Sunday, May 11, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

by Times Online

Reposted from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article3908957.ece

The Church plans to hire independent 'peace-makers' to handle infighting between ministers and parishioners

Mark Macaskill

THE Church of Scotland will hire mediators to handle mutinous parishioners clashing with ministers over the interpretation of Christian doctrine.

A third of the kirk's 1,200 congregations are in squabbles between church-goers and ministers, says a report calling for independent "peace-makers" to be used to quell disputes.

The infighting has been blamed on the growing influence of atheist writers such as Richard Dawkins, the evolutionist whose book The God Delusion challenges religious faith and the "irrational" belief in a supernatural creator.

The report, by the kirk's ministries council, says many parishioners no longer accept the authority of ministers "who do nothing to gain the respect and trust of the congregation".

The study, which will be presented at this year's general assembly, adds: "The conflicts which result are hardly ever expressed in theological debate. They emerge in power struggles between those accused of promoting radical views and those who are seen as turning the church into the exclusive preserve of the true believers. The resulting chain of events leads to exclusion and simmering resentments."

The ministries council calls for professional mediators to be parachuted in to warring congregations to stem the exodus of embattled ministers whose careers are "shortened or disabled by stress, disillusion, despair, ill-health and even retirement".

Senior kirk members admit many ministers are not used to being questioned on matters of faith that in the past were accepted as absolute. The problem is believed to be more acute in rural and remote areas. "Every professional these days is more readily questioned, people are more prepared to challenge what they're being told and that can lead to conflict," said Rev John Chalmers, the kirk's pastoral adviser and a co-author of the report.

"Once upon a time the minister was never questioned but the new breed of minister needs to be prepared to enter into dialogue with people."

While some congregations have questioned the strict interpretation of scripture, more liberal ministers have also fallen foul of conservative congregations. The increased use of a modern "praise" band for Sunday worship rather than organists has also provoked clashes between parishioners unwilling to accept change and progressive ministers trying to appeal to a younger audience.

The report also highlights the growing number of power struggles between senior figures in the congregation and ministers, giving rise to "congregational factions led by dominant individuals". It adds: "We have seen situations where the patterns of aggressive behaviour are so embedded in the genetic codes of a congregation's life that conflict becomes a way of life.

"Congregational life becomes a soap opera of one drama after another, featuring the same characters abusing their power and position."

Last year, Edmund Marquis-Faulkes, the former minister at St Devenicks Episcopal church in Aberdeen, said he was forced to resign by "disruptive" members of the congregation who he said tried to undermine him.

Last week, his wife Fran said that he "left a job he could have done well if he had had support rather than attack. It is sad that a religion which has the commandment 'love your neighbour as yourself' at its heart is so often a poor example of a healthy supportive community."

Johnston McKay, the religious broadcaster and clerk of the Presbytery of Ardrossan, said: "I am not surprised there is so much conflict. In an increasingly polarised church it's inevitable that ministers and congregations will not always sing from the same hymn sheet and that is increasingly likely to bring conflict.

"There are those who belong to a more traditionalist view of a presbyterian church and others who think that church structures are irrelevant and should be ignored."

Dawkins, professor for public understanding of science at Oxford University, who in his book said that religion had inflicted harm on society, last week welcomed the fact that a growing number of parishioners were questioning the teachings of the church.

"When an institution feels threatened by its members questioning or thinking for themselves, it is eloquent testimony to how shallow and empty that institution is," he said.

Posted: Sunday, May 11, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 70 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #178222 by TheSwede on May 11, 2008 at 12:19 am

Spred some seeds of questioning amongst the sheep and behold! Even there can a tree of knowladge grow!

All thanks to you, RD!

Other Comments by TheSwede

2. Comment #178225 by Godfree Gordon on May 11, 2008 at 12:37 am

Step, step, step...slowly they turned

Other Comments by Godfree Gordon

3. Comment #178226 by Negasta on May 11, 2008 at 12:42 am

If only we could leaflet bomb some of the churches here in South Africa with 50% off coupons for TGD, then maybe people here will buy the book and similar things will happen here.

Other Comments by Negasta

4. Comment #178230 by RickM on May 11, 2008 at 1:08 am

I'm surprised the ignorant twits don't drop down and pray to the frigging organ.

Other Comments by RickM

5. Comment #178234 by Ichneumonid on May 11, 2008 at 1:29 am

The penny drops...no wonder David Robertson has been so keen to portray himself as the fearless slayer of atheists on this site and elsewhere - his own constituency seems to be deserting him!

Other Comments by Ichneumonid

6. Comment #178236 by black wolf on May 11, 2008 at 1:37 am

Dear ministers,
a short statement of advice on how to answer your questioning congregations with substantive answers: study the evidence, and represent it truthfully and without omission. That approach tends to increase your credibility. Of course, it may turn out to be a bit more difficult than to just recite scripture and string words together to decorate it.

Other Comments by black wolf

7. Comment #178240 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 2:00 am

What an interesting article.

There's a lot here, though, that has always been happening. Church ministers have always been in a rather difficult position: adored by parts of their congregations, loathed by others. And any minister who tries to introduce changes of any kind whatsoever has always been asking for trouble.

Check out any church, and the biggest disputes are not about matters of doctrine (although up here in the north of Scotland the issue of bible literalism is pretty fundamental), but about whether to replace the pews with chairs; whether to change the style of music used in services; whether to use a more modern form of liturgy (they CLAIM that the objections are doctrinal, but they're not really: they're just about resistance to change); even whether to move the church outing or church fete from its regular spot on the second Saturday in July, or whatever.

One of the things we rarely discuss when debating people's reasons for continuing to believe in God and go to church is the sheer, soothing familiarity of the routine - and yet I think it's actually a very important factor. Anything that is predictable and has a particular, dependable pattern can be rather hypnotic, comforting, reassuring. No surprises. No jolts. Nice and safe. And let's not forget that, in the UK, at least, congregations consist overwhelmingly of older people, who have a tendency to be even more resistant to change than the rest of us. So a new minister; or an old minister who's read a new book; or a new style of service; a new hymn book; a new style of music; chairs arranged in a new formation; coffee served before rather than after the service - almost anything can trigger huge resentment.

I think many people are change-resistant anyway; but it all gets far more heated in churches, because there's the accelerant of people believing that THEIR way is God's way. (Or perhaps they don't really believe this - perhaps it's just a means of adding weight to their own wishes.) The question of, say, a new hymn book rapidly escalates into "But God finds this modern rubbish offensive" vs "God needs us to move with the times." When people start acting as though they're speaking for God, a certain amount of intransigence is inevitable.

Add to this the fact that congregations are small, pretty intense communities, and that small, intense communities are nearly always prone to in-fighting and bitchiness, and the recipe for conflict is complete.

Towards the end of my time as a Christian one of the many things that troubled me was the recognition that churches are home to far more petty squabbles than the outside world, and far more spitefulness and downright nastiness too.

The professional mediators are going to have a hell of a job on their hands! Wouldn't it be fun to watch ;-)

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

8. Comment #178244 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 2:10 am

Ichneumonid: no wonder David Robertson has been so keen to portray himself as the fearless slayer of atheists on this site and elsewhere - his own constituency seems to be deserting him!

This article is specifically about the Church of Scotland, and David Robertson is with the Free Church of Scotland. Confusing, I know. Then there's the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), the Free Presbyterians, and a myriad others - none of which would exist as separate entities, of course, if they had been able to resolve their disagreements in the past! So the very existence of all these many, many churches is a nice illustration of their inability to resolve conflict - the very issue being highlighted by this article.

But even though the article isn't about the Free Church of Scotland, the issues raised will apply there too. The FCoS has traditionally been a very strict, stern, fundamentalist church - but there are signs of a more liberal faction trying to exert influence now. (Believe it or not, David Robertson is one of them.) I think there can be no doubt that there will be tears before bedtime there too.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

9. Comment #178246 by Vaal on May 11, 2008 at 2:23 am

What? Isn't David Robertson in the Scottish Judean people's front, or is it the Scottish peoples front of Judea?

Splitter!

Sorry, couldn't resist it...

Other Comments by Vaal

10. Comment #178248 by kaharoa on May 11, 2008 at 2:40 am

The Parish Of Dunkeld

Oh, what a parish, a terrible parish;
Oh, what a parish is that o' Dunkeld.
They hangit their minister, droon'd their precentor,
Dang doun the steeple and fuddled the bell.

The steeple was doun but the kirk was still staunin',
They biggit a lum whaur the bell used to hang.
A stell-pat they gat and they brewed Hielan' whisky;
On Sundays they drank it and ranted and sang.

O, had you but seen how graceful it lookit,
To see the crammed pews sae socially joined.
MacDonald the piper stood up in the poopit,
He made the pipes skirl out the music divine.

Wi' whiskey and beer they'd curse and they'd swear;
They'd argue and fecht what ye daurna weel tell.
Bout Geordie and Charlie they bothered fu' rarely
Wi' whisky they're worse than the devil himsel'.

When the hairt-cheerin' spirit had mounted their garret,
Tae a ball on the green they a' did adjourn.
The maids wi' coats kilted, they skippit and liltit,
When tired they shook hands and then hame did return.

If the kirks a' owre Scotland held like social meetin's
Nae warnin' ye'd need from a far-tinklin' bell,
For true love and friends wad draw ye thegither
Far better than roarin' the horrors o' hell.

Other Comments by kaharoa

11. Comment #178250 by Logicel on May 11, 2008 at 2:52 am

It is sad that a religion which has the commandment 'love your neighbour as yourself' at its heart is so often a poor example of a healthy supportive community."

____

Paula Kirby has an excellent handle on the real basis of the conflict.

However, these petty squabbles and their incessant 'reformations' as solutions are reminiscent of the little boy with his finger in the hole of the dyke--but in the case of religion the waters will eventually come crashing down on these rigid, frightened, non-thinking organizations because they have been patching up the leaks in their perspective for so long, their defensive walls are crumbling.

Other Comments by Logicel

12. Comment #178252 by gcdavis on May 11, 2008 at 3:01 am

kaharoa Brilliant!

I wonder is Gordon Brown will join the debate, his father was a minister of the Kirk, probably not, he is rather preoccupied at the moment!

Other Comments by gcdavis

13. Comment #178255 by stereoroid on May 11, 2008 at 3:18 am

"For true love and friends wad draw ye thegither
Far better than roarin' the horrors o' hell. "

Aye, that an' some guid Hielan' whisky, eh? 8)

Honestly, I don't care whether it's a church, or a state regime, or a cult, or whatever, regardless of what they believe or not. Any time people are lied to, coerced, prevented from constructive free expression, or indoctrinated from a young age, I want it to stop. If we get that cleared up, the rest is details...

Other Comments by stereoroid

14. Comment #178256 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 3:21 am

stereoroid: Honestly, I don't care whether it's a church, or a state regime, or a cult, or whatever, regardless of what they believe or not. Any time people are lied to, coerced, prevented from constructive free expression, or indoctrinated from a young age, I want it to stop. If we get that cleared up, the rest is details...

Well said, Stereoroid. I think that should become the RD.net motto.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

15. Comment #178262 by Nova on May 11, 2008 at 3:47 am

This is a good example of memetic evolution in action.

Other Comments by Nova

16. Comment #178265 by Apathy personified on May 11, 2008 at 3:58 am

Ha, haha, buwahahaha.

Parish Churches have always been a places of intense bitchiness and gross resistance to change, but the fact that they are getting upset because people are asking for evidence and justification to the ministers claims......

Church head office, 'Oh no, do you think they are on to us? Do they now know it's all a scam? What do we do?'

hahahaha

Other Comments by Apathy personified

17. Comment #178267 by King of NH on May 11, 2008 at 4:03 am

I may be misreading according to my bias, but it seems the new policy of the church is "We need to stop all of this independent thinking!" This is not just in Scotland, either. I have an uncle who is a priest (love hate relationship, but mostly love). He is working feverishly to help breath new ideas into local French Catholic churches, but he encounters the "changable means falible" argument every day.

Other Comments by King of NH

18. Comment #178273 by BW022 on May 11, 2008 at 4:12 am

Sorry, but I don't buy that the in fighting has anything to do with "the influence of atheist writers such as Richard Dawkins..."

Anyone accepting Dawkins approach to treating religion (i.e. common sense proof used in believing in anything else), would have no choice but to simply leave the church. I don't buy that within a year, Dawkins has managed to convince 400 out of 1200 deeply religious people to apply this approach to their leaders, and yet not their belief in their religion itself.

Sorry... this one is obvious. The religious leaders are having a problem with some disgruntled parisoners. Some type of internal in fighting with leaders being replaced over organ music, which side of the cup to drink, and other silly things. The leaders then blame some outside group in hopes of smearing opposition with the "atheist" label and to cover up their own failings. The first rule of getting someone to overlook your own failings is to blame someone else.

Don't get me wrong... I'd love to think that Dawkins could get one third of religious folks to question their beliefs. However, in that case, I'd expect the story to read that 400 folks left the religion, not that 400 people read Dawkins, saw light, and decided to spent time and effort replacing their priest because they thought that God demanded organ music in church instead of guitars.

Other Comments by BW022

19. Comment #178277 by lozzer on May 11, 2008 at 4:17 am

It's like the fall of the Magesterium in Phillip Pullmans Golden Compass series :D

Other Comments by lozzer

20. Comment #178296 by MakingBelieve on May 11, 2008 at 5:41 am

Not being familiar with Scotland or the churches there, when I read this article, I thought it was a late April Fool's joke. Parachuting mediators in to churches to quell infighting (caused by Richard Dawkins) before the aggression gets embedded in the genetic code of the congregation? That sounds like farce.

But by the comments of those in the know, this is all legitimate - amazing.

Other Comments by MakingBelieve

21. Comment #178297 by DamnDirtyApe on May 11, 2008 at 5:42 am

100% agree with the pamphlet plan. I would also suggest dropping this fine example by native Scot Iain M Banks:

http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~stefan/culture.html

- don't read my next line if you want to spoil the punchline!

'I know it's all nonsense, but you've got to admit it's impressive nonsense. And like I said at the start, none of it exists anyway, does it?'

If only Jesus said something that. I'd probably be convinced he'd existed with a statement that profound.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

22. Comment #178300 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 5:50 am

lozzer:

It's like the fall of the Magesterium in Phillip Pullmans Golden Compass series :D

Good one.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

23. Comment #178301 by Cartomancer on May 11, 2008 at 5:50 am

"We have seen situations where the patterns of aggressive behaviour are so embedded in the genetic codes of a congregation's life that conflict becomes a way of life.

Embedded in the genetic codes of the congregation? Recently? Is this via natural selection or genetic engineering then? Methinks the church of Scotland needs to do a little reading up on its elementary biology...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

24. Comment #178305 by Pattern Seeker on May 11, 2008 at 6:02 am

Cue modern "praise" band...

It must be a sign from DOG when the church begins to cannibalize its own parishioners.

Other Comments by Pattern Seeker

25. Comment #178307 by scottishgeologist on May 11, 2008 at 6:24 am

Paula

Good analysis of this nonsense, and worthwhile pointing out the different churches etc. The presbyterian "church scene" in Scotland is definitely "Pythonesque"

The conflicts mentioned in that article definitely affect David Robertsons church as well - possibly more so. Because they are more "conservative" the resistence to chenge is greater. But, this is the good bit, the NEED for change is greater as well. If they dont, they will simply evaporate in a puff of irrelevance

There are postings on the FCOS web forum which talk of "worship wars".

Keep watching, it could get interesting. Tell you one thing, if there is a "Worship War", then DR will be right in the thick of it.

For a laugh, all of you check out this guys website (its not really churchy, its about genealogy, but he includes church stuff because its useful. He sums it all up rather well)

http://website.lineone.net/~davghalgh/churchhistorytext.html

And look at this chart on this page:

http://website.lineone.net/~davghalgh/churchhistory.html

However, and this is important, the diagram doesnt include the "Free Church Continuing" who broke away from the FCOS in 2000.

You cant make this up...., you really cant...

:-)))
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

26. Comment #178312 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 7:00 am

scottishgeologist: "Free Church Continuing"

It's no good. I simply can't stop myself thinking "Continuity IRA" whenever I hear this term. Not that far off the mark, I suppose, since I also always think of the Free Church Continuing as being what you might call the paramilitary wing of the church.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

27. Comment #178313 by Corylus on May 11, 2008 at 7:09 am

I wonder if these mediators are working for free? Doubt it.

That being the case, those troublesome parishoners are (when putting money into the collection plate or tithing) contributing to the payment of someone being sent to stop them agitating.

Strange when you think about it.

If I were in this position I would simply leave the institution in question. If god is omnipresent - what need for a church? This leads me to the conclusion that this is more likely to be about petty scraps than doctrine.

---
BW022

The first rule of getting someone to overlook your own failings is to blame someone else.

Very good point.

Other Comments by Corylus

28. Comment #178319 by BillySands on May 11, 2008 at 7:42 am

Bunch o' fannies! :-)

Other Comments by BillySands

29. Comment #178320 by Barry Pearson on May 11, 2008 at 7:44 am

Corylus asked: I wonder if these mediators are working for free? Doubt it.

It says "will hire mediators" and "calls for professional mediators". Not free!

I wonder if I could offer my skills? According to my online CV (so it must be true!) I am "A trained & experienced facilitator of workshops for senior client staff" and "Trained and experienced in various Change Management approaches".

I would take a neutral approach, because I would not believe in either side. I have a project/workshop method that I could adapt for this purpose:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/aeiou/

I'm sure I could resolve such problems and make these church thrive again. Er ..... (Stop me, someone!)

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

30. Comment #178321 by BillySands on May 11, 2008 at 7:50 am

But, this is the good bit, the NEED for change is greater as well. If they dont, they will simply evaporate in a puff of irrelevance

Thought that had happened. Is that why Robertson only pretends to believe in evolution - except when he is blaming the holocaust on Darwinism? Does he even know what he believes? I think he just chops and changes to allow him to lie to atheists myself

Other Comments by BillySands

31. Comment #178323 by Partisan on May 11, 2008 at 7:58 am

Senior kirk members admit many ministers are not used to being questioned on matters of faith that in the past were accepted as absolute.

And therein lies the real importance behind the New Atheists. Mission accomplished (for the church of Scotland).

Other Comments by Partisan

32. Comment #178324 by Enlightenme.. on May 11, 2008 at 8:00 am

Schadenfreude..must.. stop the schadenfreude..

Nah, can't help it-cue Cat Steve- sorry Yusuf Islam- Can't keep it in I've gotta let it out--YAY!!!Yeehaaaw!

delectatio morosa

Bad sinner, down, schadenfreude, settle, they'll hear you - they'll close ranks - they'll call for sharia.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

33. Comment #178327 by Apathy personified on May 11, 2008 at 8:27 am

Just for correctness, (i'm pedantic, i know)

The Philip Pullman series is called, 'His Dark Materials', which comes from a line in Paradise Lost by Milton.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

34. Comment #178337 by Border Collie on May 11, 2008 at 9:02 am

My, oh my, before you know it churches will be splitting up and people will be sailing small ships to the New World so they can have religious freedom ...

Other Comments by Border Collie

35. Comment #178339 by Quine on May 11, 2008 at 9:10 am

A "sheep look up" moment?

When structures built upon hypocrisy start cracking, they tend to collapse quickly.

Other Comments by Quine

36. Comment #178342 by mordacious1 on May 11, 2008 at 9:17 am

Sorry, I have to back the traditional ministers on this one. No One is taking my organ!

Other Comments by mordacious1

37. Comment #178503 by phatbat on May 11, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Last week, his wife Fran said that he "left a job he could have done well if he had had support rather than attack. It is sad that a religion which has the commandment 'love your neighbour as yourself' at its heart is so often a poor example of a healthy supportive community."

Well it might be sad if it wasn't inevitable due to the fact that although that tenet is at the heart, it is surrounded by a lot of contradictory stories and stuff which somewhat detracts from the so called heart of the religion.

Oh and im sure a lot of people are very good at their job as long as they don't come under attack, like soldiers, managers, teachers, parents. Surely it's your performance under attack which is a big indicator of just how good at your job you are.

Every professional these days is more readily questioned, people are more prepared to challenge what they're being told and that can lead to conflict,"

Which a professional can usualy deal with if they actualy have any substance to their professional status with facts to back up what they are asserting. But when you're arguing over what kind of pasta makes up the noodly appendages of the flying spaghetti monster there tends not to be any kind of possible resolution to the argument.

This article makes me happy.

Other Comments by phatbat

38. Comment #178525 by Eric Blair on May 11, 2008 at 2:40 pm

As Paula Kirby's comments suggest (I just realized... her last name might have originally meant "by-the-church(kirk)?), I wouldn't read too much into these "squabbles."

They've been going on in Protestant churches for hundreds of years. That's why we get need ones... some weirder than those who went before.

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

39. Comment #178551 by Dinah on May 11, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Just so. And this is why so many of the religious, and clerics in particular, take such offence at the mildest criticism or questioning of their beliefs, and why, according to them, all atheists are 'militant'. By being ordained, they assume they will have a free ride, that they will be able to stand up in their pulpits on Sundays and spout the most incredible, obfuscating rubbish and no one in the congregation who happens to be awake will object. They also assume that most of their parishioners, even the ones who are not regular churchgoers, will look up to them, respect their views on any topic, seek advice and solace from them, and tolerate any peccadillos, or indeed more serious defects, they may have. One can see that for people who require their egos massaging at regular intervals, becoming a minister, priest or whatever, could appear to be an attractive option, but if these assumptions about their chosen way of life fail to be met, they can react in incredibly childish ways.

Other Comments by Dinah

40. Comment #178564 by Dinah on May 11, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Re: Comment #178244 by Paula Kirby

This article is specifically about the Church of Scotland, and David Robertson is with the Free Church of Scotland. Confusing, I know. Then there's the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), the Free Presbyterians, and a myriad others.

Considering the lofty claims that Christians make for themselves, you would think that after two thousand years they might have reached a consensus about which version of their faith is the 'correct' one. Or even that their god might have told them...Oops, sorry, he has - it's just that he keeps on changing his mind about it...

Other Comments by Dinah

41. Comment #178577 by jonjermey on May 11, 2008 at 4:08 pm

I have a wonderful mental picture of an earnest bearded elder thrusting forward towards his priest a copy of The God Delusion with a paragraph underlined in black:

"Hoots, father, what aboot the Problem of Evil, then?"

Other Comments by jonjermey

42. Comment #178583 by Grantaire of JC on May 11, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Throughout history churches have been afraid of how it's congregation takes in information from outside sources. Victor Hugo's statement in The Hunchback of Notre Dame about how the book would destroy the edifice comes to mind here. The assault on the church by unhappy members is a pleasant side effect of people looking for their own answers. The church's need for an external arbitration is in itself the losing end of the argument because the church admitted that forces beyond its control need to be decided beyond their policy and God's. So they already lose those who were on the fence about serious faith issues.
I have a brother who is working for his Deacon title and he admits that even he has been told that when a personal opinion differs from church doctrine, he must always yield to church doctrine because that is the right answer (and policy). As you can guess this makes for excellent discussions as I am a non-believer.

Other Comments by Grantaire of JC

43. Comment #178624 by DingoDave on May 11, 2008 at 7:03 pm

What ever happened to the promise that, "there will be one flock, and one shepherd"? - John 10:16

Other Comments by DingoDave

44. Comment #178634 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 7:29 pm

I have a brother who is working for his Deacon title and he admits that even he has been told that when a personal opinion differs from church doctrine, he must always yield to church doctrine because that is the right answer (and policy).

An excellent policy. Who does your brother think he is to challenge the wisdom of centuries of theological thought? What arrogance!
It is reasonable to bow before the accumulated wisdom of the church.
It is also reasonable to expect satisfactory answers to questions that might arise. The accumulated wisdom should lead to reasonable answers.

Alas, it is not so.

It is hard to get a solid answer to a question about something that is completely made up.
Theologians come to conclusions about non-existent things. "How many angels can dance o the head of a pin' indeed!

Other Comments by Frankus1122

45. Comment #178761 by Philip1978 on May 12, 2008 at 2:25 am

I can just imagine olde Yahweh sitting there thinking "Oh for fucks sake, what is it THIS time?"

To have so many denominations, so many ways of describing what supposedly should be the same deity it amazes me just how pathetic religion is, all those who said this was Pythonesque are far too right.

Brian: We should be united against the common enemy!"

All: The Judean People's Front?

All this ridiculous need for change in the churches tels me a few things

1 They are making it up as they go along

2 They have had 2000 years to come up with something more credible than Bronze Age plagiarised myths and they still keep buggering it all up!

3 They should give up now and save the money!

Tis a mad world my masters!
:)

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

46. Comment #178843 by NJS on May 12, 2008 at 6:27 am

Since giving up on religion I've been to two masses both of which were requiems for my parents so obviously the mood quelled my natural idea of standing up and shouting "bollocks!" at the sillier parts of the ritual.

I would love to think that that was what has been happening - are there any such incidents on YouTube?

Other Comments by NJS

47. Comment #178850 by VanYoungman on May 12, 2008 at 6:35 am

It was like being back in a comfortable den. The wise, wise words of Paula and the zapping zephyr of Billy, Music to my ears.

Other Comments by VanYoungman

48. Comment #178932 by mixmastergaz on May 12, 2008 at 8:46 am

I agree wholeheartedly with Paula's insightful posts. Regrettably, such small 'c' conservatives are, of course, not only to be found seated upon church pews (although this seems to me to be where the phenomenon is most pronounced). Maybe it's a British trait, but I've often thought that people are generally far too prone to a peculiar resistance to change. Debate with them and win the argument, and this will only harden their resolve to fly in the teeth of evidence and common sense.

And being asked if I'd prefer a 'praise band' or hymns played on the organ is like asking if I'd prefer a kick in the balls or a punch in the bollocks.

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

49. Comment #178938 by hungarianelephant on May 12, 2008 at 9:12 am

Bald men. Comb.

Life. Get.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

50. Comment #178953 by hungarianelephant on May 12, 2008 at 9:50 am

One of the things we rarely discuss when debating people's reasons for continuing to believe in God and go to church is the sheer, soothing familiarity of the routine - and yet I think it's actually a very important factor. Anything that is predictable and has a particular, dependable pattern can be rather hypnotic, comforting, reassuring. No surprises. No jolts. Nice and safe. And let's not forget that, in the UK, at least, congregations consist overwhelmingly of older people, who have a tendency to be even more resistant to change than the rest of us. So a new minister; or an old minister who's read a new book; or a new style of service; a new hymn book; a new style of music; chairs arranged in a new formation; coffee served before rather than after the service - almost anything can trigger huge resentment.

This is absolutely correct. And the experience of churches up and down Britain is that whenever they try to breathe new life into the musty church, it works for a while and then they end up with fewer people than before, having alienated many of those who went for the tradition. It usually ends with an uneasy compromise. Or in tears.

One other point is that for all the public image of pomp and ceremony, there's very little in Britain that provides a clear link to previous generations. We're not family-oriented. Our cuisine was largely forgotten during the industrial revolution, and "British cooking" means modern stuff that you didn't learn from your mother. We have no ancient equivalent of Germany's Christmas markets, which go back hundreds of years, and few long-standing traditions.

What we did have was a church which didn't seem to have changed in centuries. This was bollocks, of course. The standard prayer book is from 1662, and thus wasn't used for the first three quarters of Christianity in these islands. The hymns are mostly 19th century, with a smattering of Wesely (who wasn't even part of the established church) and his contemporaries in the 18th. But still, the sense was there that little had changed for a very long time. The oldies at the back were arriving on a warm summer's evening just the same as when they were children. Bowls being played on a pristine lawn, the click of leather on willow, and cucumber sandwiches with the crusts removed.

Take away the comfort of the (perceived) tradition, the familiar cadences, the beautiful but archaic Jacobean sentences, and for many, there's not a lot of point in the whole thing. I certainly felt that way in my churchgoing days.

That said, my objection to the introduction of modern hymns was that they were, almost without exception, crap. The words were cringeworthy. The tunes would not make the top dozen in the Eurovision, not even if you sang La La La La La La La instead. Cliff Richard would consider them trite and pointless. There's nothing inherently bad about guitars or tambourines. Or even young men with beards playing them. But did the devil take all the best tunes again?

Next time someone tells you about Christian art, just remember that if they want to claim Bach, they also have to take U2's early, forgotten and unlamented shite.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last