Thread: What does "blessing" involve? 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=029173
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Down in Dead Horses we've been discussing a French protestant denomination's recent decision to bless the partners in same-sex marriages.

While that topic itself is clearly the sole preserve of Dead Horses, I'm rather hoping that one aspect of the declaration could legitimately be discussed here.

A key aspect of the (translated) declaration says, emphasis mine:
quote:
Blessing involves a welcome, a promise and a commission... Blessing involves offering a sign and a word that declare the love of God and his presence; it is not the performance of an act of magic that somehow forces God to look favourably on us; neither does it imply his approval of our plans
I found that last thought in particular rather arresting.

One critic of this decision (not on the Ship) complained that it was a "stolen blessing". My mind immediately leapt to Jacob stealing Esau's blessing - which seems to have worked!

Eliab came up with an exciting list of contentious (and not infrequently DH) issues about which views on blessing might differ.

And in today's UK story of voluntary euthanasia, one paper reports that the family gave their "reluctant blessing" to the man's decision.

So, hopefully steering clear of what could be a positive posse of dead horses, can we explore the concept of blessing here?

What do you think "blessing" means? Does the document quoted above give a fair definition? Is it legitimate to talk in terms of God (or us) blessing something he does not approve of? do so? Does a blessing "work" irrespective of the recipient (or intermediary)? On what grounds? Does blessing equal endorsement?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I think "blessing" is a multi-faceted thing. On a couple of occasions in recent years I've had the Beattitudes to preach on - what does it mean to declare someone to be "blessed"?

There is a sense of giving approval to something (like the rather old fashioned notion of a father giving his blessing on a proposal by a young man to court his daughter). In the Beattitudes the sense is that God approves of those who hunger after righteousness or are poor in spirit, the beattiudes form a list of "what must I be like for God to say 'well done, good and faithful servant'?".

There is a sense of receiving good things by virtue of being approved of. The beattitudes are matched with what those blessed will receive. Though, sometimes they will be different from what we would anticipate. "Well done, good and faithful servant, you will be persecuted". A word that most often is appropriate when talking about blessings is "mixed".

There is also a sense that it is a prayer to God - that He would give his blessing/approval on what we are blessing, and that He would give His good gifts on those He approves of. As with all prayers, we pray with an attitude of "not my will, but Yours" in humility before the one who knows best and may give us a different answer to prayer than we were expecting.
 
Posted by Alyosha (# 18395) on :
 
The only thing I have to bring to the table on blessings is that a true blessing is so much more than saying 'Bless you' or 'God bless you'.

A true blessing would take the following format - 'May you be successful in love, may the people around you treat you kindly, may you be loved and able to love and grow. May love and mercy surround you.' So there is an element of goodwill to it.

That would be a proper blessing.

I don't have a problem with gay people getting blessed. No problem with coastal communities having their boats blessed by Christian leaders either. And I don't mind people blessing soldiers or animals or other things.

What I find outrageous is when Christian leaders bless weaponry or vessels used for war.

[ 27. May 2015, 06:31: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
I do try to read DH, but only do so intermittently as time allows. So I'm not up to speed with anything said on this matter there yet, but will try to look in soon. With that caveat -

I think a major issue that needs addressing first is what "blessing" actually means in a Jewish context. You need to have a clear idea of that first because the scriptures will be speaking of it with that understanding. It is not the same thing as we mean by it in English. In Jewish practice one blesses God, for example.

Maybe the best plan is get a Jewish person to explain it to you, or find a decent Jewish website to explain it. Then you can talk about how to map that across into what we would mean by "blessing".

But at the risk of oversimplifying things, my understanding would be that blessing is an act of appreciating God as the source of all that is good. For example, when Paul lists the fruits of the Spirit he is simply reminding his audience of the fact that God is the source of all good things, and that evidence of these things in one's life is evidence of the Holy Spirit within.

(It's also worth mentioning that apparently bad things can also be a blessing in Jewish thought too - such as the Babylonian captivity and the enslavement in Egypt, as good did eventually come from them).

So any modern form of "blessing" needs to have that at its centre. Most current uses fortunately seem to do that. I'm less clear about the one cited in the OP. It looks a bit confused to me. They are surely right that a blessing is not some act of magic that calls down wonderful things. But the rest seems a bit off-topic, or to be fairer tangential to me.

It's not a DH matter at all really.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
The quote in the op seems fair to me. A prayer of blessing in the Christian sense would be to ask for God's presence to be known, whether upon an individual or within a relationship or even on a warship. It doesn't imply our own approval or God's approval.

A blessing given by us to someone else is another matter. It may be a gesture of goodwill, of approval, or deeper still an outpouring of love.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Raptor Eye wrote:-
quote:
The quote in the op seems fair to me. A prayer of blessing in the Christian sense would be to ask for God's presence to be known, whether upon an individual or within a relationship or even on a warship. It doesn't imply our own approval or God's approval.
(my emphasis)

I think a crucial difference would be that this suggests it is a thing of the head, whereas what I wrote above is more about an appropriation of the good things of God, made manifest. I'm not really disagreeing with what you say, Raptor Eye, but I think knowing is only part of it.

I don't totally disagree with the definition in the OP - parts of it look OK as I've said. But does a blessing ".. involve(s) a welcome, a promise and a commission"? Where does this come from?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
You can read the full document here, Honest Ron, but please bear in mind the discussion of SSM blessing from which it emerged belongs on the relevant Dead Horses thread.

Your question still stands though! There is indeed plenty to discuss about what blessing might mean.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Back from shore-leave.

Two thoughts.

1. Is there a difference between praying that God will bless someone/thing and conferring a blessing on someone/thing?

The former is just well meaning. The latter involves the exercise of some sort of ontological authority. It can and should only be done by someone who has authority to give it. They also have to carry responsibility for saying by implication that this is something that it is God's nature to bless in this way.

I've long understood that most of us can and should bless our own children, and grandchildren, but that only clergy can bless anyone else - like at the end of a service. But I don't quite know where I got that from.

It arises in the CofE in that a deacon can legally conduct a wedding, which takes effect, but cannot give the blessing of the couple that comes at the end of it. So deacons do not normally do weddings.

2. In some context 'a blessing' means permission to do something. It can even mean an order.


Jacob stole his brother's blessing, which that was a real ontological thing. It took effect. Giving an illegitimate or inappropriate blessing is therefore a bit like false prophecy.


As an example, since God loves us, we have authority to bless our children in the good things they do. But of your son or daughter was a burglar, and came to you and said, 'Father bless me as I go out robbing peoples' houses', it would be a serious misuse of your authority if you did so. Since you would have given him or her permission to do what was bad, and so you would carry responsibility for that.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Hagar and Ishmael have come to my mind. Sarah and Abraham's plan can hardly be termed upright any more than Rebecca and Jacobs, but God quite definitely blesses Ishmael. There seems to be something about the timing there - blessing after the fact or some such?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
A key aspect of the (translated) declaration says, emphasis mine:
quote:
Blessing involves a welcome, a promise and a commission... Blessing involves offering a sign and a word that declare the love of God and his presence; it is not the performance of an act of magic that somehow forces God to look favourably on us; neither does it imply his approval of our plans
I found that last thought in particular rather arresting.
Arresting as in "the bullshit is strong in this one", I agree... I like the summary of the various aspects of blessings from
quote:
Morrisroe, P. (1907) "Blessing" in The Catholic Encyclopedia:
In its widest acceptation this word has a variety of meanings in the sacred writings:
With these various significations it is not the present purpose to deal. Coming, then, to its strictly liturgical and restricted sense, blessing may be described as a rite, consisting of a ceremony and prayers performed in the name and with the authority of the Church by a duly qualified minister, by which persons or things are sanctified as dedicated to Divine service, or by which certain marks of Divine favour are invoked upon them.
It is this last liturgical usage of "blessing" we are discussing here, which derives mostly from the middle two meanings of "blessing" in scripture listed before that. Now, if you bless liturgically to "sanctify by dedicating to the Divine" or to "invoke certain marks of Divine favour", then rather obviously your blessing relies crucially on God looking favourably upon this action. I can dedicate a murder to God, or ask for God's favour for my adultery, but not only would such blessings be inefficacious, they would basically insult God.

Whether these particular blessings find approval by God is a Dead Horse topic, but that Divine approval is essential for liturgical blessings handed out by the Church to the faithful is so obvious, I find it mind-blowing that anybody would dare to claim otherwise. This clearly is just an attempt to side-step a clash about Divine approval for these blessings, but it does so at the expense of making these blessings utterly meaningless. And the very words used will betray this Dadaistic approach to religion, for I'm sure the minister will precisely not mumble generalities about God's loving presence. He will say things like "May God bless this relationship." Thus this declaration does nothing less than emptying what the minister says of its semantic content. And if we go down that path, then anything a minister ever says becomes questionable. He becomes an unctuous phrase generator, whose pious mumblings stand in no particular relation to what God actually wants. Who needs that?

[ 27. May 2015, 12:37: Message edited by: IngoB ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Isn't is praise in hope of God's sanctification of it? Meaning basically that if you dedicate whatever it is you're doing, that you hope God will be present within whatever is in being blessed. An asking.

God might say yes, God might say no, but whatever God might do, it would hopefully move the people in the community to act 'as if' God has blessed (approved).

Which is why we could bless troops going off to slaughter the enemy, the arrows in our quivers, the Inquisition, a sports team or a despotic leader.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
The traditional understanding of blessing is, I would say, that of transaction - so if one "does right" by God (meaning, in a Jewish context keeping the law) then God will "do right" by us and grant us good harvest, wealth, large families, long life and so on.

This kind of transaction works.. except that it doesn't. Bad people live long and prosper and the good die young. And the Lord seems in the beatitudes to go even further, suggesting that those who are without material things are blessed and that the blessings one should look for are pain, oppression and even death as a martyr.

It seems therefore clear to me that notions of blessing have been upset so that there are no straight lines between divine approval and results.

Further, I would therefore say that none of the things spoken commonly in both secular and religious spheres are blessings (or more accurately may not be). Indeed describing as blessed or incanting blessings upon things like a relationship, a journey, an object, good health etc and so on is near to blasphemous.

If a couple divorce after having their marriage declared as blessed, does that make the blessing void? I think so. And not just on that particular occasion, on every occasion the phrase is used in this way.

There are few real blessings according to Jesus and none that anyone in their right mind would seek. We should be using our language very carefully and be aware what we are saying when we lay hands on people to bless them (we are saying that God is calling them to poverty and possibly martyrdom, I believe). If we happen to have good health and good relationships, we should be grateful for our good fortune but not use the blessing words at all.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If a couple divorce after having their marriage declared as blessed, does that make the blessing void? I think so. And not just on that particular occasion, on every occasion the phrase is used in this way.
Jacob and his mum conspired to nick The Blessing™ from Esau; not only did it apparently work, aside from any 'transactional' element, it also apparently made Isaac unable to bless Esau.

On the other hand, God blessed not only Isaac, but also Ishmael.

It's weird.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I understand the scriptures to be a progression of understanding. To me, the blessings of the patriarchs have been superseded as not relevant by Jesus in the gospels.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
An old-fashioned priest told me, many years ago, that if you blerss something that God doesn't approve of, it becomes a curse.

So if you bless nuclear weapons etc......
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
"Bless those that persecute you"...

Is "blessing" different from a blessing?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
An old-fashioned priest told me, many years ago, that if you blerss something that God doesn't approve of, it becomes a curse.

So if you bless nuclear weapons etc......
Well, at very least it loses all possible meaning - beyond that God really likes us and really hates all those other losers.

We might talk about food blessing our bodies. The problem is that eating to excess in a world where people have nothing is unfair and we are putting God into a position where it sounds like he is giving justification to our excesses whilst people die.

By saying that we are blessed, we are also saying that others are unblessed. Blessed food says that those who do not have food are not blessed by God. And then it is a short step to saying that these people must have done something bad to offend God and that their misfortune is a result of something they have done. Incidentally, I think Jesus speaks against this kind of talk in the gospels too - when he says that sickness is not due to sinfulness.

I refuse to believe in the God who condemns people who just happen to have been born in the wrong country, and I refuse to use language that suggests my material possessions are some reflection of my spirituality and/or "closeness to God". At best, my possessions are inherited through no real effort of mine (even where I have worked for them, I have done far less than others who have far less than me), at worst they are stolen from the poor. To say that such things are evidence of blessings from God is, as I said before blasphemous - in the sense of claiming something is from God when it is not at all from God.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
"Bless those that persecute you"...

Is "blessing" different from a blessing?
No, I don't think it is, other than in the way we use language. If we mean that "I happen to have won the lottery of life in that I have enough food to eat today when more than a billion of my fellow humans do not" then maybe - but I'd say that common usage actually diminishes the deity to a role of randomly allocating resources to some and not others.

In terms of a relationship, what do we think we are doing when we speak a blessing over a couple? Magic? Wishful thinking? How we'd like things to turn out, please God? Something vaguely threatening (if you do right in your relationship, God will add to the stuff you have, but take care not to let things slip because he'll come down on you like a tonne of bricks..)?

Either all (let's say for the sake of this discussion all committed) relationship are blessed or none of them are. I'm inclined to believe the latter.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Let me try again.

Is "being blessed" different from "the act of blessing" and are both different from "a blessing" (the words prounounced)?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Well I suppose one might say that the "act of blessing" has been done with the best of intentions. It is a nice thing to say to a couple that God is blessing their relationship, and possibly may help them.

But in and of itself outside of the possible benefits of retelling a story that all participants believe in, this does not mean it actually is a blessing from God. Good intentions do not actually make it a blessing from God.

Being blessed is a different thing to participants thinking that they a) know what it is and b) can act on behalf of God to spread it.

I do not believe that God rewards people with good things, nor that this can be passed on to others by someone laying on hands or reciting a special form of words over them. If that is what people think a blessing is, then they're wrong.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
So what does a "blessing from God" take, in your view? What are the requirements for one to be valid?

[ 27. May 2015, 15:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think a blessing from God is seeing ourselves as God really sees us. So for those who are battered and broken by this world, a blessing is that God hears and sees them in their pain, that he knows that they have been unfairly deprived and that he longs to make things right in this world or the next.

For those of us who are satisfied, and well-fed and pious and right-of-mind and so on, a blessing is to be told that we're nothing special, that we've taken more than we deserve and that the path to right living is the one of sacrifice.

Hence, I think, the only real blessing for the rich is to serve the poor, to stand for truth when everyone else only wants to hear madness and so on.

To make the question about whether God wants to bless homosexual marriage is to ask the wrong question, when the real question is whether he wants to bless any of us in our wealth.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Let me try again, and excluding any thought of DH subjects:

What do you think pronouncing a blessing in the name of God requires in order to be valid?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think I've already answered that - speaking the truth.

In most situations where most of us reading this live, I don't think it is possible for us to pass on the blessings of God to each other, so we're better off avoiding that form of words altogether.

[ 27. May 2015, 16:14: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
So, for instance, you have a baby shoved under your putative believers'-baptism pastoral nose. You have no idea how the kid is going to turn out. What, if anything, entitles you to pronounce a blessing over it in your view? Or to refuse to?

[x-post with your edit]

[ 27. May 2015, 16:15: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So, for instance, you have a baby shoved under your putative believers'-baptism pastoral nose. You have no idea how the kid is going to turn out. What, if anything, entitles you to pronounce a blessing over it in your view? Or to refuse to?

[x-post with your edit]
In that situation we should say what we mean. We hope that the child will turn out right, that we will as a community do everything we can to support them and their families, and so on and so forth. I wouldn't use any language about God's blessing.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Whether these particular blessings find approval by God is a Dead Horse topic, but that Divine approval is essential for liturgical blessings handed out by the Church to the faithful is so obvious, I find it mind-blowing that anybody would dare to claim otherwise.
As I said on the DH thread, I agree with that to the extent that I'm sure that we should not bless (in the litugical sense) things we are reasonably sure that God disapproves of.

I'm less sure about things that:

a) we have genuinely no idea whether God approves of them or not;

b) the individual minister believes that God approves of, but where he knows that others in his church have a contrary opinion.


Suppose we agree that a priest may bless the regimental standards of soldiers about to engage in a just war. If a priest is asked to pronounce such a blessing, but lacks (and cannot readily acquire) the political understanding necessary to hold any view about whether this particular war is just, can he rightly perform the service and trust God to bless if God sees fit? Or should he not bless unless and until he is personally convinced of God's approval? If he becomes convinced, would his awareness that other priests disagree, and that he cannot therefore purport to speak for the whole of (his part of) the church be a bar to him blessing what he believes that God approves?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Let me try again.

Is "being blessed" different from "the act of blessing" and are both different from "a blessing" (the words prounounced)?
Yes, they are different. Being blessed is the after. Getting a blessing is the now.

Having supper is the now. Feeling full and satisfied with what you ate is the after.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Whether these particular blessings find approval by God is a Dead Horse topic, but that Divine approval is essential for liturgical blessings handed out by the Church to the faithful is so obvious, I find it mind-blowing that anybody would dare to claim otherwise.
I get the idea this comes from, to paraphrase Joan Osborne, that the pope has a phone line to God but she also asked about God being one of us.

Yes, we do question and think the Roman church has it wrong many times. Like many religious denominations it has some things right and some things wrong. That an individual can find God within some of the RC rites, ideas and practices is fine, but it is completely lost on others of us. I expect sometimes God is present and other times absent in all churches.

[code]

[ 28. May 2015, 05:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
God bless you mr cheesy.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
When I was acting headteacher at a CofE school I bought a large candle from Dunelm to use at prayer time in assemblies.

The vicar was affronted and asked "has that candle been blessed?" I replied that I didn't think so as I'd bought it at Dunelm. So she insisted on having a service of blessing for the candle.

Afterwards, in the staffroom, I asked in what way the candle was now different from before - her answer was that it was now set apart for God's service. Well, it was before in my view. Deciding to use it in prayer times was setting it apart for God's service. When I said this she mumbled and said she had to go.

We got on well really but she was very, very high up the candle and as bemused by my Chapel way of doing things as I was about he acolytes etc!
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Too much candle in that post, methinks ... [Cool]

I'm with you on that one, by the way. How can a candle be "ontologically changed" through a prayer?

But, then, to what extent should we "dedicate" or "bless" a new church building? - even we chapel folk do that!

P.S. If there had been a power cut, would she have refused to light the candle as it had been "dedicated for higher use" rather than for mere lighting?

[ 29. May 2015, 08:53: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Afterwards, in the staffroom, I asked in what way the candle was now different from before - her answer was that it was now set apart for God's service. Well, it was before in my view. Deciding to use it in prayer times was setting it apart for God's service. When I said this she mumbled and said she had to go.
And of course you feel that you had the better end in this exchange. You stepped on her turf and ignored her profession; and though accommodating her when she made noise about that, made clear that you were just playing nice rather than in any form accepting her authority. And that's just the human side of it...
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Well done Boogie. Which side would Jesus have been on I wonder?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And of course you feel that you had the better end in this exchange. You stepped on her turf and ignored her profession; and though accommodating her when she made noise about that, made clear that you were just playing nice rather than in any form accepting her authority. And that's just the human side of it...
So what would you have done, IngoB - insisted that her profession was in error, that her gender meant that the claim to be a priest was a lie and that she was leading people only to hell?

Frankly, I think being accommodating of people we don't agree with is better than claiming authority.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Frankly, I think being accommodating of people we don't agree with is better than claiming authority.
I think this is precisely what the text originally quoted is attempting to do, and part of the meaning it assigns to "blessing": be accommodating.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
mr cheesy

Your first para crystallized my thoughts nicely.

[ 29. May 2015, 10:12: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
We replaced the china we were given as wedding presents over a period of years, and for a spell had two sets, one scratched, the other shiny (and neither quite complete). During this period we used the new set for special occasions, such as a birthday, or when a son came home from university. The new china was set apart, and when we used it, we were able to enhance the sense of celebration at special occasions. Of course, the significance of the plate they were eating off would have been lost to a guest, but the rest of us knew.

Most of us do this sort of thing, buying new clothes for a special occasion, giving small gifts, making a speech at a family gathering, and making sure we say important things at key moments, like partings. In fact it's so familiar that we don't really notice how fluently we use symbol, performative speech, actions, and ritual, drawing on a rich collective repertoire of behaviours.

It's all good and fun and can help us say far more than mere words express. It can get precious, and people can mistake the symbol for the meaning or concentrate on the object more than the action, but it can be powerful. As a chaplain amongst the mentally ill and the deeply traumatised, I use blessing frequently. It is a powerfully re-humanising thing.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
But there is a difference - accommodating does not imply one agrees with the interpretation. Accommodating the general understanding of "blessing" suggests that one agrees with it.

I am "accommodating" of Islam, in the sense that I am generally supportive of Muslims when they ask for space to build mosques and so on. I have Muslim friends and they've often been friendlier and more supportive of me than many Christians I've known for longer.

But that "accommodation" does not extend as far as pretending that I know more about them about their own religious theology and practice nor that I can attempt to argue with them about the place of women in Islam.

To me this is analogous to what IngoB did to Boogie above, apparently suggesting that he was in a position to judge Boogie's response when very clearly he is coming from a position which outright disagrees with the whole premise that Boogie and the female vicar in the example are working within.

The original text asserts something about blessing which I don't believe is true. In a general sense, I think it is possible for me to argue about whether it is true and whether we should be using this language. But not really being in that religious sphere, I'm not sure I am in a position to nit-pick about faith and practice of that group. To me, it just seems odd in the same way JWs and Mormons seem odd.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
But then, maybe I'm just being a hypocrite. Sigh, these things are such difficult ground.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But there is a difference - accommodating does not imply one agrees with the interpretation.
I don't understand. To me that is precisely what the original text does say: it specifically says no agreement (or at least approval) is implied.
quote:
Accommodating the general understanding of "blessing" suggests that one agrees with it.
Does it? Consider the voluntary euthanasia example; the family "reluctantly gave their blessing". To me that means "they didn't think it was the right idea, but agreed to accommodate the person's wishes in what that person felt was their best interest".

quote:
But that "accommodation" does not extend as far as pretending that I know more about them about their own religious theology and practice
But now you are suggesting that "blessing" means "pretending I know more about something" than the recipient. I don't understand this leap.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I watched a film, Kai Po Che, last night, which has a highly significant blessing in it. A young man, at odds with his father (a Hindu priest), says he cannot move on in his life without his blessing. He leaves the departing train and his father who will not make eye contact. A moment later the father steps after him onto the platform, smiles and embraces the son. It looks just like a normal hug.

Perhaps the most powerful blessings are those withheld, and those given to surprising recipients: blessed are the destitute; he took a child; now a Samaritan ...
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Eutychus, you are right, I'm going all over the place, I'll bow out until I can think in a straight line.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Eutychus, you are right, I'm going all over the place, I'll bow out until I can think in a straight line.
There should be a place here for thinking aloud and sharing questions and wonderings as well as for being clear and defining positions. Blessing is a particularly fuzzy bit of theology, I think, probably because it deals in emotion as well as meaning, and draws heavily on the non-verbal.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Afterwards, in the staffroom, I asked in what way the candle was now different from before - her answer was that it was now set apart for God's service. Well, it was before in my view. Deciding to use it in prayer times was setting it apart for God's service. When I said this she mumbled and said she had to go.
And of course you feel that you had the better end in this exchange. You stepped on her turf and ignored her profession; and though accommodating her when she made noise about that, made clear that you were just playing nice rather than in any form accepting her authority. And that's just the human side of it...
Actually I was amused.

Her authority as Chair of governors was about the education of the children, not the use of candles in assembly. Of course, if I were doing something inappropriate in assemblies or anywhere else then fair enough. But, of course, I wasn't.

I had no need to worry about whether a candle, or anything else I used in assemblies were 'blessed'.

The new vicar (so I am told, I am retired now) is much lower down the candle. I doubt he would have given it a thought.

[ 29. May 2015, 11:08: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Is the candle which the new Vicar is lower down, the same candle as the earlier Vicar blessed? Or is it a different one? And how did either of them get any way up these candles in the first place? [Devil]

(In the One True Church candles are, of course, anathema, having been replaced by video projections. I am, however, going to use no less than three candles on Sunday evening, which just goes to prove that I am a Bad Person. However, I will not be "blessing" them first).

[ 29. May 2015, 11:39: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Blessing is a particularly fuzzy bit of theology, I think, probably because it deals in emotion as well as meaning, and draws heavily on the non-verbal.
If this is true, do you think having a formal ordained ministry and/or a liturgy make it easier or more difficult when it comes to performing potentially equivocal blessings?

It strikes me that ritualistic settings might achieve the non-verbal bit better, but have more qualms about what they are actually doing. It all feels very paradoxical to me.

As to "fuzzy", the word "fudge" has been thrown around quite a bit in the original thread [Big Grin]
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I think that formalising the ideas and practices around blessing draws attention to it and helps us be aware of it, which is good. But I think it also robs us of the dynamic and surprising aspects and pushes us towards silly superstitions.

If we always bless the same holy things, like a big church candle, that achieves little. As Boogie said, it's obvious that it's been set apart for use in worship because that's how it's used and everyone in the school knows that. But if we bless the despised or forgotten, that is worth something. Cowsheds and builders carry a certain charge because of the story of Jesus. The preservation of human hair and spectacles collected at Auschwitz, and now exhibited and wondered at as if of huge significance, is a sort of blessing or bestowing of honour.

Christianity is, deep in its bones, self subverting. It's an anti-religious religion. Blessing has to keep this element of shock, of opening our eyes. Otherwise it becomes like the British honours system that gives knighthoods to champions and peerages to the staggeringly rich. When you make Bradley Wiggins a Sir, the transfer of honour has become the wrong way, from him to the system. If you bless a prayer candle, you're just keeping your blessing liturgy shiny. But if, like Ray Davies, you bless strawberry jam in all its different varieties, or like me, bless a new patient who, for reasons he might never understand, had recently and violently murdered his grandfather, that has a chance of being worth something, even changing something.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Never thought of it quite like that. [Overused]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So what would you have done, IngoB - insisted that her profession was in error, that her gender meant that the claim to be a priest was a lie and that she was leading people only to hell?
It is not my opinion about female vicars, or for that matter about Anglican vicars of any gender, that they are leading people only to hell. I do think female / Anglican vicars are de facto Christian laypersons, which however in their separated ecclesial communities are the proper representatives of God. It makes sense for the pope to talk to the Archbishop of Canterbury. It makes sense for me to talk to the vicar if I have any dealings with an Anglican church. Their gender is neither here nor there for that. In fact, their being Christian doesn't really matter either. If I have dealings with the local mosque or Hindu temple or Buddhist monastery or whatever, then I will pay due respect to whoever is in charge of that.

Now, there are core religious activities that I consider cannot be shared with those who do not follow my religion, indeed, even with Christians not in communion with the pope. So if I am put in a position where these are on the line, then I will have to politely reject collaboration. There may be furthermore some activities where I would politely decline collaboration because I think my participation could be taken in the wrong way by the public (cause "scandal").

But another Christian blessing a candle is really not among the problematic activities. And anyway, in the setting Boogie describes it was her crossing into the domain of the vicar, not vice versa. If I impose on other people, then it is my duty to accommodate them, and if I cannot do that, then I shouldn't impose on them.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Her authority as Chair of governors was about the education of the children, not the use of candles in assembly. Of course, if I were doing something inappropriate in assemblies or anywhere else then fair enough. But, of course, I wasn't.
Here's what you wrote:

"When I was acting headteacher at a CofE school I bought a large candle from Dunelm to use at prayer time in assemblies. The vicar was affronted and asked "has that candle been blessed?" I replied that I didn't think so as I'd bought it at Dunelm. So she insisted on having a service of blessing for the candle."

At a CofE school the associated CofE vicar has spiritual authority, irrespective of whether they are Chair of Governors or whatever. Prayer time is clearly a spiritual activity. The vicar was well within her rights to expect to be consulted on how that activity was to be held. Now, so far I don't think there is a major issue here. You could have said "Oh, sorry, I didn't think of that." That would have been true, and settled the issue to everybody's satisfaction. But you had to come back at the vicar and make clear to her that as far as you are concerned, there was no point to this blessing. This was 1) rude, for there was really no reason for being explicitly dismissive of her concerns, 2) false, for whatever your opinion of all this might be, this was a CofE school and hence presumably under the spiritual care of that vicar.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
If one vicar thinks a candle must be blessed and another doesn't, then this is a strange sort of authority that looks like a personal preference. I don't like deferring to my boss's whims.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
At a CofE school the associated CofE vicar has spiritual authority, irrespective of whether they are Chair of Governors or whatever. Prayer time is clearly a spiritual activity. The vicar was well within her rights to expect to be consulted on how that activity was to be held.
Mmm ... I think that's a moot point. The CofE website says, "The governing body is (sometimes) referred to as the critical friend of the school. It is a strategic role: governors are not involved in the day to day running of the school: that is the responsibility of the headteacher". It could therefore be argued that, while the Vicar could suggest that the candle be blessed, she could not do more; and the Deputy Head would have been within her rights to ignore that advice. I'm not sure about this; and I suspect that the authority of the PP in a Catholic school may be more wide-ranging.

We seem to be going off on a bit of a tangent ...
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

We seem to be going off on a bit of a tangent ...
Yes, sorry about that.

My real question is - did anything at all happen to that candle, how was it different before it was blessed?

30% of the children at the school are Muslims, I wonder what they thought of candle blessing?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Yes, and the question applies equally to Lifeboats, Bells (and other items of church furniture and clothing), Land Rovers being sent to developing countries for relief work, and so on.

Clearly there is some kind of an OT precedent (e.g. the Temple fittings and furnishings). But is that still relevant today?

And, to add another thought which has just come into my head: does the act of blessing effect ontological change in he substance or being of the object being blessed? Or is its primary purpose really to denote its "setting-apartness" or "dedication" to the watchers of the ceremony and, indeed, users of said objects?

In other words, is it basically the sticking of a "spiritual label" onto the object (knowing how churches like to stick plaques onto things, the label could also be a literal one!) To what extent does "blessing" an object confer some kind of approval upon it, in the same way as having the Queen to officially open one's shiny new hospital?

(N.B. When we come to the blessing of people other questions might come into play, as suggested by Hatless, as people being blessed can make some kind of response to what is going on).
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Baptist Trainfan, your latest "non-onotological" speculations come remarkably close to what is basically the standard / traditional point of view (of the RCC). If I can perhaps point you to excerpt I posted earlier? Read items two and three on the list, and the paragraph after the list.

Blessings are indeed not about ontological change (a blessed candle remains just a candle), but about attaching a "spiritual label" proposing to the people that this is for God and/or to God that He may keep this in His good graces.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Thank you, I had indeed missed your earlier post.

However, in popular religion at least, people do tend to think that some kind of ontological change has taken place in the object blessed. For instance, the lifeboat will be less likely to founder and be better at rescuing people, the car will in some sense be "luckier", the work you do in the specified building will be more likely to achieve some kind of spiritual "success", the medicine you imbibe will be more efficacious ... and so on. Equally, a baby who has been blessed will be more likely to "thrive". Why? Because God has blessed/is blessing it. To me this smacks of magic.

P.S. I'm not saying, at all, that this is how you think!

[ 29. May 2015, 16:32: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
From the quoted material in IngoB's post that he just linked to (emphasis mine):

quote:
With these various significations it is not the present purpose to deal. Coming, then, to its strictly liturgical and restricted sense, blessing may be described as a rite, consisting of a ceremony and prayers performed in the name and with the authority of the Church by a duly qualified minister, by which persons or things are sanctified as dedicated to Divine service, or by which certain marks of Divine favour are invoked upon them.
Might one not expect that these "certain marks of divine favour" be the kinds of things you mention, outo? The lifeboat will work better, the baby will thrive, etc.?

If not, then what are "marks of divine favour"? Are they anything we can perceive?

[ 29. May 2015, 16:45: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
Sorry, Baptist Trainfan, I meant your name, not outo. Sorry to be so confused.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
No problem! [Smile]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Might one not expect that these "certain marks of divine favour" be the kinds of things you mention, outo? The lifeboat will work better, the baby will thrive, etc.? If not, then what are "marks of divine favour"? Are they anything we can perceive?
Well, there's this potential difference between the Divine favours we pray for and the Divine favours we receive... Job, for instance, was constantly favoured by God, but he certainly enjoyed the kind of favour that he got before and after more than the favour to be God's chosen demonstrator to Satan...

While there certainly is superstitious "good luck charm" thinking going on in folk religion, I think one shouldn't stress that too much. I think most people who have their car blessed are aware that blessed cars can crash. You will see them driving away with the security belt fastened... I feel that even in folk religion these things mostly become a way of explicitly dedicating a chunk of your life to God. Truth to be told, we are probably not in constant prayer to God when we drive our cars around. But if you go to the priest and have your car blessed, there's at least this one occasion where car driving and God overlap. (*)

I think a blessing is basically a "God be with this" signifier. It is human to hope that this translates into good luck, it is Christian to know that it may translate into a cross.

(*) FWIW, my car is not blessed, and my engagement with blessings is pretty much limited to using Holy Water for crossing myself at church. There's a cultural aspects to this, and since I did not grow up Christian or Catholic, these things do not come natural to me personally. My loss, probably, but I wanted to mention that this is mostly theory for me...
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Which ALWAYS endears.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I was in a wide ranging conversation this morning which repeatedly returned to blessing as a central part of Christianity. Being blessed is our characteristic experience of God, and it sets the tone for the life of faith and the life of the church; we are to bless others.

Blessing is indeed transactional, but it is one way, a true gift, like a blast from the sun. So it forgives all debts and forgets to worry about future shortages. The recipient of uncosted grace is set free, and charged with grace to give to others.

It's the antidote to the falling numbers institutional panic of the church in our time, the fearfulness that makes us turn inward and grow self-obsessed, substituting church growth for God's mission. We often seem to think that we cannot afford to be generous, welcoming, forgiving and gracious as if we might run out of kindness or be weakened or develop a love debt. Blessing shows us that the opposite is true. (And may make us wonder if the same holds in economics as well.)
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0