Thread: Calling the Arch****** of York and his erastian shrine Minster to a Christmas hell Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024340
Posted by Brother Oscar (# 17227) on
:
I did consider starting a sensible purgatory thread about this and may be I will, or may be some one else will. May be I will feel stupid later for posting this but right now I'm angry enough to start a hell thread.
So, having arrived at York Minster early to get a seat I was leafing through my order of service for Nine Lesson's and Carols when I came to the sixth lesson and noted that the reader would be Brigadier Posh Name. A pacifist and reviler of erastianism I felt very uncomfortable at this representation of the military establishment at a celebration of the birthday of the baby Jesus. Surely, someone from a poverty charity would have been more appropriate to read a lesson telling about the birth of this child of marginal peasant parents? Surely, someone from a refugee organisation would have been better to read a lesson about this infant refugee?
Still I stayed until the full irony and awfulness of the situation hit me. The Brigadier seemed to get the irony because despite arriving proudly in his uniform at the lectern he faltered over the ***ning words: "In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus...". That's right in the days of that military leader of the Roman Empire, who brought security through the sword and declared himself Son of God. In contrast to Augustus, who better to tell us about the heaven born prince of peace than a commander in an army that in the current century has protected British interests through dodgy wars and even dodgier allies and fought with new and more threatening weapons? It was too much for me. I got up and left, quite sure that the baby Jesus was crying.
However, this wouldn't concern the Arch****** who in the last days has cautioned against military cuts because they might threaten national security. Unlike others who have taken this as an opportunity to promote the future of soft power and international development as a path to peace.
Earlier in the year this same Arch****** protested the closing of arms factories because it would mean the loss of jobs at a time of financial crisis. Unlike others who took this as an opportunity to call for the creation of jobs in renewable and sustainable technology.
No I'm not surprised that the Arch****** takes the birth of Christ as an opportunity to get closer to Britain's military establishment, rather than as an opportunity to point to the peace of Christ. Or to question that military establishment which, turns young men desperate for a jobs into killers, which fails to support the psychological and medical needs of soldiers returning from war, which kills civilians and destroys homes, which supports regimes that oppress their own people.
Sentamu you militaristic erastian hierarch! The Prince of Peace is coming so be quick and:
“Come out of Babylon, my people, so that you do not take part in her sins, and so that you do not share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities."
[Calling the Arch****** of York and his erastian shrine Minster to a Christmas hell]
[ 13. February 2013, 00:24: Message buggered about with by: comet ]
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Brigadier Posh Name
If the Gargoyles had started getting feisty you'd have been relieved that there was someone there who could bark out the order of "chap with wings, six rounds rapid".
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AejZxaYkekM
Posted by Brother Oscar (# 17227) on
:
@Amos
I get it! I did ask myself whether I'd feel the same were the reader a private solider or a military chaplain. I'm not sure that I would.
I would also not feel the same if the Archbishop had spent time talking about the evils of war or promoting soft power, or about the responsibility of the state to care for veterans. Instead he has been imperialistically promoting the military as a national security tool and as a fix for our economic problems without publically thinking through the moral and human cost.
If I were to start a purgatory thread about this it would be about how this episode made me think seriously about soldiers - whose experience of life and of faith must be so different from that of civilian - celebrate Christmas. And of course some of them so far from their families and homes. My anger is directed against the Archbishop where-as my prayers will genuinely be for soldiers these next days.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brother Oscar:
I would also not feel the same if the Archbishop had spent time talking about the evils of war or promoting soft power, or about the responsibility of the state to care for veterans. Instead he has been imperialistically promoting the military as a national security tool and as a fix for our economic problems without publically thinking through the moral and human cost.
Then you went to the wrong service. Try the two services a year held for soldiers and families of soldiers of the Yorkshire Regiment who have been injured or killed in active service.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Brother Oscar: I agree that the Archbishop of York can be really, really irritating. Count your blessings, and give thanks for Durham.
Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on
:
Yes, sorry you had that experience of feeling compelled to leave, and not getting some joy, peace or whatever. No wonder people walk out or don t go in the first place.
Sentamu thinks he's 'born again'; and so need not worry about the actual message of the grown Jesus.
(Have you considered Quakers for an occasional visit ? No majors at least)
with good wishes,
Imersge
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
This may be an unhellish point, but I wonder whether Archbishop Sentamu's view may be coloured by his experience living under Idi Amin in Uganda - and wishing the British government had taken him out. I totally agree with the OP, but I'd like to be charitable at this time of year to the Archbishop.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
Whatever the merits of the complaint against Sentamu, it pales in comparison to the Archbishop of Westminster's efforts. Never mind the incarnation, what are we going to do about the poofs?
Posted by St. Stephen the Stoned (# 9841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Whatever the merits of the complaint against Sentamu, it pales in comparison to the Archbishop of Westminster's efforts. Never mind the incarnation, what are we going to do about the poofs?
Are they not always with us?
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
To start with the nit-picking:
1) The Dean of a Cathedral is responsible for what happens in a cathedral, not the bishop. Slightly strange, and a situation that Rome has reformed with the appointment of administrators of cathedrals, who ARE directly subject to the bishop. However the CofE retains the medieval polity, where the Dean is supreme within his own sphere.
2) Erastiansim is the idea that the Christian prince should be responsible for the reform of the church. It is most clearly seen in the English Reformation, where the monarchs determined the outcome, not the church. It's certainly got NOTHING to do with the pacifism that you are seeking to espouse.
However to address this piece of ignorance more directly: as has already been pointed out, York's response to the the military is probably formed by the experience of Uganda. There Amin was only removed from power when he attacked Tanzania, and they came in and deposed him. Given the horrors of that regime, and of Pol Pot, who was similarly deposed by the Vietnamese, it is hard to defend a pacifist line.
There are two internally consistent Christian positions. The first is that no violence is ever justified. This bases its logic on Mt 5:29. However to be consistent, this requires that a Christian stands by and watches NOT EVEN CALLING THE POLICE when they see an evil act in progress. You may have the faith required to forgo stopping a child being raped and murdered in front of my eyes, but I don't.
The only alternative is to argue that the state has a legitimate role in the control of evil, and it is perfectly reasonable for a Christian, acting with the authority of the state and therefore of God, to act to control evil. This does not justify ALL military behaviour of course. However once you argue that it is legitimate to stop the murderer today, there is no reason not to stop the military conqueror tomorrow. And once you've gone there, it is legitimate to work in an arms factory, and such workers have as much right to bemoan the ending of their jobs as the car maker or the baker. (Actually given that cars kill people on the roads and bakers produce cakes that cause people to have bad health that kills them, the distinction is probably more limited than we might like to think.)
So overall there is no justification to get a snot on about a military man in a church service, especially in the CofE whose Article 37 explicitly says: 'It is lawful for Christian men at the commandment of the Magistrate to wear weapons and serve in the wars.' You want to avoid such issues - go join the Quakers; stop expecting the CofE to act like it isn't what it is. I don't go to a ice hockey match expecting to see ballet; why should you go to a CofE church and expect pacifism?
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Yes, sorry you had that experience of feeling compelled to leave, and not getting some joy, peace or whatever. No wonder people walk out or don t go in the first place.
Sentamu thinks he's 'born again'; and so need not worry about the actual message of the grown Jesus.
(Have you considered Quakers for an occasional visit ? No majors at least)
with good wishes,
Imersge
I am told that our meeting used to have an attender who came regularly in military uniform. I don't know what his rank was. Not all Quakers are pacifists - though probably the majority.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
There are two internally consistent Christian positions. The first is that no violence is ever justified. This bases its logic on Mt 5:29. However to be consistent, this requires that a Christian stands by and watches NOT EVEN CALLING THE POLICE when they see an evil act in progress. You may have the faith required to forgo stopping a child being raped and murdered in front of my eyes, but I don't.
The only alternative is to argue that the state has a legitimate role in the control of evil, and it is perfectly reasonable for a Christian, acting with the authority of the state and therefore of God, to act to control evil. This does not justify ALL military behaviour of course. However once you argue that it is legitimate to stop the murderer today, there is no reason not to stop the military conqueror tomorrow. And once you've gone there, it is legitimate to work in an arms factory, and such workers have as much right to bemoan the ending of their jobs as the car maker or the baker. (Actually given that cars kill people on the roads and bakers produce cakes that cause people to have bad health that kills them, the distinction is probably more limited than we might like to think.)
I reject your assertion of a binary interpretation - it seems to be more reflective of the way you think that the merits of the case You do it with pretty much everything you debate about, I am not sure why.
I urge you to consider to expand the grey areas of yor thought - as a Christmas present to yourself.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
I know a lot of people in the military. They are just like the rest of us. They have their good points and their bad points.
Importantly, they are children of God, just like you.
Every one I know in the military sees themselves as protecting their country and their fellow citizens. It is not the military that starts wars. It is politicians. Perhaps you ought to walk out if a politician starts speaking.
Maybe you should walk out if someone who works at a store that sells tobacco starts to speak. Or, perhaps you should walk out if someone who . . .
Oh. Wait a minute. I remember now. Church is not about how perfect the members are. It is about imperfect people coming together to worship the Lord.
How terribly judgmental, mistaken and sanctimonious it is to walk out on someone who is obviously nervous yet trying to do a good thing.
Think long and hard about what you did and why you felt justified in doing it and then bragging about it here.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
Hi everyone, Merry Christmas from your (sparingly for today) Hellhost.
Just in case I have to post officially do take care as my icon is the same as Brother Oscar's.
btw Brother Oscar: i) welcome to the Ship ii) by choosing this icon do you realise what you have let yourself in for?
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
"You don't believe like me about the military, leave the church and become a Quaker". Like all Anglicans are pro-military.
Fuck off.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Sentamu thinks he's 'born again'; and so need not worry about the actual message of the grown Jesus.
with good wishes,
Imersge
Never thought anyone on here would make me feel like coming to the defense of the Archbishop of York (who, as I've already said, irritates me) but this sanctimoniousness takes the biscuit.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Stuff me, it really must be Christmas, because I never thought I'd ever say this, but....
quote:
So overall there is no justification to get a snot on about a military man in a church service, especially in the CofE whose Article 37 explicitly says: 'It is lawful for Christian men at the commandment of the Magistrate to wear weapons and serve in the wars.' You want to avoid such issues - go join the Quakers; stop expecting the CofE to act like it isn't what it is. I don't go to a ice hockey match expecting to see ballet; why should you go to a CofE church and expect pacifism?
...I agree with Ender's Shadow!
[ 25. December 2012, 14:02: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
There are two internally consistent Christian positions. The first is that no violence is ever justified. This bases its logic on Mt 5:29. However to be consistent, this requires that a Christian stands by and watches NOT EVEN CALLING THE POLICE when they see an evil act in progress. You may have the faith required to forgo stopping a child being raped and murdered in front of my eyes, but I don't.
The only alternative is to argue that the state has a legitimate role in the control of evil, and it is perfectly reasonable for a Christian, acting with the authority of the state and therefore of God, to act to control evil. This does not justify ALL military behaviour of course. However once you argue that it is legitimate to stop the murderer today, there is no reason not to stop the military conqueror tomorrow. And once you've gone there, it is legitimate to work in an arms factory, and such workers have as much right to bemoan the ending of their jobs as the car maker or the baker. (Actually given that cars kill people on the roads and bakers produce cakes that cause people to have bad health that kills them, the distinction is probably more limited than we might like to think.)
I reject your assertion of a binary interpretation - it seems to be more reflective of the way you think that the merits of the case You do it with pretty much everything you debate about, I am not sure why.
I urge you to consider to expand the grey areas of yor thought - as a Christmas present to yourself.
And I invite you to start respecting the fact that the universe is not especially forgiving to idiots who refuse to apply logic to its operations. Either a state does have the God given authority to act against evil, or it does not. And either a Christian does have the right to protect himself and others by force, or they do not. Whilst there may be extreme examples where the matters become grey, the core concepts are extremely binary; to hide behind 'Oh it's complicated' is either an excuse for lack of serious thought, or an unwillingness to admit that the conclusions that thinking about it drive you to are inconvenient given your ideology. This is known as 'Fundamentalism', and is usually disdained in polite company.
So - let's take it from the top:
1) You are part of a group of people who come across a man beating up a child. You know that if the group intervenes with force, the beating will stop. Do you walk on past?
2) You hear screaming from the next door apartment. You know that there's a history of domestic violence there. Do you call the police?
3) The ships bringing food to your country are being hijacked by pirates. You have a navy. Do you oppose its deployment to protect the merchant ships? Yes, the crews are being taken hostage, and some have been killed when the ship owners have refused to pay a ransom.
4) The country next door has a genocidal president who you believe has killed thousands of an ethnic group in the country.
a) The fool then attacks your country. Do you take the opportunity of resisting the attack - assuming you do - to liberate the country?
b) Do you intervene anyway?
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Stuff me, it really must be Christmas, because I never thought I'd ever say this, but....
quote:
So overall there is no justification to get a snot on about a military man in a church service, especially in the CofE whose Article 37 explicitly says: 'It is lawful for Christian men at the commandment of the Magistrate to wear weapons and serve in the wars.' You want to avoid such issues - go join the Quakers; stop expecting the CofE to act like it isn't what it is. I don't go to a ice hockey match expecting to see ballet; why should you go to a CofE church and expect pacifism?
...I agree with Ender's Shadow!
So do I. Apocalypse after we finish the turkey sandwiches.
And the wrong pretzels.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Stuff me, it really must be Christmas, because I never thought I'd ever say this, but....
quote:
So overall there is no justification to get a snot on about a military man in a church service, especially in the CofE whose Article 37 explicitly says: 'It is lawful for Christian men at the commandment of the Magistrate to wear weapons and serve in the wars.' You want to avoid such issues - go join the Quakers; stop expecting the CofE to act like it isn't what it is. I don't go to a ice hockey match expecting to see ballet; why should you go to a CofE church and expect pacifism?
...I agree with Ender's Shadow!
So do I. Apocalypse after we finish the turkey sandwiches.
And the wrong pretzels.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I didn't know the Apocalypse was going to start by creating such glitchy internet connections that you post the same thing a whole 16 minutes apart.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
ach well, mebbe it's one of them timey-wimey things.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
I never thought I'd proof text in Hell, but here goes:
quote:
Luke 3:4
Soldiers also asked him, ‘And we, what should we do?’ He said to them, ‘Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages.’
So long as the brigadier isn't extorting money from people, if John the Baptist is happy for him to remain a soldier, then it's good enough for me too.
I also know a good number of military personnel who have done a huge amount of direct good for refugees, regardless of whether you think the policies they were advancing were good for them or not.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
As an almost-pacifist, I have the utmost respect for military men like general Sir high Beach and general Sir Rodney Dannett, who have a highly thought-out Christian rationale for the work they have done during their dedicated careers.
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
If military men shouldn't be seen in uniform church, or be allowed to speak thus dressed, I take it that Jesus shouldn't have let himelf be seen with the centurion either? He certainly shouldn't have said nice things about him.
Silly Jesus, sucking up to military power!
[ 26. December 2012, 16:55: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brother Oscar:
So, having arrived at York Minster early to get a seat I was leafing through my order of service for Nine Lesson's and Carols when I came to the sixth lesson and noted that the reader would be Brigadier Posh Name. A pacifist and reviler of erastianism I felt very uncomfortable at this representation of the military establishment at a celebration of the birthday of the baby Jesus. Surely, someone from a poverty charity would have been more appropriate to read a lesson telling about the birth of this child of marginal peasant parents? Surely, someone from a refugee organisation would have been better to read a lesson about this infant refugee?
If I've understood your definition of 'erastianism' correctly, would you similarly object to a social worker or civil servant from the department for international development speak in church?
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Like others I am moved to post to point out that it is the Dean of York Minster, not the Archbishop of York who is responsible for what goes on in services in the Minster. Secondly I strongly suspect that the ABY is far from Erastian, nor does his past suggest he would have a rosy or complacent view of military power.
It is in the tradition of Nine Lessons and Carols that the first lesson is read by a child - often a choir boy - 'ascending' through the ranks with the last lesson read by the Dean. I wonder if the Brigadier in question might have been Brigadier Peter Lyddon (though I'm probably wrong about that as it doesn't strike me as a particularly posh name) but if it was him, he was probably chosen because he was until lately the Chapter Steward of the Minster in which capacity he acted as a kind of civil servant for the Minster.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I once attended a communion service at York Minister on Remembrance Sunday. I didn't go to the full-on military service - with the flags and regiments and things, but the earlier one that combined communion with the Two Minutes Silence.
By some miracle of organisation, the stewards dispensed the bread and wine just in time for the silence - then we all received just after the silent reflection. It was a solemn moment.
My experience of the CofE is that you get both tendencies going along at the same time ... on one level there is a rather Conservative, 'Shires' mentality in some quantities ... Major General Posh-name and So Forth ... and on another you've got people and clergy who are as pacifist as any Quaker or whatever else ...
That's what a Broad Church is all about.
I came away very uplifted on that occasion ... and I was in a Baptist church at the time. Some of the other Baptists who came along with me had never attended an Anglican communion service before and were very moved by it.
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on
:
I don't really see what Brother Oscar's problem is. Brigadier Posh Name may very well be a good Christian gentleman and pillar of the church; in my home cathedral there was just such a brigadier.
Because he spent his professional career defending his country should be no bar to him taking an active part in church services.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
Because he spent his professional career defending his country
We don't know the guy's name, so I can't look up where he actually was "defending his country".
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
[QUOTE]We don't know the guy's name, so I can't look up where he actually was "defending his country".
Does that matter?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Either a state does have the God given authority to act against evil, or it does not. And either a Christian does have the right to protect himself and others by force, or they do not. Whilst there may be extreme examples where the matters become grey, the core concepts are extremely binary; to hide behind 'Oh it's complicated' is either an excuse for lack of serious thought, or an unwillingness to admit that the conclusions that thinking about it drive you to are inconvenient given your ideology.
Wait, wha -- ?
Pacifists don't object to the army because they use force. They object to the army because they kill people.
Man, your life has more strawmen in it than a wicker man festival.
[ 27. December 2012, 09:33: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Pacifists don't object to the army because they use force. They object to the army because they kill people.
Is that right? So an army that merely used force short of lethal force, say merely injuring people or compelling them by terror and fear of injury, would be supported by pacifists? I don't think so. Of course there's a difference between lethal force and merely threats of lethal force or use of force short of the lethal variety but the great strength (and attractive naive unworldliness) of pacifism has always seemed to me its rejection tout court of compulsion backed up by force.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Pacifists don't object to the army because they use force. They object to the army because they kill people.
Is that right? So an army that merely used force short of lethal force, say merely injuring people or compelling them by terror and fear of injury, would be supported by pacifists?
Maybe I should have said 'kill or maim people'.
You have a point, but I still think it's nonsensical for ES to claim there's no substantive difference between the force exerted by the police and the force exerted by an army. An army uses weapons as its primary means of deterrence against undesirables. The police may use violence in extremis but its main 'force' is supposed to reside in the force of the law, with public trials and an independent judiciary.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm wondering what other professions Brother Oscar might debar from communion ... merchant bankers perhaps (although thinking about it ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
) ...
I can understand the unease about seeing people in uniform officiating in a church service - either by reading a lesson or conducting prayers etc - but it's all down to context. It's interesting how many soldiers Jesus came across in his ministry ... he said of the Centurion, for instance, that he had not come across such great faith even in Israel ...
I don't read that Jesus asked the Centurion to resign his commission before he healed his servant.
I've been on the more 'radical' (or supposedly radical) end of the Protestant spectrum and I still have a lot of time for the Anabaptist tradition (in its milder rather than its Munster form) ... but it can end up in a kind of sanctimonious, holier-than-thou and rather Pharisaical mess.
'That guy can't read the lesson,' saith the Pharisee. 'He's wearing a military uniform.'
If you turned the thing around, say, is it any different to saying, 'That guy can't read the lesson he is a tramp/hobo [financier, banker, greengrocer, unemployed ... insert whatever profession you wish] ...
I'm sure Brother Oscar means well but I'm not sure he's thought through the implications - nor how Pharisaical his position could be if taken to its logical conclusion. I am sure he would be horrified at that thought.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
An army uses weapons as its primary means of deterrence against undesirables. The police may use violence in extremis but its main 'force' is supposed to reside in the force of the law, with public trials and an independent judiciary.
I'm sorry to be so purgatorial but I'm not sure you're right here either. A police force exerts force or the threat of force which, depending on the standards of the society they serve, might include lethal force. An army does the same. The primary means by which an army achieves its objective is the deployment of force or he threat of force which, depending on the rules of engagement (informed by the standards of International Law), might include lethal force. It isn't unreasonable to distinguish between the two on grounds of risk but it isn't creating a straw an to suggest that an objection to one is not, in principle, that different from an objection to the other.
To return to a more hellish tone, Gamaliel, I'm not sure Brother Oscar does mean well. His OP just seemed to me to be a typically narrow-minded reaction to an almost entirely unobjectionable event. That he hadn't thought through the implications of imposing his own world view on everybody else, your post makes admirably clear. He was just being a twat.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
As another near-pacifist and anti-erastian I was inclined to sympathise with the OP, and then realised it was an over-the-top reaction to a non-problem. If I were Eric Milner-White's reincarnation in 2012, I would be inclined to rewrite the Nine Lessons and Carols slightly differently. But it is a product of its time and of a much more hierarchical and status-conscious society (not that ours isn't, but in a different way). As I understand it, the readers were deliberately chosen to reflect 'ranks' or status in society/the Church (intertwined), from the youngest choirboy to the Dean. Hence the military gent would be chosen, not for his ability as a reader (particularly), not for his devotion as a faithful Christian (particularly), but as a representative of the Armed Services.
It's not the way I would choose the readers, but it is closely bound up with the tradition of Nine Lessons and Carols which is even less susceptible of change than, it seems, the BCP. Milner-White first popularised this at Cambridge, and presumably brought it to York with him when he became Dean there.
Whatever one's views on military or any other worldly status, we are all equal in the sight of God. That's why I am ill at ease with any hints that this sort of status has any relevance within the Christian community. At a service of this nature, which is not so much the worship of 'the Church', but an invitation from the Church to society, it's not worth quibbling about.
Maybe I'm softening in my old age, because I attended the Remembrance Day eucharist in Southwark Cathedral, of all places, and had to suffer the National Anthem and I vow to thee my country. I didn't expect to hear them there, but I can understand why, and the rest of the liturgy expressed my feelings well, so I didn't get upset.
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on
:
What on earth is 'near pacifist' for goodness sake?
What a lame, lilly-livered way to describes oneself. It's like a vegetarian who eats free range chicken and fish.
Pacifism is a misguided principle which, followed through to its logical conclusion, puts everyone under the most powerful, aggresive and dictatorial leaders. Because the world is the way it is, pacifism will never work.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
What on earth is 'near pacifist' for goodness sake?
Because even as you appear to admit, war and violence might be necessary but only as a last resort in a fallen world. In an ideal world we would all be pacifists. No-one except a crazed maniac (and there are plenty, admittedly) would start a war.
Perhaps 'reluctant non-pacifist' would be a better phrase than 'near-pacifist'. But I respect true pacifists. Maybe we couldn't exist in a world where everyone was a pacifist (though if literally everyone was, of course we could); but then we couldn't exist if everybody was celibate either. That's not to say that celibacy doesn't have value.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
An army uses weapons as its primary means of deterrence against undesirables. The police may use violence in extremis but its main 'force' is supposed to reside in the force of the law, with public trials and an independent judiciary.
I'm sorry to be so purgatorial but I'm not sure you're right here either. A police force exerts force or the threat of force which, depending on the standards of the society they serve, might include lethal force. An army does the same. The primary means by which an army achieves its objective is the deployment of force or he threat of force which, depending on the rules of engagement (informed by the standards of International Law), might include lethal force. It isn't unreasonable to distinguish between the two on grounds of risk but it isn't creating a straw an to suggest that an objection to one is not, in principle, that different from an objection to the other.
As the presence of the UK army on the streets of Northern Ireland demonstrated, when the situation has got beyond the power of a police force to resolve, the army has to be bought in to restore law and order.
Similarly, if the criminal is equipped with firearms, there is likely to be a need to use deadly force to regain control of the situation. I've already referred to the issue of pirates. AFAICS there is no logically coherent stopping point between benefiting from a police force and having an army to deter credible threats. Please feel free to offer one, especially in the context of Korea and Poland where ideologically driven dictators are trying to suppress independent countries. Or are you arguing that a country should not resist invaders? But on what basis should they resist criminals but not invaders? What if the 'invaders' are merely a well armed gang that doesn't have a state of their own?
Finally this article is a reminder of what can happen if you are attempting to be consistently pacifist; VERY funny for those of us who have limited sympathy with air headed idealists.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
What on earth is 'near pacifist' for goodness sake? What a lame, lilly-livered way to describes oneself.
Someone who doesn't object to entirely defensive use of armed forces, perhaps. It's one "l" in lily, btw.
quote:
It's like a vegetarian who eats free range chicken and fish.
Got two of those in our (extended) family, though they tend towards pheasant and smoked salmon. When you've stocked up on vegetarian comestibles to cater for them it's annoying when they come the "It wasn't bred for food, so it's OK" route.
quote:
Pacifism is a misguided principle which, followed through to its logical conclusion, puts everyone under the most powerful, aggresive and dictatorial leaders. Because the world is the way it is, pacifism will never work.
Whaddya mean, work? Reducing suffering by reducing the incidence and impact of violence is a Good Thing and we should not pretend otherwise. Simply because the world is brimful of sin is no reason to work against the arms trade, which helps the powerful, aggressive and dictatorial leaders way more than pacifist citizens ever do.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Pacifism is a misguided principle which, followed through to its logical conclusion, puts everyone under the most powerful, aggresive and dictatorial leaders. Because the world is the way it is, pacifism will never work.
Whaddya mean, work? Reducing suffering by reducing the incidence and impact of violence is a Good Thing and we should not pretend otherwise.
If that is what it achieves. However in the real world it appears obvious that a failure to resist evil with force merely allows the person willing to use force to indulge their evil desires unchecked. As I said before both Pol Pot and Idi Amin's deeply evil regimes were only stopped by force. What should have been done instead?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok, Trisagion, it was a twattish OP but I was trying to be redemptive and Purgatorial rather than Hellish - partly because I've flirted with similar ideas to those expressed in the OP - twattish or otherwise.
I post twattish things sometimes. So, I submit, do you ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Similarly, if the criminal is equipped with firearms, there is likely to be a need to use deadly force to regain control of the situation.
Sure, and I acknowledged that the police use violence in extremis. But if the police are challenging an armed gang, their aim is to bring them to trial to face a court of law. Shooting one of them would be seen as a failure, even if there was no alternative - there would certainly be an inquiry afterwards to determine what happened. Conversely, when the British Army shoot Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan, there is no suggestion that what they really want to do is bring the Taliban to trial instead.
Also ...
quote:
AFAICS there is no logically coherent stopping point between benefiting from a police force and having an army to deter credible threats.
Even if that's true and my argument above is false, it's also true that there's no logically coherent stopping point on a colour chart between red and yellow, but that doesn't mean red and yellow are the same colour.
As a general point, I also think it is futile to advance utilitarian arguments against absolute pacifism, since absolute pacifism is not AFACS a utilitarian position, but an 'inherent moral evil' principle, like Catholics on birth control.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
if the police are challenging an armed gang, their aim is to bring them to trial to face a court of law. Shooting one of them would be seen as a failure, even if there was no alternative - there would certainly be an inquiry afterwards to determine what happened.
Each constable in England makes a formal declaration upon taking office: quote:
“I do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality,
upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.”
I find it interesting that the primary duty is preserving the peace. The prevention and detection of crime follow on from that. In either case shooting a criminal represents a degree of failure, albeit it may be a lesser evil option.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I post twattish things sometimes. So, I submit, do you ...
My sig admits as much.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Indeed. And I have read more than your sig ...
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Indeed. And I have read more than your sig ...
But understood little, I suspect.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Pacifism is a misguided principle which, followed through to its logical conclusion, puts everyone under the most powerful, aggresive and dictatorial leaders. Because the world is the way it is, pacifism will never work.
Whaddya mean, work? Reducing suffering by reducing the incidence and impact of violence is a Good Thing and we should not pretend otherwise.
If that is what it achieves. However in the real world it appears obvious that a failure to resist evil with force merely allows the person willing to use force to indulge their evil desires unchecked. As I said before both Pol Pot and Idi Amin's deeply evil regimes were only stopped by force. What should have been done instead?
Pol Pot achieved power from a small base thanks to: the Cambodia-Vietnamese War(s), fighting against North and South Vietnam at various time, Sihanouk's corrupt and unpopular Cambodian government, some armed support from some elements in North Vietname but mostly Chinese suplied arms.
As for Amin one really has to wonder what the world was up to, and especially the British. Israel suppied arms to his regime initially, the British didn't treat his regime seriously enough (see Punch magazine in the mid-seventies, and Alan Coren's satires on "Messages from Kampala", despite British owned businesses being nationalised and 80,000 Ugandans of Asian origin being expelled. My feeling is that we should have acted much earlier and not treated Amin as "one of ours" on the basis of his service in the King's African Rifles.
These are but starters to your "What should have been done instead?"
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Similarly, if the criminal is equipped with firearms, there is likely to be a need to use deadly force to regain control of the situation.
Sure, and I acknowledged that the police use violence in extremis. But if the police are challenging an armed gang, their aim is to bring them to trial to face a court of law. Shooting one of them would be seen as a failure, even if there was no alternative - there would certainly be an inquiry afterwards to determine what happened. Conversely, when the British Army shoot Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan, there is no suggestion that what they really want to do is bring the Taliban to trial instead.
Hmm - not sure; given the number of Taliban prisoners, and that more and more wars these days end up with the losers in a criminal court, I think that the distinction in intention is actually quite limited. That the means involved is quite different is therefore just a matter of what works in the circumstances; armed soldiers stopping drunk drivers and unarmed bobbies trying to tackle armed insurgents are inappropriate...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I understand enough to know a twat when I see one, Trisagion ...
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
I have only just read the opening the OP and have never read such an offensive pile of bullshit on here before. Even in Hell.
Before you pontificate you stupid c**t, get to Afghanistan and face sone rounds.
I'm glad you fgelt called to leave (if you did) You had the intuition and saving grace to realise you weren't worthy to be there. I call YOU to Hell.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I understand enough to know a twat when I see one, Trisagion ...
I resemble that remark.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ho ho ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Perhaps I ought to respond in kind ... so do I.
Meanwhile, I want to see Brother Oscar respond to Sebby's call and face the music ...
Or is that gruesome of me?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
What on earth is 'near pacifist' for goodness sake?
What it says. I was trying to be honest.
I am a paid up member of the Anglican Pacifist Fellowship and have been in its governing body and its executive in the past but I think defense violence as a response to some extreme situations may be necessary.
The late Gerald Priestland, broadcaster, Quaker and pacifist, did a series on TV about the history of war and in the credits he thanks the armed forces for enabling him to live in a country where he could voice his dissenting views.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Gerald Priestland was a delightful man, compassionate and with a brain. He was a superb example of a Quaker in the 1970s and early 1980s - the best example.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Ender's Shadow wrote:
quote:
As I said before both Pol Pot and Idi Amin's deeply evil regimes were only stopped by force. What should have been done instead?
Possibly nothing would have been done, had the Vietnamese and the Tanzanians not regarded themselves as having an interest in ousting their neighbours' governments.
Nyerere ousted Amin in response to Uganda invading and occupying part of Tanzania. As for Vietnam, their invasion of Cambodia was preceded by a few years' worth of incursions into Vietnam from Cambodian forces.
Of course, as is usual with these things, I'm sure both the Ugandans and the Cambodians would claim to have had good reason for attacking those countries to begin with, the other guy was the real aggressor, etc etc. My point is that neither Nyerere nor the Vietnamese Communists likely shared the humanitarian concerns that some may cite as justification for the invasions.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Ender's Shadow wrote:
quote:
As I said before both Pol Pot and Idi Amin's deeply evil regimes were only stopped by force. What should have been done instead?
Possibly nothing would have been done, had the Vietnamese and the Tanzanians not regarded themselves as having an interest in ousting their neighbours' governments.
Nyerere ousted Amin in response to Uganda invading and occupying part of Tanzania. As for Vietnam, their invasion of Cambodia was preceded by a few years' worth of incursions into Vietnam from Cambodian forces.
Of course, as is usual with these things, I'm sure both the Ugandans and the Cambodians would claim to have had good reason for attacking those countries to begin with, the other guy was the real aggressor, etc etc. My point is that neither Nyerere nor the Vietnamese Communists likely shared the humanitarian concerns that some may cite as justification for the invasions.
But that's not my point; I'm trying to entice a pacifist to engage with the realities of the world as it is, that if states weren't armed, then evil would be unrestrained. In neither of those cases does there appear to be an alternative. That the states that did the invasions had a wider agenda - though Tanzania seems to have resisted the temptation to take advantage of their status as liberators to take de facto control of the country - isn't relevant to the debate...
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
It is worth noting that Uganda's problems didn't end with Amin. There was a brief scrap for power, another stolen election, and then a murderous rule by Milton Obote, in which I believe the numbers massacred rivalled the numbers achieved by Amin.
The massacres eventually stopped when Museveni took power, again by force of arms.
A pacifist might point to the current corruption of democracy perpetrated by Museveni in modern-day Uganda, but it is hard to think that it would have been better to allow the murderous dictators to have their way.
Hence, for once, I would say that ES's point stands.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
ES wrote:
quote:
But that's not my point; I'm trying to entice a pacifist to engage with the realities of the world as it is, that if states weren't armed, then evil would be unrestrained. In neither of those cases does there appear to be an alternative. That the states that did the invasions had a wider agenda - though Tanzania seems to have resisted the temptation to take advantage of their status as liberators to take de facto control of the country - isn't relevant to the debate...
I'd agree with you, if "by evil would be unrestrained", you mean that countries would no longer be able to defend themselves against outside aggression. Because that's the reason that Tanzania and Vietnam launched their attacks, to defend themselves.
But you could have all the standing armies in the world, and still nothing would be done about the evil regimes, unless neighbouring or rival countries thought they had an interest in ousting them.
mdijon wrote:
quote:
It is worth noting that Uganda's problems didn't end with Amin. There was a brief scrap for power, another stolen election, and then a murderous rule by Milton Obote, in which I believe the numbers massacred rivalled the numbers achieved by Amin.
My impression has always been that Obote was basically the guy that Nyerere wanted in charge of Uganda, even though Obote's previous rule in the late 60s/early 70s had been pretty awful. And I'm not aware that Nyerere did much to stop Obote from further atrocities in his(Obote's second term). But I'm open to correction on this.
[ 28. December 2012, 19:17: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I think that's true. First time round Obote mismanaged the economy, embezzled aid, squandered millions and killed and tortured those who opposed him. The second time around he massacred hundreds of thousands.
Nyerere was visionary in many ways and hundred times the man I am, but had blind spots. He seemed to treat Museveni with grudging tolerance compared to favoured-son status for Obote, although both were supported in Tanzania.
But I think the essential point remains - that force of arms restored order to Uganda. Museveni fought a successful bush campaign from inside Uganda during the second Obote government, and did not depend on the Tanzanian army on that occasion.
You might say that he had vested interests to promote himself, and latterly he abuses power himself, but the bottom line is that warfare stopped the massacres in Uganda.
And while we're in the region, it was Kagame's RPF, with support from Museveni, that by armed struggle took Rwanda and halted the genocide. The militias doing the killing would have continued as long as they possibly could had they not been stopped by force.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But that's not my point; I'm trying to entice a pacifist to engage with the realities of the world as it is, that if states weren't armed, then evil would be unrestrained. In neither of those cases does there appear to be an alternative. That the states that did the invasions had a wider agenda - though Tanzania seems to have resisted the temptation to take advantage of their status as liberators to take de facto control of the country - isn't relevant to the debate...
What's the functional difference between "engag[ing] with the realities of the world as it is" and conforming yourself to the moral standards of the world? Where does "do not resist an evil person" come into this? I've never understood how evangelicals who claim to consider the Bible to be infalible can be anything other than strict pacifists except in cases where God has directly commanded them otherwise.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Because the infallible bible can be read in a number of different ways? Because for every pacifist reading of Jesus' teachings there is a very non pacifist reading from the Old Testament? Because it isn't clear that Jesus was talking about a policy of non-defence of a kingdom or rolling over in the face of genocide when he taught about personal responses?
Lots of reasons.
Posted by Brother Oscar (# 17227) on
:
This is a delayed reply since I have not had time to post these last days.
As I suspected I rather regret posting this though I do not regret leaving the service. I regret however, having gone at all. I recognise that as some have said here the Church of England is the established church in this land and as such has links with the military. I shall have no difficulty in future either avoiding or in remembering not to be scandalised.
As for Enders's Shadow's point about the definition of Erastianism and it's relevance to the CofE's relationship with the military - I know what Erastianism means and I was deliberate in using it. It seems to me that the common usage of the term is not so far from the historical reality. A major motive of the Tudor monarchs in taking on the job of reforming and governing the church, was to use the wealth and power of the church in order to guarantee their supremacy in the state. An established church with a role in supporting the state's military activity is a consequence of this. The madness that was the Great War was preached like a crusade from pulpits and many chaplains were merely military propagandists rather than agents of pastoral support. Many veterans never forgave the church. Of course chaplaincy has changed and I know chaplains who provide excellent spiritual support to the soldiers in their care. However, as Ender's Shadow points out it is still the doctrine of the CofE that the state is authorised to use violence and it seems that it is the church's job to unquestionably support and bless the state's use of violence. If only Robert Runcie or Rowan Williams understood this they wouldn't have been so foolish as to question the Magistrate's willingness to go to war and tactics.
Not surprisingly then Ender's Shadow and others have pointed out that the apparently state goes to war with God's authority and that the state has a divine right to threaten military force. I simply cannot agree. Despite the much argued over Romans c13, it seems to me that the Scriptures regard violence and warfare as a consequence of the fall, of our inability to maintain and create peace. The New Testament seems to regard violence as part of a world coming to an end. Christians - representing the world that is coming into being - fight not with swords of steel but with the sword of truth. Augustine is not far from this, understanding a just war as a regrettable necessity in the face of a greater evil. Augustine certainly understood the often corrupt nature of state violence.
However, one of the reasons that I am a pacifist is that I find it difficult to be anything but skeptical about the legitimacy of when we choose to go to war and how we prepare for war. Ender's Shadow pointed out that if it is legitimate to go to war then it is legitimate to work in an arms factory. The latest weapons used by the UK and our ally the US, drones, are employed not in combat as such but in extra-judicial killing, sometimes operating illegitimately in countries with whom we are not at war. Further, whilst arms made in Britain are sold to legitimate entities they are also sold, with negligible checks, belligerent or oppressive states, or are sold by middle-men to even less desirable buyers. We continue to sell arms to Israel despite her attacks on Gaza being far in excess of defense. Israel uses military might to punish and suppress a whole population and maintain an illegal blockade. The irony of the Archbishop's defense of arms manufacturing at a time of economic crisis is that Museveni has used British aid money to buy fighter jets - albeit from Russia. Museveni claims Uganda must defend against foreign enemies and insurgents but he seems to be just as busy harassing, torturing and killing dissenters and human rights activists. Despite +York's memory of Idi Amin and recent protest against Mugabe, Ugandan commentators note that he is silent about Museveni's exploits.
However, the state divinely authorised to go to war to defend peace and the innocent, seems to be rather choosey about when it goes to war. We of course intervened in Libya to protect the oil, sorry the people, but we fail to protect the people in Syria. Is it because we have learned to be cautious after the state in which we have left Iraq and Afghanistan? What were those two wars about? It is difficult to be convinced that they were to end human rights abuses when we don't seem too moved by human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Belarus, Russia or China. But then they service our trade and political interests. The case that they were to combat terrorism and weapons of mass destruction famously failed. Were they not about aiding the military and political dominance of our ally the United States?
I don't doubt that the honest private really does believe that they are serving their country and humanity. And I also don't doubt that the majority serving in Afghanistan have acted professionally and as decent human beings; and have in limited ways bought some peace and liberty to the country. However, I believe quiet strongly that the political motives for war, its propaganda, and its long term consequences are corrupt and often disastrous. That is why I would have reacted differently if the reader was a private or military chaplain. And why I have no interest in debaring soliders from communion (@Gamaliel), though I would have been keen to see Blair and Bush be made to do public penance, just as Ambrose made the Emperor Theodosius do public penance for what we would regard as war crimes. Regarding private soldiers I would go with Hart and John the Baptist. Responses to the OP such as Dinghy Sailor's are therefore hysterical and miss the point.
What many of you who objected to my - yes over-the-top - OP about the Nine Lessons and Carols have failed to understand is that my objection was not to the Brigadier himself or nor was I commenting on whether a solider can be a Christian or participate in the worship of the church. My comment was about what having a fairly senior officer reading Luke's nativity seems to do to the narrative. That no one planning this service - and no one responding to the OP - seems to have thought about this, suggests critical illiteracy. Luke deliberately contrasts the birth of the Messiah who will bring peace (through compassion, just-dealing and opening up a way to God beyond violence) with the reign of the Emperor (who brings peace and security though the sword and institutes the worship of imperial rule).
What does it do to have a military officer read this narrative? Does it undermine the contrast and domesticate Jesus' utopian non-violence, making us forget to question the nature of war and how it is perpetrated? Does it mean to suggest that the state power once pagan is now Christian and that the state wields the sword in the name of the Lord of life? Does it suggest that the kind of violence that the state engages in is unambiguously one with the teaching that Jesus came to give? So much for criticisms of Constantinianism. You see my objection wasn't to the Brigadier's participating in a celebration of Christ's birth as such but was an extreme ambivalence to what kind of ideology was being portrayed, especially in the context of +York's pro-war pronouncements.
The question of whether +York (who read the last lesson and gave the blessing at the service) invited the Brigadier or not is at one level irrelevant when you are publicly encountering a corner of the institution.
In my response I've tried to leave aside the general argument regarding pacificism and just war because 1) I think the situation is still highly ambivalent given the Lukan narrative and Britain's military record and 2) it is a thread in itself. I have also left aside therefore the question of the effectiveness of non-violent responses to aggression.
Posted by Brother Oscar (# 17227) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
btw Brother Oscar: i) welcome to the Ship ii) by choosing this icon do you realise what you have let yourself in for?
i) Thanks for the welcome! I hope not cause to much more trouble than this early foray into hell.
ii) I shall prepare myself for what is to come.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
1,369 words.
And unsurprisingly it isn't clear what you're annoyed about. You're not actually all that annoyed that the Brigadier was part of the service per se but think he shouldn't have read this particular reading?
Actually you're more annoyed about Sentamu's stance on Museveni and the Brigadier doing taking part in this service, reading this particular passage, represented an insensitivity given Sentamu's stance on Museveni?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I can understand your reactions to Sentamu's stance, Brother Oscar, but not why you felt the need to boycott the service - unless there was a sermon or some explicit reference to supporting the arms trade and so on. I'm getting some heat on Facebook at the moment for expressing my views on US gun control ... so I can certainly sympathise with your point of view.
I'm still not sure how it applies to the Nine Lessons and Carols thing, though, but hey ...
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
mdijon wrote:
quote:
Nyerere was visionary in many ways and hundred times the man I am, but had blind spots. He seemed to treat Museveni with grudging tolerance compared to favoured-son status for Obote, although both were supported in Tanzania.
I wouldn't really blame Nyerere for tolerating Obote. Tanzania, by the standards of subsaharan Africa at the time, was an oasis of stablity and good government, and it's understandable that Nyerere would prefer a Ugandan leader who wasn't going to fuck around with that. He possibly did not have the luxury of fretting about what Obote would be like internally.
This article goes into a bit of detail about the history. It seems to be a debated point whether Nyerere was supporting Obote against the provisional government that had been established post-invasion.
[ 28. December 2012, 22:24: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Brother Oscar (# 17227) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
1,369 words.
And unsurprisingly it isn't clear what you're annoyed about... Actually you're more annoyed about Sentamu's stance on Museveni...
Yes, and hand in hand with that I am annoyed at Sentamu's uncritical support of the British military establishment and lack of Episcopal imagination in advocating peaceful alternatives to war and the manufacture of weapons.
quote:
reading this particular passage, represented an insensitivity given Sentamu's stance on Museveni? [/QB]
Maybe, but my point was about how inviting a senior military representative to read appears to legitimatise the British military establishment in relation to the Good News of the incarnation. And how in the context of the Archbishop's pro-military pronouncements it appears to domesticise the New Testament. That was what annoyed me.
Now, I may again be accused of over-reaction but I take ideology very seriously and in relation to Gamaliel's point re sermon I believe that ideology is expressed just as powerfully though what we do and witness as verbally. As Angloid has already pointed out the hierarchy and choice of readers is made to reflect the church's relation to society.
I left because I deduced what this choice meant for this particular church's relation to society and because I realised, as Ender's Shadow and others have pointed out, I was in the wrong church. So it was less of a boycott, and I left as discretely as the congregants occasionally popping off to the toilet, and more of a absenting myself from somewhere I didn't belong.
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
You write all that, and then have the nerve to accuse me of hysteria?!
Look mate, the CofE isn't your private fiefdom. If you want a think tank on imaginative methods of conflict resolution, start one. God bless you - I mean it - but don't whine at the bishops if they don't share your number 1 priority, because they've got a nation to serve.
Also, try living in the diocese for longer before you spout agitprop about "+York's pro-war pronouncements". He isn't just there to soak up your feelgood rants, you know.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brother Oscar:
my point was about how inviting a senior military representative to read appears to legitimatise the British military establishment in relation to the Good News of the incarnation.
I'm a pacifist myself, or rather I try to be, but seeing as there is something wrong, one way or another, with every single person on the planet, if this legitimization works the way you say it does, I don't see how you're going to find anyone worthy of reading the nativity narrative in church.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brother Oscar:
...My comment was about what having a fairly senior officer reading Luke's nativity seems to do to the narrative. That no one planning this service - and no one responding to the OP - seems to have thought about this, suggests critical illiteracy. Luke deliberately contrasts the birth of the Messiah who will bring peace (through compassion, just-dealing and opening up a way to God beyond violence) with the reign of the Emperor (who brings peace and security though the sword and institutes the worship of imperial rule).
You may think this is 'critical illiteracy'. My view of the value of literacy criticism is perfectly presented by this XKCD strip. I've never heard that suggestion before, and I'm very dubious that the early commentators picked it up; rather to me it is a classic piece of eisgesis, reading into the text what you want to see, by pacifists desperate to justify the unjustifiable.
Many others have complained about the inconsistent behaviour of those who did intervene in Cambodia or Uganda, but not elsewhere. This is, of course, irrelevant to the debate: the only issue is whether the behaviour is legitimate. But it makes a great means to muddy the waters about the legitimacy of force in SOME circumstances.
[ 29. December 2012, 07:48: Message edited by: Ender's Shadow ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brother Oscar:
...My comment was about what having a fairly senior officer reading Luke's nativity seems to do to the narrative. That no one planning this service - and no one responding to the OP - seems to have thought about this, suggests critical illiteracy.
On the part of whom? There are some smart people at York and, FYI, on the Ship too, even on the Hell board. Decent critical analysis is not beyond them (even if it's not my strong suit).
When you issue sweeping generalisations take care it isn't your own dirt, and watch where you sweep it too.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Brother Oscar,
Be a good chap will you and change your avatar.
Thanks ever so.
Tortuf
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, I agree Brother Oscar that it isn't just what is said publicly in sermons and so forth that represents where a church is coming from ...
But I'm with RuthW. If you withdraw yourself on that issue then you may as well withdraw yourself on any other issue ... you were stood next to someone who'd had a wet dream the night before, you were two pews away from an adulterer, the bloke three rows back once nicked £15 from his mother's purse ...
I'm not objecting to your principles. I admire them. But you are in danger of taking them to a sanctimonious and Pharisaical level - it seems to me.
There's the old story about the Puritanical chapel in New England where the minister kept upping the ante on the level of commitment/holiness etc required for membership. He ended up with a church consisting of two little old ladies and himself.
If you take the kind of stance you're taking you'll end up not going to any church services at all because everyone there doesn't fit your own exacting standards in some way or other. Meanwhile, there's a whopping big plank dangling from your own eye ...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Brother Oscar,
Be a good chap will you and change your avatar.
Thanks ever so.
Tortuf
I understand where this is coming from, I really do. But one can never have too much Cezanne.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Brother Oscar:
...My comment was about what having a fairly senior officer reading Luke's nativity seems to do to the narrative. That no one planning this service - and no one responding to the OP - seems to have thought about this, suggests critical illiteracy.
On the part of whom? There are some smart people at York and, FYI, on the Ship too, even on the Hell board. Decent critical analysis is not beyond them (even if it's not my strong suit).
When you issue sweeping generalisations take care it isn't your own dirt, and watch where you sweep it too.
Exactly.
And perhaps Brother Oscar you might object to the Roman soldier having some part in the crucifixion narrative and saying at the foot of the cross, 'truly this was the Son of God'?
But then the NT redactors, or even the Holy Spirit, might be cirtically illiterate.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
This should be in Purgatory I reckon.
This is the second time this year John Sentamu had greatly disappointed me - when 10 years ago I'd have been praising him. The first was over his joining in with the Pope's hysteria over homosexuality.
When is Christianity going to be persecuted for righteousness' sake?
Anywhere?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm a pacifist myself, or rather I try to be, but seeing as there is something wrong, one way or another, with every single person on the planet, if this legitimization works the way you say it does, I don't see how you're going to find anyone worthy of reading the nativity narrative in church.
Exactly. I'm not a pacifist in theory, although it does seem to me that the sum total of UK military activity in the last few decades has done more harm than good.
But I would be outraged if someone took the view that a single mother ought not to be reading the gospel, or an owner of a bar or a gambling shop or pornography store. I'm sure there's much wrong with my life that others may wish to avoid legitimizing.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
When is Christianity going to be persecuted for righteousness' sake?
Are you offering?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But I would be outraged if someone took the view that a single mother ought not to be reading the gospel, or an owner of a bar or a gambling shop or pornography store. I'm sure there's much wrong with my life that others may wish to avoid legitimizing.
But you wouldn't introduce any of them in a formal act of worship, or name them on a programme, as 'Ms X, single mother' or 'Mr Y, pornographer'. Let alone expect them to wear a characteristic uniform. They would be chosen because of who they were (human beings, children of God, Christian believers) not because of some external role or occupation. Whereas in the case of the OP the reader appears to have been chosen because of his status as representative of the Armed Forces.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Pornographers don't have specific titles or uniforms that become part of their personal identity in the same way. It would have been odd to choose a brigadier, but insist he not wear uniform or use his usual title.
I don't know if we know enough to understand the factors that motivated choosing this particular brigadier.
And I don't know how one chooses readers anyway. Are they chosen to represent different demographics and sections of the church? If so then it might well be reasonable to specifically choose a member of the armed forces once in a while.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Exactly.
Well engaged - with the original twaddle that was the OP.
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I wonder if the Brigadier in question might have been Brigadier Peter Lyddon (though I'm probably wrong about that as it doesn't strike me as a particularly posh name) but if it was him, he was probably chosen because he was until lately the Chapter Steward of the Minster in which capacity he acted as a kind of civil servant for the Minster.
It's a guess - I have no particular knowledge of this service - that it might have been Brigadier Edward Torrens-Spence, this clearly being a 'posh name' that apparently marks him out as being the scummy sort unacceptably to Brother Oscar. He is Colonel of the Royal Dragoon Guards, a regiment based in north Yorkshire and which draws recruits mainly from that county, and so has strong links to York and York Minster. The regiment is currently engaged in an operational tour of Afghanistan (a theatre where they have lost four men), although the unit may be better known for their time in Iraq, where the video of The Way to Armadillo proved so popular that it cause an MoD server to crash.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But you wouldn't introduce any of them in a formal act of worship, or name them on a programme, as 'Ms X, single mother' or 'Mr Y, pornographer'.
Quite, because 'Ms' or 'Mr' is their title, just as 'Brigadier' is the Brigadier's title and 'Dr' is a Doctor's title. Apparently his normal title was used as, no doubt, it was used for others taking part, with no indication of any particular current occupation (at least, none that Brother Oscar seems aware of).
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Let alone expect them to wear a characteristic uniform.
There's no indication that he was expected to wear a characteristic uniform (although nobody seems to query the clergy doing so) - he just dressed smartly to attend church and worship God. Good for him.
quote:
Originally posted by Brother Oscar:
That is why I would have reacted differently if the reader was a private or military chaplain.
That's not what you said in the OP.
quote:
Originally posted by Brother Oscar:
I did ask myself whether I'd feel the same were the reader a private solider or a military chaplain. I'm not sure that I would.
There's probably a word for that.
quote:
Originally posted by Brother Oscar:
the responsibility of the state to care for veterans.
This is one point where perhaps we can agree - the state has a duty to care for veterans. But so, perhaps, does society in general, and I don't think that is helped by those who would say that members of the armed forces are such a scuzzy bunch that they shouldn't be allowed to take part in Cristian worship, or not without hypocritically denying who they are. Personally I would rather be associated with the friend of sinner who came to the support of the despised rather than the self-righteous prigs who thought they had no need of repentance.
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AejZxaYkekM
*
" ..Surely this man was the son of GAAAD?"
I think that Roman gentleman has a western New York accent.
*
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But you wouldn't introduce any of them in a formal act of worship, or name them on a programme, as 'Ms X, single mother' or 'Mr Y, pornographer'.
Quite, because 'Ms' or 'Mr' is their title, just as 'Brigadier' is the Brigadier's title and 'Dr' is a Doctor's title. Apparently his normal title was used as, no doubt, it was used for others taking part, with no indication of any particular current occupation (at least, none that Brother Oscar seems aware of).
We could, of course, avoid giving titles to people (at least in the context of worship)...
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I know a lot of people in the military. They are just like the rest of us. They have their good points and their bad points.
Importantly, they are children of God, just like you.
Every one I know in the military sees themselves as protecting their country and their fellow citizens. It is not the military that starts wars. It is politicians. Perhaps you ought to walk out if a politician starts speaking.
Maybe you should walk out if someone who works at a store that sells tobacco starts to speak. Or, perhaps you should walk out if someone who . . .
Oh. Wait a minute. I remember now. Church is not about how perfect the members are. It is about imperfect people coming together to worship the Lord.
How terribly judgmental, mistaken and sanctimonious it is to walk out on someone who is obviously nervous yet trying to do a good thing.
Think long and hard about what you did and why you felt justified in doing it and then bragging about it here.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm a pacifist myself, or rather I try to be, but seeing as there is something wrong, one way or another, with every single person on the planet, if this legitimization works the way you say it does, I don't see how you're going to find anyone worthy of reading the nativity narrative in church.
Exactly. I'm not a pacifist in theory, although it does seem to me that the sum total of UK military activity in the last few decades has done more harm than good.
But I would be outraged if someone took the view that a single mother ought not to be reading the gospel, or an owner of a bar or a gambling shop or pornography store. I'm sure there's much wrong with my life that others may wish to avoid legitimizing.
Agree. Of course, though, it's not the military personnel who make the decisions where or when to engage with which *enemy*. Take your ire out on the politicians, guys.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
What on earth is 'near pacifist' for goodness sake?
Because even as you appear to admit, war and violence might be necessary but only as a last resort in a fallen world. In an ideal world we would all be pacifists. No-one except a crazed maniac (and there are plenty, admittedly) would start a war.
Perhaps 'reluctant non-pacifist' would be a better phrase than 'near-pacifist'. But I respect true pacifists. Maybe we couldn't exist in a world where everyone was a pacifist (though if literally everyone was, of course we could); but then we couldn't exist if everybody was celibate either. That's not to say that celibacy doesn't have value.
Pacifism is not just a 'personal choice,' the choice of not wanting to be violent. It is the systematic and principled opposition agains any military action, done by anyone, for any reason. Being celibate does not constitute a principled opposition to procreation.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
... and the Pharisee lifted his eyes to heaven (as he walked out of the Minster) saying, I thank thee O God that I am not like that sinner over there at the lecturn...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, yes, I think a few of us have made that observation already, Mudfrog.
I know have.
'And verily the Gamaliel looked across at Brother Oscar and did lift his eyes unto heaven, saying, "I thank Thee oh Lord, that I am not a Pharisee like Brother Oscar."
Whereupon Major Mudfrog walked into the Minster and seeing Brother Gamaliel, Brother Oscar and all the other Pharisees there assembled did lift up his eyes even unto the heavens, saying, "I thank Thee oh Lord, that I am not a Pharisee like Brother Gamaliel and Brother Oscar ..."'
Whereupon yet another Shipmate didst come there into that place to pray and seeing Major Mudfrog, Brother Gamaliel and Brother Oscar giving their gifts upon the altar, lifted their own eyes unto heaven, saying ...'
We all know the rest.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, yes, I think a few of us have made that observation already, Mudfrog.
I know have.
'And verily the Gamaliel looked across at Brother Oscar and did lift his eyes unto heaven, saying, "I thank Thee oh Lord, that I am not a Pharisee like Brother Oscar."
Whereupon Major Mudfrog walked into the Minster and seeing Brother Gamaliel, Brother Oscar and all the other Pharisees there assembled did lift up his eyes even unto the heavens, saying, "I thank Thee oh Lord, that I am not a Pharisee like Brother Gamaliel and Brother Oscar ..."'
Whereupon yet another Shipmate didst come there into that place to pray and seeing Major Mudfrog, Brother Gamaliel and Brother Oscar giving their gifts upon the altar, lifted their own eyes unto heaven, saying ...'
We all know the rest.
I prefer the occasion when a Shipmate didst come there into that place to pray and seeing Major Mudfrog, Brother Gamaliel and Brother Oscar giving their gifts upon the altar, lifted his eyes unto heaven, saying I thank thee Lord that we are all acceptable in thy sight through the merits of your Son our Lord, etc, and that, being recipients of grace - by various and diverse means - we are all brothers in the faith.
Except him... !
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
The biggest pacifists are military men . People who know what warfare can do. So one reading a lesson at churh anywhere should not be a suprise.
HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE with God's blessings PaulBC ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by tomb (# 174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
...The only alternative is to argue that the state has a legitimate role in the control of evil, and it is perfectly reasonable for a Christian, acting with the authority of the state and therefore of God, to act to control evil....
..."with the authority of the state and therefore of God..." As an American, this logic caught my attention, since disestablishmentarianism is enshrined in our Constitution. Despite the fact that the separation of Church and State is given more lip service than honor in some sectors of my country, it was still shocking to read this.
It made me wonder what ultimate authority my country uses to intervene in the affairs of other countries, absent the unattainable permission of Almighty God.
We don't have one, unless you count our national self-interest as interpreted, cynically or altruistically--depending on who is doing the interpretation--as "helping people."
Notwithstanding all that, I was interested and amused, not only by the initial post, but by the responses to this sweet, earnest newbie.
You take care, Bro. Oscar, you hear? Don't let all these nasty comments tempt you to become filled with vitriol and rage so that you want to smash their faces in and kick 'em in the 'nads and leave them bleeding in an alley in a bad part of town.
When people disagree with us forcefully and compellingly and we have no particular answer, what better way to respond than with the gentle answers of passive aggression?
You stay sweet now.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Jesus H. Christ. You are alive and well tomb?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Surely the 'alive' question is redundant. Or are you suggesting we get posts from beyond the grave these days?
As opposed to posts from actual graves.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0