Mike's musings

Theology and hairdressing

I had my hair cut today (oh, the excitement), and having done the usual "how's your baby?", and "what have you bought for your partner for Christmas?" questions, I decided to be brave and ask my (male) hairdresser/barber whether he was intending to go to church at all over Christmas. "Nah, not really my thing," was his answer. "Fair enough - some people do go at Christmas who don't usually. In fact, my Dad's a priest, and I'm training to be one, so I can't really get away with not going." Fine - so, no problem, no issue.

What happened next was the surprising thing. After a couple of sentences about other stuff, he came out with, "we haven't had our son christened yet." It turned out that their local vicar isn't that keen on baptising the children of non-practising Christians (although, by law, he has to baptise anyone if asked, as I explained), but that they'd like to. I suggested finding someone else if needs be, and he said he'd think about it. He said, about his vicar, "I know I'm not much of a church-goer, but my son might be, so why shouldn't he christen him?" I thought this was fascinating: the view, from a non-church-goer, that his son should be set up for church if he ever wanted to go. There didn't seem to be any suggestion that he thought he'd be disadvantaged if he _wasn't_ baptised, just that he should know, for when he's older, that he has been baptised. If I were his vicar, I'd jump at the chance to baptise this kid. The whole conversation brought home to me something I've suspected for a long time: I live in a country which not only conceives of itself as basically Christian, but also that the Church of England has opportunities and duties to serve that country. And, most of all, that the country has expectations of the C of E. This is heartening.