• Going out and coming in

    8930043700_df73058f5d_z

    This week I’ll have been at St Mary’s for nine years. It is the anniversary of my installation on Sunday. And this year I’ve decided to give myself an anniversary treat.

    When I came to St Mary’s there was much to try to understand and much to take in. Just trying to get your head around how things work in a new congregation is always tricky. Every place does things almost the same. But almost the same means that every place does things differently. Slightly differently – and that’s much more difficult to cope with than learning something completely new.

    One particular conundrum presented itself to me on my first Sunday. How did we get in? Did the clergy and choir go in singing a hymn and then turn and greet the people or did we process in, turn, greet and sing a hymn?

    Trying to learn from those who ought to know, I took a couple of people aside and asked them. Their responses were enlightening.

    Person number one told me very assuredly that the choir and clergy processed in singing and then greeted the people.

    Person number two told me just as assuredly that the choir and clergy processed in, greeted the people and then we sang the hymn.

    This was less than helpful. As the days counted down towards my first Sunday I needed to know.

    The only thing I could do was ask another person and take their answer as the tiebreaker. And so I did.

    “Oh, Provost, we do whatever the Provost would like us to do,” was the answer.

    It was a slightly disturbing answer because one of the things that I knew I needed to be here was to be someone who didn’t have all the answers and who could let St Mary’s find a way of being where all the questions didn’t get thrown at the Provost to answer.

    However, without being able to get a definitive answer from anyone, I did in the end say what we were going to do in order to get ourselves into place.

    The trouble is, I’ve been regretting one detail ever since, particularly recently.

    What I said would happen is that we would process in. Then the choir and clergy would bow to one another from either side of the communion table, the clergy would turn, greet the people and then we would sing a hymn.

    It looks smart, it means we all start knowing what we are doing and we don’t flap about with music as we are processing.

    But the thing that has been bugging me recently is that it only really includes those who are at the sharp end of the church.

    We bow to one another to signify that God is present – that God is amongst us; that God is about us and within us.

    But what about the bulk of the congregation? Isn’t God in them too?

    This has been bothering me for some time and I found myself talking to Richard Giles about it on Saturday.

    Now, Richard Giles is one of the most interesting liturgists to have emerged in the last few years. And on Saturday he looked me in the eyes and said the magic words – “Well, if you are not happy with it, just change it. It isn’t too late….”

    And he was right.

    So, we’re going to change things from this Sunday.

    From this week, the choir and clergy will process in. They will then bow to one another from either side of the table. And then the clergy will turn and bow to the congregation who are invited to return the bow.

    We’re all in this together.

    The smallest of gestures can mean a great deal in the world of liturgical worship.

    We’re going to try this one for a bit and see whether it works. My last thought on the subject has served us well for nine years, but it is time for a change.

    Odd what Provosts give themselves as anniversary presents, isn’t it?

4 responses to “Book Review”

  1. Peter O Avatar

    I think you miss the point of the book Kelvin. It’s meant to be a guide to listening to *all* sides of the debate, not just those you agree with. That’s what makes the last section so good, because it forces us to deal realistically not just with the genuine evidence on the causality of homosexuality, but also the fact that some people *do* see remarkable change in their sexual orientation (and that others don’t).

    I wrote my own review here.

  2.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    We were not called by the last Lambeth Conference to listen to all sides in the debate.

  3. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Ruth Gledhill has posted a PDF of the whole thing, for those interested:
    http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/files/Final.pdf

  4. Rosemary Avatar
    Rosemary

    I’ve now read the ‘scientific’ section – thanks for the link ryan – and I thought it was mixed. I thought Glynn Harrison made a serious attempt at dispassion. I think it is a fair point that any person must decide their own priorities, and the final argument must be between theologies, not sciences. I was not so impressed by David de Pomerai – though one could hardly quarrel with his conclusion that we simply do not know exactly what makes one person homosexual and the next heterosexual. However his whole argument was bedevilled by assumptions that, e.g. homosexual men will be more effeminate than straight ones. Anecdotal evidence instantly produces examples where it is the straight male siblings who are drama queens and run from spiders, while gay ones take it all in their stride.

    It must be accepted that both gay and straight people live with voluntary or enforced celibacy with no ill effects – and that some people can change their sexual orientation and live happily with the change. What I found truly heart rending were the desperate attempts and the high cost to those who actually did succeed in changing orientation – however much Harrison denies the skin colour analogy, it reminded me painfully of those endless jars of skin lightener which encrust Sri Lankan chemists, where beauty is measured in skin tone. Because whether or not genetic, orientation is not a simple free choice. But I suppose the answer would be: ‘And what is?’

    The final point, though, is always the same. Is Christianity a religion of an authoritative book, or an authoritative Person?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Seeing and hearing

    Its funny the difference that video can make to a conversation. I found myself earlier this week engaged in a meeting via skype. Now, I’ve used skype plenty of times for chatting to friends, but this was the first time I’ve used it for a businessy meeting. That kind of thing clearly can’t replace all…

  • Concert for Christchurch – Running Total

    Did I happen to mention the current running total raised from last night’s Concert for Christchurch? Well, £4155 is pretty good going for one evening of fundraising, isn’t it? Could be more to come in yet.

  • Last night’s concert

    Anyone wanting to get a flavour of the Concert for Christchurch that we held last night in St Mary’s can do so by listening to Radio Scotland’s Good Morning Scotland programme from earlier today. You can find it online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00yrn6g and the segment you are looking for starts 1 hour, 49 minutes and 45…

  • Jane Russell RIP

    So, the world must say goodbye to Jane Russell. I choose to remember her more for this clip than for her politics: Ain't There Anyone Here For Love by avinot