For those who were brought up chapel not church, the Anglican service can sometimes appear difficult to follow. It is quite easy once you know the simple rules, but even so some churches try to make it easier by printing service sheets.
Recently whilst staying with friends in Nottinghamshire we went to church and I followed the service sheet upon which were printed some very thoughtful prayers. The prayers were written in the first person and so read, Lord, for all the times I fail to forgive others ….. for the times I am cruel to others ……. for the times I turn away from you ….. for my harsh thoughts and actions ……. for my impatience with others, Lord I am ashamed.
As the Vicar came to the end of each prayer the congregation responded by saying, “Hear my prayer.” At least that was what was intended.
What really happened however was that the Vicar changed all the prayers to the second person or third person and read the prayers not as I, but as we, us and them. I wondered why?
As my mind mused on possible reasons for these amendments, I realised that much of what is wrong with the world today could be because we do not personalise the right kinds of things and are too quick to put things in the second person.
At one level we do personalise things such as when we take offence when it is not meant, or because we feel left out or that nobody cares. But at another level when things go wrong, we usually talk about changing systems and organisations rather than changing ourselves. It is as if we want problems to be solved not by changes to ourselves, but by changes to procedures and protocols.
My mind was jogged out of its reverie when the vicar climbed the steps to the pulpit, and so I settled back for the sermon. However, instead of listening intently I again found myself ruminating as to why individuals seem to prefer changing procedures and engineering society, rather than changing themselves.
I then remembered that the Marxist philosopher Erik Fromm, had said that the social side of our nature, and the individual part of our nature are in a state of constant stress, but that despite any mental discomfort this may cause, human beings have no options but to accept what he called, “ this existential dichotomy.”
Despite half listening to the ongoing sermon, I couldn’t stop thinking that maybe the social side of our nature dominates our individual side too much. Maybe, we have put so much trust in politicians to create new organisations and procedures to solve this or that problem, that we probably want to believe them when they say that, “new structures and systems will make sure that this or that situation will never happen again.” I expect they believe that setting up an expensive social quango is easier than telling people to change their personal behaviour.
This thought then led me on to the distinction between politics and religion. Could it be that the traditional language of religion is about the behaviour of the individual, whereas modern political language is about society and, although there are obvious overlaps; could it be that the language of prayer should reflect concern for the primacy of the individual? If so I am happy for prayers to read, “I have not done ….” rather than, “we have not done …..”
Some think that the current financial crisis and row about MPs expenses was brought about because individuals followed systems rather than taking personal responsibility and that maybe they should have said, “I will not do this” rather than saying, “the rules allow us to do it.”
This thought was summed up in a letter to a Nottingham paper which had carried reports of the expenses of a local MP. It simply said, “Dear Mr ****. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”
Next time I pick up a service sheet I shall note carefully whether the vicar thinks the sinner is me, us, or them.
View from the Pew 