Podcasts about anglo catholic

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

Anne Elizabeth Hollinghurst (born 4 March 1964) is a Church of England bishop currently serving as Principal of The Queen's Foundation, Edgbaston. She previously served as Bishop of Aston, the suffragan bishop in the Diocese of Birmingham, from September 2015 until September 2024.Early lifeHollinghurst was born on 4 March 1964 to William and Audrey Bailey.[1] She was educated at Range High School, a coeducational secondary school and sixth form in Formby, Merseyside.[2]Her childhood faith was nurtured in the Church of England in the Anglo-Catholic tradition,[3] at St Peter's Church, Formby.[4] Her early ministry was as a youth worker in suburban Sussex at Holy Trinity Cuckfield and then in inner-city Nottingham at St Stephen's Hyson Green with St Leodegarius Basford.[3][5] She entered Trinity College, Bristol, an Open Evangelical Anglican theological college, to train for ordained ministry and graduated from the University of Bristol with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) Theology degree in 1996.[6]

Frances Wilson has written biographies of Dorothy Wordsworth, Thomas De Quincey, D.H. Lawrence, and, most recently, Muriel Spark. I thought Electric Spark was excellent. In my review, I wrote: “Wilson has done far more than string the facts together. She has created a strange and vivid portrait of one of the most curious of twentieth century novelists.” In this interview, we covered questions like why Thomas De Quincey is more widely read, why D.H. Lawrence's best books aren't his novels, Frances's conversion to spookiness, what she thinks about a whole range of modern biographers, literature and parasocial relationships, Elizabeth Bowen, George Meredith, and plenty about Muriel Spark.Here are two brief extracts. There is a full transcript below.Henry: De Quincey and Lawrence were the people you wrote about before Muriel Spark, and even though they seem like three very different people, but in their own way, they're all a little bit mad, aren't they?Frances: Yes, that is, I think, something that they have in common. It's something that I'm drawn to. I like writing about difficult people. I don't think I could write about anyone who wasn't difficult. I like difficult people in general. I like the fact that they pose a puzzle and they're hard to crack, and that their difficulty is laid out in their work and as a code. I like tackling really, really stubborn personalities as well. Yes, they were all a bit mad. The madness was what fuelled their journeys without doubt.Henry: This must make it very hard as a biographer. Is there always a code to be cracked, or are you sometimes dealing with someone who is slippery and protean and uncrackable?And.Henry: People listening will be able to tell that Spark is a very spooky person in several different ways. She had what I suppose we would call spiritual beliefs to do with ghosts and other sorts of things. You had a sort of conversion of your own while writing this book, didn't you?Frances: Yes, I did. [laughs] Every time I write a biography, I become very, very, very immersed in who I'm writing about. I learned this from Richard Holmes, who I see as a method biographer. He Footsteps his subjects. He becomes his subjects. I think I recognized when I first read Holmes's Coleridge, when I was a student, that this was how I also wanted to live. I wanted to live inside the minds of the people that I wrote about, because it was very preferable to live inside my own mind. Why not live inside the mind of someone really, really exciting, one with genius?What I felt with Spark wasn't so much that I was immersed by-- I wasn't immersed by her. I felt actually possessed by her. I think this is the Spark effect. I think a lot of her friends felt like this. I think that her lovers possibly felt like this. There is an extraordinary force to her character, which absolutely lives on, even though she's dead, but only recently dead. The conversion I felt, I think, was that I have always been a very enlightenment thinker, very rational, very scientific, very Freudian in my approach to-- I will acknowledge the unconscious but no more.By the time I finished with Spark, I'm pure woo-woo now.TranscriptHenry: Today, I am talking to Frances Wilson. Frances is a biographer. Her latest book, Electric Spark, is a biography of the novelist Muriel Spark, but she has also written about Dorothy Wordsworth, Thomas De Quincey, DH Lawrence and others. Frances, welcome.Frances Wilson: Thank you so much for having me on.Henry: Why don't more people read Thomas De Quincey's work?Frances: [laughs] Oh, God. We're going right into the deep end.[laughter]Frances: I think because there's too much of it. When I chose to write about Thomas De Quincey, I just followed one thread in his writing because Thomas De Quincey was an addict. One of the things he was addicted to was writing. He wrote far, far, far too much. He was a professional hack. He was a transcendental hack, if you like, because all of his writing he did while on opium, which made the sentences too long and too high and very, very hard to read.When I wrote about him, I just followed his interest in murder. He was fascinated by murder as a fine art. The title of one of his best essays is On Murder as One of the Fine Arts. I was also interested in his relationship with Wordsworth. I twinned those together, which meant cutting out about 97% of the rest of his work. I think people do read his Confessions of an English Opium-Eater. I think that's a cult text. It was the memoir, if you want to call it a memoir, that kick-started the whole pharmaceutical memoir business on drugs.It was also the first addict's memoir and the first recovery memoir, and I'd say also the first misery memoir. He's very much at the root of English literary culture. We're all De Quincey-an without knowing it, is my argument.Henry: Oh, no, I fully agree. That's what surprises me, that they don't read him more often.Frances: I know it's a shame, isn't it? Of all the Romantic Circle, he's the one who's the most exciting to read. Also, Lamb is wonderfully exciting to read as well, but Lamb's a tiny little bit more grounded than De Quincey, who was literally not grounded. He's floating in an opium haze above you.[laughter]Henry: What I liked about your book was the way you emphasized the book addiction, not just the opium addiction. It is shocking the way he piled up chests full of books and notebooks, and couldn't get into the room because there were too many books in there. He was [crosstalk].Frances: Yes. He had this in common with Muriel Spark. He was a hoarder, but in a much more chaotic way than Spark, because, as you say, he piled up rooms with papers and books until he couldn't get into the room, and so just rented another room. He was someone who had no money at all. The no money he had went on paying rent for rooms, storing what we would be giving to Oxfam, or putting in the recycling bin. Then he'd forget that he was paying rent on all these rooms filled with his mountains of paper. The man was chaos.Henry: What is D.H. Lawrence's best book?Frances: Oh, my argument about Lawrence is that we've gone very badly wrong in our reading of him, in seeing him primarily as a novelist and only secondarily as an essayist and critic and short story writer, and poet. This is because of F.R. Leavis writing that celebration of him called D.H. Lawrence: Novelist, because novels are not the best of Lawrence. I think the best of his novels is absolutely, without doubt, Sons and Lovers. I think we should put the novels in the margins and put in the centre, the poems, travel writing.Absolutely at the centre of the centre should be his studies in classic American literature. His criticism was- We still haven't come to terms with it. It was so good. We haven't heard all of Lawrence's various voices yet. When Lawrence was writing, contemporaries didn't think of Lawrence as a novelist at all. It was anyone's guess what he was going to come out with next. Sometimes it was a novel [laughs] and it was usually a rant about-- sometimes it was a prophecy. Posterity has not treated Lawrence well in any way, but I think where we've been most savage to him is in marginalizing his best writing.Henry: The short fiction is truly extraordinary.Frances: Isn't it?Henry: I always thought Lawrence was someone I didn't want to read, and then I read the short fiction, and I was just obsessed.Frances: It's because in the short fiction, he doesn't have time to go wrong. I think brevity was his perfect length. Give him too much space, and you know he's going to get on his soapbox and start ranting, start mansplaining. He was a terrible mansplainer. Mansplaining his versions of what had gone wrong in the world. It is like a drunk at the end of a too-long dinner party, and you really want to just bundle him out. Give him only a tiny bit of space, and he comes out with the perfection that is his writing.Henry: De Quincey and Lawrence were the people you wrote about before Muriel Spark, and even though they seem like three very different people, but in their own way, they're all a little bit mad, aren't they?Frances: Yes, that is, I think, something that they have in common. It's something that I'm drawn to. I like writing about difficult people. I don't think I could write about anyone who wasn't difficult. I like difficult people in general. I like the fact that they pose a puzzle and they're hard to crack, and that their difficulty is laid out in their work and as a code. I like tackling really, really stubborn personalities as well. Yes, they were all a bit mad. The madness was what fuelled their journeys without doubt.Henry: This must make it very hard as a biographer. Is there always a code to be cracked, or are you sometimes dealing with someone who is slippery and protean and uncrackable?Frances: I think that the way I approach biography is that there is a code to crack, but I'm not necessarily concerned with whether I crack it or not. I think it's just recognizing that there's a hell of a lot going on in the writing and that, in certain cases and not in every case at all, the best way of exploring the psyche of the writer and the complexity of the life is through the writing, which is a argument for psycho biography, which isn't something I necessarily would argue for, because it can be very, very crude.I think with the writers I choose, there is no option. Muriel Spark argued for this as well. She said in her own work as a biographer, which was really very, very strong. She was a biographer before she became a novelist. She thought hard about biography and absolutely in advance of anyone else who thought about biography, she said, "Of course, the only way we can approach the minds of writers is through their work, and the writer's life is encoded in the concerns of their work."When I was writing about Muriel Spark, I followed, as much as I could, to the letter, her own theories of biography, believing that that was part of the code that she left. She said very, very strong and very definitive things about what biography was about and how to write a biography. I tried to follow those rules.Henry: Can we play a little game where I say the names of some biographers and you tell me what you think of them?Frances: Oh my goodness. Okay.Henry: We're not trying to get you into trouble. We just want some quick opinions. A.N. Wilson.Frances: I think he's wonderful as a biographer. I think he's unzipped and he's enthusiastic and he's unpredictable and he's often off the rails. I think his Goethe biography-- Have you read the Goethe biography?Henry: Yes, I thought that was great.Frances: It's just great, isn't it? It's so exciting. I like the way that when he writes about someone, it's almost as if he's memorized the whole of their work.Henry: Yes.Frances: You don't imagine him sitting at a desk piled with books and having to score through his marginalia. It sits in his head, and he just pours it down on a page. I'm always excited by an A.N. Wilson biography. He is one of the few biographers who I would read regardless of who the subject was.Henry: Yes.Frances: I just want to read him.Henry: He does have good range.Frances: He absolutely does have good range.Henry: Selina Hastings.Frances: I was thinking about Selina Hastings this morning, funnily enough, because I had been talking to people over the weekend about her Sybil Bedford biography and why that hadn't lifted. She wrote a very excitingly good life of Nancy Mitford and then a very unexcitingly not good life of Sybil Bedford. I was interested in why the Sybil Bedford simply hadn't worked. I met people this weekend who were saying the same thing, that she was a very good biographer who had just failed [laughs] to give us anything about Sybil Bedford.I think what went wrong in that biography was that she just could not give us her opinions. It's as if she just withdrew from her subject as if she was writing a Wikipedia entry. There were no opinions at all. What the friends I was talking to said was that she just fell out with her subject during the book. That's what happened. She stopped being interested in her. She fell out with her and therefore couldn't be bothered. That's what went wrong.Henry: Interesting. I think her Evelyn Waugh biography is superb.Frances: Yes, I absolutely agree. She was on fire until this last one.Henry: That's one of the best books on Waugh, I think.Frances: Yes.Henry: Absolutely magical.Frances: I also remember, it's a very rare thing, of reading a review of it by Hilary Mantel saying that she had not read a biography that had been as good, ever, as Selina Hastings' on Evelyn Waugh. My goodness, that's high praise, isn't it?Henry: Yes, it is. It is. I'm always trying to push that book on people. Richard Holmes.Frances: He's my favourite. He's the reason that I'm a biographer at all. I think his Coleridge, especially the first volume of the two-volume Coleridge, is one of the great books. It left me breathless when I read it. It was devastating. I also think that his Johnson and Savage book is one of the great books. I love Footsteps as well, his account of the books he didn't write in Footsteps. I think he has a strange magic. When Muriel Spark talked about certain writers and critics having a sixth literary sense, which meant that they tuned into language and thought in a way that the rest of us don't, I think that Richard Holmes does have that. I think he absolutely has it in relation to Coleridge. I'm longing for his Tennyson to come out.Henry: Oh, I know. I know.Frances: Oh, I just can't wait. I'm holding off on reading Tennyson until I've got Holmes to help me read him. Yes, he is quite extraordinary.Henry: I would have given my finger to write the Johnson and Savage book.Frances: Yes, I know. I agree. How often do you return to it?Henry: Oh, all the time. All the time.Frances: Me too.Henry: Michael Holroyd.Frances: Oh, that's interesting, Michael Holroyd, because I think he's one of the great unreads. I think he's in this strange position of being known as a greatest living biographer, but nobody's read him on Augustus John. [laughs] I haven't read his biographies cover to cover because they're too long and it's not in my subject area, but I do look in them, and they're novelistic in their wit and complexity. His sentences are very, very, very entertaining, and there's a lot of freight in each paragraph. I hope that he keeps selling.I love his essays as well, and also, I think that he has been a wonderful ambassador for biography. He's very, very supportive of younger biographers, which not every biographer is, but I know he's been very supportive of younger biographers and is incredibly approachable.Henry: Let's do a few Muriel Spark questions. Why was the Book of Job so important to Muriel Spark?Frances: I think she liked it because it was rogue, because it was the only book of the Bible that wasn't based on any evidence, it wasn't based on any truth. It was a fictional book, and she liked fiction sitting in the middle of fact. That was one of her main things, as all Spark lovers know. She liked the fact that there was this work of pure imagination and extraordinarily powerful imagination sitting in the middle of the Old Testament, and also, she thought it was an absolutely magnificent poem.She saw herself primarily as a poet, and she responded to it as a poem, which, of course, it is. Also, she liked God in it. She described Him as the Incredible Hulk [laughs] and she liked His boastfulness. She enjoyed, as I do, difficult personalities, and she liked the fact that God had such an incredibly difficult personality. She liked the fact that God boasted and boasted and boasted, "I made this and I made that," to Job, but also I think she liked the fact that you hear God's voice.She was much more interested in voices than she was in faces. The fact that God's voice comes out of the burning bush, I think it was an image for her of early radio, this voice speaking, and she liked the fact that what the voice said was tricksy and touchy and impossibly arrogant. He gives Moses all these instructions to lead the Israelites, and Moses says, "But who shall I say sent me? Who are you?" He says, "I am who I am." [laughs] She thought that was completely wonderful. She quotes that all the time about herself. She says, "I know it's a bit large quoting God, but I am who I am." [laughs]Henry: That disembodied voice is very important to her fiction.Frances: Yes.Henry: It's the telephone in Memento Mori.Frances: Yes.Henry: Also, to some extent, tell me what you think of this, the narrator often acts like that.Frances: Like this disembodied voice?Henry: Yes, like you're supposed to feel like you're not quite sure who's telling you this or where you're being told it from. That's why it gets, like in The Ballad of Peckham Rye or something, very weird.Frances: Yes. I'm waiting for the PhD on Muriel Sparks' narrators. Maybe it's being done as we speak, but she's very, very interested in narrators and the difference between first-person and third-person. She was very keen on not having warm narrators, to put it mildly. She makes a strong argument throughout her work for the absence of the seductive narrative. Her narratives are, as we know, unbelievably seductive, but not because we are being flattered as readers and not because the narrator makes herself or himself pretty. The narrator says what they feel like saying, withholds most of what you would like them to say, plays with us, like in a Spark expression, describing her ideal narrator like a cat with a bird [laughs].Henry: I like that. Could she have been a novelist if she had not become a Catholic?Frances: No, she couldn't. The two things happened at the same time. I wonder, actually, whether she became a Catholic in order to become a novelist. It wasn't that becoming a novelist was an accidental effect of being a Catholic. The conversion was, I think, from being a biographer to a novelist rather than from being an Anglican to a Catholic. What happened is a tremendous interest. I think it's the most interesting moment in any life that I've ever written about is the moment of Sparks' conversion because it did break her life in two.She converted when she was in her mid-30s, and several things happened at once. She converted to Catholicism, she became a Catholic, she became a novelist, but she also had this breakdown. The breakdown was very much part of that conversion package. The breakdown was brought on, she says, by taking Dexys. There was slimming pills, amphetamines. She wanted to lose weight. She put on weight very easily, and her weight went up and down throughout her life.She wanted to take these diet pills, but I think she was also taking the pills because she needed to do all-nighters, because she never, ever, ever stopped working. She was addicted to writing, but also she was impoverished and she had to sell her work, and she worked all night. She was in a rush to get her writing done because she'd wasted so much of her life in her early 20s, in a bad marriage trapped in Africa. She needed to buy herself time. She was on these pills, which have terrible side effects, one of which is hallucinations.I think there were other reasons for her breakdown as well. She was very, very sensitive and I think psychologically fragile. Her mother lived in a state of mental fragility, too. She had a crash when she finished her book. She became depressed. Of course, a breakdown isn't the same as depression, but what happened to her in her breakdown was a paranoid attack rather than a breakdown. She didn't crack into nothing and then have to rebuild herself. She just became very paranoid. That paranoia was always there.Again, it's what's exciting about her writing. She was drawn to paranoia in other writers. She liked Cardinal Newman's paranoia. She liked Charlotte Brontë's paranoia, and she had paranoia. During her paranoid attack, she felt very, very interestingly, because nothing that happened in her life was not interesting, that T.S. Eliot was sending her coded messages. He was encoding these messages in his play, The Confidential Clerk, in the program notes to the play, but also in the blurbs he wrote for Faber and Faber, where he was an editor. These messages were very malign and they were encoded in anagrams.The word lived, for example, became devil. I wonder whether one of the things that happened during her breakdown wasn't that she discovered God, but that she met the devil. I don't think that that's unusual as a conversion experience. In fact, the only conversion experience she ever describes, you'll remember, is in The Girls of Slender Means, when she's describing Nicholas Farrington's conversion. That's the only conversion experience she ever describes. She says that his conversion is when he sees one of the girls leaving the burning building, holding a Schiaparelli dress. Suddenly, he's converted because he's seen a vision of evil.She says, "Conversion can be as a result of a recognition of evil, rather than a recognition of good." I think that what might have happened in this big cocktail of things that happened to her during her breakdown/conversion, is that a writer whom she had idolized, T.S. Eliot, who taught her everything that she needed to know about the impersonality of art. Her narrative coldness comes from Eliot, who thought that emotions had no place in art because they were messy, and art should be clean.I think a writer whom she had idolized, she suddenly felt was her enemy because she was converting from his church, because he was an Anglo-Catholic. He was a high Anglican, and she was leaving Anglo-Catholicism to go through the Rubicon, to cross the Rubicon into Catholicism. She felt very strongly that that is something he would not have approved of.Henry: She's also leaving poetry to become a prose writer.Frances: She was leaving his world of poetry. That's absolutely right.Henry: This is a very curious parallel because the same thing exactly happens to De Quincey with his worship of Wordsworth.Frances: You're right.Henry: They have the same obsessive mania. Then this, as you say, not quite a breakdown, but a kind of explosive mania in the break. De Quincey goes out and destroys that mossy hut or whatever it is in the orchard, doesn't he?Frances: Yes, that disgusting hut in the orchard. Yes, you're completely right. What fascinated me about De Quincey, and this was at the heart of the De Quincey book, was how he had been guided his whole life by Wordsworth. He discovered Wordsworth as a boy when he read We Are Seven, that very creepy poem about a little girl sitting on her sibling's grave, describing the sibling as still alive. For De Quincey, who had lost his very adored sister, he felt that Wordsworth had seen into his soul and that Wordsworth was his mentor and his lodestar.He worshipped Wordsworth as someone who understood him and stalked Wordsworth, pursued and stalked him. When he met him, what he discovered was a man without any redeeming qualities at all. He thought he was a dry monster, but it didn't stop him loving the work. In fact, he loved the work more and more. What threw De Quincey completely was that there was such a difference between Wordsworth, the man who had no genius, and Wordsworth, the poet who had nothing but.Eliot described it, the difference between the man who suffers and the mind which creates. What De Quincey was trying to deal with was the fact that he adulated the work, but was absolutely appalled by the man. Yes, you're right, this same experience happened to spark when she began to feel that T.S. Eliot, whom she had never met, was a malign person, but the work was still not only of immense importance to her, but the work had formed her.Henry: You see the Wasteland all over her own work and the shared Dante obsession.Frances: Yes.Henry: It's remarkably strong. She got to the point of thinking that T.S. Eliot was breaking into her house.Frances: Yes. As I said, she had this paranoid imagination, but also what fired her imagination and what repeated itself again and again in the imaginative scenarios that recur in her fiction and nonfiction is the idea of the intruder. It was the image of someone rifling around in cupboards, drawers, looking at manuscripts. This image, you first find it in a piece she wrote about finding herself completely coincidentally, staying the night during the war in the poet Louis MacNeice's house. She didn't know it was Louis MacNeice's house, but he was a poet who was very, very important to her.Spark's coming back from visiting her parents in Edinburgh in 1944. She gets talking to an au pair on the train. By the time they pull into Houston, there's an air raid, and the au pair says, "Come and spend the night at mine. My employers are away and they live nearby in St. John's Wood." Spark goes to this house and sees it's packed with books and papers, and she's fascinated by the quality of the material she finds there.She looks in all the books. She goes into the attic, and she looks at all the papers, and she asks the au pair whose house it is, and the au pair said, "Oh, he's a professor called Professor Louis MacNeice." Spark had just been reading Whitney. He's one of her favourite poets. She retells this story four times in four different forms, as non-fiction, as fiction, as a broadcast, as reflections, but the image that keeps coming back, what she can't get rid of, is the idea of herself as snooping around in this poet's study.She describes herself, in one of the versions, as trying to draw from his papers his power as a writer. She says she sniffs his pens, she puts her hands over his papers, telling herself, "I must become a writer. I must become a writer." Then she makes this weird anonymous phone call. She loved the phone because it was the most strange form of electrical device. She makes a weird anonymous phone call to an agent, saying, "I'm ringing from Louis MacNeice's house, would you like to see my manuscript?" She doesn't give her name, and the agent says yes.Now I don't believe this phone call took place. I think it's part of Sparks' imagination. This idea of someone snooping around in someone else's room was very, very powerful to her. Then she transposed it in her paranoid attack about T.S. Eliot. She transposed the image that Eliot was now in her house, but not going through her papers, but going through her food cupboards. [laughs] In her food cupboards, all she actually had was baked beans because she was a terrible cook. Part of her unwellness at that point was malnutrition. No, she thought that T.S. Eliot was spying on her. She was obsessed with spies. Spies, snoopers, blackmailers.Henry: T.S. Eliot is Stealing My Baked Beans would have been a very good title for a memoir.Frances: It actually would, wouldn't it?Henry: Yes, it'd be great.[laughter]Henry: People listening will be able to tell that Spark is a very spooky person in several different ways. She had what I suppose we would call spiritual beliefs to do with ghosts and other sorts of things. You had a sort of conversion of your own while writing this book, didn't you?Frances: Yes, I did. [laughs] Every time I write a biography, I become very, very, very immersed in who I'm writing about. I learned this from Richard Holmes, who I see as a method biographer. He Footsteps his subjects. He becomes his subjects. I think I recognized when I first read Holmes's Coleridge, when I was a student, that this was how I also wanted to live. I wanted to live inside the minds of the people that I wrote about, because it was very preferable to live inside my own mind. Why not live inside the mind of someone really, really exciting, one with genius?What I felt with Spark wasn't so much that I was immersed by-- I wasn't immersed by her. I felt actually possessed by her. I think this is the Spark effect. I think a lot of her friends felt like this. I think that her lovers possibly felt like this. There is an extraordinary force to her character, which absolutely lives on, even though she's dead, but only recently dead. The conversion I felt, I think, was that I have always been a very enlightenment thinker, very rational, very scientific, very Freudian in my approach to-- I will acknowledge the unconscious but no more.By the time I finished with Spark, I'm pure woo-woo now. Anything can happen. This is one of the reasons Spark was attracted to Catholicism because anything can happen, because it legitimizes the supernatural. I felt so strongly that the supernatural experiences that Spark had were real, that what Spark was describing as the spookiness of our own life were things that actually happened.One of the things I found very, very unsettling about her was that everything that happened to her, she had written about first. She didn't describe her experiences in retrospect. She described them as in foresight. For example, her first single authored published book, because she wrote for a while in collaboration with her lover, Derek Stanford, but her first single authored book was a biography of Mary Shelley.Henry: Great book.Frances: An absolutely wonderful book, which really should be better than any of the other Mary Shelley biographies. She completely got to Mary Shelley. Everything she described in Mary Shelley's life would then happen to Spark. For example, she described Mary Shelley as having her love letters sold. Her lover sold Mary Shelley's love letters, and Mary Shelley was then blackmailed by the person who bought them. This happened to Spark. She described Mary Shelley's closest friends all becoming incredibly jealous of her literary talent. This happened to Spark. She described trusting people who betrayed her. This happened to Spark.Spark was the first person to write about Frankenstein seriously, to treat Frankenstein as a masterpiece rather than as a one-off weird novel that is actually just the screenplay for a Hammer Horror film. This was 1951, remember. Everything she described in Frankenstein as its power is a hybrid text, described the powerful hybrid text that she would later write about. What fascinated her in Frankenstein was the relationship between the creator and the monster, and which one was the monster. This is exactly the story of her own life. I think where she is. She was really interested in art monsters and in the fact that the only powerful writers out there, the only writers who make a dent, are monsters.If you're not a monster, you're just not competing. I think Spark has always spoken about as having a monster-like quality. She says at the end of one of her short stories, Bang-bang You're Dead, "Am I an intellectual woman, or am I a monster?" It's the question that is frequently asked of Spark. I think she worked so hard to monsterize herself. Again, she learnt this from Elliot. She learnt her coldness from Elliot. She learnt indifference from Elliot. There's a very good letter where she's writing to a friend, Shirley Hazzard, in New York.It's after she discovers that her lover, Derek Stanford, has sold her love letters, 70 love letters, which describe two very, very painfully raw, very tender love letters. She describes to Shirley Hazzard this terrible betrayal. She says, "But, I'm over it. I'm over it now. Now I'm just going to be indifferent." She's telling herself to just be indifferent about this. You watch her tutoring herself into the indifference that she needed in order to become the artist that she knew she was.Henry: Is this why she's attracted to mediocrities, because she can possess them and monsterize them, and they're good feeding for her artistic programme?Frances: Her attraction to mediocrities is completely baffling, and it makes writing her biography, a comedy, because the men she was surrounded by were so speck-like. Saw themselves as so important, but were, in fact, so speck-like that you have to laugh, and it was one after another after another. I'd never come across, in my life, so many men I'd never heard of. This was the literary world that she was surrounded by. It's odd, I don't know whether, at the time, she knew how mediocre these mediocrities were.She certainly recognised it in her novels where they're all put together into one corporate personality called the pisseur de copie in A Far Cry from Kensington, where every single literary mediocrity is in that critic who she describes as pissing and vomiting out copy. With Derek Stanford, who was obviously no one's ever heard of now, because he wrote nothing that was memorable, he was her partner from the end of the 40s until-- They ceased their sexual relationship when she started to be interested in becoming a Catholic in 1953, but she was devoted to him up until 1958. She seemed to be completely incapable of recognising that she had the genius and he had none.Her letters to him deferred to him, all the time, as having literary powers that she hadn't got, as having insights that she hadn't got, he's better read than she was. She was such an amazingly good critic. Why could she not see when she looked at his baggy, bad prose that it wasn't good enough? She rated him so highly. When she was co-authoring books with him, which was how she started her literary career, they would occasionally write alternative sentences. Some of her sentences are always absolutely-- they're sharp, lean, sparkling, and witty, and his are way too long and really baggy and they don't say anything. Obviously, you can see that she's irritated by it.She still doesn't say, "Look, I'm going now." It was only when she became a novelist that she said, "I want my mind to myself." She puts, "I want my mind to myself." She didn't want to be in a double act with him. Doubles were important to her. She didn't want to be in a double act with him anymore. He obviously had bought into her adulation of him and hadn't recognised that she had this terrifying power as a writer. It was now his turn to have the breakdown. Spark had the mental breakdown in 1950, '45. When her first novel came out in 1957, it was Stanford who had the breakdown because he couldn't take on board who she was as a novelist.What he didn't know about her as a novelist was her comic sense, how that would fuel the fiction, but also, he didn't recognize because he reviewed her books badly. He didn't recognise that the woman who had been so tender, vulnerable, and loving with him could be this novelist who had nothing to say about tenderness or love. In his reviews, he says, "Why are her characters so cold?" because he thought that she should be writing from the core of her as a human being rather than the core of her as an intellect.Henry: What are her best novels?Frances: Every one I read, I think this has to be the best.[laughter]This is particularly the case in the early novels, where I'm dazzled by The Comforters and think there cannot have been a better first novel of the 20th century or even the 21st century so far. The Comforters. Then read Robinson, her second novel, and think, "Oh God, no, that is her best novel. Then Memento Mori, I think, "Actually, that must be the best novel of the 20th century." [laughs] Then you move on to The Ballad of Peckham Rye, I think, "No, that's even better."The novels landed. It's one of the strange things about her; it took her so long to become a novelist. When she had become one, the novels just landed. Once in one year, two novels landed. In 1959, she had, it was The Bachelors and The Ballad of Peckham Rye, both just completely extraordinary. The novels had been the storing up, and then they just fell on the page. They're different, but samey. They're samey in as much as they're very, very, very clever. They're clever about Catholicism, and they have the same narrative wit. My God, do the plots work in different ways. She was wonderful at plots. She was a great plotter. She liked plots in both senses of the world.She liked the idea of plotting against someone, also laying a plot. She was, at the same time, absolutely horrified by being caught inside someone's plot. That's what The Comforters is about, a young writer called Caroline Rose, who has a breakdown, it's a dramatisation of Sparks' own breakdown, who has a breakdown, and believes that she is caught inside someone else's story. She is a typewriter repeating all of her thoughts. Typewriter and a chorus repeating all of her thoughts.What people say about The Comforters is that Caroline Rose thought she is a heroine of a novel who finds herself trapped in a novel. Actually, if you read what Caroline Rose says in the novel, she doesn't think she's trapped in a novel; she thinks she's trapped in a biography. "There is a typewriter typing the story of our lives," she says to her boyfriend. "Of our lives." Muriel Sparks' first book was about being trapped in a biography, which is, of course, what she brought on herself when she decided to trap herself in a biography. [laughs]Henry: I think I would vote for Loitering with Intent, The Girls of Slender Means as my favourites. I can see that Memento Mori is a good book, but I don't love it, actually.Frances: Really? Interesting. Okay. I completely agree with you about-- I think Loitering with Intent is my overall favourite. Don't you find every time you read it, it's a different book? There are about 12 books I've discovered so far in that book. She loved books inside books, but every time I read it, I think, "Oh my God, it's changed shape again. It's a shape-shifting novel."Henry: We all now need the Frances Wilson essay about the 12 books inside Loitering with Intent.Frances: I know.[laughter]Henry: A few more general questions to close. Did Thomas De Quincey waste his talents?Frances: I wouldn't have said so. I think that's because every single day of his life, he was on opium.Henry: I think the argument is a combination of too much opium and also too much magazine work and not enough "real serious" philosophy, big poems, whatever.Frances: I think the best of his work went into Blackwood's, so the magazine work. When he was taken on by Blackwood's, the razor-sharp Edinburgh magazine, then the best of his work took place. I think that had he only written the murder essays, that would have been enough for me, On Murder as a Fine Art.That was enough. I don't need any more of De Quincey. I think Confessions of an English Opium-Eater is also enough in as much as it's the great memoir of addiction. We don't need any more memoirs of addiction, just read that. It's not just a memoir of being addicted to opium. It's about being addicted to what's what. It's about being a super fan and addicted to writing. He was addicted to everything. If he was in AA now, they'd say, apparently, there are 12 addictions, he had all of them. [laughs]Henry: Yes. People talk a lot about parasocial relationships online, where you read someone online or you follow them, and you have this strange idea in your head that you know them in some way, even though they're just this disembodied online person. You sometimes see people say, "Oh, we should understand this more." I think, "Well, read the history of literature, parasocial relationships everywhere."Frances: That's completely true. I hadn't heard that term before. The history of literature, a parasocial relationship. That's your next book.Henry: There we go. I think what I want from De Quincey is more about Shakespeare, because I think the Macbeth essay is superb.Frances: Absolutely brilliant. On Knocking at the Gate in Macbeth.Henry: Yes, and then you think, "Wait, where's the rest of this book? There should be an essay about every play."Frances: That's an absolutely brilliant example of microhistory, isn't it? Just taking a moment in a play, just the knocking at the gate, the morning after the murders, and blowing that moment up, so it becomes the whole play. Oh, my God, it's good. You're right.Henry: It's so good. What is, I think, "important about it", is that in the 20th century, critics started saying or scholars started saying a lot, "We can't just look at the words on the page. We've got to think about the dramaturgy. We've got to really, really think about how it plays out." De Quincey was an absolute master of that. It's really brilliant.Frances: Yes.Henry: What's your favourite modern novel or novelist?Frances: Oh, Hilary Mantel, without doubt, I think. I think we were lucky enough to live alongside a great, great, great novelist. I think the Wolf Hall trilogy is absolutely the greatest piece of narrative fiction that's come out of the 21st century. I also love her. I love her work as an essayist. I love her. She's spooky like Spark. She was inspired.Henry: Yes, she is. Yes.Frances: She learnt a lot of her cunning from Spark, I think. She's written a very spooky memoir. In fact, the only women novelists who acknowledge Spark as their influencer are Ali Smith and Hilary Mantel, although you can see Spark in William Boyd all the time. I think we're pretty lucky to live alongside William Boyd as well. Looking for real, real greatness, I think there's no one to compare with Mantel. Do you agree?Henry: I don't like the third volume of the trilogy.Frances: Okay. Right.Henry: Yes, in general, I do agree. Yes. I think some people don't like historical fiction for a variety of reasons. It may take some time for her to get it. I think she's acknowledged as being really good. I don't know that she's yet acknowledged at the level that you're saying.Frances: Yes.Henry: I think that will take a little bit longer. Maybe as and when there's a biography that will help with that, which I'm sure there will be a biography.Frances: I think they need to wait. I do think it's important to wait for a reputation to settle before starting the biography. Her biography will be very interesting because she married the same man twice. Her growth as a novelist was so extraordinary. Spark, she spent time in Africa. She had this terrible, terrible illness. She knew something. I think what I love about Mantel is, as with Spark, she knew something. She knew something, and she didn't quite know what it was that she knew. She had to write because of this knowledge. When you read her, you know that she's on a different level of understanding.Henry: You specialise in slightly neglected figures of English literature. Who else among the canonical writers deserves a bit more attention?Frances: Oh, that's interesting. I love minor characters. I think Spark was very witty about describing herself as a minor novelist or a writer of minor novels when she was evidently major. She always saw the comedy in being a minor. All the minor writers interest me. Elizabeth Bowen, Henry Green. No, they have heard Elizabeth Bowen has been treated well by Hermione Lee and Henry Green has been treated well by Jeremy Treglown.Why are they not up there yet? They're so much better than most of their contemporaries. I am mystified and fascinated by why it is that the most powerful writers tend to be kicked into the long grass. It's dazzling. When you read a Henry Green novel, you think, "But this is what it's all about. He's understood everything about what the novel can do. Why has no one heard of him?"Henry: I think Elizabeth Bowen's problem is that she's so concise, dense, and well-structured, and everything really plays its part in the pattern of the whole that it's not breezy reading.Frances: No, it's absolutely not.Henry: I think that probably holds her back in some way, even though when I have pushed it on people, most of the time they've said, "Gosh, she's a genius."Frances: Yes.Henry: It's not an easy genius. Whereas Dickens, the pages sort of fly along, something like that.Frances: Yes. One of the really interesting things about Spark is that she really, really is easy reading. At the same time, there's so much freight in those books. There's so much intellectual weight and so many games being played. There's so many books inside the books. Yet you can just read them for the pleasure. You can just read them for the plot. You can read one in an afternoon and think that you've been lost inside a book for 10 years. You don't get that from Elizabeth Bowen. That's true. The novels, you feel the weight, don't you?Henry: Yes.Frances: She's Jamesian. She's more Jamesian, I think, than Spark is.Henry: Something like A World of Love, it requires quite a lot of you.Frances: Yes, it does. Yes, it's not bedtime reading.Henry: No, exactly.Frances: Sitting up in a library.Henry: Yes. Now, you mentioned James. You're a Henry James expert.Frances: I did my PhD on Henry James.Henry: Yes. Will you ever write about him?Frances: I have, actually. Just a little plug. I've just done a selection of James's short stories, three volumes, which are coming out, I think, later this year for Riverrun with a separate introduction for each volume. I think that's all the writing I'm going to do on James. When I was an academic, I did some academic essays on him for collections and things. No, I've never felt, ever, ready to write on James because he's too complicated. I can only take tiny, tiny bits of James and home in on them.Henry: He's a great one for trying to crack the code.Frances: He really is. In fact, I was struck all the way through writing Electric Spark by James's understanding of the comedy of biography, which is described in the figure in the carpet. Remember that wonderful story where there's a writer called Verica who explains to a young critic that none of the critics have understood what his work's about. Everything that's written about him, it's fine, but it's absolutely missed his main point, his beautiful point. He said that in order to understand what the work's about, you have to look for The Figure in the Carpet. It's The Figure in the CarpetIt's the string on which my pearls are strung. A couple of critics become completely obsessed with looking for this Figure in the Carpet. Of course, Spark loved James's short stories. You feel James's short stories playing inside her own short stories. I think that one of the games she left for her biographers was the idea of The Figure in the Carpet. Go on, find it then. Find it. [laughs] The string on which my pearls are strung.Henry: Why did you leave academia? We should say that you did this before it became the thing that everyone's doing.Frances: Is everyone leaving now?Henry: A lot of people are leaving now.Frances: Oh, I didn't know. I was ahead of the curve. I left 20 years ago because I wasn't able to write the books I wanted to write. I left when I'd written two books as an academic. My first was Literary Seductions, and my second was a biography of a blackmailing courtesan called Harriet Wilson, and the book was called The Courtesan's Revenge. My department was sniffy about the books because they were published by Faber and not by OUP, and suggested that somehow I was lowering the tone of the department.This is what things were like 20 years ago. Then I got a contract to write The Ballad of Dorothy Wordsworth, my third book, again with Faber. I didn't want to write the book with my head of department in the back of my mind saying, "Make this into an academic tome and put footnotes in." I decided then that I would leave, and I left very suddenly. Now, I said I'm leaving sort of now, and I've got books to write, and felt completely liberated. Then for The Ballad of Dorothy Wordsworth, I decided not to have footnotes. It's the only book I've ever written without footnotes, simply as a celebration of no longer being in academia.Then the things I loved about being in academia, I loved teaching, and I loved being immersed in literature, but I really couldn't be around colleagues and couldn't be around the ridiculous rules of what was seen as okay. In fact, the university I left, then asked me to come back on a 0.5 basis when they realised that it was now fashionable to have someone who was a trade author. They asked me to come back, which I did not want to do. I wanted to spend days where I didn't see people rather than days where I had to talk to colleagues all the time. I think that academia is very unhappy. The department I was in was incredibly unhappy.Since then, I took up a job very briefly in another English department where I taught creative writing part-time. That was also incredibly unhappy. I don't know whether other French departments or engineering departments are happier places than English departments, but English departments are the most unhappy places I think I've ever seen.[laughter]Henry: What do you admire about the work of George Meredith?Frances: Oh, I love George Meredith. [laughs] Yes. I think Modern Love, his first novel, Modern Love, in a strange sonnet form, where it's not 14 lines, but 16 lines. By the time you get to the bottom two lines, the novel, the sonnet has become hysterical. Modern Love hasn't been properly recognised. It's an account of the breakdown of his marriage. His wife, who was the daughter of the romantic, minor novelist, Thomas Love Peacock. His wife had an affair with the artist who painted the famous Death of Chatterton. Meredith was the model for Chatterton, the dead poet in his purple silks, with his hand falling on the ground. There's a lot of mythology around Meredith.I think, as with Elizabeth Bowen and Henry Green, he's difficult. He's difficult. The other week, I tried to reread Diana of the Crossways, which was a really important novel, and I still love it. I really recognise that it's not an easy read. He doesn't try, in any way, to seduce his readers. They absolutely have to crawl inside each book to sit inside his mind and see the world as he's seeing it.Henry: Can you tell us what you will do next?Frances: At the moment, I'm testing some ideas out. I feel, at the end of every biography, you need a writer. You need to cleanse your palate. Otherwise, there's a danger of writing the same book again. I need this time, I think, to write about, to move century and move genders. I want to go back, I think, to the 19th century. I want to write about a male writer for a moment, and possibly not a novelist as well, because after being immersed in Muriel Sparks' novels, no other novel is going to seem good enough. I'm testing 19th-century men who didn't write novels, and it will probably be a minor character.Henry: Whatever it is, I look forward to reading it. Frances Wilson, thank you very much.Frances: Thank you so much, Henry. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk/subscribe

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

In this interview, Lamorna Ash, author of Don't Forget We're Here Forever: A New Generation's Search for Religion, and one of my favourite modern writers, talked about working at the Times Literary Supplement, netball, M. John Harrison, AI and the future of religion, why we should be suspicious of therapy, the Anatomy of Melancholy, the future of writing, what surprised her in the Bible, the Simpsons, the joy of Reddit, the new Pope, Harold Bloom, New Atheism's mistakes, reading J.S. Mill. I have already recommended her new book Don't Forget We're Here Forever, which Lamorna reads aloud from at the end. Full transcript below.Uploading videos onto Substack is too complicated for me (it affects podcast downloads somehow, and the instructions to avoid this problem are complicated, so I have stopped doing it), and to upload to YouTube I have to verify my account but they told me that after I tried to upload it and my phone is dead, so… here is the video embedded on this page. I could quote the whole thing. Here's one good section.Lamorna: Which one would you say I should do first after The Sea, The Sea?Henry: Maybe The Black Prince.Lamorna: The Black Prince. Great.Henry: Which is the one she wrote before The Sea, The Sea and is just a massive masterpiece.Lamorna: I'll read it. Where do you stand on therapy? Do you have a position?Henry: I think on net, it might be a bad thing, even if it is individually useful for people.Lamorna: Why is that?Henry: [laughs] I didn't expect to have to answer the question. Basically two reasons. I think it doesn't take enough account of the moral aspect of the decisions being made very often. This is all very anecdotal and you can find yourself feeling better in the short term, but not necessarily in the long-- If you make a decision that's not outrageously immoral, but which has not had enough weight placed on the moral considerations.There was an article about how lots of people cut out relatives now and the role that therapy plays in that. What I was struck by in the article that was-- Obviously, a lot of those people are justified and their relatives have been abusive or nasty, of course, but there are a lot of cases where you were like, "Well, this is a long-term decision that's been made on a short-term basis." I think in 10 years people may feel very differently. There wasn't enough consideration in the article, at least I felt, given to how any children involved would be affected later on. I think it's a good thing and a bad thing.Lamorna: I'm so with you. I think that's why, because also the fact of it being so private and it being about the individual, and I think, again, there are certain things if you're really struggling with that, it's helpful for, but I think I'm always more into the idea of communal things, like AAA and NA, which obviously a very particular. Something about doing that together, that it's collaborative and therefore there is someone else in the room if you say, "I want to cut out my parent."There's someone else who said that happened to me and it was really hard. It means that you are making those decisions together a little bit more. Therapy, I can feel that in friends and stuff that it does make us, even more, think that we are these bounded individuals when we're not.Henry: I should say, I have known people who've gone to therapy and it's worked really well.Lamorna: I'm doing therapy right now and it is good. TranscriptHenry: Today I am talking to Lamorna Ash. Lamorna is one of the rising stars of her generation. She has written a book about a fishing village in Cornwall. She's written columns for the New Statesman, of which I'm a great admirer. She works for a publisher and now she's written a book called, Don't Forget, We're Here Forever: A New Generation's Search for Religion. I found this book really compelling and I hope you will go and read it right now. Lamorna, welcome.Lamorna Ash: Thank you for having me.Henry: What was it like when you worked at the Times Literary Supplement?Lamorna: It was an amazing introduction to mostly contemporary fiction, but also so many other forms of writing I didn't know about. I went there, I actually wrote a letter, handwritten letter after my finals, saying that I'd really enjoyed this particular piece that somehow linked the anatomy of melancholy to infinite jest, and being deeply, deeply, deeply pretentious, those were my two favorite books. I thought, well, I'll apply for this magazine. I turned up there as an intern. They happened to have a space going.My job was Christmas in that I just spent my entire time unwrapping books and putting them out for editors to swoop by and take away. I'd take on people's corrections. I'd start to see how the editorial process worked. I started reading. I somehow had missed contemporary fiction. I hadn't read people like Rachel Kask or Nausgaard. I was reading them through going to the fiction pages. It made me very excited. Also, my other job whilst I was there, was I had the queries email. You'd get loads of incredibly random emails, including things like, you are cordially invited to go on the Joseph Conrad cycle tour of London. I'd ask the office, "Does anyone want to do this?" Obviously, no one ever said yes.I had this amazing year of doing really weird stuff, like going on Joseph Conrad cycling tour or going to a big talk at the comic book museum or the new advertising museum of London. I loved it. I really loved it.Henry: What was the Joseph Conrad cycling tour of London like? That sounds-Lamorna: Oh, it was so good. I remember at one point we stopped on maybe it was Blackfriars Bridge or perhaps it was Tower Bridge and just read a passage from the secret agent about the boats passing underneath. Then we'd go to parts of the docks where they believe that Conrad stayed for a while, but instead it would be some fancy youth hostel instead.It was run by the Polish Society of London, I believe-- the Polish Society of England, I believe. Again, each time it was like an excuse then to get into that writer and then write a little piece about it for the TLS. I guess, it was also, I was slightly cutting my teeth on how to do that kind of journalism as well.Henry: What do you like about The Anatomy of Melancholy?Lamorna: Almost everything. I think the prologue, Democritus Junior to the Reader is just so much fun and naughty. He says, "I'm writing about melancholy in order to try and avoid melancholy myself." There's six editions of it. He spent basically his entire life writing this book. When he made new additions to the book, rather than adding another chapter, he would often be making insertions within sentences themselves, so it becomes more and more bloated. There's something about the, what's the word for it, the ambition that I find so remarkable of every single possible version of melancholy they could talk about.Then, maybe my favorite bit, and I think about this as a writer a lot, is there's a bit called the digression of air, or perhaps it's digression on the air, where he just suddenly takes the reader soaring upwards to think about air and you sort of travel up like a hawk. It's this sort of breathing moment for a reader where you go in a slightly different direction. I think in my own writing, I always think about digression as this really valuable bit of nonfiction, this sense of, I'm not just taking you straight the way along. I think it'd be useful to go sideways a bit too.Henry: That was Samuel Johnson's favorite book as well. It's a good choice.Lamorna: Was it?Henry: Yes. He said that it was the only book that would get him out of bed in the morning.Lamorna: Really?Henry: Because he was obviously quite depressive. I think he found it useful as well as entertaining, as it were. Should netball be an Olympic sport?Lamorna: [laughs] Oh, it's already going to be my favorite interview. I think the reason it isn't an Olympic-- yes, I have a vested interest in netball and I play netball once a week. I'm not very good, but I am very enthusiastic because it's only played mostly in the Commonwealth. It was invented a year after basketball as a woman-friendly version because women should not run with the ball in case they get overexerted and we shouldn't get too close to contacting each other in case we touch, and that's awful.It really is only played in the Commonwealth. I think the reason it won't become an Olympic sport is because it's not worldwide enough, which I think is a reasonable reason. I'm not, of all the my big things that I want to protest about and care about right now, making that an Olympic sport is a-- it's reasonably low on my list.Henry: Okay, fair enough. You are an admirer of M. John Harrison's fiction, is that right?Lamorna: Yes.Henry: Tell us what should we read and why should we read him?Lamorna: You Should Come With Me Now, is that what it's called? I know I reviewed one of his books years ago and thought it was-- because he's part of that weird sci-fi group that I find really interesting and they've all got a bit of Samuel Delany to them as well. I just remember there was this one particular story in that collection, I think in general, he's a master at sci-fi that doesn't feel in that Dune way of just like, lists of names of places. It somehow has this, it's very literary, it's very odd, it's deeply imaginative. It is like what I wanted adult fiction to be when I was 12 or something, that there's the way the fantasy and imagination works.I remember there was one about all these men, married men who were disappearing into their attics and their wives thought they were just tinkering. What they were doing was building these sort of translucent tubes that were taking them off out of the world. I remember just thinking it was great. His conceits are brilliant and make so much sense, whilst also always being at an interesting slant from reality. Then, I haven't read his memoir, but I hear again and again this anti-memoir he's written. Have you read that?Henry: No.Lamorna: Apparently that's really brilliant too. Then he also, writes those about climbing. He's actually got this one foot in the slightly travel nature writing sports camp. I just always thought he was magic. I remember on Twitter, he was really magic as well. I spent a lot of time following him.Henry: Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of writing and literature and books and this whole debate that's going on?Lamorna: It's hard to. I don't want to say anything fast and snappy because it's such a complicated thing. I could just start by saying personally, I'm worried about me and writing because I'm worried about my concentration span. I am so aware that in the same way that a piano player has to be practising the pieces they're going to play all the time. I think partly that's writing and writing, I seem to be able to do even with this broken, distracted form of attention I've got. My reading, I don't feel like I'm getting enough in. I think that means that what I produce will necessarily be less good if I can't solve that.I've just bought a dumb phone on the internet and I hope that's going to help me by no longer having Instagram and things like that. I think, yes, I suppose we do read a bit less. The generation below us is reading less. That's a shame. There's so much more possibility to go out and meet people from different places. On an anthropological level, I think anthropology has had this brilliant turn of becoming more subjective. The places you go, you have to think about your own relationship to them. I think that can make really interesting writing. It's so different from early colonial anthropology.The fact that, I guess, through, although even as I'm saying this, I don't know enough to say it, but I was going to say something about the fact that people, because we can do things like substacks and people can do short form content, maybe that means that more people's voices are getting heard and then they can, if they want to, transfer over and write books as well.I still get excited by books all the time. There's still so much good contemporary stuff that's thrilling me from all over the place. I don't feel that concerned yet. If we all do stop writing books entirely for a year and just read all the extraordinary books that have been happening for the last couple of thousand, we'd be okay.Henry: I simultaneously see the same people complaining that everything's dying and literature is over and that we have an oversupply of books and that capitalism is giving us too many books and that's the problem. I'm like, "Guys, I think you should pick one."Lamorna: [laughs] You're not allowed both those arguments. My one is that I do think it's gross, the bit of publishing that the way that some of these books get so oddly inflated in terms of the sales around them. Then, someone is getting a million pounds for a debut, which is enormous pressure on them. Then, someone else is getting 2K. I feel like there should be, obviously, there should be a massive cap on how large an advance anyone should get, and then more people will actually be able to stay in the world of writing because they won't have to survive on pitiful advances. I think that would actually have a huge impact and we should not be giving, love David Beckham as much as I do, we shouldn't be giving him five million pounds for someone else to go to write his books. It's just crazy.Henry: Don't the sales of books like that subsidize those of us who are not getting such a big advance?Lamorna: I don't think they always do. I think that's the problem is that they do have this wealth of funds to give to celebrities and often those books don't sell either. I still think even if those books sell a huge amount of money, those people still shouldn't be getting ridiculous advances like that. They still should be thinking about young people who are important to the literary, who are going to produce books that are different and surprising and whose voices we need to hear. That feels much more important.Henry: What do you think about the idea that maybe Anglo fiction isn't at a peak? I don't necessarily agree with that, but maybe we can agree that these are not the days of George Eliot and Charles Dickens, but the essay nonfiction periodicals and writing online, this is huge now. Right? Actually, our pessimism is sort of because we're looking in the wrong area and there are other forms of writing that flourish, actually doing great on the internet.Lamorna: Yes, I think so too. Again, I don't think I'm internet worldly enough to know this, but I still find these extraordinary, super weird substats that feel exciting. I also get an enormous amount of pleasure in reading Reddit now, which I only just got into many, many years late, but so many fun, odd things. Like little essays that people write and the way that people respond to each other, which is quick and sharp, and I suppose it fills the gap of what Twitter was.I think nonfiction, I was talking about this morning, because I'm staying with some writers, because we're sort of Cornish, book talk thing together and how much exciting nonfiction has come out this year that we want to read from the UK that is hybrid-y nature travel. Then internationally, I still think there's-- I just read, Perfection by Vincenzo, but there's enough translated fiction that's on the international book list this year that gets me delighted as well. To me, I just don't feel worried about that kind of thing at all when there's so much exciting stuff happening.I love Reddit. I think they really understand things that other people don't on there. I think it's the relief now that when you type in something to Google, you get the AI response. It's something like, it's so nice to feel on Reddit that someone sat down and answered you. Maybe that's such a shame that that's what makes me happy now, that we're in that space. It does feel like someone will tell you not just the answer, but then give you a bit about their life. Then, the particular tool that was passed down by their grandparents. That's so nice.Henry: What do you think of the new Pope?Lamorna: I thought it was because I'd heard all the thing around fat Pope, thin Pope, and obviously, our new Pope is maybe a sort of middle Pope, or at least is closer to Francis, but maybe a bit more palatable to some people. I guess, I'm excited that he's going to do, or it seems like he's also taking time to think, but he's good on migration on supporting the rights of immigrants. I think there's value in the fact of him being American as this being this counterpoint to what's happening in America right now. If feels always feels pointless to say because they're almost the idea of a Pope.I guess, Francis said that, who am I to judge about people being gay, but I think this Pope has so far has been more outly against gay people, but he stood up against JD Vance and his stupid thoughts on theology. I'm quietly optimistic. I guess I'm also waiting for Robert Harris's prophecy to come true and we get an intersex Pope next. Because I think that was prophecy, right? What he wrote.Henry: That would be interesting.Lamorna: Yes.Henry: The religious revival that people say is happening, particularly among young people, how is AI going to make it different than previous religious revivals?Lamorna: Oh, that's so interesting. Maybe first of all, question, sorry, I choked on my coffee. I was slightly questioned the idea if there is a religious revival, it's not actually an argument that I made in the book. When I started writing the book, there wasn't this quiet revival or this Bible studies and survey that suggests that more young people are going to church hadn't come out yet. I was just more, I guess, aware that there were a few people around me who were converting and I thought it'd be interesting if there's a few, there'll be more, which I think probably happens in every single generation, right? Is that that's one way to deal with the longing for meaning we all experience and the struggles in our lives.I was speaking to a New York Times journalist who was questioning the stats that have been coming out because first it's incredibly small pool. It's quite self-selecting that possibly there are people who might have gone to church already. It's still such a small uptick because it makes it hard to say anything definitive. I guess in general, what will the relationship be between AI and religion?I guess, there are so many ways you could go with that. One is that those spaces, religious spaces, are nicely insulated from technology. Not everywhere. Obviously, in some places they aren't, but often it's a space in which you put your phone away. In my head, the desire to go to church is as against having to deal with AI or having to deal with technology being integrated to every other aspect of my life.I guess maybe people will start worshiping the idea of the singularity. Maybe we'll get the singularity and Terminator, or the Matrix is going to happen, and we'll call them our gods because they will feel like gods. That's maybe one option. I don't know how AI-- I guess I don't know enough about AI that maybe you'll have AI, or does this happen? Maybe this has happened already that you could have an AI confession and you'd have an AI priest and they tell you--Henry: Sure. It's huge for therapy, right?Lamorna: Yes.Henry: Which is that adjacent thing.Lamorna: That's a good point. It does feel something about-- I'm sure, theologically, it's not supposed to work if you haven't been ordained, but can an AI be ordained, become a priest?Henry: IndeedLamorna: Could they do communion? I don't know. It's fascinating.Henry: I can see a situation where a young person lives in a secular environment or culture and is interested in things and the AI is the, in some ways, easiest place for them to turn to say, "I need to talk about-- I have these weird semi-religious feelings, or I'm interested." The AI's not going to be like, "Oh, really? That's weird." There's the question of will we worship AI or whatever, but also will we get people's conversions being shaped by their therapy/confessors/whatever chat with their LLM?Lamorna: Oh, it's so interesting. I read a piece recently in the LRB by James Vincent. It was about AI relationships, our relationship with AI, and he looked at AI girlfriends. There was this incredible case, maybe you read about it, about a guy who tried to kill the Queen some years back. His defense was that his AI girlfriend had really encouraged him to do that. Then, you can see the transcripts of the text, and he says, "I'm thinking about killing the Queen." His AI girlfriend is like, "Go for it, baby."It's that thing there of like, at the moment, AI is still reflecting back our own desires or refracting almost like shifting how they're expressed. I'm trying to imagine that in the same case of me saying, "I feel really lonely, and I'm thinking about Christianity." My friend would speak with all of their context and background, and whatever they've got going on for them. Whereas an AI would feel my desire there and go, "That's a good idea. It says online this." It's very straight. It would definitely lead us in directions that feel less than human or other than human.Henry: I also have this thought, you used to, I think you still do, but you see it less. You used to get a Samaritan's Bible in every hotel. The Samaritans, will they start trying to install a religious chatbot in places where people--? There are lots of ways in which you could use it as a distribution mechanism.Lamorna: Which does feel so far from the point. Not to think about the gospels, but that feeling of something I talk about in the book is that, so much of it is human contact. Is that this factor of being changed in the moment, person to person. If I have any philosophy for life at the moment is this sense of desperately needing contact that we are saved by each other all the time, not by our telephones and things that aren't real. It's the surprise.I quote it in the book, but Iris Murdoch describes love is the very difficult realization that someone other than yourself is real. I think that's the thing that makes us all survive, is that reminder that if you're feeling deeply depressed, being like, there is someone else that is real, and they have a struggle that matters as much as mine. I think that's something that you are never going to get through a conversation with a chatbot, because it's like a therapeutic thing. You are not having to ask it the same questions, or you are not having to extend yourself to think about someone else in those conversations.Henry: Which Iris Murdoch novels do you like?Lamorna: I've only read The Sea, The Sea, but I really enjoyed it. Which ones do you like?Henry: I love The Sea, The Sea, and The Black Prince. I like the late books, like The Good Apprentice and The Philosopher's Pupil, as well. Some people tell you, "Don't read those. They're late works and they're no good," but I was obsessed. I was absolutely compelled, and they're still all in my head. They're insane.Lamorna: Oh, I must, because I've got a big collection of her essays. I'm thinking is so beautiful, her philosophical thought. It's that feeling, I know I'm going the wrong-- starting in the wrong place, but I do feel that she's someone I'd really love to explore next, kind of books.Henry: I think you'd like her because she's very interested in the question of, can therapy help, can philosophy help, can religion help? She's very dubious about therapy and philosophy, and she is mystic. There are queer characters and neurodivergent characters. For a novelist in the '70s, you read her now and you're like, "Well, this is all just happening now."Lamorna: Cool.Henry: Maybe we should be passing these books out. People need this right now.Lamorna: Which one would you say I should do first after The Sea, The Sea?Henry: Maybe The Black Prince.Lamorna: The Black Prince. Great.Henry: Which is the one she wrote before The Sea, The Sea and is just a massive masterpiece.Lamorna: I'll read it. Where do you stand on therapy? Do you have a position?Henry: I think on net, it might be a bad thing, even if it is individually useful for people.Lamorna: Why is that?Henry: [laughs] I didn't expect to have to answer the question. Basically two reasons. I think it doesn't take enough account of the moral aspect of the decisions being made very often. This is all very anecdotal and you can find yourself feeling better in the short term, but not necessarily in the long-- If you make a decision that's not outrageously immoral, but which has not had enough weight placed on the moral considerations.There was an article about how lots of people cut out relatives now and the role that therapy plays in that. What I was struck by in the article that was-- Obviously, a lot of those people are justified and their relatives have been abusive or nasty, of course, but there are a lot of cases where you were like, "Well, this is a long-term decision that's been made on a short-term basis." I think in 10 years people may feel very differently. There wasn't enough consideration in the article, at least I felt, given to how any children involved would be affected later on. I think it's a good thing and a bad thing.Lamorna: I'm so with you. I think that's why, because also the fact of it being so private and it being about the individual, and I think, again, there are certain things if you're really struggling with that, it's helpful for, but I think I'm always more into the idea of communal things, like AAA and NA, which obviously a very particular. Something about doing that together, that it's collaborative and therefore there is someone else in the room if you say, "I want to cut out my parent."There's someone else who said that happened to me and it was really hard. It means that you are making those decisions together a little bit more. Therapy, I can feel that in friends and stuff that it does make us, even more, think that we are these bounded individuals when we're not.Henry: I should say, I have known people who've gone to therapy and it's worked really well.Lamorna: I'm doing therapy right now and it is good. I think, in my head, it's like it should be one among many and I still question it whilst doing it.Henry: To the extent that there is a religious revival among "Gen Z," how much is it because they have phones? Because you wrote something like, in fact, I have the quote, "There's a sense of terrible tragedy. How can you hold this constant grief that we feel, whether it's the genocide in Gaza or climate collapse? Where do I put all the misery that I receive every single second through my phone? Church can then be a space where I can quietly go and light a candle." Is it that these young people are going to religion because the phone has really pushed a version of the world into their faces that was not present when I was young or people are older than me?Lamorna: I think it's one of, or that the phone is the symptom because the phone, whatever you call it, technology, the internet, is the thing that draws the world closer to us in so many different ways. One being that this sense of being aware of what's happening around in other places in the world, which maybe means that you become more tolerant of other religions because you're hearing about it more. That, on TikTok, there's loads of kids all across the world talking about their particular faiths and their background and which aspera they're in, and all that kind of thing.Then, this sense of horror being very unavoidable that you wake up and it is there and you wake up and you think, "What am I doing? What am I doing here? I feel completely useless." Perhaps then you end up in a church, but I'm not sure.I think a bigger player in my head is the fact that we are more pluralistic as societies. That you are more likely to encounter other religions in schools. I think then the question is, well then maybe that'll be valuable for me as well. I think also, not having parents pushing religion on you makes kids, the fact of the generation above the British people, your parents' generations, not saying religion is important, you go to church, then it becomes something people can become more curious about in their own right as adults. I think that plays into it.I think isolation plays into it and that's just not about technology and the phone, but that's the sense of-- and again, I'm thinking about early 20s, mid 20s, so adults who are moving from place to place, who maybe feel very isolated and alone, who are doing jobs that make them feel isolated and alone, and there are this dearth of community spaces and then thinking, well, didn't people used to go to churches, it would be so nice to know someone older than me.I don't know how this fits in, but I was thinking about, I saw this documentary, The Encampments, like two days ago, which is about the Columbia University encampments and within that, Mahmood Khalil, who's the one who's imprisoned at the moment, who was this amazing leader within the movement and is from Palestine. The phone in that, the sense about how it was used to gather and collect people and keep people aware of what's happening and mean that everyone is more conscious and there's a point when they need more people in the encampments because the police are going to come. It's like, "Everyone, use your phone, call people now." I think I can often be like, "Oh no, phones are terrible," but this sense within protest, within communal activity, how valuable they can be as well.I haven't quite gotten into that thought. I don't know, basically. I think it's so hard. I've grown up with a phone. I have no sense of how much it plays a part in everything about me, but obviously, it is a huge amount. I do think it's something that we all think about and are horrified by whilst also seeing it as like this weird extension of ourselves. That definitely plays into then culturally, the decisions we make to either try and avoid them, find spaces where you can be without them.Henry: How old do you think a child should be when they're first given a phone? A smartphone, like an iPhone type thing?Lamorna: I think, 21.Henry: Yes?Lamorna: No, I don't know. I obviously wouldn't know that about a child.Henry: I might.Lamorna: I'd love to. I would really love to because, I don't know, I have a few friends who weren't allowed to watch TV until they were 18 and they are eminently smarter than me and lots of my other friends. There's something about, I don't know, I hate the idea that as I'm getting older, I'm becoming more scaremongering like, "Oh no, when I was young--" because I think my generation was backed in loads of ways. This thing of kids spending so much less time outside and so much less time being able to imagine things, I think I am quite happy to say that feels like a terrible loss.I read a piece recently about kids in New York and I think they were quite sort of middle-class Brooklyn-y kids, but they choose to go days without their phones and they all go off into the forest together. There is this sense of saying giving kids autonomy, but at the same time, their relationship with a phone is not one of agency. It's them versus tech bros who have designed things that are so deeply addictive, that no adult can let go of it. Let alone a child who's still forming how to work out self-control, discipline and stuff. I think a good parenting thing would be to limit massively these completely non-neutral objects that they're given, that are made like crack and impossible to let go of.Henry: Do you think religious education in schools should be different or should there be more of it?Lamorna: Yes, I think it should be much better. I don't know about you, but I just remember doing loads of diagrams of different religious spaces like, "This is what a mosque looks like," and then I'd draw the diagram. I knew nothing. I barely knew the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. In fact, I probably didn't as a teenager.I remember actually in sixth form, having this great philosophy teacher who was talking about the idea of proto antisemitism within the gospels. I was like, "Wait, what?" Because I just didn't really understand. I didn't know that it was in Greek, that the Old Testament was in Hebrew. I just didn't know. I think all these holy texts that we've been carrying with us for thousands of years across the world have so much in them that's worth reading and knowing.If I was in charge of our R.E., I would get kids to write on all holy texts, but really think about them and try and answer moral problems. You'd put philosophy back with religion and really connect them and think, what is Nietzsche reacting against? What does Freud about how is this form of Christianity different like this? I think that my sense is that since Gove, but also I'm sure way before that as well, the sense of just not taking young people seriously, when actually they're thoughtful, intelligent and able to wrestle with these things, it's good for them to have know what they're choosing against, if they're not interested in religion.Also, at base, those texts are beautiful, all of them are, and are foundational and if you want to be able to study English or history to know things about religious texts and the practices of religion and how those rituals came about and how it's changed over thousands of years, feels important.Henry: Which religious poets do you like other than Hopkins? Because you write very nicely about Hopkins in the book.Lamorna: He's my favorite. I like John Donne a lot. I remember reading lots of his sermons and Lancelot Andrews' sermons at university and thinking they were just astonishingly beautiful. There are certain John Donne sermons and it's this feeling of when he takes just maybe a line from one of Paul's letters and then is able to extend it and extend it, and it's like he's making it grow in material or it's like it's a root where suddenly all these branches are coming off it.Who else do I like? I like George Herbert. Gosh, my brain is going in terms of who else was useful when I was thinking about. Oh it's gone.Henry: Do you like W.H. Auden?Lamorna: Oh yes. I love Auden, yes. I was rereading his poems about, oh what's it called? The one about Spain?Henry: Oh yes.Lamorna: About the idea of tomorrow.Henry: I don't have a memory either, but I know the poem you mean, yes.Lamorna: Okay. Then I'm trying to think of earlier religious poets. I suppose things like The Dream of the Rood and fun ways of getting into it and if you're looking at medieval poetry.Henry: I also think Betjeman is underrated for this.Lamorna: I've barely read any Betjeman.Henry: There's a poem called Christmas. You might like it.Lamorna: Okay.Henry: It's this famous line and is it true and is it true? He really gets into this thing of, "We're all unwrapping tinsely presents and I'm sitting here trying to work out if God became man." It's really good. It's really good. The other one is called Norfolk and again, another famous line, "When did the devil first attack?" It talks about puberty as the arrival of the awareness of sin and so forth.Lamorna: Oh, yes.Henry: It's great. Really, really good stuff. Do you personally believe in the resurrection?Lamorna: [chuckles] I keep being asked this.Henry: I know. I'm sorry.Lamorna: My best answer is sometimes. Because I do sometimes in that way that-- someone I interviewed who's absolutely brilliant in the book, Robert, and he's a Cambridge professor. He's a pragmatist and he talks about the idea of saying I'm a disciplined person means nothing unless you're enacting that discipline daily or it falls away. For him, that belief in a Kierkegaardian leap way is something that needs to be reenacted in every moment to say, I believe and mean it.I think there are moments when my church attendance is better and I'm listening to a reading that's from Acts or whatever and understanding the sense of those moments, Paul traveling around Europe and Asia Minor, only because he fully believed that this is what's happened. Those letters and as you're reading those letters, the way I read literature or biblical writing is to believe in that moment because for that person, they believe too. I think there are points at which the resurrection can feel true to me, but it does feel like I'm accessing that idea of truth in a different way than I am accessing truth about-- it's close to how I think about love as something that's very, very real, but very different from experiential feelings.I had something else I wanted to say about that and it's just gone. Oh yes. I was at Hay Festival a couple of weeks ago. Do you know the Philosopher Agnes Callard?Henry: Oh, sure.Lamorna: She gave a really great talk about Socrates and her love of Socrates, but she also came to my talk and she and her husband, who I think met through arguing about Aristotle, told me they argued for about half a day about a line I'd said, which was that during writing the book, I'd learned to believe in the belief of other people, her husband was like, "You can't believe in the belief of other people if you don't believe it too. That doesn't work. That doesn't make sense." I was like, "That's so interesting." I can so feel that if we're taking that analytically, that if I say I don't believe in the resurrection, not just that I believe you believe it, but I believe in your belief in the resurrection. At what point is that any different from saying, I believe in the resurrection. I feel like I need to spend more time with it. What the slight gap is there that I don't have that someone else does, or as I say it, do I then believe in the resurrection that moment? I'm not sure.I think also what I'm doing right now is trying to sound all clever with it, whereas for other people it's this deep ingrained truth that governs every moment of their life and that they can feel everywhere, or perhaps they can't. Perhaps there's more doubt than they suggest, which I think is the case with lots of us. Say on the deathbed, someone saying that they fully believe in the resurrection because that means there's eternal salvation, and their family believe in that too. I don't think I have that kind of certainty, but I admire it.Henry: Tell me how you got the title for this book from an episode of The Simpsons.Lamorna: It's really good app. It's from When Maggie Makes Three, which is my favorite episode. I think titles are horribly hard. I really struck my first book. I would have these sleepless nights just thinking about words related to the sea, and be like, blue something. I don't know. There was a point where my editor wanted to call it Trawler Girl. I said, "We mustn't. That's awful. That's so bad. It makes me sound like a terrible superhero. I'm not a girl, I'm a woman."With this one, I think it was my fun title for ages. Yes, it's this plaque that Homer has put-- Mr. Burns puts up this plaque to remind him that he will never get to leave the power plant, "Don't forget you're here forever."I just think it's a strong and bonkers line. I think it had this element of play or silliness that I wanted, that I didn't think about too hard. I guess that's an evangelical Christian underneath what they're actually saying is saying-- not all evangelicals, but often is this sense of no, no, no, we are here forever. You are going to live forever. That is what heaven means.That sense of then saying it in this jokey way. I think church is often very funny spaces, and funny things happen. They make good comedy series when you talk about faith.Someone's saying she don't forget we're here forever. The don't forget makes it so colloquial and silly. I just thought it was a funny line for that reason.Then also that question people always ask, "Is religion going to die out?" I thought that played into it. This feeling that, yes, I write about it. There was a point when I was going to an Extinction Rebellion protest, and everyone was marching along with that symbol of the hourglass inside a circle next to a man who had a huge sign saying, "Stop, look, hell is real, the end of the world is coming." This sense of different forms of apocalyptic thinking that are everywhere at the moment. I felt like the title worked for that as well.Henry: I like that episode of The Simpsons because it's an expression of an old idea where he's doing something boring and his life is going to slip away bit by bit. The don't forget you're here forever is supposed to make that worse, but he turns it round into the live like you're going to die tomorrow philosophy and makes his own kind of meaning out of it.Lamorna: By papering it over here with pictures of Maggie. They love wordplay, the writers of The Simpsons, and so that it reads, "Do it for her," instead. That feeling of-- I think that with faith as well of, don't forget we're here forever, think about heaven when actually so much of our life is about papering it over with humanity and being like, "Does it matter? I'm with you right now, and that's what matters." That immediacy of human contact that church is also really about, that joy in the moment. Where it doesn't really matter in that second if you're going to heaven or hell, or if that exists. You're there together, and it's euphoric, or at least it's a relief or comforting.Henry: You did a lot of Bible study and bible reading to write this book. What were the big surprises for you?Lamorna: [chuckles] This is really the ending, but revelation, I don't really think it's very well written at all. It shouldn't be in there, possibly. It's just not [unintelligible 00:39:20] It got added right in the last minute. I guess it should be in there. I just don't know. What can I say?So much of it was a surprise. I think slowly reading the Psalms was a lovely surprise for me because they contain so much uncertainty and anguish, and doubt. Imagining those being read aloud to me always felt like a very exciting thing.Henry: Did you read them aloud?Lamorna: When I go to more Anglo Catholic services, they tend to do them-- I never know how to pronounce this. Antiphonally.Henry: Oh yes.Lamorna: Back and forth between you. It's very reverential, lovely experience to do that. I really think I was surprised by almost everything I was reading. At the start of Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, he does this amazing thing where he does four different versions of what could be happening in the Isaac and Abraham story underneath.There's this sense of in the Bible, and I'm going to get this wrong, but in Mimesis, Auerbach talks about the way that you're not given the psychological understanding within the Bible. There's so much space for readers to think with, because you're just being told things that happened, and the story moves on quickly, moment by moment. With Isaac and Abraham, what it would mean if Isaac actually had seen the fact that his father was planning to kill him. Would he then lose his faith? All these different scenarios.I suddenly realised that the Bible was not just a fixed text, but there was space to play with it as well. In the book, I use the story of Jacob and the angel and play around with the meaning of that and what would happen after this encounter between Jacob and an angel for both of them.Bits in the Gospels, I love the story of the Gerasene Demoniac. He was a knight. He was very unwell, and no one knew what to do with him. He was ostracised from his community. He would sit in this cave and scream and lacerate himself against the cave walls. Then Jesus comes to him and speaks to him and speaks to the demons inside him. There's this thing in Mark's Gospel that Harold Bloom talks about, where only demons are actually able to perceive. Most people have to ask Christ who he really is, but demons can perceive him immediately and know he's the son of God.The demons say that they are legion. Then Jesus puts them into 1,000 pigs. Is it more? I can't remember. Then they're sent off over the cliff edge. Then the man is made whole and is able to go back to his community. I just think there's just so much in that. It's so rich and strange. I think, yes, there's something about knowing you could sit down and just read a tiny bit of the Bible and find something strange and unusual that also might speak to something you've read that's from thousands of years later.I also didn't know that in Mark's Gospel, the last part of it is addended, added on to it. Before that, it ended with the women being afraid, seeing the empty tomb, but there's no resolution. There's no sense of Christ coming back as spirit. It ended in this deep uncertainty and fear. I thought that was so fascinating because then again, it reminds you that those texts have been played around with and thought with, and meddled with, and changed over time. It takes away from the idea that it's fixed and certain, the Bible.Henry: What did you think of Harold Bloom's book The Shadow of a Great Rock?Lamorna: I really loved it. He says that he treats Shakespeare more religiously and the Bible more like literature, which I found a funny, irreverent thing to say. There's lovely stuff in there where, I think it was Ruth, he was like, maybe it was written by a woman. He takes you through the different Hebrew writers for Genesis. Which again, becoming at this as such a novice in so many ways, realising that, okay, so when it's Yahweh, it's one particular writer, there's the priestly source for particular kinds of writing. The Yahwist is more ironic, or the God you get is more playful.That was this key into thinking about how each person trying to write about God, it's still them and their sense of the world, which is particular and idiosyncratic is forming the messages that they believe they're receiving from God. I found that exciting.Yes, he's got this line. He's talking about the blessings that God gives to men in Genesis. He's trying to understand, Bloom, what the meaning of a blessing is. He describes it as more life into a time without boundaries. That's a line that I just found so beautiful, and always think about what the meaning of that is. I write it in the book.My best friend, Sammy, who's just the most game person in the world, that you tell them anything, they're like, "Cool." I told them that line. They were like, "I'm getting it tattooed on my arm next week." Then got me to write in my handwriting. I can only write in my handwriting, but write down, "More time into life without boundaries." Now they've just got it on their arm.Henry: Nice.Lamorna: I really like. They're Jewish, non-practicing. They're not that really interested in it. They were like, "That's a good line to keep somewhere."Henry: I think it's actually one of Bloom's best books. There's a lot of discussion about, is he good? Is he not good? I love that book because it really just introduces people to the Bible and to different versions of the Bible. He does all that Harold Bloom stuff where he's like, "These are the only good lines in this particular translation of this section. The rest is so much dross.He's really attentive to the differences between the translations, both theologically but also aesthetically. I think a lot of people don't know the Bible. It's a really good way to get started on a-- sitting down and reading the Bible in order. It's going to fail for a lot of people. Harold Bloom is a good introduction that actually gives you a lot of the Bible itself.Lamorna: For sure, because it's got that midrash feeling of being like someone else working around it, which then helps you get inside it. I was reading that book whilst going to these Bible studies at a conservative evangelical church called All Souls. I wasn't understanding what on earth was going on in Mark through the way that we're being told to read it, which is kids' comprehension.Maybe it was useful to think about why would the people have been afraid when Christ quelled the storms? It was doing something, but there was no sense of getting inside the text. Then, to read alongside that, Bloom saying that the Christ in Mark is the most unknowable of all the versions of Christ. Then again, just thinking, "Oh, hang on." There's an author. The author of Mark's gospel is perceiving Christ in a particular way. This is the first of the gospels writing about Christ. What does it mean? He's unknowable. Suddenly thinking of him as a character, and therefore thinking about how people are relating to him. It totally cracks the text open for you.Henry: Do you think denominational differences are still important? Do most people have actual differences in dogma, or are they just more cultural distinctions?Lamorna: They're ritual distinctions. There really is little that you could compare between a Quaker meeting and a Catholic service. That silence is the fundamental aspect of all of it. There's a sense of enlighten.My Quaker mate, Lawrence, he's an atheist, but he wouldn't go to another church service because he's so against the idea of hierarchy and someone speaking from a pulpit. He's like, honestly, the reincarnated spirit of George Fox in many ways, in lots of ways he's not.I guess it becomes more blurry because, yes, there's this big thing in the early 20th century in Britain anyway, where the line that becomes more significant is conservative liberal. It's very strange that that's how our world gets divided. There's real simplification that perhaps then, a liberal Anglican church and a liberal Catholic church have more in relationship than a conservative Catholic church and a conservative evangelical church. The line that is often thinking about sexuality and marriage.I was interested, people have suddenly was called up in my book that I talk about sex a lot. I think it's because sex comes up so much, it feels hard not to. That does seem to be more important than denominational differences in some ways. I do think there's something really interesting in this idea of-- Oh, [unintelligible 00:48:17] got stung. God, this is a bit dramatic. Sorry, I choked on coffee earlier. Now I'm going to get stung by a bee.Henry: This is good. This is what makes a podcast fun. What next?Lamorna: You don't get this in the BBC studios. Maybe you do. Oh, what was I about to say? Oh, yes. I like the idea of church shopping. People saying that often it speaks to the person they are, what they're looking for in a church. I think it's delightful to me that there's such a broad church, and there's so many different spaces that you can go into to discover the church that's right for you. Sorry. I'm really distracted by this wasp or bee. Anyway.Henry: How easy was it to get people to be honest with you?Lamorna: I don't know. I think that there's certain questions that do tunnel right through to the heart of things. Faith seems to be one of them. When you talk about faith with people, you're getting rid of quite a lot of the chaff around with the politeness or whatever niceties that you'd usually speak about.I was talking about this with another friend who's been doing this. He's doing a play about Grindr. He was talking about how strange it is that when you ask to interview someone and you have a dictaphone there, you do get a deeper instant conversation. Again, it's a bit like a therapeutic conversation where someone has said to you, "I'm just going to sit and listen." You've already agreed, and you know it's going to be in a book. "Do you mind talking about this thing?"That just allows this opportunity for people to be more honest because they're aware that the person there is actually wanting to listen. It's so hard to create spaces. I create a cordon and say, "We're going to have a serious conversation now." Often, that feels very artificial. I think yes, the beauty of getting to sit there with a dictaphone on your notebook is you are like, "I really am interested in this. It really matters to me." I guess it feels easy in that way to get honesty.Obviously, we're all constructing a version of ourselves for each other all the time. It's hard for me to know to what extent they're responding to what they're getting from me, and what they think I want to hear. If someone else interviewed them, they would probably get something quite different. I don't know. I think if you come to be with openness, and you talk a bit about your journey, then often people want to speak about it as well.I'm trying to think. I've rarely interviewed someone where I haven't felt this slightly glowy, shimmery sense of it, or what I'm learning feels new and feels very true. I felt the same with Cornish Fisherman, that there was this real honesty in these conversations. Many years ago, I remember I got really obsessed with interviewing my mom. I think I was just always wanting to practice interviewing. The same thing that if there's this object between you, it shifts the dimensions of the conversation and tends towards seriousness.Henry: How sudden are most people's conversions?Lamorna: Really depends. I was in this conversation with someone the other day. When she was 14, 15, she got caught shoplifting. She literally went, "Oh, if there's a God up there, can you help get me out of the situation?" The guy let her go, and she's been a Christian ever since. She had an instantaneous conversion. Someone I interviewed in the book, and he was a really thoughtful card-carrying atheist. He had his [unintelligible 00:51:58] in his back pocket.He hated the Christians and would always have a go at them at school because he thought it was silly, their belief. Then he had this instant conversion that feels very charismatic in form, where he was just walking down an avenue of trees at school, and he felt the entire universe smiling at him and went, "Oh s**t, I better become a Christian."Again, I wonder if it depends. I could say it depends on the person you are, whether you are capable of having an instant conversion. Perhaps if I were in a religious frame of mind, I'd say it depends on what God would want from you. Do you need an instant conversion, or do you need to very slowly have the well filling up?I really liked when a priest said to me that people often go to church and expect to be changed in a moment. He's like, "No, you have to go for 20 years before anything happens." Something about that slow incremental conversion to me is more satisfying. It's funny, I was having a conversation with someone about if they believe in ghosts, and they were like, "Well, if I saw one, then I believe in ghosts." For some people, transcendental things happen instantaneously, and it does change them ultimately instantly.I don't know, I would love to see some stats about which kinds of conversions are more popular, probably more instant ones. I love, and I use it in the book, but William James' Varieties of Religious Experience. He talks about there's some people who are sick-souled or who are also more porous bordered people for whom strange things can more easily cross the borders of their person. They're more likely to convert and more likely to see things.I really like him describing it that way because often someone who's like that, it might just be described as well, you have a mental illness. That some people are-- I don't know, they've got sharper antennae than the rest of us. I think that is an interesting thought for why some people can convert instantly.Henry: I think all conversions take a long time. At the moment, there's often a pivotal moment, but there's something a long time before or after that, that may or may not look a conversion, but which is an inevitable part of the process. I'm slightly obsessed with the idea of quests, but I think all conversions are a quest or a pilgrimage. Your book is basically a quest narrative. As you go around in your Toyota, visiting these places. I'm suspicious, I think the immediate moment is bundled up with a longer-term thing very often, but it's not easy to see it.Lamorna: I love that. I've thought about the long tail afterwards, but I hadn't thought about the lead-up, the idea of that. Of what little things are changing. That's such a lovely thought. Their conversions began from birth, maybe.Henry: The shoplifter, it doesn't look like that's where they're heading. In retrospect, you can see that there weren't that many ways out of this path that they're on. Malcolm X is like this. One way of reading his autobiography is as a coming-of-age story. Another way of reading it is, when is this guy going to convert? This is going to happen.Lamorna: I really like that. Then there's also that sense of how fixed the conversion is, as well, from moment to moment. That Adam Phillips' book on wanting to change, he talks about our desire for change often outstrips our capacity for change. That sense of how changed am I afterwards? How much does my conversion last in every moment? It goes back to the do you believe in the resurrection thing.I find that that really weird thing about writing a book is, it is partly a construction. You've got the eye in there. You're creating something that is different from your reality and fixed, and you're in charge of it. It's stable, it remains, and you come to an ending. Then your life continues to divert and deviate in loads of different ways. It's such a strange thing in that way. Every conversion narrative we have fixed in writing, be it Augustine or Paul, whatever, is so far from the reality of that person's experience.Henry: What did the new atheists get wrong?Lamorna: Arrogance. They were arrogant. Although I wonder, I guess it was such a cultural moment, and perhaps in the same way that everyone is in the media, very excitedly talking about revival now. There was something that was created around them as well, which was delight in this sense of the end of something. I wonder how much of that was them and how much of it was, they were being carried along by this cultural media movement.I suppose the thing that always gets said, and I haven't read enough Dawkins to say this with any authority, but is that the form of religion that he was attempting to denigrate was a very basic form of Christianity, a real, simplified sense. That he did that with all forms of religion. Scientific progress shows us we've progressed beyond this point, and we don't need this, and it's silly and foolish.I guess he underestimated the depth and richness of religion, and also the fact of this idea of historical progress, when the people in the past were foolish, when they were as bright and stupid as we are now.Henry: I think they believed in the secularization idea. People like Rodney Stark and others were pointing out that it's not really true that we secularized a lot more consistency. John Gray, the whole world is actually very religious. This led them away from John Stuart Mill-type thinking about theism. I think everyone should read more John Stuart Mill, but they particularly should have read the theism essays. That would have been--Lamorna: I've only just got into him because I love the LRB Close Reading podcast. It's Jonathan Rée and James Wood. They did one on John Stuart Mill's autobiography, which I've since been reading. It's an-Henry: It's a great book.Lamorna: -amazing book. His crisis is one of-- He says, "The question of religion is not something that has been a part of my life, but the sense of being so deeply learned." His dad was like, "No poetry." In his crisis moment, suddenly realizing that that's what he needed. He was missing feeling, or he was missing a way of looking at the world that had questioning and doubt within it through poetry.There was a bit in the autobiography, and he talks about when he was in this deep depression, whenever he was at 19 or something. That he was so depressed that he thought if there's a certain number of musical notes, one day there will be no more new music because every single combination will have been done. The sense of, it's so sweetly awful thinking, but without the sense-- I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here.I found his crisis so fascinating to read about and how he comes out of that through this care and attention of beautiful literature and thinking, and through his love of-- What was his wife called again?Henry: Harriet.Lamorna: Harriet. He credits her for almost all his thinking. He wouldn't have moved towards socialism without her. Suddenly, humans are deeply important to him. He feels sorry for the fact that his dad could not express love or take love from him, and that that was such a terrible deficiency in his life.Henry: Mill's interesting on religion because he looks very secular. In fact, if you read his letters, he's often going into churches.Lamorna: Oh, really?Henry: Yes, when he's in Italy, because he had tuberculosis. He had to be abroad a lot. He's always going to services at Easter and going into the churches. For a secular person, he really appreciates all these aspects of religion. His stepdaughter was-- there's a diary of hers in their archives. She was very religious, very intense. As a young woman, when she's 16, 17, intensely Catholic or Anglo-Catholic. Really, it's quite startling.I was reading this thing, and I was like, "Wait, who in the Mill household is writing this? This is insane." There are actually references in his letters where he says, "Oh, we'll have to arrive in time for Good Friday so that she can go to church." He's very attentive to it. Then he writes these theism essays, right at the end of his life. He's very open-minded and very interrogatory of the idea. He really wants to understand. He's not a new atheist at all.Lamorna: Oh, okay. I need to read the deism essays.Henry: You're going to love it. It's very aligned. What hymns do you like?Lamorna: Oh, no.Henry: You can be not a hymn person.Lamorna: No. I'm not a massive hymn person. When I'm in church, the Anglican church that I go to in London now, I always think, "Remember that. That was a really nice one." I like to be a pilgrim. I really don't have the brain that can do this off the cuff. I'm not very musically. I'm deeply unmusical.There was one that I was thinking of. I think it's an Irish one. I feel like I wrote this down at one point, because I thought I might be asked in another interview. I had to write down what I thought in case a hymn that I liked. Which sounds a bit like a politician, when they're asked a question, they're like, "I love football." I actually can't think of any. I'm sorry.Henry: No, that's fine.Lamorna: What are your best? Maybe that will spark something in me.Henry: I like Tell Out My Soul. Do you know that one?Lamorna: Oh, [sings] Tell Out My Soul. That's a good one.Henry: If you have a full church and people are really going for it, that can be amazing. I like all the classics. I don't have any unusual choices. Tell Out My Soul, it's a great one. Lamorna Ash, this has been great. Thank you very much.Lamorna: Thank you.Henry: To close, I think you're going to read us a passage from your book.Lamorna: I am.Henry: This is near the end. It's about the Bible.Lamorna: Yes. Thank you so much. This has definitely been my favourite interview.Henry: Oh, good.Lamorna: I really enjoyed it. It's really fun.Henry: Thank you.Lamorna: Yes, this is right near the end. This is when I ended up at a church, St Luke's, West Holloway. It was a very small 9:00 AM service. Whilst the priest who'd stepped in to read because the actual priest had left, was reading, I just kept thinking about all the stories that I'd heard and wondering about the Bible and how the choices behind where it ends, where it ends.I don't think I understand why the Bible ends where it does. The final lines of the book of Revelation are, "He who testifies to these things says, Yes, I am coming soon. Amen. Come, Lord Jesus, the grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen." Which does sound like a to-be-continued. I don't mean the Bible feels incomplete because it ends with Revelation. What I mean is, if we have continued to hear God and wrestle with him and his emissaries ever since the first overtures of the Christian faith sounded.Why do we not treat these encounters with the same reverence as the works assembled in the New Testament? Why have we let our holy text grow so antique and untouchable instead of allowing them to expand like a divine Wikipedia updated in perpetuity? That way, each angelic struggle and Damascene conversion that has ever occurred or one day will, would become part of its fabric.In this Borgesian Bible, we would have the Gospel of Mary, not a fictitious biography constructed by a man a century after her death, but her true words. We would have the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch on the road between Jerusalem and Gaza from Acts, but this time given in the first person. We would have descriptions from the Picts on Iona of the Irish Saint Columba appearing in a rowboat over the horizon.We would have the Gospels of those from the early Eastern Orthodox churches, Assyrian Gospels, Syriac Orthodox Gospels. We would have records of the crusades from the Christian soldiers sent out through Europe to Jerusalem in order to massacre those of other faiths, both Muslim and Jewish. In reading these accounts, we would be forced to confront the ways in which scripture can be interpreted

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

Today on the Christian History Almanac, we remember the most famous Anglo-Catholic of the 19th century and a most (in)famous convert: John Henry Newman. Show Notes: Support 1517 Podcast Network 1517 Podcasts 1517 on Youtube 1517 Podcast Network on Apple Podcasts 1517 Events Schedule 1517 Academy - Free Theological Education What's New from 1517: Pre-order: Ditching the Checklist by Mark Mattes Broken Bonds: A Novel of the Reformation, Book 1 of 2 by Amy Mantravadi  Bible in One Year with Chad Bird Junk Drawer Jesus By Matt Popovits Take 20% Off Our Lenten Devotionals until March 5th: The Sinner/Saint Lenten Devotional Finding Christ in the Straw: A Forty-Day Devotion on the Epistle of James More from the hosts: Dan van Voorhis SHOW TRANSCRIPTS are available: https://www.1517.org/podcasts/the-christian-history-almanac CONTACT: CHA@1517.org SUBSCRIBE: Apple Podcasts Spotify Stitcher Overcast Google Play FOLLOW US: Facebook Twitter Audio production by Christopher Gillespie (gillespie.media).

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! stmichaelsbythesea.org

In this episode Jenny Sinclair and Al Roxburgh talk with John Milbank. Recognizing that no one can predict where this time of cultural and political unravelling is leading, John discusses how God's people can respond and sees signs of hope. Central to his vision for social renewal is a Christian witness that engages rather than retreats from society. A key figure in the growing postliberal intellectual movement, he outlines their work in the development of a new political economy for the common good. Advocating the fundamental importance of the parish in these times, John describes how its liturgical, confessional and everyday rhythms of life bear a vital, countercultural witness to the true, concrete story of the world, over against all other claims to reality.John Milbank is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Nottingham and co-founder of the Radical Orthodoxy movement. An eminent theologian in the Anglo-Catholic tradition, he is a philosopher, a poet and political theorist. His work crosses disciplinary boundaries, integrating subjects such as metaphysics, systematic theology, social theory, ethics, aesthetics, philosophy, political theory, and political theology. He has previously taught at the universities of Lancaster, Cambridge, and Virginia and is the author of many books. He lives in Southwell, Nottinghamshire, UK.Links for John Milbankhttps://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2024/12/what-is-postliberalism-nowhttps://x.com/johnmilbank3https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/vision/the-post-liberal-views-shaping-our-political-landscapehttps://www.nottingham.ac.uk/Humanities/Departments/Philosophy/People/john.milbankhttps://togetherforthecommongood.co.uk/leading-thinkers/christianity-and-the-politics-of-the-common-goodBooksThe Politics of Virtue: Post-Liberalism and the Human Future, with Adrian Pabst,Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular ReasonIntroducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-Secular TheologyBeyond Secular Order: The Representation of Being and the Representation of the Peoplehttps://www.goodreads.com/author/list/122620.John_MilbankFor Alan J Roxburgh:http://alanroxburgh.com/abouthttps://www.themissionalnetwork.com/author/alan-roxburgh/https://journalofmissionalpractice.com/alan-roxburghTwitter: https://twitter.com/alanjroxburgh?lang=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/alan.roxburgh.127/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thecommonsnetworkBooksJoining God in the Great UnravelingLeadership, God's Agency and DisruptionsJoining God, Remaking Church, Changing the World: The New Shape of the Church in Our TimeFor Jenny Sinclair:Website: https://togetherforthecommongood.co.uk/from-jenny-sinclairLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jenny-sinclair-0589783b/Twitter: https://twitter.com/T4CGFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/TogetherForTheCommonGoodUKInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/t4cg_insta/ Get full access to Leaving Egypt at leavingegyptpodcast.substack.com/subscribe

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! https://stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

St. Michael's by-the-Sea is an Episcopal Church located in the coastal Village of Carlsbad, California. As far as churches go, it's kind of a beachy version of the ancient Christian Faith, and is rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. Whether you're in town for a week at the beach or a local pilgrim on a spiritual journey, you are welcome here! www.stmichaelsbythesea.org

Fr Calvin Robinson returns to Hearts of Oak to reflect on recent events in the UK, emphasising the importance of unity and common sense discussions amidst rising anger and protests. Calvin discusses the role of media in shaping narratives and advocates for accurate reporting. He stresses the need for righteous indignation without violence and raises concerns about the government's response to current issues. Fr Calvin highlights patriotism, British identity, challenges of mass immigration, and the role of churches in addressing spiritual needs. Encouraging critical thinking and spiritual awareness, he urges prayer, reflection, and deeper faith connections in facing societal challenges. The Rev'd Fr Calvin Robinson is a political adviser, TV anchor, radio presenter, conservative commentator and parish priest. A priest with Old Catholic orders, serving in an Anglican parish. Founding member of the Anglo-Catholic confraternity, Brotherhood of the Holy Trinity. Connect with Calvin... X/TWITTER         x.com/calvinrobinson SUBSTACK         calvinrobinson.com/ FOX & FATHER   x.com/media_reclaim                             youtube.com/c/ReclaimTheMedia_ Interview recorded  5.8.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ Transcript (Hearts of Oak) And hello, hearts of oak. I am delighted to have a good friend of ours, and that is Father Calvin Robinson. Calvin, thank you so much for your time today, as always. (Fr Calvin Robinson) Peter, it is always a pleasure. thanks for having me on. Although, the thing is, we're pre-recording this, so by the time this goes up, the country might not even still be here. It could be, we could be both in the States by then. Who knows what happens by Thursday? Or locked up. But there's literally so much to discuss. And you and I both talked prior to recording this about the interest in the US of what is happening here. And lots of media slots for both of us on the US side as they see what is happening. Happening but over the last week from last Monday from the individual I will get into that actually stabbing three girls killing them and a number of others being severely I think there was about 11 who were injured in that we have seen since last Tuesday a rise of individuals, very angry at what has been happening and there's lots of point of conversation in this. But can I ask you just first generally what have your thoughts been um as a brit living here what is happening over the last week in the UK. That's a big opening question. I don't feel safe. I just today as we're recording this moved out of Cambridge moved over to Oxford and on the way I was thinking I don't feel safe. I don't want to go into London. I don't want to go into the city. I don't want to be around where there are big gatherings of people I don't feel like I'm safe. Now I shouldn't feel like that in my own country. Why do I feel like that? Well, there's a two-pronged approach here. On the one hand the prime minister seems to be stoking the flames he's doing everything he can to make things worse it's bizarre. I've never seen anything like it. Every single press statement he releases or at least has released over the last few days has been: this is all a fault of of the far right and the agitators online, and he's basically pointed fingers at Tommy Robinson, Nigel Farage, you, me, and people who are pointing out the problem. But this has been the problem; these are we're problem a lot here, but the problem all along has been that people who point out the problem are perceived as the problem rather than the problem itself. So, you on the one hand we've got the government saying things like we're going to clamp down on these these far-right thugs. We are the far-right thugs and their online agitators for all that's us. And then on the other hand we've got the Muhammadans out there with the machetes and the planks of wood beating Britain's left right and centre, and so I don't know if I'm going to get arrested by the state or beat to death by a Muhammadan. What, so how do you, because you have a responsibility as someone who is a high profile individual in the media, and I feel I have a responsibility of someone who's less high profile in the media than yourself. But we have responsibility to discuss what is happening and not to throw petrol on the fire, but to have a conversation of what is happening to bring some common sense, but not to ramp up for the sense of clickbait which I think is a danger in the media. So how do you; you've got a a number of different hats. Let's stick your media hat on, how do you see it in terms of media? Well, we do have to report on events, we have to cover the events of course, we don't have to we have to not stoke the events, but my my personal message is be angry. We should be angry. We should have righteous indignation, but we should not be violent. We as brits are not violent we're civilized people and actually we want to protect our country. The reason we're angry is because we feel the establishment is disconnected from us, working against us, and have imported a hostile force who hates us and want to kill us and replace us. And so we're angry on two fronts, but we're angry because the other people are violent, not because we're violent. So, we don't meet violence with violence. And so my message over this past few days has been, do not resort to violence. Because actually, I think we're being stirred up for a reason. I honestly believe the government cannot be this incompetent they must be riling people up in order to clamp down on our freedoms we're already seeing, you know, there was a conflict of interest in the media this week. Where we had former minister Ed Balls on Good Morning Britain interviewing his wife Yvette Cooper who happens to be the home secretary. Having a very cordial conversation about clamping down on Twitter and clearly Twitter is the only free speech platform we have left, you know, we've got rumble in the video space, but in social media space we've only got Twitter. So, if they clamp on twitter they control the narrative and all they have to do to clamp down on Twitter is say; well these these riots are being stirred up by by Peter and Calvin and Tommy and Nigel therefore we've got to stop them talking. The prime minister was lost a question by the media again as we record today should Tommy Robinson and Andrew Tate be allowed on social media. Should they be allowed on social? Should they be allowed to have a voice? It's absolutely crazy the conversations that are being had right now and so of course the far left who think themselves to be reasonable centrists are saying well no of course they shouldn't we should stop all these people. These people are the problem, but they will even if they do manage to censor us they will never realize that we are just highlighting the problem. We are not the problem itself, the problem is still festering. Those people out with the sticks and machetes are not your everyday ordinary common British folk. So, the problem for our war room posse and our US audience who may not get what's happening is that last Monday, three girls were murdered and many others were injured at, I think, a Taylor Swift kind of concert event in a school. And this individual has now been arrested. Details put out. And but it's so that's the situation we find ourselves in to this event, which seems to have been the spark that has angered people. Why have people been angered at that? Is it the event? Is it the response? Is the media? How has that been the spark that set off this anger that we've seen across the UK, even to Northern Ireland, which surprises me? When you have the nationalists and the Republicans, the Protestants and the Catholics, Irish flag and Northern Irish flag together, I don't think I've ever seen that in all my time. So, it's been something that's unified people. What has it been about this event that's actually unified people and got them angry? First of all that unity is great to see. This is... So, God takes bad things and turns them into good. He takes evil events and works them for good. That's what we're seeing here; the Catholics and the Protestants marching arm by arm in arm side by side. I honestly have never thought I'd see the day in Northern Ireland that's amazing, but it's coming from and you're right this this one incident is a spark, but it's almost a catalyst. It didn't start the whole thing. You know, we saw riots in Leeds and in Whitechapel before this incident as well. So, it's been stirring up for a while. And actually, the three girls, Alice, Elsie, and Bebe, were –, It destroys us. It breaks our hearts. As Brits, we take the lives of innocents and the vulnerable seriously, and we believe in the sanctity of life, and we want to protect the vulnerable and the innocent. So, when three girls are murdered viciously for no reason, it's horrible and it destroys us. And so, of course, it's going to be a catalyst. But the problem is that the media and the establishment try to cover it up, as they always do. So, it's not just saying that this is who the perpetrator was, this is what he believed in, this is why he did it. They say well let's talk about this, and that instead, let's talk about this, and that it's like distraction projection, distraction projection, and people see through it people aren't stupid. And when they release pictures of of the perpetrator as a seven-year-old or 11-year-old or something to make him look cutesy and and to make you empathize when... People don't start to empathize with him. They don't start to think: okay the perpetrator is actually the victim. What they think is, why? Why are you peddling this? This was a fully grown 17-year-old chap who killed these girls. He does not look like that. What message are you trying to tell us? That we should feel sorry for the boy over the girls? And so people have had enough of the media manipulating them and the establishment manipulating them, and that the police never release the reports, and not just in this stepping, but continually. We never get the manifestos. We never get the motivations. And so people have said enough is enough. And this is why they're sick and tired of it all. This is why they got out and started protesting. But of course, with any protest, there are always false flags. And there are always people trying to capitalize on these events and try to make it look worse than it is. And so it's been incredibly disappointing to hear our own government try and paint all these ordinary, upset, frustrated Britons as far-right thugs. There's no far-right in this country. We'd know if there was a far-right. We would have seen them long ago when when we're needed, but the problem is just to paint ordinary people as far right, demonizes them and paints paints the frustrated as the bad guys. I'm beginning to get at a loss for words, because it's when the establishment is against you to that degree, when the media and the politicians are colluding together. What outlet do we have other than public civil disorder order and this is why people are out in the streets. Hearts of Oak: Well, it is, because Alice - nine-year-old girl, and Bebe was six year old, Elsie - seven, these are children, they do not choose to be involved in some fight, in some war, that we have in the UK and of course eight other children and sustained knife wounds on that and you're right. The shocking thing was the media putting the picture of Axel, and I can't pronounce his surname, I don't have in front of me, Radha Kubane, his parents from Rwanda. He was born here in Wales so he's Welsh and that whole conversation of the media seemingly trying to hide to say this was a Welsh child, a Welsh boy, Welsh kid had carried this out, but actually there's a wider picture and it's not just on this individual. It's a wider conversation, but it seems to be that at every turn the media have tried to fall over themselves to make sure and give a narrative that fits in with the government narrative, similar to what we've seen in Covid tyranny I guess. For the sake of diversity. Yeah, a rush to follow that so have you seen that kind of the media falling over themselves as someone in the media, someone who was on GB News, now with Lotus Eaters, wonderful Lotus Eaters. But as someone in the media, how do you see that as the media rushing, falling over themselves to hide a story instead of expose a wrongdoing? Well, this is why we started GB News. This is why we got involved in our project to offer an alternative voice. It hasn't worked out. It has become as controlled as the rest. But the problem was we saw everywhere else you looked, there's a controlled narrative. and people, it's not even always controlled, it's that people subscribe to this narrative. So, lots of people who work at the BBC, for example, or The Guardian or The Telegraph, they are on board with we must protect diversity, everything for the sake of diversity. And so when they discover that the perp may be of a different ethnicity maybe of a foreign nationality or his parents maybe with foreign nationality they have to cover it up they have to disguise it, because they want people to think it's because of that. And maybe in this instant it wasn't because of that maybe it wasn't anything to do with his ethnicity or his culture or his parents nationality. Maybe it had maybe had nothing to do with it whatsoever, but the fact that they tried to hide it makes us suspicious, because quite often it does have something to do with it. Quite as often the attacks are because there are Muhammadans in this country who hate us. Hate our way of life. Want would love to have sharia here, would love to have the Islamic law, would love for this to be an Islamic caliphate, and so do want to harm us. Most of our terrorist incidents in this country are from the Mohammedan ideology. And so when they cover it up, what they're doing is they're becoming complicit. We've seen this for years now, decades now, with the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs, where we saw Pakistani Muslims, as part of their culture, not seeing white British girls as the same or as equal or as even a person. In our tradition, we'd see them as made in the image of God. In their tradition they see them as lesser than. And so they've been grooming and raping these young girls for years, but have been covered up by the councillors, by the police, by the MPs, by our government. All for the sake of diversity, and this is exactly this is the same pattern day in day out with anything that involves anyone that may be at least slightly brown. We've got to move past if we truly want to be a multicultural society and I don't, but if people on the left say we want to become a multicultural society, then we have to get to a stage where actually we can have discussions about ethnicity, about culture, about religion, without being shut down or being accused of being a racist, a bigot, or far-right. And we're not there. We are clearly not there. Multiculturalism is not working, and diversity isn't our strength. Diversity is our Achilles heel. Diversity is the thing that is causing a lot of these issues and a lot of this polarisation, these riots that we're seeing, these protests that we're seeing, all for the sake of diversity. And of course, here's the individual who's going to be tried in January. We'll discuss why they don't have 24-hour courts to actually deal with that trial, because I think justice has to be done swiftly and not held over for months and months. And we've seen this delay in the grooming gangs, where some of them take a year to actually carry out, and it's irrespective of that the individual is held in custody. Actually, you need justice to be done, and to be done swiftly. But I'm glad that Keir Starmer suddenly found out that he can deal with these individuals quickly, but the individual Axel is his parents from Rwanda, Christian country, but 55 percent Christian minority, Muslim, but to me that the issue separately is people fitting into this country. That's the first thing, but secondly it is and whether or not this individual will find out, whether or not Axel was caught up in Islamic ideology or Muhammadism. I've talked to many church leaders and they've said they are losing many young people to Islam because it comes across as a strong muscular, confident faith. Where Christianity comes across as weak, pathetic, and liberal. So, young people want to have that confidence as an individual and Islam seems to have that. Christianity doesn't have that, so that's a conversation I want to have with you in a little bit. But that whole thing of people coming from abroad and just fitting in to the country, and what actually means being part of this country. And we don't seem to have that conversation of people when they step here. And that seems to be massively lacking in helping people actually know what it means to be British. That is the key. That's what we've been missing for all these years. At the start of all of this mass immigration, which we have for decades now, that really took off in 1997 under Tony Blair. We should have said, look, if we're going to have people coming here, we've got to understand who we are and what we're about before we take on board anyone else's values or cultures. Us and we should have said, look this is this is what it means to be British: the English language the Christian faith. Faith, hope and love as values and stretched it out from there, but we couldn't even when the Tories got into power they were like, what are British values? Democracy, the rule of law. It's like these secular nonsense, that's not who we are as a people. And so we should have described it and outlined it from the beginning and then said we're going to have assimilation for the people that do come over to Britain. They assimilate into our culture into our faith, into our way of life. And that's how we bring people together. That's how we have unity. That's how you have true diversity, actually, under unity. If we all said, look, this is a monarchy, a constitutional monarchy, a democracy. And so under our flag, under our king or queen at the time, then that's how we unite. But people who do not like that we are a constitutional monarchy, do not like that we're a democracy, do not like our flag, do not like our values they should not be an allowed entry. But it's too late for that they've been allowed in, and so now we have these conflicting ideologies these conflicting cultures that do not get on. And never will get on, because people swear allegiance to to something else or someone else before us, and it's the great test. It always has been the test, now it's the Muhammadans, and now it's the fact that the Islamic faith comes before everything including Great Britain. But even before then, even when we had mass Pakistani immigration; even before that when my family came over, we had the mass Caribbean immigration. It was still, the easy test is when the cricket's on, who do you support? I mean, you laugh, but it's true. That you can tell someone's agenda and someone's allegiances by who they'll support. No, completely. And I was, I mean, today we've seen, or maybe yesterday, today, I mean, the days blur into one, but we've seen Keir Stammer, who sadly, please pray for us, all the war in Posse, we have Keir Stammer as our PM for the next five years. But he was giving his well he was giving a statement and what he would do the far right have nowhere to hide. We will come and find you they'll regret your actions. I think someone posted a video of Keir stammer when making statements on the BLM rats in 2020 after George Floyd had a drugs overdose and the difference in then it didn't seem to be we will come and find you and target you it's seemingly leniency on one side and aggression on the other. I don't know if you've seen that or want to speak into that. Peter, are you suggesting that there's some kind of two tiers to Kier? I love that he's getting known as two-tier Kier now by the way, because it's really exposing him for who he is. You're right. Absolutely, there's a different approach to to different demographics and if anyone brown is involved it's like you know, soft gloves, kiddie gloves. And then if anyone, white or British is involved or Christian is involved, then it's, we will find you and we will get you. It's like, whoa, how did it go from Care Bears to Stormtroopers? Where's the in-between? Where's the policing without fear or favour that we knew and loved? This is, I mean, we introduced policing to the rest of the world, pretty much from our standards. And that's all gone. Our police forces have been corrupted with liberalism as well as this diversity above all. If it's black lives matter, if it's Muhammadansm, if it's something that's seen as approved by the narrative then they get away with it. If it's the default if it's white British Christians then they're stumped down upon. So, what is that is that is that meaning that we treat people differently based on their ethnicity and their religion, if so then that's racist discrimination and that's essentially what our police forces and our government is getting up to. It's racial discrimination and or religious discrimination at the moment. We have the equalities act for that purpose to make sure that everyone is treated say equally under the law and that's always been our way. We strive for equal opportunities not equal outcomes. We profess to live in a meritocracy where anyone can become anything as long as they work hard enough, it doesn't matter your race or your religion in this liberal democracy. I mean it's not the way I would have it that's the way we've been told it's supposed to be and it's notworking anymore. How do you bounce up? Because, I come with this from someone born in Northern Ireland and living in London. So, I've got that Northern Irish mix, which is extremely proud and strong and sectarian, which is good and bad. And then finding myself in London, which isn't England, as Lozza has told us. But you also come from that mixed side of having a Caribbean background, English background. How do you see that diverse? Because I've kind of been in one way perplexed living in England, having a strong identity from Northern Ireland and realizing that English people don't necessarily have that strong identity. How do you kind of see that in a kind of similar mix? Yeah, it's been scrubbed out over the years, it's very bizarre. So, I've always been proud to be British. My father was born here but his father was born in Jamaica and when they came over from Jamaica during Windrush they were very proud to be British too, because they were part of the British Commonwealth of nations they were like coming to the mother country so essentially. They still believed in the empire, they thought it was great. Most Jamaicans still do, according to the last poll taken over there. So, it's really weird when the native English don't. So, I'm only half English, I'm half Caribbean. So I suppose it's my Caribbean half that's more patriotic, that's proud to be British, because the English people have lost some of that. And I think it's been taken out of them on purpose by design. Most people are told these days, you can't be proud to be English, because it's nationalistic. It seems to be something that came out of World War II. It seems to be the lesson we took from World War II too, that to be nationalistic is a bad thing. It leads to Nazism. Of course, that's nonsense, lot a nonsense. National socialism was fascism. It was the extreme end of the political spectrum. Having pride in your nation is something that unites us, not something that divides us. And actually, if it's done right, patriotism is done right, it's a good thing for all of us. And so I feel sorry when I see a lot of English people that feel that the Scots have their identity, the Northern Irish have their identity, the Welsh have their identity. They're like, Like, what are we? We're told we're just British. Well, the thing that unites all of us is that we're British across the whole of the United Kingdom. But the English are still English too. And actually, there is an English, a distinctively English culture that's different to the Welsh culture and the Scottish culture and the Northern Irish culture. But there are things that we share in common as British. And so we've got to be able to take the distinction between the two and celebrate the two and say, yes, yes, I'm English. Yes, I'm British. They are both good things. And of course, when we do that, we'll get called racists and FOB bigots. But we've got to accept that. We've got to take that. Just dust it off. It doesn't matter. The far left hate themselves and they hate us because we don't hate ourselves. So, we've just got to show them love, really, and show them it's okay to love our country. I've read you being called names along with Tommy, along with Lawrence, and I will not get into the personal stuff, but I've seen Majid Nawaz getting involved in that attack and others, so it's not just on that side. But I don't understand the attacks, because it seems to be that you, Tommy, Lawrence, many others are concerned at this erosion of British identity and are concerned at how mass immigration changes this and are concerned of how the government understands the left behind that many communities feel. So, as I've looked online, as I've gone into Twitter, as we all go into that Twitter spiral, and I've been confused at that attack on yourself and others because it doesn't seem to stand up, doesn't seem to have merit. I'm high of, I know for you it's water off a duck's back. I get that, but what how are you targeted as someone who simply wants to stand up for British values and understands the anger that many English people feel. I think it's different from different people. So, Merchant Noah's is a good example of Muhammadan's always put Muhammad first. And so you know he wrote this book radical from from extremist Islamist to secular Muslim. And he's claimed to be a secular Muslim for a while now, but it seems he's reverted back to his extremist ways or he's reverted back to putting Islam above Britain, because the people who are standing up for Britain or at least try to are getting attacked by him. I mean, he called me a globalist Chill. I've literally done everything all my life to fight against globalism. You know, I was in part of vote Leave to fight against the Federalist European Union. I fight against globalism in terms of Islam along trying to take over Britain. And try to fight against the one state, the one nation, the one world government, the one world religion, all that stuff but I think he's he's seeing it from an Islamic point of view rather than the British point of view. That's that's his his downfall. That's his Achilles heel unfortunately, but it's not just him there is there we're getting divided amongst ourselves. So, the people who have been traditionally fighting for freedom and traditionally fighting against you know covid, lockdowns, and vaccine mandates and stuff people who were aligned are being separated now, and it's a great shame, but this is part of the design of the enemy. Whether we're talking about the enemy in terms of the state or in terms of Satan himself, the enemy does not want us working together for good. But during the COVID, I've seen that divide and conquer. I've seen individuals attacking each other. And my line on the COVID tyranny is it doesn't matter if it's taken you a year, two years, three years to catch up. Hey, that's fine. It's important that individuals wake up. And the same on mass immigration, the same on Islam. The same on however you want to tackle this. So, I don't understand this attack from within, because surely we should understand the role of the state to divide people up and therefore control individuals. It seems to me that some of the individuals that attack, surely they should know better. But yeah, maybe they don't. And it kind of you look at people you think surely you should know better how this works. [Yeah, and I mean we have to kind of curate our own side as well, because it gets to the point where, you know we were just talking about my mixed heritage for example. Now, we said certain elements of the right that are edging onto the far right now and saying well we're ethno-nationalists and actually we just think Britain should be entirely white. So, it's like okay well what about those of of us who were born here, and our parents were born here, and we're not 100%, English, like I am half English, half Afro-Caribbean, then where do we go? And where do we fit into all of this? And so, it's become puritanical about all this, because they've been pushed to the extremes. They've been pushed for so long and so hard that their only defence is to fight back and say, we want none of it, and say, we don't just want rid of Islam, we just want rid of brownness. And it's like, of course, that's unrealistic. It does eventually lead to racism, but I can understand where it's coming from. And this is, because we're being divided further and further. And we've got to fight against the division. We've got to come back to unity. And this is why the rallies that we've been holding in London, one on June the 1st and one on July the 27th, were about uniting the kingdom, because we've got to come together. Tell me about that July the 22nd because frustratingly I was away, because I had a wedding anniversary and I was away. I couldn't join you in London and I was so sad to watch the huge demonstration. The tens of thousands, certainly 50,000, some put 100,000, and that coming together and that preceded what we have seen in the outpouring of anger at the stabbings. But there does seem to be a patriotism that's building up in Britain that I haven't seen for quite a while. I mean, how did you see that demonstration back in the 1st of June and then in July? It does seem to be a reinvigorating of what it means to be British and champion that once again, that we haven't seen that patriotism for a while in Britain. It's amazing to see, actually. We talked earlier about how English people tend to lack that sense of patriotism or not be able to display it these days without being castigated. But these rallies have been reuniting people and allowing people, giving people the permission that they feel the need for some reason to be able to be patriotic again. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to make it either because the date was set. And it's not about me, it's not about any individual, so we all just have to... But this has been the great thing about these rallies, It's the thing that Lawrence often says. It's amazing how much you can get done if no one wants the credit. And that's what these rallies have been about. So, I remember seeing you at the organising committee. We all come together to help do what we can and contribute how we can. If we can make it on the day, fantastic. If we can't, so be it. We still put our two pence in. But the people who turn up, they are what it's all about. British people waving that, whether it's the Union flag or St George's Cross or St Patrick's Cross or the Red Fist or the Red Dragon. And this is what it's all about. So it's not a fist, it's a hand. The red hand. Red hand of Ulster with a crown in the middle. That's the howl. But tell me from your point of view as a Christian leader, and we all are called into positions by God. We all, maybe because we want to, because we don't, because our choosing, because of simply calling, but we end up in positions of responsibility. And your position of responsibility is not only a media figure but also a Christian figure a religious figure. A church figure. How do you look on what is happening with that hat if I can ask you to put on that hat of Christianity and how do you see what's happening in terms of the rallies, but in terms of what we've seen over the last week? Over the last week I've felt a darkness come over this country. Now I've spoken to friends who've visited recently of last few weeks and months and they've said it feels like your country has a malaise over it and that malaise I think has turned into maleficence. I think in the last few days in particular there's a spiritual heaviness a spiritual darkness on this country that we can only get through if we pray we can. You know, to get through with him and his help. Unfortunately, I don't think many of us are at that stage yet. Thankfully, people are waking up at a political level. People are getting out and protesting and people are making their voices heard. But people aren't necessarily waking up at a spiritual level yet. And so this is why on Sunday just gone, I started my first online prayer session for the nation, where I'm going to do every Sunday at 5 p.m. People can tune in. We're just going to do evening prayer, just praying together for this country because we need it. We cannot do anything good on our own without him. He is everything that's good. And so, yeah, we're dark, but the darkness helps us see the light. So, we just need to turn to the light and head towards that. And how do you see churches being involved? Because we often see churches not understanding the conversation that's happening in public, because of the desire to protect ourselves with a midweek meeting and a Sunday sermon. And therefore, we are doing our duty as Christians behind our walls. How do you see churches' involvement? The churches have been disappointing, but we've seen this throughout modern history. Actually, we saw this through Covid where they closed their doors and instead of saying we are an essential service and the sacraments are vital there's no health in us without them. And people need to pray together to be to be Christian to come together to worship God and glorify God. Instead of saying that they closed their doors on people and it's been the same ever since to be honest you know Church attendance dropped by a third across the board in this country. So, lots of people have not returned because they haven't felt supported spiritually. Their spiritual well-being hasn't been taken care of. But even the people that are good, even the church leaders that are good, have their heads buried in the sand. So many of them are worried about image and optics. And we can't seem to be saying that. Even if they believe it, they can't seem to be saying it. And so when I talk to people about the church, I'm not talking about that church anymore. The hierarchy, the visible church, I'm not interested. We are the church, and that's what's important. Me, you, everyone tuned in watching, the professors of their faith in Jesus Christ, through our baptism. We are the church, the faithful masses. And so we come together in prayer. We come together in worship of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. And that's what bishops do. Leave the priests, leave the archbishop, do their wokeness and their liberalism. because they are important. He is what's important. As long as we come together with Him on our hearts, we are doing what we're called to do. And it's interesting how God raises people up. And I always want to sit back as a Christian and say and pray, God, who are you going to raise up? What are you going to do in this current climate? What is your will? And see people like me. I watched Elon Musk's interview with Jordan Peterson, and it was intriguing. Speaking not only that Jordan Peterson interviewed himself as opposed to Elon Musk, but that's a whole other conversation, but actually learning a little bit about Elon from that conversation obviously someone having the platform of Twitter someone who is not a Christian and said to Jordan how he's not a Christian. Very different from Jordan Peterson who's someone who seems to be searching for something more. Elon is not necessarily at that, but he is willing to speak out and he sees what's happening in the UK. And even today, he talked about Keir Starmer and said, surely you should be concerned about all communities and not just about one community protecting mosques or attacking far right. Or he sees that as a divide and conquer. How do you see as a media figure, but probably as a Christian, how God kind of raises individuals up to speak common sense and truth whenever the church is not really doing that. Yeah, that was an interesting clip where Keir said: you should not feel attacked because of your faith or the colour of your skin. And he wasn't about white people or Christians. He was talking about brown Mohammedans. And this is what Elon rightly pointed out, that we shouldn't be, you know, and Keir said, we're going to put more money. I think recently they announced £170 million for the protection of mosques, but he said we need more money to protect the mosques. It's like, why is this one particular demographic being put on a pedestal above all the others? What's it about that? But you're writing that God uses people in different ways and calls us to different things, that even when we don't know about it ourselves. And I think Elon Musk and Jordan Peterson are both being called right now to lead people to Christ. Elon Musk recently said he appreciates the cultural Christianity of the West and finds it important, similar to what Richard Dawkins, the chief atheist said recently. But also we know that Jordan Peterson's been on this faith journey for some time now. When you and I saw him in London recently, he had his blazer on with Mary all over it, which I thought was a bit on the nose. But it's like, come on, just come here, just come out. I mean, we all have different barriers in our way when it comes when it comes to faith. So, all we can do is pray for these people to find Christ and hope that he changes their hearts and converts them. Yeah, I mean, lots of people are being called, lots of people are being raised up right now, and it's about separating the weak from the chaff, and it's about finding who's true and not jumping to conclusions. We saw this in America with the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Clearly a miracle, clearly saved. But then people are like, oh, he's the anointed one of God, he is the prophet Trump. It's like, wait a minute, calm down a minute, let's not go too far. You know my personal take on that is that he was he was he was definitely saved it was definitely a miracle but we don't know why. We don't know what god's plan is, you know, it could be that if Donald Trump had been assassinated there'd be civil war in America right now because there are a couple of them would have taken up arms against the democrats who clearly would have killed him. And so maybe in saving his life God has saved the nation it's the nation that's anointed rather than than Donald Trump. So ,I mean it's just speculation but that's all we can do it's not to to jump on bandwagons of making false idols out of people. No, it tells that we see things through what a dark glass or darkly and don't always see things clearly. And we don't know what the mind of God is. And one day we will see that. But the Jordan, I mean, seeing Michaela, his daughter, talk about her faith and of how a number of things lined up within one day. And she said the only thing that could be is God and then Jordan's wife, I think Tammy being very open. I mean it is exciting, because I don't understand why people don't question things. As a Christian I am confused why people how people can look at the complexity of the world and think actually it's just luck and chance and a big bang and here we are and we all die and that's the end. And yet some people are in that elk to not actually question things, people who are questioning by nature. So, it is exciting to see people questioning and questioning. That's, in effect, that's part of your calling under God to actually, and mine is a Christian, but you have a dog collar, I don't. But to actually point people towards, is God in this? What does that mean? Surely this complexity of the universe and life means something more. I think we're having that conversation in the UK separate from maybe the established church. But still, there are those conversations happening one-on-one and online. Yeah, I think it's just a case of encouraging people to think. And the enemy would say, well, thinking is the opposite of religion. You have to not think to be. No, it's not. It's clear. The problem is we live in a world where there's noise constantly, or we're surrounded by distraction 24-7. So, we don't actually take any time out to think. And God is working very actively in our lives, in this world, in his creation. Our living God is a good God who doesn't sit by. So, there are miracles happening in our lives every day if we're open to seeing them. But that means we've got to think about it. You're right, some people will think, oh, it's just a coincidence. They won't even stop to think about it. They'll just continue with the noise and the distraction and keep the blinkers on. But the moment we stop and reflect and pray through what has happened in our day, in fact, it's a good habit to build up in our life to have that at the end of the day to just take time out to things and reflect about what's happened in the day. To repent of any sins we may have committed, but also to thank God for the beauty that we've experience. And that's kind of what we're avoiding, because we're avoiding the silence. And we hear God's voice in the silence. That's where he is. So, that's why we spend all our lives and all our days running away from it. And so I suppose my job is just to encourage people to stop. Stop running. Stop being distracted. And just think. Stop and think. Hearts of Oak: Oh, and I've talked to many people who said, you know, I'm not religious, Peter, but I have prayed more. I have thought more. And I think that's something we're seeing more and more. And certainly I'd encourage our audience, whether you're a watcher listening to, as you see things, to take time and ask God what he means in that. Because what we see around us is often a pointer to something. So, do take a moment and do ask God, are you saying something in that? And he says, call to me and I will answer you. So have a go, have a try, I do ask God. But Cam, how do you, going forward, what is your message to Brits at the moment, to those living on this island in England and over there, the water in Northern Ireland, who've been involved in a lot of these demonstrations? Administrations, I am concerned that a lot of people involved will get sucked up and locked away. The state will try and remove those who are against it. I'm trying to think how we can be smarter and more effective in combating what we see. So, I mean, publicly, what's your message to people in this current environment? My message is to be cautious and to be careful. We've got to make redundancies, make plans. The state could be coming for us. The Mohammedans could be coming for us. We don't know if we're going to be locked up or if we're going to be killed. And so have backup plans, whether that's downloading VPNs, so you've got ways to communicate with people, being in emergency chat groups of people that you can flag that you are safe. Build redundancies into your life, but also build prayer habits at the start of the day, at the end of the day. Build a way of life that is centred around prayer, that is centred around Christ, and not just around the politics. We have to do both. We've got to address the political situation that's going on in this country, and that means not sitting back and just watching. That means being active, whether that's getting out and standing for election, or if that's just forming a local community group to look out for each other. But also, on the other side, we've got to look after our spiritual wellbeing, which means going to church every single Sunday without exception. I mean, starting and ending your day in prayer of thanksgiving for the one true God. I'll be doing that, going to church on Sunday, starting my day in prayer. I think it's essential. Calvin, it's a perfect end to the conversation. Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom on what is happening on not only the political understanding, but also the spiritual element which is what we so need to today. So, thank you for your time today. Thank you Peter.

Confirmation has often been called a Sacrament looking for a theology. How is an Anglo-Catholic approach to Confirmation different from those of Protestant traditions? What is its purpose? Why do we need it? Fr. Hayden and Fr. Wesley explore these questions and more in today's episode! We would love to hear from you! Send us your feedback and questions to thesacramentalists@gmail.com or reach out to us on Twitter @sacramentalists. Be sure to join our Communion of Patreon Saints for only $5 a month.