home | board | compass | prayer | eCard

[Main Index]

04/22/2003 Entry: "Doctor Who and disagreement"

Joel Fuhrmann isn't someone that I agree with alot of the time, so it should be no surprise that even our opinion about the definitive Doctor Who is different. Writing in a comment on another post, he said

...the Sylvester McCoy series was getting pretty weird. I liked him a lot better than the previous Doctor, Collin Davis, I think, but no one was as good as Tom Baker. And no companion was ever as good as Leela

There again, I'm old enough (just!) to remember when JP took on the role from Patrick Troughton and being very uncertain that the programme would ever be any good again. Joel's favourite Tom Baker is favoured by lots of others too, and there are good reasons why. I've even met someone who thought that Peter Davison was the best of the bunch, and I had to hold him down while I washed out his mouth with soap. Sylvester McCoy (and companion Ace) should have been the best, but imho weren't given sufficient chance. ("Remembrance of the Daleks" is an absolute cracker).

So why do people hold such firm opinions about this vital matter? Is there some objective test that can applied, some measure of acting, storylines and scripts that can provide a true test? Of course not - aside from the certainty that the execrable 1990's TV movie was far and away the worst Doctor Who experience ever, everything else must be a matter of taste and opinion.

This is a long way from the usual subjects of connexions and, like the Monty Python post the other day, you may wonder where this is going. After all, in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter which view you take. It isn't something you are very likely to end up in a pub brawl about, at least as long as the pub you're in isn't anywhere near a Doctor Who convention. Most people would be happy to tolerate a disagreement.

My theory is that for at least 90% of people, the Doctor they think is the best is the one they grew up on (which is why Paul McGann hasn't got a prayer). The Doctor that saved the day when you were a kid, who took on the Daleks, the Cybermen and all the rest while you were doing your growing up is going to be the one you appreciate most. What I think I'm saying is that for most people their reaction to the Doctor is culturally conditioned.

There are many disagreements which Christians find it much harder to tolerate. Baptism, eucharist and ministry. The place of the scriptures. All sorts of stuff. We find ourselves getting "hot under the collar", questioning the other's faith, resorting to sarcasm and stereotype to belittle someone we perceive as an enemy who we ought to be embracing as a brother (or sister). We are often too ready to be blinded by our certainties and so miss the good gifts that God offers to us through the various branches of the Church.

None of this means that the there are no "wrong answers". Don't start portraying me as some sort of "who cares" relativist.

But I'm convinced that the way we tolerate disagreement and learn to work together anyway is a major test of the reality of our discipleship.You, of course, may disagree.

Posted by Mark Byron @ 04/24/2003 12:24 PM CST

Face it Wood -- you're a horrid heretic.

Posted by Richard @ 04/24/2003 08:02 AM CST

Tom Baker was the best by MILES...

Posted by Wood @ 04/23/2003 10:45 PM CST