I'm not sure how 'classist' these boards are but generally most Shipmates are educated to university level and as @chrisstiles says up thread are the sort of people who like looking things up.
Though the phenomena I'm thinking about is the much more generational - specifically the drop in reading among Gen Z
There's a separate phenomena of the aggressive anti-intellectualism, but that tends to be class rather than age specific (most often middle class).
I'm not so convinced that 'aggressive anti-intellectualism' is predominantly a middle-class thing. I've encountered it in working class communities too. There was always a strong autodidact element in some working class cultures though, for instance through the 'Stutes' (the Miners' Institutes) in the South Wales Valleys and through the WEA.
I think the climate is/was more nuanced than that and as you say, generational factors play into all of this. The working classes and middle classes are not monolithic either and there are all sorts of regional, cultural and generational variations at play.
I've just always been autistic about history and especially church history
Tangent: if your self-describing adjective is based on a diagnosis or a self-diagnosis, that's one thing. If it is a casual descriptor, could you please not? IMO to use this casually is to trivialize it.
I think the climate is/was more nuanced than that and as you say, generational factors play into all of this. The working classes and middle classes are not monolithic either and there are all sorts of regional, cultural and generational variations at play.
Okay, so you've answered your own question, and it turns out you disagreed with the contention in the OP.
Where have I done that?
There's nothing in the OP about anti-intellectualism being either a working class or middle class phenomenon.
But your comment here is not about anti-intellectualism as such, and more about the general milleu:
I think the climate is/was more nuanced than that and as you say, generational factors play into all of this. The working classes and middle classes are not monolithic either and there are all sorts of regional, cultural and generational variations at play.
but if there are "regional, cultural and generational variations at play" how do you even know that the apparent trend mentioned in the OP exists? Maybe it's one of these 'kids these days' phenomena
Giles Fraser is a right-wing bigot - he's not anyone I would refer to as liberal, just fyi.
Could you tell me why you think he is a bigot? Not a rant, please, just a list of his beliefs of sayings that justify your view.
He's a vocal transphobe and genocide apologist.
I'm no great fan of Giles Fraser, but between you, that's three names you have called him there, not one of them substantiated in such a way as to give @RockyRoger, me or anyone else any reason to take your condemnations as remotely authoritative.
End of Tangent Alert
Going back to the OP, I heard the programme while I was driving across country yesterday. What shocks me about that revelation is not the basic ignorance. The levels of ignorance that some regular churchgoers in the CofE manage to achieve is staggering. No, it is that any diocese or any diocesan director of ordinands should have sent anyone that ignorant to a selection conference without having required them to have attended any sort of courses on basic Christianity first, and that any selection conference should have recommended them for training.
I do not deny that the nature of the Trinity is a mystery in both the casual dictionary and the theological senses. Nevertheless, if a person lacks even enough curiosity to try to find out what the Nicene and Apostles creeds that they recite might be talking about, then without further and thorough investigation that would strongly suggest to me that they lacked qualities requisite and necessary for the exercise of any sort of ministry.
Dear oh dear. As a very young Roman Catholic I remember Father Whatshisname not only making sure we knew the Apostles’ Creed, but knew what it meant. He accepted that we might not understand that fully, but told us that was a matter of faith.
Left the Roman Catholic Church but I hold that the creed is still a decent doctrinal basis. Even my current evangelical church doesn’t object to it. YMMV
I'm just re-watching that Python sketch now. After hearing her husband's initial complaint about Catholics, the wife looks up in the air and says "What are we, dear?", with the mannerisms and intonation seeming to indicate that she's heard it before, but can't remember.
"Protestants! And fiercely proud of it!" - the irony being wife didn't even know she was a Protestant until a few seconds earlier, much less that she was proud of the identity.
I did the Protestant/Prostitute novice joke a few weeks ago didn't I?
Where have I done that?
There's nothing in the OP about anti-intellectualism being either a working class or middle class phenomenon.
But your comment here is not about anti-intellectualism as such, and more about the general milleu:
I think the climate is/was more nuanced than that and as you say, generational factors play into all of this. The working classes and middle classes are not monolithic either and there are all sorts of regional, cultural and generational variations at play.
but if there are "regional, cultural and generational variations at play" how do you even know that the apparent trend mentioned in the OP exists? Maybe it's one of these 'kids these days' phenomena
I was interrogating the 'apparent trend' in the OP and asking Shipmates' views on whether they thought there was a trend/issue or not.
You raised the Gen Z factor which I agreed with.
You then made a sweeping statement without any supporting evidence that anti-intellectualism is more prominent in certain social groups than others.
I suggested that it isn't as simple as that and that there are a range of factors in play.
Thé most memorable gap in knowledge I ever saw was about forty years ago, and the speaker was an elderly gentleman who had been going to the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) all his life and was an ordained elder. Suddenly, in the middle of a Bible study he exclaimed, ´You mean that Jesus was a Jew! Well, I did not know that.’ He was not in his dotage or being ironic.
Many years ago I got into conversation on a train with a young Pentacostalist, lately out of Pentecostal college and keen to evangelise. I murmured something about being more Quaker in my faith approach. She'd never heard of them. I got the impression that her theological education had skipped from the days of the Apostles to the Pentecostal church(es) and written off anything in between.
Many years ago I got into conversation on a train with a young Pentacostalist, lately out of Pentecostal college and keen to evangelise. I murmured something about being more Quaker in my faith approach. She'd never heard of them. I got the impression that her theological education had skipped from the days of the Apostles to the Pentecostal church(es) and written off anything in between.
As a charevo I do recall feeling it was sort of that way. All this tongues speaking and prophecying and having words and pictures - it seemed to have been forgotten for hundreds of years until the Holy Spirit decided to crank the signs and wonders franchise back into life - tbh this was one of the things that disposed me to start wondering if the whole thing was possibly overstated.
Thé most memorable gap in knowledge I ever saw was about forty years ago, and the speaker was an elderly gentleman who had been going to the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) all his life and was an ordained elder. Suddenly, in the middle of a Bible study he exclaimed, ´You mean that Jesus was a Jew! Well, I did not know that.’ He was not in his dotage or being ironic.
Sometimes, gaps in knowledge of traditions can be helpful. I remember when The Da Vinci Code came out and was all the rage, I had a read of it, not knowing beforehand quite how bad it was.
But the bit that got me in a rage was the suggestion that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. I grew up in a sola scriptura church (though it was never phrased as that). And because the notion that she was a woman of ill repute was a tradition invented by some pope (I forget which one) and isn't in the bible, the idea was completely alien to me, as it had never been taught in church.
It riled me even more than the use of 'symbology' in place of 'semiotics'.
Back on topic, I think a reasonable understanding of Church history is a good thing for a church leader to have, but I would hesitate to making that a barrier to entry into ministry. It's not as though the 12 apostles were the most academic of people. Faithfulness is, in my view, slightly more important than knowing the difference between Docetism and Valentianism.
Where have I done that?
There's nothing in the OP about anti-intellectualism being either a working class or middle class phenomenon.
But your comment here is not about anti-intellectualism as such, and more about the general milleu:
I think the climate is/was more nuanced than that and as you say, generational factors play into all of this. The working classes and middle classes are not monolithic either and there are all sorts of regional, cultural and generational variations at play.
but if there are "regional, cultural and generational variations at play" how do you even know that the apparent trend mentioned in the OP exists? Maybe it's one of these 'kids these days' phenomena
I was interrogating the 'apparent trend' in the OP and asking Shipmates' views on whether they thought there was a trend/issue or not.
Okay, but what do *you* think (without resorting to joking).
You raised the Gen Z factor which I agreed with.
Really .. I'm having difficult extracting agreement from:
" I think the climate is/was more nuanced than that and as you say, generational factors play into all of this. The working classes and middle classes are not monolithic either and there are all sorts of regional, cultural and generational variations at play. "
You then made a sweeping statement without any supporting evidence that anti-intellectualism is more prominent in certain social groups than others.
I don't think it's particularly sweeping to suggest a tendency -- if I'd said that it was only manifest in the middle classes it would have been sweeping. Happy to provide references if you want. You could do worse than this column by the late Ed Rooksby:
Giles Fraser is a right-wing bigot - he's not anyone I would refer to as liberal, just fyi.
Could you tell me why you think he is a bigot? Not a rant, please, just a list of his beliefs of sayings that justify your view.
He's a vocal transphobe and genocide apologist.
I'm no great fan of Giles Fraser, but between you, that's three names you have called him there, not one of them substantiated in such a way as to give @RockyRoger, me or anyone else any reason to take your condemnations as remotely authoritative.
End of Tangent Alert
That would be a problem if I was bothered about what you do or don't take seriously. Google is there if you wish to make your own judgement.
I do think it's unhelpful to sneer at people for not knowing things that they have never had the opportunity to learn. We all have expert knowledge about some things and are completely ignorant of others. I certainly learned that when I was invited to join some friends for a pub quiz: most of it was about celebrities, culture and sport and my knowledge was completely useless until we got to the science round (which was surprising, because I only did science to GCSE/O level). Our team came last.
Quite. I’m always amused at the way Latin phrases are thrown around this forum as if everyone has studied it at school. It’s the most classist forum I have even been on.
I never studied Latin (and my one and only language, French, is also my lowest GCSE grade). I know bits and pieces from general reading, but I'm not convinced that's classist except in so far as normalisation of reading is a class signifier (is it?) Perhaps expecting to be able to use Latin phrases in conversation without having the piss taken out of you is the class signifier here.
Thé most memorable gap in knowledge I ever saw was about forty years ago, and the speaker was an elderly gentleman who had been going to the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) all his life and was an ordained elder. Suddenly, in the middle of a Bible study he exclaimed, ´You mean that Jesus was a Jew! Well, I did not know that.’ He was not in his dotage or being ironic.
Sometimes, gaps in knowledge of traditions can be helpful. I remember when The Da Vinci Code came out and was all the rage, I had a read of it, not knowing beforehand quite how bad it was.
But the bit that got me in a rage was the suggestion that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. I grew up in a sola scriptura church (though it was never phrased as that). And because the notion that she was a woman of ill repute was a tradition invented by some pope (I forget which one) and isn't in the bible, the idea was completely alien to me, as it had never been taught in church.
In fairness, the made-for-TV Jesus of Nazareth, written by the lapsed but culturally Catholic Anthony Burgess and directed by the devout Catholic Franco Zeffirelli, and endorsed by none other than Paul VI, also portrayed Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. Apparently, it WAS controversial, for initially omitting the Resurrection(added before final release), but not much so for MM's profession.
Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ went Burgess and Zeffirelli one better, portraying MM not only as a sex worker but also conflating her with the woman caught in adultery, but, like Jesus of Nazareth, was controversial for unrelated reasons.
Ok @chrisstiles but what I don't get is why your reference to Generation Z isn't 'tut ... kids today', but what I've written is taken as such.
The only conclusion I can reach is that a sweeping generalisation isn't one when you make one but it is when you think other people are making them.
In other words, I don’t accept your kickback on my comments.
And yes, I did agree with you on the Gen Z thing but if my doing so is 'tut ... kids today ...' then why don't your comments fall into that category and mine apparently do?
Sorry, but your challenge makes little sense I'm afraid.
Ok @chrisstiles but what I don't get is why your reference to Generation Z isn't 'tut ... kids today', but what I've written is taken as such.
Actually the 'kids today' was more a comment on what you were reporting Fraser/the programme said, rather than something you said - because as above I'm not clear about your own view on the OP.
While I'm at it, I don't dispute that there's a Conservative anti-intellectualism. Of course there is.
But not all Conservatives arr middle-class. My maternal grandfather had impeccable working class credentials. One of twelve. Two up, two down. Shared earth privy with the neighbours. He wore one of his sister's cast off clothes until he started school and then was given 'pauper's clothes' on the parish.
Yet he voted Tory all his life - apart from one occasion when he voted for a Communist candidate in a local election because he worked with him and knew him to be a decent bloke.
He was convinced I was a Communist when I was 18 and used to express his concerns to my mother.
Ok @chrisstiles but what I don't get is why your reference to Generation Z isn't 'tut ... kids today', but what I've written is taken as such.
Actually the 'kids today' was more a comment on what you were reporting Fraser/the programme said, rather than something you said - because as above I'm not clear about your own view on the OP.
Where do you stand ?
I'm interested in other people's views/experiences, hence the OP.
Where I stand is as follows;
I think there is an issue insofar as we can no longer assume a 'cultural' familiarity with the Christian faith but on the other hand:
- We are seeing ordinands in the CofE and other churches from a wider demographic than in previous generations and that's a good thing.
- Bible knowledge and theological insight can be gained. Ordinands who don't have 'cultural' Christian baggage can bring fresh perspectives.
- The Apostles didn't have theological degrees.
- 'The one who prays. They are the theologian.'
- Theology isn't 'Scholastic'. Or shouldn't be.
- There are both obstacles and opportunities.
- Christ will build his Church. The gates of Hell will not prevail against it. That doesn't mean status and privilege.
- Theology should be done out in the churches as well as in seminars.
Ok @chrisstiles but what I don't get is why your reference to Generation Z isn't 'tut ... kids today', but what I've written is taken as such.
Actually the 'kids today' was more a comment on what you were reporting Fraser/the programme said, rather than something you said - because as above I'm not clear about your own view on the OP.
Where do you stand ?
I'm interested in other people's views/experiences, hence the OP.
Where I stand is as follows;
I think there is an issue insofar as we can no longer assume a 'cultural' familiarity with the Christian faith but on the other hand:
- We are seeing ordinands in the CofE and other churches from a wider demographic than in previous generations and that's a good thing.
So in general your view is that it's a real phenomena but is broadly neutral or positive or just 'different' ?
I would broadly agree - I think the only difference might be the percentage of clergy who have a good grip on original languages, but not sure this makes a huge material difference.
You've got me thinking though, about issues around class, ideology, faith and anti-intellectualism which may percolate into a separate thread.
And yes, of course I know the difference between 'all and 'most' in the same way as I can differentiate between 'both' and 'and' ... 😉
FWIW and anecdotally, my Grandad was agnostic but respected the faith of his mother and many sisters, which was a kind of 'folk Anglicanism' which we don’t tend to see today.
I've come across it in inner city areas and among people from the Forest of Dean some 50 years back, but nowhere else.
My Grandad didn't believe in dinosaurs. He thought they were 'made-up'. He didn't believe the world was millions of years old but could accept it might be 'about a million.'
He hated anything 'high-brow' which included classical music of any kind, Shakespeare and anything that didn't appear in a 'variety show.'
My mum tuned into a performance of Handel's Messiah on the BBC 'Third Programme' when she was a young teenager. He caught her listening to it, gave her a clip around the ear and switched it off.
On the religious side of things, I think all Christian traditions can be prone to anti-intellectualism at their more fundamentalist extremities.
That applies equally to Six-Day Creationists scoffing at evolution as it does to those Orthodox who are suspicious of those priests who condemn folk-religious beliefs such as the 'evil eye' and condemn them for 'Western liberalism'.
I've just always been autistic about history and especially church history
Tangent: if your self-describing adjective is based on a diagnosis or a self-diagnosis, that's one thing. If it is a casual descriptor, could you please not? IMO to use this casually is to trivialize it.
Sorry, I thought I had talked enough about my autism that it was well-known hereabouts. I would never use "autistic" as a casual descriptor, and I apologise if it seemed like I was doing so.
Giles Fraser is a right-wing bigot - he's not anyone I would refer to as liberal, just fyi.
Could you tell me why you think he is a bigot? Not a rant, please, just a list of his beliefs of sayings that justify your view.
He's a vocal transphobe and genocide apologist.
I'm no great fan of Giles Fraser, but between you, that's three names you have called him there, not one of them substantiated in such a way as to give @RockyRoger, me or anyone else any reason to take your condemnations as remotely authoritative.
End of Tangent Alert
I thought it was quite obvious that posters were trying to avoid getting drawn into Epiphanies issues, as such topics are considered to be very much limited to Epiphanies. But also, Google is free.
It's worth noting that @RockyRoger seems to have had no issue taking such comments as authoritative.
When I was a teenager, before t'internet made it easy to find things out, someone (Margaret Thatcher IIRC) said something about the poor level of religious knowledge, giving as an example the high percentage of people who didn't know what Whitsunday was.
I had no idea what it was so asked around. My elder didn't know. My minister didn't know. Fortunately someone else knew and explained that it was another word for Pentecost.
It's left me a bit cynical about shock horror examples of limited religious knowledge. I wondered how much higher the number of people who knew the significance of Whitsunday would have been, if they'd explained that it was also known as Pentecost.
I have had three pathways to biblical literacy and church history. The first was a Primary school where we were instructed to 'read the story of Joseph' for half an hour every morning. (That took about 5 minutes and the rest of the time spent leafing through our KJVs looking for the dirty bits.)
Secondly, reading a lot of medieval eng lit which not only threw in the literal, but the allegorical and typological (which explained the pelicans and bronze serpents in stained glass windows).
And European art generally, heavily, but not exclusively Catholic - as witness the Cranach altarpieces.
I'm fairly sure children don't have compulsory Bible of a morning these days. And my familiarity with popular religious art is slight, but I suspect it's a bit low on doctrinal instruction or Biblical narrative.
So that leaves the odd film or musical as the only cultural representations?
When I was a teenager, before t'internet made it easy to find things out, someone (Margaret Thatcher IIRC) said something about the poor level of religious knowledge, giving as an example the high percentage of people who didn't know what Whitsunday was.
I had no idea what it was so asked around. My elder didn't know. My minister didn't know. Fortunately someone else knew and explained that it was another word for Pentecost.
It's left me a bit cynical about shock horror examples of limited religious knowledge. I wondered how much higher the number of people who knew the significance of Whitsunday would have been, if they'd explained that it was also known as Pentecost.
Sure, although I wouldn't necessarily expect Scottish Presbyterians to be familiar with terms like 'Whitsunday'.
I would expect them to be aware that there is only one God in Christianity and that John the Baptist didn't write the New Testament nor found Ebenezer 'Two-Locks' Baptist church in the 1860s.
I think that low general knowledge of the Bible and Christian history is a very separate issue to poor catchesis amongst ordinands/clergy and church members. I don't think that the former is necessarily a problem as long as relevant knowledge is taught in RE/History/English class etc for kids - I don't know how you'd counteract it in real life but don't see it as inherently worse than any other part of history that the general public is unaware of.
I think that poor catchesis is a problem in churches, but I don't blame people who haven't had an opportunity to learn things. I think it's an issue that should be addressed by TCPTB (the church powers that be) rather than criticising people for not knowing things that they didn't know were issues in the first place. I think the US adult Sunday School tradition would serve as a good model.
What puzzles me about prospective ordinands is, aside from the thought that some level of knowledge would be an indication of enough interest to sustain academic study, that Confirmation is still a requirement for ordination in the CofE and surely some formal catechesis is associated with that.
I thought it was quite obvious that posters were trying to avoid getting drawn into Epiphanies issues, as such topics are considered to be very much limited to Epiphanies. But also, Google is free.
It's worth noting that @RockyRoger seems to have had no issue taking such comments as authoritative.
Not authorative but pertinant and reasonable. I hadn't realised the sort of person GF had turned into. I note his 'Bigot of the Year' award in 2012. I shall nevertheless listen to his programs with interest.
As a child in Scotland,even with a Catholic background, the word 'Whitsunday' was virtually unknown.
I was always intrigued when a young girl of my age who came every year to visit her grandparents talked about coming up for 'Whit'
As far as I now know it is divided into Whitsun + day with Whitsun being derived from 'wisdom',one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
What puzzles me about prospective ordinands is, aside from the thought that some level of knowledge would be an indication of enough interest to sustain academic study, that Confirmation is still a requirement for ordination in the CofE and surely some formal catechesis is associated with that.
I had no formal catechesis as part of my confirmation preparation as an adult in 2010.
What puzzles me about prospective ordinands is, aside from the thought that some level of knowledge would be an indication of enough interest to sustain academic study, that Confirmation is still a requirement for ordination in the CofE and surely some formal catechesis is associated with that.
It's going to be a long time ago for most people, and it normally doesn't have any kind of formal test of understanding.
I think the US adult Sunday School tradition would serve as a good model.
From observation there's a lot that's laudable about them, but there are also people who bounce off them and/or an element of people filtering by personality type.
In the UK context I suspect that at one end you'd run into vicars who think it's a gross imposition and at the other end churches that wanted to outsource it all to members of their congregation (with mixed results).
As a child in Scotland,even with a Catholic background, the word 'Whitsunday' was virtually unknown.
I was always intrigued when a young girl of my age who came every year to visit her grandparents talked about coming up for 'Whit'
As far as I now know it is divided into Whitsun + day with Whitsun being derived from 'wisdom',one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
According to wikipedia, it's "White" plus "Sunday", with "Whitsun" a contraction of that phrase. A false etymology holds that it's "Wisdom" plus "Sunday".
Also wight must have some relation to white, because the Isle of Wight is named after the white chalk cliffs.
Wikipedia says that it probably comes from some Celtic word cognate with Latin vecta(*) (lever, the Roman name for the island) and English wiht (weight), possibly meaning division.
Apparently "wight" is the form you'd expect "weight" to have in modern English if not for Norse influence.
The word "white" is etymologically unrelated to "weight".
OED agrees that Whitsun is probably from the white robes worn by the newly baptised.
Also wight must have some relation to white, because the Isle of Wight is named after the white chalk cliffs.
The English words wight and white and the Isle of Wight are all unrelated words. This not surprising as the gh was pronounced back in Middle English and before, while the W and Wh were also distinct. The falling together of Wight with White in pronunciation is relatively recent.
The modern Welsh name for the island it is Ynys Wyth, and that has nothing to do with Wyth meaning Eight, either. It's direct from the ancient name.
When I was a teenager, before t'internet made it easy to find things out, someone (Margaret Thatcher IIRC) said something about the poor level of religious knowledge, giving as an example the high percentage of people who didn't know what Whitsunday was.
I had no idea what it was so asked around. My elder didn't know. My minister didn't know. Fortunately someone else knew and explained that it was another word for Pentecost.
It's left me a bit cynical about shock horror examples of limited religious knowledge. I wondered how much higher the number of people who knew the significance of Whitsunday would have been, if they'd explained that it was also known as Pentecost.
Sure, although I wouldn't necessarily expect Scottish Presbyterians to be familiar with terms like 'Whitsunday'.
Yes, but it would appear from the anecdote that Thatcher or whoever it was did expect that. Perhaps an example of treating English people, perhaps even English people of a certain class, as normative for “people,” or “British people,” in general?
I thought it was quite obvious that posters were trying to avoid getting drawn into Epiphanies issues, as such topics are considered to be very much limited to Epiphanies. But also, Google is free.
It's worth noting that @RockyRoger seems to have had no issue taking such comments as authoritative.
Not authorative but pertinant and reasonable. I hadn't realised the sort of person GF had turned into. I note his 'Bigot of the Year' award in 2012. I shall nevertheless listen to his programs with interest.
Back to the thread (please).
He actually won the Stonewall 'Hero Of The Year' in 2012. The Bigot Of The Year award went to an RC Cardinal that year.
I didn't aim to start a debate about Fraser himself. He's only mentioned in the OP because he presents the programme I've been quoting from.
Are we going to have tangents about Margaret Thatcher because she's been quoted here?
Or Martin Luther?
Or Martin Luther King?
Or anyone else who might have been name-checked in passing?
@Gamma Gamaliel often adult confirmation is treated as a mere formality, at least in my (English) Anglican experience. While confirmation is - strictly speaking - required for taking communion, many churches never check that an adult is confirmed before allowing them to take communion. I've attended many churches as a visitor and I've never even had it checked as to whether or not I'm baptised, it's just assumed that an adult communicant will be baptised and confirmed. If you become a Christian as an adult, there is much less of an emphasis on confirmation.
Giles Fraser is a right-wing bigot - he's not anyone I would refer to as liberal, just fyi.
Could you tell me why you think he is a bigot? Not a rant, please, just a list of his beliefs of sayings that justify your view.
He's a vocal transphobe and genocide apologist.
I'm no great fan of Giles Fraser, but between you, that's three names you have called him there, not one of them substantiated in such a way as to give @RockyRoger, me or anyone else any reason to take your condemnations as remotely authoritative. End of Tangent Alert
I thought it was quite obvious that posters were trying to avoid getting drawn into Epiphanies issues, as such topics are considered to be very much limited to Epiphanies. But also, Google is free.
It's worth noting that @RockyRoger seems to have had no issue taking such comments as authoritative.
@Arethosemyfeet and @Pomona And I thought it was obvious that I was not commenting on Giles Fraser nor his views nor even his personality nor anything to do with him but on people using vague generalisations as insults - of the same order as 'fascist', 'neo-con', 'libtard' or 'commie' - to write other people off.
Sorry, I'm confused. Your comment was literally commenting on Giles Fraser. Aside from the fact that words like "fascist" are not vague generalisations but have precise meanings, no term used to describe Giles Fraser was anything but simply a description of his views. It's not an insult to describe someone with right-wing views as being right-wing - but even if it was, people are allowed to insult public figures. Why do you care?
Also,
"libtard"
is an ableist slur being derived from
retard
and nobody who pointed out Fraser's lack of liberalism would use such a term.
Comments
I'm not so convinced that 'aggressive anti-intellectualism' is predominantly a middle-class thing. I've encountered it in working class communities too. There was always a strong autodidact element in some working class cultures though, for instance through the 'Stutes' (the Miners' Institutes) in the South Wales Valleys and through the WEA.
I think the climate is/was more nuanced than that and as you say, generational factors play into all of this. The working classes and middle classes are not monolithic either and there are all sorts of regional, cultural and generational variations at play.
Tangent: if your self-describing adjective is based on a diagnosis or a self-diagnosis, that's one thing. If it is a casual descriptor, could you please not? IMO to use this casually is to trivialize it.
Okay, so you've answered your own question, and it turns out you disagreed with the contention in the OP.
Now what?
There's nothing in the OP about anti-intellectualism being either a working class or middle class phenomenon.
But your comment here is not about anti-intellectualism as such, and more about the general milleu:
but if there are "regional, cultural and generational variations at play" how do you even know that the apparent trend mentioned in the OP exists? Maybe it's one of these 'kids these days' phenomena
I'm no great fan of Giles Fraser, but between you, that's three names you have called him there, not one of them substantiated in such a way as to give @RockyRoger, me or anyone else any reason to take your condemnations as remotely authoritative.
End of Tangent Alert
Going back to the OP, I heard the programme while I was driving across country yesterday. What shocks me about that revelation is not the basic ignorance. The levels of ignorance that some regular churchgoers in the CofE manage to achieve is staggering. No, it is that any diocese or any diocesan director of ordinands should have sent anyone that ignorant to a selection conference without having required them to have attended any sort of courses on basic Christianity first, and that any selection conference should have recommended them for training.
I do not deny that the nature of the Trinity is a mystery in both the casual dictionary and the theological senses. Nevertheless, if a person lacks even enough curiosity to try to find out what the Nicene and Apostles creeds that they recite might be talking about, then without further and thorough investigation that would strongly suggest to me that they lacked qualities requisite and necessary for the exercise of any sort of ministry.
Left the Roman Catholic Church but I hold that the creed is still a decent doctrinal basis. Even my current evangelical church doesn’t object to it. YMMV
"Protestants! And fiercely proud of it!" - the irony being wife didn't even know she was a Protestant until a few seconds earlier, much less that she was proud of the identity.
I did the Protestant/Prostitute novice joke a few weeks ago didn't I?
Is that the one that begins with a nun
If so, I didn't personally see it here on the Ship, but remember it from a dirty-joke collection in the 1980s.
I was interrogating the 'apparent trend' in the OP and asking Shipmates' views on whether they thought there was a trend/issue or not.
You raised the Gen Z factor which I agreed with.
You then made a sweeping statement without any supporting evidence that anti-intellectualism is more prominent in certain social groups than others.
I suggested that it isn't as simple as that and that there are a range of factors in play.
How does that undermine the question in the OP?
Not quite but it's the same basic joke.
Anyway, enough of this or our off topic levity will attract hostly wrath.
As a charevo I do recall feeling it was sort of that way. All this tongues speaking and prophecying and having words and pictures - it seemed to have been forgotten for hundreds of years until the Holy Spirit decided to crank the signs and wonders franchise back into life - tbh this was one of the things that disposed me to start wondering if the whole thing was possibly overstated.
Sometimes, gaps in knowledge of traditions can be helpful. I remember when The Da Vinci Code came out and was all the rage, I had a read of it, not knowing beforehand quite how bad it was.
But the bit that got me in a rage was the suggestion that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. I grew up in a sola scriptura church (though it was never phrased as that). And because the notion that she was a woman of ill repute was a tradition invented by some pope (I forget which one) and isn't in the bible, the idea was completely alien to me, as it had never been taught in church.
It riled me even more than the use of 'symbology' in place of 'semiotics'.
Back on topic, I think a reasonable understanding of Church history is a good thing for a church leader to have, but I would hesitate to making that a barrier to entry into ministry. It's not as though the 12 apostles were the most academic of people. Faithfulness is, in my view, slightly more important than knowing the difference between Docetism and Valentianism.
Okay, but what do *you* think (without resorting to joking).
Really .. I'm having difficult extracting agreement from:
" I think the climate is/was more nuanced than that and as you say, generational factors play into all of this. The working classes and middle classes are not monolithic either and there are all sorts of regional, cultural and generational variations at play. "
I don't think it's particularly sweeping to suggest a tendency -- if I'd said that it was only manifest in the middle classes it would have been sweeping. Happy to provide references if you want. You could do worse than this column by the late Ed Rooksby:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/britishness-and-anti-intellectualism/
That would be a problem if I was bothered about what you do or don't take seriously. Google is there if you wish to make your own judgement.
I never studied Latin (and my one and only language, French, is also my lowest GCSE grade). I know bits and pieces from general reading, but I'm not convinced that's classist except in so far as normalisation of reading is a class signifier (is it?) Perhaps expecting to be able to use Latin phrases in conversation without having the piss taken out of you is the class signifier here.
In fairness, the made-for-TV Jesus of Nazareth, written by the lapsed but culturally Catholic Anthony Burgess and directed by the devout Catholic Franco Zeffirelli, and endorsed by none other than Paul VI, also portrayed Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. Apparently, it WAS controversial, for initially omitting the Resurrection(added before final release), but not much so for MM's profession.
Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ went Burgess and Zeffirelli one better, portraying MM not only as a sex worker but also conflating her with the woman caught in adultery, but, like Jesus of Nazareth, was controversial for unrelated reasons.
The only conclusion I can reach is that a sweeping generalisation isn't one when you make one but it is when you think other people are making them.
In other words, I don’t accept your kickback on my comments.
And yes, I did agree with you on the Gen Z thing but if my doing so is 'tut ... kids today ...' then why don't your comments fall into that category and mine apparently do?
Sorry, but your challenge makes little sense I'm afraid.
Actually the 'kids today' was more a comment on what you were reporting Fraser/the programme said, rather than something you said - because as above I'm not clear about your own view on the OP.
Where do you stand ?
But not all Conservatives arr middle-class. My maternal grandfather had impeccable working class credentials. One of twelve. Two up, two down. Shared earth privy with the neighbours. He wore one of his sister's cast off clothes until he started school and then was given 'pauper's clothes' on the parish.
Yet he voted Tory all his life - apart from one occasion when he voted for a Communist candidate in a local election because he worked with him and knew him to be a decent bloke.
He was convinced I was a Communist when I was 18 and used to express his concerns to my mother.
I'm interested in other people's views/experiences, hence the OP.
Where I stand is as follows;
I think there is an issue insofar as we can no longer assume a 'cultural' familiarity with the Christian faith but on the other hand:
- We are seeing ordinands in the CofE and other churches from a wider demographic than in previous generations and that's a good thing.
- Bible knowledge and theological insight can be gained. Ordinands who don't have 'cultural' Christian baggage can bring fresh perspectives.
- The Apostles didn't have theological degrees.
- 'The one who prays. They are the theologian.'
- Theology isn't 'Scholastic'. Or shouldn't be.
- There are both obstacles and opportunities.
- Christ will build his Church. The gates of Hell will not prevail against it. That doesn't mean status and privilege.
- Theology should be done out in the churches as well as in seminars.
Hope that answers your question.
You do accept there's a difference between 'all' and 'most', don't you ?
So in general your view is that it's a real phenomena but is broadly neutral or positive or just 'different' ?
I would broadly agree - I think the only difference might be the percentage of clergy who have a good grip on original languages, but not sure this makes a huge material difference.
You've got me thinking though, about issues around class, ideology, faith and anti-intellectualism which may percolate into a separate thread.
And yes, of course I know the difference between 'all and 'most' in the same way as I can differentiate between 'both' and 'and' ... 😉
FWIW and anecdotally, my Grandad was agnostic but respected the faith of his mother and many sisters, which was a kind of 'folk Anglicanism' which we don’t tend to see today.
I've come across it in inner city areas and among people from the Forest of Dean some 50 years back, but nowhere else.
My Grandad didn't believe in dinosaurs. He thought they were 'made-up'. He didn't believe the world was millions of years old but could accept it might be 'about a million.'
He hated anything 'high-brow' which included classical music of any kind, Shakespeare and anything that didn't appear in a 'variety show.'
My mum tuned into a performance of Handel's Messiah on the BBC 'Third Programme' when she was a young teenager. He caught her listening to it, gave her a clip around the ear and switched it off.
On the religious side of things, I think all Christian traditions can be prone to anti-intellectualism at their more fundamentalist extremities.
That applies equally to Six-Day Creationists scoffing at evolution as it does to those Orthodox who are suspicious of those priests who condemn folk-religious beliefs such as the 'evil eye' and condemn them for 'Western liberalism'.
Sorry, I thought I had talked enough about my autism that it was well-known hereabouts. I would never use "autistic" as a casual descriptor, and I apologise if it seemed like I was doing so.
I thought it was quite obvious that posters were trying to avoid getting drawn into Epiphanies issues, as such topics are considered to be very much limited to Epiphanies. But also, Google is free.
It's worth noting that @RockyRoger seems to have had no issue taking such comments as authoritative.
I had no idea what it was so asked around. My elder didn't know. My minister didn't know. Fortunately someone else knew and explained that it was another word for Pentecost.
It's left me a bit cynical about shock horror examples of limited religious knowledge. I wondered how much higher the number of people who knew the significance of Whitsunday would have been, if they'd explained that it was also known as Pentecost.
Secondly, reading a lot of medieval eng lit which not only threw in the literal, but the allegorical and typological (which explained the pelicans and bronze serpents in stained glass windows).
And European art generally, heavily, but not exclusively Catholic - as witness the Cranach altarpieces.
I'm fairly sure children don't have compulsory Bible of a morning these days. And my familiarity with popular religious art is slight, but I suspect it's a bit low on doctrinal instruction or Biblical narrative.
So that leaves the odd film or musical as the only cultural representations?
Sure, although I wouldn't necessarily expect Scottish Presbyterians to be familiar with terms like 'Whitsunday'.
I would expect them to be aware that there is only one God in Christianity and that John the Baptist didn't write the New Testament nor found Ebenezer 'Two-Locks' Baptist church in the 1860s.
I think that poor catchesis is a problem in churches, but I don't blame people who haven't had an opportunity to learn things. I think it's an issue that should be addressed by TCPTB (the church powers that be) rather than criticising people for not knowing things that they didn't know were issues in the first place. I think the US adult Sunday School tradition would serve as a good model.
Not authorative but pertinant and reasonable. I hadn't realised the sort of person GF had turned into. I note his 'Bigot of the Year' award in 2012. I shall nevertheless listen to his programs with interest.
Back to the thread (please).
I was always intrigued when a young girl of my age who came every year to visit her grandparents talked about coming up for 'Whit'
As far as I now know it is divided into Whitsun + day with Whitsun being derived from 'wisdom',one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
I had no formal catechesis as part of my confirmation preparation as an adult in 2010.
It's going to be a long time ago for most people, and it normally doesn't have any kind of formal test of understanding.
From observation there's a lot that's laudable about them, but there are also people who bounce off them and/or an element of people filtering by personality type.
In the UK context I suspect that at one end you'd run into vicars who think it's a gross imposition and at the other end churches that wanted to outsource it all to members of their congregation (with mixed results).
According to wikipedia, it's "White" plus "Sunday", with "Whitsun" a contraction of that phrase. A false etymology holds that it's "Wisdom" plus "Sunday".
Apparently "wight" is the form you'd expect "weight" to have in modern English if not for Norse influence.
The word "white" is etymologically unrelated to "weight".
OED agrees that Whitsun is probably from the white robes worn by the newly baptised.
(*) which would be pronounced "wecta".
The English words wight and white and the Isle of Wight are all unrelated words. This not surprising as the gh was pronounced back in Middle English and before, while the W and Wh were also distinct. The falling together of Wight with White in pronunciation is relatively recent.
The modern Welsh name for the island it is Ynys Wyth, and that has nothing to do with Wyth meaning Eight, either. It's direct from the ancient name.
I know Leicester has a modern Welsh name, which always puzzles me. As far as I am aware no other East Midlands cities do.
And yes, 'Wyth' does sound like something derived from the ancient name and its Latin cognate.
Back to the OP ...
I can be sarky at times but I'm not 'blaming' people for not knowing things.
If anything I think it's the responsibility of the clergy / ministers / leaders to ensure at least a basic general grasp of knowledge about the faith.
I'm surprised to hear there isn't always a catechetical element in Anglican confirmations. I always thought there was.
Catechesis is pretty hit and miss in my own circles but there are honourable exceptions.
He actually won the Stonewall 'Hero Of The Year' in 2012. The Bigot Of The Year award went to an RC Cardinal that year.
I didn't aim to start a debate about Fraser himself. He's only mentioned in the OP because he presents the programme I've been quoting from.
Are we going to have tangents about Margaret Thatcher because she's been quoted here?
Or Martin Luther?
Or Martin Luther King?
Or anyone else who might have been name-checked in passing?
Also,
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host