I have just come across this interview with John Rutter the composer and I find it absolutely delightful - I identify with it so strongly - and his extraordinary personality shines through. I have edited it heavily, as the original is long (and can be found here: http://www.alanmacfarlane.com/DO/filmshow/ruttertx1.htm). I think the first and last sentences are fascinating!
"I am friend, fellow traveller, and agnostic supporter of the Christian faith; in my early days, people described themselves by default as Church of England if they didn't really have any religious affiliation...........I sang in the chapel choir and was always interested in religious studies, but somehow being a non-joiner became a habit; although I think I probably was religious in quite a powerful sense when I was young and into my twenties, not least because I felt so lucky as my career began to take off and things began to go well for me.......... a kind of theology of gratitude; probably can't take it very far because what happens when something goes wrong in your life? - the sense that there must be some benevolent deity behind all this is a bit like American religious thought; when I began to travel to America I started to meet an awful lot of Christians;....... the American faith world contains some of the very finest and most searching of theology and religious thought and practice, and some of the worst; I have experienced the full spectrum; ........ if I wanted to be honest about my own faith journey it has been backwards over the years; I am afraid what slightly began to sow the seeds of doubt was seeing the absolute certainty of religious adherents in America, and some of the harm that that certainty could lead to; I started by thinking there must be many paths to God and went from there to a rather tougher position which is that the universe is basically numbers, and in some sense mathematical and a lottery; if there is a controlling deity he is a bit like a Mafia don who is capable of doing good and charitable things, but also almost takes pleasure in doing malicious and harmful things, sowing the seeds of long-running dissent and problems; that is hard to reconcile with the Christian concept of a loving God; I don't find it helpful either to say that you have to have a personal relationship with Jesus; numerous of my religious friends say that if you are not born again and if Jesus is not your personal friend, then you are not a true Christian; I always remember the words of the Rev. Professor Charles Moule, a most searching theologian, who said he was perfectly sure he had only been born once; .........; people sometimes have asked me whether the fact that my son was killed affects my faith position; it happened in 2001 when he was nineteen and a student here at Cambridge, and he got run over crossing Queens’ Road one night; completely unforeseen and random, but I think that the answer is no, as by then I wouldn't have described myself as a believing Christian; on the other hand, you have to consider the alternatives; a world without any churches or space for religious thought or contemplation, or based only on material values, would be a hell; in a sense, if you believe the specific doctrines of the faith, I think that just the statement it makes about how man should not live by bread alone, is immensely important; music is a part of that because it is useless in a literal sense, you don't have to have music to survive, yet it has always been there; imagining a world without it is impossible, as is a world without faith; even though you might say that religion is an invention of man, I don't think it invalidates its worth; ....... it began to look to me as if the whole edifice of religion was a man-made construct; I do remain hugely sympathetic to the church, its music, its liturgy, its traditions, and, with some caveats, its ministry; on the whole, the Church I was baptised into, is trying to do good in a difficult situation, and is making a statement on behalf of qualities like compassion, forgiveness, charity, that everybody would support; I would be heartbroken if the Church of England closed its doors tomorrow; I hope to be buried in a country churchyard with a funeral service according to the 1662 Prayer Book, and all my favourite pieces of music; I suppose that is wanting it both ways - both the trappings without necessarily subscribing to the doctrine; I think there are quite a lot of people like me; Vaughan Williams was similar in that he had a sense of generalised spirituality which was triggered by things like standing on top of the Malvern Hills and contemplating the beauty of nature, or walking through the west door of a cathedral and being awestruck by the grandeur and mystery of the building, or being inspired by 'Pilgrim's Progress'; I think he would not have called himself a Christian, yet his life was steeped in Christianity at every point; I am like that and my moral compass probably does derive in large part from Christian ethic and teaching; I owe Christianity a huge debt and it is rather ungrateful of me not to believe in it more."
I agree jO5.
Human beings have good and bad in them and will express both whether they are religious or not.
You could say religion corrupts people but equally that it is people who corrupt religion.
I admire Rutter's honesty and his humility; and I do think that he reflects the views of many others.
I enjoy visiting our local ancient church which is just down the lane - it embodies the hopes, fears and aspirations of many generations and one cannot fail to be moved by that. It has some important architectural and historical features; and it is a very peaceful place to be. I am hugely moved by the music that religion has engendered - and also the art. And I think that religious myths are not empty of meaning, even if you do not take literally the doctrines that run alongside and are not a "believer."
Rutter's non-belief does not blind him to the importance of religion and to its potential for good. I think that is a healthy stance which is thoughtful and concerned and avoids polarisation, which is so dangerous.
On the strength of this thread I have started listening to John Rutter's music. I have some lovely stuff on in the background as I write.
Very calming and uplifting.
I enjoyed reading it - but I just can't do this 'having it both ways'. I can value and respect many aspects of Christianity - but in my life, either I do, or I don't. Because if respect my Christian friends - I couldn't 'use' the Church unless I wholeheartedly believed in the faith. Couldn't have go married in Church, that day was too important for lies, and always refused to be a Godmother 'oh it's only words- it does not matter' - if I promise to do something, I promise with all my heart- can't promise to do what I can't or won't do.
And never ever could I expect a Vicar/Priest to stand there at my funeral, saying all these things that I totally do NOT believe in, heaven, meeting up with my loved ones, etc. Our local Vicar is wonderful- but he finds it so hard to Minister for weddings, funerals and baptisms- knowing for many that it is just for show, for the official video! He is constantly asked to officiate at funerals and is told previously by the family, not too much religion, please, the deceased was not a believer and neither are we!!! As far as I am concerned, either you do, or you don't. Partly out of respect for those who do 'do'.
Interesting post granjura. My local vicar is the exact opposite - she is happy for people to use the church for ceremonies, without the idea that the church is being "used" in a negative way. She goes out of her way to make it meaningful to those who are there, and understands that whatever their beliefs, they are acknowledging the importance of the event and of its value in a historical context. - and I expect that she also hopes that something will "rub off" on the participants.
She is never dogmatic and hosts a pagan wassail event every January - we always joke, that if you want a good pagan event, go to the vicarage!
I think her openness has done much to foster a positive role for the church in the commnunity here, for believers and non-believers alike. She knows that I am agnostic, but often invites my choir to come and sing and uses my skills in other ways - e.g. making cards from my photos to sell in aid of the church; uincluding me in a listening project because she knows of my history of running such things. It all seems very healthy to me.
The use of church buildings by the non-religious has an ancient history. The presence in the ministry of doubting or unbelieving priests is also a reality. In one wonderful book I read, the central character, a vicar, loses his faith and eventually comes to the decision that he is a better priest on account of it as he is more open to people's doubts and fears - he no longer felt constrained to utter doctrinal platitudes.
I married in church because it would have given deep offence to my highly religious MIL if we had not - I regard it as a kind decision, as, for my MIL, we would not have been regarded as married in her eyes otherwise. It made her happy - that's fine with me.
granjura I think your stance is very principled and I used to agree with you. But I've changed my mind over the years. I know that many Christians welcome people who say they are non-believers to make use of what the churches can offer. Whatever people say, who's to know what's really going on in their lives? And who's to know how the experience will affect them?
I'm with you 100% Lilygran, and with your vicar, Mishap. Which one of us can look into someone's heart and soul and know what is there?
I know - not many understand this. Our Vicar is very open and positive, and does welcome all as you describe- but I know that he sometimes does feel 'used' and that he is officiating at a 'show' for the video - and he finds it difficult at times. If you really do believe in what you are doing - how could you not have strange feelings about this.
For instance, how can anybody accept to be a God-parent, having to swear to believe in the Trinity and that you will take the responsibility to bring up and support a child in the Faith - knowing full well that you won't?
I've been told before that it is bizarre that I should have more respect for the Christian faith than many who call themselves 'Christian' (some of the people I know in the UK openly call themselves 'cultural' Christians. When I told our Vicar when I was younger that we wouldn't be getting married in the Church, he thanked us for our honesty - and went to talk to my grand-mothers to ask them to respect our wishes.
BTW nobody has ever replied to my previous comments on compulsory Church tax, as is the case here where I live. How many of the 'cultural' Christians in the UK, eg those who do not really have the Faith, or believe in the Creed, the resurrection, etc- but enjoy going to Church on Christmas Eve (as the Vicar used to say in our Parish in Leics: so nice to see you today, would be nice to see you from time to time during the year too 
)- and the odd wedding, baptism or funeral - would continue to call themselves Christians if it meant they would HAVE TO PAY COMPULSORY CHURCH TAX OF 1.5% OF INCOME.
I would be really interested in your replies. In my region this was voted out a few years back, and very few have opted to pay it- sending our Church in total financial crisis. (Giving us the opportunity of buy this house, the Vicarage since 1587).
I've just re-read the requirements to become God parents for both CofE, our Protestant Church here, and the Catholic Church. The requirements are as clear as a bell, and yet so largely ignored.
Ooops 2.3 % !
Likely to put people off and close down a few churches granjura - people who use the church pay for it in the collection, and in the fees that are quite reasonably levied for weddings etc. I make an annual contribution even though I am agnostic; and when I go to the cathedral for the carols I always do the decent thing and put money in the tax-efficient envelope, as I am sure most people do.
Granjura, that seems very strange to me. There must be historical reasons for it. As Mishap says most people put their bit in the plate when they attend a church or when they visit for other reasons. Many church members tithe their incomes, which is a lot more than 1.5%. Others give what they can both in money and in time.
I can only speak about my own parish, but the income is generated solely from the parishioners. It pays the priest a VERY modest stipend, keeps the roof on the church and supports a number of local and overseas charities.
A compulsory tax is bound to be resented, but when people choose to support the church and its ministers they are likely to be more generous.
Historical reasons indeed - the CofE retained all the land and wealth, thanks to Henry the VIII and the rest of them- HUGE wealth. The Protestants in Europe split from Rome, without a penny or even a centime. Hence the compulsory Church tax.
There is absolutely no way (as confirmed by the many Vicars I knew in the UK) that the money given at the end of service, and the fees for weddings and funerals, can pay for the salary of the Vicar and other Church staff, the local charities they support, including all the 'social' work that they do, with the elderly, the sick, families, children etc + maintenance and expenses of the Vicarage (ours in the UK was sold, and a more modest house purchased) and building repairs/maintenance. Talk to any of your Church elders and Vicar and they will confirm.
The point I was trying to make was - would those who only visit/use the Church and services once in a while - for Christmas Eve service, weddings and funerals - continue to do so if it meant paying 3.5% of income to said Church. I can fully understand that those who do attend Church very regularly, and take full part, be prepared to pay, and perhaps more. But would 'the fringe' do it?
It is clearly demonstrated here that the majority of those would choose not to - and that it would send the Church in total crisis. As it is here. And yet- people still want to be married, visited in Hospital or when in crisis, buried, and the like - putting huge pressure on the regular brethren who DO PAY.
No - I am sure that the "fringe" would not do that. But how would the church survive without their financial input for the ceremonies that they attend? It must represent an important part of the church's income that they can ill do without. And many non-churchgoers do make contributions to fundraising efforts for reasons that might not be essentially religious, but that nevertheless make a contribution and represent an awareness of value.
I believe most CoE parishes are moving towards raising enough money each year to cover all costs and pay a proportion of the administrative costs of the diocese. This includes the clergy stipends. Everyone recognises that some parishes are just not able to raise this amount and so other churches with richer congregations pay more. As for the huge wealth of the church; Henry V111 collared a lot of it, much of the property was sold to new gentry and much was used to endow eg colleges and for other charitable purposes. The fees people pay for weddings and funerals go to the diocese with expenses for things like organists and choirs, and clergy where relevant. It would be very nice if notional Anglicans paid regularly to the local parish but I think the occasional contribution is the most we can hope for! Lots of people who come to family occasions in churches these days don't seem even to know about that convention.
And much of the wealth was in the form of buildings, the value of which cannot be realised and which now cost a fortune to maintain and heat.
I think the Mormon Church still expects people to pay tithes. As I understand it, some welfare support is provided for the needy from this as well as absolutely stunningly opulent 'temples' being built. When did tithing end in Britain?
If you Google Compulsory Church tax, you'll see that it is common throughout Europe, in one form or another.
Wealth in the form of property certainly can be realised. As I said, our Parish in East Leicestershire sold the huge Georgian vicarage about 10 years ago, as they were in dire straights for money. This realised quite a substantial sum, and also saved a fortune in repairs, maintenance and heating. Exactly the same thing happened here with our house - which had been the local Vicarage since 1587. Again, making a tidy sum for the Church, but more importantly saving lots as above.
The local congregation was of course very upset - but delighted that we allowed the continued use of the Parish room at the back for local elderly, children, choir, etc. We however do not pay Church tax as we are not Church goers and have no intention of making use of the Church services. Body will be given to science, as I cannot be an organ donor (as I lived in the UK during the CJD disaster).
I should have said 'church buildings'. And even though the beautiful Georgian rectory has been sold, the rector has to live somewhere. Not a total profit.
Agreed, in our UK parish, a very much more modest and easier to maintain house was purchased for the Vicar and family. Here, the Reformed Church has been left in total disarray when the Church tax became optional - and the Vicar has not been replaced. The 9 local Parishes now have 5 Vicars and 2 Deacons - and Sunday services are done on a rosta- our local Church (practically in our back front garden) has a Service about 1 every 6 weeks or so.
Many of the big businesses have also stopped paying Church tax - including Phillip Morris tobacco (of Mrs Thatcher fame)- that used to pay several millions.
The 'church' is the people of God trying to live their lives according to the gospel and to do God's will. If Philip Morris no longer pays tax I think that is good. The buildings, however beautiful, are not the church. The church should not be using the money derived from such products. It may well be that the Holy Spirit is working in today's society to transform the church to get back to first principles where the focus is not on the institution but on the prayerful work and lives of Christians.
If the buildings are worth preserving for aesthetic or community use then those who wish to use them can pay for their preservation. So be it.
In England, the C of E, I think has many non-stipendiary ministers who maintain themselves by their day jobs. This is one way forward. The RCC has far fewer priests and is working towards new ways of ministry, it pays for itself. The free churches have always been totally self supporting. Taxing the population is totally unacceptable. But, if someone who is not a church member desires the help of the church, either from a minister or another church member, as Christians we should be there to offer what help we can. It's not our place to look into someone's heart and make a judgement.
True, MiceElf. Well stated.
This is not 'taxing the population' it is taxing the people who call themselves Christians of a certain denomination, and the tax going to the respective Church. If you don't want to pay the tax, you have to declare yourself as having NO religion- and then you don't pay the tax (but then you shouldn't expect to avail yourself of the services of the Church, be it marriage ceremony or visit when sick or bereaved, etc). Being a Vicar is not just about officiating at services, but organising youth clubs, elderly visits in OAP homes, visiting hospital patients, etc, etc - we are definitely talking as the 'Church' as a social as well as a religious organisation, and not as a building.
Ask any Parish in the UK and they will tell you there is no way the money collected at the end of services, funerals and weddings even if added to fees for weddings and funerals (which btw have never applied in most other countries, and certainly not here) will cover costs.
Granjura, that isn't the case. Many CoE church congregations actually do cover their costs from 'giving' ie what members of the congregation regularly give, plus the fund raising they undertake. The fees for weddings and funerals go to the diocese. If people who occasionally use churches and clergy want to make gifts, that's nice but a tax isn't the way forward. There is no way anyone who professes themselves Christian could refuse help when asked for. It's about giving and service!
I think that several evangelical and 'free' churches expect a tithe commitment from members.
Ithink that like Rutter many of us in England are culturally C/E..our upbringing, festivals, core values etc are C/E but I do not believe the deity bit.. most moral values I can subscribe to but some i would challenge...I like a good hymn /carol service..nostalgia I guess but can't get on with the faith bit!
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
