If this point of view catches on, then maybe I’ll have to peel off the labels I’ve superglued to my children’s foreheads, which will be painful for everyone.

These people are immensely stupid, and arrogant. To suggest that one does cultural violence to one’s child by exposing him or her to religion is very close to nutty. My children are exposed to various cultural influences, from Black History Month at school to crass jokes on Childrens BBC. So what if a bit of God is in the mix? It would be easier to pin a label on a herd of cats than on my 8 year old daughter. In fact when I try and raise theological issues with her she tends to roll her eyes and mutter atheistically. I bet atheists’ kids are not so freethinking as to question atheism.

The concept of sainthood is an excellent illustration of the muddle at the heart of Anglicanism. It is clear proof that this church cannot move on from its Roman roots, it can never ‘get over’ this, as one talks of someone getting over an ex. What, to an Anglican, is a saint? Is it, or is it not, someone who has been canonized by the Roman church? Anglicans like Williams are carefully agnostic: they refer to Rome’s saints approvingly, but imply that there are lots of non-Roman ones too. 

The only consistent approach for non-Roman Catholics and non-Orthodox is to drop the concept of sainthood completely. It’s a papal Trojan horse.
 

The key sentence is this: “faith and power are not good bedfellows, and I for one am always glad to see religion kicked out of bed by a secular state.”

The point is that no practically no other Christian writer is saying this sort of thing. For institutional orthodoxy, and the snooty fear of secular liberalism, is more dominant than ever – in theology and religious comment. (This is largely because really liberal Anglicanism is a spent force, a dead experiment.) Purves’ distrust of institutional power, and affirmation of the secular ideal, is now an extremely marginal position for a Christian to take. She is an important voice. In fact, it was a piece she wrote soon after September 11th 2001, saying that Christians should advocate the separation of church and state, that prompted me think afresh about the C of E’s establishment.

He is asked if faith in God is important to him. "If you are asking, do I drop to my knees and pray for guidance, no. But do I have faith and is it important, yes. My own faith is there, it's not always the rock that perhaps it should be.”

Hmmm. Surely praying for God’s guidance is a basic part of Christian faith, and nothing to be ashamed of. He is trying hard to sound pro-God but not in a Blair-like way. And by saying that his faith is ‘not always the rock that perhaps it should be’ he is trying hard to sound calmly and self-critically religious. I recall him using a very similar phrase a few years ago, when asked how keen a churchgoer he was: he said he didn’t go as often as perhaps he should. And I remember thinking: if you feel you]]> Theo Hobson 2009-11-06T14:45:47+00:00 http://www.spectator.co.uk/faithbased/5507153/staging-hell.thtml I’ve just seen this fascinating Times article on a reinvention of the medieval morality play by American evangelicals.

In the run-up to Halloween, some churches put on ‘hell house’ plays for teenagers, acted by slightly older teenagers. They are not scary fun, but dramatic sermons about the consequences of sinful lifestyles, intended to terrify.

I have mixed feelings about this. I object to the moralism of the message, and to the attempt to scare kids into piety, but I like the medium. It is nice to know that theatre retains its superior power to move us, even in Hollywood-land. Liberal churches should respond, with plays that seek to offer more rounded, thoughtful and honest views of the world. Theatre, including religious theatre, should move us intellectually as well as emotionally. I think theatre ought to be central to what churches do – let this be a spur to better efforts.

The paintings are good too. I like this tough (but strangely attractive) nun, by Velazquez. She is clearly ready to use this crucifix as a weapon on anyone who gets in her holy way. This very Catholic painting reminded me of a very Protestant poem, ‘Conscience’ by George Herbert (written at about the same time as the painting). The poet addresses the tempter who assails him, warning him that he has:

Some wood and nails to make a staffe or bill

For those that

What explains Rome’s dynamic aura, and the C of E’s lack of it? In a word, or two words, sacramental exoticism. Look at the buzz of media interest that St Therese’s relics have generated. The thought of a huge papal carnival next year will tip many Anglo-Catholics Romewards. Catholicism is simply better at the public expression of faith. And it’s profiting from a new public appetitie for spectacle.

Can the Church of England develop a new style of public sacramentalism, with which to rival Rome? No: an established Church has thrown in its lot with the rituals of a declining empire state. If the appetite for celebrating Christian nationhood dies, a huge aspect of this Church’s life is over. It cannot really escape an apologetic, hand-wringing image, awkwardly presiding over services for soldiers killed in a war that it tried to stop.

Of course the theme of sacramentalism, which really means the cultural expression of Christianity, will be central to any such book, but MacCulloch has a consistently sure touch here. He is enlightening on various aspects of the overlap of religion and ‘the arts’. For example his account of the emergence of the oratorio, which has one foot in church and another in opera, is lucid. I also liked his brief focus on Max Ernst's painting (accompanying this post): he uses it to suggest that what seems like irreverence is seldom straightforward in Christian tradition.

There is a nice description of a topical Catholic, St Therese of Lisieux. This ‘savagely self-punishing teenager’ is a good example of female assertiveness throughout nineteenth-century Christianity. When she accosted the pope, demanding early entry into the Carmelite Order, ‘the hapless pontiff was understandably alarmed,]]> Theo Hobson 2009-10-19T11:29:58+00:00 http://www.spectator.co.uk/faithbased/5438328/alpha-minus.thtml Does God exist? Yes, no or probably?

Is this attempt at Christian communication good, bad or indifferent?

To my mind, the Alpha Course poster is very bad theology. In fact, it is harming my daughter’s idea of religion. She is having an eight-year-old flirtation with atheism, thanks to some know-it-all mini-Dawkins boy in her class. When we passed this poster the other morning she said, ‘There ought to be a Probably Not.’ Pretty much what Dawkins would say (he’d opt for ‘almost certainly not’).

My point is that this framing of the God-question strengthens the case for atheism. It makes God seem a pseudo-scientific proposition, for which evidence is needed. The implication is that believers have a special way of knowing that he really does exist – come to the Alpha Course and find out more.

This is a bad way of approaching the concept of God. They’d do better to put up a bit of scripture: how about the Lord's Prayer? Last year their campaign was much better. The poster read: ‘If God did exist, what would you ask him?’ This cunningly put the idea of God in the agnostic’s mind,]]> Theo Hobson 2009-10-14T10:08:26+00:00