Prayer Places

I'm a great admirer of the work of Tom Hunter whose beautiful photographs I first met through his Living in Hell series.  Re-discovering him this week I've found his Prayer Places works - in the light of current conversations about the nature of church such as my previous posting, I think these are worth contemplating in the light of Magdalene Keaney's commentary:

[Tom Hunter's photographs] also make me think about what a church is. How do they exist outside ritual, once a congregation, the community that defines and activates them, have left? Or perhaps they are not empty after all.

What is your Religion?

Discussion over the question in the 2011 Census: 'What is your Religion?', with arguments that this is a leading question which actively encourages people to tick a religious answer, have reminded me of this piece of dialogue regarding market research methods from the TV comedy Yes (Prime) Minister:

Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."
Bernard Woolley: "How?"
Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
Bernard Woolley: "Yes"
Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."

There are more serious questions at stake - does a leading question lead to artifically inflated numbers of religious people in the UK, in turn create an unfair bias towards religous groups in the allocation of public services?  I suspect humanists and fundamentalists* alike might welcome a rooting out of 'true' as opposed to 'nominal' religous believers.

Whilst 'What would Jesus do?' is one of my own least favourite questions, closely followed by 'What would Jesus think?' I'm left wondering how this concern over religious identity squares with someone whose recorded teaching seems to resist the identification of following his teaching with membership of a religious organisation.  Jesus' teaching in the Gospels only explicitly mentions 'church' twice (Matthew 16:18; 18:15) and on both occasions what seems to be in mind is a much looser 'meeting' or 'congregation' of similarly commited people than a monolithic institution. 

*I'm using this word very precisely.