Hello! I'm a Christian theologian. I'm 'liberal', in that I believe that secular liberalism is a good thing, and that authentic church should clearly affirm it, and therefore reject establishment, Christendom. Also, I think that church should clearly reject moral legalism, including on homosexuality. On the other hand, I reject the liberal Christian tradition that wants to identify faith with rational humanism. The proper business of church is Jesus Christ-communication, in which 'worship' merges with 'art' and 'theatre'. Liberals must develop a new sacramentalism. My church allegiance has been blurry since I decided I couldn't stomach the Church of England. For some years I advocated 'post-ecclesial' Christianity, in which anarchic public festivity replaces institutional worship, but I guess that was unrealistic. Now that I'm living in Brooklyn, New York, my interest in, and involvement in, Anglicanism, seems to be rekindling.
 NEW NEW! Mobile 347 388 1472
Email theohobson@googlemail.com |
Feb 1 My latest praise for Episcopalianism: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jan/28/american-anglicans-liberal-christianity Jan 26 I have a piece at Open Democracy, on Obama and the US's religious liberal crisis: http://www.opendemocracy.net/theo-hobson/religious-crisis-of-american-liberalism Jan 7 See my mixed feelings about the Brooklyn hipster church Revolution NYC: http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/6576433/andx2018jesus-hung-out-with-freaksandx2019.thtml Jan 1 2011 I have written an article for the Episcopal New Yorker, on my eccentric Anglican position: the Communion is retarded by its established centre. Here the final paragraph: "In a sense I agree with those who say that Anglicanism needs more
definition. Let it begin with the fundamental question of its attitude to political
liberalism. For perhaps the most important question for a church is whether it
seeks political power on the old Christendom model, or renounces the
possibility of such power, by fully affirming the secular liberal ideal. A
united approach to this issue would require the mother-church to reject its
imperial history and finally adapt to political liberalism. The American church
should respond to calls for a Covenant by putting church-state relations on the
table. It should say: ‘OK, if we are at last defining common norms, to be
followed by all provinces, why should sexuality eclipse all else? Let us begin
by agreeing that establishment belongs to a past historical era, that it is now
a hindrance to the gospel.’ Canterbury would be given pause for thought, and a
more fruitful debate about Anglican identity would ensue. That is my modest
proposal for how Anglicanism may be rescued from its imperial history."
I've also contributed a new year thought to Opendemocracy.net about the Episcopal Church's need to assert its liberal vision this year: http://www.opendemocracy.net/david-hayes/2011-outlook-ideas-and-agency See many of my thoughts on the Guardian belief site, including on my reasons for rejecting the English approach to religion. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief I've been interviewed by Reform magazine - here
Here's my Guardian website article, on me and my tattoo:
See this new video clip of me trying not to waffle on the subject of faith-
 My new book is called Faith.
The idea of the book is to look at the spillage of faith into modern thought - and it's also a sort of apologetics. Because faith is a personal thing, it has an autobiographical section about how the Christian myth got under my skin.
'Faith displays Hobson's characteristic qualities of forceful argument and conversational elegance.'
Diarmaid MacCulloch
See my latest Guardian website piece about Paul and Judaism - and Giles Fraser.
It's a tricky area of course, but one has to be able to say that Christianity originates in a rejection of Jewish legalism. Otherwise one puts PCness before the Gospel.
Also see my piece on the dead nun's bones.
It is a summary of my eccentric sacramental yearnings. Protestantism has always been sacramentally ill.
|