Humanism versus Christianity is a familiar theme and a real one because the differences are real and no good is done by pretending otherwise. But agreements, or at least compatibilities, are as real as differences and to disregard or undervalue either is an error.

The premise of this essay is that the pressures of the world tend to make Christians outwrd-looking and constructively 'liberal' while nostalgic contemplation of supposed 'fundamentals' makes them inward-looking and destructively sectarian. The question asked is 'can humanism contribute to the liberalisation of religion?' It is not 'should humanists try to convert Christians?'. The former question will be asked on the basis of practically operational meanings of 'humanism' and 'Christianity'. What these terms might be taken to mean, by learned persons who are mostly ignored, is beside the present point. What they are taken to mean by more ordinary people is more significant for present practical purposes.

By 'humanism' is meant the idea that human beings can, individually and collectively, identify, and solve to a satisfactory extent, the problems of this life ('this' being strictly redundant but put in for emphasis because this is the only life we know of directly). A corollary of this view is that 'belief' can be a vice that promotes tyranny and decay and that scepticism is a virtue that promotes freedom and useful discovery. Humanism may or may not be 'true'.

Christianity is taken to mean belief that this life is merely part of a larger plan in which a creator with (sufficiently identifiable) purpose has given us both free will to go for or against that purpose and the means of salvation from our abuse of that free will - from having fallen into sin. The means is to be understood in terms of the status that Christians accord to Jesus signified by the keywords Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection. Like humanism, Christianity may, or may not, be 'true'.

Let us be clear that both stances can feed the human ego and promote tyranny if allowed to do so. The powerful person who knows no god can presume to do what he likes (perhaps described as 'recognising the necessity that flows from the Laws of Historical Development'); the powerful person who acknowledges a god can do as he likes simply by identifying 'the will of God' as his own will writ large. A self-appointed arbiter of history and a self-appointed instrument of god can, and do, have precisely the same horrible impact upon people who question them. Hence the need for scepticism and humility among humanists and religionists alike. The liberal elements on both sides of the religious/secularist divide have more in common than they have with their respective illiberal relatives.

It will be clear from the crude statement of 'operational' Christianity given above that two different views can be taken within its terms. There is the pessimistic view and the optimistic view.

One view, the pessimistic, is that Sin Pervades All and that salvation from it is just about possible but only on the most onerous, and probably rigidly exclusive, terms. On this view, even those who try hardest to turn their backs on error are still barely worthy of God's mercy; they are often so sure of their unworthiness, and so fearful that God may not be as severe as he should be, that they punish themselves and others - just to make sure they are not let off too lightly! Sour suspicion of the world and of 'the enemy within' is the main thing in life for the Christian pessimist. Such people work in guilt feelings like a sculptor works in stone. In the last resort, this sort of Christianity is a sort of protection racket - 'You are in danger; but you will be safe if you do what I say'.

The other view, the optimistic Christian view, is that we are all capable of sin in any way and at any time - there is no immunity - but that most of us avoid most sins most of the time. The pessimists regard such matter-of-fact acceptance of things as they are as mere laxity.

The more constructive Christian view is that God loves us and expects us to love one another because we are lovable and that salvation is offered, and is possible, simply because we are worth saving. To deny or understate these positive aspects of human nature is, effectively, to assert that God is not so much merciful as indulgent. Can you make a satisfactory theology on the basis that God is a sentimental old fool. Surely not!

The best thing that humanists have to say to Christians (who intend to remain Christians) is "Be positive about human potential and on no account feel guilty about being humanly fallible. Do you really think that the creator has made a terrible hash of creating us while thinking that he has made such a success of creating everything else? Love thy neighbour as thyself does not amount to much if you have a poor opinion of yourself and your kind. Faith in people accompanied by scepticism about doctrine is more useful than the other way about."