Does anyone on this forum go to church?

[Hannoir]

I do not go to church and can't see this changing. I liked it at CH but that was because I was in the choir. Just don't feel as though it would add anything to my life. But everyone is different and I completely respect (and admire) those who do go and do have faith.

[cj]

This is a great subject to get your teeth into! My family has been heavily involved in the church for several generations from my grandfather as Church Warden and Treasurer, to my mum as Organist and Choir Director (and the usual 'women's jobs' like flower arranger and brass cleaner), Dad as sidesman and Aunt in the choir so it was part of the weekly routine. Church for me has always been about singing so when I left University and didn't pick up another choir I stopped going. I then met my husband when I joined a chamber choir in Devon and he encouraged me to go back to church for musical reasons. A period of willing engaged activity within the church (choir, PCC etc) came to an abrupt end for me after the fiasco of trying to get married in church (second time for my husband) and the awful hypocrisy and unChristain-ness of the Vicar in that community. So intense were my feelings that I felt a turnaround of belief almost invalidated my marriage vows made in Church and made me seriously question whether I even wanted the children baptised.

To be honest, now I'm just not sure what I believe, theologically or with regard to the 'organisation'. I believe in Jesus as a historical figure, some of what he says strikes a chord, some doesn't. I'm not sure what God is, or what 'it' means to me. I don't think I believe in life after death or the resurrection of the body. I do believe it's important to understand the history and role of the church in the development of our culture and society. I don't believe in one 'truth'. I'm for gays/women priests. I do believe in the support a community of people can offer. I don't believe in evangelising and spreading The Word. I don't think it's essential to be married to raise a family etc etc. But I now find myself in church every week with the family for a host of reasons. My husband has a very deep and personal faith that he can separate from the shenanigans of the Church as an organisation and for him it is a wonderful experience he wants to share with all his family. I LOVE singing, and being able to pursue that activity in buildings of great history and beauty strikes the deepest chord (ho, ho), especially when I'm with my husband and the girls. We are very fortunate in that we have a very intelligent and studied (young) vicar who delivers sermons with oomph, ideas to reflect on and question. So while I may question the validity of some of the tenets of the established church or organised religion, I do find it a rejuvenating experience, whether it's the weeks I'm singing or whether it's the weeks I'm running after Theo, it's time to think, reflect and philosophise. We have also met some wonderful, kind, genuine, honest and sincere folk over the years. And for that I'm immensely grateful. I am a regular church-goer but wouldn't necessarily call myself a Christian. Does that make me a hypocrite?

Really looking forward to Evensong tonight with scrummy Tudor music for Lent. Then a real treat on Tuesday, singing a capella Rennaissance music in Buckfast Abbey with a specialist choir.

[cj]

I'm for gays

That reads wrong! I mean that I do not believe homosexuality to be immoral or unclean or wrong or an abomination.

[Fjgrogan]

Good for you, Catherine! No you are not a hypocrite - you are being honest about your doubts. I believe that faith which has never been tested by doubts is worth less (but not worthless). As you say, it is clearly important to your husband that your children are brought up within the church, and by being there with them even if it is just for the music you are supporting them. Don't ever make the mistake of confusing what God says, what the vicar says and what the Church says; they can, and often do, vary considerably. Anyway the Church is not just an organisation, or even a building; we are the church, 24/7 and not just for an hour or so on a Sunday. It is how you live your life from Monday to Saturday that reveals what your real values are, and that is where your children will learn their values, regardless of whether you or they bear the label 'Christian'. (This is beginning to sound like a number of cliches strung together from assorted sermons!) A favourite of our vicar's is 'Christianity is caught, not taught'!

As for the 'gay' issue, my personal feeling (and I know that my vicar would violently disagree!) is that I have no problem with any couple (gay or straight) living together in a lifelong loving commitment (as opposed to flitting from one partner to another whenever the going gets tough); what anyone does in the privacy of their own bedroom is nobody's concern but their own. It is said that God is love; how then can he object to people expressing their love in whatever way seems right for them - and I mean 'love' not just 'sex'. Many homosexuals are committed Christians, and those who seek to ban them from serving God are demonstrating a bigotry and intolerance which I cannot believe that Jesus would have approved of - after all he specialized in ministering to those on the periphery of society - lepers, Samaritans, sinners (who isn't one of them?!), the mentally ill, and even women! Nor can I accept that God would agree with those who seek to prevent 50% of his creation from offering their lives to serve God as priests, simply on the grounds that they were born the 'wrong' sex. The fact that we mostly refer to God as 'he' is merely a linguistic convention - it gets too unwieldy to have to keep saying 'he or she' and somehow 'it' sounds disrespectful! Similarly it is not an argument to say 'well, Jesus was a man' - if he was going to be born in human form he had to be one or the other; being male rather than female at that time in history gave him a better chance of getting himself heard! The God that I try to serve is all about love, forgiveness and compassion, not dogma, doctrine and judgement. I don't always get it right; I am not in church as regularly as I probably should be, but I am quite sure that God understands when I am not there; I can worship him anywhere at any time, but there are times when I value the support of a believing community around me and other times when I prefer to worship alone.

So Catherine, your honesty, integrity, enquiring mind and good singing voice will go a long way to setting your children on the right path - whatever that may turn out to be for them. (And if you keep hanging out long enough in a decent church some of it is bound to rub off on you anyway!!)
Shalom

[NEILL THE NOTORIOUS]

I suspect that, athough we may agree on much of what you have said --- I will have to part company on a couple of things.
I was divorced, but re-married in the Baptist Church -- not only because they would accept me, without question, but also because I was marrying an ex-Baptist Missionary.
My ex Wife, was marrying the son of the man who had baptised me, the local Vicar, and although the divorce was a) because she had been unfaithful with him (And others !!) and b) because I had been cross with him, partly because of my wife and perhaps more-so because of his -- who was a Polio cripple , in a wheelchair, which is why I put him in Hospital.

Because Virginia wanted to get married in Church (Anglican) I had to be the "Guilty" party, and to facilitate this I agreed to be divorced on the grounds of "Unreasonable Conduct " (Which of us is innocent ?")
My Solicitor arranged this, on the basis that she claimed no Maintenance, no claim on my House, or Capital, and that I had custody of the younger child, who was 16 (Gee thanks !!)

At the time I thought this was the Acme of Hypocrisy, but since it only cost me 5 Guineas for my Solicitor to be in Court, to ensure that they didn't pull a "Fast one"at the last minute, all went well, although it took some years for me to get over being "Dumped"

I know that I returned to Faith, through firstly, courting and then Marrying the Blessed Anne and although I returned to the Anglican Church, some 3 years ago, and Anne has now joined me, I have a less jaundiced view. -- after 34 years !
Our Rector Pamela, is brilliant and teaches a vibrant Church, with a wonderful Choir, she was also a Missionary in Nigeria and is very good at persuading me to Preach, in our other, little Norman Church -- which gives her a night off.
I don't know her views on Homosexuality and Lesbianism -- the correct terms, since I was a "Gay young Subaltern" and that meant something entirely different then. we have a Lesbian couple in the church who are planning a Civil Ceremony, at which I shall not be present. I fear that my upbringing and life experience convinces me, that Homosexuality in any form is Wrong and against the laws of God.
I have known many friends who differ, and practise differently from Anne and myself, but that does not affect my Beliefs.
This sounds like a Sermon, but believe me, when I say I would be prepared to preach it in Church.
I may be a Dinosaur -- but I am happy with that !

No Smileys --- serious subject.

[Fjgrogan]

Neill, we shall probably have to agree to disagree on the issue of homosexuality, and I would of course have the sense not to preach on that subject. However, when a couple of the same sex are genuinely in a loving longterm committed relationship is it not healthier for them to be open and honest about it than to either have to hide the fact or stay apart and both be miserable for a lifetime? Please note I say 'be open and honest' - that is not the same as flaunting their sexuality with the intention of offending others. If the Church - or at least parts of it - can accept the remarriage of divorcees, it is a pity that homosexuals and lesbians should be made to feel outcast for something over which they have no real control. We cannot control who we fall in love with; all we can hope is that, with God's help, we can control what we do about it if for any reason that love is inappropriate.

[NEILL THE NOTORIOUS]

Frances -- yes we must agree to differ, but I do respect your views.
I am not of the "Southern Baptist" ilk, but I do take my Bible seriously, and although I view Genesis 1 as a suitable story of Creation for the Jews in 3000 BC, as a quasi-scientist I can only believe the, overwhelming evidence of Evolution.
I believe in a Creator God, but I do not restrict Him/Her to one small planet , round a medium Sun,in an outer arm of a medium Galaxy in an infinite Universe.
That said, I accept the Bible as a road-map for my life, in what it condemns as wrong.
Here we have a problem -- I don't restrict myself to Kosher food, nor would I condemn any pregnant woman to the exigencies of Leviticus, so I may be accused of "Picking and Choosing" my Biblical texts ! I do, however think it is the best Road-map available, at the present time -- at least for myself and TBA, cetainly as far as the New Testament is concerned.

So you see from where I am coming (Eng. A. -- note grammer !) and I accept that others may have their own views, which, as I have said, I respect, but don't neccessarialy have to follow !

Steps down form Soapbox and you can have a Smiley ---

[Fjgrogan]

Neill, thank you for the Smiley. I am relieved to know that I have not offended you. Sadly the majority of us do 'pick and choose' which of the Mosaic laws to obey, mainly through ignorance of them. I am sure that if I reread Leviticus and Deuteronomy I shall find all sorts of other laws which I have been unwittingly disobeying (perhaps I would be better off not knowing then?). The Church definitely picks and chooses, and makes its own decisions on the relative importance of the various prohibitions - when did you last hear anyone preaching vehemently against tattooing or mixing different fibres in the same garment? Fortunately we are in the clear on kosher food, because Peter's vision in Acts 10 reprieved those particular laws, but I do not recall any such reprieve from many of the other laws. Nevertheless the Church no longer insists that women go through the ceremony of churching as laid down by the BCP after childbirth (stemming from the Mosaic laws on uncleanness), and parts of it are coming round to accepting that divorce happens and need not lead to lifelong misery and loneliness, otherwise you would be without the Blessed Anne! And many people would be in trouble if they had to wait for a priest to declare them clean every time they had an outbreak of skin disease. It seems to be accepted that different clergy can air their own particular pet hates with no accountability.

Neill, it will be apparent that I have a personal issue here which I would like to discuss with you, but do not need to bore the rest of the forum with - and no, I am not a leprous divorced tattooed lesbian! Would it be OK if I send you a PM and we continue this discussion in private? I would value your opinion.

[anniexf]

Neill, we shall probably have to agree to disagree on the issue of homosexuality, and I would of course have the sense not to preach on that subject. However, when a couple of the same sex are genuinely in a loving longterm committed relationship is it not healthier for them to be open and honest about it than to either have to hide the fact or stay apart and both be miserable for a lifetime? Please note I say 'be open and honest' - that is not the same as flaunting their sexuality with the intention of offending others. If the Church - or at least parts of it - can accept the remarriage of divorcees, it is a pity that homosexuals and lesbians should be made to feel outcast for something over which they have no real control. We cannot control who we fall in love with; all we can hope is that, with God's help, we can control what we do about it if for any reason that love is inappropriate.

Very well put, Frances - sane and humane as always. When I think of that brilliant mathematician, Alan Turing, of Bletchley Park fame, ( the codebreaker) being hounded to suicide because of something he didn't choose & could do nothing about, I can only despair at the bigotry of those times. I hope that eventually society will stop being so two-faced and judgemental about it. The Bible is in my view no more than a "rough guide" - useful, sensible & practical in parts, but perilously open to a variety of interpretations.

[Fjgrogan]

Like any manufacturer's handbook, the majority of don't bother to read it in detail until something goes wrong!

[NEILL THE NOTORIOUS]

Frances--- Of course you can PM me-- as can any of you --- I am always prepared to listen, even to LTPLs, of which I note you are not one !!!

I may not agree, but much of my life, since ceasing to be a Soldier, has been spent in "Debate " and it is wise not to shoot the Opposition ---who may have YOU on the rocks, during the next Subject !

[kerrensimmonds]

(I've taken out an inappropriate posting which I had put into this thread inadvertently.............sorry!)

[NEILL THE NOTORIOUS]

With reference to earlier Posts and Threads ---
I dug out my CH Bible from the bookcase,(I normally use the NIV) and looked to see if I was given the "Charge" --- not so !
It says"The gift of the Governors of Christ's Hospital to Neill Purdie Evans -- the 31st July 1945" (I didn't leave until April 1946 --- wishful thinking, but had something to do with Rugby and Swimming !)


The Bible contains the Apocrypha-- (Which has wonderful stories such as Bel and the Dragon, and the History of Sussanah )
Do the "Modern" Bibles contain these ?

During the War the Head (HLO Flecker) would read out the names of the Old Blues, who had been killed, and would quote from the WIsdom of Solomon Capter 3 ------"The souls of the Righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them, in the sight of the foolish, they seemed to die -- and their departure was taken to be their hurt, but they are at peace "

I used to be very moved at these words, and they are to be used at my own Funeral

Can anyone inform us -----Are the current Bibles the same ? is the "Charge" included ? is the Apocrypha included ?

What say you -- young OBs ?

[cj]

Can anyone inform us -----Are the current Bibles the same ? is the "Charge" included ? is the Apocrypha included ?

What say you -- young OBs ?

I don't think I qualify as YOB (Young Old Blue) any more , but in 1990 we were given the Authorized King James version without the Apocrypha, and with the Charge stuck on the front inside cover.

[NEILL THE NOTORIOUS]

Where did the sticker "The gift of the Governors -----" go ? or didn't it ?