Thread: Polari service Board: Ecclesiantics / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=008450

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
Surprised this hasn't been mentioned:

Service given in Polari

I found it amusing, personally.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Wish I'd have been there.

Polari is fascinating.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Surprised this hasn't been mentioned:

Service given in Polari

I found it amusing, personally.

I was interested in that. Someone on Facebook said that it was offensive to modern gay people to use polari as that was the language of when they were in the closet but I don't totally get that.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
You'll always find someone on Facebook to say that anything is offensive to someone. Ignore them unless you have good reason to agree.
 
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :
 
Glad someone has started this

Of course noone would have even known about it had the college not issued a press statement distancing itself from the event. Best publicity it could have got!

I went to the Polari Bible online and read the RCL for last Sunday in it ...
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
You'll always find someone on Facebook to say that anything is offensive to someone. Ignore them unless you have good reason to agree.

Very true. I try to find out if the thing gives just cause for offence as I might be just being an ignorant idiot suffering from white privilege (or whatever) by not getting it but equally there is always someone prepared to be offended by anything including, presumably kittens and apple pie.

Incidentally I have only just noticed your tag line about the beard, Albertus, and I think it is WONDERFUL.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Thank you! [Big Grin]
But I have to admit I pinched it from a mate of mine.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Very few church services I've been to as an adult where I've gone to be amused. Most of them revolve around such times as the children's Christmas Pageant.

Attending to be amused, and the approach of those conducting this service, is along the lines of a coach trip to see 10 countries in 8 days; you can say you've been there, but to what effect? In this case, I see it as being pretty disrespectful to those who had to live and work under the constant threat of prosecution and imprisonment. As I recall it, particularly during the 50s, not just those seeking momentary pleasure in public toilets, or engaging the services of young Guardsmen, were at risk. Benjamin Britten and Peter Pears had their house thoroughly inspected and they had to show that at the top of the stairs, one turned right and the other left. That sort of detailed persecution, but with this service treating the need for a form of cant as a bit of a joke.
 
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :
 
I thought it was done in the context of Gay History Month ... which makes it perfectly honourable and totally relevant in my opinion.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I was once on the edge of a heated debate between an African American academic (Chicago, I think) and a Jamaican Canadian scholar over the use of ebonics, patois, and standard English. The Chicago prof believed that ebonics should be taught in schools and treated as a formal language. After establishing that patois was more relevant in the Canadian setting (10-minute discussion omitted) the J/C felt that this would only be an additional headache for students who have to pick up French as well but, most importantly, it would take away from them a linguistic vehicle which could be used as a community identifier, and a linguistic refuge or place of comfort. If the intent was to reach out, standard English was the only possible vehicle in our society, but patois would always have a place as the home language. The liturgical use was only briefly mentioned when the J/C noted that, of course, the prayerbook with standard English was used in church, but patois to answer parishioners' questions after the service.

I do not if polari would be the equivalent of this home language or if, being less used now, would be the equivalent of Latin in liturgical use-- perhaps understood by those who chose to go to the service, but not widely used as a vernacular.

Few of the academics at this session understood the prayerbook reference without further explanation and, over coffee, the J/C scholar opined that the real linguistic divide was those who had grown up with the prayerbook and those who had not. But perhaps he and I were the only ones present who understood Anglican dialect.
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
For various reasons (not least my future studies at Westcott House) I find myself unusually constrained from offering an opinion on any of this.

I can, though, confirm/add the following facts:

The service was indeed being run specifically to mark LGBTI history month.

In this context, the service was run as part of Westcott House's regular (but infrequent) alt-worship services, which are put on instead of the usual Morning/Evening Prayer.

As such, attendance at the service was compulsory for the Westcott House student body, i.e. it was not put on simply for those who chose to attend.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Not that I've anything against Polari- in fact I'm rather fond of it- but the idea of having to participate every now and then in someone's idea of 'original' and 'creative' and no doubt 'challenging' alt-worship (I suppose at least this one didn't involve pebbles and tealights) is another reason I'm glad I didn't end up going to a theological college.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
It's silly, but I wonder if it's worth getting worked up about.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's silly, but I wonder if it's worth getting worked up about.

Anything vaguely connected to "teh gayz" is worth getting worked up about in the Church of England at the moment, it would seem.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
...but only if you get worked up as would be approved of by the Daily Mail.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's silly, but I wonder if it's worth getting worked up about.

Quite. If the college expects a compulsory alt-worship service and doesn’t check the content first, they can’t really complain.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
What I want to know is: What was the path by which this story reached the press.

Assuming that the service was A Bad Idea, I'd imagine that students having Bad Ideas when leading worship is a pretty regular occurence at Wescott. In most cases, I'd imagine the tutor in charge of such things would have a quiet word with the people involved, but here there's a story in the national press.

I'm guessing that no journalists were present, and I'd also be surprised if anyone who was actually present thought that telling the press was the best response. So I'd guess word got around some network (The theological federation?) and someone on that network decided that embarrassing Wescott was a worthwhile objective. And to me, the details of that decision is the interesting bit.

I'd also say that Wescott does need to train their students in what is an acceptable degree of innovation in services, and a legitimate tool for doing that is to let people experientially appreciate the dangers of excessive innovation within the privacy of the college chapel. So I feel it is totally appropriate for Wescott to be doing inappropriate services.

(I am not commenting on whether this was an inappropriate service)
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
*Leon* writes:
quote:
So I'd guess word got around some network (The theological federation?) and someone on that network decided that embarrassing Wescott was a worthwhile objective. And to me, the details of that decision is the interesting bit.
Your surmise is likely what happened. Those are the details!

In my former RL days, I told my younger colleagues that they should assume what they put on e-mail should be suitable for the front page of the Globe (a Toronto paper). It may be that, church services not being usual newspaper fodder in the way in which they once were (can anyone remember when sermons were last reported on?? I have seen copies of 1940s Canadian newspapers when they were), that the students involved thought that nobody outside those present would have an interest.
 
Posted by BabyWombat (# 18552) on :
 
This thread has troubled me, and it has taken me several days to sort that out. Even now I am not confident I will speak as clearly as I would wish.

As I understand it, Polari was a coded language used by gay people for safe communication. As a gay man growing up in the post WWII era I may have known some of its words, but this is the first I have heard the source of those words, and the context in which they were then spoken. I hear them as a means of safety and of refuge, and as such I cannot but think them as coming from the Holy Spirit, giving to God’s children a haven. I know that at the time this language was used gay people were seen as fallen children in need of repentance. But that a language came forth to allow them to communicate…. well, it seems to me to be of God. I know others may not see it that way.

Therefore I think it highly appropriate that the language was used in the context of prayer. Perhaps a mentor or tutor may have worked with the liturgy planners to suggest that there be education before the service – that the language may sound odd or use imagery that sounds unusual or even outrageous. But that education might also have included the question: “What language is God using today to keep his children safe? Especially those we have marginalized? And how do we hear it, and honor what is spoken -- not in the words themselves, but in the human heart?”

That it was not authorized text, I understand. Was the service badly planned, or did it come to public knowledge only as a way to discredit the institution? Perhaps. But is it appropriate to speak God’s praise in a new tongue? I would say “Yes!” We pray so often in the canticle Dignus es “Splendor and honor and kingly power are yours by right….. O Lamb that was slain, for with your blood you have redeemed for God from every family, language, people and nation a kingdom of priests to serve our God. “ (edited TEC usage).

So the students at this college were challenged to sing God’s praise in a new tongue. Good! May it open their ears and hearts to hearing God in unexpected ways.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
The story I picked up was that the students themselves posted about it on Social Media and someone picking it up from there objected. I do not know whether they wrote to the college objecting or the flurry remained on social media and the students involved could not handle it.

Jengie
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's silly, but I wonder if it's worth getting worked up about.

Quite. If the college expects a compulsory alt-worship service and doesn’t check the content first, they can’t really complain.
Exactly.
quote:
Services in the Church of England are legally required to be conducted using the church's approved liturgy.
Do all CoE services use officially approved liturgy? My impression from Mystery Worship reports is that it isn't always the case. Am I wrong?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I seem to recall there is a loophole wide enough to drive a coach and four through in the form of the "service of the word".
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Principal Chivers, in today’s Church Times, said it was inappropriate to use the words of a formerly oppressed group so I guess he won’t allow ‘negro’ spirituals.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Did Canon Chivers say that? I've read the report in the CT four times and I can't find him saying that. What he is quoted as saying, among other things, was that the service was
quote:
“far too horizontal. The question here is: where is the verticality in this? We understand ourselves only in the context of our worship of God, and, if we are spending all our time pointing to ourselves, we are missing the point.”
That is much what I felt when I heard about the service, although I could not express it as clearly as he did.

[ 10. February 2017, 20:22: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by decampagne (# 17012) on :
 
The loss of sacred register (or sacred language) is certainly something that I think should be a greater cause for concern than it is. I would far prefer to go to a Latin mass, but the opportunity does not arise as frequently as I might like.

So - going down the layers - if liturgy is acceptable in the vernacular, secular language of the land (i.e., here, English), and, as in increasingly the case, in "informal contemporary" renderings of that language, I don't really see any further problem with it being done in Polari, or Cockney, or other slangs or dialects.

It may or may not be an overarching ideal to aim for (but I can see the value of the converse element), but in practice, and in context -what's the problem?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Did Canon Chivers say that? I've read the report in the CT four times and I can't find him saying that. What he is quoted as saying, among other things, was that the service was
quote:
“far too horizontal. The question here is: where is the verticality in this? We understand ourselves only in the context of our worship of God, and, if we are spending all our time pointing to ourselves, we are missing the point.”
That is much what I felt when I heard about the service, although I could not express it as clearly as he did.
I think that's an important point - more important than it having anything to do with where anyone stands on LGBT controversies.

Do we gather to make a statement to others or one another? Or do we gather to worship God? Having a service ostentatiously in a language that for no one is the natural language with which they address God, and has been chosen just because it is 'novel', 'excitingly controversial' or 'clever, clever' strikes me as negating why we should be gathering.

And before anyone queries this. Yes, I have the same reservations about services and bits of services in Latin, though at least that can sometimes be defended by saying it fits the music better.
 
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BabyWombat:

So the students at this college were challenged to sing God’s praise in a new tongue. Good! May it open their ears and hearts to hearing God in unexpected ways.

That was my instinctive reaction: that it ought to be possible to praise God in any language. I realise that it's more complicated than that when the language arose because of oppression and may upset or offend in reminding people of that oppression, but in the last analysis I would have thought God could understand the intention in whatever language.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
by the way, according to the Church Times the organisers of the service described it on social media as:
quote:
. . . recovering for Christian tradition a sense of its own intrinsically subversive jouissance. . .
Well, crikey. Candidates have to jump through so many hoops to get sponsored for training in the CofE, and then someone who can (presumably with a straight face) use a term like 'intrinsically subversive jouissance' still gets through... you wonder why they bother, don't you? Might as well just pull names out a hat.
 
Posted by BabyWombat (# 18552) on :
 
The “verticality/horizontal” comments about prayer are new to me and, I admit, off putting. But in pondering these terms I think I understand. However, I also think that the use of such imagery depends on the circumstances of prayer.

Our early service congregation, accustomed from long use of traditional language and transcendent/vertical images of God, verticality is expected. I can start an impromptu collect “O heavenly Father….” and have no disagreement voiced. They are pleased with the image that it is God above who showers them with blessing.

However, in our Seekers Group dinners, those attending, all much younger than I, express a longing for an immanent God – God here, now, moving in their lives and society. “O heavenly Father….” would repel them: they have seen failures in the patriarchy, and there are those who have been rejected and abused by human fathers. A collect that starts “O Holy One in our midst….” would have no disagreement voiced. They seek that touchable/horizontal contact with God, and if the prayer indicates that “God indeed is with us” or that God is the One “in whom we live, and move and have our being”, they can draw near.

Do both need to be in prayer? I am not certain of that. And again, to touch on my comments earlier, this Palori service, even if horizontal, witnessed to the possibility (I would say “reality”) that God was with those who spoke this language, loving them, redeeming them, calling them into deeper relationship. It made the statement that we don’t always need “the right words” to speak to God. That even our own words will do.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Albertus, do you reckon we could ask for an English translation and see if the speaker can think of one? The mind boggles at an educational institution that could produce people speaking like that. Say what you will about Moore College - and I can think of little good - it does produce graduates with a very solid academic degree. It confirms my impression that this episode was a bit of tourist-tripping.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by decampagne:
The loss of sacred register (or sacred language) is certainly something that I think should be a greater cause for concern than it is. I would far prefer to go to a Latin mass, but the opportunity does not arise as frequently as I might like.

So - going down the layers - if liturgy is acceptable in the vernacular, secular language of the land (i.e., here, English), and, as in increasingly the case, in "informal contemporary" renderings of that language, I don't really see any further problem with it being done in Polari, or Cockney, or other slangs or dialects.

It may or may not be an overarching ideal to aim for (but I can see the value of the converse element), but in practice, and in context -what's the problem?

The problem, I would think, is that most English-speaking people wouldn't understand it. From my scans of the available text, I would be among them. If I ran into a Polari service on Epiphany II, I would be searching for churches with services in French or Spanish for Epiphany III.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I'll tell you why it makes me squirm.

When I was a young adult it had only recently becoming acceptable in some circles to admit gays existed at all. What I came across was an attitude that could be summed up as “O what a hoot! Aren’t these homosexuals frightfully amusing to have at parties! Aren’t they a scream!”

In other words instead of being rejected as perverts, they were patronised as clowns.

I didn’t want to be either. And this service reminds me too much of that attitude.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BabyWombat:
The “verticality/horizontal” comments about prayer are new to me and, I admit, off putting. But in pondering these terms I think I understand. However, I also think that the use of such imagery depends on the circumstances of prayer.

Our early service congregation, accustomed from long use of traditional language and transcendent/vertical images of God, verticality is expected. I can start an impromptu collect “O heavenly Father….” and have no disagreement voiced. They are pleased with the image that it is God above who showers them with blessing.

However, in our Seekers Group dinners, those attending, all much younger than I, express a longing for an immanent God – God here, now, moving in their lives and society. “O heavenly Father….” would repel them: they have seen failures in the patriarchy, and there are those who have been rejected and abused by human fathers. A collect that starts “O Holy One in our midst….” would have no disagreement voiced. They seek that touchable/horizontal contact with God, and if the prayer indicates that “God indeed is with us” or that God is the One “in whom we live, and move and have our being”, they can draw near.

Do both need to be in prayer? I am not certain of that. And again, to touch on my comments earlier, this Palori service, even if horizontal, witnessed to the possibility (I would say “reality”) that God was with those who spoke this language, loving them, redeeming them, calling them into deeper relationship. It made the statement that we don’t always need “the right words” to speak to God. That even our own words will do.

Baby Wombat, I don't think that goes quite far enough to the core of what is meant when the Canon talks about vertical or horizontal. I don't think he's using horizontal to mean expressing a sense of God with us. What I think he's criticising when he uses the word, is that he suspects that the people putting the service together didn't have much sense that they were writing a service that spoke to God, rather than just to each other 'O look aren't we clever/edgy/challenging'. I suspect that he thinks that if they had a sense that they were in the awesome presence of the king of kings, the Triune God, the service would have been quite different.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Did Canon Chivers say that? I've read the report in the CT four times and I can't find him saying that. What he is quoted as saying, among other things, was that the service was
quote:
“far too horizontal. The question here is: where is the verticality in this? We understand ourselves only in the context of our worship of God, and, if we are spending all our time pointing to ourselves, we are missing the point.”
That is much what I felt when I heard about the service, although I could not express it as clearly as he did.
He spoke of a ‘code language’ that subverted ‘particular norms – that is what I take the spirituals to have been when they used h e |exodus story.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Do we gather to make a statement to others or one another?

The Creed?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Did Canon Chivers say that? I've read the report in the CT four times and I can't find him saying that. What he is quoted as saying, among other things, was that the service was
quote:
“far too horizontal. The question here is: where is the verticality in this? We understand ourselves only in the context of our worship of God, and, if we are spending all our time pointing to ourselves, we are missing the point.”
That is much what I felt when I heard about the service, although I could not express it as clearly as he did.
He spoke of a ‘code language’ that subverted ‘particular norms – that is what I take the spirituals to have been when they used h e |exodus story.
Ah, yes, I thought this might be a case of you putting a particular interpretation on his words.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Albertus, do you reckon we could ask for an English translation and see if the speaker can think of one? The mind boggles at an educational institution that could produce people speaking like that. Say what you will about Moore College - and I can think of little good - it does produce graduates with a very solid academic degree. It confirms my impression that this episode was a bit of tourist-tripping.

According to wikipedia

quote:
In French, jouissance means enjoyment, in terms both of rights and property,[1] and of sexual orgasm — the latter has a meaning partially lacking in the English word "enjoyment".[2]

Poststructuralism has developed the latter sense of jouissance in complex ways, so as to denote a transgressive, excessive kind of pleasure linked to the division and splitting of the subject involved

Which I think rather reinforces your point and mine.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Did Canon Chivers say that? I've read the report in the CT four times and I can't find him saying that. What he is quoted as saying, among other things, was that the service was
quote:
“far too horizontal. The question here is: where is the verticality in this? We understand ourselves only in the context of our worship of God, and, if we are spending all our time pointing to ourselves, we are missing the point.”
That is much what I felt when I heard about the service, although I could not express it as clearly as he did.
He spoke of a ‘code language’ that subverted ‘particular norms – that is what I take the spirituals to have been when they used h e |exodus story.
Ah, yes, I thought this might be a case of you putting a particular interpretation on his words.
It's interpreted in the same way, in the same article, by the Professor or Language at Lancaster University.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
. . . recovering for Christian tradition a sense of its own intrinsically subversive jouissance. . .
“intrinsically subversive jouissance” means camp. And it doesn’t need to be recovered in this trite way – it is already intrinsic in Christian worship for those with ears to hear and eyes to see – not just Anglo Catholic high camp, but much evangelical material as well – I want Jesus as my boyfried.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Ah, yes, I thought this might be a case of you putting a particular interpretation on his words.

It's interpreted in the same way, in the same article, by the Professor or Language at Lancaster University.
H'mm (looks for 'not impressed or convinced' smily).
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
When Christian faith and liturgy subvert human self-deception, selfishness and folly, that is right and good.

When the Holy Trinity are referred to as "The Auntie, and the Homie Chavvie, and the Fantabulosa Fairy" it looks suspiciously as if human scepticism and superficiality are subverting and mocking Christian faith.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
When Christian faith and liturgy subvert human self-deception, selfishness and folly, that is right and good.

When the Holy Trinity are referred to as "The Auntie, and the Homie Chavvie, and the Fantabulosa Fairy" it looks suspiciously as if human scepticism and superficiality are subverting and mocking Christian faith.

I agree.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Or, at the least, suggesting that the liturgists are saying, "Look how clever (and daring) we are!"

I haven't been following this thread. But it strikes me that, if this had been the 1950s, there might have been a place for doing a Polari service as being culturally relevant. Not nowadays - really it's just its creators having a bit of fun. We may have varying views on whether that is acceptable.

[ 13. February 2017, 09:13: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I want Jesus as my boyfried.

Now there is an interesting concept! [Devil]
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
I suppose a big part of this is students experimenting within a (allegedly) safe environment for trying out things with liturgy and worship which they'll probably never get the same opportunities for once ordained.

Maybe sometimes you have to step into the unhelpful areas of an experience to really understand where the boundaries are, and why those boundaries exist?
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0