Britain is in dire need of more foster parents. Fostering has been in the news a lot lately, and much of it has been discouraging, but the Government's announcement a couple of weeks ago that there will be a new charter for fostering provided a glimmer of light among all the darkness. Tim Loughton, the minister for children, said: "This charter makes it clear that these foster parents should be able to play the role of any parent looking after his or her own children, and they should have the back up of the local authority to be able to do that."
Loughton mentioned things like haircuts and sleepovers - things that some local authorities make foster parents seek permission for - as "things that we would take for granted with our own children", that foster parents should also be able to do freely. The Department for Education also weighed in according to the BBC report on the matter, saying "the charter was designed to make it clear that a foster child should be treated as part of the family, and their views taken seriously".
Great stuff, especially when you consider that one of the things any parent has to do is to talk frankly with their kids, to answer their questions honestly. It's the role of the parent to let their children find their own way, but not without guidance and advice. Inevitably, children won't always do what the parents want them to do, and the parents don't love them any the less for that. Yet it would be completely wrong for those parents to say "I think what you're doing is fine" if they thought it was morally wrong.
Therefore if the fostering charter is to work, it should reverse the stupid decisions made around Eunice and Owen Johns. The Johns are an ordinary couple with ordinary mainstream views. They applied to be foster parents, willing to take on any children and love them as their own, accepting them as they are, nurturing them, protecting them... in a word, parenting them. The Johns are Christians but that doesn't mean they would be pushing their beliefs onto the foster children - it just means that if someone asked them about their beliefs, they would explain their views.
The mainstream Christian belief that sex belongs only inside a marital relationship does not stop those that hold that belief from loving those that have sex outside of marriage - from accepting them, protecting them, nurturing them, loving them. But the Johns were not allowed to be foster parents simply because they hold that belief. It's not something they would have ever raised with their foster children, unless the foster children asked them for advice or their opinions on sexuality. Whatever the children's beliefs and actions, the Johns would have treated them the same way. No discrimination, no lack of acceptance, no inequality, no undervaluing of diversity. Yet just because they held that view - even without the intention of ever expressing it unless explicitly asked - the Johns' application was rejected and a court disgracefully upheld that decision.
Somewhat bizarrely, the judges said "No one is asserting that Christians - or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims - are not fit and proper persons to foster or adopt. No-one is contending for a blanket ban." Yet Christianity, Judaism and Islam all teach that sex outside of marriage is morally incorrect. If that wasn't the reason for refusing the Johns' application, then what was?
There are lots of Christian parents in this country. Not all of us are good parents, but the vast majority are - and certainly being a Christian does not make you a bad parent. Yet, apparently, it does make you a bad foster parent. If the Government are genuine about making sure foster parents can treat their foster children the way they would treat their own children, they must be allowed to have, and to express, views on sexuality - including that they believe some practices to be morally wrong. Is that really so much to ask?
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Why the Pope should be treated as a head of state
The Pope visits the UK today, apparently amid some controversy. The Catholic Church's views on contraception and its dire record of harbouring and covering up child abusers are notorious, and not things I condone in any way shape or form. To that end, a number of people are stating the opinion that the Pope should not be treated as a state dignitary - no red carpet, no meeting the Queen, etc - during his visit to our country, or perhaps not be allowed to visit at all.
The accusations against the Catholic Church are usually summed up in a single word: intolerant. Which is astounding when you consider that that's exactly what those who oppose the Pope's visit at all are being. Tolerance means putting up with, accepting and even welcoming and showing hospitality to those with whom we disagree. To say someone is not welcome because they are intolerant is hypocrisy in its most blatant form.
But the majority of those I've heard are not saying the Pope is unwelcome here, just that he should not be treated as a head of state. Putting aside his beliefs and views for a moment, this comes down to a simple question of fact: is he a head of state or isn't he? Well, I think you'll find that the Vatican City State is, shock horror, a city state. It is a sovereign entity in its own right. I think you'll also find that the Pope is the head of that sovereign state. So, whatever you think of him, whatever his beliefs and however they match up to your own, the Pope is a head of state.
Let's get something else right; despite the Catholic Church's horrific record when it comes to child protection, the Pope is not child abuser and nor does he condone such things. He has apologised for those horrible things that happened in the Irish Catholic Church and, while acknowledging that words alone are seldom enough to heal these things, he's doing what he can to put things right. As for his views on sexual conduct - well, he wouldn't be the first Catholic head of state to visit Britain and he won't be the last. I don't see the same outcry when Muslim heads of state visit Britain, despite their views and record of how women should be treated among other things. So campaigning against the Pope being treated as a head of state is at least one of three things: (a) ignorant of the straightforward fact that he is a head of state; (b) hypocritical, from those who whinge about intolerance; (c) discriminatory, singling him out while not complaining at all about state visits from others with similar beliefs and principles.
A final note is to state the obvious; the Pope has a global following and during his visit to the UK the international spotlight will be on our country. The Pope's views are well known but there are many who don't really know much about modern Britain. If, while we're in that spotlight, all we manage to do is demonstrate an inability to welcome and tolerate those with different views to our own, if we sell Britain as a stuck-up country that refuses to engage in open discussion with those we disagree with, then we are doing our country a great disservice.
In his blog Stephen outlines the reason for his objection. His argument goes like this:
So what does the Montevideo Convention say?
The accusations against the Catholic Church are usually summed up in a single word: intolerant. Which is astounding when you consider that that's exactly what those who oppose the Pope's visit at all are being. Tolerance means putting up with, accepting and even welcoming and showing hospitality to those with whom we disagree. To say someone is not welcome because they are intolerant is hypocrisy in its most blatant form.
But the majority of those I've heard are not saying the Pope is unwelcome here, just that he should not be treated as a head of state. Putting aside his beliefs and views for a moment, this comes down to a simple question of fact: is he a head of state or isn't he? Well, I think you'll find that the Vatican City State is, shock horror, a city state. It is a sovereign entity in its own right. I think you'll also find that the Pope is the head of that sovereign state. So, whatever you think of him, whatever his beliefs and however they match up to your own, the Pope is a head of state.
Let's get something else right; despite the Catholic Church's horrific record when it comes to child protection, the Pope is not child abuser and nor does he condone such things. He has apologised for those horrible things that happened in the Irish Catholic Church and, while acknowledging that words alone are seldom enough to heal these things, he's doing what he can to put things right. As for his views on sexual conduct - well, he wouldn't be the first Catholic head of state to visit Britain and he won't be the last. I don't see the same outcry when Muslim heads of state visit Britain, despite their views and record of how women should be treated among other things. So campaigning against the Pope being treated as a head of state is at least one of three things: (a) ignorant of the straightforward fact that he is a head of state; (b) hypocritical, from those who whinge about intolerance; (c) discriminatory, singling him out while not complaining at all about state visits from others with similar beliefs and principles.
A final note is to state the obvious; the Pope has a global following and during his visit to the UK the international spotlight will be on our country. The Pope's views are well known but there are many who don't really know much about modern Britain. If, while we're in that spotlight, all we manage to do is demonstrate an inability to welcome and tolerate those with different views to our own, if we sell Britain as a stuck-up country that refuses to engage in open discussion with those we disagree with, then we are doing our country a great disservice.
Response to Stephen Fry's blog
Stephen Fry, one of the signatures in a letter opposing the Pope's visit being treated as a state visit, has been heavily criticised for doing so. The Daily Mail, the "news" paper we all love to hate, has called the letter a campaign of hate, which it clearly isn't. But the ridiculousness of their front page today has prompted our beloved national treasure (sorry, Stephen, if you're reading this - which I sincerely doubt) to blog on the subject.In his blog Stephen outlines the reason for his objection. His argument goes like this:
My only objection is that this be a State Visit. It hasn’t happened before and the Vatican is in no real sense a nation state. Visit the place: it takes fifty minutes to walk round. You don’t need a passport or visa to enter. It is a curlicue of history that makes this “absolute monarchy” (to quote the Holy See’s own website) a “country”. Under no reasonable or worthwhile definition does the Vatican match up to the old-established and widely accepted Montevideo protocols on statehood.So, the Vatican can't be a state because it takes fifty minutes to walk round; it's too small to be a state. Well I'm sorry, but size is not a factor in statehood, under the Montevideo Convention or any other definition that I've seen. You don't need a passport or visa to enter from neighbouring Italy - big deal. You can travel across most of the European Union without a passport these days, and certainly can visit a few sovereign entities a bit closer to home without one: Guernsey, Jersey, the Isle of Man. The same applied to Ireland prior to 1997. Are they suddenly not sovereign because they've relaxed their border controls? Of course not, and again the Montevideo Convention says nothing about border control or the need for passports and visas.
So what does the Montevideo Convention say?
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.The Vatican has all of those. That is the bedrock of the "the old-established and widely accepted Montevideo protocols" that Stephen Fry blogs about, and clearly the Vatican matches up. So unless he's now going to assert that the very protocol he pointed to as being the one we should uphold is now in his "no reasonable or worthwhile definition" category, it would appear the great man has snookered himself.
Why "thees and thous" are bad
Making the decision to follow Jesus, to love him almost as well as he loves us, is the most important decision anyone can make in this life, and I'm passionate about expressing that love for him; I'm passionate about worship. Worship is what every human being was created to do, so it's not surprising that in fact lots of people are passionate about worship. And therefore it's not surprising that aspects of worship are some of the most contentious areas of disagreement among Christians. Arguments about worship can be divisive, and they can be distracting from the real purpose we have, so on one level they're best avoided; but equally it's important not to stifle open and honest debate or to prevent people from expressing and exploring different viewpoints.
It's very much in that spirit that this piece is intended. This is my opinion; there are other opinions out there, and they are all to be respected. I welcome challenge to my thinking and am open to change; equally I would hope that by putting my case forward it would also challenge some of the ideas and opinions that others have formed.
So back to that opening sentence; the two most important things in life are choosing to live for God, and actually living for God. I don't believe that worship and evangelism are separate - quite the opposite in fact. The particular aspect of worship that fires me up the most is its ability to enable people to access God, to banish foolish stereotypes about God and Christianity being old fashioned or irrelevant, and to help people to realise that God is alive and relevant today, in the here and now. So I have a few principles that I believe apply to worship:
In Britain the media love to spread the notion that Christianity is old fashioned and based on little more than a set of historic, traditional rituals. They like to propagate the idea that only traditional pipe organ music with archaic lyrics should be sung in church, and that any congregation embracing anything more up to date are a bunch of happy clappy weirdos. This perception of Christianity is of course completely and utterly false, but like a lot of urban myths it has become deeply ingrained in our society's psyche.
When the church meets it shouldn't be like a period drama or one of those groups that re-enact battle scenes at ancient monuments, but an experience that reflects the style of and is engaging to the society and culture in which we live today. Christianity is not about keeping old traditions alive but about a real, current relationship.
It can be a very difficult task for a Christian to demonstrate to his non Christian friends that actually God, and the church, are very much in the world today and very much relevant to it, and to them on a personal level. To reach the stage where that friend accepts an invitation to a church gathering can take monumental effort. If just one small part of that gathering only serves to encourage the idea that Christianity is out of date and out of touch, then it can be the undoing of months and years of effort, and only further propagates the myth that we are working hard to destroy.
There are some parts of God's family where there exists a belief that addressing God in archaic terms is somehow a sign of respect and reverence. Of course we should respect and revere God, but we can express that in everyday language. He knows our innermost thoughts, he sees us naked; we don't need to put on special clothes or use special words to in order enter God's presence, personally or corporately.
When someone meets royalty, there is a certain etiquette involved. You address the Queen in a certain way (first "your majesty" and thereafter "ma'am" - pronounced "mam" not "marm") but you don't have to suddenly change the modern form of words to some ancient way of speaking. You don't suddenly suffix every verb with "-eth", change "you" to "thee" or "thou", "your" to "thy" and so on. I suspect if you addressed the Queen that way she would look at you with a somewhat bemused look on her face. The thoughts "what an idiot" might pass through her mind - such things impede communication, aren't particularly respectful and just make the speaker look a tad silly. It also sends a message that her majesty wouldn't understand you if you just spoke normally to her, or that you believe doing so would not be fitting for her ears to hear. That of course is simply not the case, and it's even less the case with God.
We want people to come to church. So why would we make conscious choices that put them off, or make it harder for those who aren't used to attending church to understand what's going on and take part in it, for no particular reason other than to uphold ancient traditions?
An accusation often levelled at modern Christians is that we pick and choose which parts of the Bible we embrace and heed. This usually stems from a misunderstanding of two important things - firstly that when Jesus came he fulfilled the law, and set his people free from many of the rituals and practices that were the norm up to that point; and secondly that the perception interpretation of some passages, particularly some of Paul's writings, has changed from a black-and-white literal view to an examination of what he was communicating while acknowledging he was doing so in a different cultural and societal setting. So there's much in Paul's letters about who should and shouldn't wear hats when worshipping God, and when (and whether) women should speak during church gatherings, that are not approached in a literal way in most modern churches. But we still believe that the Bible is God's word, and that Paul's letters are a part of that. Which means that we need to not ignore what Paul wrote, but to understand what the message is that we need to heed today.
The chapter I quoted from above, 1 Corinthians 14, contains some of the more contentious instructions:
Now don't misunderstand me; I love old hymns and songs. There's a lot of value in them, some brilliant tunes and lyrics, and many of them are quite adaptable and can be altered ever so slightly to bring them up to date as far as style and cultural relevance are concerned. It frequently happens; many old hymns can be played in a much more modern style than the historical pipe organ dirge of yesteryear permitted, and in some cases music for some classic hymns has been rewritten completely from scratch. This is all good stuff, but there are a surprising number of people who are more than comfortable with experimenting and altering the music, whether that's just in terms of style or as a wholesale makeover, but fiercely protective of the original lyrics - even if those lyrics can be translated really easily into modern English without any loss of meaning or impact.
That irks me; if the principle of bringing a song up to date is sound, then it applies as much to the linguistic style as it does to the musical style. What's wrong with singing "how great you are" instead of "how great thou art" other than the fact that a selection of people - those who have been in the church a while - are more used to singing the latter? Worship isn't about being comfortable, and doing what we've always done. If we truly want to progress to another level of worship, one that is genuinely accessible to today's British culture, one which doesn't reinforce incorrect stereotypes, and one which doesn't put up man-made barriers between ourselves and God, then such a tiny step outside of one's comfort zone is surely something we can deal with.
I mentioned above the frequent criticism of Christians that we apparently pick and choose which bits of the Bible we apply, and which bits of our lives we apply them to. It's vital that we answer such criticism not by arguing against it but by demonstrating its untruth with our actions and decisions. If, then, we apply the principle of modernising worship for the reasons I've outlined but apply it just to music and not to lyrics, or indeed other areas of worship, then we simply play into the hands of those levelling that criticism at us. After all, for many of the songs in question, it's not as if the lyrics we sing today are exactly what was originally written (see the Wikipedia article on How Great Thou Art, for example) so what's the problem with performing a further minor tweak?
I began this piece with the qualification that this is my opinion, that other opinions exist, and I'm happy to engage in discussion on this very important (to me, at least) subject. But I hope that I've demonstrated that this is about more than simple personal preference; it's not a case of "I like this style, you like that style, let's agree to disagree" but there's something more fundamental in this: it's about enabling people to access worship, it's about challenging false stereotypes, it's about being honest with God, it's about being relevant to the society we live in, and it's about being consistent in our application of principles and values.
That said, I do need to qualify this some more, because I haven't addressed the subject of the target audience. The target audience for my worship is God; therefore for me to address him as "thee" or "thou" in my worship would be incongruous, because that's not how I speak. But there are people out there who have lived long lives and been brought up in ultra-traditional churches, who would really struggle to engage in any style of worship that wasn't the pipe-organ-hymns-with-archaic-lyrics style. So when I facilitate worship in retirement homes and the like I don't consider for a moment that we should update the lyrics of their favourite old hymns, because they can worship God more effectively with those old words. But the same songs, the same style, in a different context, could be a complete disaster of language barriers and alien musical styles. So while God is the ultimate audience of all worship, there is something to be said for ensuring worship is not just relevant to our culture at last, but occasionally specifically tailored to a particular subculture that we may be serving at a particular time.
So if a church decides that it's purpose and strategy is to serve the elderly that are already steeped in (very) traditional Christianity, then clearly "thees and thous" are in order. But if a church decides that it wants to be relevant to today's culture at large, or to any other particular demographic, then I think what I've said above stands; "thee" and "thou" are foreign words to the majority, so we serve the majority best by not using them where perfectly clear and equivalent modern alternatives would do the same job.
It's very much in that spirit that this piece is intended. This is my opinion; there are other opinions out there, and they are all to be respected. I welcome challenge to my thinking and am open to change; equally I would hope that by putting my case forward it would also challenge some of the ideas and opinions that others have formed.
So back to that opening sentence; the two most important things in life are choosing to live for God, and actually living for God. I don't believe that worship and evangelism are separate - quite the opposite in fact. The particular aspect of worship that fires me up the most is its ability to enable people to access God, to banish foolish stereotypes about God and Christianity being old fashioned or irrelevant, and to help people to realise that God is alive and relevant today, in the here and now. So I have a few principles that I believe apply to worship:
- Our worship should not encourage the mistaken view that Christianity is about a fuddy duddy, old fashioned ritual based set of traditions as opposed to a living, vibrant, current relationship with a real person who is alive today and engaged in our culture
- We should address God in a way that is respectful, but also allows for intimacy; a way which demonstrates our patriotism to his kingdom but that doesn't patronise the king
- Our worship should not put up barriers that impede people's understanding of what's going on or prevent them from being actively involved themselves
- Our worship should help to demonstrate that God is alive and relevant today to everyone
- Principles should be applied consistently, without picking and choosing when and where they
1. Not encouraging the "old fashioned" stereotype
In Britain the media love to spread the notion that Christianity is old fashioned and based on little more than a set of historic, traditional rituals. They like to propagate the idea that only traditional pipe organ music with archaic lyrics should be sung in church, and that any congregation embracing anything more up to date are a bunch of happy clappy weirdos. This perception of Christianity is of course completely and utterly false, but like a lot of urban myths it has become deeply ingrained in our society's psyche.
When the church meets it shouldn't be like a period drama or one of those groups that re-enact battle scenes at ancient monuments, but an experience that reflects the style of and is engaging to the society and culture in which we live today. Christianity is not about keeping old traditions alive but about a real, current relationship.
It can be a very difficult task for a Christian to demonstrate to his non Christian friends that actually God, and the church, are very much in the world today and very much relevant to it, and to them on a personal level. To reach the stage where that friend accepts an invitation to a church gathering can take monumental effort. If just one small part of that gathering only serves to encourage the idea that Christianity is out of date and out of touch, then it can be the undoing of months and years of effort, and only further propagates the myth that we are working hard to destroy.
2. We don't need a special language to address God
There are some parts of God's family where there exists a belief that addressing God in archaic terms is somehow a sign of respect and reverence. Of course we should respect and revere God, but we can express that in everyday language. He knows our innermost thoughts, he sees us naked; we don't need to put on special clothes or use special words to in order enter God's presence, personally or corporately.
When someone meets royalty, there is a certain etiquette involved. You address the Queen in a certain way (first "your majesty" and thereafter "ma'am" - pronounced "mam" not "marm") but you don't have to suddenly change the modern form of words to some ancient way of speaking. You don't suddenly suffix every verb with "-eth", change "you" to "thee" or "thou", "your" to "thy" and so on. I suspect if you addressed the Queen that way she would look at you with a somewhat bemused look on her face. The thoughts "what an idiot" might pass through her mind - such things impede communication, aren't particularly respectful and just make the speaker look a tad silly. It also sends a message that her majesty wouldn't understand you if you just spoke normally to her, or that you believe doing so would not be fitting for her ears to hear. That of course is simply not the case, and it's even less the case with God.
"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."Jesus says we should worship "in spirit and in truth". "In truth" means honestly; not putting on special airs and graces, but instead being humble, open and honest before God. Putting on a show of reverence by using silly old words that fell out of contemporary use decades if not centuries ago does not tick that box. True reverence, true respect, is an attitude of the heart, not a an act of tongue-tying linguistic trickery.
Jesus (John 4:23-24)
3. We shouldn't make it harder for the "unchurched" to access church
We want people to come to church. So why would we make conscious choices that put them off, or make it harder for those who aren't used to attending church to understand what's going on and take part in it, for no particular reason other than to uphold ancient traditions?
Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.Paul is talking about speaking in tongues here but he is actually imparting a universal principle, not something specific to speaking in tongues: that we should strive to make our worship accessible to those from outside of our usual congregation. "If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me." - it couldn't be much clearer. Except for scholars of Shakespeare and those brought up in traditional church settings, Old English is a foreign language that has very little relevance to modern British culture. If we want modern Britons to attend, understand, and participate in our activities, we must embrace today's language and dispense with the "thees and thous".
Paul (1 Corinthians 14:6-12)
4. Our worship should be culturally relevant
An accusation often levelled at modern Christians is that we pick and choose which parts of the Bible we embrace and heed. This usually stems from a misunderstanding of two important things - firstly that when Jesus came he fulfilled the law, and set his people free from many of the rituals and practices that were the norm up to that point; and secondly that the perception interpretation of some passages, particularly some of Paul's writings, has changed from a black-and-white literal view to an examination of what he was communicating while acknowledging he was doing so in a different cultural and societal setting. So there's much in Paul's letters about who should and shouldn't wear hats when worshipping God, and when (and whether) women should speak during church gatherings, that are not approached in a literal way in most modern churches. But we still believe that the Bible is God's word, and that Paul's letters are a part of that. Which means that we need to not ignore what Paul wrote, but to understand what the message is that we need to heed today.
The chapter I quoted from above, 1 Corinthians 14, contains some of the more contentious instructions:
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.This of course was at a time when women received no education at all; they were ignorant of what was going on because of the culture they lived in, and were therefore full of questions which interrupted the flow of proceedings, so Paul's instructions do make some sense in that context but we don't apply that particular instruction literally today. But does that mean we can just ignore the things that Paul says in this chapter, which are all about how the church should conduct worship in the context of its culture? Well, no:
Paul (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.Strong stuff indeed. So we cannot ignore what Paul is getting at in this chapter; and what Paul is fundamentally doing throughout 1 Corinthians 14 is explaining the etiquette, customs and style of the culture of the time, and stating again and again that the church should embrace those things. There are caveats of course; the city of Corinth was famous for its sexual immorality and earlier in this letter Paul warns the church strongly against engaging in those practices - so cultural relevance in worship does not mean surrendering our morality or "giving in" to the pressures in our modern world to do things we know are contrary to God's will. But it does mean that if a certain style of music, dance, fashion or visual art is popular in our culture and doesn't impede others from getting close to God, then let's have it in church. So... when was the last time a book full of "thees and thous" won the Booker prize (or whatever it's called these days!), or a song with lyrics full of "thees and thous" topped the singles charts? Can't remember one? My point exactly.
Paul (1 Corinthians 14:37-38)
5. If we can change musical style, why not linguistic style too?
Now don't misunderstand me; I love old hymns and songs. There's a lot of value in them, some brilliant tunes and lyrics, and many of them are quite adaptable and can be altered ever so slightly to bring them up to date as far as style and cultural relevance are concerned. It frequently happens; many old hymns can be played in a much more modern style than the historical pipe organ dirge of yesteryear permitted, and in some cases music for some classic hymns has been rewritten completely from scratch. This is all good stuff, but there are a surprising number of people who are more than comfortable with experimenting and altering the music, whether that's just in terms of style or as a wholesale makeover, but fiercely protective of the original lyrics - even if those lyrics can be translated really easily into modern English without any loss of meaning or impact.
That irks me; if the principle of bringing a song up to date is sound, then it applies as much to the linguistic style as it does to the musical style. What's wrong with singing "how great you are" instead of "how great thou art" other than the fact that a selection of people - those who have been in the church a while - are more used to singing the latter? Worship isn't about being comfortable, and doing what we've always done. If we truly want to progress to another level of worship, one that is genuinely accessible to today's British culture, one which doesn't reinforce incorrect stereotypes, and one which doesn't put up man-made barriers between ourselves and God, then such a tiny step outside of one's comfort zone is surely something we can deal with.
I mentioned above the frequent criticism of Christians that we apparently pick and choose which bits of the Bible we apply, and which bits of our lives we apply them to. It's vital that we answer such criticism not by arguing against it but by demonstrating its untruth with our actions and decisions. If, then, we apply the principle of modernising worship for the reasons I've outlined but apply it just to music and not to lyrics, or indeed other areas of worship, then we simply play into the hands of those levelling that criticism at us. After all, for many of the songs in question, it's not as if the lyrics we sing today are exactly what was originally written (see the Wikipedia article on How Great Thou Art, for example) so what's the problem with performing a further minor tweak?
Conclusion
I began this piece with the qualification that this is my opinion, that other opinions exist, and I'm happy to engage in discussion on this very important (to me, at least) subject. But I hope that I've demonstrated that this is about more than simple personal preference; it's not a case of "I like this style, you like that style, let's agree to disagree" but there's something more fundamental in this: it's about enabling people to access worship, it's about challenging false stereotypes, it's about being honest with God, it's about being relevant to the society we live in, and it's about being consistent in our application of principles and values.
That said, I do need to qualify this some more, because I haven't addressed the subject of the target audience. The target audience for my worship is God; therefore for me to address him as "thee" or "thou" in my worship would be incongruous, because that's not how I speak. But there are people out there who have lived long lives and been brought up in ultra-traditional churches, who would really struggle to engage in any style of worship that wasn't the pipe-organ-hymns-with-archaic-lyrics style. So when I facilitate worship in retirement homes and the like I don't consider for a moment that we should update the lyrics of their favourite old hymns, because they can worship God more effectively with those old words. But the same songs, the same style, in a different context, could be a complete disaster of language barriers and alien musical styles. So while God is the ultimate audience of all worship, there is something to be said for ensuring worship is not just relevant to our culture at last, but occasionally specifically tailored to a particular subculture that we may be serving at a particular time.
So if a church decides that it's purpose and strategy is to serve the elderly that are already steeped in (very) traditional Christianity, then clearly "thees and thous" are in order. But if a church decides that it wants to be relevant to today's culture at large, or to any other particular demographic, then I think what I've said above stands; "thee" and "thou" are foreign words to the majority, so we serve the majority best by not using them where perfectly clear and equivalent modern alternatives would do the same job.
Have your say: BBC got it wrong
Occasionally I'll post something on the BBC News website's Have your say section. If you haven't seen it before, it's not a discussion board in the traditional sense, but asks you to comment on a specific news story. It then publishes your comments, and everyone can then vote on one another's comments by choosing whether or not to click the "recommend" button that appears below each one. It's quite a neat system.
Naturally, the beeb have put some controls in place to filter out abuse, and posts that don't obey the house rules. The subjects are all time-limited too, so if they don't get around to checking your comment in time, it doesn't get published. When you're reviewing your previous posts, you can see whether your post was published (and how many recommendations it received if it was), unpublished (it wasn't processed in time before the subject was closed) or rejected (it broke the house rules).
Knowing that most of my posts were made several hours before a subject closed, it was disappointing how many of my posts were unpublished, but what was more interesting was the one post that was rejected. The subject in question combined two of the BBC's favourites for the Have your say forum: "Is the Church of England obsessed with sex?"
My answer was pretty simple, and to the point: no, the CoE isn't obsessed with sex but the media are; in addition, the media (and particularly the BBC) are quite keen to undermine Christianity, so there's little surprise that these two obsessions keep combining to produce headlines that involve both.
You might not agree with the view I expressed, but if you have any clue which of the BBC's house rules I'm supposed to have broken by expressing it I look forward to reading your comments below!
Regarding my viewpoint itself, I think both of the media's obsessions are self-evident. Sex sells, and the tabloid press know that better than anyone. And you only have to watch or listen to the Beeb's programmes aimed at Christians (such as Radio 2's Good Morning Sunday or the infamous Songs of Praise) and compare it with the vibrant, buzzing CCM scene (as evidenced by the brilliant Cross Rythms radio stations springing up over the country) to ascertain that the BBC's view of Christianity is outdated to say the least.
Miracles
I'm really looking forward to doing church tomorrow. Over the last few years we've been really blessed with some quite extraordinary healings, and last week we saw the deaf being healed and gold dust appearing on people's hands. Tomorrow we welcome Billy Kennedy, who will be taking over the reigns of the Pioneer Network form Gerald Coates, so it will be great to hear what he has to say.
I'm never sure exactly how to react to the miracles thing. On the one hand, what's going on is truly amazing, and well worth making a big fuss over. After all , this is God at work, and something to be proclaimed from the rooftops. But on the other hand, this is small fry compared to what God is doing elsewhere and what he's capable of doing with us, so we should be striving for bigger and better things in him rather than being overly proud of what we have. And of course, if God wasn't working these miracles, he'd be no less worthy of our praise and worship.
I think my natural reaction is probably the right one; my attitude tends to be "That's great! Now what's next?!" We must acknowledge what God has done, but equally we mustn't get stuck in that one moment and lose sight of where the Holy Spirit is moving on to. As with so many of these things, it's a question of balance.
I'm never sure exactly how to react to the miracles thing. On the one hand, what's going on is truly amazing, and well worth making a big fuss over. After all , this is God at work, and something to be proclaimed from the rooftops. But on the other hand, this is small fry compared to what God is doing elsewhere and what he's capable of doing with us, so we should be striving for bigger and better things in him rather than being overly proud of what we have. And of course, if God wasn't working these miracles, he'd be no less worthy of our praise and worship.
I think my natural reaction is probably the right one; my attitude tends to be "That's great! Now what's next?!" We must acknowledge what God has done, but equally we mustn't get stuck in that one moment and lose sight of where the Holy Spirit is moving on to. As with so many of these things, it's a question of balance.
The archbishop and all that
A lot has been said about the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent comments. It seems that everybody was astounded by his comments, and in turn he was astounded by the reaction. And for me, it is the reaction that by and large is more interesting - and more disturbing - than anything that Rowan Williams said.
I found the reaction of Gordon Brown particularly interesting. Since he came to power, the Prime Minister has been trying to draw the country together and avoid division. We saw this with all the talk of "Britishness" before he came to power; we also saw it when he tried to form his first cabinet as "a cabinet of all the talents" - including invitations to members of other political parties. So it came as no surprise that the first headline about the PM's own reaction to Rowan Williams' comments was to describe the Archbishop as "a man of great integrity". All well and good.
But it was in the detail of Gordon Brown's comments that came something fairly worrying: "British laws must be based on British values and that religious law, while respecting other cultures, should be subservient to British criminal and civil law" This, like much of the reaction to Rowan Williams' comments, makes a couple of fundamental mistakes. The first is an assumption that "religious law" is a different kettle of fish to "British" law, when in fact they are on the whole compatible. In fact, it was this very compatibility that Williams was trying to get at in his speech: that by handling relatively trivial issues in Sharia courts, Muslims can take a lot of the burden off of the mainstream legal system, and save us taxpayers a fair whack of money to boot. Moreover, British law is of course largely based on the Christian faith - so the idea that it is somehow in conflict with "religious law" is nonsense.
The second, and perhaps more important, mistake is to leave God out of the equation. God is big. He is the creator and ruler of the universe. His rules outrank any and every man-made legal system there could possibly be. The notion that the law of God "should be subservient to British law" is a notion that belittles God; for the Prime Minister, our chief law maker, to say that is essentially for him to say "I am more important than God". If unity is what Gordon Brown seeks, that is not the way to achieve it. Instead, he risks alienating everyone in Britain who believes in a deity - and that's a huge slice of our population.
So, what about Rowan Williams' comments themselves? Is his the Christian point of view? Well, whilst there's been a lot of negative reaction even within his own denomination, I think that there's certainly something good to take from what he said (or at least, if not what he said then what he meant!). As I understand it, Islam is a very legalistic religion. A Muslim has to pray at certain times each day, facing a certain direction, whereas a Christian can pray whenever he or she wants, facing any direction he or she chooses. The BBC News website explains Sharia law thus:
So in a way, the archbishop is attempting to spread a Christian message into Islamic culture: resolve disputes among yourselves rather than taking them to court. In a highly legalistic culture such as Islam, it is fairly inevitable that the dispute resolution process would also be highly legalistic - hence making Sharia law "almost inevitable in the UK" - the words that Rowan Williams was shot down for saying. Meanwhile, for the rest of us, out-of-court settlements and dispute resolution processes are becoming more and more common. Essentially all Rowan Williams was doing was acknowledging that established fact.
So, like the Archbishop, I can't see what the fuss is about - in a nutshell, Rowan Williams said nothing new or in any way controversial. But in trying to calm this storm in a teacup, Gordon Brown made a claim that has much bigger and more profound implications. Sharia law in the UK is one thing, but the UK Parliament outranking God is something else entirely.
I found the reaction of Gordon Brown particularly interesting. Since he came to power, the Prime Minister has been trying to draw the country together and avoid division. We saw this with all the talk of "Britishness" before he came to power; we also saw it when he tried to form his first cabinet as "a cabinet of all the talents" - including invitations to members of other political parties. So it came as no surprise that the first headline about the PM's own reaction to Rowan Williams' comments was to describe the Archbishop as "a man of great integrity". All well and good.
But it was in the detail of Gordon Brown's comments that came something fairly worrying: "British laws must be based on British values and that religious law, while respecting other cultures, should be subservient to British criminal and civil law" This, like much of the reaction to Rowan Williams' comments, makes a couple of fundamental mistakes. The first is an assumption that "religious law" is a different kettle of fish to "British" law, when in fact they are on the whole compatible. In fact, it was this very compatibility that Williams was trying to get at in his speech: that by handling relatively trivial issues in Sharia courts, Muslims can take a lot of the burden off of the mainstream legal system, and save us taxpayers a fair whack of money to boot. Moreover, British law is of course largely based on the Christian faith - so the idea that it is somehow in conflict with "religious law" is nonsense.
The second, and perhaps more important, mistake is to leave God out of the equation. God is big. He is the creator and ruler of the universe. His rules outrank any and every man-made legal system there could possibly be. The notion that the law of God "should be subservient to British law" is a notion that belittles God; for the Prime Minister, our chief law maker, to say that is essentially for him to say "I am more important than God". If unity is what Gordon Brown seeks, that is not the way to achieve it. Instead, he risks alienating everyone in Britain who believes in a deity - and that's a huge slice of our population.
So, what about Rowan Williams' comments themselves? Is his the Christian point of view? Well, whilst there's been a lot of negative reaction even within his own denomination, I think that there's certainly something good to take from what he said (or at least, if not what he said then what he meant!). As I understand it, Islam is a very legalistic religion. A Muslim has to pray at certain times each day, facing a certain direction, whereas a Christian can pray whenever he or she wants, facing any direction he or she chooses. The BBC News website explains Sharia law thus:
Sharia rulings have been developed to help Muslims understand how they should lead every aspect of their lives according to God's wishes... For example, many young Muslims ask themselves what they should do if colleagues invite them to the pub after work or college.Imagine if every decision we made, even ones as trivial as that in the example above, had to go through a court of law! Yet that is the Muslim culture. It is in stark contrast to the Christian culture, which is very much more based on freedom and making choices for ourselves. In fact, the Bible encourages us to avoid courts of law if at all possible, and resolve any disputes personally, with the oversight of mutually respected leaders or elders if necessary.Many people would of course make up their own mind about the appropriate course of action. But others may turn to a Sharia scholar for advice.
So Sharia covers a lot of very mundane and banal daily issues where observant Muslims want to ensure they act within the legal framework of their faith.
So in a way, the archbishop is attempting to spread a Christian message into Islamic culture: resolve disputes among yourselves rather than taking them to court. In a highly legalistic culture such as Islam, it is fairly inevitable that the dispute resolution process would also be highly legalistic - hence making Sharia law "almost inevitable in the UK" - the words that Rowan Williams was shot down for saying. Meanwhile, for the rest of us, out-of-court settlements and dispute resolution processes are becoming more and more common. Essentially all Rowan Williams was doing was acknowledging that established fact.
So, like the Archbishop, I can't see what the fuss is about - in a nutshell, Rowan Williams said nothing new or in any way controversial. But in trying to calm this storm in a teacup, Gordon Brown made a claim that has much bigger and more profound implications. Sharia law in the UK is one thing, but the UK Parliament outranking God is something else entirely.
Related links
- BBC News: PM extends support to archbishop
- BBC News: Q&A: Sharia law explained
- Archbishop of Canterbury official site
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)