stickman,
Can you justify the indoctrination from day one, of children, into learning a language? Why was I never given the choice of what my language was? The language I was “indoctrinated into” throughout my school years is spoken by about 5 million people in the world. Why was I not indoctrinated into speaking, say, Chinese?

I was also indoctrinated into learning mathematics, starting with counting apples and oranges before I could develop any critical thinking about mathematical concepts. Now those who were not sufficiently (or properly) “indoctrinated” are frustrated and feel obliged to deride or ridicule those who developed a liking for, and deeper understanding of, these concepts, an understanding made easier through an early childhood “indoctrination” like learning to count apples and oranges.

Recruit people to learn maths before they have any choice, and you will maintain more numbers of those who can understand and make use in their life of at least elementary maths. Of course, to “make use in one‘s life” has a much deeper meaning in matters of religion than just mathematics. Also, with maths as with religion, you need good teachers to have that effect. And therein lies the problem, especially in the case of religion.

"Where, in our society, apart from specialised theological schools, may be studied the three great pillars of theological science; Church history, biblical studies and systematic theology? It has been the triumph of secularism that such studies have been removed from our schools and universities with the excuses of the separation between church and state and the idea that religion is essentially private."

Hmm - don't you think it might be because there isn't a great demand for them outside theological schools?

I studied some aspects of religious history in my BA 30 years ago. Let me tell you, there were 2 other people in the class.

MT

That may be so, but Im not sure that ignorance on the subject of religions is a sign of wisdom.
Perhaps more people SHOULD have been in those classes but, as you say, religion was OUT in the seventies and we were rather full of our own self-importance... for those who can remember being there.

Actually, I think Anglicans prattling on about High Culture are still a little too full of their own self-importance.

"It has been the triumph of secularism that such studies have been removed from our schools and universities with the excuses of the separation between church and state and the idea that religion is essentially private."

That from the organisation which wants to micromanage your life.

The Benefit of secularism is precisely that it protects the individual from the excesses of the organised religious zealotry.

As for the culture of the church, when I consider Quakers, they always seem so much more "secure" in their faith than those "Christians" who go for the show and rassamattazz, the incense and the funny hats.

Sells

I found this article disturbing and it has taken the quiet period of Easter vacation to gather my thoughts on the subject.The article is disturbing primarily because it is a fair assessment of the Anglican Church’s culture(and others)and so places it in tension with the Gospel which favours those who are least able to make the effort required to‘appreciate’the‘high’culture of the Church.

Those charged with oversight of and responsibility for the Church’s culture are surely required,in order to proclaim the Gospel faithfully,to render it in such a way that it is accessible to all.I don’t see this in your article.

The challenge,of course,is to make the Gospel accessible without‘dumbing it down’.This has parallels in the art of the story-teller.The story-teller participates in the‘high’culture of word-craft.The story,on the other hand,may be aimed at any audience.If the target audience is children,for example,then the author cannot assume the same background knowledge as an adult audience would bring to the reading.Children will be less attuned to all the nuances of the words.While the language must be simpler for children,the author’s task is not necessarily simpler.

So it is that the Church participates in a‘high’culture,where the‘highness’of the culture refers to the amount of effort required to access its meaning/significance/purpose.Another way of saying this is that the culture of the Church has become‘sophisticated'in the sense of having become overly complex in relation to its real purpose.The Roman and Eastern Churches have,for example,multiplied the number and complexity of rituals of the Church.The Laws of the Church have also multiplied and become extremely complex.It will be argued that increasing sophistication is an inevitable consequence of the growth and geographical expansion of the Church.This is true but it must also be appreciated that this increasing sophistication obscures the Gospel which it is the Church’s primary task to proclaim.

It is all very well for theologians and liturgists to appreciate or even enjoy the high culture that is their craft but if this translates into‘high’culture as the raison detre of the Church then that Church has lost its way.

Jon J
You ask some questions, so I’ll give you my take on them.

Must anti-religious postings first get over a higher test of intellectual rigour before they’re published here?

I doubt it. I don’t think OLO has tests for intellectual rigour. The bar is not set very high. They seem to go for anything that will stir up a discussion. I’ve seen some atheist ones which haven’t impressed me much. But a lot comes down to your idea of rigour, or what side of the fence you sit.

This article by Peter Sellick wouldn’t qualify as trying to ‘put religion in a favourable light’ anyway, as he is quite critical.

Should we have posts that say the church should do this or that? Why not? OLO covers lots of topics including Christian ones. And lots of non-believers wade in to add their comment at those times (and vice versa). However, I’ll agree that this article isn’t saying much.

Sellick is confusing depth of church teaching with high culture, and comes out looking snobbish. What’s wrong with a well crafted 4 beat pop song? It beats a liturgical yawn any day.

Here’s a recent one that Sellick probably wouldn’t like, because it comes with a catchy tune that makes it easy to remember --

Praise the Lord, I tell myself
With my whole heart I will praise
His holy name forever more
Praise the Lord, I tell myself
To remember the good things that
He does for me because He loves me

That You forgive of my sin
And make me clean again
That You healed me of my sickness
And made me new again
That You ransomed me from death
So now I can know You
Now and for everything
I’ll praise You !

I’ll tell the world
Of Your unfailing love
I’ll tell the world
Of Your everlasting love