• 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?

7 responses to “Well-meaning but homophobic”

  1. June Butler Avatar

    Seems to me “well-meaning but homophobic” in these days and times implies vincible ignorance and is no longer useful as an excuse for homophobic language. The leaders of the C of E seem paralyzed, unable to articulate policies to move forward on equality for LGTB persons that are other than laughable. Think “deer in the headlights”.

  2. Lawrence Rosenfeld Avatar
    Lawrence Rosenfeld

    I suppose @RevArun might say that women are welcome for the same reason, eh?

    1. margaret of the sea of galilee Avatar
      margaret of the sea of galilee

      Exactly what I thought.

  3. Kelvin Avatar

    I’ve removed a previous comment. I’d prefer to retain the focus on the institutional elements of this rather than speculating about an individual.

  4. Dharma Nicodemus Cuthbert Avatar
    Dharma Nicodemus Cuthbert

    As society changes many people are not sure of the new, and therefore condemn it, without thought. I am safe, with the Devil l know. It’s a way of life, not dealing with changes. If we think about how much has changed; homosexuality was illegal until 1969 in England; Scotland caught up in 1983; women have a right to equal pay; the only job that is still excluded from them is working down a mine:
    There are men who are prepared to wait to see a male doctor, especially if it is the genitals.
    Racism is not tolerated by most, but it is still used by people who want a reaction. There was, when the world and I were young, a shoe polish, called nigger brown. This wasn’t considered at the time as being wrong.

  5. John O'Leary Avatar
    John O’Leary

    I take your point, and I don’t disagree. If we look at another person and only see the gay part as ‘broken’, then that’s homophobic, no matter how well intentioned. Plus I always find something disturbingly patronising when people say ‘We’re all broken’, as if the speaker doesn’t quite believe it of him/herself, while seeing it very clearly in the other.

    However, there’s another way of looking at it. The very fact that we are human means that we are broken. If being gay is part of that humanity, then it’s part also of that brokenness. It’s all part of the messy mixture that we struggle with, and build our rickety lives with, but for which we also should praise and thank God.

  6. Allan Ronald Avatar
    Allan Ronald

    ‘Thinking Anglicans’ has a post up about Vicky Beeching’s coming out but does not link to the discussion here. I asked why but they did not reply let alone publish my question.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Bishop David on the Big Questions

    Fr Primus was on the Big Questions yesterday morning. For those who have not seen it, the Big Questions is a questiontimesque religious programme that goes out on a Sunday morning when lost of us are out at church. The questions this week were: Should an earthquake shake your faith? Is porn bad for society?…

  • Lent Booklist

    Someone over on facebook asked me to make a suggestion for something to read during Lent. I thought I’d done that before on the blog and was planing simply to link back to it but I can’t find it, so here’s a new Lent Book List. Worship-shaped Life (Canterbury Studies in Anglicanism) is well worth…

  • Redesigning the Cathedral Website

    I’ve been redesigning the Cathedral website this week. Forgive the fact that some of the rest of this post may be written in Geek. (I don’t speak pure Geek either more Demotic Geek). It may not look a terribly major revision, but actually it is. Although the look and feel are more or less the…

  • The King’s (and the Provost’s) Speech

    OK – so I came rather late to this one. Spent an afternoon off yesterday in the cinema watching The King’s Speech. I guess that most of you have already seen it and are immune to my enthusiasm. Actually, I spent a fair portion of the movie with tears very gently streaming down my chops.…