Ship of Fools: Eccles: Evangelicals and Liturgy

Thread: Eccles: Evangelicals and Liturgy 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=000849

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

Elsewhere Angloid observed:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I hope this isn't junior hosting, but I wanted to reply to Eliphaz's comment on the other thread, and it seems less likely to derail the discussion here than there:
quote:
I wonder if the Bishop of London will be making such a fuss about those churches in his diocese which do not follow authorised Eucharistic rites at all - the advanced Evangelical ones!

I don't know about London diocese, but this is a legitimate concern. However I don't think evangelicals would refuse to use authorised rites for the eucharist, rather than be less bothered about liturgy in general. What is a more serious problem is that such churches often keep within the letter of the law because they provide 'services of the Word', albeit with a structure and content only tenuously related to Anglican rites, and relegate the Eucharist to a subsidiary slot, even omitting it altogether some weeks. I don't think you can outlaw experimental services (and maybe they should be encouraged in some circumstances), but ISTM that an Anglican church should offer recognisably Anglican worship, and especially the Eucharist, at accessible times each Sunday. Canon law states that Holy Communion should be celebrated every Sunday and holy day, and the bishops should certainly tighten up on this.

It is often said that Evangelical parishes eschew the authorised liturgies. How common is this practice? I have some friends at Langham Place so (unusually for me) I have some experience at this end of the candle. The last time I went to the (early) Communion service at All Soul's it was straight said BCP, surplice and scarf. The later services are somewhat more, shall we say adventurous?

I would imagine this is the standard even at the most advanced evangelical places (one feels that St Helen's Bishopsgate is probably the exception).

So what is the liturgical landscape in evangelical-land?

[ 28. May 2013, 14:36: Message edited by: Belisarius ]

Posted by Laxton's Superba (# 228) on :

I had a thread about this last week. I was at a very low place for the celebration of Holy Communion and there was a very truncated Eucharistic prayer with acclamations that I did not recognise, even looked them up in Common Worship but to no avail. THe prevailing view of those who answered on my thread was that the church had pretty much made up the eucharistic prayer to suit their prevailing theology, and that this was outside canon law.

There is another thread about the validity of the eucharist at the moment and my comments apply to both. I did consider not receving, after the risible eucharistic prayer and the seemingly total lack of reverence in the celebration, (no vestment at all, not even a clerical collar worn by the priest who read off the prayer from his laeflet as if it was something he'd never seen before, standing with one hand in his pocket) but in the end I felt it was not a reasonable thing to do and would draw attention to myself in a way I didn't want.

When I was a student I was present at an agape where the president was drunk, I felt very awkward then as I didn't feel intoxication was an appropriate state of mind for one celebrating the most holy mysteries. But as I had not been confirmed at this point I did not need to make a decision about whether to partake.

I think evangelical churches get away with quite a lot, but no-one does anythign about it because they are also the churches with lots of money. I am sorry if that sounds cynical, but that's what it seems to me.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I have to say that my experience of worshipping (and presiding) in various evangelical churches around here, that they stick to the book for the eucharist. The exception is a low, rather than evangelical, place where occasionally a stand-in priest (from a liberal catholic tradition) will use an experimental eucharistic prayer. A practice which I would have been happier with at one time than I am now, but at least the prayers he uses are theologically sound as far as I can see.

All sorts of strange things happen at 'all age' services, I have no doubt. But then they can, usually quite legally.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laxton's Superba:

I think evangelical churches get away with quite a lot, but no-one does anythign about it because they are also the churches with lots of money. I am sorry if that sounds cynical, but that's what it seems to me.

I'm joining you in your cynicism because that's what it seems to me too.

One view I've heard about why these kinds of churches attract money is that ConEvo clergy are very good at getting themselves into favourable positions with funding bodies.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

When I used to attend a church which became more and more Evangelical (vicar saw the light), the service book was still used (ASB in those days), but random parts of the liturgy were left out, in order to add in 'times of worship' (lots of singing of choruses) or times of testimony. There were a growing number of people in the church without a CofE background, so they didn't really care whether the liturgy was there or not (and some even wanted it to disappear altogether) so there wasn't much point making a fuss.

Shortly after that, I left, so I have no idea whether the church still carries on this pattern or not.

I've no idea whether that pattern is normal or not, but I can see that Evangelicals might have 'more important' matters on their minds, and see the Liturgy as, at best, secondary.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
When I used to attend a church which became more and more Evangelical (vicar saw the light), the service book was still used (ASB in those days), but random parts of the liturgy were left out, in order to add in 'times of worship' (lots of singing of choruses) or times of testimony. There were a growing number of people in the church without a CofE background, so they didn't really care whether the liturgy was there or not (and some even wanted it to disappear altogether) so there wasn't much point making a fuss.

Shortly after that, I left, so I have no idea whether the church still carries on this pattern or not.

I've no idea whether that pattern is normal or not, but I can see that Evangelicals might have 'more important' matters on their minds, and see the Liturgy as, at best, secondary.

A very 'Sydney'approach though they do tend to stick 'close to the book'. 'Moore and Moore where that came from'.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

There are many intelligent evangelical liturgical scholars out there who will be tearing their hair out at such things as you describe, Chorister. I suspect the problem comes down to theological training and above all the fact that more and more clergy are trained on non-residential courses so they don't experience a consistent liturgical round.

Recommended reading for evangelicals and catholics alike: Vision upon Vision by George Guiver CR. Traces how liturgy became clericalised and minimalised right through the years until the Reformation, and how the Reformers, having inherited such a tradition, simply clericalised it even further.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
When I used to attend a church which became more and more Evangelical (vicar saw the light), the service book was still used (ASB in those days), but random parts of the liturgy were left out, in order to add in 'times of worship' (lots of singing of choruses) or times of testimony. There were a growing number of people in the church without a CofE background, so they didn't really care whether the liturgy was there or not (and some even wanted it to disappear altogether) so there wasn't much point making a fuss.

Shortly after that, I left, so I have no idea whether the church still carries on this pattern or not.

I've no idea whether that pattern is normal or not, but I can see that Evangelicals might have 'more important' matters on their minds, and see the Liturgy as, at best, secondary.

I'm interested in your story Chorister. You say that the vicar saw the light, and therefore altered the liturgy to include more praise of God and testimony, but that you didn't like it and left.

What didn't you like? Was it that the familiar shape of the liturgy had been changed, that there was now no defined shape, that you disliked the worship songs or the testimonies, that the vicar talked about 'seeing the light'......?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I ought to let Chorister tell the story, Raptor, but from what she's shared on these boards over the years it seemed that the parish became increasingly drawn towards the more extreme charismatic end of things - it depends on where you're standing, of course, as to where you draw particular lines.

My comparatively recent experience of Anglican evangelicalism is that it is increasingly embarrassed by anything remotely 'Anglican' within its own tradition. Sure, they tend to stick reasonably close to the book or to a laminated sheet with chunks of the liturgy on it - the creed, the Lord's Prayer, Prayer of Humble Access etc but not a great deal else.

I do know 'Prayer Book Evangelicals' but I don't seem to come across that many.

The New Wine crowd seem to give lip-service to Anglican formularies of any kind and appear to have set or pat answers to fend you off if you challenge them on it - they practice the art of dissembling and can claim that their practice can fit within an Anglican footprint.

I'm sure it can, to a fairly large extent. But most play fast and loose with the rules in my experience. Our vicar rarely wears a dog-collar and, ridiculously in my view, will wear it for the 9am more traditional, but still snake-belly low, service and then quickly change into a hideous striped jersey or casual shirt for the 11am New Wine-wannabe service.

I'm not sure if they have communion every week at our place - without going and looking it up. They might do - just ... because they'll have it once a month at the 11am and on two or three out of four Sundays at the 9am.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Our place is more or less by-the-book CW for Eucharists, though often with bots left out at the whim of whoever is leading the service that day (or if a visiting priest, whoever made up the service leaflet for the day)

The difference between us and the less extreme Anglo-Catholics is not so much that we say different words as that we sit much more loosely with them. The exact service you get sort of depends on who is making the decisions and that could any one of about five clergy on the team - or me as Reader if there is a visiting priest. I think the average worshipper at our church, were they confronted with the kind of arguments that go on here, wouldn't object to a lot of what the more Anglo-Catholic posters say, but they would be surprised that anyone finds it important or interesting.

There seems to be a feeling among our clergy that the Eucharistic liturgy is too long and is confusing for newcomers and occasional visitors. So there is a tendency to leave things out. But what is in in there is probably pretty straightforward CW.

For the same reasons we tend to use Morning Prayer when there are baptisms or any other reason there might be more visitors than usual.

Personally I think I disagree with this but its not up to me except when the vicar is away. Which she was for a couple of months a while back and I was scheduling the services with visiting priests, and had Eucharists every Sunday morning for a while, and after about three or four began to get complaints. Not as many as when I chose a hymn no-one knew (that is always the worst thing you can do!) but some.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experience Gamaliel.

If it's simply a matter of preference as to whether the services are structured or not, and everyone is being catered for within different services, is there an issue?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

There seems to be a feeling among our clergy that the Eucharistic liturgy is too long and is confusing for newcomers and occasional visitors. So there is a tendency to leave things out. But what is in in there is probably pretty straightforward CW.

What bits do they leave out, though? That is crucial. There are many parts of CW that are optional; there are also ones that are mandatory but less crucial. For example, the 'collect for purity' is optional. The Creed, on Sundays, is not (or at least some form of Affirmation of Faith); but it would be less serious to omit it than it would to omit the Eucharistic Prayer (or curtail the latter to a travesty). If the priest understands the basic principles of liturgy they can take liberties without undermining the whole thing. So often people (and I have to say evangelicals are more likely to be guilty of this) see the liturgy as peripheral, even if they are prepared to pay lip service to legality by including some texts.

Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :

I tend to have to call some evo places to account to ensure liturgical conformity, but that is very much the exception rather than the rule. (but it does mean that +Richard's pastoral letter is a salutary reminder to them as well as to the Roman Rite clergy)

Eucharists tend to be Prayer H, which I think is the least satisfactory of the CW prayers. When I'm confirming, I try to steer them towards one of the other prayers. In the eucharistic prayer they quite often use worship songs (as do the charismatic catholic shops) for the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei.

For non-eucharistic, it's true that the rubrics of the Service of the Word allow more or less any of the New Wine worship structures.

Of course, many evo clergy are now running more MOR or catholic parishes, and are more likely to have liturgy in their blood stream (having been well trained in liturgical adaptivity).

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What bits do they leave out, though? That is crucial.

OK, this is a summary of an order of service I have on my PC from August. I hope it makes sense.

Hymn 466 Praise my soul the king of heaven

Praise the name of the Lord;
ascribe greatness to our God.
Lord, open our lips
and we shall praise your name.
This is the day that the Lord has made
Let us rejoice and be glad in it

Hymn 1528 Thank you for the cross, Lord
Hymn 935 My Jesus, my Saviour

Invitation to Confession
Jesus said, ‘Come to me all you who are tired and weary of carrying heavy loads and I will give you rest.’ God so loved the world that he sent his only son to be our Saviour. Let us come to him, in sorrow for our sins, seeking healing and salvation.

Confession
Almighty God, our heavenly Father, we have sinned against you...

Absolution
May the God of love and power forgive you and free you from your sins...
Amen

Collect
Lord Jesus Christ, you humbled yourself in taking the form of a servant...

Reading Exodus 1.8-2.10
This is the word of the Lord.
Thanks be to God.

Hymn 4 Alleluiah

Before the gospel:
Hear the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ according to Matthew
Glory to you, O Lord.

Gospel Reading Matthew 16.13-20

After the gospel:
This is the Gospel of the Lord.
Praise to you, O Christ.

Sermon

[A paraphrase sung as a hymn in place of the creed]}

"We believe in God the Father
God almighty, by whose plan
earth and heaven sprang into being,
all created things began."
[etc...]

Intercessions

The Peace

Offertory Hymn 519 Take my life and let it be

The Lord is here
His Spirit is with us
Lift up your hearts.
We lift them to the Lord.
Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
It is right to give thanks and praise.

Eucharistic Prayer H
[With responses but no additional or seasonal material]

A chorus with the words "Holy, holy,holy" in it (1281 in Songs of Fellowship)

The Lord's Prayer

"Draw near with faith…"

We do not presume...

Songs during Communion
Hymn 303 Jesus stand among us
Hymn 865 Jesus Christ

Post Communion Prayer
God of our pilgrimage, you have willed that the gate of mercy should stand open for those who trust in you...

Blessing

Hymn 148 Guide me O thou great Jehovah

Let us go in peace to love and serve the Lord
In the name of Christ. Amen.

Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on :

Vision upon Vision by George Guiver CR.

Traces how liturgy became clericalised and minimalised right through the yer

Tempted to get this Angloid but a bit thrown by de price on amazon ! Have wish listed for now.

Is it really inspiring ?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Gamaliel has the measure of it. I don't think many people would leave a church just because the liturgy got tinkered with (or even just because they didn't like the hymns). That may well be part of a very complex picture, with many difficulties. I puzzle over why it is that the churches which play fast and loose with the liturgy are often the most strict in their attitudes to gays, cohabitees and others who do not live a pure enough lifestyle in their opinion, and also to women being priests. I'm not quite sure why that is, or what exactly is going on there.

Anyway, to get back to topic, for those who do think liturgy is important, the many hours of study which has gone into making the Anglican liturgy what it is, is hugely respected. As Angloid says, some of the liturgy allows for options and preferences, notably the eucharistic prayers, but there are other parts which shouldn't be just omitted or reworded for no apparent reason. If people are not going to respect the scholarship which has gone into preparing the liturgy then they are better going down the nonconformist route.

In the Anglican church, rather than not considering the liturgy to be important, it should be highlighted. The best churches explain their liturgy, for example, through visual aids, and children are encouraged to grow up understanding what the liturgy and symbolism used in church means.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Ken - that's not unlike what we do here sometimes. It looks perfectly legal. It's not how I would prefer to do it (especially Prayer H!) but it is recognisably Anglican and (more importantly) recognisably the Eucharist. As +Pete says, there are a few evo places that need to be brought into line but this isn't one of them.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by crynwrcymraeg:
Vision upon Vision by George Guiver CR.

Traces how liturgy became clericalised and minimalised right through the yer

Tempted to get this Angloid but a bit thrown by de price on amazon ! Have wish listed for now.

Is it really inspiring ?

Yes - well worth the money. He brings the archaeological details of early liturgy alive, with plenty of humour and earthy imagery, and has some trenchant things to say about the obsession with text (maybe relevant to the Roman rite/ anglo-catholic threads here). I'm only half-way through it so I can't comment on his vision for the future.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by crynwrcymraeg:
Vision upon Vision by George Guiver CR.

Traces how liturgy became clericalised and minimalised right through the yer

Tempted to get this Angloid but a bit thrown by de price on amazon ! Have wish listed for now.

Is it really inspiring ?

Yes - I read it a couple of months ago and our AffCath book group is going to discuss it in February.

It is cheaper from the SCM Autumn sale.

[ 23. November 2011, 11:46: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It is an issue, Raptor, if, like me, you are a recovering charismatic evangelical and are concerned that others don't go down the same route and make the same mistakes ...

But then, perhaps they have to find that out for themselves ...

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
It is often said that Evangelical parishes eschew the authorised liturgies. How common is this practice? I have some friends at Langham Place so (unusually for me) I have some experience at this end of the candle. The last time I went to the (early) Communion service at All Soul's it was straight said BCP, surplice and scarf. The later services are somewhat more, shall we say adventurous?

I would imagine this is the standard even at the most advanced evangelical places (one feels that St Helen's Bishopsgate is probably the exception).

So what is the liturgical landscape in evangelical-land?

I have attended a few open evangelical churches in North London and have found all their services were lituurgical. Many now follow the practice of having what they describe as a traditional 9am Holy Communion services which follows either BCP or CW, and where the celebrant is robed. Some maintain this pratice at their main service later in the morning - one even uses seasonally coloured service booklets.

Some now use screens, but even these generally provide Communion cards for congregations to follow during the Eucharistic prayer (the choice of which seems to vary).

As others have said, where the service is a service of the word, there is scope for this to vary, though it seeems to follow a Anglican spine.

[fixed code - preview post is your friend]

[ 23. November 2011, 16:05: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Would that this practice would catch on in this part of the world, Liturgy-lover.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

<disclaimer>
My own churchmanship is "High and Dry" and I have a strong preference for the BCP.
</disclaimer>

I have been both comfortable and very uncomfortable in Evangelical parishes. The comfortable experiences were general back in the 1980s and 90s when you could pretty much rely on getting one of these three options:

1. Parish Communion - ASB Rite A surplice and stole/scarf lay reader assisting, with lay folks involved reading lessons, doing the intercessions, etc.. Usually you would get overdosed on the praise band before the service, and they would have another go at Communion, but anything the congregation was expected to sing 'proper hymns' and liturgy would be read/said - usually very well.

2. Morning Service - aka ASB Morning Prayer - more often than not. Everything read; music pretty much as above. The focus was very definitely the sermon which was usually preached after the second lesson.

However, just once in a while you would hit a place that still used the BCP and they would sing everything from 'O Lord open thou our lips' to the collects except for the lessons. That suited High and Dry me.

3. Family service: two variants here - the Hymn/Worship song sandwich. The other was basically shortened MP. A bit more modern(sic) music, and the minister probably in just street clothes with a clerical collar, not surplice and scarf.

More recently I have started having fairly consistently unsatisfactory experiences because I keep hitting the New Wine - Vineyard - "what's its face" type of worship. I do not much care for this as it tends to be a bit to fellowship focussed inspite of its best efforts not to be. This means that if I am in Evangelical territory I will force myself to go to the early celebration which is likely to still be straight BCP.

PD

[ 24. November 2011, 02:23: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

I'm an Canadian Anglican and just 3 years in a parish where some parts of the liturgy are MIA .That was part of what made me decide to
return to my former parish where the service is Book of Alternative Service , most weeks though last week it was BCP. But almost never the Iona liturgy, a bit too celtic for my taste .
[Votive]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
There seems to be a feeling among our clergy that the Eucharistic liturgy is too long and is confusing for newcomers and occasional visitors. So there is a tendency to leave things out.

Slightly tangential, but this argument has always irked me. When in Christian history has the Eucharist not been long and confusing to newcomers? Has anybody stopped to think that perhaps the Eucharist is supposed to be difficult?

Shakespeare is difficult. Samuel Beckett is difficult. Van Gogh, Rothko, and Howard Hodgkin are difficult. Wagner is difficult. T.S.Eliot and Seamus Heaney are difficult. Is it just possible that anything that ultimately enriches your life is at first difficult?

Then why shouldn't the Eucharist be difficult? Or, in many cases, why isn't it?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Gamaliel has the measure of it. I don't think many people would leave a church just because the liturgy got tinkered with (or even just because they didn't like the hymns). That may well be part of a very complex picture, with many difficulties. I puzzle over why it is that the churches which play fast and loose with the liturgy are often the most strict in their attitudes to gays, cohabitees and others who do not live a pure enough lifestyle in their opinion, and also to women being priests. I'm not quite sure why that is, or what exactly is going on there.

Anyway, to get back to topic, for those who do think liturgy is important, the many hours of study which has gone into making the Anglican liturgy what it is, is hugely respected. As Angloid says, some of the liturgy allows for options and preferences, notably the eucharistic prayers, but there are other parts which shouldn't be just omitted or reworded for no apparent reason. If people are not going to respect the scholarship which has gone into preparing the liturgy then they are better going down the nonconformist route.

In the Anglican church, rather than not considering the liturgy to be important, it should be highlighted. The best churches explain their liturgy, for example, through visual aids, and children are encouraged to grow up understanding what the liturgy and symbolism used in church means.

You've made the observation that there seems to be a connection between becoming free and easy with liturgy and fostering a judgemental and exclusive attitude.

And yet, as you've indicated, there are 'nonconformist' churches which are virtually liturgy free and yet are far from being exclusive or judgemental.

This leaves me wondering whether there is a connection. Perhaps judgementalism is more connected with Biblical literalism? Some people seem to put their interpretation of the Bible above everything, including God. To be able to repeat the message the preacher wants to give over and again, to try to drum it into people, space must be made in the liturgy.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Tried a traditional dissenting eucharist liturgy Adeodatus.

No neither have I, but long it weren't.

According to my sources it consists solely of the reading of the institution and the sharing of bread and wine.

That's right no hymns, no prayers, no consecration, no sermon very minimalist. People were expected to attend the main Sunday service before hand. There was coffee hour between.

It disappeared largely fifty years ago.

Jengie

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
When in Christian history has the Eucharist not been long and confusing to newcomers? Has anybody stopped to think that perhaps the Eucharist is supposed to be difficult?

I don't honestly buy the idea that any contemporary Church of England Eucharist is difficult from the pews - okay, other than the difficulty of staying awake if the intercessions or the sermon are overdone. Seriously though, the only time I've heard of someone having problems with the texts was in an overhead projector place. The rest of us use service booklets so what's the problem?

If anything the three things newcomers and occasional visitors don't like are:
The congregational singing - they either can't sing or they've never heard the tune and don't have the rare ability to learn a melody under pressure and on the fly
2. Services at which there's no clear direction, or worse inaccurate direction from minister or booklet so they don't know if they're going to stand out like a sore thumb every time somebody deviates from the published script
3. Services are frankly boring unless and until you're committed to what they're about, with certain exceptions usually involving musical excellence.

I suspect this keeping things short is what's behind the prevalence of Prayer H because I doubt anybody would choose it on its merits. I'd point out that if time's the issue, you'd save more by using the short words of distribution than picking the shortest EP. By the way Ken, that liturgy plan is just about indistinguishable from ours. I bet the only difference is the number of robes in use.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
There seems to be a feeling among our clergy that the Eucharistic liturgy is too long and is confusing for newcomers and occasional visitors. So there is a tendency to leave things out.
Slightly tangential, but this argument has always irked me. When in Christian history has the Eucharist not been long and confusing to newcomers? Has anybody stopped to think that perhaps the Eucharist is supposed to be difficult?

Shakespeare is difficult. Samuel Beckett is difficult. Van Gogh, Rothko, and Howard Hodgkin are difficult. Wagner is difficult. T.S.Eliot and Seamus Heaney are difficult. Is it just possible that anything that ultimately enriches your life is at first difficult?

Then why shouldn't the Eucharist be difficult? Or, in many cases, why isn't it?

Imagine how difficult that first Last Supper was for a bunch of Jews being told to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of their leader! [Ultra confused]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
There seems to be a feeling among our clergy that the Eucharistic liturgy is too long and is confusing for newcomers and occasional visitors. So there is a tendency to leave things out.
Slightly tangential, but this argument has always irked me. When in Christian history has the Eucharist not been long and confusing to newcomers? Has anybody stopped to think that perhaps the Eucharist is supposed to be difficult?

Yes, of course. But don't tell me, tell our vicar. Whenever there is a baptism out goes the Eucharist. Or any special service: harvest, "church birthday", Remembrance, whatever. And the "All Age Family Worship" once a month. Result is the number of Sunday morning Eucharists a month has fallen to typically two a month, and sometimes only one. Ten years ago it was between three and four (there was always the occasional MP for various reasons). Of course ten years before that it was Morning Prayer every week with a short Communion afterwards once a month, which I guess is what people think of as the normal pattern. As I said, when we scheduled a Eucharist every week for a couple of months there were a few complaints. Very few, but some.

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I don't honestly buy the idea that any contemporary Church of England Eucharist is difficult from the pews - okay, other than the difficulty of staying awake if the intercessions or the sermon are overdone.

I think its length they are worried about more than difficulty. Also some feeling that the Eucharist is "special" and that it cheapens it to do it too often. Also sometimes visitors at infant baptisms behave in ways that some regular members of the congregation find unfitting - such as taking photographs, or going out for a smoking break, or talking loudly.

I may be being unfair here - I'm trying to report prejudices I don't share - I prefer slightly longer services myself, I have no problem with regular Communion, I don't really mind if people go in and out or don't pay attention, and if we don't think they are good enough to be present in church for Communion then what are we doing baptising them?

quote:

Seriously though, the only time I've heard of someone having problems with the texts was in an overhead projector place. The rest of us use service booklets so what's the problem?

If there is an infant baptism many visitors will have little or no experience of written liturgy at all. Even those who go to church (probably a minority) are quite likely to be used to Baptist or Pentecostal or charismatic churches with little or no written liturgy.

quote:

If anything the three things newcomers and occasional visitors don't like are:
The congregational singing - they either can't sing or they've never heard the tune and don't have the rare ability to learn a melody under pressure and on the fly

Not in my experience. Many visitors like the singing. And its not such a rare ability. Most children can do it!

quote:

2. Services at which there's no clear direction, or worse inaccurate direction from minister or booklet so they don't know if they're going to stand out like a sore thumb every time somebody deviates from the published script

Yes that confuses people. We had a classic last week:

There is an unwritten but unshakeable ritual of accepting the money offerings at the front. During the offertory hymn (and they call it that even when its not a Communion service) the publicans and tax-collectors (or whatever the job title is) gather at the back of the church and then process down together with the money to just in front of the table where someone (often me) is waiting with a bigger plate. They tip the goodies onto the plate and then wait while we say a blessing. Then the money gets handed to a churchwarden who spirits it away into the vestry safe for later counting (this last action a relative innovation of about eight years of age, but already hallowed with the sanctity of time)

However, last week there had been a baptism, and the portable font was in the front of the nave. And the vicar, without warning anyone, had decided to say that people who wanted to renew their baptismal vows (or something) could come and dip their fingers in the water which was still warm. (A typically harmless bit of Open Evangelical out-of-context liturgical blagging - no rite is safe from our scouts). Of course no-one did for a minute or two and then one person tried it and when the others saw that she was not struck dead there was a rush to join in. Well, about a dozen anyway. Who were milling around at the front at just exactly the same time as the keepers of the bag were waiting at the back to process through the very same space. So they waited and we waited and when the hymn finished and the money remained unblessed no-one was sure what we were doing at all.

quote:

3. Services are frankly boring unless and until you're committed to what they're about, with certain exceptions usually involving musical excellence.

True, but they chose to turn up to the baptism or harvest festival or Remembrance service or whatever it is. No-one forced them to.

quote:

I suspect this keeping things short is what's behind the prevalence of Prayer H because I doubt anybody would choose it on its merits.

No, they really like it. Well, some of them do, one of our clergy never uses it at all, another never willingly uses anything else.

Yes, they like that it is short, but even more they like that it is traditional Anglican language, and they like that it that doesn't commit anyone to a Catholic-style sacrificial understanding, but even more than all that they like that it is "interactive" and shared and has more parts for the congregation than just the simple responses of the others.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Unfamiliarity with a parish liturgy (or any liturgy) is not necessarily a problem.

Case in point: I had 3 cousins visiting recently; 2 Southern Baptist and 1 Presby. So either no or little familiarity with liturgy. I presumed they would wish to go to either 1st Baptist or 1st Presby (both historic congregations in lovely buildings). But they said they would rather go with me to my quite-high-up-the-candle AC church, (also historic, BTW.) I signed out of choir for the morning so I could sit with them in case of questions (or panic!). But they followed the mass booklet without help, sang all the hymns and pronounced it 'lovely.'

The other plus factor is that we are blessed with friendly and helpful (but not pushy) greeters.

The moral of this too-long story? Don't underestimate your visitors interest or intelligence!

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It is an issue, Raptor, if, like me, you are a recovering charismatic evangelical and are concerned that others don't go down the same route and make the same mistakes ...

But then, perhaps they have to find that out for themselves ...

There are likely to be individuals who are ex- any denomination or style of worship who might say the same thing. The more we discuss our Christian faith openly, the easier it should be for people to use wise discernment in avoiding the mistakes and seeking out the right church for them at any one time.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I have to admit than when we have visitors I stick rather rigidly to the liturgy as printed. It seems to help them. Gosh - there's a novel idea!
</sarcasm>

I think there has been a change in attitude in the last 20 years. Back then the usual Evangelical reaction to lots of visitors seemed to be to stick to the liturgy in the book, and give them a page number, or the assurance that it is OK to just listen, at the appropriate points. These days the tendancy is to ditch liturgy in the name of accessibility. I am not quite sure that that is the best policy as in some cases can make folks feel either excluded, or very uncomfortable, or both!

My older members of my family - occasional churchgoers at best - are absolutely hilarious (and tragic) to watch at a modern C of E service - they end up completely lost within about five minutes. However, take them to BCP Evensong and they know what they are doing and even remember the chants from way back when.

PD

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

It's also quite poignant when you have a service taken by an elderly priest (like one I attended recently, celebrating his 50 years of being priested). You just know that, if the liturgy hadn't been changed, he'd have been able to say it off by heart. But frequent stumbles ensued, due to poor eyesight and unfamiliar Eucharistic prayers.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
exactly the same time as the keepers of the bag were waiting at the back to process through the very same space. So they waited and we waited and when the hymn finished and the money remained unblessed

I suppose they could have gone round and given everyone their money back.

Posted by Lolly O'Hara (# 16777) on :

I teach at a Roman catholic school and liturgys don't seem too Roman catholic and mass is similar to a Christian communion. they even have everything on a screen like in my Christian church!

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

Admin hat on

Lolly O' Hara

You have had several friendly suggestions from other shipmates and one (to my knowledge) from a host advising you that it's not a good idea to suggest that Roman Catholics are not Christian.

Let me now make this official:

Your post above stating that the RC Mass is "similar" to a "Christian Communion" is not acceptable. Any further implications that the RC Church (or any other denomination) are not Christian will not be tolerated and your posting privileges will be revoked.

Spike
SoF Admin

Posted by Lolly O'Hara (# 16777) on :

I am sorry. When I write Christian i mean churches that aren't Roman catholic. I don't really know what else to call them.
Most churches cannot be called protestant because they didnt come from the reformation.

I know that Roman catholics are a type of Christian because they know and love Jesus. the chaplin at the school where I work is very christian and he reads the bible and not the catecism.

I'll be sure to refer to non Roman catholic denominations as protestant so it is.

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

The Roman-Catholic Church is certainly a Christian Church.
I do not always agree with what Pope Benedict says :
But he is a Christian, perhaps a very good one.
Furthermore many of he non Roman-Catholic Churches are certainly not Protestant, Eastern-Orthodox,Oriental Orthodox,Old-Catholic.
Many Anglicans, over the world do not like to be regarded as Protestants.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

This thread is about Evangelicals and Liturgy and is not the place to debate which labels are appropriate for which traditions.

Lolly: Thank you for your apology. Any queries about an official post by a host or an admin should be posted in the Styx and not on the original thread. I advise you to use the denominational label if in doubt. Your recent HTB thread would have been better had you referred to the Anglican Bishop of London, for example.

Perhaps we can now return to the regularly scheduled discussion.

seasick, Eccles host

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'm CofE and I'm happy to be described as protestant. The Reformation is as much part of my Christian history as the Middle Ages and the Oxford Movement. I get just a bit irritated by fellow Anglicans who seem to be determined to deny this.

I get just as irritated, by the way, by those that seem to assume 'real' Christianity died somewhere around 150 AD and restarted in 1558 or 1965 depending on churchmanship.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm CofE and I'm happy to be described as protestant. The Reformation is as much part of my Christian history as the Middle Ages and the Oxford Movement. I get just a bit irritated by fellow Anglicans who seem to be determined to deny this.

I get just as irritated, by the way, by those that seem to assume 'real' Christianity died somewhere around 150 AD and restarted in 1558 or 1965 depending on churchmanship.

Ditto and Likewise!

I have to confess that even though I am a High Churchman, I have more trouble getting into the mindset of the strident Anglo-Catholics than I do the strident Evangelicals. That said, I do wish both sides would do me the courtesy of not 'unchurching' me because I do not agree with some of their shibboleths.

I have to be honest and say that I miss the old-fashioned by the book Evangelical service. I rather liked the contrast between the objectivity of the liturgy, and the preaching, which was often aimed at eliciting an emotion/spiritual response. It was good combination, and I am not sure that the sledgehammer approach, where everything in the service is bent to the will of the preacher/theme of the day, is any improvement.

PD - who is feeling cranky

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Gentlemen, was there something in my esteemed co-host's post that you missed?

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
This thread is about Evangelicals and Liturgy and is not the place to debate which labels are appropriate for which traditions.

seasick, Eccles host

The third paragraph of PD's post gets us back on topic, so let's take it from there, shall we? Thank you.

Mamacita, Eccles Host

[ 27. November 2011, 03:48: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on :

The parish in which I serve is essentially Anglo-Catholic in tradition and practice, though tending more MOTR in two of the three churches. In the main church, we are trying to restructure the weekend service so that it is more friendly to those who are not of an Anglo-Catholic background, especially given that there are some evangelicals moving into this part of the Diocese from Sydney.

It seems to me that a traditional Anglican eucharist is hard to fit into the required format - and it should be said that the other weekend services at the other two churches are decidedly Anglo-Catholic (one top of the candle, one tending towards MOTR) so that my parishioners do have a choice. But as each church must have at least one eucharist each weekend, and each church only has one service, this leaves me with a problem.

Any workable suggestions as to an acceptable format for the Lord's Supper which is family friendly, kid-friendly, and visitor friendly? Surely our evangelical brethren must have something that fits the bill?

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:

... we are trying to restructure the weekend service so that it is more friendly to those who are not of an Anglo-Catholic background, especially given that there are some evangelicals moving into this part of the Diocese from Sydney.

It seems to me that a traditional Anglican eucharist is hard to fit into the required format ... Any workable suggestions as to an acceptable format for the Lord's Supper which is family friendly, kid-friendly, and visitor friendly? Surely our evangelical brethren must have something that fits the bill?

It's been my sad observation that what your Evangelical brethren have to contribute to your problem is a general dumbing down of the worship experience. We've seen the results of that among Anglicans in Sydney.

Instead, let me hasten to advise that your problem can best be solved by the use of sound teaching about the church and her liturgy. Take this as an opportunity to raise parish practice and standards in liturgy not lower them. Conversely, I very much doubt that they will put candles out on Sydney holy tables or wear surplices and colored stoles there just because Newcastle people have recently moved into their neighborhood. So don't make the mistake of bending over backwards to accommodate Sydney Anglicans of all people. Stand your ground and teach them.

You can tell that I'm not an Evangelical Anglican, can't you? Actually, I'm not an Evangelical Episcopalian. We don't haven't real Evangelical Episcopalians since most of them flew the coop with the formation of the Reformed Episcopal Church in 1873. Then more more recently there was AMIA and ACNA to bleed off any remaining, usually pretended, Episcopalian Evangelicals.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
It's been my sad observation that what your Evangelical brethren have to contribute to your problem is a general dumbing down of the worship experience.

I have to say, Mr. Rob, that I am nowhere near an evangelical anything, and what I know of Sydney Anglicanism is only from these boards (enough to know I wouldn't like it), but -- are you really accusing evangelicals of dumbing down their worship? As opposed to, say, making considered changes, albeit ones with which you and I would disagree? Because if you are, I find that a pretty offensive statement. (And the Wiki link you provided isn't helping much in the offensiveness department.)

quote:
Instead, let me hasten to advise that your problem can best be solved by the use of sound teaching about the church and her liturgy. Take this as an opportunity to raise parish practice and standards in liturgy not lower them.

Teaching about the church and her liturgy -- to adults, youth and children in age-appropriate ways -- is always a good thing. With children, experience is the better teacher, so a didactic approach can be made more effective if coupled with finding ways to bring children actively into the liturgy in roles such as acolytes, choristers, even lectors or leaders of the prayers of the people (for older children). But I have to take issue with the notion that changing liturgical style/practices is tantamount to lowering standards.

quote:
We don't haven't real Evangelical Episcopalians since most of them flew the coop with the formation of the Reformed Episcopal Church in 1873. Then more more recently there was AMIA and ACNA to bleed off any remaining, usually pretended, Episcopalian Evangelicals.

"Pretended" evangelicals? Again, is it necessary to impugn the sincerity of people with whom you do not agree?

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:

" ... I find that a pretty offensive statement. (And the Wiki link you provided isn't helping much in the offensiveness department.)"

My apologies for any offense to you with my reply to the gentleman in Australia.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

@Lolly - it might be worth having a chat to Jengie Jon as she's up on all things 'Reformed'. The term Reformed might be a useful one for you to use in reference to those churches which derived directly from the Reformation. Even though this might be contested on historical/theological grounds by some posters - and probably needs to be modified to some extent (I make a distinction between 'reformed' and 'Reformed' as it were, small 'r' and Big R) it's unlikely to cause as much offence as referring to all non-Catholic Christians as simply 'Christians' as it implies that RCs are something else again.

I think the best rule of thumb is use the term Christian for all Trinitarian churches and denominations and to use various subsets - such as Orthodox, Reformed, Wesleyan, Anglo-Catholic etc etc within that over-arching term.

I apologise if I've strayed into Hostly territory here, I'm not presuming to do that but I am hoping to spare your blushes a bit when you post in future.

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

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
OK, this is a summary of an order of service I have on my PC from August. I hope it makes sense.

Even to this BCP-clutching traditionalist High Churchman, the service you describe does not remotely frighten the horses.

The "All Age Family Worship" you mention further down thread does rather give one pause, though...

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Hostly Blue Scarf ON

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I apologise if I've strayed into Hostly territory here, I'm not presuming to do that but I am hoping to spare your blushes a bit when you post in future.

Not only are you straying into Hostly territory, you are continuing the debate about what label applies to which tradition, which seasick issued a ruling on in this post and which I repeated here.

Everyone, please, stick to the discussion of evangelicals and liturgy.

Mamacita, Eccles Host

Hostly Blue Scarf OFF

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Actually, Evangelicals survived quite well in the Episcopal Church down to the late 1970s. I have "somewhere" a little ceremonial guide published by the Boston Group of the Evangelical Episcopal Fellowship in 1943, and there was still enough of them around for it to be updated in 1983 for the 1979 BCP.

What seems to have happened in the USA is that the usual charismatic-evangelical cross-fertilization has become mixed up with the upward drift of the Low and Middle Churchmanships in TEC producing quie a different picture to what one has in England, Ulster, or Oz.

The ACNA/CANA grouping seems to contain a whole bunch of hyphenated churchmanships most of which have been touched in some way shape or form by the charismatic movement. I think that almost guarantees that they won't function like Evangelicals elsewhere.

Evangelical Episcopal liturgy used to be by-the-book with minimal ceremonial. However, to UK eyes it would have looked Low-Central due to the use of stole for communion, and the eastward position. One thing they were fairly keen on was at least trying to use all the variants of morning service offered by the 1928 BCP: MP and Litany; Litany and Ante-Communion; Holy Communion; Short MP and Communion. I am sure though, that in practice things usually went between Sung MP and sermon, and Holy Communion.

Oddly enough I am a clergyman in the one section of the 1977 Continuum that made some attempt to retain the Evangelical Episcopal tradition, and I find there is a sort of 'tribal memory' of the old EEF was of doing things - even down to croziers as flags!

PD

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
It seems to me that a traditional Anglican eucharist is hard to fit into the required format...

Any workable suggestions as to an acceptable format for the Lord's Supper which is family friendly, kid-friendly, and visitor friendly? Surely our evangelical brethren must have something that fits the bill?

I am not quite sure what "the required format" might be.

My experience is with English (CofE) liturgies and canonical requirements, but if I were looking for some creative thinking and resources on this I would look to New Patterns for Worship - both the discussion about planning worship, and the sample services. The printed version of the sample services includes a brief introductory rationale for each one and is accessible in PDF form (at the bottom of the page).

FWIW my own reflection on what you are trying to do would be to emphasize participation. If you have a lot of children involve them in the gospel procession - have them process with it and stand around the reader as it is read (choose a translation which is accessible). Let them share in the collection and in the offertory procession. Find creative ways to engage them in intercessions. Use music imaginatively. Talk to them about what they want/value/would like. If there are things to do for which you might want them to be robed discuss it with them. Some might want to take turns in this special role. Leave space for the numinous - for God to be perceived as being present. Foster silence and wonder as well as music, words and action.

Forgive me if this is too much like teaching my grandmother to suck eggs!

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
So what is the liturgical landscape in evangelical-land?

Is the following relevant?

It's extracted from the FAQ web page of a church I used to attend many years ago; though lightly edited for brevity etc..

What time are the services and how long are they?
The Sunday celebrations (what we call our services) happen at 10.30am and 6pm every Sunday. They last between 90 minutes and an hour and three-quarters. However it is possible to slip out before the end if you need to leave early.
What style of service do you have?
We are led by the Holy Spirit, both in our teaching and in our worship, so we have a relaxed style which is open to the way the Lord leads us. We use drums and guitars in our worship, and people clap, raise their hands and wave banners. It’s an expression of our love for the Lord.
Are you Church of England?
Yes. However we do not make extensive use of liturgy or some of the more formal Anglican traditions.
When do you have Holy Communion?
Communion is celebrated regularly at XXX Church, but not every Sunday and not at every celebration – it is usually once a month. We don’t publish details of which services have Holy Communion.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

When do you have Holy Communion?
Communion is celebrated regularly at XXX Church, but not every Sunday and not at every celebration – it is usually once a month. We don’t publish details of which services have Holy Communion.

So it's not part of their tradition to prepare for the Lord's Supper? I thought the argument for infrequent celebration was because it was special, and needed careful preparation. How anyone can 'approach the Lord's table worthily' if they don't know when Holy Communion is going to happen? Seems as if this church is out of line, not just with the C of E, but the whole of Reformed Christendom.

Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :

Not just Reformed Christendom!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Well, of course. I know that, but assumed that the church in question would not worry about being out of line with any except Reformed. Probably not that either.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

When do you have Holy Communion?
Communion is celebrated regularly at XXX Church, but not every Sunday and not at every celebration – it is usually once a month. We don’t publish details of which services have Holy Communion.
So it's not part of their tradition to prepare for the Lord's Supper?

The argument would be that they are always preparing for it ("we do not presume to come...")as all of life is preparation.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

As if! There is integrity in the Quaker (and Salvationist?) position that all meals are sacramental and therefore why ritualise one of them. If specific preparation for Communion is unnecessary since all life is preparation for the coming of Christ (which indeed it is) then acts of worship of whatever sort are unnecessary. Most of us sinful humans need props and reminders.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
So what is the liturgical landscape in evangelical-land?
Is the following relevant?

It's extracted from the FAQ web page of a church I used to attend many years ago; though lightly edited for brevity etc..

What time are the services and how long are they?
The Sunday celebrations (what we call our services) happen at 10.30am and 6pm every Sunday. They last between 90 minutes and an hour and three-quarters. However it is possible to slip out before the end if you need to leave early.
What style of service do you have?
We are led by the Holy Spirit, both in our teaching and in our worship, so we have a relaxed style which is open to the way the Lord leads us. We use drums and guitars in our worship, and people clap, raise their hands and wave banners. It’s an expression of our love for the Lord.
Are you Church of England?
Yes. However we do not make extensive use of liturgy or some of the more formal Anglican traditions.
When do you have Holy Communion?
Communion is celebrated regularly at XXX Church, but not every Sunday and not at every celebration – it is usually once a month. We don’t publish details of which services have Holy Communion.

Perhapos a more honest answer to 'Are you Church of England' would be 'yes, but only insofar as the CofE pays the vicar's stipend and will provide him with a pension'

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
As if! There is integrity in the Quaker (and Salvationist?) position that all meals are sacramental and therefore why ritualise one of them. If specific preparation for Communion is unnecessary since all life is preparation for the coming of Christ (which indeed it is) then acts of worship of whatever sort are unnecessary. Most of us sinful humans need props and reminders.

You could see "preparation" as a sign of a works based understanding of Christianity as opposed to receiving in grace. This means receiving despite as opposed to looking for receiving because.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

They might well. But they are not in the tradition of the Church of England or indeed any body except a few like-minded fanatics.

At least Anglicans who use the Roman Rite are [a]using a liturgy, and one not too dissimilar to Anglican tradition, and [b] obeying Canon Law in providing a Eucharist in the parish church at least (usually much more than) once a Sunday. I hope the Bishop's liturgical police are pursuing the offending parish in the OP with as much zeal.

[ 30. November 2011, 12:42: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
They might well. But they are not in the tradition of the Church of England or indeed any body except a few like-minded fanatics.

At least Anglicans who use the Roman Rite are [a]using a liturgy, and one not too dissimilar to Anglican tradition, and [b] obeying Canon Law in providing a Eucharist in the parish church at least (usually much more than) once a Sunday. I hope the Bishop's liturgical police are pursuing the offending parish in the OP with as much zeal.

All well and good except for those of us who don't quite put the same store on tradition.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Just as +Richard Londin was justified in suggesting that those Anglicans who prefer Roman liturgical authority to his own, should logically join the Ordinariate, he would be equally justified in suggesting that those Christians who sit light to 'tradition' (Anglican or other) would be better off in an independent evangelical fellowship.

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
They might well. But they are not in the tradition of the Church of England or indeed any body except a few like-minded fanatics.

Use of a well-known web search engine will confirm this. [Disappointed]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Just as +Richard Londin was justified in suggesting that those Anglicans who prefer Roman liturgical authority to his own, should logically join the Ordinariate, he would be equally justified in suggesting that those Christians who sit light to 'tradition' (Anglican or other) would be better off in an independent evangelical fellowship.

I couldn't agree more!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Presumably, BTW, the business about not advertising which services have communion is to allow the maximum freedom for the Spirit to move them on any given occasion?
I wonder how wide a variety of worship the Spirit moves them to. Does He, for example, ever move them to a spontaneous celebration of Solemn Evensong with Benediction? That'd be one to see.... [Big Grin]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Ha! I've caught them out! They ARE advertising a Midnight Communion on Christmas Eve although not at any other specific time. That must contravene the Trades Desriptions Act.

Two serious points come to mind. One is that this church is not only Anglican but also part of New Wine network (I can't see how this works, mind you). How much can you not appear Anglican yet say you are part of the CopE?

I also remember that, when the Toronto Blessing was around back in the 1990s, some churches anecdotally postponed the celebration of Eucharist because the Holy Spirit was so powerfully moving and they wanted more "ministry time". Might that idea lie behind not publishing Communion times (as suggested by Albertus above), or are they frightened either that people might get to sacramentally-minded or alternatively stay away when Communion is celebrated?

[ 30. November 2011, 17:19: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Bizarre things do happen in some CofE churches -- only the other day I was inside one with the unmistakeable smell of incense yet with a HUGE sign on the door that said "No Smoking in this building" .....

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
some churches anecdotally postponed the celebration of Eucharist because the Holy Spirit was so powerfully moving and they wanted more "ministry time".

Way more anecdote than reality IME

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

Two serious points come to mind. One is that this church is not only Anglican but also part of New Wine network (I can't see how this works, mind you). How much can you not appear Anglican yet say you are part of the CopE?

Baptists are not so different. What about those (eg Bracknell, Bedford) who are in the BU and New Frontiers?

New Wine is pretty Anglican in flavour although in its younger expression (Soul Survivor) it attracts people from all the main denominations and none. It certainly does from New Jerusalem.

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

I wonder how Anglican is their fondness for Jesus Ministries?

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

Although I am no fan of charismatic worship, I once went, at a friend's request, to a sunday evening praise and worship session that had the usual band and modern praise songs, bible reading, prayers and long sermon. I was (pleasantly) surprised when at the end of this there was Holy Communion, at which point the service became fully liturgical and reverent with the full eucharistic prayer, fraction, and invitation from Common Worship, and the Minister had put on robes just prior to this section of the service beginning.

I walked past an Evangelical CofE Church today which advertised a 7pm evening worship with once a month informal communion. I was puzzled by what this term might mean, and wondered if anyone had any experience of an informal communion?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

It'll be interesting to see what people's experience is, although at the other end of the spectrum a non-church friend of mine, seeing 'solemn eucharist' advertised, did once wonder whether there was ever a celebration of a 'downright frivolous eucharist'...

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
It'll be interesting to see what people's experience is, although at the other end of the spectrum a non-church friend of mine, seeing 'solemn eucharist' advertised, did once wonder whether there was ever a celebration of a 'downright frivolous eucharist'...

'Missa friuola'? Why not? - mass setting by Rossini - Petite messe solenelle [Razz]

The Latin sollemnis doesn't have the same significance as the English solemn, meaning rather 'customary' or 'formal'. A local parish church regularly has a 'quiet eucharist' - as opposed to a noisy one, I suppose.

[ 30. November 2011, 21:28: Message edited by: Metapelagius ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liturgylover:

I walked past an Evangelical CofE Church today which advertised a 7pm evening worship with once a month informal communion. I was puzzled by what this term might mean...

They are trying not to frighten people away. Just like the other church mentioned before. They think that formality and traditional liturgy will put people off.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
They are trying not to frighten people away.

It would frighten me away! Thank God we're all different.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I remember going to a CofE group from the New Wine / Toronto Blessing stable. They explained that 'They just wanted people to feel safe'. But what went on there made me feel decidedly 'unsafe'. Perhaps I just like certainty and accountability.

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

Happy-clappy worship guide.

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

[Killing me]

"Nothing can ruin a worship experience more than having an eyeball gouged out."

Thanks CG.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

To be fair to the New Wine-y types - something you don't get from me very often - they are aware of the issues and problems in their use of language. They tend to use the term 'informal' but are fully aware that this can imply sloppy or slap-dash.

What they're struggling with is a lack of vocabulary to adequately convey what they're trying to do.

Consequently, the more traditional Anglican service at 9am in our parish is described as 'formal' - even though there is very little formality about it. If anything, it's a lot less formal that most Methodist services I've attended. But they can't think of a better term ... and so have settled for this one by default.

It does bug, me though, when they start to coin new words or phrases. Our vicar recently wrote an outline for the forthcoming Christmas edition of the church magazine to encourage the many visitors to visit again for a 'normal' service. He described the 11am livelier service as, among other things, combining 'quite bits and loud bits, fun bits and thinky bits.'

'Thinky bits'??!!!

[Eek!]

Meanwhile, I agree with ExclamationMark - the more New Wine-y of the New Winers would be a lot happier in an independent charismatic evangelical network. They ought to sod off and go there and then they could be all 'thinky' together.

'Thinky' my arse. What passes for genuine reflection in some of these outfits would get torn to shreds in the cosier corners of All-Saints or Heaven on these Boards.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I do find it odd when free-form charismatics join an Anglican church and then start complaining that they have to put up with Liturgy. That's as bonkers as people who move into a rural village and then complain about the church bells, farmyard smells or the cockcrow.

There are plenty of churches out there which do not have Liturgy, if you really don't like it. Perhaps you'll be happier there?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I do find it odd when free-form charismatics join an Anglican church and then start complaining that they have to put up with Liturgy.

Historically its mostly been the other way round. The Anglicans, in Britain and Africa, were the first mainstream denomination to be seriously affected by the Charismatic movement - decades ago, in the 1950s and 60s, with some minor influence back as far as the 1920s.

Then when the chorus-and-worship-band style of service got going in a large way in the 1970s many Anglicans were involved in it. Some of them left the CofE and joined what we did not yet call the "New Churches". Others remained Anglicans.

So its not so much that there were free-floating Charismatics around who happened across the CofE and joined it as that some Anglicans became interested in this new style of worship and remained Anglicans.

I started attending church regularly in the early 1970s and I've never known a time when there were no Anglican churches doing some sort of Charismatic worship. So its not that much of an innovation any more.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I do find it odd when free-form charismatics join an Anglican church and then start complaining that they have to put up with Liturgy. That's as bonkers as people who move into a rural village and then complain about the church bells, farmyard smells or the cockcrow.

There are plenty of churches out there which do not have Liturgy, if you really don't like it. Perhaps you'll be happier there?

Liturgy is living and alive - so what passes for "normal" c of e in Cream tealand isn't so normal between wood and water a mere 25 miles or so away.

If I move to yoer parish, do you expect me to conform, even to something that is non conformist to me?

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I believe there's an historical precedent for respecting "local custom" when it comes to adiaphora.

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

quote:
Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
The parish in which I serve is essentially Anglo-Catholic in tradition and practice, though tending more MOTR in two of the three churches. In the main church, we are trying to restructure the weekend service so that it is more friendly to those who are not of an Anglo-Catholic background, especially given that there are some evangelicals moving into this part of the Diocese from Sydney.

It seems to me that a traditional Anglican eucharist is hard to fit into the required format - and it should be said that the other weekend services at the other two churches are decidedly Anglo-Catholic (one top of the candle, one tending towards MOTR) so that my parishioners do have a choice. But as each church must have at least one eucharist each weekend, and each church only has one service, this leaves me with a problem.

Any workable suggestions as to an acceptable format for the Lord's Supper which is family friendly, kid-friendly, and visitor friendly? Surely our evangelical brethren must have something that fits the bill?

How far are you willing to depart from "the book"?

If you are looking for a family-friendly Communion service, try the liturgical materials from the Uniting Church in Australia.

Up here in their older sibling the United Church of Canada "age-appropriate" and inclusive of everybody has been a concern since forever. The UCCan still clings strongly to the One Sunday Service for Everybody model.

The UCCan's service book, Celebrate God's Presence has a formatting outline in front of the Communion Services if you wish to assemble your own. And then it has 11 different Great Thanksgivings. Everything is there from Kid's Church services to traditional and brief to modern and long.

Check the UCA. Both of us come from the tradition of liturgy being something that comes with "some assembly required."

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I do find it odd when free-form charismatics join an Anglican church and then start complaining that they have to put up with Liturgy. That's as bonkers as people who move into a rural village and then complain about the church bells, farmyard smells or the cockcrow.

There are plenty of churches out there which do not have Liturgy, if you really don't like it. Perhaps you'll be happier there?

But what happens when insert whatever tradition you like here) has been going on for so long and is so deeply embedded, that those practicising it can't see how harmful/divisive/limiting it is?

It sometimes takes an outsider or incomer to point out the wrongs that no one else can see. Occasionally when that happens it's like a light bulb coming on and an embarassed smile at the sudden realisation that it's, well, not right.

There's nothing like a video reording of "your" church service to reveal just what it looks/sounds like. It isn't always comfortable - esp with some of these "parsonical" voices adopted by clergy.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Missed edit window. I meant

But what happens when (insert whatever tradition you like here) has been going on for so long and is so deeply embedded, that those practicising it can't see how harmful/divisive/limiting it is?

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

This is a fair point - and is one of the main purposes of the Mystery Worshipper project! What *does* [insert your church here]'s worship look like to someone outwith their tradition?

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
This is a fair point - and is one of the main purposes of the Mystery Worshipper project! What *does* [insert your church here]'s worship look like to someone outwith their tradition?

A non-Christian friend who visited our Solemn High Mass some years ago was fascinated by it all but said our closing the Communion rail gate looked like "come no closer; stay out" or something of that sort. My explanation that it's just to provide more space for communicants to kneel, and to create one long Communion rail temporarily, helped a little. But his first impression of it was interesting.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I take your point about minor things that can be tweaked. But to abandon the whole Liturgy (any and every type of Liturgy)? Now that would be asking too much.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'll meet ken half way - and Exclamation Mark too, to a certain extent.

What tends to happen out in the sticks and the smaller towns is that you DO get people from non-conformist, 'new church' or other non or lightly-liturgical traditions ending up in the local Anglican parish for a variety of reasons. With some, the independent evangelical charismatic fellowship they'd belonged to has either gone belly-up or headed off into fruitcake territory, with others they see it is a useful and fruitful platform to fish from ...

Some of these refugees DO take to the liturgical elements and subsequently complain when the incumbent departs from it, but in many cases they simply expect the church to conform into their own image. You ask Curiousity Killed about the Colin Urquhart Faith Camp people within her otherwise staid Anglican parish ...

I agree that parsonical voices and the like can be a put-off. But so can the naff and toe-curlingly embarrassing attempts to modernise (and dumb down) everything and to 'get down with the kids' disco-vicar style.

I don't see why someone can't be an evangelical and 'do' liturgy well, appropriately for the context etc and with due regard to their own evangelical distinctives. I really don't see why it should be that much of a problem. But it obviously is - for some reason.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You ask Curiousity Killed about the Colin Urquhart Faith Camp people within her otherwise staid Anglican parish ...

Ah yes, a church within the church.
I've come across that, too. Perhaps it's like an expat community when living abroad - it makes people feel more comfortable on alien territory. Does it really work long-term, though?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Probably not.

In the instance I'm thinking of, it has gone on a long time though.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You ask Curiousity Killed about the Colin Urquhart Faith Camp people within her otherwise staid Anglican parish ...

Ah yes, a church within the church.
I've come across that, too. Perhaps it's like an expat community when living abroad - it makes people feel more comfortable on alien territory. Does it really work long-term, though?

No, it does not work long term.

Having just survived that situation both in terms of how long ago it happened, and how close "they" came to splitting/destroying the parish it is still a bit of a raw memory.

Anyway, the dingbat curate and his charismatic wife departed without so much as a 'tarry here with the ass whilst I go yonder" sermon, and the parish has started picking up new members again.

Phew!

But odd - really...

PD

[ 05. December 2011, 05:05: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't see why someone can't be an evangelical and 'do' liturgy well, appropriately for the context etc and with due regard to their own evangelical distinctives. I really don't see why it should be that much of a problem. But it obviously is - for some reason.

I wouldn't describe myself as evangelical, but I must put in a word here for the likes of Colin Buchanon and GROW (Group for Renewal of Worship). They have been working hard for a long time to encourage the kind of thing you are talking about. So, it's not impossible.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Indeed, and there have been Grove Booklets about this very issue in the past, I believe. I just wish it was more common. I'm not anti-evangelical or anti-charismatic by any means - although it may sound like that aboard Ship at times. I believe that both have distinctive emphases to bring to the table and that their energy and commitment can be harnessed and directed to the benefit of all.

What I have an issue with is the dumbing-down and crass practice that so often accompanies an emphasis of this kind. It is by no means universal, but the sensible voices - such as those you mention - aren't always heard.

In a city, it's less of an issue because there's more variety available - if we want to reduce everything to individual choice and market forces. In the smaller towns, I'd argue it's more of a sore point ... hereabouts there are mini-exoduses to rural Zoars to escape the often cheesy innovations of imported suburban charismatic evangelicalism.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

In 50s and 60s Evangelical Sydney, the 1662 BCP was the normal usage. Nothing much in the way of ceremonial, but more often than not, the Psalm and Lord's Prayer would be chanted. Vesting would be surplice and stole or tippet. I suspect that would have been common throughout much of England at the time also. It's only in more recent years that Sunday Lite has become usual with the growth in numbers of Jensenite parishes. The old-fashioned evangelicals continue to use the AAPB or the BCP.

There's no inconsistency between evangelical theology and decent and dignified liturgical practice. Indeed, one parish says it is evangelical and liturgical.

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

quote:
In 50s and 60s Evangelical Sydney, the 1662 BCP was the normal usage. Nothing much in the way of ceremonial, but more often than not, the Psalm and Lord's Prayer would be chanted.

That's very much what I grew up with too, GeeD, in a small place near West Ryde, now in demand for weddings as it's picturesque with pleasant grounds.. I don't remember a procession as I am used to now, but there was a choir and we did process in.

As to 1662... my mind wandered yesterday during the creed and I suddenly realised I had said the "quick and the dead." Pulled myself together and paid more attention, though I did place the blame on a nasty headache and a disturbed night.

I can remember feeling very pleased with myself when in primary school as I worked out how to navigate the prayer book and find the collect for the day etc. Think I was about 10 then and I was allowed to stay for church after Sunday School if I wished. If I didn't arrive home, mum knew I was at church.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I believe there's an historical precedent for respecting "local custom" when it comes to adiaphora.

Which precedent might that be?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I believe there's an historical precedent for respecting "local custom" when it comes to adiaphora.
Which precedent might that be?

Why do you need a precedent? Surely common courtesy implies it.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I believe there's an historical precedent for respecting "local custom" when it comes to adiaphora.
Which precedent might that be?
Why do you need a precedent? Surely common courtesy implies it.

I didn't mention a precedent but when one is quoted I'd like to know what it is

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

quote:

the dingbat curate and his charismatic wife

What a splendid name for a (ship-related?) novel!

Posted by drnick (# 16065) on :

As a non-Anglican reading threads like this, it often strikes me that the diversity of traditions and practices within the Church of England is one of its great strengths, something the church should be proud of, and it surprises me that this is not celebrated more often. But perhaps I merely being naive.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I agree. Isn't it a bit like the English language which flourishes in a variety of accents and dialects – but English speakers nevertheless can usually make themselves understood across the differences? There is an underlying common language (or tradition) which is recognisably Anglican. Once people start using other languages altogether it's a completely different matter.

Though maybe we're taking the Belgian route and are becoming divided into two mutually incomprehensible and incompatible language groups, each having more in common with other speakers of the same language than with fellow-Belgians. I don't know whether that is in fact the case with Belgians but it does seem sometimes as if anglo-papalists have more in common with (certain elements) of the RCC than with fellow-Anglicans, and the charismatic fundamentalists have more in common with the independent evangelical churches.

Having said that of course the vast majority of the C of E belongs to neither of those groups, and there is a very wide spectrum of belief and practice which is not seen as incompatible with being Anglican.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by drnick:
As a non-Anglican reading threads like this, it often strikes me that the diversity of traditions and practices within the Church of England is one of its great strengths, something the church should be proud of, and it surprises me that this is not celebrated more often. But perhaps I merely being naive.

I agree. The wonder of Anglicanism is its ability to accommodate a wide variety of theologies and practices. As a Sydney rector (not a Sydney Anglican rector, though, IYSWIM) puts it: we welcome the tension which holds us together.

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

quote:
Originally posted by drnick:
As a non-Anglican reading threads like this, it often strikes me that the diversity of traditions and practices within the Church of England is one of its great strengths, something the church should be proud of, and it surprises me that this is not celebrated more often. But perhaps I merely being naive.

As opposed to the hand-wringing, foot-shuffling, and rather defeatist pseduo-identity crisis one often gets instead?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0