Is the title of the paper I’ll be giving on 17th of Feb at postgrad seminar of Nazarene Theological College in Manchester at 11am if anyone’s interested in popping along it could probably be arranged.
In other news, I’ve recently finished reading Antonio Tabucchi’s wonderful little novel Pereira Maintains. Highly recommended.
At Manchester.
During the last weeks of her life, when Gillian Rose was finally succumbing to the cancer that she had lived with for two and a half years, hospitalised, Rose continued to write daily. Howard Caygill published extracts from these final notebooks. Amongst the various pericopae is this text.
God is not nice
God is not Uncle
God is an earthquake
Go here to download the registration form. Then print it and send it to book your place!
I’ve read this month Updike’s Terrorist and Roth’s American Pastoral. I was slightly disappointed with both, though that may be presumptuous. For some reason I just don’t connect well with Updike. He’s very observant and very good at description but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the ending. I thought he handled the main character very well though and offered a good picture of the pluralism of the contemporary US. Roth’s AP was much bigger in size and scope. It’s a history of Newark and a family therein but really it’s also the history of the US for the first three quarters of the twentieth century. It focuses on immigrant families and industry, on religious relations, and the moral landscape. It is a lament and there’s a lot of anger there; some humour but mostly tragedy. The writing doesn’t quite have the fireworks of Sabbath’s Theatre but it has excellent dialogue. There’s also some good stuff early on about subjectivity (quite Hegelian, I thought). The only reason I was disappointed was because it is so hyped and I’m just not sure it deserves it.
Another link on research and universities
Published January 4, 2012 academia , politics Leave a CommentHere.
A very amusing picture partially drawn by my friend Jonny.
And my friend Josh alerted me to this fascinating looking conference.
The Economist, Cameron and Christianity
Published December 21, 2011 political theology , politics , Uncategorized Leave a CommentA couple of weeks ago the Bagehot column of the Economist (a weekly comment on Britain) carried the title ‘God in austerity Britain’. It argued that the church of England’s bishops tend to argue for specific welfare issues to the exclusion of speaking about God or faith. Richard Harries’ points that to love one’s neighbour means to question social policy and that the English tend to be reticent about religious talk were noted but not really dealt with. The bishops, Bagehot suggested, had become social democracy in a clerical collar but needed to offer a more ‘distinctive’ and ‘spiky’ message in these times. No reasons for this were so I’m not sure why this claim was made and I was surprised to read it in the Economist. Does Bagehot care about the church and worry that if it becomes a social democracy NGO it will lose something? Or was the comment driven by annoyance at some pesky social democrats? (I don’t think it read that way).
Not long after this, Cameron gave his speechto bishops in Oxford about the King James Bible. Part of his speech was to point out that in Britain Christianity and the Bible has long been a player in politics. He pointed out some of the good legacy here: limits on royal power; the 1647 Putney debates calling for one vote for each man [sic]; the creation of the welfare state; social action groups (widening out here to faith in general). He said ‘the proportion of people in the world who adhere to the four biggest religions has actually increased from around two-thirds to nearly three quarters…and is forecast to continue rising.’ All reasonable. Now to the more contentious sections.
‘Societies do not necessarily become more secular with modernity but rather more plural, with a wider range of beliefs and commitments.’ Probably true, and that’s one reason why I favour a postsecular politics. Is this what we’re beginning to see here? Cameron thinks that by admitting our Christian heritage we can be more tolerant of religion in general, in contrast to France, so that it is ‘easier to be Jewish or Muslim here’ than there. This is why ‘secular neutrality’ should be avoided.
But what does it mean to be a Christian country? Cameron suggests it stems from the Bible shaping ‘the values which define our country’, which are ‘Responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, self-sacrifice, love…pride in working for the common good and honouring the social obligations we have to one another, to our families and our communities’. Let’s leave aside the possible contradiction of valuing pride and humility, or the effect of coalition policies on families and communities and focus on religion and state. Cameron says that these values ‘speak to’ ‘people of every faith and none.’ In which case, is being a Christian country simply a historical accident but substantially the same as having any or no faith? Or if we were secular, or of a different faith, would we have a different set of values, which perhaps may also speak to all faiths and secular people too? That is, do we need to bother with the label ‘Christian’ for Britain? Cameron seems to think we do, and the reason for this seems to be not just that it tends to create more tolerance than more avowedly secular states, but that Christianity has a ‘moral code’ which is ‘ fundamental to who we are as a people…what we stand for…and the kind of society we want to build.’
Cameron immediately qualifies this by severing any necessary link between faith and moral performance. His main interest here seems to be the idea that ‘moral neutrality or passive tolerance just isn’t going to cut it anymore.’ He blames a refusal to speak about morality as one of the causes of the riots, the financial crash, the expenses scandal, and Islamic extremism. Rather than a Millian liberalism, Cameron wants a ‘muscular liberalism’ that ‘stands up for these values’. But what does that mean?
Cameron moves immediately from the claim that ‘to belong here is to believe in these things’, to talking about the role of ‘religious leaders and their communities’. The Church of England (and the others, presumably) are supposed to help Britain maintain its moral values.
Notice the order of the values: responsibility and hard work come first. Not necessarily the impression you’d get from the Sermon on the Mount or most of the Bible, but what we might suspect a Conservative PM wished the national work force would imbibe. Perhaps Cameron would like the church and other religions to morally shape a pliable and productive workforce. Notice that charity is the third value. It would be handy if private citizens could take up the slack from all the cuts to welfare budgets. We have here, probably, a governmental attempt to use religious bodies to govern on behalf of the state; a kind of governing at arms length.
It would be naive to assume a speech like this could be anything other than ambiguous. On the one hand, I welcome the possibility of greater freedom for religious discourse within politics, if it grants more space to institutions that mediate between the state and individuals, and if it begins to recognise a communal and cultural aspect to generating ethics. That could lead to a renewed civic life too. I hope this will happen but I’m far from confident. Perhaps the temporal proximity of Bagehot’s and Cameron’s text has made me overly sensitive here. On the other hand, Cameron didn’t recognise much of the critical (or prophetic) nature of religious groups (though, to be fair, there was a brief reference to the Archbishop). Some church of England bishops have been outspoken over the last few years about the problems with government policy. I think that is a more useful role for religious institutions than encouraging people to work hard.
Towards the end of his speech, Cameron mentions that his political interest in religion is that its institutions affect society ‘in the vital areas of equality and tolerance.’ Now I think religions should promote these values, but we have to be honest and say they stem more from the Enlightenment than Christianity, even if the seeds were there in Christianity (contentious). But should religions recognise these values? Cameron seems to be saying that if they don’t they are not welcome here, and again he wants to c0-opt religions to do that for him, presumably by applying some sort of public moral pressure in that direction. If religions didn’t recognise these values, that could make contemporary society more fractious, but I suspect most do, and they do so by trying to adduce their own theological reasons for these values (though these are debates that continue within religions). What is interesting here is the dialectical relation of politics and religion. Religion contributes towards values of equality and tolerance, but they really take off with the Enlightenment. After initial resistance, religions begin to take on board the importance of these values and reform themselves accordingly (partly through arguing these values are true to their traditions).
At the same time, this is part of a history of a changing relationship between religion and government. Religion now has no power based on violence, no strong political power. This can free it up to be critical of rather than slavish to the government; though at the same time it should look to the common good, which it must realise the state has the most power to influence. Religious attendance is in the minority in this country, and in that sense we remain very much a secular country. But religions are organised and do have a wealth of reflection on what makes for the common good and good life together; and they have as a result a voice that others lack. Of course, on some issues they actually slow down moral progress. That is why religions should be opened up to a dialectical relationship with the Enlightenment and its values.
Ambiguity all round then, as we might expect. But it will be interesting to see where this goes in the future. The Anglicans used to be known as the Tory party at prayer but recently they have had mostly left-leaning outspoken bishops. Perhaps Cameron is trying to win them back on side.
A printing of the King James Bible in 1631 is known as the Wicked Bible because it printed Deuteronomy 5.24 (‘God has shown us his glory and greatness) as ‘And ye said, Behold, the Lord our God hath shewed us his glory, and his great asse.’
It also printed Exodus 20.14 as ‘Thou shalt commit adultery.’
Recent Comments