The worship saga grows. I have an extra bargaining chip. B [Federation student] who was depressed yesterday and home sick mentioned she was better as we thought we would stuff saying any more on ministry. She and another chap, he's called E, said they might raise this area.
She said that last night the Methodists discusssed the observation that when G [Principal] handed the URC Principal the chalice (etc., I think) he didn't take from it and just put it down. Oh. Really. And she said, had she realised who he was [Unitarian Principal] she would not have taken the communion. She would not have taken it from me.
...I think he was only doing it for management-federation reasons... I could not reckon with what he [G] said there [in the worship] with what he normally says to me - but maybe he believes it. As for N [Unitarian student], how could he read that - we are the Athenians in the Unitarians, full of bits and bobs and all sorts.
One view on ST's sermon by I the Baptist was that it was still cultuirally imperialistic - all one way. Another view liked it and said St supported the Athenians (yes, and he didn't).
Later I saw N and told him my decisions and that I will see G. And I asked him questions like why did he read that? He said because it was the set reading. Why didn't he refuse? Because G said he had to do it (yesterday N said this was one of two readings he really likes). He has to... compromise his principles somewhat.
And about if MJ put the chalice straight down? Yes he did, said N, and he noticed that. But he might have had it first. N did not himself take the communion and so he was asked why when he was distributing. So he used the words not worthy to gather up the crumbs.
But I ask myself, what of all this? I never know what to believe about what N says. It seems to me it is like pub talk, with no permanent essence. It makes a point and if you test it ti vanishes because it has no substantive guts.
I don't want to be agreed with all the timejust for relations sake, nor everyone else. Either N likes this stuff or he doesn't, he can't be a chamelion. It may be that he lacks any such substance and that's why he gets pushed.
...
There was a session on this, twice and filling the morning. I kicked off in the Methodist Principal's group, and he as much as anyone homed in not on ministry but the postmodernism which i was asked to describe. Taking the role of teacher he mentioned Cupitt, later on also Derrida. He was asking who has read any of it - one struggling with New Christian Ethics. Well that's interesting, I thought. He wasn't aware, it seemed to me, of its over all bias. Challenged to explain, the Methodist Principal was trying to get me that I was allowing a real existence to things (language necessary to make something of them) and God may be the same. A fast move was me saying it's a different language game (which it is). No one though mentioned Wittgenstein. And this all rather delayed things and some didn't get their ministry models out. Anyway an afterthought is whether postmodernism or deconstructionalism really demands equal treatment to all supposed "reality". Thus you can't say God is some other consideration. The point is at a words level there is no discrimination on such grounds, and in a sense it is only the words that matter. But I do not go that whole hog - rather I give an inch to object[ive] discrimination and that we deal with the senses and common sense too and have to incorporate that ~ plus a dialogue with objectivity. Otherwise you can't communicate. Of course the rest of the models were standard stuff, and then after that the three gave their models which were based on upbringing formation and impression and also ecumenical contact. The URC's PD would become Anglican, the Baptist an RC (due to its experimental stuff onlitrgy and worship, not its conservatism) and the other (Methodist) at a thought a Quaker had their churches ended [their existences].
[Top margin:] I also absented from the Bible study as well as worship today ~ too much of it.
...
In the afternoon I went out...
These two were read and reread and edited on matters so far. One to my home minister, carefully done, whereas the one to SF [Minister] was more bold in language. I'm careful not to criticise in the home minister's letter G's situation, though inevitably there's the eucharist itself. But I say he listens, is as much sensitive to H's situation as my views, and that matters of timetable were quickly dealt with. It's a dangerous area, but basically there may be a need for outside knowledge on the Federation worship problem as now manifest and that more alternative provision may be needed.
This dandy figure is very self-sure and aggressive and was trying to cattch me out, especialy on my "no non-linguistic thought"... He suggested too that those fluent bilingually or trilingually case to think in any one language but abstractly... And if he's right, I wonder if there is not a parallel, I said, with the idea of God seen above the Gods of packages. But a new one on me. And later he did a card trick which I didn't need... But the main area of conversation was my view that Christianity is nervous of its own diversity and thus restricts itself whereas if it is revelation it could have its resources and just develop. He thought restriction corrected it from errors and kept what had been found true. I said however that theology was like having a flat earth found in 300 AD and now saying, "Well it is still a flat earth but has a rounded top and bottom."
A party is where you learn your loneliness. I had an interesting chat with a second year Pastoral and Social Theology [student] - what I'll do - and her disappointment with traditional university method (after being at political [studies]) and frightened of having to act in the church and it crushing her and it never leaving her. So naturally I thought of compatibilities etc. especially as she entertains part time notions. Married, I discovered... There's a relationship game here but it is actually futile.
I went to the Bible Study, not the worship, and sat next to G [Principal] and reminded him I wanted to see him. Ah, on worship. Then i sat through MJ giving a summary of Hebrews with its developed theology, and his pushed theology. These bible studies are not, they are also confessional so rather just survey a movement described, its as much about now.
And later there was hima again on the New Testament using slides to show the Jewish origin, and the meeting of Rome and Hellenic culture, also it on synagogues in the Greek world. Fair enough, indeed even interesting in parts. I mentioned moderation of text in the face of Rome, though he said the religion also gave increased fiction, but my main point given his comments was to wonder when Christians will view the polytheisms of the Greek culture with the same respect as now shown to Judaism. ...we will hear about the Lord's Prayer - which could popssibly be interesting. He said it has some surprises...
Well I saw G because I am not in the study skills session. So I told him how I reacted [to the worship] and went out on my [motor]bike to get rid of aggression which only did so later in the pub with G [URC student]. And I said about N reading this Paul to the Athenians. I said before it N had said this was one of his two favourite readings but I didn't realise which it was. then he read it and it reminded me of KA's [very conservative Unitarian minister] use of it and his "not saying I am Paul among the Athenians" at the General Assembly - but nevertheless he was quite right to see the Unitarians as like Athenians. And I said about G's own prayer when I again asked myself what he's up to. On N though I told him about next day, that N said he had to do the worship and also that it was the set reading. And he forgot [that] it was his other favourite reading [then]. So G said about N and his varied explanations that he's still to develop his powers of logic... As for himself, G was given the prayer and he doctored it so that it was no longer condemnatory in implication of Muslims (where Christianity is in decline in places). I went on to mention that the Methodists had noticed that MJ had put the chalice straight down after G offered it. I said I didn't know if that was right or not. Yes he did, said G, but it was nearly empty so maybe he didn't want it (not surely if nearly empty?). I told of the Methodist who wouldn't have accepted it had she known who he was, as she wouldn't have from me. And I said about HE raising the matter with the URC.
G said alright to my "decisions" that I'd taken. He also said that N was under no pressure to go to the worship, and G asked him if he'd do the chalice and he said yes. G said if students did not want him to give the eucharist he'd "willingly" stop. But he said he's put in the report to the [Unitarian] Visitors [(outside inspectors)] that he refuses to accept the stygma of Unitarians and that we have bent over backwards. He said that it is important that we do not define ourselves in a relationship to Christianity but as a plural religious group.
On my anger I said after the service I could have bawled in his ear about wanting to see him, but I said it quietly. He said it came through anyway, my feeling.
I spoke on credibility, that they knew my views and if I handed oout the chalice or said the God-Jesus mix in the prayers I'd lose my credibility. He said I should keep it. Also friendliness and boundaries, though camps are forming.
So that was that. Morning Prayer he still saw as useful to hear the Bible and thus go through it, but that's all he gets from it (not that there's any exegesis that follows).
G said his complaint is not that there is Bible reading, but that the worship is so intensive. He called it "the projection of evil" which I thought was a bit strong especially having taken part in it. But he says Christianity should be treated lightly ~ when you go to a Buddhist ceremony you aren't checked to see if you are kosher, it just begins and ends.
This latter point I put to the PJ [tutor] thing in a rare involvement of any theology areas. I replaced "projection of evil" with aggression, and prompted by Daphne Hampson's Modrn Churchpeople's article I said this is the "projection" of a very male God, full of ego, whreas religion ought to be more feminine. FD thought I was more ritualistic. Yes I am, and that's why when you are outside the system your feel the aggression of the religion all the more.
With some focus on the training (and the future) I said little, and indeed it was a much more low key chat. I even mentioned the "my karma has just run over your dogma" joke, which PJ thought I might approve of [was indeed my kind of joke].
I had mentioned G in the worship chat briefly, but also I have no difficulties with him (others reckoned they couldn't talk so well with their personal tutors). I said today he asked if I dream. I said I'd answered that I do and PJ thought that evidence of a close relationship.
I told G that I don't dream archetypes but real environments and people and I know who they are. I went so far to say that there has been a dream of this place and a female's face, and I realised I was projecting my concerns through that. Later in the denominational time he said we can leave it or do more, and suggested a note pad by the bed to write the dream then and then you can recall deepest sleep dreams.
On the counselling course and the like G described Erickson as "fascist". I was taken aback by this. Why? G said he is someone married and divorced. Also what about women who don't have chlidren? What of monks and nuns? They fail against Erickson's norms and are all washed out. I said it is fundamentalism, like piling the word "trust" on babies and "mistrust" if irregularly fed. And then the claim that homosexuality isn't genetic, that the norm is to have children. Well there's no problem of less population. G said as for reproduction and if there wasn't any, the Buddhists would say OK and it has solved things.
Is G with his "fascist" and "projection of evil" showing his intensity? He is normally so mild.
He didn't recommend the counselling course in that the diploma [due to be done] covered counselling (does it now?). If it does now I should forget it. But he recommended Sexuality and Human Relations because I am single and will need to give advice. Also it's a Christian Institute course which means PJ as tutor. That's the only non-University non-Unitarian course I'll do, unless I do do the counselling.
H has been asked to do the Certificate of Biblical Knowledge (CBK) course but he's going to fight it. I said later, given all that's been said about his little use of it and in the context of doing religion [in NE India] it seems silly. And the Treasurer has reacted against H leaving early; however H will write to the General Secretary and G will see him (he's neutral) and I said it is UUA [United States] money. But I said it is enlightening just how little this place offers and that it is so Western, conceptual and part of a society of alienation, like a human zoo.
B [Unitarian student] is back, telling of being taken to Ian Paisley's church by KA [Unitarian minister]? "Runcie, the Antichrist", and, the only woman in the congregation without a hat, she fumbled with getting the psalm to which Paisley said, "Anyone unfamiliar with the Psalm Book". Five hundred attending. A thousand in the evening at a praise thing. An experience!
Home now after a bike journey...
Mum passed me [driving her car] and a second cut out took place...
This morning SG did the Bible Study, on Romans and whether there is predestination. As if a text in a book could decide the issue, though it never can. And then after that it was MJ again on the Lord's Prayer. It didn't prove as interesting as I thought it might have beenin terms of discussing its internal meanings. All he did was play with the Greek, and was used as anything might have for the problems of translation.
So what, I am saying, as if the world hangs on the thread of a piece of Greek text. I made my contribution as per usual when he mentioned the inter-testament period afecting the Kingdom of God belief - rule now, but also rule later by God as the Romans were there. So as he got to 'thy kingdom come' I said if this is so and that Kingdom didn't come as it didn't, then the whole thing comes down. Well, he said. we are to find out what Jesus meant ~ some scholars say Kingdom now, or his resurrection. I said not me when I'll be studying, and he said I should, and he mentioned also Judaism and Islam with their such concepts. I called it a mythology when he tried to bring in the monotheisms. But I have to let it go, otherwise it's a dog fight.
I saw him later at the end because without saying it I'm fed up with presumptions being taken as fact, mythology as history. So I said to him it's a rolling culture and mythology but he said there are voices. I said I like that. Of authority, he said, and atheists at Univeristy study the Bible.
Later he was there on the top table [dinner] which I went to, sat with an American sociology professor who knew names at the Hull Sociology and Social Anthropology department. But one thing was I got my oar in at some point saying about the definition of the Unitarians that I want as a plural religious community rather than a liberal Christian sect. This for MJ's benefit.
And yet for the final thing ST and G whoever did Personal Development/ Counselling and a new model like the Erickson idea that you have to have it sensual, verbal and silent spirituality, each curving up and down with key stages up to 25 years, 25 to 50, and 50 on. I attacked the model because Quakers would be seen as inadequate and a whole series of attacks came. This time there was a full retreat. Why [do] the curves go down, why the ages, why not the spiritualities together, what is to "complete" mean in order they don't catch up, is it present or a memory. Obviously this model was rubbish. My attack mentioned Erickson because I said it likewise was stressing a norm.
However, I found his distinction between contemplation (wide ranging) and meditation (on something) useful and attempting it to be an (inadequate) taster of perhaps what I need to do. On comments about the "now only offered" model and its concepts I saw and said about the need to give as good as I get on the verbals but at the same time to have silence.
We had sheets to fill in about each thing [so far] and the lot. I gave a swing[e]ing attack on aggression and projection (full of ego) in the worship, and assumptions etc. in the theology of it all. The food was good to the mysterious I said on the back too. On the front were the subjects and others, so I made pertinent responses. The Bible Study I called dogmatic sermons often, the worship and preaching lacked time, the theological had insights, the denominational time a bit unplanned but insights, the discussion group very well guided and anticipated issues that arose, the Old testament to be interesting but indigestible, the New I said had presumptions but perhaps I was warmer than that.
But eh main point I made was on the back, that this is a plural religious college and the Federation rides roughshod over this, and that Christian liberals or liberal Christians do not change their assumptions - eg ST's sermon which was softly softly but the same assumptions. I say the issue of personal credibility is wrapped up in all of this.
The sheet goes to PJ who was in charge of timetabling. The resopnse sheets are to help plan the next induction fortnight but I was obviously using mine for more than that.
Books are left on the top of the shelves. They are to show any visiting Anglican [Anglicans reside in during breaks] a set of radical type stuff. On the wardrobe top are my Buddhas and candles> he/ she'll make of it what will be. But the computer and paper trays with stuff in them (and Faith and Freedoms) went in [the car].
This week was the consolidation of views developed in the first week, but G, post the eucharist situation, added some useful terminology like intensity, projection of evil and I see that I myself picked up what they transmit - aggression. A bit of reading too suggested the maleness of all this kind of stuff. I wonder which females would want to restrict the terminology usable and to pump it out quite like it is. Yes they'd prefer more web-like forms [interesting terminology before the Internet!!]. And the eucharist is used like an orthopraxy - either you're in or you're out.
That's the basic problem of this place, and given my position it involves issues of credibility. If I don't keep credibility then I rapidly become nothing. Already I am a sub-species of this place, in terms of its norms, but I now have to keep those norms.
However, this whole week was a 'norm' week, a taster of things if you are within that norm. Surely every church person does much biblical and a whole load besides. Well, I'm not and I do my own thing. So the pressure should be off.
Warnings suggest that the University is conservative ~ but that related to its syle and method, not its Christianity ~ though of course it is centred around mainstream theology issues. But University doesn't have regulations of belief, but even if the Diploma contains professionals more than any other kind of student it should still allow creativity.
The chaos around the worship exposed my own doubts of what I am doing, somewhat reinforcing doubts [about going to] Chorlton. The problem is this - yes, free religion is a good idea. But then you find hardly anyone turn up. Styal saved the day, but then it raised issues of Anglicanism of my past and the way any feeling of religiousness comes about. And then the eucharist says is it not the case that the only recognised identifiable religion is the shop-window beliefs one? Shouldn't I really be doing a job? For a moment I thought of Huddersfield where I might have gone for one year [PGCE] and gone on to a job. I never said this to G. I seem to end up saying nearly everything to him (eg the dream). But I'm left asking, did I make the decision, or do I have to go on making it [about ministry], or what about trying part time something else to be discovered during the course of being here...