Fiance has invited for a meal tonight
1) the leaders of one of the churches which refused to marry us
and
2) the leader of the church who has agreed to marry us
and
3) the children will be there
and
I'm extremely nervous.
But I suspect they may all be, too.
Friday, 28 March 2008
Thursday, 27 March 2008
Thank you. You've given me an idea. Intercultural and interfaith relationship training that makes no presumptions about anyone's faith
Firstly, a huge and massive you to Eileen, to Erika and to Kate for enlightening me on what marriage preparation in the evangelical Christian sense involves.
(And to reassure Kate, no he hasn't and yes I would...)
I also found a marriage preparation manual at the local Da'wah (ie Islamic outreach) bookshop attached to my local supermarket, which I bought for £3.99 and devoured with paneer on toast. It said essentially everything which Eileen and Erika said (learn to relax and laugh together, talk about everything, don't let arguments linger, make sure you share the same approach to money/children/worship) though Kate's question (about donestic abuse/violence) was noteably absent. What it did include was a great deal about sex, both in the anatomical and erotic sense. That's also what I'd been asking when I said there were things in needed to know. To know in the Biblical sense...
It seems to me there's a real gap in provision and/or the market here. Whereas there seems a fair amount of didactic/pastoral provision for those from a same or similar religious tradition forming relationships/getting married, there's nothing out there for couples of differing faiths from one another, who don't do organised or institutional religion, or who consider themselves spiritual-but-not-religious. There's a fair amount of generic stuff online about how Person of Religion/Ethnicity X will experience/relate to Person of Religion/Ethnicity Y and the majority of it tends to be hugely oversimplistic, overgeneralising and promoting rather than challenging labelled and stereotypes... certainly in the case of Fiance and I, it has been utterly counterproductive as the church continues to treat him according to amassively irrelevent ethnic archetype.
What's needed, I think, is some material that provides some basic relationship/sex education from a clear universal perspective promoting respect, mutuality, discussion and non-violent conflict resolution alongside some sex advice for the totally clueless, but that promotes questions which may be raised in relationships where the couple do not both come from the same religious tradition.
Open-ended qestions such as
*If your methods/standards of cooking/housework/timekeeping/personal hygiene differ, does one of you need to defer to the other or can you compromise? How would each option feel?
*How will you provide a united response to incidents of racism or ethnic tension which catch you at unexpected moments? If violence or intimidation are involved, would you want the police involved, or would you want it left with family/community leaders?
*If either or both of you have children, do you need to parent them in the same way and, if so, how? And how do your children feel?
and plenty more...
Hmmm. A project in there, perhaps. Or has someone else got there first??
(And to reassure Kate, no he hasn't and yes I would...)
I also found a marriage preparation manual at the local Da'wah (ie Islamic outreach) bookshop attached to my local supermarket, which I bought for £3.99 and devoured with paneer on toast. It said essentially everything which Eileen and Erika said (learn to relax and laugh together, talk about everything, don't let arguments linger, make sure you share the same approach to money/children/worship) though Kate's question (about donestic abuse/violence) was noteably absent. What it did include was a great deal about sex, both in the anatomical and erotic sense. That's also what I'd been asking when I said there were things in needed to know. To know in the Biblical sense...
It seems to me there's a real gap in provision and/or the market here. Whereas there seems a fair amount of didactic/pastoral provision for those from a same or similar religious tradition forming relationships/getting married, there's nothing out there for couples of differing faiths from one another, who don't do organised or institutional religion, or who consider themselves spiritual-but-not-religious. There's a fair amount of generic stuff online about how Person of Religion/Ethnicity X will experience/relate to Person of Religion/Ethnicity Y and the majority of it tends to be hugely oversimplistic, overgeneralising and promoting rather than challenging labelled and stereotypes... certainly in the case of Fiance and I, it has been utterly counterproductive as the church continues to treat him according to amassively irrelevent ethnic archetype.
What's needed, I think, is some material that provides some basic relationship/sex education from a clear universal perspective promoting respect, mutuality, discussion and non-violent conflict resolution alongside some sex advice for the totally clueless, but that promotes questions which may be raised in relationships where the couple do not both come from the same religious tradition.
Open-ended qestions such as
*If your methods/standards of cooking/housework/timekeeping/personal hygiene differ, does one of you need to defer to the other or can you compromise? How would each option feel?
*How will you provide a united response to incidents of racism or ethnic tension which catch you at unexpected moments? If violence or intimidation are involved, would you want the police involved, or would you want it left with family/community leaders?
*If either or both of you have children, do you need to parent them in the same way and, if so, how? And how do your children feel?
and plenty more...
Hmmm. A project in there, perhaps. Or has someone else got there first??
Saturday, 22 March 2008
Triduum, 2008
Cooking a buffet of dishes from Fiance's Country of Origin and amazing a housefull of guests at his with the authenticity of my cooking. Neglecting to tell any of them that we'd merely googled the recipes on broadband and purchased the ingredients from a local Tesco. Offering several of them a lift home "on the way back to mine" and then driving back to his for the night. I hate my own dishonesty.
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
Coward.
One of the volunteers asked me today why I wasn't getting married in my own church.
I replied that the question wasn't mine to answer.
There was a member of the management team behind her. He hasn't been able to look me in the eye all day.
I replied that the question wasn't mine to answer.
There was a member of the management team behind her. He hasn't been able to look me in the eye all day.
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
Mercy Ministries. A strange definition of mercy.
I've been spending the last three days furtively watching Mercy Ministries of Australia slowly unravel under the glare of the Sydney Morning Herald.
It all sounds sickeningly familiar. The "girls" (ie young women)
1. were punished for talking to one other about why they were there
2. weren't allowed outside the front door without triplicate permission
3. weren't able to speak to medical professionals without "supervision" that meant they were afraid to be honest
4. were endlessly told that it was their fault and they were beyond help
5. were arbitrarily kicked out onto the streets even though they were worse than ever
Been there, got the T-shirt for each one. And not the Mercy Ministries T-shirts, either. Such things happen to women and men, young and old, every day in the mainstream psychiatric and mental health systems. And nobody out there expects any differently. They just expect Christians to do things better than everyone else... because Christians themselves claim they can.
It's a case, firstly, of too many expectations having been placed on Mercy Ministries. But what then makes the behaviour of Mercy Ministries so exceptionally evil (and I use that word deliberately) is that they bring God in to justify the control, oppression and condemnation. Or not God, so much as Satan and all of his powers and principalities and legions of demonic sidekicks. Which surely feels far, far worse than simply being told you're mad and untreatable for mere organic/psychological/emtional reasons. It's theology gone so screwy that it causes its proponents to lose sight of all concepts of human sanctity or dignity, or of love. Which poses the question, a la Laing, of who exactly is the mad one.
At some point early this millennium some deeply Pentecostal friends were trying to persuade me to apply to the Mercy Ministries place in Bradford. What saved me was the opening of the Bradford House being delayed until I was both well past their upper age limit and no longer wanting of any such "help". I wonder what delayed their opening. A lucky escape, I think.
It all sounds sickeningly familiar. The "girls" (ie young women)
1. were punished for talking to one other about why they were there
2. weren't allowed outside the front door without triplicate permission
3. weren't able to speak to medical professionals without "supervision" that meant they were afraid to be honest
4. were endlessly told that it was their fault and they were beyond help
5. were arbitrarily kicked out onto the streets even though they were worse than ever
Been there, got the T-shirt for each one. And not the Mercy Ministries T-shirts, either. Such things happen to women and men, young and old, every day in the mainstream psychiatric and mental health systems. And nobody out there expects any differently. They just expect Christians to do things better than everyone else... because Christians themselves claim they can.
It's a case, firstly, of too many expectations having been placed on Mercy Ministries. But what then makes the behaviour of Mercy Ministries so exceptionally evil (and I use that word deliberately) is that they bring God in to justify the control, oppression and condemnation. Or not God, so much as Satan and all of his powers and principalities and legions of demonic sidekicks. Which surely feels far, far worse than simply being told you're mad and untreatable for mere organic/psychological/emtional reasons. It's theology gone so screwy that it causes its proponents to lose sight of all concepts of human sanctity or dignity, or of love. Which poses the question, a la Laing, of who exactly is the mad one.
At some point early this millennium some deeply Pentecostal friends were trying to persuade me to apply to the Mercy Ministries place in Bradford. What saved me was the opening of the Bradford House being delayed until I was both well past their upper age limit and no longer wanting of any such "help". I wonder what delayed their opening. A lucky escape, I think.
Monday, 17 March 2008
A question. Help me out, please...
A woman at work asked me this morning what we were doing for marriage preparation classes.
Nothing, obviously. Obviously, given that [details omitted because it's just too boring to blog about]. And given that (I'm guessing, based on no actual knowledge) that such things do not cover questions of pre-existing progeny and death-threats against brides at the wedding ceremony (I exaggerate, but only slightly), I'd always assumed that "marriage preparation" would be fairly irrelevant for Him and I.
Nevertheless, I'm curious. What are these much whispered-about "marriage preparation" courses about? Because as much as I've got too much on my mind to be bothered about being asked to learn sponge cake recipes or male trouser sizes, I could do with, well... some advice. Or just someone to ask the sort of questions you can't ask your mum or your friends. (To be fair, one friend has offered, but she's just given birth to her fifth child in as many years and doesn't seem to have slept for months.)
So whereas I suspect that much of the faith-based "marriage preparation" comes with a right-wing, family-values, Biblical-womanhood type of agenda, I still know there's a lot I need to know and I'm not sure who to ask...
Nothing, obviously. Obviously, given that [details omitted because it's just too boring to blog about]. And given that (I'm guessing, based on no actual knowledge) that such things do not cover questions of pre-existing progeny and death-threats against brides at the wedding ceremony (I exaggerate, but only slightly), I'd always assumed that "marriage preparation" would be fairly irrelevant for Him and I.
Nevertheless, I'm curious. What are these much whispered-about "marriage preparation" courses about? Because as much as I've got too much on my mind to be bothered about being asked to learn sponge cake recipes or male trouser sizes, I could do with, well... some advice. Or just someone to ask the sort of questions you can't ask your mum or your friends. (To be fair, one friend has offered, but she's just given birth to her fifth child in as many years and doesn't seem to have slept for months.)
So whereas I suspect that much of the faith-based "marriage preparation" comes with a right-wing, family-values, Biblical-womanhood type of agenda, I still know there's a lot I need to know and I'm not sure who to ask...
Sunday, 16 March 2008
Palm Sunday, Anyparish UK
We'd wanted to go to His parish to hear our banns of marriage being read. I'd rung the vicar, not so much to request or announce this but to ask where the church was, as it didn't appear to be listed anywhere online and I couldn't find the phone book.
The vicar had said to me "it's delightful that you should want to do that, but I'm not sure that we can give you the best impression of what Church should be." I tried to reassure him that I've been to a fair diversity of churches in my life and that I am open to all interpretations of what Church could be.
"Your'd be most exceptionally welcome. But we're an old congregation," he said. "Nobody, literally, nobody under 75 - not even me. It's a challenging parish, so complex, some pockets of such baffling deprivation... and then that school, too. And the last vicar left - goodness, no I shouldn't say that. But do, Grace, please, tell do me about yourself.."
We went to the early morning service today. I saw glances of apprehension and consternation towards us, an inability to fathom why we'd ever have wanted to come. But then, a thawing, and by the time we left not one of the 30 congregants had failed to welcome us, to congratulate us and to ask "but why did you want to come?"
Because you welcomed us.
The vicar had said to me "it's delightful that you should want to do that, but I'm not sure that we can give you the best impression of what Church should be." I tried to reassure him that I've been to a fair diversity of churches in my life and that I am open to all interpretations of what Church could be.
"Your'd be most exceptionally welcome. But we're an old congregation," he said. "Nobody, literally, nobody under 75 - not even me. It's a challenging parish, so complex, some pockets of such baffling deprivation... and then that school, too. And the last vicar left - goodness, no I shouldn't say that. But do, Grace, please, tell do me about yourself.."
We went to the early morning service today. I saw glances of apprehension and consternation towards us, an inability to fathom why we'd ever have wanted to come. But then, a thawing, and by the time we left not one of the 30 congregants had failed to welcome us, to congratulate us and to ask "but why did you want to come?"
Because you welcomed us.
Tuesday, 11 March 2008
How to choose guests for your wedding: advice from the New Testament
From Matthew Chapter 22
Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
"Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.'
"But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
This passage, of course, wasn't written to instruct on how to choose one's wedding guests. It's a parable, meaning that it's intended as allegory. It's apocalyptically eschatological and it’s messianic, meaning that it talks about the personhood and role of Jesus in the end of the world. It was written, I think, to challenge people on their response to God and to the people around them. Weddings, as such, don’t really come into it.
So I know that to take this as a literal model of how to respond to those refusing to come to our wedding would be to sidestep the point of the parable. By already having ended my quotation where I did, I'm aware that I've left out the most disconcerting and uncomfortable bit of the story.
However...
What would happen if I were to seek out and invite a dozen completely random and previously unconsidered people to replace those who've refused to come?
Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
"Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.'
"But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
This passage, of course, wasn't written to instruct on how to choose one's wedding guests. It's a parable, meaning that it's intended as allegory. It's apocalyptically eschatological and it’s messianic, meaning that it talks about the personhood and role of Jesus in the end of the world. It was written, I think, to challenge people on their response to God and to the people around them. Weddings, as such, don’t really come into it.
So I know that to take this as a literal model of how to respond to those refusing to come to our wedding would be to sidestep the point of the parable. By already having ended my quotation where I did, I'm aware that I've left out the most disconcerting and uncomfortable bit of the story.
However...
What would happen if I were to seek out and invite a dozen completely random and previously unconsidered people to replace those who've refused to come?
the google search terms which people used to find this blog whilst I wasn't blogging
Most of the time, a simple "Jesus wept".
But then there was the rather touching "what was life like in Jesus [sic] days"
And then the hugely ironic "Jesus+emotions+women" *Grace cringes*
But then the massively telling "dangers of denominational rules". For which, during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, my blog came right at the top of page 1 on google.ca.
But then there was the rather touching "what was life like in Jesus [sic] days"
And then the hugely ironic "Jesus+emotions+women" *Grace cringes*
But then the massively telling "dangers of denominational rules". For which, during the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, my blog came right at the top of page 1 on google.ca.
Monday, 10 March 2008
Working for a Christian organisation: 2008
All sorts of new bits of charity legislation are being introduced in the UK. This basically amounts to an obligation to far more stringenly demonstrate that you're acting for the "public benefit", whatever that means.
The new legislation has been developed, as far as I understand
1. to force schools charging several multiples of my annual salary for each child's education to do either do more to support and develop their communities... or else pay tax like everyone else
2. to stop anyone thinking that so-called Islamist groups are a good thing to give money to
In theory, then, financially-transparent Christian groups that don't threaten violence (well, aside from a bit of ethnic aggravation and low-level intolerance/bigotry) don't have anything whatsoever to fear from this. But the paperwork involved is still quite scary.
Last night I dreamt that the process of transforming previously "exempt organisations" into "faith/faith-based charities" was to be overseen, monitored and evaluated by the Commission for Social Care Inspectorate and Ofsted. I woke up sweating, terrified it might be true.
At work this morning, I sat in front of my computer wondering what would happen if it were.
I think we'd have to improve coffee provision, for a start...
The new legislation has been developed, as far as I understand
1. to force schools charging several multiples of my annual salary for each child's education to do either do more to support and develop their communities... or else pay tax like everyone else
2. to stop anyone thinking that so-called Islamist groups are a good thing to give money to
In theory, then, financially-transparent Christian groups that don't threaten violence (well, aside from a bit of ethnic aggravation and low-level intolerance/bigotry) don't have anything whatsoever to fear from this. But the paperwork involved is still quite scary.
Last night I dreamt that the process of transforming previously "exempt organisations" into "faith/faith-based charities" was to be overseen, monitored and evaluated by the Commission for Social Care Inspectorate and Ofsted. I woke up sweating, terrified it might be true.
At work this morning, I sat in front of my computer wondering what would happen if it were.
I think we'd have to improve coffee provision, for a start...
Wednesday, 5 March 2008
evolution of a worshipper
Hello again. Apologies for my absense.
This Dave Walker cartoon, in its various levels of evolution, been resonating with me ever since I first came across it. I particularly like the transition from the iPod-sporting not-quite-shaved emerging-churchy-type to the cross-on-stick-thingamy-bearing Anglo-Catholic.
And then I saw today that someone has updated it yet again.
Is this where I'm heading?
This Dave Walker cartoon, in its various levels of evolution, been resonating with me ever since I first came across it. I particularly like the transition from the iPod-sporting not-quite-shaved emerging-churchy-type to the cross-on-stick-thingamy-bearing Anglo-Catholic.
And then I saw today that someone has updated it yet again.
Is this where I'm heading?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
