yrieithydd

My mum and I were on holiday last week and, as is our wont, we visited a number of churches, mainly around Rutland Water where we were staying, but also one the way too and fro. Mostly they were open; sadly, the one exception was in Ledbury. I say sadly because my granny used to be a church watcher there to help keep it open. Hopefully that tradition continues in the summer months at least, but it wasn't in play on a Saturday in January.

Two churches, however, stood out because of the contrasting ways they dealt with the presence of a famous grave: Leicester Cathedral and Holy Trinity, Stratford-upon-Avon.

For Leicester, this is a new opportunity after the discovery of Richard III's body in a car park on the site of the old Grey Friars Friary in 2012 and its re-internment in Leicester Cathedral in March 2015. For Holy Trinity, Stratford-upon-Avon, it has been 400 years since William Shakespeare was buried there.

I was worried about how the new tomb for Leicester - in the chancel - would work but they have managed it well, turning the former High Altar into a chapel and making the Nave altar the main one, moving the stalls to the West End, under the organ. We were welcomed at the door and given a guide to the church and a gift aid envelope if we wished to make a donation, but that was clearly voluntary. There were a number of boards around the church exploring aspects of Richard's life and faith and giving a contemporary perspective on the life of the cathedral and posing questions for us to consider about faith in today's world. In one place there was a facsimile of Richard's Book of Hours and also a contemporary Book of Hours with artwork from local schoolchildren relating to various Bible stories. Priority was given to worship, with the Cathedral being closed to visitors for the lunchtime Eucharist; this was publicized over the PA just prior to service, with an invitation to stay for the service which was well attended. On the hour, the chaplain asked us to pause and led us in prayer. There were knowledgeable guides both at the tomb and by the display cabinet for the pall which was over the coffin at the service where he was re-interred. It would have easily been possible to charge for entry to the old Chancel where the grave is but that was had not been done. There is also a Visitors' Centre which gives the story of the rediscovery. We did not visit this partly because I never worked out where it was - it could have been signed more clearly at the south door - "Now visit the Visitors' Centre [location/directions]". Instead we had a nice lunch in the White Rose Café and bought books from the Christian Resource Centre.

Our visit to Holy Trinity, Stratford-upon-Avon was very disappointing in contrast. The closest they came to interpretation was a sign in the West End area which welcomed Pokémon Go players and ended with a welcome whether you were seeking Pokémon, Shakespeare or Jesus. There was a charge of £3 to see Shakespeare's grave and this was imposed at entrance to the choir stalls which were to the West of the Central Crossing, so someone wanting to visit as a church was limited to seeing the nave. There was take-round guide as far as I could see. It is possible that there was more interpretation east of the divide but we were so unimpressed with the welcome that we decided against paying to see the rest of the church/Shakespeare's grave. There was also going to be a reading from the AV at 2:30pm. I was impressed by the helpful answer given by the person in the shop when asked by another visitor about the time of the Sunday service as she gave a very full answer explaining how it was a teaching Eucharist and where it happened. It did appear that they celebrate at the High Altar but then come forward to stations for the administration. It struck me how far away the High Altar is, with the choir stalls west of the central crossing, rather in the tradition place east of it in the chancel. I'm no fan of Nave altars, especially if you can see the High Altar behind, but I think a case could easily be made there for turning the Chancel/Sanctuary into a separate area (and charging visitors to see Shakespeare's grave if you must) and having an altar either in the crossing or just in front of the choir stalls (making it into a celebration in the round). A lot more could have been made of interpretation, perhaps with an exploration of faith in some of the plays - for example Measure for Measure - or a consideration of the question "Was Shakespeare a Catholic?".

We made a donation at Leicester Cathedral, but not in Stratford.

The one thing which would have improved the visit to Leicester would have been better signing. It was a bit patchy on the way; telling us to follow "town centre" for the cultural quarter and Richard III then later having a sign for "town centre" straight on and "cultural quarter" to the left and no mention of Richard. We went right and round the innner ring road, failing to make use of a flyover because it was poorly signed and found a car park. This wasn't as bad as our experience in Nottingham last year which involved the same roundabout 3 times, but could have been better. Leaving though was another matter. We came out of the car park in a different place and the first sign mentioned the M69 and M1 and assorted local places which meant nothing so we chose a direction which turned out be west when we wanted east. We then made our way back and did at least one loop. Eventually we passed the railway station which I have used on my previous visits to Leicester and which I could relate to the roundabout where we'd joined the inner ring road that morning. That, however, is an issue for the City Council not the Cathedral. Stratford being smaller was not quite as bad although we did drive around a bit before finding a car park, partly because ones were signed at big junctions but then were not obvious when you got to them.

So many thanks to the team at Leicester for their work in caring for Richard's legacy and interpreting the Christian Faith for today.

Since the failure of the women bishop measure to gain the required 2/3rds majority in the House of Laity to pass 2 weeks ago (20th November), and indeed in the run up to the vote. I have had a number of conversations on Twitter with people who oppose the ministry of women as priests and bishops about the meaning of Galations 3:28. This verse is foundational to me and a key one in arguments of women's rôles in the church.   In full it is 'There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.' (NRSV). It is quoted in the principles of the Third Order of the Society of St Francis (of which I am a professed member):

The Second Aim:

To spread the spirit of love and harmony.

The Order sets out, in the name of Christ, to break down barriers between people and to seek equality for all. We accept as our second aim the spreading of a spirit of love and harmony among all people. We are pledged to fight against the ignorance, pride, and prejudice that breed injustice or partiality of any kind.

Members of The Third Order fight against all injustice in the name of Christ, in whom there can be neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female; for in him all are one. Our chief object is to reflect that openness to all which was characteristic of Jesus. This can only be achieved in a spirit of chastity, which sees others as belonging to God and not as a means of self-fulfilment.

As Tertiaries, we are prepared not only to speak out for social justice and international peace, but to put these principles into practice in our own lives, cheerfully facing any scorn or persecution to which this may lead

However, opponents of the ministry of women as priests claim that using this verse to support the ordination of women is misusing it. For example I got into a long discussion with a twitter user called @PeterDCXW after he told people to stop misusing this verse on the #synod hashtag. Unfortunately there were double tweets in the argument which makes reconstructing the exchange awkward as two responses to a tweet don't get picked up if you click on conversation.   His basic argument was that because the context of the passage is whether gentiles can be baptised without being circumcised it only relates to salvation not rôles in the church. I pointed out that the church had not restricted gentiles from leadership rôles in the church and was told that this was irrelevant. but I still don't know why. This point of baptism is non-gendered has again been raised in the even more complicated Twitter conversation with @therevddr etc. In this conversation @therevddr said that Christ's maleness was incidental to his humanity, but yet maleness intrinsic to priesthood. I just can't see the logic. So I decided to sit down and read Galatians and reflect on the context.

The first thing which struck me was that in this case Paul is the innovator. The Party of the Circumcision are the ones who  use tradition and scripture. This is not original but I can't remember where I first heard it.

This is the theme of chapter 2.  Paul is  arguing for a new thing because of what God is doling in Christ. In this chapter he also challenges Peter's hypocrisy for stopping eating with gentiles. This struck me as relevant to the other debate this week  about women speaking at Bristol CU. Here the leadership of the CU appear to have wanted to innovate by nviting women to speak but one of their group couldn't accept this so they tried a compromise of allowing women in restricted circumstances. However, the exec member who objected still resigned. If the gospel includes freedom for women from restrictions of patriarchy/old  covenant, then how can we draw back from that even for the sake of the conscience of some unhappy with the innovation? Isn't that what Paul criticises Peter for here?  

In chapter 3 he continues this theme by criticising the Galatians for going back to law not the Spirit and this culminates in 'There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. Andif you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise.'   Now to me baptism is what brings us into Christ Jesus,and it's in him that these divisions no longer pertain. Surely that's post baptism too because it's in the state we enter through baptism. Gentiles become full members of the body, able to partake in all things by their baptism. How can this be true for Gentiles and not women?    

I also note that we are said to be children & heirs. Now women did not get to inherit much as I understand it.  But in Christ women are included. I also wonder about the grammatical gender of child in Greek here?

In Chapter 4.9 he asks the Galatians whether they want to be enslaved again. and readng this I felt 'That's what dropping egalitarian position feels like as a woman', it would be being enslaved again. Christ has set us free from the false limits of patriarchy and I'm not going back. As 5.1 says ' For freedom Christ has set us free.' Today's mammoth Twitter conversation, which actually started from at tweet from the Church Times about a statement by WATCH calling for a single clause measure on Tuesday, had me asking several times (starting last night) what, other than biological motherhood, could women do that men couldn't. The only answer I got was be a mother. This is why I pointed out that the conservative claim of 'different but equal' only limits women (which is where @MirandaTHolmes became involved and it snowballed). It's easy for men to say something like that when it does not limit them at all -- that's what male privilege is all about.

This question of biological motherhood is put into an interesting focus when Paul, a man, says in 4.19 that he feels the pain of childbirth over the Galations. He isn't limiting motherhood to women.  

So having reflected on Galations, I'm affirmed in my understanding of freedom in Christ. Freedom not limited by arguments from tradition and scripture when they ignore what God is doing now. A few years ago now I went on a theology day at St Michael's College Llandaf, and the thing that i took from the day, (which may have been me building on an argument of one of the lecturers) was the way in which the Church has struggled over the message of Galations 3:28 over the years. The Council of Jerusalem dealt with Jew and Gentile, but Slave and Free has a complicated history, ended in early centuries but then coming back in 19th Century, and Male and Female only being addressed now. I wonder whether slave owners claimed that Galations 3:28 only referred to baptism to justify keeping baptised slaves?    

Well due to the organist being away our MC had to play the organ. I'd found one other server (newish to the congo LEM but hadn't served with us before) and then at the crib service we acquired another (a teenager from the other church in the parish) which gave us two acolytes and me as Thurifer cum MC.

Quick walk through before Mass, and the acolytes did well for their first time at that church. The only thing I'd fault the teenager for was the white trainers and the other just failed to go to the middle a couple of times. Pity about the MC/Thurifer. It started badly -- by the time we'd had the run through it was nearly 25 past which didn't give me much time to light the coals and meant I didn't manage to find the Aspersorium and put it by the crib. The after ringing the bell to start us off I realised I hadn't put my cotta on, so the entrance procession was Thurifer in cassock, acolytes in cassock and cotta, deacon in alb and stole and priest in alb stole and cope. We stopped for prayers at the crib (without holy water) and then up to the altar and managed to do the swap to chasuble (which is awkward when there's a lapel mike involved) and I dashed out to the sacristy and put the thurible down and my cotta on. Went out after the psalm and lit another coal and went out in the second verse of the hymn got to Father (via the second pew as there were people in the front pew and the tree in the way) and went to pass her the incense to find I'd completely failed to pick it up! I muttered 'just bless it anyway' and we carried on. Mum had to cense the gospel book with a non-smoking thurible -- I'd be told to keep it down in the congregation but that was definitely taking it too far. Mum also forgot to pick up the handheld radio mike but she projected well enough (hopefully no-one was relying on the loop -- especially as the battery was going in the lapel mike too). Biggest problem at the offertory was that Father's book got left on her lectern at the head of the nave, so the deacon had to go and retrieve it, which meant I went to the chancel step to cense the congo having said if we'd run out of hymn (4 verses of Hark, the Herald Angels) I'd do it from the sanctuary step.

EP and distribution went fine. I topped up the incense after the Sanctus/Benedictus which helped. We overconsecrated but about 10 of the 45 person congregation didn't receive* which explains that! Communion and Final hymns went well, priest and deacon attempting the descant for 'Sing choirs' then I led us out with a couple of 360s which is always fun.

But despite the mistakes it was a wonderful service and a good start to Christmas.

Long though -- we got there about 10:45 and didn't leave until 1:15 am.

It was nice just turning up at the other church this morning and having to do nothing -- except point out (I think for the second year running) that 586 is Save us, O Lord a version of the Nunc antiphon from Compline and maybe it should be 588 See amid the winter's snow.** Good sermon from Father -- focussing on God coming as a baby and thus dependent on us. She had a line about 'babies crying and laughing now all around the world' to which she appended 'and in St Michael's' as there were two rather loud toddlers at the front which made a distraction into a feature.

Then home to help cook the lunch (all three of us involved) which was rather nice (though the parsnip wasn't brilliant.

*This is possibly a good thing in that it means we got some none regular churchgoers along I suspect.

**I noticed later that it could also have been 589 See him lying on a bed of straw but the churchwarden checked the list before changing the number.

I decided I needed to indulge my Methodist tendencies this morning and went to Cathays Methodist Church".* On the whole it was a good service. Stephen coped with the issue of children's address (which isn't part of the liturgy) and Epiphany by having a hymn, reading (Matthew 2), talk, hymn, children left, Covenant liturgy. He lost points by only having the prophecy reading and the Gospel, omitting the Law and Epistles and the responses and by telling us to sit for the Eucharistic prayer. He did however use the right words which gets him lot of points.

There is a structure to the readings which develops the idea of Covenant through the scriptures, so I don't understand why people drop them. There is a note at the start which says it is to be used in full. The Law reading is 8 verses and the Epistle only 2 so it does not even save much time.

People were very friendly. The minister greeted me as I arrived (I do know him from other sources) but also spoke to another newcomer in the row behind me. He was greeted by more people than I was, but that was good because I was looking at the hymns and the service to prepare myself so I did not want to be talked to. It was good that that was respected.

*I like the Cardiff Circuit website because it gives the plan so I could find out when all the Covenant Services were. My usual haunt is Llandaf North (I'm a regular -- I've been once a year for the last three) but they were having next week when I'll be away. So I went for Cathays.

I was slightly surprised to find us singing Come ye faithful raise the anthem as the offertory hymn this evening because I associated it with cheerful occasion, not quite Eastertide but nearly (partly I think because of Come ye faithful raise the strain. However, I had forgotten until we got to the relevant verse (4?) that is was definitely unsuitable. I've not had a good Lent A-words wise. It started badly with Lasst uns Effreuen on St David's Day, then St Mark's had A-words, (in a hymn where each verse ended H---------! what a saviour) sand Lorraine (who should know better) had Seek ye first and St Paul's had something on Mothering Sunday. But I definitely don't expect it of LSM. At least it was only saying that we'd be using that word in heaven and the reason for the hymn was it was about time in the way in which the preacher had been talking!

A reminder about the Christians in Unity in Cambridge Service for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity this evening at 7:30pm in Clare College Chapel with the Bishop of Peterborough as the preacher.

Yesterday, I read the following exchange on a a thread about bringing back the prayer book Angloid wrote:

1662 (Communion, I'm not discussing M or EP) is not 'traditional liturgy' but a bit of reformation propaganda masquerading as liturgy.

to which Callan responded:

Presumably the Tridentine Mass is Counter-Reformation propaganda masquerading as liturgy, the liturgy of St John Chysostom is Byzantine propaganda masquerading as liturgy and Common Worship is middle class English pelagian propaganda masquerading as liturgy?

and followed the link curig had posted to the Churches together in Britain and Ireland material for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity and in the evening attended the the Goth Eucharist. As I lay awake trying to sleep these things prompted some thoughts about liturgy and propaganda and why I dislike much modern liturgical stuff.

There is a sense in which liturgy is propaganda; liturgy forms what we believe, lex orandi, lex credendi, and so the aim of liturgists is to set out right doctrine in the liturgy. However, I still felt that Callan's response was unfair and that there was a sense in which the BCP 1662 Communion service was far more propagandist than his other examples.* With the BCP, you have a big change of structure from the tradition and it is that which makes it more like propaganda. It is not a gradual development to that structure and a process of refining but it is a deliberate break with what had gone before and an attempt to inculcate a particular set of Reformation beliefs.

This led me on to reflecting why it was that I dislike many modern services (such as the CTBI material) but found that I did not have a bad reaction to the Goth Eucharist. It comes go to the obviousness of the agenda. So much of the modern stuff has a fluffy modern agenda and it is obvious. I felt that the Goth Eucharist avoided that, well an obvious agenda -- I doubt it would be fluffy! -- although it was aimed at a particular sub-culture. It drew on previous liturgies and on the concerns of the sub-culture and did not feel too forced.

*Oh, and I'm not sure why CW is described as pelagian!

For atreic

I've just noticed a thread about the cursing of the fig-tree I was particularly interested in Ken's comments about the length of time that figs take to mature and thus the fact that even out of season it is possible to see whether there would be figs.

( Sunday night at Robinson, Tuesday at LSM )

Tonight we have All Souls' with the wonderful black High Mass set. In the light of last night's discussion, emperor suggested that he should advertise it to the Goth community.

( footnotes! )