Old favourites or new awkwardness?

2»

Comments

  • Puzzler wrote: »
    I was pleased to read that this year the British Legion was extending remembrance to those civilians who were killed through acts of war, though I did not see this especially reflected at the Cenotaph.

    It was here. Rather unusually the local memorial includes the name of 3 civilians killed by an enemy bomb: they were members of the church I attend so their names were read even though the memorial is in the local Anglican Church
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    I find the idea that we shouldn't respect the deaths of soldiers who were conscripted distinctly odd.

    I'm not sure how you got that from anything posted here.

    Okay, maybe I have overstated my case. But the quibble over the word "sacrifice" because many soldiers were conscripted still sounds odd to me. Sacrifices were originally of animals. Do you think they formed a tidy line, and offered themselves to the priests?

    But in that instance is it not the priest doing the sacrificing?

    Nope - not in my understanding and ecclesiology. We are all sacrificing self to carry our crosses
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    Tubbs wrote: »
    The churches in the village - Baptists, CofE and Free Evangelical - take it in turns to lead the service at the war memorial which the Parish Council organise.
    But why does it have to be a Christian - or religious - service at all? Apart from the fact that it always has been, and started at a time when Christianity was (for better or for worse) far more ingrained in our national consciousness and identity.

    I believe the answer now is "because it just does". It's seen by the churches here as part of their service to the wider community, relationship building etc.

    The same applies if you're the church that hosts the service each year as well. It's one of the few services where the focus is less on those who attend regularly and more about those specifically come to remember. Those once a year visitors will, rightly or wrongly, have expectations about what's included in the service and tone. A well-chosen chorus is okay. But an action song?! Wow ... Even if you like them, there's a time and place.

    I agree. The only non traditional element here (in what's normally a fairly varied musical set up) was the modern hymn "Great your faithfulness" based on an old standard.
  • Puzzler wrote: »
    I watched the laying of wreaths at the Cenotaph on TV this year, and found myself wondering just how many more years it will incorporate the specifically Christian bit, with the Bishop of London and Choir of the Chapel Royal.

    I find it puzzling that they have unique (Christian) access even now. Those of us outside the Anglican church, now in the majority, don't get a look in. Neither fair nor just.
  • Puzzler wrote: »
    I watched the laying of wreaths at the Cenotaph on TV this year, and found myself wondering just how many more years it will incorporate the specifically Christian bit, with the Bishop of London and Choir of the Chapel Royal.

    I find it puzzling that they have unique (Christian) access even now. Those of us outside the Anglican church, now in the majority, don't get a look in. Neither fair nor just.

    Not true. At the Cenotaph this year were the following
    Christian Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster; someone from the Baptist Union; Moderator of the United Reformed Church; someone from the Church of Scotland
    Jewish Chief Rabbi; Chief Rabbi Reform Congregations; representative Liberal Jewish congregation
    Muslim Qari Mohammed Asim
    Representatives from Sikhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Humanists, someone representing the Quakers

    I may have missed some out ...
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    I find the idea that we shouldn't respect the deaths of soldiers who were conscripted distinctly odd.

    I'm not sure how you got that from anything posted here.

    Okay, maybe I have overstated my case. But the quibble over the word "sacrifice" because many soldiers were conscripted still sounds odd to me. Sacrifices were originally of animals. Do you think they formed a tidy line, and offered themselves to the priests?

    But in that instance is it not the priest doing the sacrificing?

    Nope - not in my understanding and ecclesiology. We are all sacrificing self to carry our crosses

    I think there was a little Pavlovian response there. Go back and read - this wasn't about communion this was about animal sacrifice!
  • The other faith groups have been at the Cenotaph service for as long as I can remember, although I believe Cardinal Hume didn't attend as he didn't feel easy about going when he'd joined the monastery straight from school in WWII rather than the army.
  • On the issue of remembering civilians, there is a memorial book in Canterbury Cathedral with the names of everyone killed by enemy bombs in the city (my great-grandfather being one of them)
  • ExclamationMarkExclamationMark Shipmate
    edited November 2019
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I find the idea that we shouldn't respect the deaths of soldiers who were conscripted distinctly odd.

    I'm not sure how you got that from anything posted here.

    Okay, maybe I have overstated my case. But the quibble over the word "sacrifice" because many soldiers were conscripted still sounds odd to me. Sacrifices were originally of animals. Do you think they formed a tidy line, and offered themselves to the priests?

    But in that instance is it not the priest doing the sacrificing?

    Nope - not in my understanding and ecclesiology. We are all sacrificing self to carry our crosses

    I think there was a little Pavlovian response there. Go back and read - this wasn't about communion this was about animal sacrifice!
    Ah I see that now. For future reference, though, I walk on 2 legs not 4.

  • Puzzler wrote: »
    I watched the laying of wreaths at the Cenotaph on TV this year, and found myself wondering just how many more years it will incorporate the specifically Christian bit, with the Bishop of London and Choir of the Chapel Royal.

    I find it puzzling that they have unique (Christian) access even now. Those of us outside the Anglican church, now in the majority, don't get a look in. Neither fair nor just.

    Not true. At the Cenotaph this year were the following
    Christian Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster; someone from the Baptist Union; Moderator of the United Reformed Church; someone from the Church of Scotland
    Jewish Chief Rabbi; Chief Rabbi Reform Congregations; representative Liberal Jewish congregation
    Muslim Qari Mohammed Asim
    Representatives from Sikhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Humanists, someone representing the Quakers

    I may have missed some out ...

    Thank you. I overlooked them. Comment and whinge withdrawn with apologies.
  • For future reference, though, I walk on 2 legs not 4.

    Do you think humans immune to classical conditioning?
  • mousethief wrote: »
    For future reference, though, I walk on 2 legs not 4.

    Do you think humans immune to classical conditioning?
    Depends which conditioning you have in mind
  • I wouldn't mind being conditioned by Bach.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    For future reference, though, I walk on 2 legs not 4.

    Do you think humans immune to classical conditioning?
    Depends which conditioning you have in mind

    Classical conditioning. I said.
  • angloid wrote: »
    Glad to see that my feelings about God Save the Queen are not unusual. I have always thought that it is totally inappropriate within a church service. I would tolerate it at a stand-alone civic memorial service (for want of a better national anthem) but not within the eucharistic worship of the people of God which transcends nationality. I was slightly horrified yesterday at our inclusive liberal catholic church with a multi-national congregation, to find that the first verse of GSTQ was included, albeit balanced by a more inclusive verse (which I have not previously encountered).

    The Queen isn't the only one in the UK who is "gracious" and "noble." I know plenty of people who are both and who live without complaint on the leftovers of people like the Queen and from food banks.

    Time to ditch the song and the institution. Why keep them?

    Presumably because the British are not passionately consumed by the notion of President Boris or President Jeremy. Canadians, and perhaps Australians, are not enthusiastic (or even vaguely mindful), but are pleased to contract out the office of head of state for the time being, all of the other alternatives being too inconvenient for words.

    I have long thought that Hickson's third verse:
    Not in this land alone,
    But be God's mercies known,
    From shore to shore!
    Lord, make the nations see,
    That men should brothers be,
    And form one family,
    The wide world over,
    be better suited to church services, given its reference to peace in a universal manner, and perhaps that slight lyric shift might be useful for many, especially on Remembrance Day.

    During my days sailing a cubicle in the Procrastination Directorate, I discovered that there were two French versions of GStQ and the older, now unused, text gave a very helpful (to those of us doing language exams) use of the subjunctive:
    Que Dieu protège notre gracieuse Reine,
    Longue vie à notre noble Reine,
    Que Dieu protège la Reine!
    Rends-la victorieuse,
    Heureuse et glorieuse;
    Que soit long son règne sur nous,
    Que Dieu protège la Reine!
    Upon reflection, I think the clear use of the subjunctive is theologically and liturgically more appropriate but, as the Goth barista at my local would say, not that anyone cares.

    Further research (which is how we denominated fiddling on the internet rather than fulfilling our assigned task of polishing a 32d draft of performance metrics indicators policy) discovered a Norman French version used in the Channel Islands: Dieu sauve notre Duc! etc. I have not found any versions in aboriginal languages although the Crown/First Nations linkage has formed the topic of many conference panel discussions.

    In the 1970s in Ireland, CoI parishes in the Republic omitted it from any November 11th ceremonies (in those days, done on the sly but, in recent years, November 11th is commemorated more generally and openly in the Republic), but it was cheerily sung in NI.

  • Perhaps one of the reasons why the NA grates in a service is because people (clergy really) don't know where to put it. Watch any service where HMQ is present - weddings, etc - and you'll find the NA in the correct place which is after the blessing or Grace, not before. In other words the spiritual comes before the temporal.
  • CathscatsCathscats Shipmate
    edited November 2019
    Not in Crathie Kirk it doesn’t. When Her Maj is present there (as she is for increasing lengths of time these days) it comes before the benediction, which, as you say, is all wrong.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Both the official orders of service (1968 and 2005) put the National Anthem immediately before the blessing/benediction at the end of the service.
  • Not in liturgies produced in conjunction with the royal household: if you look at all royal weddings you'll find the Anthem comes after the blessing; at funerals it comes before the service begins.
  • Not in liturgies produced in conjunction with the royal household: if you look at all royal weddings you'll find the Anthem comes after the blessing; at funerals it comes before the service begins.
    Isn’t the bolded inconsistent with what you said a few posts up—that spiritual comes before temporal?

  • Yes it does. I assume its because the spiritual/ liturgical at a funeral doesn't end in the church but either at the graveside or in the crematorium - hence putting the NA at the beginning before The Sentences.
  • We had our act of remembrance, which finished with the national anthem, before mass proper started with the censing of the altar, and the greeting, so it wasn't within the actual act of the mass.
  • Sounds like an elegant solution.
  • Sounds like an elegant solution.

    Also a practical one: we're normally an 11am service, but we start 5 minutes earlier on Remembrance Sunday to fit the reading of the (fairly substantial) list of the fallen and silence in.
  • Pendragon wrote: »
    We had our act of remembrance, which finished with the national anthem, before mass proper started with the censing of the altar, and the greeting, so it wasn't within the actual act of the mass.

    It was still within the act of worship.
  • Sounds like an elegant solution.

    There's a simpler one. Drop it. It cannot be sung by everyone in all conscience. Sure, we can maintain a dignified silence, but it still comes across as exclusive.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    I think if it weren’t there already we might not include it. But stopping something that you have been doing for decades carries a significantly different message from simply not doing it in the first place.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    I think if it weren’t there already we might not include it. But stopping something that you have been doing for decades carries a significantly different message from simply not doing it in the first place.

    But what message to whom? To me it says "we've finally acknowledged that you don't have to be a monarchist to remember the victims of war"
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    I think if it weren’t there already we might not include it. But stopping something that you have been doing for decades carries a significantly different message from simply not doing it in the first place.

    But what message to whom? To me it says "we've finally acknowledged that you don't have to be a monarchist to remember the victims of war"

    Actually you don't have to be a monarchist to accept that we've got the head of state that we've got. While expressing that in the triumphalist words of GStQ comes less easily to many of us, you could argue in the same way that it's the national anthem that we've got.
  • And that many of those who died believed very strongly they were fighting for King/Queen and Country.
  • Hookers_TrickHookers_Trick 8th Day Host, Admin Emeritus
    Our newish vicar is a QHC & former army chaplain and is quite keen on Remembrance. Our parish host the British Embassy contingent and the place is packed out, folding chairs set up in the back. Trad hymns, the silence, the last post, religious-y sermon and both National Anthems.
  • QHC?
  • Queen's Household Cavalry, perhaps?
  • QHC?

    Honorary Chaplain to the Queen
  • Pendragon wrote: »
    And that many of those who died believed very strongly they were fighting for King/Queen and Country.

    And many didn't - or were there no republicans fighting in the war? How does it respect them to sing an anthem they themselves would have rejected?
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Pendragon wrote: »
    And that many of those who died believed very strongly they were fighting for King/Queen and Country.

    And many didn't - or were there no republicans fighting in the war? How does it respect them to sing an anthem they themselves would have rejected?

    If we're going to parse to that extent, we should also bear in mind that many served at the front who despised and despaired at the war and at militarism in general-- witness the thousands of veterans who distance themselves from any commemoration at all (one of them lives on my street).
  • At the end of the day, "for King and Country" is little more than a pat phrase for many - it doesn't necessarily imply a huge respect for, or belief in, monarchy.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Pendragon wrote: »
    And that many of those who died believed very strongly they were fighting for King/Queen and Country.

    And many didn't - or were there no republicans fighting in the war? How does it respect them to sing an anthem they themselves would have rejected?

    If we're going to parse to that extent, we should also bear in mind that many served at the front who despised and despaired at the war and at militarism in general-- witness the thousands of veterans who distance themselves from any commemoration at all (one of them lives on my street).

    Indeed, I think we should. Currently we seem to be alienating them.

Sign In or Register to comment.