Atheism, Hospitals and Prayer

Got a good response to the Atheist post which all took place over on facebook, which this blog feeds into. The conversation discussed what people mean when they self-describe as atheist. As I said earlier, I suspect that for many it just means "I don't do God" or even "can't be bothered to think about it", rather than the adoption of a clear ideology. There also seem to be passive and active atheists in the latter category - some who keep their views private, whereas others want to convert you as passionately as Christian evangelists.

Meanwhile, there is now a debate about prayer in hospitals, which follows on from a case where a nurse was disciplined for offering to pray for a patient. The BMA will be debating a motion about the right of health care professionals to offer to pray with patients.

The coverage has interested me. "Doctors are demanding the right..." was the BBC Sunday radio headline, and is echoed on the news website. In fact, the motion being put to the the BMA representative meeting is as follows:

Motion by THE AGENDA COMMITTEE: That this Meeting:
(i) recognises that the NHS is committed to providing spiritual care for patients;
(ii) notes the position on inappropriate discussion of faith matters in GMC Guidance on
Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice;
(iii) while welcoming the constructive and necessary advice in the document "Religion or
belief", is concerned that some paragraphs suggest that any discussion of spiritual matters
with patients or colleagues could lead to disciplinary action;
(iv) believes that offering to pray for a patient should not be grounds for suspension;
(v) calls on Health Departments to allow appropriate consensual discussion of spiritual matters
within the NHS, when done with respect for the views and sensitivities of individuals.
(Sheffield Division has been asked to propose this motion)

Full agenda available at http://www.bma.org.uk/images/ARMgenda2009_tcm41-187028.pdf

Hardly the mandate for aggressive and exploitative manipulation of vulnerable people, which the National Secular Society spokesman suggested. The Radio 4 debate descended into a rather odd conversation about whether it was inconsistent not to offer prayer to everyone, when he seemed to be suggesting that one could be a little more discerning than that. After all, not praying with a patient doesn't mean you don't pray for a patient.

Banning spiritual/religious issues from the practitioner-patient conversation would be a conscious decision to make health care atheistically secular. A democratic society is entitled to make that decision, but it isn't a decision to be taken by default. Even limiting that conversation to Chaplains represents a compartmentalising of spiritual matters. If the NHS is more than a mechanistic service, and seeks to offer person-centred care, then it would seem that every aspect of a person needs to be cared for.

Patient Concern, a (not Christian-based) patient advocacy organisation seemed to be the voice of reason in the midst of all of this.

But Joyce Robins, co-director of Patient Concern said: "Most complaints from patients are about being on a conveyor belt of care. They don't rate with staff as real people.

"Offering to say a prayer is a warm and kind thought. Most patients will accept it as such. It is no more offensive than being offered a sleeping pill. You can say thanks but that sort of thing isn't my cup of tea.

"But if Christian doctors see this as an opportunity to promote their faith to people at a time when they are particularly vulnerable, that is totally unacceptable."

Quoted from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8116497.stm

Equal and Diverse

We recently caught up with some telly viewing, which included a couple of episodes of George Gently, the police stories set in Tyneside in 1964. Great North East locations, a fantastic collection of classic cars and the rather shocking reminder that we still had the death penalty when Merseybeat was on the radio.

The last episode touched on issues of race and religion. People of Yemeni Arab descent, born in NE England with Geordie accents featured in the story, and terminology of the era to refer to people with 'non-white' skin regularly featured in the script. Some stereotypes were also included (in a sometimes slightly clunky way) such as 'they all look the same'.

I thought it was a very interesting way to hold a mirror up to society today. The language used in 1964 (or even the Life on Mars scenes from 1973) seems quite alien and shocking now, especially when it comes from the lips of characters who are otherwise the heroes of the piece. Gently himself refers in this episode to a time when his 'racialist' [note the terminology which is correct for 1964] language led to a sequence of events which may have criminalised a young man.

The question in my mind is whether our sanitisation of language has actually achieved as much for equality and diversity as we sometimes want to believe. Prejudice is no longer publicly articulated, except in certain notable cases such as the recent BNP success. However, E & D policies can lull us into thinking that prejudice is over, or (worse) that we no longer have any prejudices.

Personally, I think that we all have prejudices. It may be about certain ethnicity, nationality or religion; it may be about other human qualities. They often leak out very slowly, or get projected on to relatively safe issues - long 'a' or short 'a' in grass, football allegiances, etc. - but they continue to be present. An approach to E&D that implies otherwise hasn't properly taken human nature into account. Perhaps those of us concerned with these issues need to be a bit more humble and a bit more more understanding (as distinct from tolerant) of where people's prejudices come from and how the fears behind them can be addressed.

Atheist

Over the last 2 or 3 years I have noticed more people describing themselves as atheists. Hardly a revival, but a definite increase. My experience before that tended to be that people described themselves as 'not religious', 'agnostic' or some kind of 'don't know'.

Perhaps some of this could be ascribed to a Dawkins effect - someone who has championed the cause of atheism, and therefore given people the confidence to own that label. It may be that other people have been pushed in that direction by the phenomenon of religious extremism. Still other may have problems with Christian pronouncements on many issues seeming increasingly at odds with the understanding in the world at large.

Just before the theists amongst us despair, perhaps it's worth asking what is meant by 'atheist'. For some, it will represent a clear philosophically argued case for the non-existence of anything divine or transcendent. For other people, it may well represent a rejection of what has been presented to them as 'God' rather than a rejection of the possibility of there being a God.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the idea (and I can't remember the source) which suggests that a rejection of a false image of God is, in fact, a step towards the true one. However, it is worth asking what sort of God do believers present to the world at large, and how responsible are Christians and others for what seems to be an increasingly active rejection of the idea of God at all.

Ban Religion

...said artists Gilbert and George in the recent Manifesto Marathon held at the Serpentine Gallery near Speakers Corner. It's not new for them to have a go at religion (especially Christianity) as they have created their own versions of religious imagery many times.

What interests me when people are so vehement is what they are really saying. Are they militantly atheist, or are they against specific institutional expressions of a faith that should be more pure or personal, or is the anti-religious message actually indicating other hurts, perhaps at the hands of the Church or representatives of religion.

In G & G's case it appears to centre a lot on church teaching about sex - especially the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality and contraception.

Maybe Christians need to think again on what they say and how they say it, and although we may never win Gilbert and George over, I wonder how many more people are out there ignoring Jesus because of how his followers behave.

gloomy days

The economy's melting faster than the ice caps. Struggling to find grounds for optimism today. Just as well I believe that what can be seen of the material world is not all there is.

Red Tory

Phillip Blond (one of our academic staff who is not averse to making his opinions known) has been busy on his book Red Tory. Looks like he's starting to get noticed, and he has a famous relative. Read more here.

Diocesan Conference: Hild-Bede, Durham

I finally got to a Blackburn Diocesan clergy conference this year, after having been in the Diocese for 6½ years. They only come around every 3 or 4 years, and I couldn't attend the last one. Quite a contrast with the two previous Dioceses I worked in, when such get-togethers were more frequent. As a result, it was an exercise in getting to know a lot of people, often for the first time.

Initial impressions: a lot of white hair, and first day dog-collar count relatively high (20% at a guess). College has some 60s/70s new build which have the same Church College feel that I have experienced at our own place as well as at sister institutions. Hild-Bede obviously got the same architect. Incredibly loud cold tap in my room, but otherwise OK. Other aspects of college excellent - helpful staff, good food, lovely grounds.

The programme of speakers looked good, including David Stevens from the Corrymeela Community, and John Bell from Iona. Both speakers were excellent, able to say strong and, at times uncomfortable, things to us without being associated or implicated with any of the internal politics of the Church of England.

On the subject of politics, quite a lot of traditionalist Anglo-Catholic colleagues stayed away, following the Synod vote on women bishops. This was surprising, since two out of three of our bishops share their position on the ordination of women, and on how people of their viewpoint might be accommodated and supported once women become bishops.

First worry of the conference: I have got roped in to play for some modern worship songs/music, but how will it go down. We managed to avoid the rubbish compromise that blights many Anglican events, where the "modern" songs are so old, that they annoy everyone - trendies and trads alike. In fact the (under-rehearsed) band was a good bunch to be with, and remarkably the feedback on the worship overall was very positive.

By day two, I think we were down to dog-collar count of 10% or maybe less. ( Personally my sympathies are with the view of a vicar I once knew: "dog-collars are strictly for evangelism. Never wear one at a meeting of clergy, always wear one in the pub" ) I know what he meant.

John Bell gave us lots to think about, and also led us in a remarkable service of evening prayer, which coming from Iona had a familiar form, great music, yet unfamiliar words. I like that - to be challenged and surprised by what can often become routine.

Afternoon off. Sentiment took over. Went for a walk to see St John's College (where I trained for the ministry) and St Oswald's Church (where we got married) as well as a cuppa on Palace Green. Great!

Dog-collar count dipped to 7 or 8% during the day before the conference dinner. Second worry of the conference. Dinner dress code: "appropriate". Unsure what this meant, I went for smart-casual, which proved to be at the low-end of the market, but not bottom. Dog-collar count 50+%. Many black suits. Some clergy proved their ability to drink like fish, but a lot of good conversations nonetheless.

Final morning in Durham Cathedral. What can you say - it's the finest Cathedral in England. Paid my respects to Bede and Cuthbert. Wonder what they would have to say to us - probably something similar to John Bell!

Worth

Just noticed on the BBC news website that shares are up over 9% today. Over the past few days, I have been thinking about worth and value. A company ends up being worth what short-sellers can push it down to. Nothing in bricks and mortar has changed, of course, but digits on a computer screen can determine solvency, jobs and much more.

Economics - still don't understand it.

Left, right or indifferent?

Phillip Blond, who is on the staff at UoC has written an article about David Cameron and welfare in the Guardian today. Interesting stuff, although being an old but disillusioned leftie, I'm not entirely convinced.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/30/davidcameron.welfare

Education and Ideology

Here at Cumbria, we are a University where the Church is a stakeholder, and has representation on the governing body. From time to time I meet up with colleagues from similar institutions around the country (e.g. Canterbury Christ Church, Chester, Winchester etc - mainly former C of E teacher training colleges) We always find ourselves discussing what's distinctive about our Higher Education Institutions (HEIs in the lingo) and whether that's good, bad, neutral or irrelevant.

One question that does come up is whether having a Christian world view informing the institution skews the education it delivers: is it genuinely academically free, or is it 'tainted'? Some academics and others concerned with education feel very strongly that it is.

It begs the question as to whether any Higher Education is delivered without some ideological bias. After all, modern Higher Education functions within a clearly capitalist framework. Students pays fees for a service, they are treated more like customers, institutions talk about marketing, brand and they compete for market share.

The new HE world we now live in has its positives; everyone has had to smarten up their act to compete. For example, I don't even know where Student Services was when I was at University, and I've no idea how I would have found a counsellor if I'd needed one. The Chaplain was the only 'student welfare' person I was aware of, apart from my personal tutor. Information about support and help has to be much more 'in your face' now.

However, It would be fascinating to hear a Marxist critique of our model of Higher Education today. I suspect it would express concern that the economic model which is taken for granted in the delivery of UK higher education, essentially places HEIs in the position of endorsing that social and economic ideology, and hence the education they deliver is not ideologically neutral. Market economics now shape the assumptions, commitments and priorities of the modern 'student experience'.

So in defence of Church HEIs, there's no such thing as an ideology-free blank canvas to draw education upon. If Christians have a resource of thinking that can scrutinize the assumptions made in modern education with questions that arise from a world view that can challenge the 'default' world view, then we might be doing everyone a favour.

PS It's worth bearing in mind that Oxford, Cambridge and Durham are all arguably Church inventions, and it doesn't seem to have blighted their scholarship!

Ashes to Ashes

As blogged on previous occasion, I was a big 'Life on Mars' fan. It was an enthusiaim partly attributable to its depiction of a 1970s I could remember, but also due to a cast who worked very well together. Was Sam in a coma, back in time or something else?

The sequel was always going to be difficult, but it takes us to 1981 with a female officer transported back, who has read and knows intimately the Sam story. She's more irritating as a character, because she spends a lot of time being a know-all and calling everyone around her a construct, but that's part of the point.

Couldn't help having a philosophical muse here. The first series could be viewed as a coma with a world which Sam appears to be experiencing as solipsism - a world where only Sam really existed, and everything else is a product of his mind. (It is possible to view our reality as this and it's interesting to think through the arguments for and against this standpoint) However, once the story allows someone else to enter that world and meet the characters again, that other world starts to have an existence (ontology?) of its own. So where is this world that Gene Hunt et al. inhabit?

Islam and British society

Phillip Blond from our Uni staff offers a different perspective on the recent fuss over the Archbishop's words. Phillip and his colleague engage with the issues in the lecture, rather than the fuss. For them, Rowan Williams' error was to buy into western European multiculturalism. Read more here.

Dickens vs. Marx

Am reading the actual text of 'A Christmas Carol' as a counterbalance to the many dramatisations that circulate at this time of year (much as I love the Muppets' version) . It's a bit like the nativity itself - the actual story contains much more than the narrative we have in our heads.

It made me think about Dickens. His stories, including this classic tale about Scrooge, were his response in narrative to the social injustices of Victorian England. Marx took a different route in response to the same society.

My question is this: whose writing improved the lot of the poor the most?

Dark Materials

There's a lot of concern in some parts of the Christian world about the film adaptation of the first part of the Dark Materials trilogy, Northern Lights, released as The Golden Compass. ( Apparently we can't use the book's term alethiometer ) The key concern being expressed is that the film is a piece of propaganda for Philip Pullman's strongly-held atheistic views, and as a result may work on the minds of the children and young people (let alone adults) who go to see it. Having read all three books, I know I'm poles apart from Pullman philosophically, but I do think that generating a climate of fear about this film is actually the wrong approach for a number of reasons.

First, calling for boycotts almost always makes things more popular, not less. Relax by Frankie Goes To Hollywood only hit no.1 once the BBC banned it.

Second, if Christians talk in fearful terms about this film, what does that say about their own security in their beliefs? I'm quite looking forward to seeing the film, especially spotting the compromises that Pullman had to make to accommodate a much more religious film-going public in the USA.

Third, Pullman's key target in both the book and the film is the magesterium, which could be construed as a parallel universe version of the catholic church. As such, his target would seem to be the image God he perceives mediated through his encounter with the Church. Those of us who are Christians might have some sympathy with him having problems with that - the crusades, inquisition, and many other evils of history have derived from a misguided understanding of God, which Christians and atheists alike would reject.

My question is whether he is rejecting God, or the image of God he has fixed in his head from whatever experiences he has had in the past within the Church. We could do well to try and understand that. What false God do we accidentally portray in the way we are in church, or as Christians in the world?

I suppose the final and most obvious point is that all films have an ideology - explicit or implicit - which we may or may not agree with. Atheists have made films before, and some of Disney's reported views were hardly very savoury. It's not Hollywood's job to put our views across; we need to teach our children to learn to watch critically (in the best sense of that word). If we simply insulate, then one day they will find themselves outside the bubble with no tools to deal with the array of views battering them.

We'll be taking the kids, and we'll talk about it afterwards. What is there to be scared of?

Theological musing?

Was wondering about setting up a separate blog for my theological musings, and then had second thoughts. After all, if I believe that theology is about real life (which I do) and that there is a false dichotomy drawn between spiritual and secular by both secularists and many Christians (which I also do) then there's no sense in keeping theology separate. So, my non-theological readers, I will continue to blog my occasional theological, spiritual, biblical and ecclesiastical musings here to show how integrated I am ...or am not!

Mixed messages

Recently spotted that a local church had arranged for some Buddhist monks to visit, and they subsequently performed a ritual inside the church building, which they then went out from and offered to people's homes. It also happened a couple of years ago when it ruffled a few feathers.

I know I wouldn't have done the same in their vicar's shoes, but I have been trying to work out why not. Here's a bit of thinking aloud as a work in progress. I'd be really interested to see what other people think.

There is the obvious inconvenience of getting hassle from the "turn or burn" version of Christianity which would see other faith activity as potentially if not actually evil. However, I suspect I am going to upset people from that school of thought anyway at some point, so that's not a good enough reason in itself.

The more interesting questions are about the nature of sacred space, and also the integrity of Christian identity. here on campus, the policy is quite clear that the chapel is for Christian worship and is also used for music and arts performances which are appropriate for the context. Most members of other faith communities wouldn't want to worship in chapel anyway, and a multifaith prayer room is available, or other rooms can be used if more space is required.

This particular Buddhist group clearly didn't have any issue with using a church for their ritual. However, I do have a problem with a Christian building being used to effectively propagate another faith viewpoint. (The monks took sand from their ritual out to places in the community) That seems to be moving from hospitality to endorsement, which is different. The problem is that once you start suggesting boundaries, it's very easy to seem narrow-minded.

I suspect the issue behind this is the methodology for relating between faiths. Is it multifaith - trying to find common denominators and rituals and practise which are a compromise, or is it inter-faith, where no-one has to compromise their own identity, but learn to listen and have a dialogue with others who are different. Can't quite join up the conceptual dots, but I think that's it.

Join in.

Adoption and Gay Couples

Phillip Blond at St Martin's asked me to see if people were interested in a debate on this issue. Phillip and Adrian Pabst have written the following article for the Church Times, and I have his permission to reproduce it here. Two things to say in advance:

• From what I know from Phillip in other conversations, I understand that he has no absolute moral objections to gay relationships, nor to their inclusion in the life of the Church. The issue here is treating homo- and heterosexual couples in an identical and generic way.
• When reading this, it's important to think about the bigger issue of faith in the public, social and political arena, as well as the secular liberal dilemmas when dealing with the specific truth claims and ethical views of faith groups.
  

With that said, I'm not sure what my response to this is yet, so I'd be interested to read other people's ideas.

No room for gay rights at the adoption agency

The dispute over adoption exposes a wider debate about the morality of liberalism, Phillip Blond and Adrian Pabst argue

‘The sterile appeal to equality masks an agenda to elevate one minority over another’

The GOVERNMENT’S refusal to exempt Roman Catholic adoption agencies from anti-discrimination laws represents the latest liberal assault on religion. The Roman Catholic rejection of gay adoption is neither regressive nor reactionary.

First, it is by no means clear that the current attempt to impose equality legislation on the adoption process serves the best interests of the child. Second, it is equally uncertain that equality of rights ensures respect for difference. Third, it is far from self-evident that the secular liberal logic that is driving this issue is the only or indeed the best way of creating a diverse society.

Roman Catholicism seems to have a point. One suspects that, for most ordinary people, a heterosexual couple in a family environment represents the best way to bring up a child. The common preconception that children are better off when raised by two parents has a sound empirical and sociological basis. We now know from various longitudinal studies that one-parent families are strongly correlated with poverty, crime, and social exclusion.

Moreover — dysfunctional partners aside — few human beings would argue that one parent is as good as two. Few would disagree with someone who spoke of the absence of a mother or father as damaging to their mental and emotional well-being. Nobody doubts the heroism of the parent in one-parent families, but nobody would envy them or their children.

At first sight, same-sex couples offer two surrogate parents, but crucially they cannot offer both a mother and a father. The denial of this foundational experience is surely emotionally and socially damaging. Children need to encounter male and female parental love — both are vital for development. The lack of fathers as role-models and loving mentors is a self-evident factor in many delinquent youths and failed lives.

Why, then, so uncritically accept the assertion that same-sex couples are just as good as heterosexual couples at raising children? There is no solid evidence on which to make this claim. Yes, gay people have raised children for years, but usually in the context of a failed heterosexual relationship — a situation in which both mothers and fathers are still present.

The argument that, were it not for homosexual adoption, children would be abandoned in care homes is as peculiar as it is pernicious: it is not as if there are children that only gay people would adopt.

The raising of children by same-sex couples is so recent and so historically unprecedented that it is not unreasonable to adopt the precautionary principle, and wait before enforcement by law.

The ideology that is imposing the equality legislation, however, does not seem to be concerned with the well-being of the child. If it were, serious questions would be asked. We would object to raising children by computers because, in part, they would be denied a mother and a father. Surely the right of a child to receive the love of a mother and a father is irrefutable. Same-sex couples, however good or well-meaning, cannot deliver this.

So why aggressively assert equality where none should pertain? It is hard to see what principle of justice or well-being is served by denying a child the love and recognition of a mother and a father.

To deprive children of this experience reveals a fundamental contradiction. On the one hand, homosexuals insist on their particularity. Like other minorities, they rightly demand tolerance and respect for their specificity.

On the other hand, homosexuals now want to be the same as heterosexuals. This goes beyond equality of rights, and extends to practices such as marriage and having children — constructions that arguably are particular to heterosexual couples. Curiously, in the name of equality, a group that is defined by difference seems to desire nothing so much as sameness.

Moreover, by enforcing equality legislation on all adoption agencies, a minority imposes its will and worldview on a majority. The contrast with religious groups could hardly be more marked: whereas the Roman Catholic Church seeks an exemption only for itself, those who support gay adoption insist on the application of the Equality Act across the board. Thus they deny precisely the sort of freedom of conscience that currently allows Roman Catholic doctors to refuse to perform an abortion.

In reality, the sterile appeal to equality masks an agenda to elevate the interests of one minority over those of another. A simple secular equality of rights ensures a permanent conflict between minorities and the destruction of the differences that a truly plural society would uphold.

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York were correct to support the Roman Catholic Church in its request for an exemption from this repressive legislation. But they should have gone much further.

Since contemporary secular liberalism values little more than human will and unconstrained choice, it conflicts with virtually every other human value system. The self-professed moral superiority of liberalism is a sham. It claims to defend diversity, but it enforces conformity with a secular code that it alone defines.

Liberal progressives cannot deliver a just and plural society co-operating around common values of tolerance and respect. Christians need to resist the current politics of uniformity and compliance. They should intercede with a critique of contemporary social mores and the alleged panaceas of our governing class.

Phillip Blond is a senior lecturer in theology at St Martin’s College, Lancaster. Adrian Pabst is lecturer in theology at the University of Nottingham.

Dirty

Found a good article by Brian McLaren on the execution of Saddam Hussein here. He asks how it made us feel, and gives his own personal answer: dirty.

Holocaust

My failure to post anything so far this week probably tells its own story as to the demands we have had in chaplaincy. Lots of pastoral stuff interwoven with personalities and politics of the student body. I'm not going to name names (or issues) but it's all been pretty exhausting, especially as it's CU Mission week (lots of questions from CU and lots of requests from them for rooms, gear and help). I'm also speaking on "what about dinosaurs?" tomorrow at a lunch club. Fortunately neither the CU president nor the UCCF rep are creationists, so that's a relief. Also had a trip down to London to the Church Commissioners for a Church Colleges/Universities meeting, which was an interesting day out, but sadly involved a 6-38am train.

Perhaps the most demanding thing that has happened over the last week or so was on Monday night. We were privileged to meet Arek Hersh, a survivor of Auschwitz-Birkenau and other camps and ghettos. He was 11 when taken away, and he lost all of his family. He also had a series of moments when particular choices meant that he was one of the few survivors from a group. In 2004 he made a documentary of his life, supported by UNISON and a project in Liverpool that takes young people to visit the camps.

We showed the film and I chaired questions afterwards. Watching Arek tell his story is gruelling enough, let alone the archive film which illustrated the kinds of conditions he endured. Meeting him in person was something else - a presence which commanded respect.

There's no easy way to answer the systematic slaughter of so many people - predominantly Jews, but also Roma, non-Jewish Poles, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, disabled people, communists and Freemasons. Millions more died as a result of Nazi policies but not in such a systematic and targeted way. The Nazi's allies in Croatia also killed hundreds of thousands of Serbs.

Arek says he can't forgive, and I can understand that, given all he has been through. It all begs lots of questions, though. Is anyone beyond redemption? Are some sins beyond forgiveness? If they are, where is the line? It also begs some more awkward questions - where were the Christians when the Jews were being taken away? Most of all, where was God in Auschwitz?

Perhaps most chilling is the upsurge in neo-nazism, which Arek wants to spend the rest of his life fighting. The prejudice, politics and graffiti are out there.

This all seems really heavy, but it's not a subject you can talk about lightly. Despite that, Arek is someone with a great amount of humour, modesty and courtesy. The really bizarre moment was taking him over for a drink in the bar afterwards. Somehow it felt wrong - going for a drink with someone from Auschwitz - but he made it OK. A special moment as he left - the guys on the pool table stopped playing, and nodded an acknowledgment. One of them had been at the film.

In Search of God

This programme looked at belief in God in a very personal way. John Humphrys described how he had been brought up in the Christian faith, but had lost it in the wake of all the cruelty and suffering he had seen. In three programmes he talks to three leaders about why they think he could believe in God. He sits there and seeks to be convinced. The first was with Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I was quite disappointed with Abp Rowan's response. He could so easily have addressed some of the axioms of John Humphrys' argument, but he kept it at quite a theoretical level. There was a very good section when he ended up questioning JH on what his issues were, but somehow he didn't build on it.

What was most surprising was that he didn't keep the focus of his response on Jesus Christ. It seemed to me that one thrust of JH's points were that he didn't believe in God, because if He exists and He's 'out there', why doesn't He come down here? Given that He doesn't, He can't exist. That seemed to me to be his case.

Central to addressing such an argument must surely be to refer to the incarnation. God isn't sitting 'out there'; He's here (and there). God has entered the physical realm in Jesus Christ, and has lived, suffered and even died. At the very least, God has tasted the human condition, and at the crucufixion, Christians believe that in Jesus Christ, God actually articulates the cry of all suffering humanity: " my God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" Suffering still has no causal explanation, but the presence of suffering no longer necessarily indicated the absence of God.

Moreover, God's presence continues to be expressed in human beings. That's not to dismiss all 'supernatural' interventions by God, but experiences of God are often much more in the normal, everyday, material, and sometimes negative and distressing events of life. That is the Christian story.

My wife, Debbie, also observed that the Abp. made little reference to story. What case could a Christian put to a journalist to commend Christianity? The Christian story makes more sense of what the world is like and what it means than any other story. A journalist ought to find that sort of case engaging, even if it's not ultimately convincing.

Looking forward to seeing if the Jewish or Muslim contributors put a better case.