What the Hijabi Witnessed (and What She Didn't)
Article by
August 2013
I have had the pleasure on a couple of occasions of
sitting next to a girl wearing a hijab. Typically, this has occurred in
departure lounges of airports or on the platforms of railway stations.
Never has it happened in a place of worship at the time of a service.
Never, that is, until recently.
On the last
Friday in June, I happened to be in Cambridge with my youngest son and
decided to expose him to one of my alma mater's true delights: choral
evensong at King's Chapel. We dutifully queued in the pouring rain (for
me, those blue remembered hills are definitely English and cloud
covered), and, when the chapel finally opened, we took our places at the
far end of the aisle. It was then that I realized that the young girl
sitting to my left was wearing a hijab.
It was an interesting, if
unlikely, juxtaposition: the middle aged Orthodox Presbyterian and the
twenty-something Moslem waiting for the Anglican liturgy to begin. I
assume that - rather like me - she was probably in the chapel for
aesthetic reasons rather than religious ones. King's choir is famous;
the preaching in the chapel was, at least in my student days, at best,
infamous. Sermons then were the ultimate Schleiermacherian nightmare:
rambling reflections on the religious self-consciousness by the
irremediably irreverent. It may have improved in recent decades but, not
being remotely postmillennial, I have no confidence that that is the
case.
Once the choir had entered and taken its
place, the service began. For the next hour, the sardonic Presbyterian
and the attractive hijabi sat, stood and on occasion knelt together as
the congregation worked its way through the Book of Common Prayer's
liturgy for evensong, modified to take into account the appropriate
Feast Day (as a good Presbyterian, I have erased the detail of whose day
from my memory). The singing, both corporate and choral, was beautiful;
and the austere elegance of Cranmer's liturgy seemed to find its
perfect acoustic context in the perpendicular poise of the late Gothic
Chapel. Then, at the end, we filed out in silence, having, at the level
of mere aesthetics, heard one of the great male choirs singing words of
deep and passionate piety.
Outside, the rain continued and my son and I
left the young hijabi chatting on her phone as we headed off to Don
Pasquale's, a favourite haunt of my student days. Indeed, it was the
place where one took a girl on a date if one wished to appear
sophisticated while still operating on a budget. (For any would-be
sophisticated but impoverished Cambridge bachelors out there, I can
confirm that it is still there, and still a prudent balance of
atmosphere and good value for money).
Sitting
in Don Pasquale's, my son and I indulged in a little thought experiment.
What, we wondered, had the girl in the hijab made of it all?
Culturally, it may not have been a completely alien environment. She was
a Spanish Moslem, and, with the exception of the hijab, dressed in the
casual attire of any fashion conscious Western girl. So the look and
sounds of a Christian church were possibly not as alien to her as, for
example, I had found the Blue Mosque in Istanbul while touring Turkey in
the 80s. Yet she was still a Moslem. The service itself would have been
foreign territory.
So what exactly had she
witnessed, I asked myself? Well, at a general level she had heard the
English language at its most beautiful and set to an exalted purpose:
the praise of Almighty God. She would also have seen a service with a
clear biblical logic to it, moving from confession of sin to forgiveness
to praise to prayer. She would also have heard this logic explained to
her by the minister presiding, as he read the prescribed explanations
that are built in to the very liturgy itself. The human tragedy and the
way of salvation were both clearly explained and dramatized by the
dynamic movement of the liturgy. And she would have witnessed all of
this in an atmosphere of hushed and reverent quiet.
In
terms of specific detail, she would also have heard two whole chapters
of the Bible read out loud: one from the Old Testament and one from the
New. Not exactly the whole counsel of God but a pretty fair snapshot.
She would have been led in a corporate confession of sin. She would have
heard the minister pronounce forgiveness in words shaped by scripture.
She would have been led in corporate prayer in accordance with the
Lord's own prayer. She would have heard two whole psalms sung by the
choir. She would have had the opportunity to sing a couple of hymns
drawn from the rich vein of traditional hymnody and shot through with
scripture. She would have been invited to recite the Apostles' Creed
(and thus come pretty close to being exposed to the whole counsel of
God). She would have heard collects rooted in the intercessory concerns
of scripture brought to bear on the real world. And, as I noted earlier,
all of this in the exalted, beautiful English prose of Thomas Cranmer.
Now,
I confess to being something of an old Puritan when it comes to
liturgy. Does it not lead to formalism and stifle the religion of the
heart? Certainly I would have thought so fifteen or twenty years ago.
Yet as I reflected on the service and what the girl in the hijab had
witnessed, I could not help but ask myself if she could have experienced
anything better had she walked into a church in the Protestant
evangelical tradition. Two whole chapters of the Bible being read? To
have one whole chapter from one Testament seems to test the patience of
many today. Two whole psalms sung (and that as part of a calendar which
proceeds through the whole Psalter)? That is surely a tad too old
fashioned, irrelevant, and often depressing for those who want to go to
church for a bit of an emotional boost. A structure for worship which is
determined by the interface between theological truth and
biblically-defined existential need? That sounds as if it might be
vulnerable to becoming dangerously formulaic formalism. A language used
to praise God which is emphatically not that employed of myself or of
anybody else in their daily lives when addressing the children, the
mailman, or the dog? I think the trendy adjective would be something
like 'inauthentic.'
Yet here is the irony: in
this liberal Anglican chapel, the hijabi experienced an hour long
service in which most of the time was spent occupied with words drawn
directly from scripture. She heard more of the Bible read, said, sung
and prayed than in any Protestant evangelical church of which I am aware
- than any church, in other words, which actually claims to take the
word of God seriously and place it at the centre of its life. Yes, it
was probably a good thing that there was no sermon that day: I am
confident that, as Carlyle once commented, what we might have witnessed
then would have been a priest boring holes in the bottom of the Church
of England. But that aside, Cranmer's liturgy meant that this girl was
exposed to biblical Christianity in a remarkably beautiful, scriptural
and reverent fashion. I was utterly convicted as a Protestant minister
that evangelical Protestantism must do better on this score: for all of
my instinctive sneering at Anglicanism and formalism, I had just been
shown in a powerful way how far short of taking God's word seriously in
worship I fall.
Of course, there were things
other than a sermon which the hijabi did not witness: she did not
witness any adults behaving childishly; she did not witness anybody
saying anything stupid; she did not witness any stand-up comedy routine
or any casual cocksureness in the presence of God; she did not see any
forty-something pretending to be cool; in short, she did not witness
anything that made me, as a Christian, cringe with embarrassment for my
faith, or for what my faith has too often become at the hands of the
modern evangelical gospellers.
Carl R. Trueman is Paul Woolley Professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary. His latest book is The Creedal Imperative (Crossway, 2012).
No comments:
Post a Comment