...
Well this was dismal and made me very depressed etc. today.
I began thinking afterwards what other job I could do. I have not thought about leaving or such the like at all, who but here I wondered how on earth I got into this situation. Eleven others at the church, all but one seemed 70 plus, with only one man. The preacher was, though, of the congregation, younger, but crap. His stuff had a theme on work, no Bible but overdoing the God bit, but he spoke too fast to keep up and the acoustics were awful ~ echoing. And more irritating, he would stay locked to his script etc. except for regular intervals he would pop his head up and look briefly and every aimlessly at the ceiling. I wondered if he was blind and unable to see us.
I didn't introduce myself and only revealed myself afterwards. No one said much worth recording here though they spoke. My letters [ahead of intending to do a placement] had been read, the only non-preaching bloke said they were "honest". Anyway, one said these people are the core over the years ~ yes, well, who possibly else could go there? No one of any youth, relatively.
And the secretary said I will be involved as much as I can be - well I didn't exactly feel that way. Cup of tea then.
...
So, depressed or whatever, I set off for Styal, leaving 5:10 and arriving 5:30...
...it was stuffed with people for a harvest festival dressed up church, and I've never seen anything like it. Afterwards BMWs pulled out of the car park and other such cars, there were children and young adults as well as the older. LP was dressed up in a grey and maroon gown and she looked priestly and fitted in... A number of people must hav ebeen tourists and I heard a number speak of poor numbers in their Unitarian church. I reckon also it is the look of the church. People must have some sort of natural attachment to Anglican churches. i shall certainly go again with the numbers more realistic. But it begged the question, just why are Unitarian churches so weak. Why don't even decent numbers turn up.
...Unlike Chorlton, Styal has the new [hymn] book and both modern humanist and traditional harvest hymns. The sermon was 'as you sow you reap' and that you should concentrate on sowing.She made references to keeping church visitors. Obviously new people there.
What's happening now is that people are asking my views in some depth. B, a Methodist, wanted my views. So I said we are surrounded by all kinds of objects and so on which require language and concepts and then we are faced there with meaning and religion is the need to find meaning. "Are you an atheist?" "In all practical terms, yes." And I went on to mention the sense I'm finding a little in Buddhism, not in its rebirth and stuff which I rejected before but now a more a sense of the fleeting moment of quiet in the chaos. And not Jesus Christ, I'm like a Muslim. No, I don't put him in a package like that. He's a prophet of Israel believing in a future believing in the future Kingdom of God which didn't happen and the resurrection was a linguistic-experience reaction afterwards, which is only speculation, but I liken to the Oxford Religious Experience Unit's findings. It was the story of the community.
Well she was bound to ask how I'd get on as a minister. So I tell them of other ministers, that I said I'm an atheist at selection.
Earlier friendly N [Congregationalist] asked me how I can fit into this whole set up. I said being a minority is not an unusual experience.
Later an oldish but not an old chap spoke on having to criticise an essay or book chapter which claims God speaks through other faiths. He has to say no he doesn't. So I invited myself into this discussion, which didn't get far and the woman left (it was late). I said that allowing for his view, isn't Christianity itself in part a human product to reach and chooe for God, if he dismissed Calvinism (he does). Can't the others have that, and can't they be more imperfect? Can't God construct these religions, more imperfectly (another alternative)? No. God constructed Christianity but other religions are just built up. Later he contradicted himself. I said at one point that if he wrote it down I'd have to hammer it. If it is criticised by principles such must apply across the board. If from experience, as he once said, then he can't accept Christianity on its experience with him and condemn the rest. It is too subjective.
In G's [the Principal's] style he kicked off with personal biography and we virtually ignored the Margaret Kane book he'd been given. He told of childhood at G, of finding religion in nature with long walks with his grandmother, with trying to reconcile that and church, in his large ego and breakdown of his marriage, this when in ministry, and of reorientating himself to reduce his aggression.
I spoke of mine in terms of yesterday. That on the one hand yesterday morning I end up asking what the hell I am doing and then go through severe doubt about this chaos. But then came the evening and a sense of it being very good. G said I should not analyse that, otherwise I'll crush it. Rather work on it. And I described my journey with religious experiences being one with the Methodists' membership communion, on going to it [observing, silent part], [and] on the convent quietness earlier at Essex. I left out the Quakers this time, but told the story including the nasty letter from the chaplain [having moved to the Unitarians, the Anglican chaplain wrote a nasty letter]. G said the moment is where the chaos isn't, and in Buddhist terms it is about fulfilment and awakening. I made a point about identifying with them out there, in pub; also of PM [my friend] and sometimes finding his life so routine and yet he's settled and on his way although his ideals were dropped when he could no longer do Law. He [G] said people who look so secure with wife, regulation children, car etc. ~ what you don't see is the inner turmoil.
But H spoke in terms of joy from youth work and preferring to help villagers rather than townspeople [in NE India] - like involved in manual jobs. At forst we were both asking about his inner thoughts but it dawned that we were making a mistake and I so likened this to the spirituality of cooking and G thought we'd have to hear more. I asked H if we appeared bourgeois and Western, but he thought his religious life didn't apply in the West anyway.
...
[This is about Federation Communion with Unitarian involvement and compromises Unitarians were forced to make in order to lead the Federation communion]
Tonight I exploded with anger inside with the worship, not just because of the crap that was said and done, but because of N's [Unitarian] and G's [Principal] contributions. [This] in a day when G reckoned we were already having "too much of the Bible" and therefore he thought we'd kick off with the Bhagavad Gita rather than Jeremiah and Job which he first thought of so, with RP [tutor], the Gita would gain a religious experience backing. I was happy with that. I said so. But then he changed his idea, as much because of H's needs as mine. H said that if in his the Bible or Christ's name is used too often then people start complaining. And I wanted to read the Gita and follow it. Something I only barely have bare ideas about.
So G had an intecession [in the Federation worhsip] that talked of churches going to places in Jesus's name that had not been seen before, and also prayed for places in the Pacific losing their faith. What the hell does he mean? Two things: either he had an evening where he was converted or he's putting on a show and if not the latter then it's news to me: far likelier he's putting on a show. And N - Paul talking to the Athenians. Now I don't understand this. ST [Federation tutor] may have put the most wet liberal interpretation of that, the person in a 'strange land' (thus an Old Testament 'reading' of a dance done to Boney M's By the Rivers of Babylon who represents the faith gently and not bringing in big numbers. It still though assumes they should convert, that's the still unquestioned bottom line. It is still there ~ the underlying assumptions are not changed. And that's what is wrong with it. But this to me is an interpretation of Paul at Athens which I think isn't quite right. it is a criticism of those with polytheisms and a variety of colours of faiths. It isn't, as ST said, a criticism of little compartments, of which he accused Western Christianity being the same. And N read this. Earlier in his bullshitting he [N, probably] said to me it is a lovely reading, like an Isaiah one. [But] it is an attack on the authenticity of other religious approaches. Thus, concluded TS, the accropolis is in ruins and Christianity is still going.
N at dinner and before in a chat said that he hasn't changed his views but compromised to get along. Now the Bible is 'that damned book' (or similar words) except for two readings. I didn't know he was about to read one. It. I moaned when he said he liked it.
The effect of this was me bursting to leave during the Peace when people got up. I didn't go, but I made sure that I did not handle even the bread or the wine. Not simply because 'yuck' [at the service], though it is a stronger symbol not to do so, but because the words that accompany what is said [in the act] are not said by me to the recepient. But it so happened G was stood there - I didn't expect this - and he surely can't have missed it. I could have left then too.
I'm not into demos but at the last hymn I just said, "I've had enough of this," and put the hymn book on the seat.
And I left, and feeling full of massive aggression, I went on my motorbike and stupidly risked myself bombing down the A34, from Handforth to the A523, and then through Stockport until near the end and after rain started to fall and I had vision problems.
...
G [URC student in Federation] said there isn't a hope in hell of changing the trinitarian worship. No, I don't want to. But he said G {principal] has to play a game of keeping the Unitarian College in the Federation. He seemed to saver in his opinion, one minute saying I can stop attending it and we can, but then if we do the evangelicals in particular will move to have the Unitarian College thrown out. He said the Baptists own the building and probably the Methodists will always share it, but the URC would lose a lot and so would the Unitarians. As for Oxford [MCO and Mansfield colleges], it is an elitist place, like the Baptists from there who say they've been but haven't even got a degree.
As for the Athenians etc., he said, to my point that it attacks Hindus, that every Hindu he's met says there's one God. I said even if they do (and they don't) I like Polytheisms and all that. He also thought it was impossible for me to worship, and claimed that Buddhists have a form of God. But I gave my view that it is about human worth, journey, purpose, direction, etc.. And he went on to say he is a trinitarian because Jesus is divine in relation to God and human to us (hardly trinitarian) & that [Unitarian minister] KA, (who was at the eucharist, studying the Bible) is Arian. I said I can't tell what is trinitarian about his position and is not about KA's position, a point especially about G's assertion that Unitarians welcome anyone except trinitarians and KA isn't.
Of course my view that KA is an extremist is countered by G saying that I am.
G meanwhile reckoned that I should tone it down a bit. However, he accepted my response that I've drawn boundaries - as much use for them [Federation] as for me - and that I've said their threat comes from their own people. He's heard the effect of the OT sessions [Fedeeration biblical criticism undermining Federation evangelical students' beliefs] and said yes he's seen camps forming. I said I wait to see if then they attack - he said I'll be an object of evangelism.
[Note: I never was]
Meanwhile he said people will speak behind my back - they did of KA and would not go when he led worship. It gets that they are bastards. And people wonder how he got into the ministry and that Dr H [Federation Principal] thinks he's a fundy whereas everyone else thinks he's a raving liberal.
I told [Unitarian student] H that what I do in the future he is not to copy automatically. He has up to now, worship wise. Now the situation is clear. G [Principal] said he's taking the day off tomorrow as he's done too much work non-stop, but I told him I want to see him on worship. Now until further notice I will not attend any Federation worship. Secondly I will not participate in any leading of worship. If either of these positions are unacceptable he'd better say now. We can discuss anything, but these are non-negotiable absolutes. I will discuss happily (if he will) what on earth he was saying.
The question of the PT sessions came up here. There's also been the itnerfaith problem for some people in a theological reflection group (Methodists). The fundy Baptist said that before his challenge to Christianity was "from satanical forces" but now comes from Christians. And FD, who said he thought he was liberal but has been labelled evangelical (I'd say verbal, a lot of what he says is incoherent and self-constradictory), wanted to know from PJ if there is any orthodoxy he can appeal to. "No," said PJ, and even of the creeds (which FD suggested) they were written in their day and he asked what do they mean.
Is it that people want an anchor, contrasting with me when I said, "yes cut the rope." I said the ship can only do a certain speed, thinking of a liner, but when FD suggested it can be like the Titanic I said there's a risk of that. PJ said some of him wants to be like me, without any hindrance, and he was struggling a bit admitting this discussion was also involving him. But NP's (the car salesman, etc.) mention of the mind of Christ gave PJ his image. I said yes, I can understand that, like an image, still my semi-Anglicanism, I said. I said my way is colder, his is warmer. But I can be frightening, he thought. There had already been parallels between Styal [Unitarian church] and Swine [Anglican church], in the chocolate box illusion. As for whether I am secure with the rope cut I said oh no, but my problems are of a different kind.
...