I’ve been reading Dominic Erdozain’s excellent The Soul of Doubt: The religious roots of unbelief from Luther to Marx. At last, a book that sets the record right.

The way I was taught Christian history, and the way far too many church history books still tell it, works on the ‘orthodoxy’ model. The Church carries on, with its doctrines. True church members accept them, heretics debate them, unbelievers reject them.


The future Church

We often ask ourselves: ‘Does the church have a future?’ The trouble with that question is that it is rooted in the baggage of the existing institution and hence it is a philosophically conservative question. Perhaps the liberal paradigm might cause us to ask a far more exciting one: ‘Does the future have a church?’

David Jenkins

‘Best known for expressing doubts about the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Christ’ – The Guardian .

‘“Unbelieving bishop” Jenkins famed for his sceptical views… He shocked believers by expressing doubts about the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus’ – The Daily Mail.
‘An Anglican bishop who questioned some of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity… His views on the virgin birth and the resurrection caused a storm of protest’ The BBC.

There is some disagreement at present concerning whether or not Mother Theresa should be canonised.

But I find myself wondering what difference it makes to anyone whether she is declared a saint or not.

Richard Grant’s article Why scientists are losing the fight to communicate science to the public makes two good points about why people are often suspicious of scientists. I shall add a third, which to me is the important one.

Grant is pro-science. The population, he tells us, is not on the whole scientifically literate, and scientists want us to give us and our children a better life. It’s for our own good that they tell us their stuff.