What is in Kelvin's Head?

World AIDS Day 2014

01/12/2014

Here’s the final video in the series of conversations that I’ve been having with Marion Chatterley the Chaplain at Waverley Care.

World AIDS Day video 2014 from Kelvin Holdsworth on Vimeo.

In this video, the tables are turned and Marion gets to ask me the questions.

She starts by asking me why churches don’t seem interested in HIV AIDS issues during most of the year. We talk about people in pews and pulpits who are themselves living with HIV.

We talk about why there’s stigma around HIV and return to the connection between what the churches and their leaders have been saying about marriage and keeping people safe from HIV.

I remind Marion that there’s only a few hundred yards of Scottish streets where gay people might feel comfortable holding hands and talk about why relationships are still frightening and still being hidden because churches are not challenging discrimination and are indeed promoting it by their language around sexuality.

We talk about the phrase “Well, it isn’t living up to God’s ideal” and the way that my denomination is failing me as a priest.

We talk about early HIV prevention campaigns and what the churches might be saying now. We also talk about the churches’ obsession with acts and bodies and how I think that while current policies from church leaders focussing entirely on the sexual element of relationships remain then the devil will go on winning.

We return to the theme of healthy relationships that has come up in each of the videos, including negotiation in relationships and how to find someone you can stay safe with.

The other conversations can be seen below.
(more…)

AIDS, HIV, Marion Chatterley, World AIDS Day 2014

6 responses to “Here or there?”

Gary

01/04/2007

Up there. High altar. No doubt.

Reply
Tom Allen

01/04/2007

I am very much with Richard Giles on this one – there should liturgically only be one main altar – ideally this is achieved by romoving the former High altar and dedicating that space to some other purpose – where that is not possible as in historic cathedrals then it should be left dormant (covered in a simple cloth perhaps) and only the altar which is being used for worship should be dressed since this is in fact THE altar.

Despite all the reservations about removing former altars in the end it solves long-term problems, and provides a single visual focus for Eucharistic worship. At times when a high altar is needed then the new altar can moved there.

This kind of fuzziness illustrates that our liturgical practice has become dominated by hertiage criteria.

I am about to replace our main altar with something moveable and aesthetically more appropriate, but am facing a Registrars ruling that the current altar (and former eastward facing number more recently provided with wheels and moved to the chancel!) must be burnt, and that the wood frontal cannot be used for a screen.

Dont’ we get ourselves tied up in knots!
Tom

Reply
Stewart

01/04/2007

A thought came to my mind this afternoon. At the Creed we all face east. This results in the choir turning their back on the Nave Altar and in most cases put the High Altar in their sight.

Considering Tom’s comments, another thought thinking about some English Cathedrals which have multiple altars around the building, it is not usually possible to see more than one at a time. Some have a chapel behind the High Altar – behind a screen.

Turning back to St Mary’s – all the action at the 10:30 service is centred and focused around the Nave Altar. However there is still the High Altar, the Pheobe Traquair Reredos and Gwyneth Leach mural of Our Lady at the East End. To my mind their presence enhances the worship around the Nave Altar and does not detract from it.

Reply
Andrew

02/04/2007

The Altar is a table, where we commemorate a meal together. Clearly (to my mind) we should all be sitting round it, as we do (more or less) at present. The table reminds me that Jesus instituted the Last Supper when he was among us (HERE), not somewhere else (THERE).

I very much hope that the Altar in St. Mary’s can be left where it is.

Reply
kelvin

03/04/2007

It seems to me curious that the practice that I inherited was to light and dress the high altar whilst using the nave altar. It makes no sense, except perhaps to highlight St Mary’s puzzling parallel worlds of deep conservatism mingled with radical liberalism.

Whist tending to agree with Andrew’s sentiments, it is worth remembering that the nave altar could hardly be said to have stayed in one place these last 20 years.

Reply
Elizabeth

17/04/2007

Here. Both. Loving the paradox.

But maybe I only say that beccause the only church I’ve regularly worshiped in where there are clearly two visible altars is St Mary’s and that’s what I’m used to. I’ve never found it distracting that the high altar is dressed and lit, even though the nave altar is where the action is, so to speak. But then, would I notice if the high altar wasn’t dressed and lit? Probably not.

I do love the nave altar, peripatetic as it is!

Reply