The Call to Service
(being the third in a series of posts on “Religion and Violence”, a theme covered in Karen Armstrong’s latest book, Fields of Blood)
Background
What I learned about religion in childhood came almost entirely from school. The single exception was a phase when my invalid Granny would take me through a series of booklets from the Bible Reading Fellowship to which she subscribed. These had the format of selecting a text for each day and explaining its significance, or in the adult versions—they were carefully graded—offering a meditation on the sacred words. I didn’t let her know that I was “stony ground”, that her evangelism took no root in me. School was a different affair: Scripture was simply a lesson, like History or Geography—all you had to do was learn the facts and stories as presented. No repentance or conversion was required. Then on Sundays—for I was a boarder most of the time—you had to attend the local Anglican church. And sometimes a master would forget our civilian status and call it Church Parade. “Mandatory church parades were abolished in the United Kingdom in 1951,” says Wikipedia. It was otherwise in our school’s Cadet Force, where joining was not compulsory—in theory. If you declined to join, you were instantly eligible for the Pioneer Corps, automatically conscripted. This meant that in your usual scruffy school uniform you would spend Thursday afternoons shambling after our equivalent of Groundskeeper Willie, cleaning the leaves out of drains
Our headmaster wanted to “be in that number”. . .
In exactly the same way, I took a non-combatant role in the matter of Christian worship, being a sort of stretcher-bearer who inwardly sighed when we sang “Onward Christian Soldiers, marching as to war.” In our school, each form of service was a metaphor for the other; at times the two meanings of “service” blurred into one. Selflessly you offered yourself to your country and to God. In fact, it was lip-service. In my brief incarnation as a Boy Scout, I promised “on my honour to do my best to do my duty” to
. . . when the Saints went marching in
By way of instilling the indivisibility of duty, we had a special ritual on Speech Day. In full gleaming uniform, stiff with pride and inflexible duty, the Cadet of the Year marched up to the stage, saluted, and received a ceremonial sword, to return before the next Speech Day, and a finely-bound Bible, to keep forever. It was the King James version, naturally. We were the King James I School, of ancient origin but re-founded in new premises in 1610, when said King was on the throne. Not only that but King Charles I was housed there after losing the second Civil War. “Charles’s only recourse was to return to negotiations, which were held at Newport
our school badge
God is on our side
So I was well-prepared when I came across a press cutting from my great-aunt’s WWI scrapbook: a brilliantly-crafted piece of pro-war propaganda, signed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York at Whitsuntide, 1915.It was, you might say, completely expected; just as nobody can have been surprised that Princess Mary, then aged 17, daughter of King George V, wrote to more or less everyone asking them to subscribe for Christmas presents to send to the fighting men at the end of 1914. If my Auntie Ollie’s scrapbook is to believed, the whole Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was indeed united by the urgency of survival, as they saw it, in the war against Germany. Conscientious objectors and aliens were locked up. A draconian move, you might think. But perhaps it was partly, given the prevailing mood, for their own safety.
As co-editor of my great-aunt’s posthumous website, I don’t allow myself comment there, leaving it untainted by the present-day, as free as possible from anachronism. For example, we don’t call it “A Scrapbook of World War I”. You must imagine yourself on a time-machine, transported to a past with no knowledge of subsequent history, only a supreme confidence in its own values. You are welcome to enter, but it won’t be complete for many months yet. You will be taken to a singular time and place: St Leonards-on-Sea in the County of Sussex, a hundred years ago from August 1st 1914 through to the end of November 1919. You will look through the eyes of a young woman whose father and eldest brother are Churchmen, & whose other brothers and brother-in-law have mostly signed up for War Service; all except my great-uncle Arthur, who was working in Malaya for the Forestry Commission, and my grandfather Vincent, a schoolmaster & also medically exempt, already with a family, including my rebellious non-conforming mother, aged 5 at the outbreak of war.
Where I stand
One is obviously influenced by one’s background, sometimes for and sometimes against. From my mother’s side, the influences were upper-middle-class. Her rebellious and non-conforming nature led her to gallivant off to Singaporeas a dancing teacher and thence to Australia, where I was conceived and born, in circumstances still not fully explained. My grandparents knew but I was never told, till someone broke a promise and gave me the outline
Family group 1913: click top left for detail of
my great-aunt & her brother Llewelyn;
bottom right for my mother and her parents
About war, I have no comment to offer. As for religion, I’ve always had a sense of something spiritual, which was never entirely absent from religion, half-smothered as it invariably was by other agendas. The sonorous rhetoric of Cranmer’s Prayer Book and of King James’ Bible cast ritual spells when read or sung aloud, as in Choral Evensong, reaching the soul like the Cantatas of Bach. But I felt impelled to ignore the doctrines they conveyed, to seek elsewhere for those in a lifelong quest which finally concluded that “no doctrine at all” was best. And now? I find it good to be an observer with no fixed plans, no urgency to arrive anywhere.
---------------
For brief notes on how to wage war in the trenches, see my great-uncle’s training diary. Llewelyn Sanger Davies in 1914 interrupted his studies at Cambridge, eager to join up as a subaltern. Like his sister Olwen (they seem to have been close) he demonstrates skill at sketching and writing. She would have acquired the diary after his death. Llewelyn was killed on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, July 1st 1916. It will be some time before her website publishes that page of her Scrapbook, wherein she notes “6 months later his identity disc was returned and nothing else.” He is pictured in the left-hand inset on the family photo above.
13 Comments:
Nice to have some perspective on your religious background.
'For example, we don’t call it “A Scrapbook of World War I”'
It's little things like this that always amuse me. I remember -- maybe not the precise moment -- but I remember a point where I realized why people prior to WWII wouldn't refer to World War I as such, not knowing what brutalities the future held and not being in a position to name their world wars as part of a franchise with sequels.
Psychologists claim that children develop a "Theory of Mind" at a certain age. But I'm becoming more and more inclined that the development of that theory is a lifelong process, more successful in some than in others. It starts, at that young age, with understanding that the other children in the room have thoughts and feelings and a point of view of their own. Then over the years the thesis is elaborated on to include adults, neighbors, people of other nations and cultures, other times and places. They may even eventually graduate to the master class where they come to fathom the perspective of the extraterrestrials and realize that they may have other concerns besides worrying about this small blue planet and its inhabitants.
Okay, now I've really gone off on a tangent, and probably lost a few people around the orbit of Jupiter as well.
Excellent. As tangents go round here, your remarks are closer to a bull’s eye. Do you remember my post about Thomas Nagel’s The View from Nowhere?
Some children grow up to take their theory of mind as many steps further as they can. Not satisfied with the putative viewpoints of extraterrestrials, they imagine reality as it must look without any observer at all; which sounds impossible, for how can there be any looking without a looker?
We had a lot of fun discussing that kind of thing, and somehow the Monty Hall problem arose through your instigation, whether it was a tangent or not I cannot determine at a glance. And you had to recalculate the odds for the contestant who was hoping to win the dentures!
I remembered most of that; I just didn't remember that it all happened in one place.
And those explanations of the Monty Hall problem, good lord! Even my eyes started glazing over after reading back over the first one. I have to apologize again for subjecting... well, everyone to that. I've actually had some pretty dumb arguments with people over that. It's an utterly pointless thing to argue about, but for some reason it really aggravates me when someone insists that the solution is wrong because they don't understand it. There are people on YouTube I've seen that get downright belligerent about it, even though there is simple unquestionable mathematics behind it.
Still, it's a shame, because the conversation concerning "enlightenment" that led to that had potential to go somewhere much more interesting.
I would say, touching again on that topic, the realization about "The Great War" mentioned above was a minor instance of enlightenment.
And as coincidence would have it, the subject of WWI actually came up in a conversation I was having last night. I was talking to this guy I was training and he kept insisting that Hitler had led the Germans in BOTH world wars. I told that definitely wasn't the case.
Luckily we all now have smartphones on us with Wikipedia just a click away, so the matter was quickly put to rest. In the old days I would have eventually had to settle the argument by putting my hand over his mouth and plugging his nose and whispering, "Shhhh, that's it. That's it. Just stop talking now.", until all the dumb ignorant life finally left his body.
Yes, agreed, and there is a close connection surely between enlightenment (in its non-Buddhist sense) and creativity. Because both are dependent on personal discovery.
I got excited the other day to hear on the radio an interview with a woman, now 78, whose most seminal book seems to have been written about 1990. She sounds so lively and full of fun on the programme, & her thoughts were so enlightening, about how her studies in medicine, computing, psychology & philosophy, had led her to come up with a theory of creativity. So I took to her at once and listened avidly.
After some minutes she mentioned her time in the Philosophy Dept at the University of Birmingham. Could it be . . . ? I had hung out with the guys in that department and had become alienated from my own studies. Yes, it was she, Dr Boden, then a junior lecturer. I had spent a weekend with her in the Lake District---along with the other guys---but didn't remember anything about her at all, except she had pulled out a game of Scrabble and everyone played it except me, because I wasn't feeling well and went to my bunk in the youth hostel where we were staying. I had probably drunk too much in the pub. I mentioned the weekend in this post. Dr Boden (as I called her then) didn't come climbing that day with us, she had her research papers with her, or perhaps student papers to mark. It is possible we discussed creativity, or some such topic, for I was totally eager for anything philosophical. But I remember nothing.
And now having downloaded a sample of her book, The Creative Mind: Myths & Mechanisms, I find myself hoping that some intellectual connection had been established between this 20-year-old wild-mannered student and that 26-year-old well-mannered PhD lecturer. For in the next 10 years I got employed as a computer programmer fascinated in my spare time with notions of machine intelligence but getting nowhere at all & wondering if some seed had been planted in me from that weekend.
She makes the specific point in her book (which I'm waiting to have delivered from the States) that there is such a thing as psychological creativity, in which someone, child or adult, discovers some "surprising, valuable idea that's new to the person who comes up with it." (Her italics.) She calls this "P-creativity", and goes on:
"It doesn't matter how many people have had that idea before. But if a new idea is H-creative, that means that (so far as we know) no one else has had it before: it has arisen for the first time in human history."
Eat your heart out, Ecclesiastes, you and your "nothing new under the sun".
In the book (which I hope to write about some time) she leans on our understanding of how computers work to develop her theory of "conceptual spaces". What I like about her speaking and writing is the way she keeps it intelligible to the layman and seems to generate a free conceptual space for her audience to proliferate their own thoughts - and enlighten themselves.
Ha ha, just seen your comment about your trainee's ignorance. Good thing you don't have to train him in much world history.
We might even wean ourselves off tangents, at this rate, & talk about war or allied topics.
Yes, Hitler merely achieved the rank of corporal in the Austrian Army in WW, I think I (to hell with Wikipedia, let others check). He and Wittgenstein went to the same school for a bit, and both were of an age to serve in both wars, though in divergent capacities in WWII---Wittgenstein as a hospital orderly, rather more useful than the other fellow.
I like this idea of "P-Creativity." Kind of reminds me of a similar thought that I've had before. I was thinking about how we're often told things, sometimes even to the point that they become bromides, but yet under certain circumstances and experiences of your own they can hit with a very novel force. Take, for instance, the statement "adults don't know everything." A child hears this all the time growing up, and the bare fact of it seems obvious even to them. They may even shrug and wonder why everyone keeps telling them this. But then they grow up and join the ranks of adulthood themselves, and this statement may hit them in a moment of wonder, as though they'd never heard it before. They're thinking about how THEY'RE an adult, and they look around and realize that everyone is just as lost as they are. It's the kind of thing that doesn't really mean anything until it happens. (I know this might not be what she's talking about -- she might be talking about more of a "reinventing the wheel" kind of thing -- but it made me think of it.)
And, regarding Hitler, yeah, I told the guy that he had SERVED in WWI but that he had come to power in the intervening years between the two wars. I actually remember hearing a story one time about how some guy had saved a German officer's life in WWI, and then it turned out that that man was none other than Adolph Hitler!!!! Dum-dum-dummmmmm! You know, that sort of thing?
And THEN, this afternoon I watched Sophie's Choice for the first time, which of course, bears a connection to WWII.
I'm caught in absolute quagmire of coincidences here. I think I might have to go take a nap.
"But I felt impelled to ignore the doctrines they conveyed, to seek elsewhere for those in a lifelong quest which finally concluded that “no doctrine at all” was best. And now? I find it good to be an observer with no fixed plans, no urgency to arrive anywhere."
There is always the content and the package it comes in. In my view, you seem to have accepted what the church had to offer while rejecting the package in which it was presented. Doctrinaires in the church may see your situation as the opposite; that the music, the poetry, the beauty which conveyed the numinous were the package for the doctrines which were the gift. We see things in the way we are capable of.
Quakers like to say that we are members of no 'organized religion.' We have tried to discard both the doctrines and the vehicles through which they are conveyed. Spontaneous recognition of the presence is what we aim for. Service is often the way it is perceived.
This from Wiki:
"In education one is asked to stand as much as possible outside the body of accumulated knowledge and analyze it oneself. In indoctrination on the other hand, one stands within the body of knowledge and absorbs its teachings without critical thought."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine
Thanks, Ellie, you have summed it up with remarkable conciseness and precision. The quote from Wiki illustrates the unison of Church and Armed Forces from the perspective of my school and I think most English people during the Great War. Indoctrination was the favoured option, so that the country's efforts could be assembled into fighting a single cause the most effectively. Critical thought seemed to stand in the way of straightforward obedience. On the other hand this straightforward obedience led to the acceptance of slaughter on a vast scale by more or less everyone. All in the name of service. But this is the profane aspect of the matter.
As for the sacred aspect I think that the Church of England was light on indoctrination, then as now. As the Established Church it served too many masters and tried to please them all. On one hand it ran from investment income inherited through the centuries and paid its parsons. Included in its capital was ancient church buildings in constant need of renovation, while congregations dwindled. There was always an income from christenings, weddings & funerals, so no questions asked about the sincerity of your faith. There was always soul-searching among the highly-educated clergy about what to do about Darwin, whether to be evangelistic or no, how to present theology to the people, typified by the publication in 1963 of Honest to God by John Robinson, Bishop of Woolwich. Congregations across the land felt he was confessing to atheism. They didn't want their traditional unquestioning views to be questioned.
My contact with the Church of England has always been involuntary---nudgings from grandmother and school---but in matters of faith, as opposed to civic behaviour (e.g. Church Parades) I never found there to be indoctrination as described in Wiki. So the question of which was content and which was package would have been entirely academic in my case.
In the case of my great-Aunt Olwen, whom I did know as a child and know better through her scrapbook, I feel that she absorbed its teachings without critical thought. Her father and elder brother were churchmen. I have no doubt whatsoever that if the Church had then permitted the ordination of women, she would have chosen that path the moment she was old enough. As it was, she did what she could as a lay person, and married a clergyman rather late in life, sharing with him the parish duties. He died prematurely and she then devoted herself to "missionary work" in a new town, helping set up new parishes and supporting their congregations. I suspect she needed no more indoctrination than a duckling, when its mother first takes it to water.
And on the topic of ducks, it is well-known, especially through the ethological studies of Konrad Lorenz, that a newborn duckling treats the first thing that moves as its mother, in a process called imprinting. In this way we too form sentimental attachments which we look back on with a certain fondness, even when we rebelled against them in childhood and still in later life think they are wrong.
So I would call our early religious associations imprinting rather than indoctrination: something for the instinct, rather than the intellect, to feed upon.
When Larry was 16 he enrolled in Duke University having completed 11th grade (the final year) in New Orleans Public Schools. The year was 1942. Following his first year at Duke he decided to continue his education at Louisiana Tech because the military was beginning to use Duke for officers training. Knowing that he would be drafted into the military when he turned 18, he decided to prepare himself to be a Merchant Marine as preferable to being drafted into a combat unit. He studied Morse Code and was soon proficient enough to be employed as a radio officer on a merchant ship. Shipping was essential to the war effort and could be substituted for military service. He went to sea for 3 years, visiting over 20 countries around the world. When he returned after WWII he re-enrolled in Duke University and was graduated in 1949 with a BA in science and membership in Phi Beta Kappa.
http://warrior-larry.blogspot.com/
You may wonder what I was doing at the time. As it happens I was in elementary school. We learned patriotic songs, collected scrap metal, managed on the family's ration books, and purchased stamps toward buying war bonds. We worked in the Victory Garden which Daddy planted in the side yard. We blacked out the windows and the upper part of the car's headlights. We listened to rumors of u-boats in the Gulf of Mexico and the mouth of the Mississippi River.
One peculiar thing we did was 'fold bandages'. Our scout troop went to Charity Hospital on Saturdays to help with the recycling of used bandages which had been sterilized. Individual bandages had to be removed from the mass of clean gauze and folded preparative to being re-sterilized for further use. This activity seems a paradigm of our efforts made during the war: to not waste either material or labor. These habits I have found hard to break.
Ellie, looking back on your last comment I see that I could not find anything to say about it at the time, but now realize that there are many parallels with the experience of my great-aunt & great-uncles in WWI as recorded in Auntie Ollie's scrapbook; even down to details such as Larry joining the Merchant Marine but getting involved in the war anyhow, and you getting involved even as a child in the civilians' support, practical & moral, of the general war effort.
And the habits of prudence and thrift too. I was in Australia, away from the war, but came back to a half-ruined England in '46, or scarcity, rations and not wasting anything. Habits hard to break indeed!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home