Nicafaith CQ

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, made some comments recently about which elements of the Christmas story are important to believe in and which one's aren't. (I heard about this via Lee's post over on the 'Thinking Outside The Cage' blog.)

The Archbishop says he doesn't believe that a star literally guided three wise men to Bethlehem. This, apparently, is not an essential miracle to believe in. Furthermore, according to The Age, Dr Williams said that "while he believed in it himself, new Christians need not leap over the "hurdle" of belief in the virgin birth before they could join the church".

Interesting.

In marketing his very relaxed and moderate brand of religion, Dr Williams might hope that religion might capture a greater market share. It's a 'lite' version of faith, now 99% miracle free; a Diet Faith for those people who would like to take up religion but have previously found some elements hard to swallow.

I wonder, though, if moderate, diluted religion ends up playing quiet a different role? I wonder if it might serve as the religious equivalent of a nicotine patch; an intermediate step, not into religion (as Williams might hope), but out of it. Are Williams, and other moderates, creating a form of belief for those who are finding religiosity less and less compatible with the rest of their lives, but can't (for one reason or another) bare to go 'cold turkey'? And might this ultimately lose them more of the flock?

How much, I wonder, do either side of the believe divide know about how religious ideas play out in the minds of people in the long-term, and which are ultimately the best at capturing hearts and minds?