What is in Kelvin's Head?

Our Cynicism

07/03/2013

I think we had a reasonably good day at the Diocesan Synod last weekend. A large part of the day was given over to discussion about poverty, welfare reforms and the consequences of government policy.

The only thing that started to make me feel a little uncomfortable is something which has been getting to me in a number of gatherings recently – what feels like a disconnect between decent people and the political process.

I was co-facilitating the large group discussion on Saturday afternoon and was working pretty much to a script. I found some questions arising in me though that went neither asked nor answered.

I wanted to stop the discussion for a moment and ask, “How many people here feel they don’t trust politicians to make the right decisions?”

It isn’t possible to be certain but I suspect from what I was hearing discussed in other parts of the day, that it would be a quite a strong majority of the people there.

I’d have followed it up with a supplementary question, “How many of us have written to or contacted an MP or MSP in the last six months either about the topics under discussion or about anything else relating to government policy”.

Would as many hands have been raised?

All of which leads me to wonder whether the repeated scandals in our institutions seem so compelling to watch unfold because by watching them we feel that it all must be someone else’s fault. If the poor are hungry – it must be the fault of politicians. If I feel uncomfortable by the manner in which the media does its work it must be the fault of journalists. If the economy can’t look after our vulnerable it must be because of the bankers and not my low taxes.

I’m not saying that we should expect anything less than the highest standards in public life.

I am suspecting that in order to achieve them we need to be more than mere spectators.

bankers, poverty, public life

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