by Reynold Conger

Created on: March 08, 2008

Until recently when a few scholars started using the BC/CE acronyms, relatively few people knew that BC and AD are a reference to Jesus Christ and even fewer people cared. BC and AD are not intended to be statements of faith. Rather, the use of BC or AD simply identifies a point of historical reference. There is nothing requiring Christians to use the BC/AD acronyms, and nothing prohibiting a non-Christian from using the BC/AD acronyms.

The Roman historian Josephus records the life and death of a man, Jesus Christ. The birth of Jesus is a verifiable date in history that has been used for centuries as a reference point when giving dates. Some other cultures have their own calendars that have their own reference dates, but in general, the world uses the "Western" calender based on the Julian calendar which uses the birth of Christ as a reference date. While those of us who are Christian may have warm feelings about the birth of Christ, the word, in general, ignores the life of the man who's birth is used to define the calendar. People of many religions use BC/AD without worrying about the reference to Jesus.

Why should anyone object to using the birth of Christ as a reference point for the calendar? It is not so much believers in competing religions as modern scholars who are protesting. It has become popular in scholarly circles to try to isolate scholarship from religion. As a scientist, I agree the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven by scholarly or scientific methods, but does that mean we should try to eject God from our lives? Certainly not. One frame of reference is as good as another so long as all workers are using the same frame of reference.

If for the sake of discussion, I agree to set aside BC/AD, then why use BCE/CE? The same reference point, the birth of Christ, is used. If it is references to Jesus Christ that offends people, then why retain that reference point? I also wonder what is meant by "The Common Era". Unless one accepts the life of Jesus as a watershed in human history, why should "The Common Era" be any more common than that span of time referred to as "Before The Common Era"? Will we have to make a new designation in the future when civilization changes enough to make the future era different from "The Common Era"? What is to be gained by using BCE/CE? The only thing to be gained is a subtle attack on religions in general and Christianity in particular.

Yes, it is popular to attack Christianity these days. Fine. Let us evangelize our favorite religion. Let us debate the finer points of one religion against another or even debate that one should not believe in a god. Let us even debate the very existence of a supreme being, but let us debate and argue openly about the facts. Let us leave the calendar out of this. It is only a way of accounting for the passing of time.

Leave BC/AD alone. It is only a benchmark in time. It never was intended to be a commentary on religion and should not be used as an attack on any religion. Most people are comfortable using BC/AD. If nothing else, let us preserve BC/AD as a significant historical artifact.

Learn more about this author, Reynold Conger.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.