Sermons in Signals?

The latest 52-page edition of Signals has come in for praise on this Forum, and indeed there is much to read, and perhaps debate, in the magazine. This edition also contains Ship’s Log, which is in general a fine report of the Oban IAGM, but one of the items in it did make me uneasy when I read it. I am referring to the reproduction over two pages (pp 40, 41) of a sermon given during the Sunday Service at Oban.

At the TARS IAGMs it is customary to have a Sunday morning Service either on or near the site for the benefit of TARS members who are active Christians. This is perfectly right and proper, and I see no objection to the advertising of this Service in the IAGM programme, just as other facilities for members are advertised. However, I personally don’t feel that the Church Service should constitute a TARS “event” in itself, because AR did not appear to have been a religious person, and more importantly, his children’s books have no mention whatsoever of religion. I have always understood that TARS is a non-religious society, which welcomes as members people of all faiths or of none.

Things have now gone one step further, and a Christian sermon has been reproduced in Signals. I am wondering what TARS members who are non-Christians are making of this? Of course, one does not have to read the sermon, but the fact that it is there, covering two whole pages, could be off-putting for members who are, say, Muslims or Jewish people, or for that matter atheists. Signals is for all TARS members, and it is our “club mag”, and I do get the feeling that the Christians are ‘muscling in’ a bit here. I am also uneasy about some of AR’s plot situations being used for what some might call ‘religious propaganda’.

Well, that’s my personal view (posted as an individual TARS member), but what do others think?

I too was somewhat surprised at this and in fact just skipped over it. Now looking somewhat closer I can only assume it was in  as it had a Ransome theme.

It does seem otherwise out of place, as usually the service just gets a mention.

I am not sure how many members actually go to the service, having only attended one IAGM, at which I did not go to the service, as they are not my particular cup of tea.

Certainly AR kept religion at arms length and I am very glad of it.

It may be a mistake to assume too much, but I assume that whoever wrote that article just happened to be someone who went to the service, so just wrote about it - as they wrote about everything else they did over the weekend. I doubt there is any 'muscling in' by Christians!

Probably best to avoid that sort of stuff in future though, as those pesky non-believers do get annoyed so easily (I'm teasing here). I think it is appropriate for people on either 'side' if we skip over the sermons. But that's just a personal view. I also think there's no need for any sort of preaching within fictional works.

With regard to AR himself, and religion, I used to guess that he was totally uninterested, but the more biographical works I read, the more I spot odd references to his church attendance. It seems he might have gone occasionally. Of course, more (well-to-do) people did in those days. Fair enough that he never felt the need to mention it.

Previously Magnus Smith wrote:

It may be a mistake to assume too much, but I assume that whoever wrote that article just happened to be someone who went to the service, so just wrote about it - as they wrote about everything else they did over the weekend. I doubt there is any 'muscling in' by Christians!

Probably best to avoid that sort of stuff in future though, as those pesky non-believers do get annoyed so easily (I'm teasing here). I think it is appropriate for people on either 'side' if we skip over the sermons. But that's just a personal view. I also think there's no need for any sort of preaching within fictional works.

With regard to AR himself, and religion, I used to guess that he was totally uninterested, but the more biographical works I read, the more I spot odd references to his church attendance. It seems he might have gone occasionally. Of course, more (well-to-do) people did in those days. Fair enough that he never felt the need to mention it.

Good morning everyone. (As I write this it is 06.40 in the UK)

I wasn’t quite sure where to “plant” my comments on the forum, but I am relying on the fact that all you web browsers get around a bit, and, I hope, not just on the web but in true AR style, surfing the world.

My thanks to all who have appreciated my efforts to compose an interesting and thought provoking Signals. As editor I saw it as my role to reflect fairly the submissions made by members as long as they were within the law and not abusive or defamatory.

In doing this I tried to respect and honour the spirit of Arthur Ransome himself, who I think, especially in his Russian exploits, tried to give an accurate picture, whether he was fully at one with what he saw or not.

I think it is worth quoting here the words under the title on page one of the magazine:

“Items reproduced within all Society publications remain the copyright of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect the view of TARS.”

On the whole I found editing Signals a positive experience, especially because I received so much co-operation from so many fellow Tars.

However, I must return to reminding readers, that all Tars are “volunteers”! The creation of the magazine consumed a very significant amount of six weeks of my life.

As regards the point about colour in the magazine, there is no doubt that it enhances it.

The Publications Committee meets in November and I am sure the matter will be considered along with many others.

John Hunwicks

Just a note.  AR is buried in an Anglican Church graveyard, which many Tars have visited recently.

John you have a good point in the fact that TARS is all volunteers, and it is our love for AR and the Society that is our inspiration to do the things we do.

Having edited our own newsletter  Signals from TARSUS I can fully appreciate the work involved, once again thanks for a great effort.

Robin

Thank you Peter and Robin for raising this point. I agree that the reporting of a sermon has no place in Signals, even if it took place at the AGM, and think it gives entirely the wrong message about TARS and Ransome and his books, as you say particularly to readers of other or no religious faiths.

I think the disclaimer quoted by John is no excuse for this to be printed, though I appreciate his dedication and effort in producing an otherwise excellent issue.

Let us,like the WI, leave party politics and religion out of the content of TARS activities. I don't think it is right to use examples from any of AR's books to present an exhortation to any belief or behaviour not found within the books themselves.

Sheila Davies

I now think this whole issue issue is in danger of losing all proportion.

I probably know more about the circumstances than anyone. I am quite clear in my mind that the ideas put forward in the service were done with the best of intentions and reported in the same context. I have an aversion to Politics, but to expect the exclusion of the subject would, in the case of AR, cut away a considerable amount of meat from his life and ultimate work and achievement. There are enough half-baked theories presented to sink a battle-ship, never mind a sailing dinghy. They are none of them, in my view, life threatening and certainly not subversive.

The Society is now very close to losing an editor and even a member.

John Hunwicks.

PS. On 6th June 1917 Ransome wrote to his mother-

"I do my level best to give an accurate idea of things here, but, bless my soul,only God who knows all things could really give an accurate view."

JH

I am afraid that John is missing the point here. Whilst I agree with him that the publishing of the sermon was done with the best of intentions, that does not justify it. It is not ‘intentions’ that matter here, nor is it relevant that Ransome mentioned ‘God’ from time to time. The point here is that TARS is a society open to all members of the public, in Britain and overseas. Those members of the international public will have a variety of religions and beliefs. When they join TARS, they are given no indication that any particular religion will be promoted in TARS literature, and many of them will welcome this. It seems to me that one of the great strengths of Ransome’s stories is that his characters are religion-free and rely on their own inner strengths to get them through difficult situations. However, that’s a personal view, and I am aware that religion is a sensitive area for many people. For that very reason, I don’t think the conscious promotion of any particular religion should have any place in the TARS literature sent out to members. Religion is a private matter. If some TARS members wish to come together in an act of worship during the IAGM then it is perfectly proper for them to do so, and reporting of the service in Ships Log can be done in a few polite sentences.

As to John’s last comment, no one should feel they are ‘in the dock’ over this. Ship’s Log is compiled by a regional team. I merely hope that somewhere along the line it will be realised that an error of judgment has been made.

Sorry John for having to disagree with you again; it seems to me that Ransome is using the expression to emphasise the confusion in Russia, in the context of telling his mother about the difficulties of reporting on the revolution.

In the same letter he says 'Praised and glorified for ever be the name of Hans Christian Anderson'; we don't take it as a fact the AR actually worshipped the writer in a religious sense.

Anyway the whole of the letter seems to show that his politics was truly fishing, and I suggest his religion was really sailing. I think most TARS folk would be happy with that.

Sheila Davies

I must admit I read the latest Signals with much relish and  was somewhat bemused about the comments regarding the church service report. Not sure what I am missing here as I never registered anything amiss. I thought about it and could only find, that as a somewhat confirmed non church goer, I still found the article very readable and realised I had treated it in the same way as if I been visiting a church or mosque as a tourist. In other words appreciating things for what they are and not relating them to any particular beliefs I may have. 

Bob Cuming

I fear that this discussion has rather diverted attention from the overall excellence of this issue of Signals.

I find it surprising that members are concerned about the report of the Sunday worship session at Oban. Ship's Log has reported on these in most years – six out of the last seven, and for all I know, before 2004 as well. Some reports are fuller than others, but Elsie Miller's address was given in full in the 2004 report, so it is hardly surprising that Scottish Region wished to print this year's one in the same way. It's really a question of whether Ship's Log  is to be a full report of TARS activities, or an addendum to AR's own writing.

I think everyone is agreed this was an excellent issue, I said so myself on another part of the forum and that John should be congratulated for his work.

As to the current issue on this thread it is quite possible the general membership has no problem with it, we shall have to wait and see if there are any letters to the editor in future Signals, either for or against or mentioned at all.

You could be right about the last Scottish IAGM I could not lay my hands on a copy, but looking at other more recent ones the service is reported, but never the full sermon, it is this that attracted attention.

I hope John does not feel this is some sort of personal attack on him or his faith, he did a very fine job on Signals and I personally hope he will continue to do so.

Alan Hakim is quite right about the recent reporting of the IAGM Sunday Service in Ship’s Log, but what he doesn’t point out is that this crept in during the 2000s. Alan says "for all I know, before 2004 as well". Not true. During the 1990s and early 2000s, the Sunday Service was simply not reported at all (I have checked the SLogs for 1993-1996, 1999-2002). The first mention was in SLog for 2003, where the service was reported briefly in one sentence. Now in 2010, we have reached the point where the report of the Sunday Service is given more space than any report of the excellent lectures and the trips to the various Isles. I suggest that this is getting out of proportion. My impression from reading the early TARS literature is that the TARS founders did not consider a religious service as a “TARS activity” but rather as just part of the numerous facilities provided for members who may need them.

As a former editor of MOSS, SHIP'S LOG and various other TARS publications (yes, I am well on now with the 2009 Transcripts!), I should mention  the fact that any editor is dependent on the contributors contributing material. The deadline for getting material together for SHIP'S LOG (I have helped various regions produce this, as well as being responsible for an SL of my own) is especially tight, so the editor is left with very little time to commission material or make decisions about what should or should not go in. And yes, I recall the decision the Scottish Ship's Log editor made to include Elsie's address in the last-but-one Scottish SL because she said things of interest to many members of TARS and not just those with religious beliefs.

As a Tar, I should say that I welcome reading reports about all aspects of the IAGMs. It helps me and other members build up a picture of the life of our Society. IAGM talks have from time to time appeared in MOSS and that, rather than SIGNALS, may be the place to recordmore scholarly lectures. However a Sunday service reflecton is, by its nature, rather more off the cuff than many such lectures, and it seems to me that SIGNALS is the appropriate place for its publication.

I also enjoyed this particular issue of SIGNALS, the colour photos, the lively reports and, indeed, Elsie's sermon. Thanks, John! But that is by the by.

I am glad to see Joy joining in this conversation because (as she points out) she used to be one of the chief TARS editors and as such, was a member of “Tarpaulin”, the committee which, roughly speaking, was the predecessor of the present Publications Committee. If I remember correctly, one of the duties of Tarpaulin was to ensure that all material published in TARS mags was “appropriate”. This duty was operated fairly strictly, as I know from my own experience! However, apart from a bit of grumbling, most of us accepted that there had to be some sort of ‘vetting’ of what went into the mags. That was in the 1990s, but we now seem to have gone to the other extreme, when “anything goes”. Well, if that is the case, it is an admirably liberal approach, but it does rather rely on an equally liberal attitude on the part of the members who read the mags. Judging by much of the reaction to the ‘sermon’ topic, members are more tolerant nowadays towards the content of the mags, and maybe those of us who have reservations about religious material in Signals should be consoled by the fact that this tolerance will, one hopes, be extended towards other ‘fringe’ or off-beat contributions.

However, as there usually is in life, there is a fly in the ointment. Joy will recall that a few years ago, a Ship’s Log was published which caused much offence (I am not specifying the year, as I don’t want to reawaken old quarrels). That, I’m afraid, is the penalty which sometimes has to be paid for complete freedom of editing. But it wasn’t much fun at the time. Therefore I suggest that a TARS policy as to what should, and what should not, be published does deserve careful consideration.