Thought for the Day (again)

On November 7, 2009 / By maggi dawn / Reply

Further to my previous post, which picked up a brief news item by Ekklesia and a response by Nick Baines, here’s a much longer and informative paper about Thought for the Day that lay behind the Ekklesia news item.  Written by Lizzie Clifford, a graduate of the University of Cambridge, it covers the history and origins of Thought for the Day, recent changes and suggestions, current debate, other similar programmes on local or other networks.

She lists the current regular contributors to Thought for the day, which break down something like this:

Anglican – 9,   Christian (non specific denomination) 6,  Jewish 3,  Roman Catholic 3,  Christian Evangelical 3,  Methodist 2,  Muslim 2,  hindu    1,  Church of Scotland 1,  Baptist 1,  Sikh 1,  Buddhist 1

Or, you could read the figures as Christian – 25, other religions 8

Obviously this doesn’t include one-off presentations such as the one by the Atheist Bus promoter.

Among the under-represented groups, one of the smartest Baptists in the country is Dr Simon Perry. He should get an invitation.

My own thought is this: whenever I hear thought for the day (which isn’t every day by any means)  I am less interested in what religion the person represents, and more interested in whether their thought is interesting. My favourites are Lionel Blue, Jonathan Sacks, David Wilkinson and John Bell (two of whom have a different religion to mine, and the other two a different Christian denomination).  They consistently come up with something that I remember several hours later – or even the next day.

What do you think,  readers? Is it reasonable to have more Anglicans on the basis that more people who claim to be religious are Anglicans? Should speakers simply be chosen on the basis of how interesting they are to listen to, or on a representation of the prominence of their religion? SHould Thought for the Day remain religious/theistic, or should it branch out to include non-religious thought systems such as Atheism or secular humanism?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • FriendFeed
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
Tags: , , , ,
« Thought for the Day
Creation at Worship »

6 Responses to “Thought for the Day (again)”

Comments

  1. Lisa Watkinson
    On November 7, 2009 at 7:35 pm

    This one gave me some confusion why? well I want to say keep Thought for the Day religious/theistic and as for there being more Anglicans, that gives me no problem.
    As for my confusion it relates to the possibility of opening up and branching out to include non religious thought systems such as Atheism or secular humanism. On the one hand this would in my opinion deflect from what Thought for the Day is about but by branching out it may open up some real interesting conversations.If this post sounds confused it’s because I am. Also why do we alwats seem to use the word religious rather than chrstian at these times.

  2. Matt
    On November 8, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    >Anglican – 9, Christian (non specific denomination) 6, Jewish 3, Roman Catholic 3, Christian Evangelical 3, Methodist 2, Muslim 2, hindu 1, Church of Scotland 1, Baptist 1, Sikh 1, Buddhist 1
    >Or, you could read the figures as Christian – 25, other religions 8
    I haven’t read specific proposals for how the lineup should be created, whether a – interesting people, b – max diversity, c – representative of communities or attendance, or d – some combination.
    But, on communities, assuming no humanists (though it is a belief system) and using 2.5m per contributor that line up has too few Anglicans, probably slightly too few RCs, and too many of the rest.

  3. andy goodliff
    On November 8, 2009 at 5:00 pm

    Simon Perry would be good … Craig Gardiner, (who blogs here: http://gatheringandscattering.blogspot) often does thought for the day on radio wales and would be good too … come on the baptists …

  4. MacQ
    On November 8, 2009 at 9:37 pm

    In my experience, it’s often in the unexpected that God speaks to us. Whether that is through someone or something where you didn’t have an immediate association with faith or belief. If the same insight is spoken from a Hindu’s mouth as an Anglican’s, then I don’t think we should be afraid to let it sink in to us.
    I remember reading the story about the proprietors of a Scottish Island called Canna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canna,_Scotland). The future wife of the then owner left for the shores of Scotland in her late teens. I read her story recently and one piece of counsel which her father gave her as she left home for foreign shores has stayed with me. ‘Don’t let anyone do your thinking for you’ was his advice. Now, I’d exclude the role of the Holy Spirit obviously(!) but I like the simple expression of independence of thought when it comes to weighing up what we might be exposed to on our lives journey. That’s a long way of saying – if Thought for the Day urges people to think beyond the here and now to the unknown and uncertain into the complicated world we live in and stretch out a hand to hope then that’s a result. We need to be there to offer a hand to meet.

  5. Tony B
    On November 12, 2009 at 9:50 am

    I don’t often listen to it, but it seems to be called “Thought for the Day” not “Religious Thought for the Day”. Many people are pleased that Richard Dawkins has been saying and writing the things he has been saying and writing, because it has stirred up debate about, and interest in, God. Surely the same could well apply here. Surely we all want to be stirred up and challenged by things.

  6. Rachael
    On May 20, 2010 at 5:47 am

    I could not said it better myself, lucy

Reply