.
Some may even call it unnecessary and offensive mockery of the death of the Christian savior. We will forebear judging this matter, here. However, it leads us into a final area relevant to our little investigation. To be precise, the recognizable Christian references sporadically incorporated into Arthur are – one and all – mockingly negative. Beside the example just reported, we cite a few others.
In one episode called “Do you believe in magic?”, Buster (probably unknowingly) quotes Jesus, exclaiming “O ye of little faith” and reprimanding Arthur for making fun of his plastic “wand.” Of course, in the Bible Jesus is quoted rebuking the Apostle Peter for his lack of faith during the event where the Lord calms the storm.[13] Buster repeats this same phrase in another episode, “Best wishes,” where the character George is treated as-if he had “wish mojo.” Finally, in a different episode,[14] Arthur’s littlest sister, Kate, expressed her belief that at a wedding everyone would turn into babies, adding: “…When the grown-ups are babies again the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and there will be peace on earth!” Of course, this is taken from the Old Testament,[15] and is considered by Christians to be an as-yet unfulfilled prophecy concerning the Messiah, Jesus.
Arthur is in many ways an interesting and enjoyable show. Certainly, it is not objectionable in the same way that South Park is objectionable. Still, we hasten to add that this does not mean that the show is not objectionable at all. Much depends upon the worldview from which one watches it.
From where we sit, we think that it is not a little bit disturbing that countless Christian parents probably routinely allow their children to view Arthur uncritically. All the while these same children arguably are being acclimated to a societal vision where Christianity – while not overtly attacked – is simply ignored.
We ask Christian parents: Is “Average Arthur,” who is offered up as the relatable “Any Kid,” a good role model when Christianity is (at best) invisible in his home and community, or (at worst) altogether absent? In most of the episodes recycled weekly on PBS, churches seemingly go unseen, Christian services apparently go unattended and mentions of “Jesus” are scrupulously avoided. (See, again, the footnote on the Christmas special.) Is this the Arthur model for a new world? If so, is this the sort of world you want for your children?
Perhaps Christians need to cease consoling themselves with the myth of “lesser evil.” We may eventually find that, in our reliance upon the television as babysitter, our children share in a vision for a world where Christianity is an irrelevance. As unlikely as it may seem at first glance, it seems to these writers that the superficially peaceful Elwood City is – intentionally or not – setting an example as an alleged anti-Christian utopia. The question then becomes: what are Christian viewers going to do about it?
***
About the Authors:
Nate is 12 and enjoys reading about and drawing dinosaurs. He is currently studying the book Batman and Philosophy (William Irwin, et al., Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2009). He also enjoys building and playing with LEGOs.
Gabe is 10 and enjoys reading about almost anything he can get his hands on. He is currently reading three books, but he won’t bother listing them since, by the time you read this, he’ll be on three others.
(Matthew Bell is the authors’ dad and editor. You can blame him for any typographical errors – and for all of the end notes.)
[1] An exception to this – and it is rather glaring – was Arthur’s Christmas special. Titled Arthur’s Perfect Christmas, the episode aired November 24, 2000. There are three main reasons why this installment of the show is not treated in the body of our text.
Firstly, being an hour in runtime, the Christmas special has not (to our knowledge and for obvious reasons) appeared in regular rotation during Arthur’s usual half-hour timeslot in our market. Our paper is mostly concerned with explicating the themes taken up by the program on a daily basis.
Secondly, we are unaware of any repetition of this episode’s singular presentation of Arthur’s, Buster’s and Muffy’s families as (even nominally) Christian. It seems reasonable to think of this episode as somewhat thematically anomalous (and probably experimental), in the scope of the Arthur “universe.”
Thirdly, by our lights, the existence of this episode does virtually nothing to undercut our main points. Arguably, it only strengthens our overall case. Consider that at the beginning of the special three Elwood city families (mentioned in the previous point) are depicted as clearly “celebrating Christmas” (at least in a ho-hum, “Americanized” sort of way). By the end of the presentation, however, two-thirds of these celebrants have ostensibly abandoned the practice of celebrating Christmas (whether partially or wholly). For example, Muffy, who through the entire episode was fussing about her extravagant Christmas party, is heard at the end asking her father whether next year’s shindig could be “Kwanzaa”- (rather than Christmas) themed. Truly, the sincerity of her faith is inspiring. It is plausible to think that Muffy’s interest in Christmas is every bit as base, material and superficial as is her interest in most else.
Similarly, one of the special’s subplots revolves around the anxiety felt by Buster’s mother (Bitzi Baxter) as she prepares for Christmas. Apparently, since she split with Buster’s father, she has been excessively worried that Buster will not enjoy Christmas unless she runs herself ragged preparing an endless string of amusements. Instead of interjecting a lesson about the “true meaning” of Christmas and modeling a pared-down, back-to-basics variety of commemoration for the birth of the Christian savior, writer Peter K. Hirsch wraps up this storyline with a vignette in which the Baxters embrace the alternative “Baxter Day” as a surrogate for the celebration of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. As with Muffy’s family, the Baxters seem supremely and variously uninterested or unaware of Christmas’s Christian significance. This appears to be a reasonable conclusion to draw from the datum that they treat the Christmas observance as readily dispensable.
Of the three families that began with recognizably-Christian inclinations, only Arthur’s does not apparently renounce its practices by episode’s end. However, this perseverance – as rare as it seems to be in Hirsch’s vision – is somewhat besmirched by the exaggerated attention laid upon gift-giving. Some reader’s familiar with the plotline might object that this is a lopsided portrayal of Arthur’s family. For instance, Arthur’s father (David Read) is shown throughout the episode preparing true Palestinian-Hebrew cuisine in order to give his family’s festivities an authentic, early first-century feel. Additionally, the viewer follows Arthur on a mini-adventure as he purchases a glass statuette of a bird intended to serve as a replacement for one that had sentimental value for his mother (Jane Read), but that he himself had had a hand in breaking. There is little doubt that, as far as commercial gifts goes, this sort of motivation is about as commendable as it gets. Plus, this episode features the one-and-only occasion of church-going in the aired history of Elwood City. For all of these reasons, the Reads do deserve some credit.
However, in the minds of these onlookers, these respectable segments were eclipsed by an unfortunate gift-exchange scene. This had two negative aspects. Number one, after the substitute bird is destroyed following a preposterous set of circumstances, Arthur is devastated. Uncle Fred (his mom’s brother) counsels Arthur briefly to the effect that “Christmas isn’t only about presents.” Rather than expand this into a lesson with anything like discernible Christian contours, Hirsch resolves the conflict by having Fred switch gift tags so that his sister (Arthur’s mom) takes his gift to be from Arthur. Intuitions may vary, but we do not think that a lie – even of the “little, white” variety – is particularly “Christmasy.”
Number two, Arthur’s sister (Dora Winifred Read, “D. W.”) is obsessed with receiving a particular gift – “Tina the Talking Tabby” cat – “from Santa.” When Jane is unable to obtain this gift during an outing to the local shopping mall, she instead buys “Quackers” a talking duck. Predictably, D. W. is upset. However, once again, instead of introducing any semblance of a Christian message as a resolution to the drama, D. W. is depicted as spontaneously appreciating the duck after accidentally switching it on. This is, to say the least, an unsatisfying denouement. We got the impression that Hirsch and company were more concerned with protecting D. W.’s belief in Santa Claus’s imaginary pansophy and beneficence than in teaching (either her or the real-life spectators at home) any actual moral or practical lesson that might serve to disabuse children of crass commercialism, regardless of what “shopping season” such may surface.
Although we acknowledge that, when this episode is factored-in, it is technically true to say that the Arthur universe is not entirely devoid of Christian elements; still, this episode is atypical in many respects. For the rest of the paper, we will treat this episode like show writers usually treat Elwood’s subpopulation of homeless persons (who seem to have made their first and last appearance on the same program): we are going to pretend that it doesn’t exist.
[2] In the Christmas episode, Francine’s family’s observance of Hanukkah is fodder for a conflict between Francine and her friend Muffy, whose family is throwing a huge Christmas party. Writers dare not mention, and count on audience ignorance of, the fact that despite its ostensible antiquity, historically, Hanukkah had only minor significance. “It is remarkable that while the Talmud contains an entire tractate devoted to Purim, Hanukkah is not even mentioned in the Mishnah, [In fact, the festival is mentioned several times in the Mishnah. …Taanit 2:10[,] …Moed Katan 3:9[,] …Bava Kama 6:6[, and] Megillah 3-4… Perhaps what Klein means to say is that there is no tractate devoted specifically to Hannukah, and only passing mention of its distinctive Mitzvot – Joshua Heller, ed.]…The talmudic discussion begins with the question ma’ee chanukah (‘What is Hanukkah?’), as if the answer were not very well known.” (Isaac Klein, “The Minor Festivals: Hanukkah,” Guide to Jewish Religious Practice, ch. 16, reproduced online by the Joshua Heller, ed., Jewish Theological Seminary, <http://www.jtsa.edu/About_JTS/JTS_Stories/Guide_to_Jewish_Religious_Practice_-_Hanu kkah.xml>. On Purim, see HAMAN.)
“Seventy rabbis were discussing various Jewish festivals. They touched on the Sabbath, the high holy days of Rosh Hashanah [the new year] and Yom Kippur [the day of atonement], Passover and Sukkot, a harvest celebration. When their talk ended, one of the rabbis asked, ‘What about Hanukkah?’ The 69 other religious scholars responded, ‘What is Hanukkah?’” (Rachel Leifer, “Rabbi – Hanukkah Significance Is Minor,” Hattiesburg American [Hattiesburg, Miss.], Dec. 28, 2005; reproduced online at Rense.com, <http://rense.com/general69/haun.htm>.)
“The early authorities sensed that the Hasmonean victories had already lost their luster by the mishnaic period. … It is apparent that the Hasmonean dynasty had lost its glory by the time of the Mishnah, for the last of the Hasmoneans were guilty of the very things their forebears fought against; as a result, Hanukkah was well-nigh forgotten…”. (Klein, loc. cit.; citing Abraham Kahana, Sifrut Hahistoriyah Hayisra’elit, 2 vols., Jerusalem: 1968-1969.)
Hanukkah was revived in order to offset Jewish envy around Christmastime. “‘Hanukkah is not really important,’ said Rabbi Celso] Cukierkorn [of Hattiesburg Congregation B’nai Israel]. ‘It’s a festival that became important in America because it coincides with Christmas.’ The gift-giving and decorating widely thought of as central to Hanukkah… are American creations designed to make Jewish children feel included during Christmas, the most important Christian holiday, Cukierkorn said.” (Leifer, loc. cit. For a readable primer on Judaism, see Michael Hoffman, Judaism’s Strange Gods, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho: Independent History and Research, 2011. For a more in-depth treatment, see See Michael Hoffman, Judaism Discovered, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho: Independent History and Research, 2008.)
[3] Lillian Kwon, “Biblical Illiteracy in US at Crisis Point, Says Bible Expert,” Christian Post, Jun. 16, 2014, <http://www.christianpost.com/news/biblical-illiteracy-in-us-at-crisis-point-says-bible-expert-121626/>.
[4] If his Wikipedia page is to be believed, Marc Brown has acknowledged several Jewish influences, including the painter Marc Chagall, with whom he shares in common the deviant spelling of “Mark,” as well as the writer Maurice Sendak. We also note that, in the show, the founder of Elwood City is said to have been Jacob Katzenellenbogen, which happens to be the name of an old, German-Jewish family.
[5] We are tempted to write “especially Jewish ones,” for the simple, statistical reason that Jews, constituting only about 2% of the U.S. population, are a tiny minority. It stands to reason, then, that if a person is concerned about “offending” non-practitioners of some religion by depicting that religion, then a religion practiced by at most 2% of the population runs the risk of offending the remaining 98%. We leave aside the fact that not all ethnic “Jews” practice Judaism since this, when taken into consideration, would decrease practitioners of Judaism to an even smaller percentage than 2.
[6] Legendary alchemist Nicolas Flamel was supposedly married to a French woman named Perenelle. This is phonetically similar to “Prunella.” Interestingly, the story goes that Nicolas Flamel learned how to make the coveted “philosopher’s stone” from a Jewish magician.
[7] Popular sources sometimes suggest that this was a nickname of the ancient philosopher Aristotle. (See Amy Graham, Astonishing Ancient World Scientists, Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow Publ., 2009, p. 40. Scholars John Woods and Andrew Irvine state, in “Aristotle’s Early Logic,” Dov M. Gabbay and John Woods, ed., Greek, Indian and Arabic Logic, Boston and Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2004, p. 27: “…Plato …was impressed and nicknamed Aristotle ‘the intelligence’ of the school [i.e., Plato’s Academy].)
[8] Craig and Moreland, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, Downer’s Grover: InterVarsity Press, 2003, p. 346. Brain and Buster have a "science" versus "superstition"-styled conflict in the episode "Buster the Myth-Maker."
[9] Though in the Christmas special he briefly discourses on scholarly doubts about the 25th of December birthdate popularly ascribed to Jesus of Nazareth. (For more on this, see Andrew McGowan, “How December 25 Became Christmas,” Biblical Archaeology, Aug., 12, 2014, <http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/>.)
[10] Aleister Crowley once mused: “We place no reliance on virgin or pigeon / Our method is science / Our aim is religion.” Although the meaning of this short rhyme is debatable, amongst the possible interpretations is that “science” can be made to serve the purposes of religion – for example, the purpose of filling the “God-shaped hole” that, according to many theists (from the writer of Ecclesiastes to St. Augustine), objectively exists within the souls of all people. An aphorism of Catholic novelist and thinker G. K. Chesterton is sometimes glossed: “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing; they believe in anything.”
[11] See Tillich, Dynamics of Faith, New York: Harper, 1956.
[12] Matthew 27:46. The Arthur creators come closest, in our opinions, to endorsing "Scientism" when they sporadically endorse Carl Sagan's maxim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It lies far beyond our scope here to evaluate this postulate. Suffice it to say that it is eminently criticizable.
[13] See Matthew 8:26. We are ignoring numerous, smaller references that arguably could be included. For instance, in "D. W. Beats All," D. W. dismisses the possibility of learning to play a flute/recorder because it is "too holy."
[14] “The Secret Life of Dogs and Babies.”
[15] Isaiah 11:6.
