I really like Mariella Frostrup, the only time I’ve seen her in real life (at the filming of a TV programme she was in) she came across as a very decent person.

Don’t get me wrong, I think as a non-Christian it’s fine for her to offer her own interpretation of what church is about. I just don’t think we should be posting the link to it uncritically is if this is what WE think church is about as well.

Lots of people start going to church for similar reasons, and if you subscribe to the ‘belonging before believing’ model of evangelism then of course anything that gets more people into church has to be good.

I happen to think that reliance on this model has resulted in many churches developing a client/provider model that creates a self perpetuating ‘club’ where the development of discipleship and mission are actively resisted.

That’s why I’m not very keen on settling for the cuddly, non challenging model of church presented by Mariella Frostrup.

Hard to know quite how to read it, isn’t it. She doesn’t ‘slam’ the church, for which I am grateful – but then again it is also pretty patronising. I wonder what the letter-writer decided to do?

Thanks Pam. Some of the comments on the original article are so shallow, on both ‘sides’.

Mariella Frostrup states in the article that she is in the Dawkins/Christopher Hitchings camp when it comes to religion, so I can understand her depiction of church as an escape from a difficult reality and even admire her honesty in saying that church has something to offer.

What I can’t really understand is why various Christians I know have posted links to this article as if Mariella Frostup’s opinion is some kind of accolade! As you say, it comes across as rather patronising to those of us who think Christianity is more than a social construct.

It’s good that Mariella Frostrup, as an atheist, is honest enough to say that church has something to offer but that reflects well off her for being open minded enough to say it’s worth try rather than off the church!