Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Unspeakable Acts
I had an email this morning inviting me to a concert at my old school, in honour of one its most famous Old Boys, Ivor Novello. Naturally it doesn't mention the fact that he was expelled in 1906, aged 15, for committing unspeakable acts on half the First XV. There's no evidence that any of them were expelled with him, despite their being older, probably bigger, and therefore presumably consenting. It seems that hypocrisy around gay sex is nothing new.
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Stoning dogs
The Heresiarch has a post about a right shaggy dog story here: http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2011/06/has-bbc-gone-to-dogs.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HeresyCorner+%28Heresy+Corner%29 . I don't know how to make the link come out as 'Heresy Corner' or something in blue type. We're used to this sort of nonsense about Sharia, but it's not so common about Jewish law.
Wednesday, 8 June 2011
God made these too
Wasp and bee colonies contain thousands of juicy grubs, and as a result, they tend to be extremely good at self-defence. Their weapons are only used in that way, though, at least against us. I can lift the cover off the hive and watch them without the slightest reaction.
Social wasps are major predators; thousands of insects, many of them pests, are brought back daily to feed the grubs, which produce sugary syrup to feed the adults. It's only at the end of the season, when the queen stops laying and there are no more grubs, that they come looking for anything sweet, and come into regular contact with humans. As far as I'm concerned, they more than earn their keep, and they're no problem at all. I've shared my shed with wasps several times, and never been stung yet.
The beehive next to it has been building up steadily, and is now beginning to store a little surplus honey. Most of it will come in during the next month, as the brambles flower. At this time of year, the queen's going full blast, laying somewhere from 1200 to 1500 eggs, more than her body weight, in a day.
A few feet away is another hive with a swarm which moved in a month ago. I get them every year, and use them to restock empty hives. They can be an impressive sight; the queen can't survive alone, and she flies off, driven out of the hive, accompanied by about half the workers in the colony. This is a small one I found hanging in my hedge one afternoon:
The older bees go with the queen, while the younger, which don't fly much, stay behind to maintain the colony, look after the brood, and attend to the new queen which will have been started before the hinve swarmed. In the air, a swarm can be a tight knot of bees ten feet across, or it can be fifty yards across, turn the air black with bees, and sound like a jet aircraft.
A queen is nothing but a sexually mature, overfed worker, and all being well, she soon mates. They'll have raised several queen cells, and many colonies keep more than one for a while, as an insurance against mating failure in our dodgy weather. In the wild, about 75% of swarms will probably fail to store enough honey to see them through their first winter, so I feed them like mad during their first autumn.
These are all part of God's creation, and we've got no need to regard them with the fear which is so common!
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
A little Good News
There was some good news at Circuit Meeting last night. Firstly, the pressure to join the local megacircuit is off. It's got financial problems, another big circuit in Coventry had to appoint an assistant to the Superintendant as he couldn't keep up with the job, and the assistant, of course, wasn't getting the Super's allownace for the extra work. So it's now running as two separate circuits, and a halt has been called. Maybe a little sanity will now manifest itself, and we can look at the Super's role, and see what we can do to improve their lot.
Secondly, the Circuit is no longer losing members, at least for the moment. We keep having to dip into our financial reserves, and if that continues, we have two options. One is to cut back, but this isn't necessarily a good idea. All too often, as the history of British industry shows, it leads to further decline. We've done a great deal of cutting back already; over twenty years, we've gone from three circuits with around ten ministers, to one Circuit with three. That's an enormous change, and we can't go on at that rate. What we have is working at the moment, so we need a breathing space before we even think of cutting another minister. I'm not so sure about buildings. Several churches are in large, uneconomic old buildings, when they might be better off getting rid of them, and meeting in something smaller and more manageable.
The other option is to build up our churches, and make them flourish. If you have more people, you can do more, bring in yet more people, and your finances grow with the congregation. We need to go from managing decline to managing growth, and some people are going to find that very threatening. If a church is shrinking, there are few if any new people coming in, the same people stay in control, and the church becomes their little empire. Everything I've seen suggests that this is part of the problem; new people are left to drift away, or are pushed, as they're seen as a threat. Growth brings in new people, new ideas, and it only continues as long as they're given space to thrive.
Things are happening round the Circuit; we're starting a Sunday School; other churches are doing other things. Hopefully, one step may lead to another. If decline really has ceased, then we have to be doing something right, and we need to do more of it!
Secondly, the Circuit is no longer losing members, at least for the moment. We keep having to dip into our financial reserves, and if that continues, we have two options. One is to cut back, but this isn't necessarily a good idea. All too often, as the history of British industry shows, it leads to further decline. We've done a great deal of cutting back already; over twenty years, we've gone from three circuits with around ten ministers, to one Circuit with three. That's an enormous change, and we can't go on at that rate. What we have is working at the moment, so we need a breathing space before we even think of cutting another minister. I'm not so sure about buildings. Several churches are in large, uneconomic old buildings, when they might be better off getting rid of them, and meeting in something smaller and more manageable.
The other option is to build up our churches, and make them flourish. If you have more people, you can do more, bring in yet more people, and your finances grow with the congregation. We need to go from managing decline to managing growth, and some people are going to find that very threatening. If a church is shrinking, there are few if any new people coming in, the same people stay in control, and the church becomes their little empire. Everything I've seen suggests that this is part of the problem; new people are left to drift away, or are pushed, as they're seen as a threat. Growth brings in new people, new ideas, and it only continues as long as they're given space to thrive.
Things are happening round the Circuit; we're starting a Sunday School; other churches are doing other things. Hopefully, one step may lead to another. If decline really has ceased, then we have to be doing something right, and we need to do more of it!
Saturday, 4 June 2011
Comment
I still can't comment on this or other people's Blogger sites. Infuriating!
I'm very wary of using the word 'can't' of God. It's a sort of hyper-Arminianism I come across quite often; God can't force us into Heaven, and now there's a string of other things he can't do either. He's supposed to be an omnioptent being, though, and in that case there can't be anything he can't do!
Luke speaks of the Holy Spirit's presence repeatedly in his Gospel. Elizabeth and Zechariah are filled with it, it rests on Simeon. Then Jesus is filled with it. It doesn't seem to be the least bit inhibited before the Ascension, so I think there's something else going on. Elizabeth, Zechariah and Simeon all prophecy, paralleling passages in the OT where people are filled with the Spirit, and prophecy. Jesus is filled for the duration of his ministry, then, when it's time for the church to continue his mission, the Spirit fills the disciples. Wherever God is acting, the Spirit, which in Luke is like the active presence of God on Earth, is also present.
I'm very wary of using the word 'can't' of God. It's a sort of hyper-Arminianism I come across quite often; God can't force us into Heaven, and now there's a string of other things he can't do either. He's supposed to be an omnioptent being, though, and in that case there can't be anything he can't do!
Luke speaks of the Holy Spirit's presence repeatedly in his Gospel. Elizabeth and Zechariah are filled with it, it rests on Simeon. Then Jesus is filled with it. It doesn't seem to be the least bit inhibited before the Ascension, so I think there's something else going on. Elizabeth, Zechariah and Simeon all prophecy, paralleling passages in the OT where people are filled with the Spirit, and prophecy. Jesus is filled for the duration of his ministry, then, when it's time for the church to continue his mission, the Spirit fills the disciples. Wherever God is acting, the Spirit, which in Luke is like the active presence of God on Earth, is also present.
Friday, 3 June 2011
Ascension Day
Yesterday was Ascension Day, and some bloggers have been using this as an opportunity to poke fun at the literalists. Some people are very quick to claim that they 'believe every word of the Bible literally', but I wonder what that means in practice?
Of course Jesus didn't take off like a space shuttle on his way to Planet Heaven. I hope not too many people think he did. Luke's the guy who talks about it it. In his Gospel, Jesus appears to have ascended within a few days of his resurrection. The two disciples meet him on their way to Emmaus; then the scene moves to Jerusalem. He's off shortly afterwards:
Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and, lifting up his hands, he blessed them. While he was blessing them, he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven. And they worshiped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy; and they were continually in the temple blessing God. Luke (24:50-53).
I have trouble seeing Spaceship Jesus there.
In Acts, of course, Luke gives us a more elaborate, and not entirely consistent, version of the story. Jesus famoulsy spends forty days with the disciples, so Luke now wants us to know that he was around for a long time; it seems that he had rather more to tell them than the author lets us know in his Gospel. The two things that Luke is keen to pass on to his audience is that the Holy Spirit will be given to 'you' - ostensibly the disciples, put perhaps extending to Luke's audience a couple of generations later. Then, probably in answer to questions as to why there's such a delay, Luke's eager to assure his hearers that it's not for them to know when the kingdom will be restored to Israel (1:7). They will, however, be Jesus' witnesses 'to the ends of the Earth'. Acts is, of course, the story of how the message went as far as Rome.
Once that's out of the way, we get to the Ascension itself:
When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. While he was going and they were gazing up toward heaven, suddenly two men in white robes stood by them. They said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." (Acts 1:9-11)
No doubt the two 'men' are intended as angels; which turn up in human disguise in the apocalyptic writings. I suppose a blind literalist could see this in terms of Jesus flying off to some heaven beyond the bright blue sky, and no doubt that type of interpretation was once widepread. The intention, however, is to put a full stop (more or less; let's not forget Paul) to Jesus' appearances. He's finished his work on earth, and God is now sending the Spirit to get the church moving; while the Gospel is the story of Jesus' mission, Acts is concerned with the church. The Spirit is never personified; rather; it's a sort of 'divine wind' (RWAH means wind, breath or spirit in Hebrew; Pneuma much the same in Greek) driving the church onwards.
I suspect Luke - or whoever originated the story, as he may have got it from someone else - gained his inspiration at least partly from Paul. Unlike Luke, he's not interested in the incarnate Jesus. To him, Jesus is 'declared to be Son of God with power' by his Resurrection (Romans 1:4). To Paul, Jesus is special from that moment, and he's not too bothered about what went on earlier. He elaborates in Philippians 2; he may be quoting or adapting from elsewhere, but if so, he quotes with approval. He's not clear as to whether Jesus is pre-existent or not. Philippians 2:5-7a: '
Philippians 2:5-7 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.' could mean that Jesus was some heavenly or angelic being which submitted to being born as a human being, but could equally well mean that he was a human being who was satisfied with his humble status, unlike the first Adam, who sinned in his pride, and tried to be equal with God. Either way, his humility and obedience led God to reward him in a sort of heavenly enthronement; he's given a new name which sets him up above all other beings - except, presumably, God himself - and every knee shall bend, every tongue confess, as per Isaiah 45:23, that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God. In romans 14:11, the same is applied directly to God. It's an enthronement which leaves God and Jesus so closely associated that the distinction almost - but never quite - disappears. This exalted heavenly Christ is, of course, the one who really interests Paul!
Luke, however, is very interested indeed in the incarnate Jesus. He disagrees with Paul; rather than becoming special at the Resurrection, he thinks Jesus is Son of God, and special, from birth. His sonship is derived, not by his having been engendered by the Holy Spirit, as per Matthew, but by inheritance from Adam, who is also called Son of God (Luke 3:38). A series of prophecies and angelic visions around the birth make it clear that this is a very special baby indeed; the Gabriel declares to Mary that: 'He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."' (Luke 1:32-33). There's no sign of pre-existence anywhere in the Gospel, we have to turn to John to find that.
So Luke gets to the end of his tale. He's writing theology in the form of story, presenting the movement Jesus started as something which is, despite its founder's embarassing death, quite compatible with Roman rule. Alone among the New Testament authors, he deals with Jesus' transition to heaven by telling a story about it. That's all it is; a transition,and the church is probably wise not to make too much of a fuss about marking the occasion.
Of course Jesus didn't take off like a space shuttle on his way to Planet Heaven. I hope not too many people think he did. Luke's the guy who talks about it it. In his Gospel, Jesus appears to have ascended within a few days of his resurrection. The two disciples meet him on their way to Emmaus; then the scene moves to Jerusalem. He's off shortly afterwards:
Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and, lifting up his hands, he blessed them. While he was blessing them, he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven. And they worshiped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy; and they were continually in the temple blessing God. Luke (24:50-53).
I have trouble seeing Spaceship Jesus there.
In Acts, of course, Luke gives us a more elaborate, and not entirely consistent, version of the story. Jesus famoulsy spends forty days with the disciples, so Luke now wants us to know that he was around for a long time; it seems that he had rather more to tell them than the author lets us know in his Gospel. The two things that Luke is keen to pass on to his audience is that the Holy Spirit will be given to 'you' - ostensibly the disciples, put perhaps extending to Luke's audience a couple of generations later. Then, probably in answer to questions as to why there's such a delay, Luke's eager to assure his hearers that it's not for them to know when the kingdom will be restored to Israel (1:7). They will, however, be Jesus' witnesses 'to the ends of the Earth'. Acts is, of course, the story of how the message went as far as Rome.
Once that's out of the way, we get to the Ascension itself:
When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. While he was going and they were gazing up toward heaven, suddenly two men in white robes stood by them. They said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." (Acts 1:9-11)
No doubt the two 'men' are intended as angels; which turn up in human disguise in the apocalyptic writings. I suppose a blind literalist could see this in terms of Jesus flying off to some heaven beyond the bright blue sky, and no doubt that type of interpretation was once widepread. The intention, however, is to put a full stop (more or less; let's not forget Paul) to Jesus' appearances. He's finished his work on earth, and God is now sending the Spirit to get the church moving; while the Gospel is the story of Jesus' mission, Acts is concerned with the church. The Spirit is never personified; rather; it's a sort of 'divine wind' (RWAH means wind, breath or spirit in Hebrew; Pneuma much the same in Greek) driving the church onwards.
I suspect Luke - or whoever originated the story, as he may have got it from someone else - gained his inspiration at least partly from Paul. Unlike Luke, he's not interested in the incarnate Jesus. To him, Jesus is 'declared to be Son of God with power' by his Resurrection (Romans 1:4). To Paul, Jesus is special from that moment, and he's not too bothered about what went on earlier. He elaborates in Philippians 2; he may be quoting or adapting from elsewhere, but if so, he quotes with approval. He's not clear as to whether Jesus is pre-existent or not. Philippians 2:5-7a: '
Philippians 2:5-7 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.' could mean that Jesus was some heavenly or angelic being which submitted to being born as a human being, but could equally well mean that he was a human being who was satisfied with his humble status, unlike the first Adam, who sinned in his pride, and tried to be equal with God. Either way, his humility and obedience led God to reward him in a sort of heavenly enthronement; he's given a new name which sets him up above all other beings - except, presumably, God himself - and every knee shall bend, every tongue confess, as per Isaiah 45:23, that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God. In romans 14:11, the same is applied directly to God. It's an enthronement which leaves God and Jesus so closely associated that the distinction almost - but never quite - disappears. This exalted heavenly Christ is, of course, the one who really interests Paul!
Luke, however, is very interested indeed in the incarnate Jesus. He disagrees with Paul; rather than becoming special at the Resurrection, he thinks Jesus is Son of God, and special, from birth. His sonship is derived, not by his having been engendered by the Holy Spirit, as per Matthew, but by inheritance from Adam, who is also called Son of God (Luke 3:38). A series of prophecies and angelic visions around the birth make it clear that this is a very special baby indeed; the Gabriel declares to Mary that: 'He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."' (Luke 1:32-33). There's no sign of pre-existence anywhere in the Gospel, we have to turn to John to find that.
So Luke gets to the end of his tale. He's writing theology in the form of story, presenting the movement Jesus started as something which is, despite its founder's embarassing death, quite compatible with Roman rule. Alone among the New Testament authors, he deals with Jesus' transition to heaven by telling a story about it. That's all it is; a transition,and the church is probably wise not to make too much of a fuss about marking the occasion.
Comments
For some reason, Blogger hasn't been letting me comment here. There have been a string of complaints recently from other bloggers, so I don't think it's me. All I can think of is to use a new post to reply to comments on my last, and hope they get their act together soon!
All the people involved know our pattern perfectly well, it's just that we get this minority who don't think they should have to go along with it. I agree that it's about control, but underlying that, it's their own convenience as well. The problem with any sort of authoritarian approach.
We can't start earlier; one of two people who wanted an earlier service recently asked everyone, and they made it clear they didn't want to start earlier. We did try starting the choruses earlier, when we had a minister who wanted to finish 'on time' and a Senior Steward who never disagreed with ministers. It didn't work because nobody turned up any earlier. The choruses are part of the service, and everyone's going to have to work with that.
There's a slight political problem in the church, with one vociferous individual who probably agrees with the people who want to finish at twelve. Right now I'm the only one in Church Council who argues with her. I need one vital person to be there, but she's stuck elsewhere due to work at the moment. Hopefully that'll sort itself out before long.
Once we've got something clear through CC, the LP meeting will have to go along with it - even if a few argue, the majority will support us. That should be the end of it, and with an officially longer service, we can then look at the next stage. As I say, it's going to be a question of feeling our way, step by step, and finding a way of having a service which more of our people will be comfortable with. If we can do it without upsetting anyone, so much the better; I'm notorious for arguing with people in meetings, but I don't actually like doing it! We've just got too many people who've been allowed to get away with too much for too long, and it's got to stop.
When it comes to readings, our approach is to encourage as many people as possible to take a turn reading, and provide Bibles so everyone can follow. Some people are good readers, others lousy, but we don't care. What matters to us is participation. In our case, this isn't just a clique; it's a policy which has stood the test of time, and which, as far as I know, is supported by everyone. Once again, some preachers don't like it, but they've more or less accepted that this is what's going to happen.
All the people involved know our pattern perfectly well, it's just that we get this minority who don't think they should have to go along with it. I agree that it's about control, but underlying that, it's their own convenience as well. The problem with any sort of authoritarian approach.
We can't start earlier; one of two people who wanted an earlier service recently asked everyone, and they made it clear they didn't want to start earlier. We did try starting the choruses earlier, when we had a minister who wanted to finish 'on time' and a Senior Steward who never disagreed with ministers. It didn't work because nobody turned up any earlier. The choruses are part of the service, and everyone's going to have to work with that.
There's a slight political problem in the church, with one vociferous individual who probably agrees with the people who want to finish at twelve. Right now I'm the only one in Church Council who argues with her. I need one vital person to be there, but she's stuck elsewhere due to work at the moment. Hopefully that'll sort itself out before long.
Once we've got something clear through CC, the LP meeting will have to go along with it - even if a few argue, the majority will support us. That should be the end of it, and with an officially longer service, we can then look at the next stage. As I say, it's going to be a question of feeling our way, step by step, and finding a way of having a service which more of our people will be comfortable with. If we can do it without upsetting anyone, so much the better; I'm notorious for arguing with people in meetings, but I don't actually like doing it! We've just got too many people who've been allowed to get away with too much for too long, and it's got to stop.
When it comes to readings, our approach is to encourage as many people as possible to take a turn reading, and provide Bibles so everyone can follow. Some people are good readers, others lousy, but we don't care. What matters to us is participation. In our case, this isn't just a clique; it's a policy which has stood the test of time, and which, as far as I know, is supported by everyone. Once again, some preachers don't like it, but they've more or less accepted that this is what's going to happen.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011
Escaping the lowest common denominator
One of the problems with Methodism arises from the way that preachers operate, moving round a Circuit. There are 14 churches in my Circuit, and of course I'm in a different church every time; churches have a different preacher every week. It's not easy to lead worship in a congregation you only know superficially, and see once in several months!
The result is we drift to the lowest common denominator, the one-hour hymn sandwich, and it's extremely hard to break away from it. I vaguely remember the odd attempt by one church to maintain some continuity by giving preachers texts to preach from, but it didn't last long. One church went all charismatic for a while, with masses of choruses, but there were a lot of tensions, and it fizzled out in the end. There's only one church in the Circuit which has tried to maintain its own distinctive style for the entire 24 years I've been in Birmingham, and that's my own.
It started simply enough. We shared a minister with another church with a 9.30 service - I think; it was very early anyway - and it was hard for him to get to my church for eleven. So we started with a few minutes of choruses, led by the stewards. Eventually, we decided it wasn't right that leading worship should be restricted to the few, so we opened it up to everyone. Some of the people who screwed up the courage to take it on went on to become stewards themselves, and bit by bit we reached a situation where most people get involved with leading worship.
At the same time, the makeup of the church was changing. When I arrived in 1987, there were slightly more white people than black. As time passed, the number of black people increased, as did their influence in the church. When a volcano erupted in Montserrat, a lot of the refugees were housed locally, and the church suddently became about 80% black; this has remained roughly the same since. A significant number of Caribbean people are from Pentecostal backgrounds, and we have a fair few Africans. They're used to longer, noisier services, and like the service to be a bit more than a one-hour hymn sandwich. We've also made a practice of stopping for a cup of tea and buscuits after the service, which has made a big difference. A church is a community after all, and if we don't spend time talking to each other, we can't function.
Unfortunately, our slightly longer service sometimes causes conflict. Of the four ministers we've had since I've been here, one didn't want us to have choruses at all when he was taking the service - he once told me he didn't feel it was 'really worship' - and another always wanted us to start before eleven, and only have a very few, so that he could finish at twelve. There have been occasional conflicts with Local Preachers as well. One once wanted to take over the choruses himself, as that it could be 'part of the service', and never mind the person who'd prepared to do it. I was stewarding, and didn't let him; it would have been gross discourtesy, and it's already part of the service anyway! Then there's the odd one or two who think we should finish exactly on the hour; one once stopped for a cup of tea, then started a row with us about it. This is, of course, the problem. There will always be those who want the short, easy service, and will try to impose it on others.
The service is becoming more of an issue as one member's children, now in their 20's, have moved to another church because it has livelier worship. So how do we liven things up more, with all the drawbacks of the Methodist system? Naturally, it's landed on my plate for the moment. We can't start the choruses earlier, since we've asked about an earlier service, and only two people wanted it. The only option I can see is to tell the preachers that while the service starts at eleven, we want them to start at quarter past. Their hour would then end at quarter past twelve, and that would at least give us a slightly longer service without - hopefully - anyone wanting to hurry us up. We could then talk about where to go next.
We're not going to solve this in a day; we're also starting a Sunday School soon, and so one question is how to involve the kids in the service. I know from experience that they can do far more than just take the collection round, despite the efforts of the odd one or two who - inevitably - want to keep them in 'their place'. Bit by bit, if we keep going, I think we'll continue to make progress. It comes back to basic principles. The church is the people, not the minister or the preacher, and the peoples' will must prevail, or the congregation will fade away, and the church end up closing.
The result is we drift to the lowest common denominator, the one-hour hymn sandwich, and it's extremely hard to break away from it. I vaguely remember the odd attempt by one church to maintain some continuity by giving preachers texts to preach from, but it didn't last long. One church went all charismatic for a while, with masses of choruses, but there were a lot of tensions, and it fizzled out in the end. There's only one church in the Circuit which has tried to maintain its own distinctive style for the entire 24 years I've been in Birmingham, and that's my own.
It started simply enough. We shared a minister with another church with a 9.30 service - I think; it was very early anyway - and it was hard for him to get to my church for eleven. So we started with a few minutes of choruses, led by the stewards. Eventually, we decided it wasn't right that leading worship should be restricted to the few, so we opened it up to everyone. Some of the people who screwed up the courage to take it on went on to become stewards themselves, and bit by bit we reached a situation where most people get involved with leading worship.
At the same time, the makeup of the church was changing. When I arrived in 1987, there were slightly more white people than black. As time passed, the number of black people increased, as did their influence in the church. When a volcano erupted in Montserrat, a lot of the refugees were housed locally, and the church suddently became about 80% black; this has remained roughly the same since. A significant number of Caribbean people are from Pentecostal backgrounds, and we have a fair few Africans. They're used to longer, noisier services, and like the service to be a bit more than a one-hour hymn sandwich. We've also made a practice of stopping for a cup of tea and buscuits after the service, which has made a big difference. A church is a community after all, and if we don't spend time talking to each other, we can't function.
Unfortunately, our slightly longer service sometimes causes conflict. Of the four ministers we've had since I've been here, one didn't want us to have choruses at all when he was taking the service - he once told me he didn't feel it was 'really worship' - and another always wanted us to start before eleven, and only have a very few, so that he could finish at twelve. There have been occasional conflicts with Local Preachers as well. One once wanted to take over the choruses himself, as that it could be 'part of the service', and never mind the person who'd prepared to do it. I was stewarding, and didn't let him; it would have been gross discourtesy, and it's already part of the service anyway! Then there's the odd one or two who think we should finish exactly on the hour; one once stopped for a cup of tea, then started a row with us about it. This is, of course, the problem. There will always be those who want the short, easy service, and will try to impose it on others.
The service is becoming more of an issue as one member's children, now in their 20's, have moved to another church because it has livelier worship. So how do we liven things up more, with all the drawbacks of the Methodist system? Naturally, it's landed on my plate for the moment. We can't start the choruses earlier, since we've asked about an earlier service, and only two people wanted it. The only option I can see is to tell the preachers that while the service starts at eleven, we want them to start at quarter past. Their hour would then end at quarter past twelve, and that would at least give us a slightly longer service without - hopefully - anyone wanting to hurry us up. We could then talk about where to go next.
We're not going to solve this in a day; we're also starting a Sunday School soon, and so one question is how to involve the kids in the service. I know from experience that they can do far more than just take the collection round, despite the efforts of the odd one or two who - inevitably - want to keep them in 'their place'. Bit by bit, if we keep going, I think we'll continue to make progress. It comes back to basic principles. The church is the people, not the minister or the preacher, and the peoples' will must prevail, or the congregation will fade away, and the church end up closing.
Thursday, 26 May 2011
Old Habits Die Hard
Amy-Jill Levine has an interesting paper here, critiquing church statements on Israel: http://www.fodip.org/articles/old_habits.pdf .
She's not, of course, immune to critique herself. For one thing, she wants us to stop using the name 'Palestine'. However, ancient Israel (or Samaria) and Judea only occupied parts of the region, as does modern Israel within its legal borders. The only times it was united were brief periods under David and Solomon, if their empire was historical, and under the Hasmoneans, who may be obscure, but at least enjoy an assured place in history. 'The Holy Land' is horribly sanctimonious, and theologically objectionable, as it suggests that God is more interested in one part of the world than another. 'Palestine', or variants thereof, is attested over an extended period, and is widely understood. There's no other term which can be used for the region without ambiguity and the consequent need for clumsy explanation when used before a lay audience.
More importantly, she fails to distinguish clearly between antisemitism and opposition to the political programme of the Israeli state. There are those who cry 'antisemitism' at any criticism of Israel; it is for them to demonstrate that such criticism is in fact racist rather than political. Levine calls for 'balance' in church statements about Israel, and critiques them for the lack of it. However, she fails herself to recognise the imbalance between a state equipped with modern weaponry, and the ill-equipped guerilla forces of Hamas, or the inevitable imbalance in the resulting casualty figures.
I think there's a comparison here with the Six Counties; the British Army vastly outgunned all the IRA splinter groups put together, but was no more able to defeat them than the Israelis are to defeat Hamas and Hezbollah. The solution involved talking to the IRA withhout any insistence that it first recognise the legitimacy of the British presence - which it obviously wasn't going to do - followed by mutual disarment, and an honest enquiry into Bloody Sunday, without, it should be said, and enquiry into any of the other atrocities carried out by the British Army. Nothing was said about nationalist atrocities like the pub bombings, which appear to have been carried out by an out-of-control Active Service Unit, operating against policy laid down by the Provisional Army Council. Leaked documents suggest a willingness to talk on the part of the Palestinians, in which case the onus is on the Israeli government to respond in a constructive manner, rather than pointing the finger and insisting that the fault is all on their side. Palestinian crimes need to be acknowledged, but it's right that the emphasis should be on those of the more powerful party.
Levine's position needs to be taken seriously, if the churches are to have any influence in Israel, but allegations of antisemitism should never be allowed to hinder a principled critique of the Israeli state.
She's not, of course, immune to critique herself. For one thing, she wants us to stop using the name 'Palestine'. However, ancient Israel (or Samaria) and Judea only occupied parts of the region, as does modern Israel within its legal borders. The only times it was united were brief periods under David and Solomon, if their empire was historical, and under the Hasmoneans, who may be obscure, but at least enjoy an assured place in history. 'The Holy Land' is horribly sanctimonious, and theologically objectionable, as it suggests that God is more interested in one part of the world than another. 'Palestine', or variants thereof, is attested over an extended period, and is widely understood. There's no other term which can be used for the region without ambiguity and the consequent need for clumsy explanation when used before a lay audience.
More importantly, she fails to distinguish clearly between antisemitism and opposition to the political programme of the Israeli state. There are those who cry 'antisemitism' at any criticism of Israel; it is for them to demonstrate that such criticism is in fact racist rather than political. Levine calls for 'balance' in church statements about Israel, and critiques them for the lack of it. However, she fails herself to recognise the imbalance between a state equipped with modern weaponry, and the ill-equipped guerilla forces of Hamas, or the inevitable imbalance in the resulting casualty figures.
I think there's a comparison here with the Six Counties; the British Army vastly outgunned all the IRA splinter groups put together, but was no more able to defeat them than the Israelis are to defeat Hamas and Hezbollah. The solution involved talking to the IRA withhout any insistence that it first recognise the legitimacy of the British presence - which it obviously wasn't going to do - followed by mutual disarment, and an honest enquiry into Bloody Sunday, without, it should be said, and enquiry into any of the other atrocities carried out by the British Army. Nothing was said about nationalist atrocities like the pub bombings, which appear to have been carried out by an out-of-control Active Service Unit, operating against policy laid down by the Provisional Army Council. Leaked documents suggest a willingness to talk on the part of the Palestinians, in which case the onus is on the Israeli government to respond in a constructive manner, rather than pointing the finger and insisting that the fault is all on their side. Palestinian crimes need to be acknowledged, but it's right that the emphasis should be on those of the more powerful party.
Levine's position needs to be taken seriously, if the churches are to have any influence in Israel, but allegations of antisemitism should never be allowed to hinder a principled critique of the Israeli state.
The Sect of Rome
I always did feel that, despite the presence of a lot of really good people, the Church of Rome acts like a divisive little sect. What makes them so insecure?
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/05/25/archbishop-calls-off-methodist-ordinations/
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/05/25/archbishop-calls-off-methodist-ordinations/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)