What is in Kelvin's Head?

Coping with horror

23/05/2013
I don’t mean how does the country deal with terror attacks. I mean how do we cope with news coming onto our screens that contains horrific events.

There have been a number of news items this week which have just been horrible. The suicide of a right-wing activist next to the altar of Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris. A feminist protest the next day in which a “mock suicide” was staged in the same place in the same cathedral. The continued terror attacks in Iraq – bombing after bombing. And now this ghastly murder on the streets of Woolwich.

How do we cope with hearing these things without becoming brittle? How do we cope with these things without becoming desensitized to the horror of what we see?

There are obvious political moves that are needed, such as the condemnation of those who would make capital out of such horror and try to use it to bring hate to the streets. The resurgence of the far-right, particularly in the south of England is a frightening reality in itself. But how to cope as a human being with hearing stories of horror?

Here’s some ideas for trying to live with it all:
- Don’t block out the news, try to take it in. But don’t sit listening to the endless repeated loops of 24 hour news stations.
- Read the opinions of those with whom one does not immediately agree.
- Know that the answers cannot always be found merely in words and thoughts – music and art and religious practice can be places where answers are to be found.
- Remember that faith and history teach us that horrific murders have always been part of human experience and remember that this does not excuse them.
- Try to judge people by their ideals rather than by one’s own fears.
- Be kind. Use bad news as a reminder to be kind.
- Pray for the peace of the streets and remember those whose vocation is keeping that peace.
- Write. Talk. Discuss. Listen. Understand. Act justly.
- The only acceptable revenge is living well.
Notre Dame, suicide, Woolwich attack

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