Remembrance of things past

Despite (or maybe because of) my agnosticism, I’m only semi-detached from religion, and strangely, I sometimes seem to have a much clearer opinion on how the church should do things than whether it should do them at all, or whether it should even exist. Maybe this can be put down to different levels of evidence, or the fact that when discussing how to do church, the church’s beliefs can be taken as axiomatic. I realise it probably sounds odd, I could be accused of having my cake and eating it, and I may end up revising my thoughts, but for now, as an “associate member” of the church, I feel entitled to say my piece.

What prompted me to post this today is, of course, Remembrance Sunday. This can be a very fraught and emotionally-laden subject, so before we go any further, I should clarify a few things about my views. I want to commemorate the dead, but I feel uncomfortable about remembrance these days, partly because an open display seems to be treated as a virtual obligation, but mainly because of an increasing conflation of remembrance with support for our armed forces and specifically any current military operations. That’s not my understanding of what remembrance should be about, and even if I supported those causes, I’d be unimpressed by this sort of hijacking of the occasion.

So much for my general gripes about remembrance, but it seems much worse when that sort of bait-and-switch is perpetrated by the church. I’d expect the church to be concerned with the wellbeing of mankind in general and broadly pacifist, or at least generally cautious about war. So it surprises me that some of the most jingoistic and insular services of remembrance I’ve seen have been in church. I’ve seen all these in church services on Remembrance Sunday:

  • Parading of the Union Flag
  • Singing of the national anthem
  • Singing of a hymn specifically set to the Dambusters March
  • Giving thanks for “our” past victories
  • Prayers for “our boys” to succeed “out there” in defeating “them”

I find the last most disturbing, but none sits well with me. I can fully understand that there will often be service families present, and that we will mostly identify with those on our side, but I find this approach hard to reconcile with (for example) Colossians 3:11:

Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

It’s surely appropriate for the church to remember all victims of war on all sides, combatant or non-combatant, and pray not for victory, but for a day when there is no more war, no more suffering. To focus on one particular country – worse, to celebrate victory for that country and pray for more – seems very inappropriate in the context, even if you could be sure that no one present is (say) of German extraction. A moment of thought would surely indicate that a careful, broad approach which acknowledges personal loss and fears without resorting to glorification of war or “us” and “them” language would be more in tune with the teachings of the church’s founder.

I’m possibly being quite harsh here – I appreciate that church services allow various opportunities for occasional careless slips, and some of my complaints could be criticised for being on the picky side. It just surprises and frustrates me that an institution which ought to be firmly in favour of peace, and routinely prays for peace throughout the year, can so easily slip into cheerleading for war for one week each year.

I suppose the trouble, as ever, is that the church is run by people.


Tags: , ,

About Recovering Agnostic

I'm Christian by upbringing, agnostic by belief, cynical by temperament, broadly scientific in approach, and looking for answers. My main interest at the moment is in turning my current disengaged shrug into at least a working hypothesis.

4 responses to “Remembrance of things past”

  1. AnotherChristianBlog says :

    I appreciate the last sentence in this post!

    As a former minister I saw the dirt that people hid when they went to church because they were coming to me with it. It is easy for us to blame the church for not being/doing this or that. But, at the end of the day the church is a body of sinners that have been justifide by grace. People tend for forget that or ignore it.

    Keep Writing,

    Travis (

    • Recovering Agnostic says :

      True. I’m currently working on a wider examination of the human nature within the church, what it means, and how we should react to it. Hopefully, I’ll have it turned round into a new post before long.

  2. fancypantshansen says :

    Consider Matthew 10:34: (Jesus is talking) “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” NASB

    • Recovering Agnostic says :

      I think I’m going to need you to flesh that out a little. It looks like you’re saying that conflict is caused by God, or worse, ordained by Him, so why not celebrate war? but maybe you’re getting at something else. If that is what you mean, presumably the immediately following verses imply that the church should celebrate arguments and divisions within families, even to the point of taking sides.

      For the avoidance of doubt, I disagree with that conclusion.

Love it? Hate it? Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: