157 – Education for this Life

Editorial: Education for This Life

The theme of this year’s Sea of Faith annual conference, Education for this Life, celebrated the growing educational work of the SOF network through the Solarity online materials for Religion and Philosophy Clubs and through being a key partner of the Big Ideas for Religious Education project. For this issue of Sofia the conference speakers have provided us with a fantastic set of associated papers. Denise Cush, Dave Francis, Philippa Hulme and Micheal Reiss get us started, showing how the Big Ideas approach to curriculum planning works to support progressive learning in Science and Religion & Worldviews education. As an example, they describe how the centenary of the Scopes Monkey Trial in 2025 was used to motivate discussion of Big Ideas in both science and religion. Louisa Smith then explores curiosity: what it is, what it looks like and why it is so important, particularly in the current climate and preparing our children for life in the 21st century.

The next two papers address AI (artificial intelligence) in religion, worldviews and education. Beth Singler explores Identities, AI, Religion and Hope, and introduces us to such as ‘Father Justin’ the Catholic chatbot (a creation of Large Language Model AI) who recommended baptising babies in Gatorade before he was ‘defrocked’. Rupert Wegerif asks whether AI can help us to restore the power of meaning in education, through a return to a dialogic pedagogy. In Beth’s binary of AI ‘Boomers’ and ‘Doomers’, we heard more of the boom (optimism) from Rupert and some of the doom (pessimism) from Beth.

Continuing the theme for the year of Resisting, Martin Spence gives us his second paper on Dietrich Bonhoeffer in which he explores Bonhoeffer’s theology. James Priestman asks what we can learn from the stories of Amos for today, and David Lambourn gives us the third part of his exploration of Mark as Gospel of Resistance – and warns us that in contrast to Mark, Matthew might have misunderstood his sources and led the historic church in entirely the wrong direction.

For the Religion in my Life interview, we have another campaigner known to me personally: Lynda Gilbert, a member of the Milton Keynes Reform Synagogue. I hope by now you will be starting to share my admiration for the people of the new city of Milton Keynes!

Dave reports on a survey of members in his Worldviews Navigator, and we meet some of you in our regular Meet the Members feature. In both the letters and James’s poetic responses, there are members questioning the anger that has appeared in Sofia since I became editor. This has given me pause for thought and it would be good to hear what you think. For example, do anger and resistance go together? Or maybe anger is itself to be resisted.

The December issue will continue the theme of resisting and may be angry. Whether you are OK with that and want to contribute to it, or disagree and want to offer something different, please send your contributions to:

• poetry@sofn.uk
• editor@sofn.uk

The copy deadline for Sofia 158, December 2025 will be the 1st November 2025.

Meet the members

Letters to the Editor

Email your letter to: editor@sofn.uk, or put in the post to:  2 Holywell Place, Springfield, Milton Keynes, MK6 3LP

The elephant in the room

I’m not sure that I like the new angry and confrontational tone creeping into Sofia. Even some leftist contempt for the Enlightenment! I guess it’s in keeping with the times. The May issue was largely concerned with our moral responsibilities, rather than Bible exegesis, and sometimes rather abstract. The anger came mostly from those who had themselves suffered, and I find my own repressed anger returning, but what remains of my rational mind says: this is all very well, but what practical steps can we take?

When it comes to the situation in Gaza (so much part of our Christian heritage, one of a number of horrific killing fields) it’s quickly apparent that any resolution or progress will be determined by realpolitik. In Britain the key is the arms trade, a murky world where our defence is bound up with our exports and with Russian and Chinese and several other threats and with access to raw materials and Trumpian bargaining and economies of scale – and a nice risk of escalation into nuclear war. After 80 years no end in sight. Here it’s not enough to say, in effect, be true to yourself.

But I wonder again: how will we be judged by future generations? Can our main threat to existence be paused till the Sea of Faith and the rest of the populace gets round to it? Terrible to say but, if we are spared nuclear catastrophe, not even the deadliest of our intraspecies wars will have the impact of climate change and loss of biodiversity. Along with David Attenborough and the King, I’m turning into a bore when I bring up the one overwhelming crisis facing mankind, far more dangerous even than the world wars of the last century, than any pandemic. And here, conversations with neighbours and opinion polls tell me that, at best, we do the minimum; generalising, we agree our western lifestyles are a wee bit naughty and, after some tut-tutting, we endorse a few token gestures. We daren’t think seriously about our giant carbon footprints.

There is one slim chance for us. If, collectively, at national level, we came to work towards the same goal. We can’t rely on the government, whose overall strategy is probably non-existent, certainly bewildering, nor on its opponents in parliament. Assuming that human beings remain in charge, there’s a common interest in getting technocrats, conservationists and private venture capitalists together with the politicians, who are still mostly well-intentioned, with scientists and engineers and leaders of industry and trade unionists and religious leaders and journalists, even with influencers and celebrities and subgroups of the hoi-polloi – that’s us. Striving to find common ground. Something of the sort has happened before; for instance, when sane countries stood together against Hitler.

Cupitt wanted us to accept individual responsibility for our actions. And we can’t even talk seriously about the elephant in the room.
Digby Hartridge, Yate, near Bristol

Resistance has many manifestations

Mark’s gospel tells us about the resistance of Jews to Roman occupation. Not only are Hamas resisting the occupation of Gaza, but Israelis are resisting annihilation by an international network of Islamic fundamentalists. Rather than fanning the flames of this conflict, genuine humanitarians could do well to look for ways to help civilians to escape it.

When women and children were evacuated from Ukraine, no one protested about “Nakba”. Why do Palestinian children need to be held as bait in the trap?
Paul Graham, Birmingham

No mission statement is one of SoF’s strengths

Whilst I agree with almost everything said by Dave Francis and David Boulton I am not convinced that their arguments justify their conclusions and on one point I must take serious issue with David Boulton. I consider Wensleydale cheese to be perhaps the most convincing evidence we have of the existence a benevolent, omnipotent deity that is concerned about the welfare and happiness of humanity.

At a SOF conference some years ago there was a board with seven boxes marked on it. Box 1 was labelled “I believe in God” and box 7 “I do not believe in God”. Box 4 was “Don’t know” with boxes 2, 3, 5 and 6 indicating appropriate intermediate positions on the spectrum. Participants were invited to pick up a sticky red dot and place it in the box which best described their position. I was just behind Stephen Mitchell. Some in SoF will not be surprised to learn that he picked up two red dots and placed one in box 1 and one in box 7. I was so impressed that I did likewise. Sometimes two diametrically opposed statements can both be true. In this case much depends on what you think is meant by the words ‘believe‘ and ‘god’.

Perhaps a similar board at the next conference, focussing on ‘religion as a human creation’ might be informative. I could easily emulate Stephen and put dots in several boxes simply because I am not sure what is meant by the words ‘human creation.’ Do they mean a consciously thought out and explicitly enunciated proposition from one or several individuals or, at the other end of the spectrum, some part of the human mind which innately and without conscious consideration generates, or just accepts, ideas such as the unconditional preciousness of other humans and the obligation to treat others as you would wish to be treated by them. On this consideration alone it is probably not possible to have a mission statement that all members would agree to.

Yes we all, to some extent, promote what we believe to be true and important and one of the most endearing features of SoF is that we are all free to do that. I have no objection to Dave Francis’s explanation of what SoF is about though I would say something significantly different. Every member of SoF is an anarchist but an anarchist who respects, though not necessarily agrees with, the views of the other 218 SoF anarchists.

Many SoF members are refugees from the church. Some want something different to the church whilst others want something in addition to what they get from the church. As church attendance diminishes the population of potential recruits to SoF diminishes. If SoF is to prosper in the way Dave Frances envisages it needs more than a new mantra. It would have to become a different organisation and find a different recruiting territory. Whilst that might be desirable, given SoF’s age demographic, it seems unlikely to happen.

SoF is a place where we ask and discuss questions about life and religion. In this context the words are interchangeable. Religion, however you might define it, has always had a heavy emphasis on reflecting on the human condition. And as Pantelimon Hora, the now famous mentor of Raimond Gaita, once said “Nothing is more important than talking about how to live one’s life”.

SoF does not provide answers. It may help some individuals to find their own answers; it may just help others to become comfortable with the uncertainty of the absence of answers. Some questions have no answer or many answers, some diametric opposites. Aviation has bred a number of people with an inclination to mysticism like Antoine de St Exupery and Ernest Ghan. William Langewiesche in his book Inside the Sky, quotes JB Jackson: “The asking of questions is more important than the finding of answers. It means that, like the air traveller, we have acquired a new, and valuable, perspective on the world.”

An organization that “talks” rather than “does” clearly has its limitations but it does allow SoF to be inclusive. It can then leave the doing and promoting to individuals who will each do it in their own way, which, in practice, is what has happened. Thus, before we start haggling about the wording of our mission statement we might ask the question ‘Do we need a mission statement?’ Perhaps no mission statement is one of SoF’s strengths.

At a meeting in Brisbane someone asked Don if he believed in god. Of the many answers he, or any other member of SoF, might have given his reply was: “That is not a relevant question in my paradigm.” Do you think he would have considered a mission statement for SoF of greater relevance?
Peter Bore, Hornsea, Yorkshire

Worldviews for this Life: Refreshing the Network

I’m not sure that changing the ‘tag line’ statement of purpose of the network changes anything. Religion, as we know, is itself a humanly created worldview. I agree with Don Cupitt; all knowledge is secondary. Likewise, no one is in a position to say whether there is or is not any afterlife. We don’t know how we got here and know nothing about our exit. I do agree that the Network needs refreshing.

One area which has interested me for a long time, one which has not been adequately dealt with by the Network, is the understanding of God as Love – the life-giving force within each one of us; what you might call the panentheistic outlook. Clearly, we are not here into an area of knowledge but into the experience of life itself. Panentheism is about God living in Creation and not external to it where He remains unreachable. Panentheism is relational and not individualistic; natural not supernatural. That does not mean that individuals don’t have to make personal decisions (Don’s comment: “The individual stands absolutely alone – he must decide”). For Christians, it means a radically new approach; instead of beliefs and dogma, Christianity is to be seen as an activity.

May I recommend Ilia Delio’s books; she is a creative thinker on the dialogue between religion and science. Also, the latest book by Richard Rohr, The Tears of Things (SPCK) is very instructive. Ilia and Richard are both Franciscans. Seeing Spirit as foundational and matter as a part of, but subservient to, Spirit provides a new and exciting area of debate and avoids the metaphysics/divine intervention trap.

Best wishes and lots of energy to the New Steering Group from a longstanding Member of The Sea of Faith.
Grenville C. Gilbert, Ottery St Mary, Devon