LETTERS

Screens and churches

Peter Kimber’s letter in the December issue of Life and Work about the use of projected words and images was stimulating.

When I served on the Church’s Committee on Church Art and Architecture (CARTA), proposals to install screens in churches were beginning to proliferate. The Committee could see some merit in the concept but was concerned that it might adversely affect the quality of settings for worship. Over the years my experience of the use of projection has led me to the following conclusions. Firstly, and very seriously, it can take away much of the atmosphere of public worship, which I believe is essentially a communication between God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit and the congregation, both as a body and as a collection of individuals. Singing from words on a screen takes away from the individuality involved in finding a hymn in a book, and deprives people of seeing a hymn as a whole, finding out when it was written and by whom, and seeing how it relates to other hymns.

Secondly, the placing of texts on the screen can deprive worshippers of the experience of looking up their bibles, and seeing the context of the text, enormously valuable in understanding.

Thirdly, the use of specific images (for instance artists’ conception of biblical events) can be very misleading; it is surely better that worshippers use their imaginations. The words, for instance, that Christ used in his parables, are surely evocative enough, The use of visual stimuli during preaching can also reduce the impact of preaching, essentially an interactive verbal experience, complemented by eye contact.

I suppose what I feel is that the use of screens can limit imaginative responses to verbal and musical stimuli. Jesus said that God is a Spirit, and that we must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. Any experiences in worship that constrain the subtle and direct contact between God and worshippers must be taken very seriously

John R Hume, Glasgow

Evolution debate

“The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is wholly from the Lord.” Proverbs 16:33

Alex Glen need have no problem with evolution (Life and Work, October/December). There are no great issues at stake and no threat to our Christian faith. Does it matter if one species is derived from another or if earth’s beginnings recede into the distance? The Genesis stories declare themselves to be symbolic by the names of Adam and Eve, by the portrayal of the trees, by the names of rivers, the talking serpent and the imagery of clothing. The Bible and science agree that we have risen from the dust. The Bible also adds that it is by the spirit of God to whom a day is as a thousand years, so let the poetry sing.

Alex’s quarrel is not with the BBC and with David Attenborough but with the atheist scientists who go beyond their disciplines to proclaim a world. without meaning. The theory of evolution does not imply their ‘flat earth’ materialism and Alex is right to speak up for the moral and spiritual purpose of the universe.

Mutation may be random but it provides an ever-wider, generous range of options. Chance is only one player in the game. Another is the whole landscape of Nature’s laws and, as Bishop Alexander said, these are “not chains about the living God but threads which he holds in his hands”. Another player is the realm of choice, whereby living things begin to help to make themselves. And alongside that, supremely, is the hidden mystery of divine sustenance and guidance.

In 1879, Darwin wrote to John Fordyce: “It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent theist and an evolutionist …In my most extreme fluctuations, I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God”. Such doubts as he had arose because of the tragic death of his young daughter. In one of his last letters, he told a friend: “You have expressed my inward conviction that the Universe is not the result of chance.” If Darwin himself could hold to his faith in God; if Charles Kingsley, Frederick Temple and other Victorian Christians could welcome the new insights, why should we yield the field to thoseneo-Darwinians who only see a world emptied of meaning? Even the great 4th century theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, could write: “God created only the germs and causes of life, which then slowly developed over long periods of time”. Sixteen hundred years later, Darwin agreed.

Graham Hellier (Rev), Marden, Hereford

I am saddened by Alex Glen’s letters, especially the one in the December issue.

What scientists mean by ‘a theory’ is not conjecture, but an explanation which seems to best it the known facts, and which can be tested and amended by new experiments and evidence. The theory of evolution, ever since Darwin, has undergone exactly this process and has been continuously modiied ever since. Also, science depends utterly on scientists telling the truth as they see it; witness the storms that arise when it’s occasionally found that scientists have lied. I will leave his remark about ‘semi or part evolved species’ to someone better qualiied than myself, other than referring readers to Wikipedia to look at the evolution of horse (for instance) – or Darwin’s inches (which are still evolving).

His statement about dating geological time is, I’m afraid, mistaken. Radiocarbon dating (using the decay of the isotope carbon-14) measures the age of anything which has once been alive, with reasonable reliability, up to 58-62,000 years old. Its weaknesses are known and calibrated. It does not measure the age of rocks. Many other radioactive means exist of measuring geological age which ofer reasonably good dates of millions to billions of years. They are backed up by dating by other means such as geological strata, which was irst idenitifed by James Hutton.

We believe in the God of truth. Scientiic truth is in His image because it is human and it is as reliable in its way as theological truth which is also done by humans. Aristotle, Augustine, Bede, Descartes, Calvin, Hutton and Bonhoefer (to select only a few of each) were all tellers of truth as they saw it and all fallible and of their own eras. If we believe theologians but disbelieve scientists, then we might be in danger of calling God a liar. But I understand from the bible that God ‘has made all things visible and invisible’ and called it good’ and it is because He has that we can understand his world scientiically, from physics, geology, chaos theory, to evolution and molecular biology.

Ursula McKean, Dundee

Science and religion

With reference to my letter on science and religion (December), I would like to say that the correspondent I responded to was Mr Torrance and not Alex Glen. The latter argues in more detail about evolution and the age of the Universe. Though I disagree with him, he is more than entitled to his views and would be unhappy to be involved in a continuing debate on the merits of evolution and estimating the age of the universe.

This might merely stimulate a heated argument rather than a considered discussion.

Such an approach might simply distract readers from more immediate issues such as dealing with homelessness in Britain and poverty throughtout the world.

Bill MacLennan, Glasgow

Power of advertising

What wonderful summer we had here in Orkney last year. Hours of sunshine every day, much enjoyed.

It was also a very special summer for our small congregation, long vacant, here in Hoy and Walls.

After a small advert in your magazine, we were rewarded with a wonderful response and several church people coming over for a short stay in our ‘peedie’ hoose’ and leading worship for us on Sunday.

This was a great boost: and much appreciated by the congregation, having so many guest speakers to lead worship for us.

A W Sutherland, Orkney