\nhate it – but I’m fascinated by the details of religions – liturgical,
\nscriptural, ceremonial, even ecclesiastical – the whole lot. I feel that all
\nreligious belief is childish and weak, and I’ve never understood why believing
\nyou have an Imaginary Friend, and that you can pray or talk to him should make
\nyou a happier or better person.
\n<\/span>But it’s the belief part I don’t get: I’m riveted by the detail of the
\nrituals you practice to get in touch with him, and, of course, recognize the
\ngenius of the artists, musicians and architects who claim they have been
\ninspired by him and his sacraments, rules and the disputes these have caused.
\nFor all my militancy, I’m a sort of pious atheist, as my friend Dr. Jonathan
\nMiller says we should all be.<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n On the other hand, there are a few things <\/span>Another <\/span>So <\/span>Nonetheless, <\/span>The <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Religion is a difficult subject for me. I hate it – but I’m fascinated by the details of religions – liturgical, scriptural, ceremonial, even ecclesiastical – the whole lot. I feel that all religious belief is childish and weak, and I’ve never understood why believing you have an Imaginary Friend, and that you can pray […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-731","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-uncategorized","7":"entry"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pbv6zV-bN","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/plainenglish\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/731","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/plainenglish\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/plainenglish\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/plainenglish\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/plainenglish\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=731"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/plainenglish\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/731\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/plainenglish\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=731"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/plainenglish\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=731"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/plainenglish\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=731"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"Love](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/media.nt-online.org\/files\/thncache\/maxwidth\/66\/LTS-postpress_webimagenP2mir.jpg?ssl=1\")
<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\nto do with religion that I can’t get worked up about; and many of these have to
\ndo with the contemporary Church of England. <\/span>The history<\/i> of the
\nCofE is, of course, one of the most interesting chapters in the history of
\nchurch or state; but its current predicament, as it tears itself to pieces over
\nwhether it should have women and male homosexual priests or bishops, is hard
\nfor me to care about. It seems to me obvious that the answer is yes to women,
\nbecause they are more than half the population; and yes to gays, because
\nwithout them there would be very few Anglican clerics.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nfriend, Jane Kramer, whom I suspect of having views a bit like my own, has
\nwritten a completely brilliant, compelling piece in the 26 April New Yorker<\/i>, “A Canterbury Tale: The
\nbattle within the Church of England to allow women to be bishops.” It’s a great
\nread for a Trollope-sympathiser such as me, who loves the messy, concrete
\ndetail of the organization of the CofE, the great sweep of history that has to
\nbe rehearsed in order to grasp these details, and the wonderfully weird turn of
\nmind of the man who runs the show, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of
\nCanterbury. I met him at dinner at an Oxford college once, a few weeks after
\nhis elevation. I then thought that the strangest things about him were that he
\nwanted the job, and that he was wearing a sort of frock. On the other hand, the
\nbe-gowned dons didn’t look all that dissimilar.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nI was genuinely surprised when, the week I read Jane’s piece, I also was at the
\npress night of a very good new play, “Love the Sinner” by <\/span>Drew Pautz, at the National
\nTheatre. <\/span>I was surprised by
\nthe Antony Powellian coincidence that both the New Yorker<\/i> piece and the play were about the CofE’s troubles, but
\neven that Mr. Pautz, a Canadian associated with the great Robert LePage, should
\nthink these a suitable subject for a drama.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nhe’s made a very good fist of it indeed. It opens with a locked-in meeting of
\nAnglican clergymen (and woman) somewhere in Africa, grappling with the problem
\nof homosexual priests. As in real life, the attitudes of the Africans are
\nsickeningly unchristian, bigoted and in every possible way disgusting. As the
\nrules say they must meet no person from outside their ranks, they have a very
\nfunny scene of keeping their eyes shut as an attractive African waiter,
\nJoseph, <\/span>(the marvelous Fiston
\nBarek) brings their coffee. In the next scene we see the group’s lay volunteer
\nnote-taker, Michael (Jonathan Cullen), in his hotel room with Joseph, in
\n(temporary) post-coital bliss. Michael’s married, gay and a religious nut who
\nis destroying his business by imposing his religion on his colleagues. The play
\nworks so well because the Church’s tensions are embodied in and exemplified by
\nthe individual dramas; but designer Anne Fleischle ultra-flexible set helps,
\ntoo. Matthew Dunster directs a superb cast, with Scott Handy especially good as
\nthe Bishop’s gofer; and Charlotte Randle as the broody, wronged wife in a
\ndoomed marriage. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nNT is holding some discussions in late June and early July about “the church’s
\ncomplicated position regarding sexuality” and “the cultural responsibility of
\nthe church in a post-colonial world.”
\n<\/span>Both topics interest me a little. But I’d be more interested in a debate
\nas to whether all the bishops should lose their sets in the House of Lords.
\n(Yes, they sit there by right, and were not kicked out with the Hereditary
\nPeers.) And for what it’s worth, I think the so-called “Chief Rabbi” (he is actually
\nhead honcho only of the small minority of United Orthodox Jewish Congregations)
\nshould go first.<\/span><\/p>\n