Branding

For some perverse reason the diocese always arranges the institution of new incumbents on my customary day off of Thursday, so on a Thursday evening recently I made my way to Hornington for the formal welcome for the incoming rector there. Hornington is one of those churches recently designated a 'minster' despite the ambiguities of that term: it now means whatever the authorities in a diocese want it to mean, it seems. Maybe it can be best summed up as 'this is a church we trust to take on extra responsibilities'. 

As I found my way inside through the throngs I was greeted by the usual group of welcomers, most of whom I know by face if not by name, and later on was plied with sweetmeats at the compulsory bunfight after the ceremony - and they were all wearing tabards emblazoned with the legend 'Team Hornington Minster'. I was put in mind, I'm afraid, not so much of a community of disparate souls committed to a common search for an encounter with God, but a corporate entertainment venue, or a conference centre. Although tabards are usually found at music festivals and the like (I am informed). At entertainment venues and conference centres, too, they would normally be worn by attractive young people rather than older folk trying not to look awkward. If I was a layperson and I came randomly to check out a church where this was the practice, I'd never go back again. 

Now I know what's going on here. It isn't just about identifying people who are acting in an official capacity: in the first place, there are indeed circumstances where you might want to do that (our congregation members at Swanvale Halt who take entry money from visitors to the Spring Fair wear hi-vis jackets to do so), and in the second, there's no need to do so in this instance, as it's obvious what someone giving you a service leaflet or offering you a sandwich is there to do. It's more about trying to foster a sense of corporate identity in a new venture which brings together four separate and distinct places of worship within one structure (in theory, the 'minster' is the whole parish, not just the old parish church in the town). 

At Swanvale Halt we had our own version of this once; a cross, so the rector in the early 1970s claimed, ‘inspired by the ancient symbol of St John the Evangelist, a chalice and a serpent. Containing within itself the monogram S J E … it also suggests the Church spiralling outwards, growing to meet the needs of the growing population of the parish'. All that needed a bit of imagination to see: have a go yourself, I've added it at the top of this post, I have always referred to it as the 'Nuremberg Rally Cross', but even it didn't appear anywhere but on stationery and a couple of bits of decoration. Nobody had to erase their personality by wearing it, nor was it 'gazed upon or carried about'. I still don't like it and am glad it disappeared in the time of my predecessor-but-three. 

And such corporate identity is not the new self we find in Christ, which gathers up and transfigures our natural (and fallen) selves and turns them into something that reflects not the ideology of an organisation, but the nature of Christ. I mentioned this to Fr Donald at Lamford: 'I always think of the disciples as a group of people all with their own divergent personalities', he agreed, joining me in harrumphing, a comfort coming from the incumbent of a considerably larger church than mine. But maybe we are the unusual ones now: maybe laypeople think this is normal, which is a little bit tragic. 

Rainbow Bridge

My journey towards thinking about animals differently didn’t start with Professor Cotillion’s cavaliers, as it really began years ago with my dealings with Christine and her boxers, but since dropping in on online groups such as the charity Bliss Cavalier Rescue’s LiberFaciorum page I’ve become aware of a phrase, an idea, that Christine never used, that of the Rainbow Bridge. ‘Run free at Rainbow Bridge’, grieving pet owners and their comforters will say of their lost animal.

The idea – a beautiful one – is that dead pets go to a meadow landscape where they are restored to health and wholeness, where there is always water and food, and where they play. They wait for their owners to arrive and, when they glimpse them on the edge of the meadow, leave the other animals and run to meet them. Human and pet then cross the Rainbow Bridge together into eternity. Sentimental, maybe, but as I age I'm more reluctant to dismiss sentiment.

The motif of Rainbow Bridge comes, improbably, from a scrap of paper written in 1959 by a 19-year-old Scottish girl who’d just lost her Labrador. It, and she, were chased down by Paul Koudounaris whose book about the spectacular ‘catacomb saints’ distributed across Catholic Mitteleuropa in the 17^th & 18^th centuries, Heavenly Bodies, I have. She was Edna Clyne (later Clyne-Rekhy), and when Mr Koudounaris found her in 2023 she had literally no earthly inkling that her words, originally handed to a few friends in typescript, had, via a 1990s US magazine advice column, found their way around the world - handed to grieving pet owners in vets’ surgeries, shared between friends, carved into stone and placed in pet cemeteries.

Edna disclaimed any direct spiritual influence on her imaginary picture, but the imagery of the rainbow as a sign of hope and its link with animals seems subconsciously to link to the story of the Ark. The rainbow now carries additional meanings, of inclusion and togetherness. But can the motif be accommodated within orthodox Christian thinking in any way?

Even within its own terms, Rainbow Bridge begs questions. What happens to animals humans have wronged, and whose relationship with us is marred beyond repair? The picture clearly imagines dogs as the beloved pets, not surprisingly, though it can easily be extended to cats; where do other animals fit in? And dogs and cats are carnivorous. As far as Christianity is concerned, the idea of Rainbow Bridge is clearly based on popular misconceptions of Christian views of postmortem experience, one of spiritual survival (‘we die and go to heaven’) rather than the resurrection to a new, physical life. Traditionally Christians have shut down discussion about what happens to animals when they die by saying that they have no souls – no soul, no survival – but that seems to fall into the same error. More to the point, the question of what happens to animals is linked to what happens to humans. We participate in the resurrected life not because some immortal part of us survives, but because we acknowledge our sins and turn to Christ; animals have no sin, and so are not redeemed.

But Edna Clyne was only inventing an image, not devising a theology, and if that’s true of her, very substantially the Bible is little different. You’d struggle to define a clear idea of what the soul means – other than being ‘not the body’ – from Scripture, and nothing about the process of what happens to us after death is very clear either.  The greatest clarity we are given, the vision of the Heavenly City, comes in the form of an image, not details about how we get there or what we will do when we arrive. And we know that animals are part of it, because it was part of what Isaiah glimpsed seven centuries before Christ, a renewed world where the wolf would lie down with the lamb and the child place its hand in the adder’s den and not be harmed. None of the ambiguities are insoluble.

You can’t offer a requiem for an animal which has no sin, but you can say as much as that, and maybe that’s all you need to say. We humans have black vestments and unbleached candles to commend us to divine mercy, the tremor of knowing what we are: the beasts, bold and unaware, have the rainbow.

Competition

When Emily's family first came to Swanvale Halt, they arrived at our Toddler Group before they'd even moved into the area. They were looking for a church, they said. Unfortunately when they came with Emily as a babe-in-arms to a Sunday service she bawled her eyes out whenever any music started (everyone's a critic) and so that was that until she was about eight and she became quite enthusiastic, especially when she could bring along her little sister and make a fuss of her. She and her dad were on the serving team for a while, him carrying the cross splendidly and Emily herself making an angelic acolyte. 

Now Emily is in Year 7 and as well as the usual lethargy which I gather creeps over tween/teenagers for physiological reasons she has taken up jiu jitsu which inevitably takes place on Sunday mornings. Her dad has had a few health challenges making carrying a heavy cross around not a good idea, while her younger sister now gets dragged to multiple toddler groups and nurseries during the week as her mum has had to work as a childminder, and going out again on a Sunday to something which doesn't feel very different is less of a draw than staying home and playing with her own toys, thank you very much. 

I mention all this not because it is anything new or results in groundbreaking reflections, but precisely because this is a really quite well-disposed young family which has been very well embedded in the church in the past, and, in an ideal world, would want to be again, but just finds it a challenge. Emily is interested in the putative youth group we want to start later in the month, which is just as well as she's our best prospect of anyone coming at all. It shows that sometimes, perhaps, in the world as we find it, the bits of church life we think of as add-on extras could well be the best way of keeping an entire group of people in contact with God.