Soul Search
Exploring faith one church at a time
Sunday, 29 June 2014
Separation of church and state
Soul Search 2013 is a blog about churchgoing in 2013. We're now half way through 2014 and I am no longer posting regularly, although I still allow comments as they arise. However, I have had to delete a number of comments relating to the Scottish independence referendum. This isn't the place for them. There are plenty of other people blogging about the referendum, so please take your comments elsewhere. Thank you, kind readers.
Thursday, 27 February 2014
It’s the Wrong Trousers!
... thoughts
on modesty and patriarchy
It
was all over bar the shouting. I'd finished my year of church visiting and
didn't think many more people were going to notice my little blog. And then Mr
Anonymous discovered my post about the Free Presbyterian Church in Inverness, almost exactly a year after it first appeared online, and it all started
kicking off.
To
describe this commentator as intemperate would be putting it mildly. So great
is his rage that he struggles to express himself clearly at times, making some
of what he's written unintentionally comical, as you'll see if you can be
bothered to trawl through all the stuff he's felt duty bound to tell me about what true Christians would and would not
do, wear or drink. Don't feel obliged, dear readers.
Thankfully,
not all my readers are like Mr Anonymous. And indeed, there are other anonymous
commentators who have written considered and thoughtful things and have behaved
like perfect blog guests. Thank you, lovely people.
Two
interesting things arise from the whole coffee/trouser/haircut rant:
a)
the importance to Mr Anonymous (and perhaps to others in his
denomination, although I will not extrapolate so far as to assume that they all
share his views) of the outward appearance of a god-fearing woman, and the fact that what is on her legs or head is more significant than what is in her heart or
mind; and
b)
the surprise expressed by some of my readers, secular and
religious alike, that there should be such a dress code in any Scottish church
in the 21st century (I'd assumed it was common knowledge), and that a woman's
otherwise uncontentious fashion choices or hairstyles should draw any comment
whatever in church circles or should be deemed to reflect on her character,
morality, piety or fitness for salvation.
But
if we're talking religiously sanctioned clothing options, we're getting into
the realms of the veiling debate ... active choice or symbol of oppression? ...
and that isn't somewhere I ever planned to go with my blog. Perhaps
non-Christian religions are best kept out of it, since I don't have enough
knowledge to comment wisely on the politics of the hijab or of tzniut
compliance. However, the comments about trousers remind us that even here in
Scotland there are some Christian groups that take a very strict view of what women
should be allowed to wear, and of their conduct and their obedience to what a
male-run church dictates.
Now,
I'm all for modesty. It's been many a long year since any part of my body above
the knee or below the collarbone was exposed to public view ... okay, maybe a
hint of cleavage in the only dress I own (and can still fit into) that could
pass for evening wear, but most of the time you'll find me fully buttoned up.
If there was a shop called Frum Gear for Fat Girls, I'd probably buy my whole
wardrobe there. But if I did have the figure to flaunt and I felt like
flaunting it, I really don't see that that's any business of the adherents or
leaders of a church to which I have never belonged, and I have to wonder how FP women and girls manage to do the gardening, play sport or climb trees while wearing a skirt, or how they feel when they don't want to get their knees frozen or their knickers revealed to the
world on a particularly windy day but haven't the freedom to dress for the weather.
I'm assuming here that that they're allowed to garden,
play sport, climb trees and leave the house without a chaperone, but who knows? Now that I've started thinking about it, I'm thinking the worst.
If
a man restricts what his wife and daughters can wear, what else is he stopping
them doing? The FPs may have been following these rules for more than a hundred
years, and may believe that they are honouring a tradition that is millennia
older than that, but anyone who thinks that they're just a few oddballs and
they don't matter needs to take a look across the Atlantic to the burgeoning
Christian patriarchy movement in America, where quite staggeringly
regressive movements such as Quiverfull and the Above Rubies ministry are raising up new
generations of obedient Christian girls who will pledge to their fathers
complete authority over their "purity" and every other aspect of
their lives (until they marry, when their husbands will take over), who will receive no sex education and only the restricted
curriculum in other subjects that is approved by their churches' home-schooling
regimes, and who will remain in ignorance of their rights and of their capacity
to do anything other than breed, pray and obey until the day the Lord returns
to rapture up the faithful.
And
their brothers are being brought up in the same households, expecting to lead
and dominate and to get an obedient and unquestioning wife.
It's
scary stuff and we should take it seriously. All of us, including the nice
liberal churches who don’t like to rock the boat, should take it seriously.
A
politician once said that we should understand less and condemn more. Mr
Anonymous lives by this injunction, as we have seen, but perhaps more of the
"mainstream" churches could take a leaf out of his book. I know that
sounds as if I'm contradicting everything I’ve just written, but bear with me.
What I mean is that, rather than just not being as extreme as the actively
patriarchal, woman-hating, contraception-forbidding, education-suppressing
churches on the right wing of the Christian spectrum, they could try exploding
the myths that these sects and movements perpetrate.
And
it's not all happening overseas. Only last week, news stories emerged
about the misleading information offered to women visiting some pregnancy advice centres in the UK, and the issue isn't so much about their pro-life stance as about the tactics they employ, the lack of transparency about their funding
sources and their unregulated access to vulnerable women who are being led to
believe that they will receive professional and impartial medical advice. These aren't women who are members of the churches involved, but their bodies are still seen as a suitable site on which to stage a moral battle. The
religious organisations backing these centres may believe they have God on
their side, but since when did God require his servants to be insidious and
underhand while they are about his work?
Churches
who want to retain any credibility should publicly distance themselves from
such groups and movements. They're giving Christianity a bad name,
and "Sorry, not my department," just doesn't cut it as an excuse for
inaction. But if churches, and individual Christians, keep silence and allow their fellow Christians to carry
on unchecked, who can blame the secularists for tarring them all with the same
brush?
Of
course, some of the extremists are not devious or dangerous single-issue
campaigners. Some of them are just outspoken trouser-fetishists with nothing better to
do than inundate other people's blogs with their shouty comments. Those in the
latter group are pretty harmless. Nobody needs to condemn them; they
condemn themselves.
There
may be FP folk reading this who are horrified to find themselves mentioned in
the same blog post as some of these other groups, but if it hadn’t been for an
FP adherent’s extreme reaction to my blog I would probably never have lumped
them all in together or found myself associating what could be dismissed as an antiquated and mildly misogynistic attitude to clothing with a broader agenda to suppress women's freedoms in the name of religion.
Until now, I’d always thought of the FPs simply as a slightly less
fun version of the Free Church – a bit odd and cheerless, perhaps, and to judge
by my visit last year not very friendly either, but nothing to worry about too
much. Now, thanks to the comments from one of their worshippers, I see them as the thin end of a wedge whose fat end can look very sinister indeed.
But
hey, maybe I've got it wrong. A single, childless woman with a mind of her own
and several pairs of trousers to choose from ... in the eyes of certain people
who call themselves Christians, I'm past saving and nothing I say should be given too much credence. Meanwhile, the justified trouser-haters of cyberspace can be assured of their place in heaven.
Monday, 10 February 2014
Summing up … second attempt
So
a month has gone by and my Soul Search mission seems a long way behind me already.
Maybe I’ve actually got this out of my system. Maybe I don’t need to sum up
neatly. Maybe I can just say, “Been there, done that, no longer interested.”
I
started 2013 with the tentative label “post-Christian monotheist”, and I
reached the end of it without having to change that label. Am I a monotheist? I
am prepared to be a theist, in the sense that I cannot say (as the fool doth in
his heart) that there is no god with enough certainty to call myself an
atheist, and yet I’m not particularly comfortable with the idea of being an
agnostic, which is the category you might expect the unconvinced to fall into.
But
one thing’s for sure. Christianity is a thing of my past. There will be no more
churches. I can’t see myself ever again being lured towards such a belief
system. It might look attractive and simple at the outset, but scratch the
surface and you’ll spend the rest of your life trying to reconcile its myriad
inconsistencies. Of course, you could just adopt a blind-faith attitude that
stonewalls all argument and criticism, but that’s not a very mature or persuasive
stance to take.
Oh
yes, you have to be persuasive, because once you’re in, you’re supposed to
evangelise and recruit and spread the word, like a lowly latecomer in a pyramid
sales scheme. But at some point – and it may take years to reach that point –
you’ll realise you’ve been sold a pup. I realised that a long time ago, if I’m
honest about it, but I wanted to be really, really sure. And after fifty-odd churches, I'm about as sure as I can be … where
Christianity is concerned, at least. I’m not ruling out other faiths; I am in
no position to do so at this stage.
And before you ask, no, I don't think Christianity has value because it instils a sense of morality. Atheists/agnostics/secularists aren’t running around killing and robbing
each other, or if they are it’s not because they're godless. If anything,
it’s the religious folk who seem to do most damage, because their belief that their
atrocities are in a righteous cause allows them to be so much more extreme and intolerant.
Religiously
inspired codes of morality may reinforce the rules that civilised people would
come up with anyway in the absence of religion, but that doesn’t mean that
religion, or god, is the source of all morality. Anyone who says that if he/she
wasn’t a Christian he/she’d be completely amoral and would be committing crimes
left, right and centre is a person to be avoided. Being a dangerous person
whose criminal and/or immoral instincts are suppressed by Christianity is nothing to be proud
of. Being a civilised person who acts morally without needing to be told to is
more to be desired.
Nevertheless,
there are some areas in which a deity could be acknowledged – as a notional
creator, for example, and I have no problem with that concept. The literal
six-day creationists are barking, of course, but I can make room in my world
view for a first cause, however that is to be understood.
I
can also make room – indeed, I could hardly deny it room, if it’s omnipresent – for
an overarching almighty entity that is too great and mysterious to be fully
understood, however rational we try to be. But the physical paraphernalia attending
the Christian version of this entity – all thorns and nails and tail feathers –
is not the substance or manifestation of any god I can believe in.
So
that’s where I am so far. Still pondering, but not beating myself up about it.
Still doubting, but open to persuasion. And still blogging, occasionally, and trying not to get too riled by the intemperate commentators who insist on USING CAPITAL LETTERS ALL THE TIME!
Tee-hee, giggles the Soul Searcher. At least people are reading my blog -- it's been visited by people in 57 different countries. That's one for every week I've been writing it. Who'd have thought people as far afield as Benin, Chile, Qatar and Hong Kong would want to read about Edinburgh churches?
Monday, 13 January 2014
Summing up … first attempt
So there have been three church-free Sundays since the end
of my year of churchgoing. On the first one I worked (deadlines and bad
planning having scrubbed out any possibility of “fun” over Christmas and the
New Year), and on the second and third I met up with a friend to visit the
Botanic Gardens and then the National Museum.
And no, I’m not missing going to church.
Trying to sum up what I’ve learned in the past year is taking
longer than I’d thought. No definite conclusions …
not yet, anyway. Except perhaps this one … that there will be no more churches.
I’ve been there and done that, and seen more varieties of this crazy thing
called Christianity than I bet a lot of people could claim to have experienced.
And there’s nothing there for me. If I want music, I’ll go to a concert or
listen to a CD. If I want a lesson, I’ll read it from a book. If I want the intemperate
opinions of social conservatives, I’ll read the Daily Mail. Actually, no, I don’t
think I could stomach that. And if I want to pray or read the bible, I don’t
need to sit in a strangely decorated building in order to do that.
All the Jesus stuff needs more mulling over. There are big
questions about exactly how much I can bring myself to believe, and as you
might have worked out by now the term arch-sceptic might just about begin to
describe my approach to most faith claims.
More to come when I’ve worked more of it out, if that ever happens.
Friday, 27 December 2013
St Cuthbert’s Parish Church
Christmas Eve, 24 December 2013, 11.30pm
Ministers: the Reverend David W Denniston, the Reverend
Charles Robertson and the Reverend Jane M Denniston
Bah Humbug! Soul Searcher is not a fan of Christmas, at
least not of most of it. Yes to turkey and sprouts, but no to rampant
consumerism, queuing in Sainsburys and the awful loop of Christmas pop songs
played just about everywhere from mid-October onwards.
But I couldn’t not go to church on Christmas Eve. My dear
friend C, the cafeteria Catholic at whose behest I attended St Peter’s last year, kick-starting the whole year
of blogging, had suggested a return visit, but then she bottled out, so no
brownie points for her. So I thought I’d try St Cuthbert’s, last experienced
through a fug of soup odour in May, the week the general assembly was in town and Princes Street gardens were
playing host to the Heart & Soul festival.
No soup this time, but lots of electric candles to light the
first half of the service, until the house lights came up at midnight. A
reversal, if you will, of the Tenebrae service at Old St Paul’s, with all the lights going out until we ended in darkness.
St Cuthbert’s is one of those churches that seems too ornate
to be CofS, with friezes and frescoes and all manner of fripperies to distract
the eye. They also have an organ, played by one Dr Jeremy Cull, who treated us
to Bach’s Christmas chorales from the Orgelbuchlein on the way in and Widor’s
Toccata in F on the way out. After all the dire “praise” music I’ve endured
this year, it’s nice to hear some old-school church music played well.
But as for the choir, well, not so great. Six feeble voices
were largely drowned out by one of the male ministers (wasn’t sure which was
which) who left his microphone on throughout all the hymns, although they
attempted a feeble descant for See in
Yonder Manger Low. I feared that they might try the same for O Little Town of Bethlehem and O Come, All Ye Faithful, but we were
spared what could have been a car crash.
Congregational enthusiasm was difficult to judge because of
the mic’ed-up minister, but there were 60-something people in various degrees
of mufflement against the mid-winter weather, although one woman had opted for
bare arms, bare legs and peep-toe stilettos. Brrrr! Soul Searcher, who likes to
be prepared for draughty churches, wore her new hat, crocheted by her own fair
hand, but still found herself coveting her neighbour’s white fleecy, furry,
ear-flappy, tie-under-the-chin hat. But Where
did you get that hat? wasn’t what we were there to hear about.
The carols were: On
Christmas Night All Christians Sing, Child
in the Manger, See in Yonder Manger
Low (complete with errors on the OHP), While
Humble Shepherds, O Little Town of
Bethlehem, Still the Night, Joy to the World (which I didn’t realise
had quite so many verses), and O Come,
All Ye Faithful.
The readings were Isaiah 9:2-7, Titus 2:11-14, and Luke
2:1-20, and the sermons, or “talks”, of which there were two for some reason,
were about the innkeeper, starting with a grim little piece of doggerel called “The
Tale of the Innkeeper”. In a nutshell, we are all of us innkeepers, thinking
there is no room in our lives for Jesus, but let us not miss another
opportunity in life, because he always has room for us. Quite why it took three
clergypeople to deliver this I’m not sure; maybe they just don’t want to be
alone at Christmas.
But I can’t say that I felt moved or uplifted at any point.
Maybe after all these churches I’m just bored now. The year is
nearly ended and there’s nothing new under all those vaulted ceilings.
Monday, 23 December 2013
Try Praying
Where: on the buses, in little booklets and online
Led by: a very nice man called David Hill
I’d seen the bus adverts, stuck behind one in traffic, most
likely, but I wasn’t sure who was behind trypraying until I met David,
parishoner of Liberton Kirk,
who commented on my blog and who turns out to be the campaign co-ordinator.
David gave me the booklet (also downloadable) and asked me
to try the seven-day prayer challenge. And I did. And I promised that I’d write
about it. That was more than seven weeks ago now. Soul Searcher has had a lot
on her plate, but finally she’s getting round to it.
So how to review trypraying? The short version is simple:
tried it, didn’t work!
But there’s a difference between, “I tried it and it didn’t
work for me,” and “I tried it and it didn’t work and therefore it doesn’t work
for anyone.” Clearly there are many who believe that it does work, that prayer
is effective, that God listens and responds, that it isn’t just some kind of
pointless lunatic activity akin to having an imaginary friend.
So there has to be a longer and, I hope, more carefully
considered version too.
Regular readers will know by now that the Soul Searcher is a
grumpy, grudging grouch who finds plenty to complain about almost everywhere.
So if you asked me what I honestly thought about prayer, about its purpose and
efficacy, you could expect a fairly sceptical answer.
But it’s also worth checking sources, so let’s start with
the Westminster Catechism’s definition of prayer (q98):
“Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God for things
agreeable to his will, in the name of Christ, with confession of our sins, and
thankful acknowledgment of his mercies.”
And now let’s pick it apart and think about what that really
means. It means that a petition for anything not agreeable to God’s will
doesn’t count as prayer, so if your prayer goes unanswered it might be because
you’ve prayed for the wrong thing. But how do you know if what you desire is
acceptable or not? Well, perhaps because acceptable desires are fulfilled and
unacceptable ones aren’t … which leads us right back round in a circle.
This definition would also seem to suggest that unless you
confess your sins it doesn’t count either. Ditto for acknowledgement of his
mercies. So if any one element is lacking, you’re unlikely to get what you’re
praying for.
More detailed definitions of prayer expand on the basic
premise, explaining that it’s about more than mechanical lip service, not what
you say but what’s in your heart, etc. So here’s another question? If God knows
what’s in my heart, why do I have to tell him? Okay, so there’s always some
value in trying to set out your thoughts in proper order, like writing a list
of all the things you need to do rather than just worrying about the general mess
your life is in … or like writing a blog about churchgoing for a whole year
instead of just letting all the spiritual mayhem swirl around in your brain.
Back in October, at Craigrownie Parish Church,
the sermon covered some of this, but not in any great depth, although the
minister did have quite a tidy argument to account for unanswered prayers.
But maybe not every prayer expects an answer. There
are prayers of acknowledgement and of thanks, as well as prayers of petition.
There are prayers whose purpose is to cement one’s membership of a
congregation/sect/faith, everyone reciting the same prayer together. This is
prayer as fan mail; the fans don’t really expect the admired celebrity to write
back to them in person, but the act of sending the letter makes them feel like
part of something bigger … maybe?
I don’t know really. I’ve never idolised a pop star or
actor, so I’m guessing here. Maybe it’s my lack of idol-worshipping instinct
that makes prayer not work for me. It’s just hard to see how the petty little
god prayed to at Holyrood Abbey, Elim and St Stephen’s, who is unable to do any of the things that a truly almighty god would do, could be
worth praying to.
There could be another purpose to prayer, of course. Prayer
as meditation, to get your mind into some kind of receptive state, to calm yourself,
to focus your thoughts, etc, etc. But to commune with a supernatural being?
Hmmm … not sure I can really go for that.
One of the themes that I’ve brought up during my Soul Search mission is the theological difficulty I have in equating Jesus with God. While I could
just about believe in God the Father, there’s too much messy Christology around
the person and purpose of Jesus, around the trinity and so on, for me to
believe in the divinity of Jesus. However I leave my year of Soul Searching, it’s
going to be without Jesus.
… and trypraying is all about Jesus. For trypraying, Jesus
equals God, and they don’t want to muddy the waters with too much theology. The
campaign is aimed, after all, at people who wouldn’t darken the doors of a
church. Soul Searcher quite likes churches; she just isn’t too keen on what she
tends to find in them.
So what can I say about trypraying? I don’t want to condemn
it as pointless. There are some genuinely well-intentioned people involved in
promoting it, and good luck to them. If their forthcoming Pray, Say, Display campaign
to widen the scope of the project
succeeds, they might get a few more people talking regularly to God, feeling
better about themselves, finding a purpose in life, and that’s got to be good.
But there’s a step somewhere beyond that, when all those brought to prayer by
trypraying start to get a bit more inquisitive … and then they’ll find
themselves where I am, fifty churches down and still no answers.
Sorry, David.
Sorry, David.
Monday, 16 December 2013
Robin Chapel
Choral Evensong, Advent 3 (Gaudete), 15 December 2013, 4.30pm
Chaplain: Revd Thomas Coupar
Preacher: Very Revd Mgr Michael Regan
It was the third Sunday in Advent, and once again John the
Baptist was very much to the fore, starting with a rousing rendition of On Jordan’s Bank the Baptist’s Cry,
which fairly raised the rafters. There were only eleven worshippers, but the
thirteen choristers made a big noise in a small space.
Maybe they get more folk attending when the weather isn’t
fierce and filthy, but if you’ve never been to the Robin Chapel then you’ve
missed a choral treat. Built in memory of Robin Tudsbury as part of the Thistle Foundation, it is described as interdenominational but appears to be more or less Anglican. They have a super little choir who sing evensong every
week, yesterday’s music list being:
- Hymns 34, 573 (Common Praise)
- Plainsong Preces and Responses
- Ps. 14
- Amner Cesar’s Service
- Gibbons This is the record of John
- Naylor Festal Responses
Bit of a wobble on the final verse of the Gibbons, but it
was pretty impressive. Even the collects were sung, and the order of service is
from the 1929 Scottish Prayer Book, which features such charming archaisms as, “In
Quires and Places where they sing, here followeth the Anthem.”
The visiting preacher, the Very Revd Mgr Michael Regan from
the Metropolitan Cathedral, wins the prize for the best vestments of the year
bar none. Germolene pink satin – rose pink, he called it – with elaborate
floral embroidery and a befringèd cope. It even surpasses the gold and yellow
number worn by Jennifer Irungu at the Kingdom Church, though he might lose a point or two for not accessorising with sparkly high
heels. Maybe that would have been over-egging it.
The readings were Isaiah 35 and Matthew 11:2-15, and the
sermon was about preparing a way for the Lord, citing lyrics from Les Miserables and reflecting on what it
means to be touched by love, when we can begin to discern what the prophets
have been talking about. At just seven minutes long, it’s probably the shortest
address of the year, but there was a lot of singing to get through, and having sat through some dire sermons during my mission I'm not going to complain about concision.
I’ve noted a couple of times throughout my year of churchgoing that there’s something aesthetically pleasing about the Anglican liturgy, and
especially so when it’s all set to such fabulous music. Does it do anything for
me spiritually? Er … no. Sorry. But maybe that’s just because I’m dead inside.
But they’re doing a Christmas carol service next Sunday at
4pm, which should have some good music. How many people they can fit in is
another matter, as there’s probably only seating for thirty or so. First come,
first served, I guess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)