Esther MCINTOSH

In 2016, two unexpected election results shook the US and the UK: the successful presidential campaign of Donald Trump and the victory of leave campaigners in Britain. Commentary on both events highlighted the anti-immigration rhetoric and the rise of populism: the kind of populism that seeks to mobilize the ‘common’ people against the privileged elites and those deemed to be unwanted outsiders. What was missing from the majority of pre- and post-election coverage was feminist analysis of the patriarchal nature of the campaigns and their impact on women, especially religious women. By drawing on available reports of both election campaigns and views expressed by mainstream and fringe Christian leaders and theologians, this chapter explores the underlying misogyny that led to large numbers of White evangelical women voting for President Trump, despite his openly sexist and racist behavior, and against the growth of the hashtag #whitechurchquiet. Likewise, male voices in political and Christian circles dominated in the lead up to the UK’s referendum on EU membership; yet, women are more likely to suffer from the impacts of post-Brexit austerity and the rise in religious hate crime. Hence, this chapter considers the gendered implications of Christian rhetoric and theology in Britain, including that of current Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and its impact on Muslim women in particular. The chapter concludes that the persistence of White Christian patriarchy and its entanglement with right-wing populism (including QAnon conspiracy theories) is evident in responses to Black Lives Matter protests and COVID-19, and, yet, is clearly at odds with liberation theology’s preferential option for poor.

In this article, we argue that ritual in the Church of England is used to both affirm and police trans identities. The Church’s recent guidance accompanying renewal of baptismal vows as a liturgy of welcome for trans people, and the accompanying backlash, highlights the role of liturgy and ritual for trans belonging in the Church and the ways power over liturgical words and praxis is overtly wielded. By contrast, the marriage rite has established ontological meaning for trans bodies, but only on the condition that they support heterosexuality. Yet, there is a subversive access to meaning-making in both these ritual contexts. The lived experiences trans people of faith in the Church of England shared with us reveal the ways in which Church-sanctioned ritual ensures that trans bodies are used to reproduce fixed meanings around sexuality, sex and gender.

In this article, we argue that public theologians have a rich tradition from which to argue for the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. In particular, Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s resistance to the co-opting of Christianity by the Nazi regime is frequently cited in theological circles as an exemplar. Yet, we find major public figures and theological societies, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, and the United Kingdom’s Society for the Study of Theology (SST) to be wanting in this regard. From an examination of Welby’s comments on the Israeli bombardment in Gaza, and the SST’s response to our open letter and the lament from Palestinian Christians, we argue that theologians are failing. We draw on Palestinian liberation theology and anti- colonial theologies to argue that the work of liberation is the raison d’être of theology and requires political activism. We conclude, therefore, that theological silence is com- plicity in injustice.

Young adults in university environments are increasingly exploring gender variant identities and challenging binary constructions. Knowledge about the lived experiences of trans and non-binary young people in higher education, however, is partial. Our research into Anglican Foundation Universities in England begins to address this lacuna. In particular, chaplains may find themselves acting as a bridge between the equality, diversity and inclusivity policies of universities and the Anglican Church’s official rejection of both same-sex marriage and the writing of new liturgies for trans folk; this may be especially the case for queer students who have personal connections with the Christian faith. We argue there is a need for deeper reflection on the notion of safe space and the cis-construction of trans and non-binary folk as vulnerable and we ask whether protection and vulnerability discourses create contradictions that undermine agency and positive visibility of trans and non-binary young people. This article adds to research in the field by bringing together religious and gendered identities at UK universities; it draws on interviews with trans and non-binary folk to explore experiences of chaplaincies and campus spaces.

In the UK (and the US as well as elsewhere) freedom of speech is being weaponised in the academy in ways that effectively curtail those who speak to truth to power and who challenge colonialist behaviour and related injustice. This article examines the direction of travel in UK academia in recent years related to both freedom and ethics through two key movements: trans rights and Palestine solidarity. Particular attention is given to definitions of academic freedom and freedom of speech, related government policy and its effects, and the moral duties of theologians and theological ethicists. In conclusion, the article calls for a new theological ethics that can stand up against injustice and the increasingly authoritarian moves of governments and university managers.

Macmurray’s distinctive portrayal of personhood has much to contribute to more recent accounts of what it means to be human. Michael Fielding, for one, has devoted much of his career to promoting and advocating a Macmurrian-style of schooling both as a critique of and a corrective to the performance-driven form of state education that is prevalent in the UK. Further, while I agree with Fielding and others that Macmurray’s concept of the person is of importance for education, I also hold that it contains significant social and political implications for a religiously plural era. In addition, Macmurray’s emphasis on our inherent relationality provides a philosophical grounding for what is coming to be known as ‘postliberalism’.

In the face of violent crime, mothers are often the most vocal in fighting for justice. When those mothers are also active in a Christian Church, they are well versed in the motifs of sacrifice and forgiveness. From a feminist perspective, these motifs have been severely criticised for weighing more heavily on women than men, given Christianity’s long history of teaching the submission of women and the dominance of men, and, further, have been instrumental in keeping women in abusive relationships. This paper will ask whether: when faced with the traumatic loss of a daughter or son due to the violent actions of another, are the motifs of sacrifice and forgiveness equally problematic or do they help mothers through their grief? Is forgiveness another form of sacrifice required of Christian mothers in the aftermath of violent crime? Does a mother’s fight for justice require that she does not forgive the perpetrator? How do mothers navigate their Christian faith and these varied motifs in recovering from the traumatic grief that they experience following sudden bereavement? This paper will explore these questions by engaging with the accounts of, for example, Julie Nicholson, the Anglican Priest, whose daughter was killed in the 7/7 bombings in London in 2005; Doreen Lawrence, whose son, Stephen, was murdered in a racist attack in London in 1993; Sybrina Fulton and Lucy McBath, whose sons, Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, were fatally shot in separate incidents in Florida in 2012; and mothers affected by the Grenfell Tower fire in London in 2017.

This chapter argues that gender equality ought to be a primary area of thought and activity for public theology, and, yet, there are very few public theologians engaging with issues of domestic violence, reproductive rights and sexual equality. ‘Public theology’ has been enjoying something of a revival in recent years, with new networks, centres and publications adopting the title; however, there is a substantial imbalance in gender representation amongst them. It seems that public theology still relies upon a notion of the public sphere, drawn from the work of Jürgen Habermas, that employs a concept of reason from which women have frequently been excluded. Consequently, the prevalence of male voices in the public theology canon does little to prioritise women’s voices or issues of concern. Moreover, in so far as public theology fails to acknowledge or critique the patriarchy on which it is based, it falls short of challenging misogyny in church and society. As is all too apparent from the populist presidential campaign of Donald Trump, white evangelical support remained high, despite his overt sexism, racism and lies. His female opponent, Hillary Clinton was clearly held to a higher standard, while Christian forgiveness was poured over each of Trump’s offensive remarks. Thus, partly on the basis of the Republican opposition to abortion, large numbers of white evangelicals, including women, were prepared to cast their vote in favour of a misogynist. While there are some dissenting voices, more churches and public theologians should be speaking out against misogyny in church and society; they should be supporting women, fighting with them for justice and equality. Hence, I will conclude that public theologians need to make a greater effort to hear women’s voices, by recognising that theology takes place outside as well as inside the academy; the current #ChurchToo movement is a prime example here and an opportunity for churches and theologians to respond.

Recent dissatisfaction with individualism and the problems of religious pluralism make this an opportune time to reassess the way in which we define ourselves and conduct our relationships with others. The philosophical writings of John Macmurray are a useful resource for performing this examination, and recent interest in Macmurray's work has been growing steadily. A full-scale critical examination of Macmurray's religious philosophy has not been published and this work fills this gap, sharing his insistence that we define ourselves through action and through person-to-person relationships, while critiquing his account of the ensuing political and religious issues. The key themes in this work are the concept of the person and the ethics of personal relations.

This article highlights the contemporary relevance of Macmurray’s work for the turn in philosophy of religion towards living religion. The traditional academic focus on belief analyses cognitive dissonance from a distance, and misses the experience of being religious. Alternatively, in an astute move ahead of his time, Macmurray emphasized emotion and action over theory and cognition; he examined religion as the creation and sustenance of community, over and above doctrinal division and incompatible beliefs. From an understanding of humans as embodied and relational, Macmurray critiques individualism and self-sacrifice for failing to result in othercentred action and the promotion of social justice and equality. Using Macmurray as a springboard, this article considers the new speech acts of digital media and the possibility of community in online religion, finding that the virtual world holds both the risk of threats of violence and hate, as well as advantages for women and other marginalized groups to have a voice and explore diverse religious practices and identities, including reimagining metaphors and symbols to have relevance and meaning in changed social circumstances. In conclusion, this article finds that online communities are significant for the spiritual practice of the religiously affiliated and religious ‘nones’, as such, online religion is relevant to the understanding of living religion aimed at in philosophy.

The philosophy of John Macmurray is only now receiving the attention it deserves. It is in the contemporary climate of dissatisfaction with individualism that Macmurray's emphasis on the relations of persons has come to the fore. Moreover, Macmurray's recognition of the central importance of acknowledging human embodiment is being favourably received by a wide range of fields, which includes philosophers, theologians and psychologists.Macmurray's overriding concern is to present an adequate account of the person and of personal relationships. Nevertheless, he is an eclectic writer, whose work addresses concerns in education, science and art, which all stem from his understanding of human agency. In addition, this leads Macmurray into a discussion of the ethics of personal and political relations and a critique of otherworldly religion. Hence, Macmurray's philosophy is informed by fairly unconventional religious beliefs.

This article seeks to draw out the links between systems thinking and the philosophy of John Macmurray. In fact, while systems theory is a growing trend in a number of disciplines, including counselling and psychotherapy, the narrative describes its ancient roots. Macmurray’s insistence that humans exist as interdependent rather than independent beings is supported by systems theory. Moreover, Macmurray’s critique of institutionalized religion and his favouring of inclusive religious community is akin to a model of spirituality that, in positive psychology, is conceived of as an open system.

This article argues that Macmurray’s work on education is deserving of serious consideration, because it offers an account of the person that highlights the significance of the emotions and the arts. In particular, the article examines and teases out the areas of Macmurray’s concept of the person that are pertinent to the philosophy of education, which includes the contention that the emotions can and should be educated. Furthermore, on the basis of Macmurray’s work, this article argues that emotional competency is bound up with an education in the creative arts. Consequently engagement with the arts, which is often considered to be a luxury and a hobby, becomes an essential component in the development of human nature and the ability to live well. Finally, by analysing Macmurray’s description of a work of art and bringing Macmurray into conversation with contemporary views regarding the arts and the education of the emotions, in both a critical and a supportive manner, this article concludes that education in the emotions and the arts are key aspects of human well-being.

Social relations are of the greatest significance for human progress and, further, the sustenance and well-being of our relationships requires emotional competence. On these grounds, this paper will draw on the work of John Macmurray in order to show that the emotions have been previously misrepresented and would benefit from education. Secondly, Daniel Goleman’s practical account of emotional education will be employed to illustrate the application of Macmurray’s position. Finally, some objections to educating the emotions will be raised and countered; thus, leading to the conclusion that our development as individuals would benefit from the education of the emotions.

The Nicholas Wolterstorff-Robert Audi debate surrounding the role of religious reasons in public debate remains unresolved in the United States. Alternatively, but relatedly, when politicians and Archbishops in the UK mention God the media react with force. This article seeks a more balanced reaction to the faith of politicians and Archbishops and a solution to the Wolterstorff-Audi debate. First, this article teases out the extent to which John Macmurray's philosophy of community is or is not evident in New Labour politics; secondly, it expounds Macmurray's alternative ‘communitarianism’ by examining his account of church-state relations; thirdly, it introduces the philosophical notion of supervenience to provide a proper account of the relation between religious reasons and secular reasons in public debate and, finally, it provides an example of a ‘community’ that satisfies the essential criteria of Macmurray's definition. Thus, in addition to revealing the contemporary relevance of Macmurray's work and the misunderstandings surrounding the notion of community, this article engages with an ongoing international conversation on the ethics of religious voices in public places and proposes a solution to the Wolterstorff-Audi debate.

Since coming to power in the landslide labour victory of 1997, New Labour has infused British politics with the language of community. Furthermore, John Rentoul claims that Tony Blair’s ‘idea of community . . . derives directly from Macmurray’ (1996[1995]: 42). While community is as central to Macmurray’s writings as it is to Blairite politics, on closer investigation it becomes apparent that Blair and Macmurray use the term community in rather different ways. Macmurray’s understanding of community is more specific than Blair’s implying close relations among persons as opposed to a vague or merely historical and spatial sense of belonging and, thus, it avoids some of the problems that arise as a result of New Labour’s loose and broad uses of the term. Hence, this chapter teases out the philosophical meaning of a Macmurrian community, and it critiques Macmurray’s understanding of ethical relations among persons in community. In particular, Macmurray is highly critical of institutionalized exclusivist religion and argues for an intrinsic connection between what he refers to as ‘real religion’ (1995a[1961]: 170) and the inclusivity of community. Finally then, the chapter will relate the Macmurrian concept of community to an example of a non-political, religiously and culturally plural community in Leeds, West Yorkshire, leading to the conclusion that Macmurray’s understanding of community is a relevant and effective response to religious pluralism.

John Macmurray (1891-1976) was born in Scotland and began his philosophical education in a Scottish university. As an academic philosopher, following in the footsteps of Caird’s Scottish idealism - a reaction against the debate between Hume’s scepticism and Reid’s ‘commonsense’ – Macmurray holds that a university education in moral philosophy is essential for producing virtuous citizens. Consequently, Macmurray’s philosophy of human nature includes a ‘thick’ description of the person, which is more holistic that Cartesianism and emphasizes the relation of persons. Hence, Macmurray focuses on community, but, as this chapter reveals, he is not a communitarian in the contemporary sense; rather, he shares Caird’s focus on philosophy as the means to living well. Thus, he opposes increasing specialization in university education and highlights the limits of science, which, Davie notes, is representative of the Scottish metaphysic of Macmurray’s era. Macmuray is the last in this line of the Scottish philosophical tradition.