eChurch Blog

Irrespective of your views as to the offensiveness or otherwise of the Pret A Manger sandwich chain branding their new crisps as ‘Virgin Mary’, something must be noted relating to the potential power and influence of blogging.

Deacon Nick Donelly first highlighted this on his popular blog Protect the Pope back on the 30th January:

The Pret A Manger sandwich chain have decided to insult their Catholic customers by naming their new Worcestershire Sauce flavoured crisps, ‘Virgin Mary Crisps’

A reader of Protect the Pope wrote to Pret A Manger to complain, making the point that Pret A Manger would not dare to mock the Muslim or Jewish faiths so why have they seen fit to mock Christianity. Why they should make such an appalling, tasteless and offensive lapse of judgement.’

This is the reply from their CEO:

‘It happens that I am a Catholic. I have examined my conscience about the naming of our crisps. The term Virgin Mary is widely used in the market today to describe a well known cocktail: a tomato juice with Worcester sauce and without vodka. I have consulted a lot of people in our office about this and that is what they all think of when they see our crisps packet. Please, please don’t take offence. None is intended.’

Protect the Pope comment: The Pret A Manger’s CEO should know better than to use the name of Our Lady, the Mother of God, to sell a snack food. It’s cheap, demeans the name of the Virgin Mary, and offends Catholics who hold Our Lady in the highest regard.  It’s irrelevant what the CEO’s employees tell him in the office about the appropriateness of the name, it’s what Catholics think that counts.  What will practicing Catholics first think of when they see the name ‘Virgin Mary crisps’? Not a well known cocktail for sure.

It appears that as a result of this blog post, readers were motivated to complain.

The upshot of this is taken from a Protect the Pope blog post today:

Pret A Manger has contacted Protect the Pope to inform us that following yesterday’s post on their Virgin Mary brand of crisps and readers of our site contacting them to express their concern Pret A Manger’s CEO Clive Schlee has decided to remove this brand immediately from their outlets.  Pret A Manger has apologised for any unintentional offence they have caused and have indicted that they will give any unsold crisps to the homeless. Clive Schlee has admitted to a reader of Protect the Pope that taking this brand of crisps off their shelves will cost them quite a bit of money but ‘good businesses listen and react quickly’.

Deacon Nick Donelly comments:

Clive Schlee and Pret A Manger deserve our unreserved thanks for listening to our concerns as Catholics and for acting so quickly to remove the brand of crisps. It seems fitting that Pret A Manger are planning to give any unsold crisps to the homeless. Thanks also to the readers of Protect the Pope for contacting Pret A Manger to express their concerns. God bless you all for your passion and desire to stand up for our Catholic faith.  I’d like to express my special thanks to the reader of Protect the Pope who first brought this news to our attention, but wants to remain anonymous.  One of the things we need to go away and think about is what this incident tells us about how we defend our faith in the future. We’ve been passive for too long in the face of mockery of our faith and discrimination against us as Catholics. We can change things!

This incident has now hit the BBC and the story is currently rated as the second ‘Most Read’ story on the BBC website.

As I said earlier, irrespective of your view on the issue at the heart of the matter, this is a dramatic example of a Catholic /Christian blogger exerting tremendous influence even over a powerful chain of shops.

This is surely noteworthy in itself.

Here is a recent message on social media given by the Pope which warrants reproducing here without comment from me:

“Social Networks: portals of truth and faith; new spaces for evangelization.”

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

As the 2013 World Communications Day draws near, I would like to offer you some reflections on an increasingly important reality regarding the way in which people today communicate among themselves. I wish to consider the development of digital social networks which are helping to create a new “agora”, an open public square in which people share ideas, information and opinions, and in which new relationships and forms of community can come into being.

These spaces, when engaged in a wise and balanced way, help to foster forms of dialogue and debate which, if conducted respectfully and with concern for privacy, responsibility and truthfulness, can reinforce the bonds of unity between individuals and effectively promote the harmony of the human family. The exchange of information can become true communication, links ripen into friendships, and connections facilitate communion. If the networks are called to realize this great potential, the people involved in them must make an effort to be authentic since, in these spaces, it is not only ideas and information that are shared, but ultimately our very selves.

The development of social networks calls for commitment: people are engaged in building relationships and making friends, in looking for answers to their questions and being entertained, but also in finding intellectual stimulation and sharing knowledge and know-how. The networks are increasingly becoming part of the very fabric of society, inasmuch as they bring people together on the basis of these fundamental needs. Social networks are thus nourished by aspirations rooted in the human heart.

The culture of social networks and the changes in the means and styles of communication pose demanding challenges to those who want to speak about truth and values. Often, as is also the case with other means of social communication, the significance and effectiveness of the various forms of expression appear to be determined more by their popularity than by their intrinsic importance and value. Popularity, for its part, is often linked to celebrity or to strategies of persuasion rather than to the logic of argumentation. At times the gentle voice of reason can be overwhelmed by the din of excessive information and it fails to attract attention which is given instead to those who express themselves in a more persuasive manner. The social media thus need the commitment of all who are conscious of the value of dialogue, reasoned debate and logical argumentation; of people who strive to cultivate forms of discourse and expression which appeal to the noblest aspirations of those engaged in the communication process. Dialogue and debate can also flourish and grow when we converse with and take seriously people whose ideas are different from our own. “Given the reality of cultural diversity, people need not only to accept the existence of the culture of others, but also to aspire to be enriched by it and to offer to it whatever they possess that is good, true and beautiful” (Address at the Meeting with the World of Culture, Bélem, Lisbon, 12 May 2010).

The challenge facing social networks is how to be truly inclusive: thus they will benefit from the full participation of believers who desire to share the message of Jesus and the values of human dignity which his teaching promotes. Believers are increasingly aware that, unless the Good News is made known also in the digital world, it may be absent in the experience of many people for whom this existential space is important. The digital environment is not a parallel or purely virtual world, but is part of the daily experience of many people, especially the young. Social networks are the result of human interaction, but for their part they also reshape the dynamics of communication which builds relationships: a considered understanding of this environment is therefore the prerequisite for a significant presence there.

The ability to employ the new languages is required, not just to keep up with the times, but precisely in order to enable the infinite richness of the Gospel to find forms of expression capable of reaching the minds and hearts of all. In the digital environment the written word is often accompanied by images and sounds. Effective communication, as in the parables of Jesus, must involve the imagination and the affectivity of those we wish to invite to an encounter with the mystery of God’s love. Besides, we know that Christian tradition has always been rich in signs and symbols: I think for example of the Cross, icons, images of the Virgin Mary, Christmas cribs, stained-glass windows and pictures in our churches. A significant part of mankind’s artistic heritage has been created by artists and musicians who sought to express the truths of the faith.

In social networks, believers show their authenticity by sharing the profound source of their hope and joy: faith in the merciful and loving God revealed in Christ Jesus. This sharing consists not only in the explicit expression of their faith, but also in their witness, in the way in which they communicate “choices, preferences and judgements that are fully consistent with the Gospel, even when it is not spoken of specifically” (Message for the 2011 World Communications Day). A particularly significant way of offering such witness will be through a willingness to give oneself to others by patiently and respectfully engaging their questions and their doubts as they advance in their search for the truth and the meaning of human existence. The growing dialogue in social networks about faith and belief confirms the importance and relevance of religion in public debate and in the life of society.

For those who have accepted the gift of faith with an open heart, the most radical response to mankind’s questions about love, truth and the meaning of life – questions certainly not absent from social networks – are found in the person of Jesus Christ. It is natural for those who have faith to desire to share it, respectfully and tactfully, with those they meet in the digital forum. Ultimately, however, if our efforts to share the Gospel bring forth good fruit, it is always because of the power of the word of God itself to touch hearts, prior to any of our own efforts. Trust in the power of God’s work must always be greater than any confidence we place in human means. In the digital environment, too, where it is easy for heated and divisive voices to be raised and where sensationalism can at times prevail, we are called to attentive discernment. Let us recall in this regard that Elijah recognized the voice of God not in the great and strong wind, not in the earthquake or the fire, but in “a still, small voice” (1 Kg 19:11-12). We need to trust in the fact that the basic human desire to love and to be loved, and to find meaning and truth – a desire which God himself has placed in the heart of every man and woman – keeps our contemporaries ever open to what Blessed Cardinal Newman called the “kindly light” of faith.

Social networks, as well as being a means of evangelization, can also be a factor in human development. As an example, in some geographical and cultural contexts where Christians feel isolated, social networks can reinforce their sense of real unity with the worldwide community of believers. The networks facilitate the sharing of spiritual and liturgical resources, helping people to pray with a greater sense of closeness to those who share the same faith. An authentic and interactive engagement with the questions and the doubts of those who are distant from the faith should make us feel the need to nourish, by prayer and reflection, our faith in the presence of God as well as our practical charity: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” (1 Cor 13:1).

In the digital world there are social networks which offer our contemporaries opportunities for prayer, meditation and sharing the word of God. But these networks can also open the door to other dimensions of faith. Many people are actually discovering, precisely thanks to a contact initially made online, the importance of direct encounters, experiences of community and even pilgrimage, elements which are always important in the journey of faith. In our effort to make the Gospel present in the digital world, we can invite people to come together for prayer or liturgical celebrations in specific places such as churches and chapels. There should be no lack of coherence or unity in the expression of our faith and witness to the Gospel in whatever reality we are called to live, whether physical or digital. When we are present to others, in any way at all, we are called to make known the love of God to the furthest ends of the earth.

I pray that God’s Spirit will accompany you and enlighten you always, and I cordially impart my blessing to all of you, that you may be true heralds and witnesses of the Gospel. “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation” (Mk 16:15).

From the Vatican, 24 January 2013, Feast of Saint Francis de Sales.

BENEDICTUS XVI

The Government’s Succession to the Crown Bill received it’s second reading and completed its remaining stages in the House of Commons today.

My own knowledge of the Bill was limited to a vague understanding that it will end male primogeniture and permit the heir to marry a Roman Catholic.

So my aim here is to simply chart those articles that have been written today on this topic, which enhanced my understanding a little regarding the history, complexity, and possible ramifications of the bill.

The first I read (and this was the article that grabbed my attention on this issue) was written by Adrian Hilton in the Mail and was simultaneously informative and alarming: The Coalition rides roughshod over the Constitution.

Here’s a snippet:

This is an astonishing subversion of democracy, but wholly consistent with the oligarchical form of governance to which we are now routinely subject. As with the European Commission and 40 years of the incremental primacy of EU law over national legislation, so this Government invokes the presumed authority of the elite Commonwealth club over the sovereignty of Parliament. And to hear that No10 and the Palace have agreed this coup is even more unsettling. As Harold Macmillan stated: ‘We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.’

Next up Law and Religion UK: Succession to the Crown Bill: possible untoward effects? This concludes:

The relative complexity – emotional, political, legal, administrative – of these issues are no doubt glimpsed by government. Of course, the government does not wish to plunge into these deep waters. It wants a quick, limited fix without too much argument. Commentators are right that there has been too little public discussion, but not all the blame can be laid at the government’s door. What is needed is fresh, bound-breaking thinking and most of that can best come only from within the Church itself.

Cranmer wrote a piece with the provocative title: The Act of Settlement and constitutional terrorism:

Today, an amendment to the Act of Settlement is being rushed through the House of Commons by means usually reserved for emergency terrorism legislation. The imminent royal baby appears to represent a threat to the Coalition’s equality agenda every bit as serious as that posed by al-Qaeda to the safety and security of the free world. There will be minimal debate and negligible scrutiny; a Commons guillotine and wave at a committee.

It is, in fact, a constitutional stitch-up between Cameron and Clegg; No10 and Buckingham Palace; the Government and the Crown, with the connivance of the Heads of Commonwealth.

His Grace has written on this matter so many times that it feel like Groundhog Day (eg here, here and here).

It is not simply a matter of ending male primogeniture or permitting the Monarch to marry a Roman Catholic: the constitutional ripples will be felt for decades to come. Indeed, today’s apparently trivial ‘modernising’ amendments could lead to the disestablishment of the Church of England, the end of the Union, and even the demise of the Monarchy itself.

George Trefgarne in the Spectator:

The answer is that the Act, having been rushed through in Britain will be on the statute book, waiting for the Lord President to produce his pen to implement each clause in Britain as he sees fit.

This takes us to the essence of the criticism of the Bill. In the name of modernisation it risks introducing two entirely new concepts into the succession to the Crown: doubt, and executive discretion. At the same time, it removes another important convention: pragmatism. For if we were confronted with a brilliant elder daughter, married to a Catholic, we would probably find a way of allowing her to succeed without resorting to a doctrinare process fraught with legal difficulty.

Once you start to think of it like that, you realise that Mr Clegg may be opening yet another can of the constitutional worms he so enjoys feeding to us all, like the AV referendum.

As evidenced above, from my reading today, the rushed Bill doesn’t sound good. Having said that, the Church of England appear in favour of the bill:

This Government and the previous Government have consulted closely with senior Church of England figures throughout the long process which has led up to the introduction of this Bill.

In a speech in the House of Lords during debate on the Queen’s speech on 14^thMay 2012, the then Bishop of Blackburn said: “the references in the humble Address to reform of the rules of royal succession are sensible and timely. I know I speak for all on these Benches when I say that we wish the Government well in their present consultations with the other Commonwealth realms. We look forward to and hope that it will then be possible for the necessary Bill to pass quickly through both Houses of Parliament.”

Feel free to post more links in the comments and of course let us know what you think on this issue.

UPDATE: David Lindsay comments from a Catholic perspective.

Sadly it’s not surprising to hear anti-Jewish sentiment emanating from the hierarchy of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX); however, we’re used to it spewing forth from Bishop Richard Nelson Williamson, who was finally ejected from the group in October.

This time it comes from Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society, and the Catholic Herald reports:

The head of the traditionalist Society of St Pius X has called Jewish people “enemies of the Church”, saying Jewish leaders’ support of the Second Vatican Council “shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the Church’s”.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, the society’s superior general, said those most opposed to Rome granting canonical recognition to the SSPX have been “the enemies of the Church: the Jews, the Masons, the modernists”.

He said these people, “who are outside of the Church, who over centuries have been enemies of the Church”, urged the Vatican to compel the SSPX to accept Vatican II.

He made the comments during a nearly two-hour talk at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Academy in New Hamburg, Ontario, Canada.

Of course Fellay is right in saying Jewish leader’s support the Second Vatican Council; of course they would, core to it is a document entitled Nostra Aetate, which revolutionised the Catholic Church’s relationship with those of other faiths; most notably the Jews. Here’s the core text relating to the Jews:

As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and “serve him shoulder to shoulder” (Soph. 3:9).(12)

Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

Fellay is also right to assert that those most opposed to Rome granting canonical recognition to the SSPX have been Jews. Who can blame them? I’ve written on this topic in the past.

It’s interesting to note Damian Thompson reported back in 2009 that Bishop Bernard Fellay refused to condemn Bishop Williamson for Holocaust denial, but did go on to publicly apologise, and ask the Pope’s forgiveness.

Bishop Fellay prohibited Bishop Williamson from speaking publicly on “these political and historical questions”. Not that this ever stopped him.

Perhaps Fellay should heed his own advise.

Ultimately, before I completely lost interest, the reconciliation between the SSPX and Vatican was on, then off, on, then off, and as it stands at the moment, appears to be off.

For the sake of the Catholic Church’s relationship with the Jews, it’s probably better not happening at all.

Two articles appeared yesterday in the media claiming those who are ‘spiritual’ but not practicing organised religion were more prone to mental health problems, than those practicing religion and those neither religious nor spiritual.

Daily Mail:

Being spiritual may give life deeper meaning, but it can also make you more susceptible to mental illness, new research suggests.

A study found that people professing to be spiritual, but not conventionally religious, were more likely to suffer from a host of mental challenges.

They suffered problems including abnormal eating conditions, drug abuse, anxiety disorder, phobias and neurosis.

They were also more likely than others to be taking medication for mental health problems.

Telegraph:

They are more likely to suffer from a range of mental health problems than either the conventionally religious or those who are agnostic or atheists, found researchers at University College London.

They are more disposed towards anxiety disorders, phobias and neuroses, have eating disorders and drug problems.

In addition, they are more likely than others to be taking medication for mental health problems.

Professor Michael King, from University College London, and his fellow researchers wrote in the British Journal of Psychiatry: “Our main finding is that people who had a spiritual understanding of life had worse mental health than those with an understanding that was neither religious nor spiritual.”

Before I move on I want to note that both articles concluded with this comment from the researchers:

The nature of this association needs greater examination in qualitative and in prospective quantitative research.

The study was published in The British Journal of Psychiatry:

Abstract:

Background

Religious participation or belief may predict better mental health but most research is American and measures of spirituality are often conflated with well-being.

Aims

To examine associations between a spiritual or religious understanding of life and psychiatric symptoms and diagnoses.

Method

We analysed data collected from interviews with 7403 people who participated in the third National Psychiatric Morbidity Study in England.

Results

Of the participants 35% had a religious understanding of life, 19% were spiritual but not religious and 46% were neither religious nor spiritual. Religious people were similar to those who were neither religious nor spiritual with regard to the prevalence of mental disorders, except that the former were less likely to have ever used drugs (odds ratio (OR) = 0.73, 95% CI 0.60–0.88) or be a hazardous drinker (OR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69–0.96). Spiritual people were more likely than those who were neither religious nor spiritual to have ever used (OR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.02–1.49) or be dependent on drugs (OR = 1.77, 95% CI 1.20–2.61), and to have abnormal eating attitudes (OR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.10–1.94), generalised anxiety disorder (OR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.09–2.06), any phobia (OR = 1.72, 95% CI 1.07–2.77) or any neurotic disorder (OR = 1.37, 95% CI 1.12–1.68). They were also more likely to be taking psychotropic medication (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.05–1.86).

Conclusions

People who have a spiritual understanding of life in the absence of a religious framework are vulnerable to mental disorder.

OK, the major problem with drawing any conclusion from this study, is the ‘chicken and egg’ question. Which came first, spirituality or mental illness?

Put simply, does being ‘spiritual’ without being religious cause mental problems? Or does having mental problems cause folk to search for spiritual understanding without wishing to practice religion?

The popular assumption will be that a spiritual outlook causes mental problems; however, it is equally valid to claim that those with existing mental health problems seek a spiritual understanding for comfort.

Another intrigue thrown up in this study relates to the mentally ill and the practice of religion.

Is it possible to infer that those not practicing religion have less social support, increasing vulnerability?

If this is the case, then the question must be asked as to why this group has a reluctance to be part of a religion.

Religion, was articulated as: “the actual practice of a faith, e.g. going to a temple, mosque, church or synagogue”.

Is it possible that the mentally ill feel their respective place of worship is uncomfortable for them?

If so, then searching questions must be asked.

UPDATE: The Spectator has a blog on this in which they rightly note the ‘Chicken and egg’ issue.

The Pew Research Forum has released a new report on the size and distribution of the world’s major religious groups as of 2010.

Worldwide, more than eight-in-ten people identify with a religious group. A comprehensive demographic study of more than 230 countries and territories conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life estimates that there are 5.8 billion religiously affiliated adults and children around the globe, representing 84% of the 2010 world population of 6.9 billion.

The demographic study – based on analysis of more than 2,500 censuses, surveys and population registers – finds 2.2 billion Christians (32% of the world’s population), 1.6 billion Muslims (23%), 1 billion Hindus (15%), nearly 500 million Buddhists (7%) and 14 million Jews (0.2%) around the world as of 2010. In addition, more than 400 million people (6%) practice various folk or traditional religions, including African traditional religions, Chinese folk religions, Native American religions and Australian aboriginal religions. An estimated 58 million people – slightly less than 1% of the global population – belong to other religions, including the Baha’i faith, Jainism, Sikhism, Shintoism, Taoism, Tenrikyo, Wicca and Zoroastrianism, to mention just a few.

At the same time, the new study by the Pew Forum also finds that roughly one-in-six people around the globe (1.1 billion, or 16%) have no religious affiliation. This makes the unaffiliated the third-largest religious group worldwide, behind Christians and Muslims, and about equal in size to the world’s Catholic population. Surveys indicate that many of the unaffiliated hold some religious or spiritual beliefs (such as belief in God or a universal spirit) even though they do not identify with a particular faith.

You can access the Executive Summary and further links here.

Shamelessly pilfered from: That the bones you have crushed may thrill

Here you go Church leaders everywhere; if you wish to up the donations, ensure you absolve folk of their sins:

People who recall being absolved of their sins, are more likely to donate money to the church, according to research published today in the journal Religion, Brain and Behavior.

Researchers from Royal Holloway and the University of Oxford assigned participants two memory tasks. In the first, they were asked to privately recall a sin that they had committed in the past, while in the second, they recalled attending confession for this sin or imagined doing so, if they had not confessed in reality.

Each participant was also given an opportunity to donate to a local Catholic church by placing some money in an envelope. For some participants, this donation was collected before they recalled being absolved of the sin, whereas for others the donation was collected afterward.

The results showed that recalling (or imagining) absolution strongly increased church donations, with the effect more pronounced in participants who believed in divine judgment and engaged in religious activities such as reading the bible or praying.

Dr Ryan McKay from the Department of Psychology at Royal Holloway said: “Recent evidence has suggested that people are more likely to behave prosocially, such as helping, sharing, donating, co-operating and volunteering, when they feel guilty. This raises the question of whether religious rituals of absolution, in which people are absolved of their sins and released from guilt, would actually make people less prosocial.

“However, the results of our study suggest the opposite – that ‘releasing’ people from their sin has a positive prosocial effect. This indicates that the Catholic ritual of confession is an effective means of promoting commitment to the church”

SOURCE

I’ve been holding off on this one in the hope that the full data from the survey conducted by YouGov and commissioned by Oxford University’s Department of Education would be publicly published.

Sadly, despite requests and a swathe of media coverage, as far as I’m aware the full data has not yet been published.

And so all I can offer on this rather important topic is the Oxford University press release followed by some media comments:

A YouGov poll commissioned by Oxford University’s Department of Education has found widespread support in England for the teaching of Christianity as part of Religious Education. The survey was undertaken as the initial part of a national intervention project by Oxford researchers to support teachers tackling the subject of Christianity in schools.

In the poll of a random sample of 1,832 adults in England, 64 per cent agreed that children need to learn about Christianity in order to understand English history; 57 per cent agreed it was needed to understand the English culture and way of life; and 44 per cent said they thought that more attention should be given to such teaching. Areas of Christianity that people regarded as particularly important for children to learn about in RE were the history of Christianity (58 per cent), major Christian events and festivals (56 per cent), and how Christianity distinguishes right from wrong (51 per cent).

The project is being launched by a research team of educationalists and practitioners at Oxford University, as part of their wider work on religion in education. The project follows concerns raised by Ofsted inspectors and others about how Christianity is taught. One problem identified in research literature is that teachers are sometimes nervous about tackling issues related to Christianity because they are worried that it could be considered as evangelizing.

The Oxford team is producing a web-based introductory package aimed at trainee primary teachers, which will be free and is expected to be available by September 2013. The project will explore ways of helping all classroom teachers in primary schools, as well as non-specialists teaching RE in secondary schools. The online materials provide a basic background on RE generally, but focus on the teaching of Christianity. They also touch on issues of personal faith and how this sits with teaching about Christianity, as well as other world faiths. Further online materials for teachers exploring other faiths are anticipated in the longer term.

The online materials for trainee primary teachers are being produced with £100,000 funding from the Jerusalem and Culham St Gabriel’s Trusts, charitable trusts that support school-based RE.  A further donation of £48,500 from the Jerusalem Trust will enable first stage work on a package for all primary teachers already in schools.Lead researcher Dr Nigel Fancourt, a lecturer on the RE programme based at the University’s Department of Education, within one of the UK’s leading PGCE courses, said: ‘Christianity statutorily receives more attention than other religions or worldviews, so it will probably be the only religion that pupils study throughout their schooling.

‘It is treated in the same way as other religions, but studied more frequently.  While this is challenging and vibrant in some schools, the fact that the basics are often already vaguely familiar to some teachers and pupils means it can present problems. For instance, the presentation of Christianity can be incoherent, lacking in intellectual development, or too stereotypical.

Also involved in the project is Dr Liam Gearon, who has authored a forthcoming book entitled MasterClass in Religious Education. He holds the University Lectureship in Religious Education at the Oxford University Department of Education in association with a Senior Research Fellowship at Harris Manchester College.

Commenting on the aims of the project, he said: ‘The teaching of Christianity in English schools is part of Christianity’s decisive shaping of English history. It  has been a philosophically rich and politically contested history. The academic study of Christianity, including the challenges it continues to face, is a source of often unrealised intellectual engagement. But, for all its institutional faults, past and present, Christian tradition also opens for young people a source of lifelong spiritual enrichment, and a reminder that Christianity has a place in history while looking beyond it.’

Dr Fancourt added: ‘The subject is often conceived as “faith development”‘, particularly in some church schools, or “moral development”. This is not to ignore these elements, but to argue that all types of schools need to refocus on understanding whatever else is considered important too. Teaching about Christianity should therefore engage pupils with the depth and breadth of the Christian tradition, present the subtlety of diversity, and provide an academic challenge.’

The BBC picked up on this with the headline: Teaching of Christianity ‘lacks intellectual development’, whilst the Telegraph went with: Schools ‘struggling to teach about Christianity in RE’. And it goes without saying The Christian Institute also opted for the negative slant.

Cristina Odone (Telegraph) headlined: Ordinary Britons are comfortable with Christianity. Teachers and government aren’t, though, and the Express with: Children ‘Must be taught Christianity’.

Christian Concern have produced a video on the back of these findings:

Obviously the National Secular Society picked up on this survey and noted the following:

But a closer look at the sponsors of this research shows it has received £48,500 funding from a strongly evangelical organisation, the Jerusalem Trust which is underpinned by money from the Sainsbury family.

Among the Jerusalem Trust’s stated aims are: “to advance the Christian religion” and “Evangelism and Christian mission in the UK: Trustees are particularly interested in Christian projects that develop new ways of working with children and young people.”

The University received a further £100,000 from Culham and St Gabriel’s Trust, a Christian organisation with links to the Church of England, which runs an organisation called RE Today whose sole purpose is to advance the strength and prominence of religious education in schools.

The Oxford Study also produced an opinion poll that showed two thirds of the population in favour of religious education and the importance of Christianity, although the poll has not been published, so it is difficult to know what questions were asked and how they were framed in order to get these results.

The NSS is indeed right to note the difficulty in assessing the methodology without the poll being published.

BRIN were among those contacting Oxford University’s Department of Education to see whether they can make this available.

BRIN also linked to a related recent publication from the Oxford Department:

Nigel Fancourt, TEACHING ABOUT CHRISTIANITY IN RELIGIOUS EDUCATION: A REVIEW OF RESEARCH (2012)

It is available at:

http://www.education.ox.ac.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Teaching-about-Christianity-in-religious-education.pdf

Teaching Christianity and other religions is vital within the educational setting, as religious literacy is paramount in an increasingly religious world.

However, I would draw the distinction between teaching about faiths, and transmitting the faith. The latter is not the remit of an arm of government, but a job for families and the Church.

A few links I found interesting for one reason or another:

A Reluctant Sinner - By setting up a Twitter account the Pope is like a general leading from the front — The virtual world is a battleground

Independent (Owen Jones) - Tragic deaths that demand a better response than I witnessed

Bishop Nick Baines – Cutting Edge

Seattle Times - Russia wrestles with hysteria over end-of-the-world prophecy

BRIN - Faith of the Faithless

Fr Stephen Smuts -An Archdiocese of the Internet?

Law and Religion UK - Opinion polls on assisted dying

Thomas Creedy - Postmodernism, Evangelism, Apologetics and the Future of the Church

The biblical World - Evangelism in a Globalized World: 1 Thess 1:4-8

The Emotionally Sensitive Person - Looking at Loneliness: Survey Results