Speaking as someone who had a childhood, I believe that no parent has the right to limit or direct their child's education.
Which may go some way to explaining the bad behaviour of many children and young people today....
Nope. Parents can be dreadful role models and it can take an individual many years to figure that out and create a life that they choose to live, rather that living according to how someone thinks they should live.
But I think this is veering a long way from the purpose of this Category
<snip>Society as a whole has considerable say in what parents and others are permitted to do to children.
I took pains to include the fact that my own upbringing was too atheist/agnostic/non-religious in character so my complaint is not solely against religious instruction but against all attempts by anyone to indoctrinate or limit an individual's freedom of choice. Any by anyone I include parents and by individual I include children.
Speaking as someone who had a childhood, I believe that no parent has the right to limit or direct their child's education.
Society does have considerable say in the role of parents, but it also does limit its involvement, so there are many areas where parents make choices for their children. We don’t expect committed vegan or vegetarian parents to provide their children with animal-based or meat choices for the meals they provide. Nor do we prevent them from explaining their commitment to their children.
Parents also have a choice about where to send their children to school, or even to home-school them.
We don’t consider it unreasonable for parents to restrict their children’s intake of cola, crisps, ice-cream or doughnuts.
Nor do we prohibit parents from passing on their political views to their children, unless the views fall foul of laws against hate speech, anti-semitism etc., or are considered to be dangerously radicalising the children.
Generally, unless there is a society-wide view that something is harmful we allow parents to pass on to their children things that the parents consider to be good.
‘Indoctrination’ is a bit of a boo word which we tend to use when what is passed on is something we disagree with or disapprove of. I have never met Christian parents who believe in indoctrinating children, but those who I have met believe that in Christian faith they have found something of life-changing, even life-or-death, value, and are keen for their children to discover that for themselves. That’s why they bring them to church and to Sunday School.
I didn't say that I value buildings above people. I am saying that I value beauty and history above people's convenience.
Interesting, and if by 'convenience' one means that extra bit of effort can make in order to achieve the desire result, well and good. However, I find beauty in human beings being valued enough to provide them as much access as possible to buildings (or institutions, or human rights etc). Historically, this has not been the case, and this is often reflected in the architecture of many historically significant buildings; one of those significances being 'we don't value your particular kind of humanity'. Something to learn from, perhaps.
I would be pretty surprised if that were the case. To be sure, it would be religious instruction from a UU perspective, meaning not dogmatic.
My UU child friends certainly have a "Sunday School" (don't think that's what they call it, but...) which is religious instruction, and child-oriented religious practice.
I rather think their universal thing is a dogma itself, though
<snip>Society as a whole has considerable say in what parents and others are permitted to do to children.
I took pains to include the fact that my own upbringing was too atheist/agnostic/non-religious in character so my complaint is not solely against religious instruction but against all attempts by anyone to indoctrinate or limit an individual's freedom of choice. Any by anyone I include parents and by individual I include children.
Speaking as someone who had a childhood, I believe that no parent has the right to limit or direct their child's education.
Society does have considerable say in the role of parents, but it also does limit its involvement, so there are many areas where parents make choices for their children. We don’t expect committed vegan or vegetarian parents to provide their children with animal-based or meat choices for the meals they provide. Nor do we prevent them from explaining their commitment to their children.
Parents also have a choice about where to send their children to school, or even to home-school them.
We don’t consider it unreasonable for parents to restrict their children’s intake of cola, crisps, ice-cream or doughnuts.
Nor do we prohibit parents from passing on their political views to their children, unless the views fall foul of laws against hate speech, anti-semitism etc., or are considered to be dangerously radicalising the children.
Generally, unless there is a society-wide view that something is harmful we allow parents to pass on to their children things that the parents consider to be good.
‘Indoctrination’ is a bit of a boo word which we tend to use when what is passed on is something we disagree with or disapprove of. I have never met Christian parents who believe in indoctrinating children, but those who I have met believe that in Christian faith they have found something of life-changing, even life-or-death, value, and are keen for their children to discover that for themselves. That’s why they bring them to church and to Sunday School.
I know how the world is. But I agree with Richard Dawkins when it comes to the religious education of children. I would argue for a much greater role for society in the education (actually "socialising") of children and a more restricted role for parents.
I would say that indoctrination is when you present something as true when it is at best only one truth among many. By all means take your child to church, but also take them to the mosque and the pagan temple and get them to read something by Richard Dawkins. That way a child can grow into an adult who makes informed choices based on wide experience and knowledge.
'I agree with Richard Dawkins' is an honest opinion, but not one to really warrant discussion on this thread, I would think.
@Colin Smith, might it be useful to open a thread about religious education, say, in Purgatory?
Apologies to TPTB for appearing to 'junior host', but YSWIM.
Oh, agreed. And yes to the last point. Had already started thinking about it but will have to post tomorrow. Have there been any previous discussions on the topic? I mean, in 20 years there must have been, but I mean recent. No reason to retread a worn out tyre.
Most children in the UK will visit various places of worship as part of RE lessons, including many not their own (pagan temples are quite uncommon in the UK though). So this is done anyway.
However.....the whole point of this distraction (and I am a little suspicious that it was meant to distract) was that Organist (still ever L'Organist to me!) mentioned their church wanting to refurbish the parish hall to make it more useful for them, including for use as Sunday School. That you personally disapprove of Sunday School is really not the point. The point is that many churches want to make their buildings more accessible, but are prevented from doing so. That is the topic at hand.
I'm aware that you are not a Christian and see churches primarily as being there to provide you personally with aesthetically pleasing buildings according to your artistic and aesthetic standards (interestingly this is not the usual thing atheists want churches to do, as in my experience with MANY atheists they usually wish churches were more accessible and less prejudiced, and more used as night shelters and soup kitchens).
However, for Christians, other people come before buildings and aesthetic pleasure. That isn't to say that buildings cannot look beautiful for God, of course many do and it's good. But I as a Christian was critiquing a church from within our own shared faith, which says that the most needy should be prioritised and that the last should come first. You cannot say the Magnificat every day in evening prayer (as the priest in charge is expected to do) and think you are somehow not expected to live it out because of aesthetics. We worship a Lord who was "despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not" (Isaiah 53:3 ESV) - ugly churches living out the Gospel are just following Him.
Colin Smith, I recommend you read some Jean Vanier.
Most children in the UK will visit various places of worship as part of RE lessons, including many not their own (pagan temples are quite uncommon in the UK though). So this is done anyway.
However.....the whole point of this distraction (and I am a little suspicious that it was meant to distract) was that Organist (still ever L'Organist to me!) mentioned their church wanting to refurbish the parish hall to make it more useful for them, including for use as Sunday School. That you personally disapprove of Sunday School is really not the point. The point is that many churches want to make their buildings more accessible, but are prevented from doing so. That is the topic at hand.
I'm aware that you are not a Christian and see churches primarily as being there to provide you personally with aesthetically pleasing buildings according to your artistic and aesthetic standards (interestingly this is not the usual thing atheists want churches to do, as in my experience with MANY atheists they usually wish churches were more accessible and less prejudiced, and more used as night shelters and soup kitchens).
However, for Christians, other people come before buildings and aesthetic pleasure. That isn't to say that buildings cannot look beautiful for God, of course many do and it's good. But I as a Christian was critiquing a church from within our own shared faith, which says that the most needy should be prioritised and that the last should come first. You cannot say the Magnificat every day in evening prayer (as the priest in charge is expected to do) and think you are somehow not expected to live it out because of aesthetics. We worship a Lord who was "despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not" (Isaiah 53:3 ESV) - ugly churches living out the Gospel are just following Him.
Colin Smith, I recommend you read some Jean Vanier.
It was not intended as a distraction. I think you generalise when you say "for Christians, other people come before buildings and aesthetic pleasure".
I agree this discussion is about churches wanting to make their buildings more accessible and sometimes being prevented from doing so by secular bodies who value the church building for its beauty and historical value. So although you were "critiquing a church from within our own shared faith" the reality is church buildings have an aesthetic and historical function beyond that of utility for Christians and this is recognised by society as a whole. The same applies to anyone who owns a listed building and finds their enjoyment of it curtailing by the need to preserve its history and beauty.
NB. I live in Glastonbury. Pagan temples are more common than you might suppose.
'I agree with Richard Dawkins' is an honest opinion, but not one to really warrant discussion on this thread, I would think.
@Colin Smith, might it be useful to open a thread about religious education, say, in Purgatory?
Apologies to TPTB for appearing to 'junior host', but YSWIM.
Oh, agreed. And yes to the last point. Had already started thinking about it but will have to post tomorrow. Have there been any previous discussions on the topic? I mean, in 20 years there must have been, but I mean recent. No reason to retread a worn out tyre.
They're strikingly uncommon outside certain areas. I grew up in Coventry which has a lot of religious diversity, visited many places of worship with school, none were Pagan temples since temple usage amongst Pagans depends on the particular strand they follow and in Britain we tend to have more eclectic Pagans and hedge witches. The US has more since they have bigger Kemetic/Hellenic/Asatru Pagan populations. The point, as you are aware, is that most children attending Sunday School will visit many places of worship as part of the religious education curriculum.
Yes, secular organisations for listed buildings etc exist. But they are notorious for not appreciating the main use or purpose for a building. For example, my 6th form was shared between two schools and one was a listed building. This meant that the windows could not be double-glazed, so the building was freezing cold in winter and not helpful for using as a school, particularly as many pupils came from deprived areas and cold houses were already causing them health problems. That a listed building should also be able to carry out its actual function is incredibly reasonable. Your insistence that the heritage lobby is always correct is baffling when their restrictions are quite well-known for being problems even for secular buildings. A church is there to welcome everyone for worship - that is its job. Not being able to make a church accessible is preventing a church from doing its job, not simply 'curtailing enjoyment'.
It was not intended as a distraction. I think you generalise when you say "for Christians, other people come before buildings and aesthetic pleasure".
What Pomona describes here is how Christians should behave. I'd agree with you that a number of Christian individuals fall short of that, but I'd say that even they would agree that Pomona's statement here is true, and should be true - they just manage to rationalize it into not applying to their particular case because of some (possibly specious) reason.
Aesthetics have value, and enhance people's worship. History also has value - we shouldn't abandon things just because they are old. I am not a fan of the school of thought that says that old things should be shoved into museums to be looked at - old pews, old church plate, or whatever else should be used in the service of God as it was intended, and not reduced to a spectacle for someone to gawp at.
But what we have here is an example of how the service of God requires us to do something better than was done in the past. The old pews are lovely, have an aesthetic that matches the old building, and are imbued with the history of the church in that place. Those are good things, but they don't meet the needs of some of the community. People who use wheelchairs obviously can't use them, some people who have difficulty walking can't negotiate their way into them, and as Pomona points out, some people have difficulty being enclosed in a box pew.
The challenge is to make modifications that allow you to include everyone whilst preserving as much of the valuable aesthetic as you can. And by include everyone, I mean actually include them. People in wheelchairs are just as much part of the gathered congregation as everyone else - the provision for them should be integrated into the body of the congregation - they should not be shoved into wheelchair jail in some unloved corner.
(Invisible disabilities are difficult - nobody looks at someone in a wheelchair and argues that they could walk if they just tried a bit. Many people's first response to invisible disabilities is to argue that they're just making a fuss, and that nobody else has a problem with this thing, so why should you. I think society is getting better at this, but there's still a long way to go.)
<snip>the reality is church buildings have an aesthetic and historical function beyond that of utility for Christians and this is recognised by society as a whole. The same applies to anyone who owns a listed building and finds their enjoyment of it curtailing by the need to preserve its history and beauty.<snip>
My (grumpy) experience of this is that heritage bodies, and the community at large are very hot on
aesthetic and historical function beyond that of utility for Christians
when it comes to preventing churches and others doing things to buildings which they consider impair their “aesthetic and historical function”, and extremely quiet about practical or financial help when it comes to doing anything about essential works (e.g. re-roofing) to enable the building to continue to exist. They want greater community use of the buildings, but oppose, or make greatly more expensive, changes that are needed to make that possible. And they obstruct changes which even from a purely church point of view might increase the numbers who use the building, and thus have some commitment to support it.
I bitterly remember the comment of one heritage organisation representative when we talked about wanting to make better provision for children during our Sunday worship, that surely there were other buildings in the community that might be used. The comment showed such a total disregard for practicalities that I was gobsmacked. Of course at one level he was right, we could move our whole Sunday worship into another building altogether, with better facilities all round. We would grow a whole generation of people who had no commitment at all to the old church building, and then we really would see how far society as a whole is prepared to put its money where its mouth is when it comes to paying for the “aesthetic and historical function beyond that of utility for Christians” in a Grade 1 Listed medieval building in the middle of a conservation area.
Leorning - some churches do rather notoriously suggest to people in wheelchairs that they would be able to go without them if they had enough faith. Invisible conditions have their own unique problems for sure but you'd be amazed at how many people think wheelchair users are faking it, even in churches. Churches which are generally socially conservative have unfortunately quite often swallowed the 'disabled people are scroungers' line. Part of the problem is the assumption that needing a wheelchair must mean you can't walk at all - but actually ambulatory wheelchair users (wheelchair users who can walk a short way or for a certain length of time, but need a wheelchair outside of that) need their wheelchair just as much. If someone uses an electric scooter, the suggestion that they're actually just lazy is frustratingly common even amongst Christians.
I understand the 'you wouldn't say that to people with visible disabilities' impulse, but actually people sadly DO say these things to people with visible disabilities, even wheelchair users. Only three CoE training colleges are wheelchair accessible (Oak Hill, St John's Nottingham and Queen's Birmingham) - there is a lot of ignorance just within the CoE of disability, let alone in other denominations.
My various current ailments mean that sometimes I need to use a wheelchair in church, if my Wonky Head™ is not sending the proper e-mails to my legs. This is OK, up to a point, but means that I cannot easily gain access to the lectern, pulpit, or sanctuary/chancel. As a CofE Lay Reader, often with various liturgical duties, this can be discommoding.
Fortunately, I am an ambulatory wheelchair user, so if necessary I can manage to get to lectern or pulpit to read, preach, or lead prayers. I have, for the time being, given up being a Eucharistic minister, as it's actually quite difficult to manage walking-stick, chalice, and purificator, with only two hands!
They're strikingly uncommon outside certain areas. I grew up in Coventry which has a lot of religious diversity, visited many places of worship with school, none were Pagan temples since temple usage amongst Pagans depends on the particular strand they follow and in Britain we tend to have more eclectic Pagans and hedge witches. The US has more since they have bigger Kemetic/Hellenic/Asatru Pagan populations. The point, as you are aware, is that most children attending Sunday School will visit many places of worship as part of the religious education curriculum.
Yes, secular organisations for listed buildings etc exist. But they are notorious for not appreciating the main use or purpose for a building. For example, my 6th form was shared between two schools and one was a listed building. This meant that the windows could not be double-glazed, so the building was freezing cold in winter and not helpful for using as a school, particularly as many pupils came from deprived areas and cold houses were already causing them health problems. That a listed building should also be able to carry out its actual function is incredibly reasonable. Your insistence that the heritage lobby is always correct is baffling when their restrictions are quite well-known for being problems even for secular buildings. A church is there to welcome everyone for worship - that is its job. Not being able to make a church accessible is preventing a church from doing its job, not simply 'curtailing enjoyment'.
The heritage lobby is not always correct. I used to work for the National Trust and know that first hand. However, an old building kept in good repair is perfectly capable of continuing to do the job it has always done. What it cannot be expected to do is adapt to changing needs.
The challenge is to make modifications that allow you to include everyone whilst preserving as much of the valuable aesthetic as you can. And by include everyone, I mean actually include them. People in wheelchairs are just as much part of the gathered congregation as everyone else - the provision for them should be integrated into the body of the congregation - they should not be shoved into wheelchair jail in some unloved corner.
I would prefer to include as many people as possible while preserving all the valuable aesthetic.
It is a clash of values between those who would preserve objects and architecture for posterity and those who would alter them for present convenience.
My various current ailments mean that sometimes I need to use a wheelchair in church, if my Wonky Head™ is not sending the proper e-mails to my legs. This is OK, up to a point, but means that I cannot easily gain access to the lectern, pulpit, or sanctuary/chancel. As a CofE Lay Reader, often with various liturgical duties, this can be discommoding.
Fortunately, I am an ambulatory wheelchair user, so if necessary I can manage to get to lectern or pulpit to read, preach, or lead prayers. I have, for the time being, given up being a Eucharistic minister, as it's actually quite difficult to manage walking-stick, chalice, and purificator, with only two hands!
For me; speaking as someone who is 58, blind in one eye, needs reading glasses for his one good eye, has occasional sciatica, and is generally unfit; not being able to do things I could once do with relative ease is just part of life and mortality. It would never occur to me to expect the world or anyone in it to change how they do or manage things to accommodate my own ageing process. In fact, a large part of the pleasure of my earlier life was being able to do things that required a degree of stamina and physical effort I am no longer capable of.
I don't expect the church at which I minister to rebuild itself overnight to accommodate my disabilities, but I do think that some minor works might not come amiss e.g. a discreet ramp up into the chancel (one step).
Not just for me, but for others who may come after me, and who may be less able-bodied.
O, and also to comply (as far as possible) with the law of the land. Some improvements are being made to the adjacent Hall toilets as I write, taking advantage of the school holidays!
I don't expect the church at which I minister to rebuild itself overnight to accommodate my disabilities, but I do think that some minor works might not come amiss e.g. a discreet ramp up into the chancel (one step).
Not just for me, but for others who may come after me, and who may be less able-bodied. O, and also to comply (as far as possible) with the law of the land.
I think temporary ramps are a perfectly good thing. I'm not against making old buildings accessible to people provided it does not damage the historic or aesthetic value. My point was that as we age we are increasingly unable to do the things we once could when we were young and it is unreasonable to expect the world to completely accommodate that process.
I do not have any children. I disagree that "it is none of my business what other people would like their children to receive or what churches would like to provide for them". Society as a whole has considerable say in what parents and others are permitted to do to children.
I took pains to include the fact that my own upbringing was too atheist/agnostic/non-religious in character so my complaint is not solely against religious instruction but against all attempts by anyone to indoctrinate or limit an individual's freedom of choice. Any by anyone I include parents and by individual I include children.
Speaking as someone who had a childhood, I believe that no parent has the right to limit or direct their child's education.
So, whether through misfortune, or design, you have no children. Yet you presume to tell those of us who have how we should bring them up, and what we should or should not hope for them. And you'd like to see the state take on a totalitarian entitlement to do that too - irrespective, presumably, as to whether the state has the same aspirations for other peoples' children as you do.
I accept that there are a few situations where the state does have to intervene to protect children from physical or even moral danger. I accept also, that you and I are probably poles apart on where we would draw the line on this, probably so far apart that there would not be much point in our debating our respective views. Suffice to say that I'd take the line that how children are brought up is their parents' decision and responsibility. If I don't like how other people bring up their children, that's their business, not mine. If a person doesn't like the way their parents brought them up, that is something they have to live with, accept and work through for themselves. The state should only intervene in extreme circumstances. The presumption should be that it doesn't.
I don't expect the church at which I minister to rebuild itself overnight to accommodate my disabilities, but I do think that some minor works might not come amiss e.g. a discreet ramp up into the chancel (one step).
Not just for me, but for others who may come after me, and who may be less able-bodied. O, and also to comply (as far as possible) with the law of the land.
I think temporary ramps are a perfectly good thing. I'm not against making old buildings accessible to people provided it does not damage the historic or aesthetic value. My point was that as we age we are increasingly unable to do the things we once could when we were young and it is unreasonable to expect the world to completely accommodate that process.
Bug*er the world. These days, it's quite reasonable for me to expect the local Tesco/Asda etc. to provide disabled parking spaces close to the door, and some larger supermarkets go so far as to provide wheelchairs etc. if I can't bring my own.
O, and bug*er historic or aesthetic values, which are in any case subjective. One of our local churches - a mediaeval building - has adapted itself by re-ordering its chancel in a most sensitive way, thereby allowing full access to all to its altar and pulpit. No harm whatsoever has been done to its historic or aesthetic values, which, in many cases in the UK, owe more to Victorian romanticism than anything practical.
So, whether through misfortune, or design, you have no children. Yet you presume to tell those of us who have how we should bring them up, and what we should or should not hope for them. And you'd like to see the state take on a totalitarian entitlement to do that too - irrespective, presumably, as to whether the state has the same aspirations for other peoples' children as you do.
I accept that there are a few situations where the state does have to intervene to protect children from physical or even moral danger. I accept also, that you and I are probably poles apart on where we would draw the line on this, probably so far apart that there would not be much point in our debating our respective views. Suffice to say that I'd take the line that how children are brought up is their parents' decision and responsibility. If I don't like how other people bring up their children, that's their business, not mine. If a person doesn't like the way their parents brought them up, that is something they have to live with, accept and work through for themselves. The state should only intervene in extreme circumstances. The presumption should be that it doesn't.
Yes, we disagree. My reasons for disagreeing are based on my own experience of childhood. One does not have to be a parent of children to know that parents do not get everything right and are, in fact, incapable of providing anything but a narrow perspective of what is and is not important for an individual based on their own upbringing and experience.
I want children to grow up into rounded, tolerant, and informed individuals capable of making their own decisions and choosing from the great smorgasbord that is life what is and is not of use to them. You see it as a parent's right to influence and control their children's upbringing in order to produce something wholesome to them.
[edited to remove copyright material with a link to the full poem - Alan Cresswell]
It's still not particularly relevant here on the topic of adjusting churh buildings for current use.
Part of keeping something in good repair is adjusting for current use since needs that haven't been adjusted for are more likely to cause damage. As Bishops Finger says, adjustments can be made sensitively. And even you surely cannot defend something as simple and non-damaging as double glazing (as in the case of my school but also likely in the case of many older church halls) being forbidden. Also remember that the thoughts of the original architects would also likely want to see a church used fully as a church for everyone, which involves some adaptations.
Making buildings accessible is part of the law, because unlike you the government does accept that disabled people deserve to be able to do things and not be housebound (well except the DWP) and disabled people can be of any age including children. Disabled people fought and died for these rights and you should respect that sacrifice.
It's still not particularly relevant here on the topic of adjusting churh buildings for current use.
Part of keeping something in good repair is adjusting for current use since needs that haven't been adjusted for are more likely to cause damage. As Bishops Finger says, adjustments can be made sensitively. And even you surely cannot defend something as simple and non-damaging as double glazing (as in the case of my school but also likely in the case of many older church halls) being forbidden. Also remember that the thoughts of the original architects would also likely want to see a church used fully as a church for everyone, which involves some adaptations.
Making buildings accessible is part of the law, because unlike you the government does accept that disabled people deserve to be able to do things and not be housebound (well except the DWP) and disabled people can be of any age including children. Disabled people fought and died for these rights and you should respect that sacrifice.
There appear to be two topics running at the same time. I plan to start a thread on religious instruction on the Purgatory group.
I'm afraid we must disagree on the appropriate care for historic buildings.
I plan to start a thread on religious instruction on the Purgatory group.
You may have to steel yourself for a lot of disagreement with your position. This forum is part of 'The magazine of Christian unrest' and as such a lot (not all) of the contributors define themselves as Christian. However good the quality of your argument and evidence, you may find some reluctance among your audience to be convinced.
The thing is that it is totally wrong to try and freeze English churches in aspic. They have changed repeatedly over the centuries. That is part of their beauty. You can have a look at the changes of the history of Middleton Parish Church and note that hardly a century went past without someone deciding they can improve the building. Keeping them the same would be wrong. A church is only really a church as long as it is a living building and to be a living building it must be changing. Living things do not remain the same.
A church is only really a church as long as it is a living building and to be a living building it must be changing. Living things do not remain the same.
A church is only really a church as long as it is a living building and to be a living building it must be changing. Living things do not remain the same.
Yes indeed. Historic buildings were adapted for current use all the time - they were not expected to be a time capsule. Colin Smith's understanding of what being an historic building means is, I'm afraid, bunk. Haworth Parish Church is an excellent example of a living, functional historic church of national importance which hasn't forgotten its actual purpose as a church.
It is a clash of values between those who would preserve objects and architecture for posterity and those who would alter them for present convenience.
Allowing people with mobility issues to use our church buildings is not some kind of transient contemporary fad, so I strongly dispute your characterization of accessibility modifications as a "present convenience" here.
There is a lot of clear blue water between your "don't touch that, it's old" historical fetishism and the kind of philistine that wants to completely gut old church buildings and turn them into something resembling an anodyne conference centre. There's plenty of space in that middle ground for sensible modifications that enhance the use of the building whilst preserving and enhancing the aesthetics.
I plan to start a thread on religious instruction on the Purgatory group.
You may have to steel yourself for a lot of disagreement with your position. This forum is part of 'The magazine of Christian unrest' and as such a lot (not all) of the contributors define themselves as Christian. However good the quality of your argument and evidence, you may find some reluctance among your audience to be convinced.
Oh, I anticipate that. The topic extends way beyond religious instruction and into the role of education as a whole. Basically, my own experience of being a child and spending a decade or so getting over the limitations of my parents' values and attitudes (very non-religious but also very upper-working class social climbing, status-centred, middle-brow, non-intellectual and non-creative) has left me with strong belief that the parental role in raising children and especially in directing and controlling their education should be curtailed to allow children to grow into individuals who are open-minded, informed, and able to accept, digest, and enjoy a greater range of life-choices.
Haven't got around to starting it yet because it needs a proper piece of writing to get it going otherwise the tangents and misunderstandings will take over.
I plan to start a thread on religious instruction on the Purgatory group.
You may have to steel yourself for a lot of disagreement with your position. This forum is part of 'The magazine of Christian unrest' and as such a lot (not all) of the contributors define themselves as Christian. However good the quality of your argument and evidence, you may find some reluctance among your audience to be convinced.
Haven't got around to starting it yet because it needs a proper piece of writing to get it going otherwise the tangents and misunderstandings will take over.
Well, @Colin Smith , best of luck with The Perfect Thread™, because this place of Christian Unrest rather thrives on tangents and misunderstandings.
But there, since Nothing Matters, and Existence is Pointless, I don't suppose that'll bother you one whit...
I plan to start a thread on religious instruction on the Purgatory group.
You may have to steel yourself for a lot of disagreement with your position. This forum is part of 'The magazine of Christian unrest' and as such a lot (not all) of the contributors define themselves as Christian. However good the quality of your argument and evidence, you may find some reluctance among your audience to be convinced.
Haven't got around to starting it yet because it needs a proper piece of writing to get it going otherwise the tangents and misunderstandings will take over.
Well, @Colin Smith , best of luck with The Perfect Thread™, because this place of Christian Unrest rather thrives on tangents and misunderstandings.
But there, since Nothing Matters, and Existence is Pointless, I don't suppose that'll bother you one whit...
Oh, unfortunately it would bother me. Existence is, I think pointless, but I do like my hours and days to be point-full!
Yeah, the perfect thread will never happen. All you can do is reduce the possible misunderstandings.
Do you refer to me personally? Or to other Shipmates?
I tend to use 'you' to refer to everyone. In this case it referred to everyone who has ever written anything mildly controversial on any internet forum on any subject.
@Colin Smith - it's a quiet afternoon, and I'm joshing you a bit whilst waiting for SOUP to boil......
Please go ahead, post as you wish, of course, but do be prepared to meet a certain amount of tangents/misunderstandings from others whose SOUP is also on the stove.....
The Gospel according to John (20:19-25) is read in various languages, proclaiming the Good News of Resurrection all over the universe without discrimination.
At the Blessings of the Oils Mass tonight, a transitional (? -- he will become a priest) deacon and a permanent (and married) deacon were introduced. This was in a Catholic Cathedral in NZ. I do not think I have encountered permanent deacons outside Orthodoxy...at least I cannot recall. Is this something few take up? Is it 'making a return'? Do permanent deacons have the same functions as deacons who will go on to be priests, or do they have some special ones? Thanks.
Also, I've only attended one other Catholic Mass where a bishop was presiding, and I can't for the life of me remember what he said. In a Mass said by a priest, there is a part where he implores God to remember Francis our Pope and X our Bishop. As the Bishop presided tonight he prayed God will remember Francis our Pope (words may not be exact) and "me, your unworthy servant[? - or perhaps bishop: my memory is shocking, sorry]" Do bishops have some licence here? Is there a fixed form? I can't for the life of me remember what our Orthodox bishop did...I think the priest or deacon chanted it, but I may be wrong. Thank you again.
The C of E does have some permanent deacons, whose role, AIUI, doesn't differ materially from that of those deacons who will go on to be ordained priest at a later date.
A local RC church did in recent times have a permanent deacon, who spent a good deal of his time in hospital ministry, and, quite 20 years ago now, my late Godmother's funeral was conducted in an RC church in Brighton by their permanent deacon, who had known Godmother during his time in secular employment.
Permanent deacons( as opposed to 'transitional' on their way to the priesthood) have been around since shortly after Vatican 2.However it has depended on the bishop of a diocese as to whether he wished to have them or not. In our diocese here (St Andrews and Edinburgh,Scotland) there were not too many permanent deacons until a few years ago.
They are men who may be married. There is both a minimum and a maximum age for beginning the training,as the Church would like to believe that there will be a certain number of years of service that the deacon can give to the Church. If the deacon is married his wife should give her consent to the ordination, though she does not need to be a practicing Catholic nor indeed any sort of Catholic.
Any Catholic missal or prayer book with the text of the Mass will give you the words of the prayer for the pope and the local bishop (in whose name and at whose behest any Mass is celebrated).
For example the First Eucharistic prayer (sometime called the Roman Canon) has the words in the prayer for the Church :
'Be pleased to grant her peace, to guard, unite and govern her throughout the world, together with your servant (name),our pope and (name)our bishop...…
When the bishop himself celebrates Mass in his diocese be replaces ' and (name) our bishop 'with the words ' and me,your unworthy servant'
As I say look in any Catholic prayer book with the texts of the Mass.
Comments
Nope. Parents can be dreadful role models and it can take an individual many years to figure that out and create a life that they choose to live, rather that living according to how someone thinks they should live.
But I think this is veering a long way from the purpose of this Category
Parents also have a choice about where to send their children to school, or even to home-school them.
We don’t consider it unreasonable for parents to restrict their children’s intake of cola, crisps, ice-cream or doughnuts.
Nor do we prohibit parents from passing on their political views to their children, unless the views fall foul of laws against hate speech, anti-semitism etc., or are considered to be dangerously radicalising the children.
Generally, unless there is a society-wide view that something is harmful we allow parents to pass on to their children things that the parents consider to be good.
‘Indoctrination’ is a bit of a boo word which we tend to use when what is passed on is something we disagree with or disapprove of. I have never met Christian parents who believe in indoctrinating children, but those who I have met believe that in Christian faith they have found something of life-changing, even life-or-death, value, and are keen for their children to discover that for themselves. That’s why they bring them to church and to Sunday School.
Interesting, and if by 'convenience' one means that extra bit of effort can make in order to achieve the desire result, well and good. However, I find beauty in human beings being valued enough to provide them as much access as possible to buildings (or institutions, or human rights etc). Historically, this has not been the case, and this is often reflected in the architecture of many historically significant buildings; one of those significances being 'we don't value your particular kind of humanity'. Something to learn from, perhaps.
My UU child friends certainly have a "Sunday School" (don't think that's what they call it, but...) which is religious instruction, and child-oriented religious practice.
I rather think their universal thing is a dogma itself, though
I know how the world is. But I agree with Richard Dawkins when it comes to the religious education of children. I would argue for a much greater role for society in the education (actually "socialising") of children and a more restricted role for parents.
I would say that indoctrination is when you present something as true when it is at best only one truth among many. By all means take your child to church, but also take them to the mosque and the pagan temple and get them to read something by Richard Dawkins. That way a child can grow into an adult who makes informed choices based on wide experience and knowledge.
@Colin Smith, might it be better to open a thread about religious education, say, in Purgatory?
Apologies to TPTB for appearing to 'junior host', but YSWIM.
Oh, agreed. And yes to the last point. Had already started thinking about it but will have to post tomorrow. Have there been any previous discussions on the topic? I mean, in 20 years there must have been, but I mean recent. No reason to retread a worn out tyre.
However.....the whole point of this distraction (and I am a little suspicious that it was meant to distract) was that Organist (still ever L'Organist to me!) mentioned their church wanting to refurbish the parish hall to make it more useful for them, including for use as Sunday School. That you personally disapprove of Sunday School is really not the point. The point is that many churches want to make their buildings more accessible, but are prevented from doing so. That is the topic at hand.
I'm aware that you are not a Christian and see churches primarily as being there to provide you personally with aesthetically pleasing buildings according to your artistic and aesthetic standards (interestingly this is not the usual thing atheists want churches to do, as in my experience with MANY atheists they usually wish churches were more accessible and less prejudiced, and more used as night shelters and soup kitchens).
However, for Christians, other people come before buildings and aesthetic pleasure. That isn't to say that buildings cannot look beautiful for God, of course many do and it's good. But I as a Christian was critiquing a church from within our own shared faith, which says that the most needy should be prioritised and that the last should come first. You cannot say the Magnificat every day in evening prayer (as the priest in charge is expected to do) and think you are somehow not expected to live it out because of aesthetics. We worship a Lord who was "despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not" (Isaiah 53:3 ESV) - ugly churches living out the Gospel are just following Him.
Colin Smith, I recommend you read some Jean Vanier.
It was not intended as a distraction. I think you generalise when you say "for Christians, other people come before buildings and aesthetic pleasure".
I agree this discussion is about churches wanting to make their buildings more accessible and sometimes being prevented from doing so by secular bodies who value the church building for its beauty and historical value. So although you were "critiquing a church from within our own shared faith" the reality is church buildings have an aesthetic and historical function beyond that of utility for Christians and this is recognised by society as a whole. The same applies to anyone who owns a listed building and finds their enjoyment of it curtailing by the need to preserve its history and beauty.
NB. I live in Glastonbury. Pagan temples are more common than you might suppose.
Not recently AFAIK, but 'suck it, and see'!
Cool. Out of time today. So.... tomorrow.
Yes, secular organisations for listed buildings etc exist. But they are notorious for not appreciating the main use or purpose for a building. For example, my 6th form was shared between two schools and one was a listed building. This meant that the windows could not be double-glazed, so the building was freezing cold in winter and not helpful for using as a school, particularly as many pupils came from deprived areas and cold houses were already causing them health problems. That a listed building should also be able to carry out its actual function is incredibly reasonable. Your insistence that the heritage lobby is always correct is baffling when their restrictions are quite well-known for being problems even for secular buildings. A church is there to welcome everyone for worship - that is its job. Not being able to make a church accessible is preventing a church from doing its job, not simply 'curtailing enjoyment'.
What Pomona describes here is how Christians should behave. I'd agree with you that a number of Christian individuals fall short of that, but I'd say that even they would agree that Pomona's statement here is true, and should be true - they just manage to rationalize it into not applying to their particular case because of some (possibly specious) reason.
Aesthetics have value, and enhance people's worship. History also has value - we shouldn't abandon things just because they are old. I am not a fan of the school of thought that says that old things should be shoved into museums to be looked at - old pews, old church plate, or whatever else should be used in the service of God as it was intended, and not reduced to a spectacle for someone to gawp at.
But what we have here is an example of how the service of God requires us to do something better than was done in the past. The old pews are lovely, have an aesthetic that matches the old building, and are imbued with the history of the church in that place. Those are good things, but they don't meet the needs of some of the community. People who use wheelchairs obviously can't use them, some people who have difficulty walking can't negotiate their way into them, and as Pomona points out, some people have difficulty being enclosed in a box pew.
The challenge is to make modifications that allow you to include everyone whilst preserving as much of the valuable aesthetic as you can. And by include everyone, I mean actually include them. People in wheelchairs are just as much part of the gathered congregation as everyone else - the provision for them should be integrated into the body of the congregation - they should not be shoved into wheelchair jail in some unloved corner.
(Invisible disabilities are difficult - nobody looks at someone in a wheelchair and argues that they could walk if they just tried a bit. Many people's first response to invisible disabilities is to argue that they're just making a fuss, and that nobody else has a problem with this thing, so why should you. I think society is getting better at this, but there's still a long way to go.)
I bitterly remember the comment of one heritage organisation representative when we talked about wanting to make better provision for children during our Sunday worship, that surely there were other buildings in the community that might be used. The comment showed such a total disregard for practicalities that I was gobsmacked. Of course at one level he was right, we could move our whole Sunday worship into another building altogether, with better facilities all round. We would grow a whole generation of people who had no commitment at all to the old church building, and then we really would see how far society as a whole is prepared to put its money where its mouth is when it comes to paying for the “aesthetic and historical function beyond that of utility for Christians” in a Grade 1 Listed medieval building in the middle of a conservation area.
I understand the 'you wouldn't say that to people with visible disabilities' impulse, but actually people sadly DO say these things to people with visible disabilities, even wheelchair users. Only three CoE training colleges are wheelchair accessible (Oak Hill, St John's Nottingham and Queen's Birmingham) - there is a lot of ignorance just within the CoE of disability, let alone in other denominations.
My various current ailments mean that sometimes I need to use a wheelchair in church, if my Wonky Head™ is not sending the proper e-mails to my legs. This is OK, up to a point, but means that I cannot easily gain access to the lectern, pulpit, or sanctuary/chancel. As a CofE Lay Reader, often with various liturgical duties, this can be discommoding.
Fortunately, I am an ambulatory wheelchair user, so if necessary I can manage to get to lectern or pulpit to read, preach, or lead prayers. I have, for the time being, given up being a Eucharistic minister, as it's actually quite difficult to manage walking-stick, chalice, and purificator, with only two hands!
The heritage lobby is not always correct. I used to work for the National Trust and know that first hand. However, an old building kept in good repair is perfectly capable of continuing to do the job it has always done. What it cannot be expected to do is adapt to changing needs.
I would prefer to include as many people as possible while preserving all the valuable aesthetic.
It is a clash of values between those who would preserve objects and architecture for posterity and those who would alter them for present convenience.
For me; speaking as someone who is 58, blind in one eye, needs reading glasses for his one good eye, has occasional sciatica, and is generally unfit; not being able to do things I could once do with relative ease is just part of life and mortality. It would never occur to me to expect the world or anyone in it to change how they do or manage things to accommodate my own ageing process. In fact, a large part of the pleasure of my earlier life was being able to do things that required a degree of stamina and physical effort I am no longer capable of.
I don't expect the church at which I minister to rebuild itself overnight to accommodate my disabilities, but I do think that some minor works might not come amiss e.g. a discreet ramp up into the chancel (one step).
Not just for me, but for others who may come after me, and who may be less able-bodied.
O, and also to comply (as far as possible) with the law of the land. Some improvements are being made to the adjacent Hall toilets as I write, taking advantage of the school holidays!
I think temporary ramps are a perfectly good thing. I'm not against making old buildings accessible to people provided it does not damage the historic or aesthetic value. My point was that as we age we are increasingly unable to do the things we once could when we were young and it is unreasonable to expect the world to completely accommodate that process.
I accept that there are a few situations where the state does have to intervene to protect children from physical or even moral danger. I accept also, that you and I are probably poles apart on where we would draw the line on this, probably so far apart that there would not be much point in our debating our respective views. Suffice to say that I'd take the line that how children are brought up is their parents' decision and responsibility. If I don't like how other people bring up their children, that's their business, not mine. If a person doesn't like the way their parents brought them up, that is something they have to live with, accept and work through for themselves. The state should only intervene in extreme circumstances. The presumption should be that it doesn't.
Bug*er the world. These days, it's quite reasonable for me to expect the local Tesco/Asda etc. to provide disabled parking spaces close to the door, and some larger supermarkets go so far as to provide wheelchairs etc. if I can't bring my own.
O, and bug*er historic or aesthetic values, which are in any case subjective. One of our local churches - a mediaeval building - has adapted itself by re-ordering its chancel in a most sensitive way, thereby allowing full access to all to its altar and pulpit. No harm whatsoever has been done to its historic or aesthetic values, which, in many cases in the UK, owe more to Victorian romanticism than anything practical.
(Signed) Mr WonkyHead, the Philistine.
(BTW, what @Enoch said)
Yes, we disagree. My reasons for disagreeing are based on my own experience of childhood. One does not have to be a parent of children to know that parents do not get everything right and are, in fact, incapable of providing anything but a narrow perspective of what is and is not important for an individual based on their own upbringing and experience.
Philip Larkin said it better than I can.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
I want children to grow up into rounded, tolerant, and informed individuals capable of making their own decisions and choosing from the great smorgasbord that is life what is and is not of use to them. You see it as a parent's right to influence and control their children's upbringing in order to produce something wholesome to them.
[edited to remove copyright material with a link to the full poem - Alan Cresswell]
Part of keeping something in good repair is adjusting for current use since needs that haven't been adjusted for are more likely to cause damage. As Bishops Finger says, adjustments can be made sensitively. And even you surely cannot defend something as simple and non-damaging as double glazing (as in the case of my school but also likely in the case of many older church halls) being forbidden. Also remember that the thoughts of the original architects would also likely want to see a church used fully as a church for everyone, which involves some adaptations.
Making buildings accessible is part of the law, because unlike you the government does accept that disabled people deserve to be able to do things and not be housebound (well except the DWP) and disabled people can be of any age including children. Disabled people fought and died for these rights and you should respect that sacrifice.
There appear to be two topics running at the same time. I plan to start a thread on religious instruction on the Purgatory group.
I'm afraid we must disagree on the appropriate care for historic buildings.
You may have to steel yourself for a lot of disagreement with your position. This forum is part of 'The magazine of Christian unrest' and as such a lot (not all) of the contributors define themselves as Christian. However good the quality of your argument and evidence, you may find some reluctance among your audience to be convinced.
Beautifully put, Jengie Jon.
Hear, hear!!
Allowing people with mobility issues to use our church buildings is not some kind of transient contemporary fad, so I strongly dispute your characterization of accessibility modifications as a "present convenience" here.
There is a lot of clear blue water between your "don't touch that, it's old" historical fetishism and the kind of philistine that wants to completely gut old church buildings and turn them into something resembling an anodyne conference centre. There's plenty of space in that middle ground for sensible modifications that enhance the use of the building whilst preserving and enhancing the aesthetics.
Oh, I anticipate that. The topic extends way beyond religious instruction and into the role of education as a whole. Basically, my own experience of being a child and spending a decade or so getting over the limitations of my parents' values and attitudes (very non-religious but also very upper-working class social climbing, status-centred, middle-brow, non-intellectual and non-creative) has left me with strong belief that the parental role in raising children and especially in directing and controlling their education should be curtailed to allow children to grow into individuals who are open-minded, informed, and able to accept, digest, and enjoy a greater range of life-choices.
Haven't got around to starting it yet because it needs a proper piece of writing to get it going otherwise the tangents and misunderstandings will take over.
Well, @Colin Smith , best of luck with The Perfect Thread™, because this place of Christian Unrest rather thrives on tangents and misunderstandings.
But there, since Nothing Matters, and Existence is Pointless, I don't suppose that'll bother you one whit...
Oh, unfortunately it would bother me. Existence is, I think pointless, but I do like my hours and days to be point-full!
Yeah, the perfect thread will never happen. All you can do is reduce the possible misunderstandings.
I tend to use 'you' to refer to everyone. In this case it referred to everyone who has ever written anything mildly controversial on any internet forum on any subject.
To avoid misunderstandings, you see....
There is a small fee for this clarification. My People will be in touch with Your People.
I can also recommend (for an extra fee) a reliable re-calibrator of Irony-O-Meters.
(Apologies to TPTB if I am being Naughty).
Ha!
Yes, 'one' would have clarified things, but it sounds so R.P!
I think my irony meter functions okay, so I'll blame the means of transmission.
One might ask what might be the objection to R.P. but then one would have to accept that R.P. encompassed not only accent but dialect also.
I don't object to RP in those who have it. Trouble is, if I were to use 'one' it would sound like I'm putting on airs and graces.
We couldn't possibly comment.
Please go ahead, post as you wish, of course, but do be prepared to meet a certain amount of tangents/misunderstandings from others whose SOUP is also on the stove.....
Going back a page or 2 on readings in different languages...
In Orthodoxy this is done on Easter Sunday (Pascha) afternoon:
Also, I've only attended one other Catholic Mass where a bishop was presiding, and I can't for the life of me remember what he said. In a Mass said by a priest, there is a part where he implores God to remember Francis our Pope and X our Bishop. As the Bishop presided tonight he prayed God will remember Francis our Pope (words may not be exact) and "me, your unworthy servant[? - or perhaps bishop: my memory is shocking, sorry]" Do bishops have some licence here? Is there a fixed form? I can't for the life of me remember what our Orthodox bishop did...I think the priest or deacon chanted it, but I may be wrong. Thank you again.
A local RC church did in recent times have a permanent deacon, who spent a good deal of his time in hospital ministry, and, quite 20 years ago now, my late Godmother's funeral was conducted in an RC church in Brighton by their permanent deacon, who had known Godmother during his time in secular employment.
They are men who may be married. There is both a minimum and a maximum age for beginning the training,as the Church would like to believe that there will be a certain number of years of service that the deacon can give to the Church. If the deacon is married his wife should give her consent to the ordination, though she does not need to be a practicing Catholic nor indeed any sort of Catholic.
Any Catholic missal or prayer book with the text of the Mass will give you the words of the prayer for the pope and the local bishop (in whose name and at whose behest any Mass is celebrated).
For example the First Eucharistic prayer (sometime called the Roman Canon) has the words in the prayer for the Church :
'Be pleased to grant her peace, to guard, unite and govern her throughout the world, together with your servant (name),our pope and (name)our bishop...…
When the bishop himself celebrates Mass in his diocese be replaces ' and (name) our bishop 'with the words ' and me,your unworthy servant'
As I say look in any Catholic prayer book with the texts of the Mass.