Ship of Fools: Eccles: Too much Scripture ... ?

Thread: Eccles: Too much Scripture ... ? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000826

Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :

I am hearing continual complaints that the Scripture readings (RCL) are too long and that folks can't keep up. When I provide readings in the worship bulletin they then ask why we should read at church what we could (but don't) read at home. Complaints come mostly from the elderly. I am absolutely incredulous that there are complaints about reading the Bible in church. [Confused]

I notice that Roman Catholic readings usually parallel the RCL and usually offer an abbreviated alternative to reading the whole text. I have been giving thought to using those.

Is there merit to the demand to offer less Scripture reading for those whose limited attention spans won't tolerate lengthy readings or is it more appropriate to hang in there and fight it out with the readings as prescribed?

RCs on the ship: do you abbreviate the texts as allowed? Anyone else abbreviate in a similar way?

Your comments please.

[ 29. September 2011, 07:37: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

In the days when I used to live in three-year lectionary territory I used to take every abbreviation I could get, especially for the Eucharist. However, every now and again that would produce something that was incomprehensible, or rather, lacking in context. In that case one ha to be a little bit more sophisticated about how one abbrev. the lesson.

PD

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Circuit Rider:
I am absolutely incredulous that there are complaints about reading the Bible in church.

Likewise, I don't think it's possible to have too much Scripture read in church. The proclamation of the gospel and the response of the congregation in praise and adoration is central to Christian worship. How can the gospel be proclaimed if the Scriptures are neglected? One might as well have a 2 minute chat rather than a sermon, or just have people take a bit of bread and wine as they pass through the building rather than proclaim all those words in the Eucharist.

On a practical note, if people are having genuine difficulty following the Scripture readings then it might be worth getting pew Bibles (if not already present) and ensuring the Scriptures are read from the same translation so that people can follow along, and if the people reading are not as clearly spoken then some training in public reading for those on the rota to read the Scriptures might be of use.

If you're going to start deciding on a week-by-week basis to abbreviate the lectionary then you might as well not bother with the lectionary and just let the preacher pick favourite verses to preach from.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I do sometimes abbreviate texts (especially if they are very repetitive or change theme in the middle). But then, as Baptists, we are not so lectionary based.

Might I ask, though, if the problem is not the amount of text but the quality of the reading? May I also ask if the complainers, being more elderly, have come to the point of genuinely having difficulty in retaining such lengthy passages in their thinking?

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

RC's need it read in their services because they don't read it at home. They could, but they don't.

This doesn't just extend to the rank and file either. At a recent youth ministry training event run by a joint theological college here I met a RC candidate in his second year of study. After a bit of talking he mentioned that he was considering starting to read the Bible because he had found some of the study interesting. And this is a future candidate for the priesthood who will be in charge of a congregation in 2.5 years' time! [Eek!]

Maybe there could be some way to let off people in the congregation who do read and study the Bible themselves. The readings could be shifted to the end of the service, and forms handed out to everybody with five questions about the readings from the week. People who read the Bible would get the answers right and could be let out early while everybody else listens to the readings [Yipee]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
RC's need it read in their services because they don't read it at home. They could, but they don't.

Do you realise just how pathetic and stupid that makes you sound?

I've known Roman Catholics who could run rings around virtually anyone else in terms of Biblical knowledge. And, I've known Evangelicals who would struggle to recognise the Sermon on the Mount. There are people in all churches who don't read the Bible at home, and people in all churches who are avid readers of Scripture.

All of which is irrelevant. Scripture is read in church as part of the proclamation of the gospel. The extent to which individual members of the congregation are familiar with the texts read is irrelevant.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

Maybe there could be some way to let off people in the congregation who do read and study the Bible themselves. The readings could be shifted to the end of the service, and forms handed out to everybody with five questions about the readings from the week. People who read the Bible would get the answers right and could be let out early while everybody else listens to the readings

To 'let them off'? You make it sound like a punishment. [Disappointed]

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Maybe there could be some way to let off people in the congregation who do read and study the Bible themselves. The readings could be shifted to the end of the service, and forms handed out to everybody with five questions about the readings from the week. People who read the Bible would get the answers right and could be let out early while everybody else listens to the readings

Why not go the whole hog and insist they produce a note from their parents if they're absent from church for any reason?

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

The scriptures were written to be heard. The orality of scripture is a somewhat understudied area, which seems to be only recently being corrected. Hearing scripture read in the context of a worshiping assembly is the normative way of interacting with it. Of course, reading it on your own whether in private prayer or academic study (two things I do rather a lot of) is a very good thing too and we'd do well to never make the good the enemy of the best, but it's not normative for the Christian life in the way that hearing it proclaim in worship is.

That said, I'm aware that more is not always better. A short reading well proclaimed and broken open may well work better than many long readings. It's a question of balance and context, which is why the RC lectionary allows certain shortenings at Mass and allows readings to be lengthened at the Hours.

To answer the question about who uses the shortenings: it varies a lot. I almost never see the shortened gospels used. For the other readings, I hear the shortened one about half the time. It's generally the preacher's choice. If it were up to me, I'd use the shorter versions of the readings I wasn't preaching on and the longer versions of the one I was.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I do sometimes abbreviate texts (especially if they are very repetitive or change theme in the middle). But then, as Baptists, we are not so lectionary based.

Might I ask, though, if the problem is not the amount of text but the quality of the reading? May I also ask if the complainers, being more elderly, have come to the point of genuinely having difficulty in retaining such lengthy passages in their thinking?

It could just be that the volume needs to be turned up on the mics the readers are using as people simply can't hear the reading. Even if you start a passage being loud enough, you're not going to maintain that volume until the end unless you're professionally trained.

Circuit Rider, next time someone complains, it may be worth having a chat with them to find out if the issue is a bit more complicated than just Too Much Bible.

Tubbs

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

In my opinion, a well-crafted sermon can help a lot to clear up a long, confusing Scripture reading.

Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :

Tubbs, you could be right about the volume thing. I've learned over the years how to adjust my speaking volume based on crowd response, and if a microphone goes out mid-sermon, I can usually make up for it without missing a beat. But many (most?) lay readers I've heard aren't that savvy. Plus, there are many who are willing to read, but simply need practice. Their volume is ok, but their enunciation isn't. Even reading over the lesson beforehand would help tremendously, so that they wouldn't stumble over the words.

I'm not sure of what all is going on in CR's situation, but I suspect it is one part deafness (IME, these people insist in sitting in the back instead of up front where they can hear), one part reader volume and enunciation, and ten parts selfishness.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Tubbs

Upping the volume on the sound system may not solve the hearing problem. A louder mumble is still a mumble and no matter how magnified remains inaudible.

Secondly upping the sound level can actually reduce clarity. It is sort of like upping the exposure on your camera, to obtain detail in the shadows, if you do it too far you loose detail from the highlights (they are blown out) and just like cameras cannot capture the full range a human eye can see, so sound equipment can't transmit over the full range the human ear can hear. This produces distortion.

Jengie

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Churches in the Netherlands usually have a system where people with hearing difficulties can plug in a headset (or even synchronize with their hearing-aids? I'm not familiar with the technology).

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Tubbs

Upping the volume on the sound system may not solve the hearing problem. A louder mumble is still a mumble and no matter how magnified remains inaudible.

Secondly upping the sound level can actually reduce clarity. It is sort of like upping the exposure on your camera, to obtain detail in the shadows, if you do it too far you loose detail from the highlights (they are blown out) and just like cameras cannot capture the full range a human eye can see, so sound equipment can't transmit over the full range the human ear can hear. This produces distortion.

Jengie

I only said volume because I couldn't remember how to spell acoustics and didn't have time to look it up when I posted! [Hot and Hormonal]

It might be a few settings on the sound desk need tweaking. Or it could be that the hearing aid systems that LeRoc mentions in his post need upgrading. (My old church had them, but most of the people who needed them said they didn't bother as they made things worse as they were so old!)

Tubbs

[ 13. July 2011, 13:17: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

No-one seems to have taken up my point about people not being able to cope mentally with too much Bible read in a church service - i.e. their brains get "filled up" and they stop hearing it.

Less certainly can be more.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

But, I doubt there are many situations where there would be an excessively long portion of Scripture read. We follow the RCL, and don't abbreviate the readings, and they rarely take more than about 5 mins total. That's with a break, because the Gospel is usually read by the preacher rather than a member of the congregation, and may be following a hymn.

That's less time than is spent in prayer. Way short of the time for the sermon. If it's true that people can't concentrate of Scripture for that long then you've got a very short service because they won't take in the prayers or sermon either, unless they're chopped to a couple of minutes each.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

Regarding 'letting people out,' this was of course a comment in jest, made in response to the comment about people enduring readings they could (or could not) do at home making it seem like there is a significant number of people for whom reading the Bible (or hearing it read) is a chore to be endured.

As well as the priest candidate and Bible newbie I chatted to at this conference, the couple of others from the Catholic college on my table also looked at me like I had three heads when I explained the importance of Bible study in our discipleship programs. It would seem this is a serious issue in the RC church here, but of course I am aware that poor Biblical literacy is a problem in many churches of all flavours, not just the RCs.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(or even synchronize with their hearing-aids? I'm not familiar with the technology).

A hearing aid loop is common technology, and in Australia if it is not present then installation is compulsory under accessibility laws the next time a church's sound setup is altered. A hearing aid induction loop is basically an unshielded wire underneath the carpet or securely fastened flat on a hard floor by a wide strip of PVC tape the same colour as the floor. To access this feed from the mixer people will need to sit in the section of seats within the loop (denoted by compulsory ISO signage) and shift the switch on their hearing aid to the T position. At our church we generally send just speech and multimedia item outputs to the hearing aid feed, a feed of the music not being desired by most people who use it.

I've only ever come across portable headsets in use at churches where they are provided for parents with children in the creche. Maybe that's a cultural practice others do that we don't here, I don't know. Access to hearing aids for those who need them is quite easy and well-funded by the public health system here, so people who need that assistance will generally be able to use the hearing aid loop.

In my experience operating the sound equipment at our church, a skilled sound operator and appropriate equipment can make a huge improvement in the clarity of speech, as long as you have something half-decent to work with. If somebody is slurring words together, talking too fast/slow, not enunciating or making indistinct mumbling then even having high-grade equipment and a professional sound technician will still only be able to polish the turd.

You can keep on making it louder without any loss of clarity until you get feedback (very bad!) or reach the limit of the mixer, amplifiers or speakers. The problem with this is that to get things working properly it does take a few minutes before the service to do a soundcheck, which makes it difficult to have the reading/s done by anybody for whom that is their only involvement in the service. Anybody expecting that a sound system can produce a good result on a "turn up and switch it on" basis is living in fantasy land. This is why our church has moved to having the worship leader do the Bible reading/s, or the preacher sometimes does it/them within the sermon.

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

Often better readers need to be co-opted in. Actors and teachers often make great Bible readers in church. A good reader can work wonders. Also, I believe in the pendulum theory. The next generation will look back in wonder that we could read so much Scripture at one service! They'll rediscover the Epistle and Gospel method of biblical proclamation and radically reduce the prayer of the faithful as well.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Circuit Rider:
I am hearing continual complaints that the Scripture readings (RCL) are too long...

Yikes, ask a question about pericope length and one gets lost in all this nattering over electronical questions of mics, microphones, and soundboards—abominations to the Lord all. And, I thought tat queens were bad. [Kidding, folks, just kidding.]

Getting back to the opening post, in the transition from the Episcopal Church 1979 lectionary to the Revised Common Lectionary (now mandated from Advent I, 2010), the remarkable feature of the gospel reading is the great variability of length.

From having the entire assembly standing around on creaking ankles, listening to the entire Samaritan Woman at the Well story, all 38 verses, to blinking and missing the Pentecost or Trinity reading, both five verses, is to introduce liturgical whiplash.

One should set the people's expectations and then consistently meet them. The RCL does not do this.

The one thing that the old missals had going for them was the relative close variability of length.

This probably matters more when the gospel book is flounced down from the altar to the center of the nave in a five- or six-member gospel procession. Then the teenage acolytes stand around thinking about sex while the Holy Gospel is proclaimed at excruciating length. And, I don't mean all the sex that Samaritan Tart must have been having. But, I digress.

Hart's emphasis on the essential orality of scripture and that "[h]earing scripture read in the context of a worshiping assembly is the normative way of interacting with it" are surely spot on target.

The problem is that that assembly, normatively, is the Office, not the mass. Now, nobody attends to the Office, except perhaps privately; nobody reads their bible at home; and so, the only place where the faithful [sic] get their scripture is at the principal Sunday service, be it mass or hymn sandwich.

So the revisers of Common Lectionary attempt to split the difference between a catechetical lectionary and a liturgical one, between a lectionary for the mass and one for the hymn sandwich, between getting on with a 50-minute service and providing a fuller reading of scripture over three years.

Having been caught up in the fever of the Ecumenical Wonderfulness of common texts, I never thought I would say that I'm looking wistfully at the days of the one-year lectionary.

At least then, the Collects, the minor propers (an exceedingly rich banquet of scripture in themselves), and the Epistle and Gospel pericopes were all pulling toward the same theme, Sunday by Sunday.

Instead we've got the discordancy of thematic vs. semi-continuous reading of the OT, the attendant profusion of Psalms thematically linked to both tracks, a single-year cycle of collects jangling against years A, B, and C, and the minor propers kicked to the curb.

Those fearing a loose-leaf Prayer Book are now being softened up (that's a military metaphor) with a loose-leaf lectionary.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

As an Anglican, I abbreviate texts where the RCC suggests.

I think we can have too much scripture. At home, I like to meditationally focus on one or two verses.

However, the service of the church is a public proclamation and it is quite OK for some people top vague out - I do myself sometimes.

We have 2 pew bibles per pew - so not everyone uses them but those who want to have access to them. When we first got them, I thought it was 'a bit low church/protestant' but i have come top see their value.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As an Anglican, I abbreviate texts where the RCC suggests.

We never suggest; we allow.

I agree with your point about shorter sometimes being better. I think variety is what's needed here. I think that everyone who can should sit down and read Mark in one sitting at some point. I certainly think people should read each of the shorter NT letters in single sittings. I also think people should pray with short selections.

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Circuit Rider:
RCs on the ship: do you abbreviate the texts as allowed? Anyone else abbreviate in a similar way?

It happens, but at the churches I usually attend they usually use the full reading. In the modern Latin Rite we also have the option of abbreviating the Sequence for Corpus Christi, which happened at the mass I attended for that day.

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
RC's need it read in their services because they don't read it at home. They could, but they don't.

Sorry but this is wrong, silly, and ignorant. Plenty of Catholics do read at home. Scripture has been read at Mass since long before most people could read or afford any sort of book. Scripture was meant to be proclaimed at Mass.

quote:
This doesn't just extend to the rank and file either. At a recent youth ministry training event run by a joint theological college here I met a RC candidate in his second year of study. After a bit of talking he mentioned that he was considering starting to read the Bible because he had found some of the study interesting. And this is a future candidate for the priesthood who will be in charge of a congregation in 2.5 years' time!

If this is a seminarian studying for the priesthood it will be a lot longer time before he's in charge of congregation, I'd say at least 4 more years in seminary and at least a few more after that before he's put in charge of a parish. In the meantime he will be studying scripture much more heavily than the average Protestant or Catholic on the street. His life will be permeated with Holy Scripture from now on and throughout his priesthood, because the Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours (which priests are required to pray) are permeated with the Scriptures, in the prayers as well as the readings.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
No-one seems to have taken up my point about people not being able to cope mentally with too much Bible read in a church service - i.e. their brains get "filled up" and they stop hearing it.

Less certainly can be more.

Well, yes. Some people can't follow language at all. Do we stop talking to each other because of that?

A short reading of a page or two is well within nearly everybody's abilities. If you were regularly reading for ten or fifteen minutes or more then yes, people woudl lose track (though plenty of kids in priamry school cope fine with ten minute story-tellings)

The Bible isn't a specially hard book (though there are certainly a few obscure or confusing passages). And I doubt if the congregation in the OP is made of specially stupid of ignorant people. But any text is harder to follow if you come to it cold. Many people lack overview and context.

The advice is pretty clear from this thread and looks sensible

Have pew bibles. (They are important for context, so many passages start in the middle of something that you often need to glance back - and you need the bIble in your had to do that)
If it really is only the elderly complaining, yes, that might be a code for hearing difficulties. Sort out the sound system.
For the same reason find some large-print pew bibles
Make sure the readers are visible and well-lit
Consider training the readers
Add some context to the readings. Tell them who is speaking to who, and what was going on in the previous chapter.
For the same reason, sometimes it is useful to read more, not less. If the previous few verses explain what is going on, put them in. The RCL is far more often too short than too long.
Preach on the texts that were read
Think about preaching about a specific book or passage from the Bible the first time it comes up. If you don't know who or what or where a Galatian is, a series of readings from Galatians will be harder to follow.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Induction loops as The Giant Cheeseburger described are very common in Canada. I don't know about the law but just based on the congregation they are par for the course.

Many United Churches of a certain size and age have wrap-around balconies to which induction loops are usually fitted.

I've been planning and leading my church's summer services for the past three Sundays as the Minister is on holidays. I upped the readings to OT, Epistle and Gospel from two readings, but that's because I like lectionaries more while our minister doesn't and since I'm not as long a preacher typically (1200 - 1500 words) I bulked up the readings to fill out the hour. If I'm under 45 minutes people feel a cheated in their hymn sandwich.

I frankly like the RCL and the UCCan's hymn book has a list of recommended hymns to go with the readings in the calendar. If you're not doing this already Circuit Rider then using this sort of hymn linking could help those who don't like to be "read at". With some people driving home the message in musical form is simply more effective. Responding to the Word and all that.

Hart is right and I would ad that a good "Oral" bible is an asset. I prefer the NRSV for this purpose. I'm also consistent in what I use. A similar style each week helps people engage with what's being read.

And yes, good reading from the pulpit is a skill. Good reading is a delight to listen to, poor reading is dreadful.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

SPK, bad readers were the bane of my life at one time, but in this parish I am blest with four or five pretty good ones, who evidently prepare. The worst reading I get is when I ask the deacon to read at Matins because he never reads the schedule and always misses when it is MP for the Liturgy of the Word. [Roll Eyes]

I prefer two longish lessons and a psalm. When RCL gives three long lessons and a longish psalm that slightly overloads a congregation without pew Bibles. It also has me thinking - how the hell am I going to cover this lot adequately in one sermon. My preaching style veers towads the expository most of the time, so I can end up with a bewilderment of riches when the RCL is on form. I often used to have pick one lesson to preach on, and mention where the other two were germaine - if indeed they were.

The worst habit lectionary compilers had at one time was trying to give every Sunday a theme. That was the most annoying trait of the old ASB, especially when the parish secretary or (s)he who does the bulletins felt (s)he had to use the theme as a heading under the words "The xx. Sunday after Pentecost." It was bit difficult when the lectionary picked up on say Divine Compassion, and I had picked up on Presdestination and Election. [Help]

PD

[ 13. July 2011, 21:56: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

All the hearing induction loops in the world will not help those who won't admit they are deaf and don't have hearing aids to pick up the loop. One of the banes of my existence when I'm on sound is an elderly gentleman who almost certainly has some hearing loss but is not accepting that, sits at the back of the church in a dead spot for sound and next to the lighting cupboard which is from where much sound interference comes, and then complains throughout the service when he can't hear. He's given the readings with the bulletin, along with everyone else.

Mama Thomas the other little hassle was the person who has been an actor, over-emoting the intercessions - and reducing them to an inaudible mumble. I did try upping the volume on that mike, but she just dropped her voice to what she thought it was a meaningful softness - so even more inaudible.

Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :

I agree with ken's observations and suggestions, and to them I add one other: My long-standing gripe with the RCL is that during Ordinary Time, the lessons are not always thematically related. To me, reading a Scripture lesson only later to make a passing allusion to it (if at all) is tantamount to what the old New England Puritans called "dumb reading." Why read it if you're not going to expound on it?

I like everything in the service to have a common thread. Why can't this be done with the lessons?

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

The same reason as liturgical commissions always seem to make a 'slight' mess of everything else - so they have an excuse to screw about with it again in twenty years time. I come from a denomination which does not have a Standing Commission on Liturgy. We are now getting to the point where the younger parish priests want a revision of the (1928) BCP in the interests of mission, so it will probably happen. Hitherto it has only been the agitators and the Spikes who have wanted a revised BCP.

PD

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Sometimes the Psalm is abbreviated, but the Old Testament, New Testament and Gospel readings are in full.

Hearing too much spoken word can lead you to stop listening, but it is easier if a means is provided for you to follow the words; in my church the Psalm is also sung (choir, with congregational refrain) which adds variety; also sometimes sung words can enter and remain in the brain more easily than spoken ones. (Psalm 23 and Handel's 'Messiah', for example). In some churches, the Gospel is sung.

Of course, a choir should always try to establish good diction so what they sing can be easily understood, but if the congregation are also following the words in printed format that allows double opportunity for understanding what they hear.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

The OP doesn't mention whether there is too much of all scripture or just too much of some types of scripture. This may be relevant if the root of the comment is a problem of comprehension.

What I'm wondering more specifically is whether the comment is aimed primarily at the epistles. Much of the Old Testament, the Gospels and Acts are basically stories and easy to put across and easy to follow. The epistles on the other hand are often making theological points and in the case of Paul can be in a repetitive and circumlocutory style (like the chunk of Romans 8 I had to read on Sunday).

So a reader of the epistle has to spend time working out what the writer is getting at, and then decide how to pace and stress different phrases in order to get that meaning across, and then has to be able to put that into practice. And the listener also has to concentrate more.

In many Anglican churches the epistle will be read by the laity, so perhaps churches need to emphasise good preparation of the epistle more than they do.

Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :

The OP addresses persistent complaints about the reading of Scripture, period. These are primarily but not exclusively elderly, who complain that the service is too long and the readings are hard to follow, despite the entire text of the readings being provided in the worship bulletin. The counter argument becomes, "Why should we read in church what we could read at home?"

The real issue is they want to be out by noon, period, and they want to be entertained with their favorite hymns about heaven, Gaither tunes, and 70s choruses while they are at church. Also involved here in the deep South (USA) is the predominant Southern Baptist church culture which influences most others not firmly fixed in a set cultural pattern (i.e Catholics, Episcopalians).

The "Southern Baptist" tradition eschews "the tradition of man" for something its keepers imagine is more biblical which quickly becomes little more than a shallow local culture of oft-repeated cliches, prayers, and behavior patterns and mannerisms. The traditional liturgy is tossed out for a more homespun practice with little content and challenge. The Hallmark calendar replaces the liturgical one, and flag-waving abounds at every opportunity.

I value the reading of Scripture. There are biblical and traditional reasons why this is important when the people of God gather for worship. It is an integral part of the proclamation of the Word. It is not always entertaining or easy to hear, but that is part of the package. Liturgy means "work of the people" and inherently involves working to keep up as the liturgy leads. It is an acquired preference that flies in the face of a passive "entertain-me" cultural preference. One has to learn to love it as it is totally foreign to the uninitiated. But try telling that to Aunt Mabel and Uncle Clem who come every week for warm fuzzies and tickled ears.

I recognize that our culture places a premium on entertainment to the point that the entertainment expectation is more often than not brought to church to judge and critique the proceedings. This is cross-generational although preferred styles vary greatly. If a particular segment doesn't dazzle with special effects, and verbiage is not kept to mere sound bites, one loses the majority of those immersed in the culture. Some churches have caved to the cultural preference to get the noses and nickels. I question the depth of spiritual experience and growth this can provide but realize I can't always gauge that for others.

(The video illustration provided does not match the preferred style of my elderly crowd, but the point is the same. They want to be entertained their way in the same way unchurched 20-somethings want to be entertained their way. This is where the "worship wars" begin.)

The overall point is Kingdom and culture clash all the time and judgment calls must be made, and I am wondering where to draw the line. It is a catch-22. I don't want to cause someone to miss Christ because the liturgy is too difficult on the one hand, but I don't want to water things down so much like our neighbors down the street that we offer nothing of substance beyond the typical "aren't you glad you're saved?" Gaither fare or the equally shallow multimedia extravaganza depicted on the video.

If there were an emoticon for pulling one's hair out I would choose that to go here, but this one will work: [brick wall]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Circuit Rider:
The real issue is they want to be out by noon, period

Nothing wrong with that. Frankly I'd rather be out much earlier than noon and still have a usable amount of day left to go and do something.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

Go to the 8.00 service then! [Razz]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

If a service is well-planned, there is plenty of time for the full set of scripture readings and still be finished in an hour. It just means you have to keep things moving without unneccessary hesitation, eg. have the readers well-organised to be there ready waiting to read instead of ambling out of their seats during the awkward pause.

Obviously, there should also be periods of silence and reflection in a service as well, but they should be planned for a reason, rather than because everyone is looking around to check if Mrs. Jones has forgotten that she is on the reading or prayer rota that week.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Go to the 8.00 service then!

assuming you can find a church that still has one

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Go to the 8.00 service then!

Cruel and unusual punishment [Eek!]

Personally I like longer services - with lots of bible reading, and lots of singing, and a decent sermon, and the Eucharist. Sorry, but I do.

Anyway, what is so important about 12 noon on Sunday that these folk have to escape before then? What happens at that time? Too early for lunch or dinner or the pub, a bit too late for a day out in the country or Sunday football, nothing worth watching on TV... your congregation aren't going supermarket shopping on Sunday are they? How UnBaptist of them! [Big Grin]

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I am a bit lost with it too. When I was a layman I preferred 10.30 or 11am services with a decent sermon, not 10 mins of preaching on the anecdote. Ideally by the time they were done they had drawn three or four pints of Guiness at the Pub, and there was the chance of a couple of decent pints before going home for lunch and the obligatory snooze in front of the telly. An earlier start than 10.30am used to disturb the routine.

[ 14. July 2011, 19:01: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Perhaps the Methodist version of a "Teaching Mass" is on order. Explain all the bits of the Service one Sunday and how they are supposed to fit together. Show them the pattern so that can pick up on the differences from week to week.

First, we read three lessons because the Bible breaks down conveniently into three packages: OT, Gospel and Epistle, though Acts and Revelations are narrative in style like Gospels they are counted as Epistles.

Then say that you pick hymns that reflect that week's readings. It's all part of a package. If you want to be somewhat cheeky, say the UMC provided an 800-page hymn book and you want to get your money's worth by using it to its fullest. [Razz]

Look up the congregation's favourite hymns in the lectionary. Tell them where they fit. Show them the biblical links. Then show them how that intertwined message works on other Sundays with hymns they aren't so familiar with.

I think many folks will be more receptive if you explain the Why a little more. Clergy, in general, don't trust their congregations enough to explain the liturgical details to them. They think it will scare them off when they actually want enough detail to appreciate things, in my experience.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Go to the 8.00 service then!
Cruel and unusual punishment

Indeed! All I want is a reasonable lie-in, followed by a nice short service so I can be out and doing something by noon, rather than just leaving church at that time.

quote:
your congregation aren't going supermarket shopping on Sunday are they?

We do, because it's the only time of the week we can do it. Which means that with the service finishing at noon it's usually about 2pm before we're even sitting down for lunch, and the day is gone. Feels like such a waste.

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Circuit Rider:
I recognize that our culture places a premium on entertainment to the point that the entertainment expectation is more often than not brought to church to judge and critique the proceedings. This is cross-generational although preferred styles vary greatly. If a particular segment doesn't dazzle with special effects, and verbiage is not kept to mere sound bites, one loses the majority of those immersed in the culture. Some churches have caved to the cultural preference to get the noses and nickels. I question the depth of spiritual experience and growth this can provide but realize I can't always gauge that for others.

I've read this thread with great interest. I recently had occasion to go to a small, rural UMC service with friends. Much to my amazement, all of the music was provided by a 'praise band', and the band leader conducted much of the service (I've never been to a service with a praise band so the whole thing was rather novel. Occasionally the leader would stop playing in order to draw some attention to the chorus we had been singing, over and over. Since the choruses were all variations of "Jesus loves me/the world/the children" and "I love Jesus" it seemed less than necessary to tease out the theological nuance).

There was one (brief) scripture reading. The sermon did not refer to it (it was Father's Day, so the 30-min sermon focused on that. Nevermind that it was also the Feast of the Trinity).

The service literally consisted of praise-band, sermon, prayer/ greetings.

The small congregation were generationally diverse. I did not find the service particularly 'entertaining', but I must admit the majority of the congo seemed to enter into it with gusto.

In the words of the Mystery Worshipper reports, the one thing I remembered in 7 days' time was the paucity of scripture.

My friends expressed some dissatisfaction that there seemed plenty of time for some extra praise songs, but no time to recite the Creed or say a confession.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
Some churches have caved to the cultural preference to get the noses and nickels. I question the depth of spiritual experience and growth this can provide but realize I can't always gauge that for others.

Thanks for that link - [Killing me]

Our inner-city UK context sounds a little similar - most of the congregation don't read anything if they can at all avoid it (a fact I've picked up when attempting to distribute information in print). Readings in church provide the whole diet...and most of the readers in the congregation are pretty bad.

Perhaps an amusing anecdote - one elderly lady in our multi-ethnic congregation had apparently been ordained 'somewhere else' (somewhere pretty chaotic, in world terms) and when first in the UK was invited to lead services. It rapidly became apparent that she was extremely unsound - (and I'm liberal, folks) - to the general shock and consternation of most of the fairly conservative, orthodox congregation who are also from some pretty chaotic places.

Eventually someone in authority clicked that all was not at all as it should be, and she was asked in future to read from the bible, and sometimes to lead prayers. Honour was satisfied, and she agreed to do this (and, though I'd rather eat my own tongue than be led by her through a whole service, she's a lovely lady and given practice and the right pair of glasses, can make a reasonable fist of these tasks).

Her crowning glory, however, concerned one Sunday when she was asked to use a prayer card provided by the charity with whom the service was linked. The congo took their cards in hand and assumed an attitude of prayer...but rather than read the side commencing 'Dear Lord, as we gather...' she intoned from the reverse

'xxx is a charity which, from humble beginnings in 1928....'

...all the way to the end, 3 or 4 minutes later...

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Mark in Manchester

Might this book be a help. Janet Lees was working with a not dissimilar community here in Sheffield when she developed the ideas for this book.

Jengie

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

One other thing we do is project the scripture reading in sync with the speaker through our data projector. Sorta like a surtitle track - so if someone is primarily a visual learner, they're able to look up, and follow the scripture while looking forward. Links in with other visual aids, presentations, VT clips etc...

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
The scriptures were written to be heard. The orality of scripture is a somewhat understudied area, which seems to be only recently being corrected. Hearing scripture read in the context of a worshiping assembly is the normative way of interacting with it. Of course, reading it on your own whether in private prayer or academic study (two things I do rather a lot of) is a very good thing too and we'd do well to never make the good the enemy of the best, but it's not normative for the Christian life in the way that hearing it proclaim in worship is.

I'm not always in a worship service where scripture is being read, but when I am I never pick up the pew bible or other printed material during the readings. I feel them more as they are read.

At the Mennonite church I sometimes attend, scripture is memorized and proclaimed without being read. These folks are good at what they do and don't present something that sounds memorized, but rather, something that sounds as if it is being explained.

Sometimes I go to a RC church (bilingual) and might need to read the scripture if I can't keep up with the rapid nature of Spanish, but when it is read in English, I get a lot out of listening to it, even if there is a heavy Spanish accent.

Further along in this thread, Hart suggests that we read full versions of the scripture being presented in worship. I think that's a good idea. Books and letters in the bible are there as books and letters and not excerpts; it helps to see everything in context.

Also, for someone like me (only one toe in Christianity) it helps to see the larger picture.

"Proclaiming" something has a resonance and a power, IMO. I'm not sure we can fully appreciate that if we all have our heads bowed and are reading the printed page as the proclamation is happening.

sabine

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

Oh dear. We have awful acoustics in my church, and even with the dreadful sound system, it's tough to hear the readers. The money is too tight to do anything about this. One only has a chance of hearing a bit of it if one follows along on paper. As for the sermon, we smile and nod politely, and spend a lot of time watch-watching.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Circuit Rider:

RCs on the ship: do you abbreviate the texts as allowed? Anyone else abbreviate in a similar way?

It's common practice, but I don't like it. There's a lot to be said for reading through scripture as systematically as liturgical context allows.

I think the problem here is that the wider culture is not one where people are used to listening to texts being read. But, the Church is a community where the Bible and the proclamation of the word are of such foundational importance, that I think we have to be counter-cultural in this area. Concentration comes with practice!

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
RC's need it read in their services because they don't read it at home. They could, but they don't.

Well, you know, we're just too busy with the mariolatory and the binge drinking to fit it in. And there's some terribly long words.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
RC's need it read in their services because they don't read it at home. They could, but they don't.
Well, you know, we're just too busy with the mariolatory and the binge drinking to fit it in. And there's some terribly long words.

That's the best 'put down' I have read in a long time.

PD

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0