eChurch Blog

Translated: He was crucified also for us, under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried.

I rarely read my local newspaper, but boy am I glad that I noticed the front page headline this week, warning me of a wave of impending doom.

Here’s the headline:

‘OUR CHURCH UNDER FIRE’ – Vicar warns of anti Christian storm

Here’s some excerpts from the main article for your enjoyment:

…..[the vicar] is warning his flock and others in the area that a growing number of Christians are beginning to feel persecuted for their faith.

Is this not a fine example of the self-reinforcing group narrative? Notice the subjective perceptions being evidenced as an objective reality.

…He said he had no evidence of the “wave” of anti-Christian sentiment….”but it could happen at any time. I’m wary.”

Is it not odd to be wary of something that you have no evidence for, sounds like a bogeyman to me.

The good vicar then proceeds to cite a few recent high profile legal cases as they are wont to do, in order to reinforce the persecution narrative. I notice that they especially like citing the recent Shirley Chaplin case.

He continues:

“You might think, ‘Oh, come on, this can’t be true’ but it is. Stories of Christians being suspended without reason, sacked and even prosecuted because of their faith now appear every week. Many local authorities have been taken in by aggressive, mouthy secularists who demand Christians be shut up and pushed out of public life.”

More self-reaffirming narrative based on “stories” and then the necessary unsubstantiated generalisations and slurs on “evil doers” to prop it all up.

Advice centres had been set up to resolve ‘idiotic’ disputes before expensive lawyers were involved, but there were other queries like whether or not it is acceptable to send Christmas cards to colleagues at work.

Silly Billy, advice centres have been set up for the primary purpose of finding ‘disputes’ that are worthy of expensive lawyers. As for querying our Christmas card ‘rights’, pathetic. Where’s the backbone gone?

And thus the good vicar concludes:

…..he was happy for people to call him….to discuss anti Christian incidents and sentiments. Or alternatively organisation like the Christian legal centre……

This is an industry.

They’re hunting down evidence of persecution like sniffer dogs, so as to perpetuate the narrative. Let’s hope this doesn’t eventually lead to a subcultural “moral panic” that precipitates a self-fulfilling prophecy. And don’t forget the “crying wolf” tale.

And this is the front page ‘face’ of Christianity in my area tonight, exhibiting a severe case of persecution complex.

Heavy sigh.

I have been listening to Ockeghem this morning, technically brilliant and so expressive, I just wanted to share this.

Just for a larf:

Telegraph – The eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano has not only caused havoc with European air travel, it has also unleashed a flurry of ash-related jokes onto the internet.

I think this was my fav, what about you?

Iceland goes bankrupt, then it manages to set itself on fire. This has insurance scam written all over it.

Anselm works

Anselm spent nearly twenty years exploring how to please God more in prayer before he became the abbot of the monastery. He was continually attempting to analyze and illumine the truths of faith through the aid of reason. This led him to a new discovery of prayer, which has been practiced for centuries, and is recorded in his “Prayers and Meditations”.

Greatly important is that St Anselm was the first in the Church to oppose the slave trade. He obtained from the National Council of Westminster the passage of a resolution prohibiting the sale of human beings. He had a great care and concern for the poorest people. A minor miracle was recorded in his life; on an occasion when Anselm was ill, he was asked what he would like to eat. He replied that he fancied partridge and a dog appeared with a partridge in its mouth! *

Anselm’s connection with Canterbury began in 1070 when Lanfranc became archbishop. In 1079 Anselm visited Canterbury and, we are told, was received with honour as Abbot of Bec and a great scholar. He stayed with the monks who long remembered his talks in the cloister.

By the time of Lanfranc’s death in 1089, Anselm had become well known, and was suggested as the next archbishop. But he was content as a monk and scholar. He had no talent or relish for political strife or the administration of great estates. King William Rufus kept the archbishopric vacant for four years, appropriating much of the church’s income to his own coffers. It was only when the king was suffering a life threatening illness in 1093 that he finally decided to appoint and Anselm reluctantly agreed.

Anselm took his tasks as archbishop and abbot of Christ Church Priory very seriously. These duties laid upon him the need to maintain the lands and possessions of the church, even against the King. In the same spirit he sought to prove and enforce the primacy of the Archbishop of Canterbury over the province of York. In the midst of all this, Anselm still found time, between 1095-8, to write a study of the incarnation, perhaps his most famous work.

The growth of the religious community at Canterbury caused a major extension to be made to Lanfranc’s church – a new choir with eastern transepts and chapels reflecting the latest designs in Europe. Anselm provided funds for the rebuilding, though he never saw it completed. As far as we can tell, at the time of his death in 1109 the crypt was probably complete, but the great choir above was not consecrated until 1130.

The cathedral was a marvel. “Nothing like it had been seen in England”, we are told. When the new choir was ready Anselm’s body was moved from the nave to the chapel of St Peter and St Paul in his own “new work”. However, he was not canonized until 1494, when Pope Alexander VI declared Anselm a Saint. **

* From G.M. Bevan’s “Portraits of the Archbishops of Canterbury” (1908)

**Dr Margaret Sparks, Consultant Cathedral Historian

The following snippets come from a Biologos article on evolution, however, I feel they have a wider application, so thought I’d share them.

Our faith provides us with a sense of coherence.

When people feel that their sense of coherence is threatened, conflict is not far behind. We do not move to dialogue but protectionism. We stop asking whether something is true and rather react out of fear. The more credible the threat, the more we circle the wagons and maintain at all costs our sense of coherence.

[.....]

The shame is that many people desperately want the conversation happen. Stifling the discussion to maintain coherence will not do. Closing off discussion is done in the name of protecting the masses from losing their faith. The irony is that the Church’s failure to encourage open dialogue has led many to relinquish their faith altogether. Such is the case when protecting religious coherence takes priority over preparing the church for the future.

[.....]

There is no more perfect storm than when traditions that provide coherence about ultimate reality are threatened. For some Christians, evolution provides such a threat, and a lot of heat is generated as a result. But many other Christians are seeking venues that support open dialogue. Such open dialogue, in my opinion, cannot be avoided much longer.

This BBC article piqued my interest this morning:

BBC: Will Christians swing the 2010 UK election?

Coincidentally Jonathan Bartley of Ekklesia picked up on this, so here’s what he had to say:

It’s been fascinating to see recent speculation about whether ‘Christians will swing the 2010 UK election?’ (BBC)

Quite often the claims are made without any reference to specific polling data, or the claims are based on very small samples, or online polls.

Strangely no one seems to be referring to some very comprehensive polling that was done on the subject by ComRes in February. This actually challenges head on the idea that Christians are likely to vote as a block.

The omission may be explained by both churches and Christians who like the idea of appearing influential, and journalists who wouldn’t have a story if they acknowledged the data. A political marriage of convenience if ever there was one.

But an analysis of the results makes some interesting reading, and actually challenges the idea that religious people (when considered as a whole) vote that much differently to others.

Key findings included:

There is no evidence that religious people are more likely to vote than others, despite claims to the contrary. Thirty-four per cent said they didn’t vote at the last general election in 2005. A further six per cent refused to answer the question and three per cent couldn’t remember. This would leave a total of betwen 57-66 per cent who voted. The turnout in 2005 was in the middle of this range at just under 62 per cent. Indeed, other ComRes surveys of the wider population mirror these percentages exactly.

In 2005 religious people voted for the main parties in the same way as the wider population The ComRes poll of the whole population conducted on 10th and 11th Feb 2010 asked: “Thinking back to the last general election in 2005, which party if any did you vote for?” The percentages were: Conservative 19 per cent, Labour 22 per cent, Lib Dem 12 per cent. These are identicial to the new results from the religious sample.

Religious people broadly reflect wider polls with regard to voting intent. When asked: “If there were a general election tomorrow, would you vote Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat or some other party?” the results were Conservative 30 per cent, Labour 23 per cent, Lib Dem 16 per cent. The poll was conducted on 17th -18th Feb by ComRes. In a similar poll around the same time by the same pollsters but taking a sample of the whole population, voting intentions were Conservative 32 per cent, Labour 23 per cent, Lib Dem 17 per cent.

Most religious people don’t feel religious freedoms have been restricted in the last ten years Despite the constant stream of scare-stories in the Telegraph and tabloids, and dramatisation by some bishops and religious campaign groups, the majority (59 per cent) of religious people disagree with the statement that “Religious freedoms have been restricted in Britain over the past 10 years”. Less than one third agree with the statement.

You can read the poll results here in full

The Mediablog is hosting an intriguing poll with the aim of interpreting our perceptions of media bias relating to the election coverage.

Survey: Is there media bias in the UK general election coverage?

The results have the potential to be quite revealing, so I do encourage you to pop across and take part in the survey.

I’ll link to the results when they’re available.

Just to make you aware there is a new website hosted by the University of Manchester and the Religion and Society research programme.

Website: British Religion in Numbers

Check out their:

Interactive map of religious affiliation in England and Wales, 2001:

An engaging resource and I thoroughly recommend popping across.

The following is an excerpt of their “about us” blurb to give you a flavour:

About the project

British society has changed in many ways since the Second World War, and religious change is a major example.

There is much public discussion of such issues as how secular Britain really is, how religiously diverse, whether people see political and religious identities as conflicting, and how polarised religious views actually are.

Religious data is also important for public decision-making – by local authorities, central government and other public bodies. Religion may have a role in forming “social capital” and in building civic life. Religion may affect lifestyle and health, where people choose to live, and what opportunities are available to them.

To help answer such questions, quantitative data – from measures of observed or reported social phenomena – is critical. There is a great deal of historical and contemporary data available, but it hitherto been scattered, or difficult to access by many researchers. BRIN aims to enable access to religious data, by researchers of all backgrounds.

1. Database of religious data sources

We catalogue the full range of statistics on faith in Britain, in a searchable database:

government data sources

opinion polls

faith community sources, such as accounts or yearbooks

faith community contact details.

2. Visualisations of religious data

Here we host a selection of maps and charts, illustrating religion in present-day Britain and religious change over time.

3. Written guides to understanding religious data

Here we will provide written guides on how to use and interpret religious statistics – for example, comparing different religious categories, change over time, or understanding how the way that data is collected by government or organisations might affect the results. There is also a detailed history of British religious statistics, and an overview of the British religious landscape to put the evidence in context. Over time, additional Working Papers reporting quantitative research into religion in Britain will also be posted here.

I’m in the process of dipping in and out and will try to post any pertinent observations, in the meantime, do let us know if you have any.

As I find the convergence of psychology and psychiatry with religion cognitively animating – yes I am sad like that – I enjoyed the following from Science + Religion, which takes a brief look at the intersection of narcissism and religion.

Here is the reality: The link between narcissism and religion is complex. Many, if not most, religious practices are designed to shut down or minimize the ego: compassion, charity, chastity, gratitude, mindfulness, forgiveness. Each of these is negatively correlated with narcissism. Ideally, then, the practice of religion should result in less narcissistic individuals.

However, religion is also a source of social power and status and that tends to draw narcissistic people (who also tend to be charismatic to make matters worse). The result is the concern that many people drawn to religion—especially in leadership roles—will be narcissistic. This is the same phenomenon we see in other leadership positions, such as politicians and corporate executives. Still, the (very little) research we have suggests that individuals in pastoral roles are less narcissistic than politicians.

Finally, we have the cultural-level issues of the form or structure of religion in an increasingly narcissistic society. What we see is that religion is becoming more “individualized.” For example, almost half of individuals switch religions (when you include switching between Protestant denominations). We also have more “cafeteria” beliefs, like individuals who are Christian but also believe in astrology. According to new Pew data, in the last 30 some years, we even have experienced a huge increase in individuals who report a direct experience with the divine or the mystical. We want an individualized religious experience just like we want an individualized coffee beverage at Starbucks. Not surprisingly, the churches that are increasing most in popularity are megachurches that provide individualized services and experiences and often have a “prosperity component.”

W. Keith Campbell is the head of the department of psychology at the University of Georgia.