Derek, series 1 (2013)

I got an email recently that series 2 of Derek has hit Netflix.  There are not many such announcements that I

had as eagerly anticipated.  I started watching series 1 because some of the stuff Ricky Gervais does is pretty good, so I thought I would give it a try.

I was not expecting what I got.

It’s a comedy, and a comedy that is, at times, rousingly funny.  One thing I appreciate about British comedies is that they are more concerned with the content and the delivery than the look of things.  American television has to have good-looking people fronting their comedies, but the Brits don’t seem to care about that as much as the talent of the people there.  My single favorite British comedy, Keeping Up Appearances, is exactly that.  Patricia Routledge was already in her sixties when that show started, but she was downright funny.  It wasn’t her looks that kept me tuned in – it was her.

Derek very intentionally gets a very talented cast and makes most of them look a little off.  Then all the extras are elderly, because the whole thing takes place in an old folk’s home.  The place is drab and grimy, and a lot of the people are too.

But that’s intentional, because one of the primary themes of the show is that there is an inherent value to human life.  There is a dignity there, no matter the stage of life, how pathetic someone is, or any other factor.  Gervais would not put it this way, but I will – these people have the image of God upon them, and they are valuable.

The heroes of the show are heroes because they recognize that.  They are overworked, underpaid, and have no social lives.  But they do it because they recognize that value in the people.

It’s an enormously moving show that I would (not kidding) recommend to all Christians with the single exception of young children.  There is some language and some dirty jokes in it.  Not every moment of the show is sanctified.  But that being said, I’m not seeing this level of Christian value in much that Christianity is selling.

Derek himself is simple.  He’s not smart, he’s not charming.  He has nothing going for him, except that he is kind.  He loves people.  It seems like Gervais is, in Derek, trying to create a nearly morally perfect character.  He is so good and kind that the one time during the show that he seems to hold a grudge, the entire cast is taken aback and astonished.  One scene in series 1 has the other cast members, during interviews (the show is filmed like a documentary), talking about how they should have chosen the better way in life – the way that Derek had showed them.  They freely admit that Derek is better than they themselves are, and he is better because he does not have animosity toward anyone.

All this to say, I’m excited to see the second series.  I’m not ashamed to say that series 1 brought me to tears more than once – both in laughter, and in sadness.  It’s a moving work, and it calls us to action – to love our neighbors, to not forget the poor and downtrodden, to seek kindness and compassion for those around us.

And the really strange thing about it is this – Ricky Gervais is an atheist.

“Wait a minute!” the atheists cry.  “Atheists can be moral!  A lot of time we are more moral than Christians are!”

I agree.

I agree 100%.

I totally think atheists can and often are moral.  I have known many, and I have been friends with many.

The point I’m making is not that Gervais cannot be moral, it’s just that he cannot consistently explain what that means or why he should be.  There is nothing in atheism that can ultimately explain why it is better to be like Derek than like Hitler.  You can try your best to find some logical reason for that, but 1) atheism can’t explain logic either and 2) it ends up being based on some standard that doesn’t work.  Things like logic and morality are immaterial universal truths, and evolutionary materialism has no foundation to explain them.  You have to turn to the culture (which would be an interesting argument here, since Gervais seems to be writing against the culture that has forgotten its elderly), some variation of the Golden Rule (well, I don’t want to be forgotten when I’m old, so I won’t forget others), or something of the like.  We don't have time here to dig very deeply in this (hopefully I'll be able to discuss more soon), so I will simply say this:  If Gervais is right, and there is no God, when why is it better to be like Derek than like, well, everyone else?  Why has Derek chosen the better way?  He has no money, he has no girl, no kids to which he has passed on his genes.  He has sacrificed everything for others.  That's a Christian virtue, yes, but it's the antithesis of the natural conclusions of his beliefs.

But let me get to the bottom line, and we can discuss further if needs be – Gervais is standing on God’s truth when he declares that these people have value and should not be ignored and forgotten.  The Christian amens that heartily, because that is exactly what our Creator told us in saying:  “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (James 1:27).

I am thrilled that Gervais recognizes this.  I pray that he will recognize where he got it, because it wasn’t from his worldview.

I hope to see series 2 very soon, and we may take a look at it here too, if there a discussion worthwhile in there.