One of the consequences of the 'unchurching' of society reveals itself every time I do a funeral or wedding. The last forty years have produced an explosion in hymn-writing as the church has dealt with enormous changes in society and culture. Obviously it takes time for the 'classics' to emerge and the hymns that don't grab the imagination of the people to disappear, but there are plenty of modern 'classic' hymns that will survive generations. The song repertoire of non-churchgoers sometimes seems frozen in the Victorian period it seems. Contemporary culture - at least, in England - simply doesn't produce songs for people to sing together to mark a death or celebrate a wedding. At recent weddings, the couple has dispensed with singing altogether, and Celine Dion gets played - again.
People say they want 'a hymn that everyone knows', but there is no longer any such thing. I don't have an overview of the repertoire in church junior schools, but the secular school I visit regularly (where the singing is excellent) has its own unique - and very good - repertoire, which doesn't include any 'hymns that everyone knows'. And I imagine that due to the pressures successive governments have put on the school curriculum, collective singing has disappeared from senior schools altogether.
It seems terribly sad to me (albeit rather inevitable given the huge changes in society), that we've lost the music that could bring several generations together singing at crucial rites of passage. But it's also exasperating : so many people judge Christianity and call it 'out of date' when all they really know about it is one or two Victorian hymns - in many cases, the naffest ones. And yet there's so much really good stuff being written.
Wasn't it Joni Mitchell who sang ". . you don't know what you've lost till it's gone"?
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
Monday, 16 March 2009
Did Jesus have a big nose?
I'm recently appointed as a URC rep on Oxfordshire's SACRE (Standing Advisory Committee on Religious Education). My first meeting was a waste of time : neither the chair nor County RE Advisor were there, and the meeting ended an hour early having achieved little. Plus I got a parking ticket! At last week's meeting we learned that there are moves afoot to scale back the County RE Advisor's post.
State-funded Denominational church schools generally have their diocesan education advisers to turn to. (The URC has never run state schools, believing - until recently - that the powers of state and church should be separate, and therefore state schools should not be affiliated to religious institutions). For the unaffiliated schools, the County RE Advisor is it - all they have.
: RE is the only subject the County has a statutory obligation to provide for.
: 53% of RE teaching in England's schools is delivered by teachers with no specialist knowledge of the subject.
: RE teaching is no longer subject to OFSTED inspection. There is no mechanism for finding out what is going on in the classrooms.
: SACRE has no actual power other than offering general advice.
And they're proposing to cut back what little oversight there is?
A couple of years ago I sat in on a number of RE lessons in different schools around Oxford. In one lesson a child wanted to know why Martin Luther King "hated white people" - and the teacher didn't know how to answer. In another Year 9 class we were treated to a 10-minute rambling monologue on what Jesus looked like. Because he was Jewish, he probably had a big nose, apparently. I wanted to crawl under the desk in embarrassment and alarm, and many of the children seemed equally as amazed at what they were hearing. An RE textbook published by Heinemann was circulated approvingly round the SACRE meeting. In it, I learned that the URC has women 'priests'. Given that the constitution of most Reformed Churches (the biggest family of Christian churches in the world, with more adherents than Roman Catholicism) is based on the idea that priesthood should not be vested in individuals for life, but in the collective - i.e. we don't even accept male priests - this is an absolutely basic error.
But RE is only a Cinderella subject in the eyes of the education system. The demand for Philosophy of Religion with Ethics at AS level is rocketing. It's important because it teaches, not what to think, but how to think. As an example of what we're dealing with : in an AS group, after a careful exploration of Descartes' philosophy, one student dismissed it by saying "At the end of the day, it was only his opinion." The idea that you arrive at opinions only after weighing all other opinions and arguing your case is counter-cultural. Am I the only one who thinks it important?
Letters expressing concern in our denominational magazine and suggesting ways in which we might engage as a church just a little with these issues has produced no response at all.
State-funded Denominational church schools generally have their diocesan education advisers to turn to. (The URC has never run state schools, believing - until recently - that the powers of state and church should be separate, and therefore state schools should not be affiliated to religious institutions). For the unaffiliated schools, the County RE Advisor is it - all they have.
: RE is the only subject the County has a statutory obligation to provide for.
: 53% of RE teaching in England's schools is delivered by teachers with no specialist knowledge of the subject.
: RE teaching is no longer subject to OFSTED inspection. There is no mechanism for finding out what is going on in the classrooms.
: SACRE has no actual power other than offering general advice.
And they're proposing to cut back what little oversight there is?
A couple of years ago I sat in on a number of RE lessons in different schools around Oxford. In one lesson a child wanted to know why Martin Luther King "hated white people" - and the teacher didn't know how to answer. In another Year 9 class we were treated to a 10-minute rambling monologue on what Jesus looked like. Because he was Jewish, he probably had a big nose, apparently. I wanted to crawl under the desk in embarrassment and alarm, and many of the children seemed equally as amazed at what they were hearing. An RE textbook published by Heinemann was circulated approvingly round the SACRE meeting. In it, I learned that the URC has women 'priests'. Given that the constitution of most Reformed Churches (the biggest family of Christian churches in the world, with more adherents than Roman Catholicism) is based on the idea that priesthood should not be vested in individuals for life, but in the collective - i.e. we don't even accept male priests - this is an absolutely basic error.
But RE is only a Cinderella subject in the eyes of the education system. The demand for Philosophy of Religion with Ethics at AS level is rocketing. It's important because it teaches, not what to think, but how to think. As an example of what we're dealing with : in an AS group, after a careful exploration of Descartes' philosophy, one student dismissed it by saying "At the end of the day, it was only his opinion." The idea that you arrive at opinions only after weighing all other opinions and arguing your case is counter-cultural. Am I the only one who thinks it important?
Letters expressing concern in our denominational magazine and suggesting ways in which we might engage as a church just a little with these issues has produced no response at all.
Friday, 6 March 2009
Jesus Madonna
Nice to see that Madonna's got married again : to a hunky guy 28 years her junior, name of Jesus Luz (= 'Jesus Light' . . . or is that 'Jesus Lite'?)
Honestly! It's so obvious : she only wants him for his name.
Honestly! It's so obvious : she only wants him for his name.
Friday, 27 February 2009
Frustrated in Babylon
Went to see the Babylon exhibition at the British Museum yesterday. Was hoping to get to the lecture From Jerusalem to Babylon : new thoughts on the Babylonian exile, but despite trying to book 2 weeks before it was sold out, and I couldn't get in.
Good exhibition - the cuneiform tablets are exquisite, and it's quite something to see the 'Cyrus Cylinder' : the imperial edict that ended the Judæans exile in 539BCE. But I'm often frustrated at exhibitions like this because they don't give a real sense of the sociology of the place : what was Babylon's population? How many Jews were living there, and under what conditions? How many exiles from other states were also there? How did Babylonian religion really work? Apparently the British Museum has 130,000 cuneiform tablets : they must know a bit more than what we know from the Old Testament. That's why it was frustrating not getting into the lecture.
I'm trying to get hold of a transcript, or a pointer to further reading. If you're interested, watch this space.
Good exhibition - the cuneiform tablets are exquisite, and it's quite something to see the 'Cyrus Cylinder' : the imperial edict that ended the Judæans exile in 539BCE. But I'm often frustrated at exhibitions like this because they don't give a real sense of the sociology of the place : what was Babylon's population? How many Jews were living there, and under what conditions? How many exiles from other states were also there? How did Babylonian religion really work? Apparently the British Museum has 130,000 cuneiform tablets : they must know a bit more than what we know from the Old Testament. That's why it was frustrating not getting into the lecture.
I'm trying to get hold of a transcript, or a pointer to further reading. If you're interested, watch this space.
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Lost in the Moral Maze
Last week was the 500th edition of Radio 4's 'The Moral Maze' - a programme which, like 'Thought For The Day', rarely fails to disappoint.
They chose to celebrate by asking the question 'what is the root of morality? Is it ultimately religious?' (well, that's my synopsis of the question they addressed, which was rather more long-winded).
I've posted a synopsis of the whole discussion followed by a critique of it on the Temple Cowley URC website (see 'links', right) together with a sermon based on it.
The discussion was fundamentally confused and inconclusive, partly because (as is usually the case on The Moral Maze) the people don't listen to each other and impose their own prejudices, but mainly because :
: most of the speakers were unable to recognise that the word 'God' refers, almost by definition in the Abrahamic faith traditions, to something that cannot be conceived and held in the human mind. The media bods behind the BBC seem to have this firm conviction that 'God' is some 'entity' that we can imagine in our minds, and of course the atheist participants concur wholeheartedly. For them, God is a human invention or superstition. In fact anything that can be created by the human mind cannot by definition be 'God' and we are condemning ourselves to forever talking at cross purposes.
: most of the speakers didn't seem to be able to distinguish between God and religion. Religion is a human response to the divine. The assumption that this is confined to 'conventional religious institutions' or even conventional religious language introduced a demarcation that made a proper dialogue impossible. Religion includes any behaviour that is a response to 'gods' (or 'idols') too. Thus, behaviour based on giving ultimate value to (say) the 'free market', or 'sex', constitutes religious behaviour - in these cases, idolatrous religious behaviour that inevitably demands sacrificial victims.
Sunday night saw Colin Blakemore, here in Oxford, present the seventh in the TV series Christianity : a History which again, true to form, perpetuated these misunderstandings. That was, until he interviewed the Revd David Paterson - an Anglican priest who's proved popular as a guest preacher at Temple Cowley URC. This is as I remember the conversation (which I recorded, so I could check)
Blakemore : So do you think the universe was created by God?
Paterson : No.
Blakemore : Do you believe in the virgin birth?
Paterson : No.
Blakemore : Do you believe Jesus even existed?
Paterson : Yes, I think he probably did.
Blakemore : So what, for you, is God?
Paterson : God is who I fell in love with and wanted to give my life to.
Blakemore : (lost for words).
Great TV moment! (Even if I might not go all the way with David P).
They chose to celebrate by asking the question 'what is the root of morality? Is it ultimately religious?' (well, that's my synopsis of the question they addressed, which was rather more long-winded).
I've posted a synopsis of the whole discussion followed by a critique of it on the Temple Cowley URC website (see 'links', right) together with a sermon based on it.
The discussion was fundamentally confused and inconclusive, partly because (as is usually the case on The Moral Maze) the people don't listen to each other and impose their own prejudices, but mainly because :
: most of the speakers were unable to recognise that the word 'God' refers, almost by definition in the Abrahamic faith traditions, to something that cannot be conceived and held in the human mind. The media bods behind the BBC seem to have this firm conviction that 'God' is some 'entity' that we can imagine in our minds, and of course the atheist participants concur wholeheartedly. For them, God is a human invention or superstition. In fact anything that can be created by the human mind cannot by definition be 'God' and we are condemning ourselves to forever talking at cross purposes.
: most of the speakers didn't seem to be able to distinguish between God and religion. Religion is a human response to the divine. The assumption that this is confined to 'conventional religious institutions' or even conventional religious language introduced a demarcation that made a proper dialogue impossible. Religion includes any behaviour that is a response to 'gods' (or 'idols') too. Thus, behaviour based on giving ultimate value to (say) the 'free market', or 'sex', constitutes religious behaviour - in these cases, idolatrous religious behaviour that inevitably demands sacrificial victims.
Sunday night saw Colin Blakemore, here in Oxford, present the seventh in the TV series Christianity : a History which again, true to form, perpetuated these misunderstandings. That was, until he interviewed the Revd David Paterson - an Anglican priest who's proved popular as a guest preacher at Temple Cowley URC. This is as I remember the conversation (which I recorded, so I could check)
Blakemore : So do you think the universe was created by God?
Paterson : No.
Blakemore : Do you believe in the virgin birth?
Paterson : No.
Blakemore : Do you believe Jesus even existed?
Paterson : Yes, I think he probably did.
Blakemore : So what, for you, is God?
Paterson : God is who I fell in love with and wanted to give my life to.
Blakemore : (lost for words).
Great TV moment! (Even if I might not go all the way with David P).
Thursday, 12 February 2009
Bus Advert competition
See http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/2009/02/atheist-bus-signs-caption-contest.html for a bus poster caption contest. My favourites :
THERE'S PROBABLY NO GOD. But what would I know? I'm only a bus.
There's probably no driver. Now stop worrying and enjoy the ride.
Mister boojah boojah says: relax - no one is in charge.
You are a figment of God's imagination :How cool is that? Probably.
There's probably no dog. So stop complaining, and enjoy your taco.
THANK GOD FOR ATHEISTS.
Probably? No. There's God. Now stop worrying and enjoy new life.
There is probably no such a thing as a bus.
"The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no bus' . . ."
There is no God. Disagree? Step in front of this bus and prove me wrong.
Why did Jesus cross the road? To get you to the other side.
There's probably no life . . unless you stop worrying . . and enjoy your God.
There's probably no God, but there's definitely an economy. So stop worrying and buy something.
THERE'S PROBABLY NO GOD. But what would I know? I'm only a bus.
There's probably no driver. Now stop worrying and enjoy the ride.
Mister boojah boojah says: relax - no one is in charge.
You are a figment of God's imagination :How cool is that? Probably.
There's probably no dog. So stop complaining, and enjoy your taco.
THANK GOD FOR ATHEISTS.
Probably? No. There's God. Now stop worrying and enjoy new life.
There is probably no such a thing as a bus.
"The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no bus' . . ."
There is no God. Disagree? Step in front of this bus and prove me wrong.
Why did Jesus cross the road? To get you to the other side.
There's probably no life . . unless you stop worrying . . and enjoy your God.
There's probably no God, but there's definitely an economy. So stop worrying and buy something.
Sunday, 25 January 2009
Epiphany : a glimpse of the workings
Sarah suggests a Christmas message should be followed by a thought for Epiphany. Fair cop.
I suppose 'Epiphany' implies 'revelation'. This links with a question posed by Margaret Yee here in Oxford in a series of lectures on Austin Farrer : does theology have anything of value to add to the sum of our (scientific) knowledge? I think many of those who say they 'believe in God' are 'deists' at root : God was around in the beginning, set the created universe going like a gigantic mechanism, and then left us to it, having no more to do with it.
With all the celebration of Darwin that we'll get this year we'll hear plenty of that.
'Epiphany' suggests to me that every little new understanding - even small incremental scientific insights wrung out of vast number-crunching exercises and mind-numbingly tedious data collection (such as Darwin had to engage in before he could see an evolutionary pattern) are, as I found myself proclaiming in an Epiphany address :
"a result of "Aha!" moments — "Eureka!" moments, as God couldn't resist the urge to interfere in our world and give the poor scientist a hint. Rip a little hole in our universe to let the scientist get a deeper glimpse of the workings."
Perhaps 'Epiphany' suggests a subtler and more intuitive understanding of the true process by which truth (including scientific truth) is arrived at. But I don't think that means you can expect to bypass the hard work.
I suppose 'Epiphany' implies 'revelation'. This links with a question posed by Margaret Yee here in Oxford in a series of lectures on Austin Farrer : does theology have anything of value to add to the sum of our (scientific) knowledge? I think many of those who say they 'believe in God' are 'deists' at root : God was around in the beginning, set the created universe going like a gigantic mechanism, and then left us to it, having no more to do with it.
With all the celebration of Darwin that we'll get this year we'll hear plenty of that.
'Epiphany' suggests to me that every little new understanding - even small incremental scientific insights wrung out of vast number-crunching exercises and mind-numbingly tedious data collection (such as Darwin had to engage in before he could see an evolutionary pattern) are, as I found myself proclaiming in an Epiphany address :
"a result of "Aha!" moments — "Eureka!" moments, as God couldn't resist the urge to interfere in our world and give the poor scientist a hint. Rip a little hole in our universe to let the scientist get a deeper glimpse of the workings."
Perhaps 'Epiphany' suggests a subtler and more intuitive understanding of the true process by which truth (including scientific truth) is arrived at. But I don't think that means you can expect to bypass the hard work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
