Hymns and That

I'm very pleased that David Dawson appreciates my reworking of the contents of the first CD using updated (and free) software. In the recent Cantemus (from the Unitarian Music Society) he explains how, with that first CD in 2000, the recording equipment did not turn up, so those 21 hymns were recorded with rough equipment. The result was a lot of hiss and mono.

When I first used noise reduction on it a metallic trail was left instead of the noise. It was still there with reduced noise reduction settings. I hid the 'trail' inside echo and stereo separation. You could sing along but the words of the choir were indisctinct. But the upgrade of Audacity had a change in noise reduction. Using the pre-set level, the noise reduction was good and clean. However, the effect of that and artificial stereo was a hollowing out of the sound, that was not righted by using a low pass filter (tempted) but rather by lowering the notes and the useful same time action of slowing the speed. These must be done together to keep the integrity of a sound. Occasionally I might add a reduced shot of bass as well. But I was surprised that a second shot of noise reduction was even better, killing all obvious traces of hiss and it seemed to me that, based on a space of hiss, ought to be done before the note was dropped.

So the action was:

Find a non-organ fade out section of background hiss and take that as the noise to remove.
Then do the noise reduction.
Amplify down to make space for stereo (I chose -5.4)
Make stereo at full width (this is a VST plug-in)
Then do the noise reduction again.
Reduce speed and pitch by -6.
Amplify back up to peak.

In all cases I had a second of silent lead in and up to two seconds silent lead out for each track. This helps with CD playing machines less sophisticated than the one at the Hull church. For the CD itself, with the 21 put back, there is an extra gap of two seconds between tracks.

In some cases a little echo was added at the end of tracks where a finish was too quick, or where interrupted by a click. In one case a hymn with repeat lines and verses was reconstructed.

It's good to read that the CD will find use. It is one used by many because it contains popular hymns and indeed hymns first available on a CD with the different words Unitarians sing.

David Dawson explained to me that with the 1985 book much thought was not given to the vocal range of a hymn and he plays by transposing, whereas with the 2010 book the range rarely goes above D. Technically it is all to do with the general pitch or tessitura - the comfortable range for a particular singer or group of singers.

I selected -6 to slow the hymn and lower it noticably enough and to reclaim some 'body' back into the sound (it does work - rarely did I add bass boost). David explains, however, that for someone of perfect pitch, it sounds in between the notes. Interesting. -4 might have been better, I wonder, but -8 is well noticable but can be too slow. As you slow it down, you push your luck with the integrity of the note - the stability of a note from an organ, for example.

I did wonder about this. We Westerners do not cover every note with our notes! Proportionately the music should work out the same, it's just that it doesn't hit the notes.

I cannot read music, but I can copy what I see. I have recently upgraded Musescore. I've only just discovered the proper click for a tie to join two notes, rather than just add a curly thing. I still put up notes and down notes on different scores - it also allows more instruments.

My list of hymns is continually updated. In next Sunday's service, Stephen Carlile has chosen some funeral type hymns to go with a service theme on colours. They are not on any CD, but I have sourced the music and added to the list. The 1985 book remains the standard - it made leaps and bounds then, and it covers the range from liberal Christian to religious humanist belief and some interfaith. The newer book, as a supplement, contains much more that attack the idea of verses, and has more challenging singing. I can add to these either when the music is standard, the music is already available somewhere, or by transcribing and hoping I get the rhythm. Sometimes I choose 'small band' versions of hymns as a means to modernise, and more often than not get criticised. But I have resisted all attempts to get me to tell preachers what hymns to sing - these are matters for the service takers and then I make sure I can cover what they need. We should be able to sing without an artificial congregation all the time.

Ethics and Church

It's interesting that the more I look into the basis of making an argument regarding the rules of the Christian Church, the more it becomes utterly obvious that I am now a complete outsider. Thinking Anglicans wants to be constructive regarding the amendment 5 that caused the General Synod to take back the process to the House of Bishops to rethink the rethink from there that led to the amendments in the first place.

I have nothing to say! Listening to a new and professional person in my life, I realise that the Church of England's position is simply offensive to women in general. The evangelicals can argue all they like for and against - the present situation is simply offensive. The Catholic traditionalists can do what they like: they are peculiar and the general impact is offensive. So bugger the clauses and amendments and stop being offensive. If you don't, then OK, but don't attempt to relate to others outside the shrinking tent.

So now the public and ritualistic statements of my past are misleading. And on those latter points, I don't care either. I made them faithfully and with intent in the past, but the fire went out thanks to distance and elongated time without prospect of reversal. What I do care about is that my position is known to the person who now matters to me, and vice versa, as we also continue to function in our own established lives. Although early days, and the door shut on others, this could be far from a conventional sense of union.

When the last piece of coal stopped glowing I don't precisely know, and I was probably over-hopeful for too long, but now that is of a previous time. Memories and a faithfulness to the past is also important, for both of us setting out. There is a sadness about the past on all sides. The person of former ritual connection knows of the change and had understood change was likely to happen.

In order to start this new relationship I did not consult a rule book of a Church or the Bible or indeed any other such spiritual-resource book. I would think that according to set texts I'm now well in amongst the immoral - and it does not worry me a bit. I do not live in a woo-woo world where people try to make other people fear for their salvation. I couldn't give a toss about that hogwash (more fool them). I have only made the most general of extractions regarding broad spiritual sources, but these are available in the secular sphere too. That there is a spiritual aspect in the relationship is important, in recognising the uniqueness and fullness of the other person. Her narrative is compelling and I can only hope about mine. I relate faith and trust, which to me was always the meaning of faith (not beliefs), and so the question is one of trust. And hope indeed. Hope failed before, but hope can come again.

By the way, all people have negatives as well as positives. What is compelling is not just a list of positives, but all of it taken (and not a list) that makes for the whole. The question for me always is: can I 'live' with myself in what I do, and can I 'live' with the other and can she 'live' with me.

And on this point, I wish to say no more personally. But I do wish to comment on how this then relates to my own pursuit of a spiritual life along with others who do the same. Because these principles that are intense in a one-to-one also can apply to friendships and then the general pursuit of life.

I arrived by a route of pressing links to the general mission of the Methodist Church, and I thought I could use this.

I do not follow in reverence one text collection nor the cult of an individual (Jesus of Nazareth), so any rewrite will avoid both, but the rewrite does relate to the position above of values, trust and hope that we might try to achieve in valuing ourselves and the other.

So a Church that tries to bring together trust and hope does this through:

WORSHIP/ MEDICATION/ REFLECTION LEARNING & CARING SERVICE TO OTHERS MAKING ITSELF KNOWN TO BENEFIT OTHERS

WORSHIP

The purpose of worship is to contemplate and reflect on the direction and purpose of our lives and our place in the wider cosmos. All people are important to us, whether significant others or generalised others. We worship through the use of traditional spiritual language and meaning, and through the focii that develop a sense of trust and hope on this living planet.

We might express a sense of sorrow and regret and also awe, wonder, thankfulness and praise. We can do these through words, symbols and music and in traditional or radical styles.

LEARNING & CARING

The Church helps people to grow and learn to value one another, through mutual support and care. It is done through small groups in discussion or for charitable activity. Some of these help others join us.

Pastors (Ministers, Lay Leaders) facilitate ministry among everyone. Sermons should inspire action.

Some drift away or leave and we should ask why and seek to alter behaviour to keep those in future who might not have left but did.

SERVICE

The Church exists to be a good neighbour to people in need and to challenge injustice by sharing concerns. This may relate to the local or a wider community. There should be an international angle. We can bring in charities or support others as individuals. There are the ethical issues raised by daily work.

We should share with one another our concerns about things that do not seem right, or cause trouble in our identified communities, or appear unjust.

The premises are a useful resource for income but income by helping others consistent with our beliefs and values.

The worship should refer to the identified communities and those using the premises.

Service to others should be part of the active development of the Church.

TELLING OTHERS

The Church exists to grow so that others have space to reflect and do it with other people also seeking faith.

Reaching out involves spiritual friendship exercised in the church, in and after the services.

The language used has to be clear and recognisable. Words used should be straightforward and meaningful to outsiders.

Each individual has their own narrative of coming to a community seeking faith. We should be confident in telling our stories. This does not have to be competitive (e.g. do this in interfaith meetings) but it should not be hidden.

Liberal religion varies in different denominations and in Unitarianism around the world, and we can learn from them.

Unitarians should be prepared to start new groups, even if it begins with twos and threes, with necessary publicity and a means to gather.

Insight From Fulwood

The chap who took the service at Hull Unitarians came from Fulwood Unitarian church in Sheffield. He and wife afterwards mentioned the Anglican church down the road from theirs, full to bursting point with several services each day. I said that is one of the Reform churches, as is one at Clough Road/ Beverley Road in Hull. It is also busy, though not as busy as it might like: Hull is a touch area for religion regardless of what kind. The Fulwood C of E church regards the Unitarian church nearby as "evil".

I said these are the churches in the C of E for which a woman cannot teach a man. They might be teaching Sunday School boys and girls, but not men. So you cannot have women ministers in charge nor certainly a woman bishop. I said these are like a Church within a Church, so that they'd have their own colleges and training, and own bishops, and Amendment 5 in effect gave them their own bishops because it introduced theological compatibility with the parish.

Yet despite people spilling out of the doors, there are only so many of these churches in the C of E and require car parks. There is one just outside Hull that pulls people in far and wide - very charismatic. The C of E still has a coverage of lesser attended churches (I pass one in the next street to me, evangelical, a congregation probably under 20 in number) and such that the Reform people still represent a minority of the whole. So do the traditionalist Catholics, and they do not generate large congregations.

In the end, the taking back of the Amendments was the only course of action available for the Church of England. The Amendement 8 to explain delegation and derived was probably all right for those who believe in fuzzy things going on when people lay on hands as do traditionalist Catholics who want their bishops derived. It answers the Catholic traditionalists but of course it did nothing for the Conservative Evangelicals, for whom delegation by a woman is precisely the problem. But Amendment 5 was toxic because it mixed with the derived and gave full force to the pollution argument as well as allowing particular theologies to decide added bishops.

The point is that there is no provision to be offered to Conservative Evangelicals. They are Puritans within a different body. They do not carry large scale weight, except by bringing in foreign Anglican oversight from places like Africa and other patterns of entryism. Entryism means they form themselves more clearly as a Church within a Church, for self-rule and self-development, but doing so in order to have the reach of the wider Church into which they are burrowed.

The C of E is giving Catholic traditionalists the chance to regard their other bishop as derived, and in practical realities they will keep a book of laying on of hands in their understanding of derived. Others will, at the same time, regard women and men ordained by women as just as derived. These traditionalists will fade away, or go elsewhere if safeguards against pollution don't go far enough.

But you cannot accommodate with Conservative Evangelicals. You can only vote them down. Of course, when they start doing their entryism proper (Jersusalem Declaration, correct College, international oversight from the Primates Council), then the Church of England has the right to defend itself and root them out. Getting Wycliffe College back, even if it stays evangelical, was important. Conservative Evangelicals with their declations and demands might realise that they ought to have the courage to run their own Church and move into their own churches.

Come back with an undefined 'derive' and 'delegated' if you like, but next time in November just bring in the legislation to be voted upon. The pro-women bishops lobby (if it can be called that) might not get the two-thirds needed (the amendments gained no votes, only lost them) and then it is a clean and clear loss until next time. On the other hand the Catholic traditionalists know that the game is up for them, and should seek their place in the new reality or go elsewhere, as is on offer. The vast spread of the C of E now wants women bishops, so are the Conservative Evangelicals going to frustrate the rest by blocking? Do they have a third or more in the General Synod?

Probably not now: but they might in five years time. Better get this through in November: it is probably the best chance to do so.

Sermon at York

He was, of course, talking about himself (as well).

Where the Buck Stops

I don't go for the idea that "staff" are responsible for the onslaught against same-sex marriage in the recent Church of England response.

This is, I suggest, rather like getting something on paper, doing the donkey work, following the obvious guide of Canon B30. Rather, detailed suggestions went to the House of Bishops and then to the two Archbishops.

So the people who issued this were the Archbishops, and it followed exactly the sentiments of John Sentamu and the willing bureaucratic-Church priorities of Rowan Williams.

He could not but have noticed the response, Rowan Williams told the General Synod as one answer to questions. But did he not predict the response at all, one wonders, or is his outlook so skewed by some pan-Anglican outlook abroad or (in the opposite) a Lambeth bunker mentality that he has lost sight of change around his own province?

But here we have it. The Covenant; conformed: the statement; and the Amendment. The Covenant could not reappear due to its demise, thanks to church people. The mess of the Amendment is on Monday, but we know who asked for the wriggle room that produced the Amendment.

The idea that an Archbishop is a no-powers person has been shot down these past few years. He might be a power to persuade only person, but this one has driven the agenda in these key areas in order to preserve and advance his model of a Church, a Church of hierarchy. His colonels followed on, in awe.

It is this idea of hierarchy that needs challenging, to be replaced (given that such a Church is hardly likely to abolish bishops) by an ethic of service not command.

A Potential Problem Regarding the Vote...

On the women bishops thingy...

For the bishops to 'take back' the legislation so that it can be re-presented at a subsequent General Synod without the amendments, a motion to do so needs to be accepted by the Chair of the proceedings.

The Chair of the proceedings has to be one of the Archbishops. The Chair of the proceedings does not have to even accept the motion.

One of these Archbishops at least, and one can bet it was both, argued for wriggle room despite the clear message from the dioceses. He said, to a General Synod, regarding resistance to his Covenant plan, "Read the Ordinal." That is, remember who is boss (wears purple). One of these appointed flying bishops well ahead of this vote.

So would one of these Archbishops, would either of them, accept the motion to return to the bishops, or would either force a vote now on the nuclear option - it is either women bishops with "taint" or it is no women bishops at all (and will have to start all over again)?

The Future Depends On It

As I make my efforts within the Unitarian fold, it gets more distant to comment on Anglican affairs. The whole business regarding women's ordination as bishops is more a sad tale than anything else.

Basically, it's a bloody mess and it is a mess to add to a succession of stupid interventions and directions. So despite the sadness in the train-crash detail it is important to keep hold of a wide as possible picture available.

The first stupidity was the Anglican Communion Covenant. The sense that it was being forced through by authority grew over time, and as it did so, and against any consensus, the narrow votes fell across dioceses to dismiss it out of sight. Though some would drag it back for a second go.

The second stupidty was the recent high handed comment about gay marriage and marriage in particular. Well, most denominations have said the same thing, but the dismissal of marriage for couples of the same sex here was absolutist in tone and narrow in source. It gave no sense of the debate actually going on and shifts in opinion.

Then the amendments were the cackhanded result of leaders being too close to the subject, an inability to see that an amendment far from being a tweak was an innovation to bring to an institution a view about unpolluted apostolic succession at the very time of the innovation to have women bishops. One simply undermines the other, and makes it contentious throughout the institution.

All this is the result of a disastrous Archbishop of Canterbury who, on his way out, led the wriggle room to cause violent shakes instead. He'd thought he could apply a Covenant and saw no other way, and others have had to say no; he has stood on his own head on the gay issue and this represents its inherent authoritarianism and clash with unrecognised secular responsibilities, and finally has come this intervention when the dioceses had made it clear what was going to pass.

At the heart of all this is a view stating that we do not live in a liberal-secular state where ethics are under constant negotiation (such as what constitutes marriage) but in a series of different communities to which each of us is signed up as a member and has its own authority structure. This is bad multiculturalism without any unity between them, a conserving postliberalism of frozen narratives in every little place. Some can have Sharia Law, some do not. So if you are an English Anglican Christian then you should 'read the ordinal' and take your authority as it is dished out, and it has been dished out on the basis of matching up with a deeply unethical Anglicanism abroad or in its sectarian features at home. Instead of challenging these, this Archbishop has simply promoted the institution as a sort of compulsive base for unethical theology and ecclesiology. He has proven to be deeply illiberal.

This is not the Anglicanism many recognise and which has been part of Englishness as an open, if class-ridden, grope towards negotiated change and different views of progress. Instead it is a fantasy Anglicanism of purple and authority, or story-narratives of the close kind.

The upshot is that, once again, the people of the Church of England are going to have to rescue the Church from its inept inward leaders. They are inept because they thought they should follow the leader and his 'teaching'. The rescue will be to get the bishops to take the amendments back, and return without any. If the bishops don't, then the legislation will collapse.

What has happened with the gay marriage statement - people are leaving - will also happen if there is a collapse in the process that dioceses showed would have been passed. All the authority was behind passing into reality the ordination of women as bishops. For it to collapse because an Archbishop, on his way out, can't leave be (and others doing the same), would be a tragic result and a conclusive demonstration that the bishops need to change as a whole.

The problem is that in these days of differentiation and specialisation, the Church of England is too broad. Secularisation theorists might have thought that the mainstream Churches would break up into aggressive sectarian evangelicals and defensive sectarian Catholics, with only a rump liberal group trying to stay in 'negotiation' with society. I'd say those new denominations are definitely in there and where the energy for change exists. But one should allow for institutions to have their own peculiarities, and one may be a Church of England that still combines different tendencies but does this over a narrower range. One should almost expect conservative evangelicals to go off and form their own Church, and indeed for traditionalist Catholics to form existences within Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. In such a trimmed Church away from these constituents, the liberal wing may find itself part of a settlement that demands a level of subscription that its radicals cannot bear. It would be like a new settlement Church, where there is a greater harmony of purpose between wings that do actually relate to each other. This sounds fine and clear-cut, until the liberal reluctance to say it as they think comes through, with the tendency to subscribe and keep quiet in the face of opposition. Plus the debate will be on how to relate to wider society, because not even the trimmed Church will do that.

Incidentally, the 'Not in My Name' petition against the recent gay marriage statement was organised at least initially by Ian Stubbs, and I knew of him from my 1990s Sea of Faith days. Now I don't know his views at present - I note he is called "Father Stubbs" by many (never would be by me) and has an Anglo-Catholic appearance, if married to a female Methodist minister. The question (I am asking, that's all) is how liberal could be a trimmed down Church of England and would it (should it?) include the Ian Stubbses of the former, overstretched Church? Don Cupitt, of radical views, decided, in the end, to be out - that his critics were right, and a number have agreed, but some are still in and clerical too, obeying the creeds and the historic formularies as a whole.

What recent episodes show, however, is that Catholic authoritarian ecclesiologies are still alive at the top, at least for some months yet, as are those strange views about obeying scriptural passages. If the gay exclusion view persists, and if the bishops do not do the decent thing and force the amendments, then the all male led Church will persist. Who's to say that a future attempt to have women bishops won't come up against a stronger conservative evangelical resistance or a renewed traditionalist Catholic Anglicanism? In that sort of Church the women will walk as the gay folk are doing, and the Church will become the sectarian bolt hole that some seem to want. In this situation disestablishment will be virtually a necessity and we shall have a Church in England instead, but one that is remote and irrelevant to everyone else.

So next Friday the fun starts, and let's be honest. There's not a lot riding on it - only the whole future of the Church of England, to trim itself and try at lest to have some sensible relationship to ordinary thought and practicalities, or to become a sectarian memory rump of fantasy-land evangelicals and Catholics.

But just to help, will the present and retiring Archbishop just go quietly and realise that his thumbprint on the institution has been a disaster at every turn, leaving others to prevent the outcome he intended. It would not be his last Synod, if the legislation unamended is to return to a Synod say in November. Perhaps waiting until February 2013 might be an option, when he is gone.