![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
]Yes, those little racks are for the individual glasses. All the Presby churches I've attended have had the ushers pass trays containing individual glasses, and another tray of wafers. When the minister says the words, the congregation eats the wafer, and then drinks--grape juice. I've never had anything but grape juice at a Presbyterian communion.
Standing for the Bible: That's one I've not seen. There is a great deal of standing and sitting--one stands for the opening prayer and hymns (generally one of the hymns will be the Doxology), sits through the announcements, stays seated for the next hymns and the offeratory prayer, then stands again after the sermon for the closing prayer. Beginning to end--45 minutes usually--one hour though if it's a communion Sunday.
Standing for the Bible- I have never seen this done. Although in quite a few CofS churches the Bible being processed in.
Standing and Sitting
In all of the CofS and PCW churches I have been in people stand to sing, and sit for everything else. People remain standing after the final hymn for the blessing. It is becoming more common for people to turn and say The Grace (The Grace of your Lord Jesus Christ...)
bb
[tidied ubb]
[ 11 October 2001: Message edited by: Hooker's Trick ]
never heard of standing for the bible. in the um churches i'm familiar with it has a perminant place on the lecturn, and doesn't get carried in at any point. we do stand and sit a lot though, usually we stand for the invocation, the hymns, the unison prayer, the doxology and the gloria patria. and the benediction.
nicole -- are these teensy cups plastic or glass?
Anyone, when one makes one's communion in the pew with the small cups, does the vicar consecrate a large vessel of wine-juice that is poured out into the cups, or are the cups pre-poured and consecrated all at once?
Are there any Anglican churches that follow this practice?
Posted 11 October 2001 21:29
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pew cloths are table cloths for the pews, as this is coming to the Lord's Table for the Lord's Supper. Many kirks in the past would set up tables in the kirkyard where the congregation sat round. In my kirk at home in Perthshire, the communion table was covered with white cloth and the elders all sat round it for the service. the kirk was a "preaching kirk" - planned to be squarish (rather than long and thin like sassenach churches) and so the effect was that the congregation also sat round the table, tho at a slight distance. The pew cloths were long and narrow, and as already noted, clipped to the pews with metal racks that held the little glasses for the wine. We always used the best red wine (claret usually), and the little glasses were passed down the pews in trays with handles and holes for the glasses. The bread was cut up into little bits and passed round on plates. Before Communion Sunday, the elders visited everyone on the Communion Roll (Membership Roll) and delivered them a Communion Card, which they handed over at the door of the Kirk. Visitors were provided with one to fill in on the spot. We always sang Psalm 24, which has two sections to different tunes, the latter St. Georges Edinburgh, sung enthusiastically in parts by men and women. We had two sittings for communion, morning and afternoon, and a thanksgiving service in the evening.
It was quite a shock...
As a Minister in the URC (which comes out of the English Presbyterian tradition along with the congregationalists and the churches of Christ) we nearly always use little glasses of (more than likely) unfermented wine. Sometimes I will use a chalice, but generally my congregation prefer glasses.
The glasses are filled before the service & are consecrated in the service. The bread can either be by broken loaf, or prepared slice cut up!
There are places along the pews for the congregation to put their glasses in when they have finished.
Most churches no longer have the communion card thing, that went out years ago - people would have to justify why they were not in church for the Lord's Supper....
Another strange presbyterian tradition is the beadle, but I discussed that in the other thread. At the same church that had the beadle, the elders of the church meet with me before hand and grilled me on the content of my sermon. That's never happened bfore, although I don't think that is perculiar to all Presbyterian churches.
The same church reminded me that since it was not a communion Sunday that nothing could be placed on the Table, no hymnbooks for the preacher, no nothing. They were quite insistent on it.
We all have strange traditions, some which we have grown up with and loved, some which sound rather daft when we try to explain them.
In some churches in the Netherlands, the Lord's Supper is conducted in an "upper room', separate from the main assembly room and furnished with tables, similar to the Presby practice described above. Possibly this is an old Calvinist custom designed to frustrate Papalist gazing at the altar.
Greta
just to say I deleted daisymay's redundant post, above.
Also, thank to daisymay for providing that useful information over here!
HT [MW Board Host]
quote:
Originally posted by LouiseF:
or prepared slice cut up!
Hovis?
quote:
Originally posted by Greta:
the communion table was carried down the center aisle from the narthex
Greta, help us out. What happened to it the table after they brought it in? Did it go all the way up to the front (was there a chancel?) or left mid-way along? Did the people gather round it?
HT
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
How long's the sermon Siegfried?Evensong and Sermon with us lasts an hour whereas A Sung Eucharist lasts more like 1.25 hours....
That depends on the minister really. 15 to 20 minutes though would be my guess--I haven't really paid much attention to the time of just the sermon, to be honest.
We too have the little racks. The bread is brought out to the congregagtion by the deacons.
I think that there's a theological reason for that.
We eat the bread as we get it, and keep the wine until everyone has some, then we drink together.
Like the presbyterians, it's not really wine. I'm not sure what it is, actually. The stuff we use is disgusting.
To be honest, does it matter if it's not actually wine? I mean, it could be blackcurrant squash (think Kool Aid: not really an equivalent, but culturally in the same place) or rted-coloured water, or even flippin' sunny delight - it's the symbolism of the thing, isn't it?
Cynically, I suspect the reason many non-conformist churches use small cups for the wine is that without the alcohol it would be less hygienic to share the chalice - though the silver has antiseptic properties too. I agree there can be something good about all receiving together but I've only come accross that once - at an ecumenical Maundy Thursday service - though at one Methodist Church of my acquaintance they go up to the rail but wait til every one has the bread, or the cup til they eat/drink.
Carys
Re the contents of said small glasses, the youth of our Church have been known to mutter on many occassions, 'After all, Christ did turn the water into Ribena'
It was debated at a recent Church council meeting whether we should use wine following synods decision to allow this at the discretion of individual congregations, especially as most members are extremely partial to a glass or several, but it was decided that this might make it difficult for people who might have alcohol problems.
Louise
Linen cloths over the communion rail used to be prescribed (but hardly ever used) by Rome. Are there any Anglo-Catholic churches still using them?
It might be non-alcoholic wine, or as the makers call it, sacramental raisin-flavour cordial. Definitely disgusting (but then so is a lot of "real" communion wine, IMNSHO)
[tidied ubb]
[ 12 October 2001: Message edited by: Hooker's Trick ]
As to the Bible being processed in and out, I saw that happen at a CoS church I went to a couple of times. At the end of the service, after the final hymn, the organ nurdled quietly while the Bible was solemnly lifted off the pulpit and carried out. As the door closed, the organ suddenly increased in volume, and everyone started chatting. My thought was "Now God`s gone, we can all be cheerful again!"
Like the church (somewhere in the Pacific - I forget where, but anyway, this is a BMS story if that helps) that had no access to wine of any kind and had to resort to coconut milk.
It works, it's valid. It's not the wine itself, anyway, but what it signifies.
The drinking together bit is often rationalised as being representative of our unity with each other and the wider church. Whether that has anything to do with the origin of the practise is beyond my experience.
I shall describe that happened before and during communion in my parents church.
The week before the Elders went around their 'districts' (local geographical areas) with the communion cards. I believe that in the distant past you were not admitted to the service if you did not bring your card. There was also something about if you were absent from 4 communion services then your name was put on the "lapsed member" list. (That would then effect the amount of money the church needed to send to 'central office'.)
The communion services were held twice a year.
The preparation for communion consisted of some of the elders getting out the silverware and giving it a good polish. The pew-cloths were taken out of storage, then washed and lightly starched. The cloths themselves were a strip of high quality, sparkling white cotton, about 25cm/10" wide, and ran the length of the pew.
We had several 'common cups' and used pre-sliced white bread cut into cubes. Although at the afternoon service they used individual cups.
The Elders would all sit at the front of the church, gathered around the communion table. They would get it all first, and then the plebs. The bread was sent around on silver plates, and the grape juice followed it in silver goblets. They zig-zagged across the pews, with the Elders take in the elements from one pew to another. The best bit was the 'top-up' elder. He followed the 'goblet' elders and topped up with more juice when needed.
bb
Re wine and what it's served in -
special communion wine C/E, which must have preservative, we just had a home communion for my very poorly Dad, and the wine was not only nice to drink, but had obviously been opened for some time.
I have been to 2 Free (inter-denominational) churches here in France and Switzerland ..
1st had pitta bread (to be as close as poss to unleavened .. always found that difficult when I had to go straightaway and sing during communion, so usually only bit a tiny piece off)
2nd and current church serves brioche which is passed around and you break off yourself.
1st church served whine from stone chalices
2nd serves grape juice from plastic cups! (in silence). I must admit I prefer some sort of "word" during receiving communion.
As a child went to methodist - YES - junior church! - and was always petrified to see this white covering over a small "box" - no-one ever explained - thought a baby had died!
Then yrs later received communion, much to teacher's alarm, during blessing of children (teenager), minister ignored her, and my parents were furious.
quote:
I've always been lead to understand that small receptacles were
introduced for communion wine in the early days of Methodism to
prevent the poor, for whom good wine would be a rarity, having a good
glug and finishing it off too soon. Not sure how accurate this is though.
a base calumny. methodists have ALWAYS and ONLY used grape juice. john wesley himself established that.
quote:
Use of grape juice by United Methodist predecessors began in the late 19th century. Before then there was no way to preserve unfermented grape juice. Then, shortly after Louis Pasteur first pasteurized milk, a Methodist communion steward in Vineland, N.J., named Welch, began pasteurizing grape juice for the Eucharist.
Other congregations heard about his invention and ordered grape juice from him. People also started drinking it as a beverage. The Welch family kept expanding their grape juice business and founded the company that still bears their name.
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
And what about "The Right Hand of Fellowship"? as a bizarre ritual? ...I've also experienced the giving of the Right Hand of Fellowship in Baptist churches.
I really like the RHOF. It's cool.
We do it all the time, when someone is received into membership, and when one is made a deacon.
Of course, the RHOF generally involves a knucklecruncher handshake and a sturdy, back patting embrace...
but i am sad to say that my church at least no longer uses welchs. i think that last time i saw the bottle lying around it was one of the "bargan brands". oh well....
In the frontespiece to St Percy's Great Work, houseling cloths are shown, and they were certainly used at Primrose Hill before World War 2. Curiously enough, they are also shown in the ultra-baroque "Pictures of the English Liturgy" (Vol 2) by Martin Travers, although they are being used here in a way which St Percy would most definitely NOT approve!
SS
The last time I had communion in a Presbyterian church we used plastic.
But growing up, the little cups were of glass. It used to be unnerving to pass these enormous brass trays filled with cups down the pew. They always rattled, and if a congregant was trembly, the racket was incredible. I was always afraid I was going to drop the whole shebang.
I remember when the New Pastor (he came in 1965) ended the practice of everybody waiting to drink from their glasses at the same time, instisting that people drink when they received the cup. He said that the older practice looked like everybody waiting to "Drink a Toast to Jesus."
In the church I was baptised in, the Dutch Reformed church, the "pews" were very long strings of molded plastic chairs with a larger central block, and two shorter blocks on either side, separated by an aisle from the main block. They used to have several common cups, which the elders would pass along the rows (and only wipe at the end! urghh!). I still remember the smell of strong alcohol - but I don't think it was port (which is what Anglican churches here use commonly. Some places use the cheapest stuff they can find - they do at the cathedral. Other places, like St Mary's, ask people to donate bottles of the stuff... So generally its pretty good.). They used to precut the cubes of bread, and the silver platter would be passed along the rows. As in some places described, you weren't allowed to partake until you'd said your Profession of Faith at the age of 16-18, for which you attended Catechism classes for several years. So as a child (about 4-5) I remember sitting there while the platter and the chalice were passed over my head...
And we weren't allowed to talk or move. And there was a profound silence we were not allowed to break... The church used to be so full on communion Sundays that they had to put chairs in the porch (actually outside the building).
I am not about to declare the things posted here as travesties... No, need dictates use, eg in the case of the coconut milk.
However, I did attend one absolute travesty committed by some Sydney Anglican Vangie loonies I happened to be on camp with.
They decided to have a "pilgrimage" to an open air "chapel" hidden in some mangroves on the bank of the nearby river. Here they used slices of white bread passed around and torn apart, and *red cordial* (in I think, large plastic cups) for a primitive "communion" service. These are the advocates of lay presidency - and I could not have imagined a less reverent scenario. no doubt those who attended thought it "fun".
No no no! Give me my bells smells, and genuflections any day.
quote:
Is wine more symbolic? How can something be more symbolic, anyway?
Like the church (somewhere in the Pacific - I forget where, but anyway, this is a BMS story if that helps) that had no access to wine of any kind and had to resort to coconut milk.
I think things can be more symbolic - though I can't think of a specific example. Think is I've always prefered wine over grape juice but when it came to writing the post I realised I couldn't explain why.
Re: Cocunut milk, as someone else has said need dictates uses, bread and wine are preferable but in a situation where it is completely impossible others things can be used, another example was in Japanese POW camps where they used rice because that's the staple they had. However, in extremis cases don't mean that rules can be thrown out anyway. I mean is the fact that you don't want to go shopping on a Sunday an excuse for using unusual elements? For a start why hadn't you thought ahead and bought things in advance?
Bread (unleavened) and wine (fermented) were what Jesus himself used and certainly in the case of unleavened bread this has deeper symbolism than leavened because it takes us right back in salvation history to the exodus.
Carys
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
I am not about to declare the things posted here as travesties... No, need dictates use, eg in the case of the coconut milk.
By no means.
What do you use if you have no access to wine? You have to use something.
The act is SO much more important than what you use, anyway. It's all symbolic.
And, in fact, even if you believe in transubstantiation - which I don't, but I have no problem with those who do - what difference does it make? It's the blood of Christ anyway.
What the stuff looks like and tastes like is immaterial.
quote:
They decided to have a "pilgrimage" to an open air "chapel" hidden in some mangroves on the bank of the nearby river. Here they used slices of white bread passed around and torn apart, and *red cordial* (in I think, large plastic cups) for a primitive "communion" service. These are the advocates of lay presidency - and I could not have imagined a less reverent scenario. no doubt those who attended thought it "fun".
You know what?
My wife used to go to a church where that's how they always do communion.
I used to work there. I really like that.
And it's always reverent, and it's always warm, and it's always simple, and it's never, ever kitsch.
quote:
No no no! Give me my bells smells, and genuflections any day.
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Re: Cocunut milk, as someone else has said need dictates uses, bread and wine are preferable but in a situation where it is completely impossible others things can be used, another example was in Japanese POW camps where they used rice because that's the staple they had. However, in extremis cases don't mean that rules can be thrown out anyway.
Nobody's suggesting that rules be thrown out - assuming that there are any.
I was saying in that context it was not Communion, but something quite other, a novelty, an amusement - and it was not respectful. In any case the "elements" weren't consecrated, well, not in a recognisably Anglican form (and all the people there were Anglicans), and not by an ordained or licensed minister.
But in saying that I get off the topic, and into far more controversial ground. And I know there are plenty of people here who see no problem with lay presidency, so I'll shut up and go back to my bells and smells!
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
In any case the "elements" weren't consecrated, well, not in a recognisably Anglican form (and all the people there were Anglicans), and not by an ordained or licensed minister.But in saying that I get off the topic, and into far more controversial ground. And I know there are plenty of people here who see no problem with lay presidency, so I'll shut up and go back to my bells and smells!
Fair enough. My apologies for being somewhat ratty, Nunc. I was in a bad mood this morning... and I have been getting a bit defensive lately.
It of course depends upon what you mean by 'consecration'. We'd ('we' as in nonconformist protestants) would argue that the prayers and scripture said over the bread were that very consecration.
The communion service has (to us) no extra supernatural significance (other than the presence of the Holy Spirit) - we simply 'do it in memory of (Him)' as commanded by scripture as a wholly symbolic declaration to ourselves and those around us of who we are.
Unlike Anglicans and Catholics, we do not believe that the bread and wine are anything other than normal bread and wine - just as the water with which one is baptised is just water.
[tangent: Van Helsing would have been in real schtoock if he'd got his holy water from a Baptist baptistry rather than an Anglican font... no good at all. Dracula would have just got wet and stuff.]
Anyway, to us, it's the act that is symbolic and what it signifies, which is why nobody tends to bat an eyelid if the elements are - if necessary - substituted. The only significance these things have is symbolic.
Who's right? Who's to say?
Better theologians than me argue this one until they're blue in their little theological faces. Personally, I like the fact that its significance is symbolic. It brings it closer to me - it means that these things are not limited to church themselves.
Oh, and as for lay presidency - you have to understand that lay presidency is not a matter of debate in NC Protestant churches - it's the accepted norm, mainly because of the doctrine of the 'priesthood of all believers' (which comes from interpretations of a couple of the Pauline epistles and Hebrews IIRC).
In fact, it's not really a matter of 'lay presidency' at all - since nobody in the church is a lay person as such.
It occurs at this point that many people here have no idea about the difference between clergy in different denominations...
So, in the interest of interdenominational dialogue:
Baptist ministers are only made Baptist ministers after a combination of courses in theology and a few years' experience in 'the field'. Once they've filled the requirements, the Baptist Union performs a lengthy process of accreditation, at the end of which is a service of ordination (funnily enough, one of our pastors finally got ordained a couple weeks ago).
In this service, the new 'rev' affirms his faith and his calling and receives the prayers of his peers - there's nobody really above a minister as such, except in terms of experience or in administrative terms - like David Coffey, for example, who's just a minister, really, equal to the other Baptists in Britain, while at the same time being the chair of the BUGB.
Accreditation is quite simple, really, but it takes ages and, as I said, requires field experience as the assistant to a more experienced minister.
Oh, and you need the approval of a congregation in a democratic vote. That's why British Baptists (I can't speak for them anywhere else) have so many meetings - there's a solid core of belief in the will of the Holy Spirit being made manifest in the church business meeting.
(Or previous pastor was originally an AOG Pentecostal, and had a real problem with the idea that everything had to be voted on. He kept going on about churches being 'delivered from deacon possession').
A church will have twelve deacons. A deacon has to be a baptised member of the church over the age of 25, in membership for a period of time specified by each church (either 6 months or a year), and needs to voted in by the church meeting in a secret ballot. They stay on for 3 years, and then need to be re-elected. My own church has a two-term rule (like the US presidency), but I don't know if this is common or not.
Deacons will be the people who serve communion to the seated congregation, and will lead it if the minister's not present.
My wife Tracy is now a deacon, and will be serving in the next communion service.
Well, it would be one way of accomplishing mass conversions!
I had assumed it was a historical hangover from when church going was practically compulsory. It would have been used to stop people from skiving half the service and coming in late - however when they come late now they just hammer on the door until the beadle lets them in!
It probably survives because it also allows the beadle to act as a 'bouncer' with people out of their heads on drugs/alcohol and tourists who want to come in and snap away during a service.
I know there's an argument for just letting 'em wander in, but I can also see that not everyone can cope with those types of 'guests', so I guess that's why it persists.
L.
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
What about locked doors? The kirk we attended when I was a child used to keep the doors open till the end of the first psalm and then the door was locked. To minimise distractions? It also happened in Baptist churches in Scotland, as my partner was furious when on arriving late, they could not get into the service. (Dundee). And on weekdays, the kirk was always locked, not for safety, but because the congregation were expected to carry on worship at home. The kirk building itself, like the water, bread and wine, was not special except insofar as it was being used for congregational gatherings. it was large only for convenience.
Isn't that now illegal due to fire regulations?
Any students of Scottish ecclesiastical history? If not, I'll ask my Dad when he come back from holiday.
bb
Attendance based membership
The idea is that if you don't turn up to a communion service for a few months (and remember, only one service in four is communion), your membership may be revoked.
Is this common or not?
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Is this common or not?
Nope, the easiest way to get off the membership in a Presby church is by dying.
bb
The Covenanters held illegal communions, but they held them in the open air - with armed guards looking out for the dragoons coming over the hills to get them. So there were no doors to lock.
This was the basis for the Cameronian Regiment's tradition of celebrating a 'conventicle' service once a year with guards to watch out for the enemy - but I'm pretty sure they didn't lock the doors.
I once met an ex-soldier on the train who told me that being the only Catholic in the regiment (in whatever merger it had gone into), he always got the job of being the sentry - so he didn;t have to attend the service.
Sounded like a nice compromise to me!
Louise
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
Nope, the easiest way to get off the membership in a Presby church is by dying.
My conjecture: I suppose that in a church where everything is based upon democratic elections, you'd want the people who voted to be communicating (in every way) with the church - possibly, thre could be the fear of a lapsed member coming in and misusing their vote or something. Maybe.
1. The primary decoration in the church was a large, elaborately-framed portrait of a blond, curly-haired Jesus gazing into a warm light
2. The congregants were asked to sign attendance sheets midway through the service that were kept in little red books
3. I was most disappointed in the baptism not be asked to renounce the devil.
HT
some comments...
1. yeuck
2. yeuck
3. Bet you did it anyway.
bb
Greta
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:3. Bet you did it anyway.
bb
You know me so well. Muttered "the devil" under my breath.
Also -- it was a mattins service, but only the Gospel was read -- no other lessons. Is this normal?
quote:
Hooker's trick said:
Also -- it was a mattins service, but only the Gospel was read -- no other lessons. Is this normal?
Depends which Church you go to I imagine - where I go there are a least two lessons at every service, and sometimes three. We, in fact, have the same lectionary as the CofE so, often, having been to Chapel (Anglican) first on a Sunday, I then hear the same readings again in Church (Methodist).
Greta
whether we use 'little cups' or a chalice, wine/grape juice we are short of the original - the original "last supper" was part of a full blown meal and not just a sip of wine and a smigin of bread.
If we wanted to be 'authentic' then red wine and unleaven bread at the end of a good meal would be best.
There is no need to 'consecrate' what was/is normal food - there is also no need for an official person vicar/deacon - any christian in "good standing" will do.
Sometimes we 'mystify' an everyday activy such as sharing a meal and remembering the sacrifice of Christ.
quote:I agree. Some of our friends, even when eating out, always remember Christ quite openly at every meal. we are a bit less conscious of that, but often one of the family or friends will mention Jesus naturally, just because they have grown up thinking of him
sometimes we mystify an veryday activity such as sharing a meal and remembering the sacrifice of Christ
quote:Many churches believe that the scriptures are one, and so it doesn't matter particularly which part you read, or how many readings you have in a particular service. The congregation is expected to study the bible in its entirety, and know the lot, often by heart. Some folks even nowadays memorise whole books. And since they know the bible well, they automatically cross-reference in their heads. We had to persuade the Cof E vicar at our father's funeral (in England) that we didn't need a "Gospel reading" since we regarded the whole of the bible as the gospel anyway, one whole. He was really good about it once he twigged what we were saying.
only the gospel was read
I had a similar experience that Daisymay had in Kathmandu in Haitian churches - the practice of everybody praying all at the same time out loud, individually. The first time I experienced that I was completely overwhelmed and didn't have a clue as to what was going on. Then I got used to it, and joined in myself.
As for other bizarre practices, one thing about Haitian churches is that they never start on time. If I was told that church started at 9 am, I learned to automatically translate that into 10 am in my head. One time I showed up for church about 30 minutes "late" and I was the only person there - the pastor showed up maybe fifteen minutes later.
One really irritating bizarre practice, but one you learn to live with (or at least you learn to avoid churches when you know they brought in a generator for a service) is the way they'll do the accompaniment. Most of the time, there's no electrity (in the rural churches anyway) so all the singing is unaccompanied. But for special occasions, they will bring in a generator. And that means electric guitars, drums and keyboards. Now, don't get me wrong - I have no problems with such instruments being used in a worship service. But at all the services that I attended that had such instruments, you can tell that the musicians are winging it - figuring out the chords and keys on the job.
See, what happens is that when a church is having a special "fete", a million singing groups are invited to sing during the service (well, maybe not a million, but that is what it feels like especially after you have been sitting on torturous benches for two hours or more!). Now, some of these singing groups are amazing - really wonderful singing, harmonies, etc.... So, they start singing and you have maybe a few seconds of these heavenly voices, and then the musicians come in - but first they have to find the right chords - so they twangle around for quite some time until they hit the right chord. Then they need to get the tempo right - oooh and if the singers change keys or tempo - it all starts all over again! I honestly don't know how the singers keep singing their songs with all this going on, but they're used to it. But after going through several of those, I just tried to avoid churches that had a generator that Sunday (although that did mean missing the really good food that was always served after the fete).
AnnieS
P.S. Always communion in little cups with cut up bread in the Baptist churches I visited, brought to you in the congregation (you're asked to remain standing if you want to receive communion). The only time I was in a non-Baptist (in fact an Anglican) church, it was morning prayer, so I don't know how they do communion.
closed doors -- to keep out the unbelievers/notorious sinners etc. Remember that only very recently has there been any idea that communion was a right or that an open table was acceptable. Most denominations from RC to Lutherans and Presbyterians guarded the purity of their altaars/table fellowships with great zeal -- in fact many still do. I know a Lutheran who is not even allowed by his leaders to share communion with other Lutherans because they are WRONG about somethiing or other.
what the sacrament is -- like a lot of people (the majority of Christians, if you think that matters) I believe that what happens in the Eucharist does do something to the bread and wine. I haven't a clue what that is or how it happens. Nor do I think it matters a whole lot what I or anyone else, however qualified, might suggest about what or how.
But it is clear that the Greek word used for remember (anamnesis) does not mean just remember as in, remember the wonderful holiday we had last year, but smoething like entering in a real sense (not symbolic or metaphorical sense) into the actual experience in question. So the eucharist cannot be just a memorial as we use the word today.
John Holding
bb
----
MW Host
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
The bizarrest practice these Protestants have is their gathering together in sincerity to worship God - Father, Son and Spirit - in faithfulness and love. I mean, these people sometimes do it without a choir! How bizarre is that?! Coh!
Now, now, Dyfrig.
Now, on to the other things:
quote:
CorgiGreta:I detest the rather widespread Protestant practice of humiliating visitors during worship by singling them out and engaging in some kind of public introduction. I would rather endure a thousand passings of the peace than be subjected to such embarrassment.
Actually, I wish we did do the peace. I've always found it profound and important, if done sincerely.
As for the public introduction thing - the secret is in 'widespread'. IE, not everywhere. It tends to be 'new evangelicals' (you know, the more charismatic ones) who do this around here.
quote:
The Dude: Also -- it was a mattins service, but only the Gospel was read -- no other lessons. Is this normal?
In our church, there's normally the one reading. Because of the traditional horror of stuff like lectionaries, that can be anything from the Scripture.
It's up to the leadership to keep things consistent yet varied week after week.
Basically, what Daisymay said.
quote:
CorgiGreta again: Even more bizarre is "the altar call" (an altar in a Protestant church?). I once wandered into the back row of a small Protestant church, where I'm sure I was the only visitor.
Not a protestant tradition - an evangelical one. You have to remember that 'protestant' and 'evangelical' are not necessarily cognate.
And apart from really scary places (and big events like Spring Harvest), they actually tend to be fairly rare.
quote:
Steve Birks: Re: Communion
whether we use 'little cups' or a chalice, wine/grape juice we are short of the original - the original "last supper" was part of a full blown meal and not just a sip of wine and a smidgen of bread. If we wanted to be 'authentic' then red wine and unleaven bread at the end of a good meal would be best. There is no need to 'consecrate' what was/is normal food - there is also no need for an official person vicar/deacon - any christian in "good standing" will do. Sometimes we 'mystify' an everyday activy such as sharing a meal and remembering the sacrifice of Christ.
Welcome, Steve - Not met you before. Anyway, that's how I understood it, too.
quote:
Annie S (welcome!) I had a similar experience that Daisymay had in Kathmandu in Haitian churches - the practice of everybody praying all at the same time out loud, individually. The first time I experienced that I was completely overwhelmed and didn't have a clue as to what was going on. Then I got used to it, and joined in myself.
This is becoming increasingly common among charismatic evangelicals, although it was happening when I first became a Christian seven years ago.
quote:
John Holding: what the sacrament is -- like a lot of people (the majority of Christians, if you think that matters) I believe that what happens in the Eucharist does do something to the bread and wine. I haven't a clue what that is or how it happens. Nor do I think it matters a whole lot what I or anyone else, however qualified, might suggest about what or how.But it is clear that the Greek word used for remember (anamnesis) does not mean just remember as in, remember the wonderful holiday we had last year, but smoething like entering in a real sense (not symbolic or metaphorical sense) into the actual experience in question. So the eucharist cannot be just a memorial as we use the word today.
But then, we would consider the corporate act to be a sufficient anamnesis. Tell you what, if anyone wants to discuss the theology of communion, best to start a thread in Purgatory.
We don't want to derail what is, frankly the first thread around here which suggests that anyone gives a flying one about the protestant churches and what they do.
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Most denominations from RC to Lutherans and Presbyterians guarded the purity of their altaars/table fellowships with great zeal -- in fact many still do. I know a Lutheran who is not even allowed by his leaders to share communion with other Lutherans because they are WRONG about somethiing or other.
Baptists do that sometimes too, I'm afraid. 
quote:
Not a protestant tradition - an evangelical one. You have to remember that 'protestant' and 'evangelical' are not necessarily cognate.And apart from really scary places (and big events like Spring Harvest), they actually tend to be fairly rare.
I mean altar calls are rare, not evangelical protestants.
I was left wonering if he felt he'd yammered on too long and ought to wrap it up so that we could be out of there in an hour, or if the call is just printed every week but no one goes up.
I ought to mention that the tiny choir wore choir robes, the windows were painted glass, there were lights and a cross on the holy table, and other familiar elements.
Of course, there was also no centre aisle, there was a large collection of electronic equipment and musical instruments plugged into things in the corner (these were not used), and I was surprised when I collected a pile of prayer books to bring to our pew to discover that they were not prayer books at all but Bibles!
The order of service was printed in the front of the hymnal.
Quote: "The sermon was unbelievably lo-o-o-o-ong, but at its conclusion the pastor ... omitted any reference to the "altar call".
I have heard that on the inside of the pulpit at Harvard Memorial Church, there is a large plaque inscribed with the words: "No souls are saved after the first fifteen minutes." Perhaps the pastor realized that he had grossly violated this universal rule.
Greta
As far as I know altar calls are quite common in the U.S. especially among Methodists (as H.T. observed), Baptists (including the rather liberal and bland mainline American Baptist Convention), pentecostals, and "evangelicals" (of which we have myriad denominations). I should also point out that my impression is that in the U.S., evangelicals tend to be much more hard-edged and pushier (no offense intended - can't think of a better word} than their counterparts in the U.K., but that may be a general cultural, rather than religious, phenomenon.
I would be interested to know about those "scary places". Perhaps they follow the American approach? Twist an arm for Jesus?
{sorry for all the parentheticals - just woke up)
Greta
I am reminded of an incident illustrating how to set oneself up for failure. I visted an evangelical church, where just before the altar call, the minister casually mentioned that for forty years his father issued an altar call at every service, and no one ever came foreward. Like father, like son, apparently.
Greta
quote:
2. The congregants were asked to sign attendance sheets midway through the service that were kept in little red books
I would like to talk about how those red books are used in my Lutheran congregation.
1. Attendance, in a numerical sense.
2. The instructions printed on the sheets (often ignored; maybe I'm the only compulsive person who has read them!) say to fill out your name, and if visiting your address and church affiliation (if any), THEN to pass the books back to the starting point. The idea is that each person will thereby learn the name of everyone else in the row. I have often surprised newcomers by calling them by name after the service and offering the nickel tour of the building and grounds.
3. After the service, each red book sheet is read and visitors who live locally (within 30 miles or so) are identified. Then a band of volunteers, on a rotation, pick up their maps of the city and counties nearby and hand-deliver a loaf of bread in the name of the church.
The first time I visited, I had business in Indianapolis that afternoon (probably something at my Dad's house) and my sons and I left immediately after church. My husband was at home and very surprised to get a visit from one of the church members, homemade bread in hand, with brochures about the church's programs. She came about 2 p.m. or so.
I have since found out that this ministry has been active for at least 20 years!
It was very touching to get this personal visit, even if I missed it. Especially since I was still smarting from the Episcopal church we had been attending, that told us not to let the door smack our butts on the way out. (I had complained about their vacuous Christian education program for the older children; mine was the 5th family known to have left over that issue.)
The altar call is often accompanied by the singing of a hymn; "Just as I am" is a favorite for this occasion, as is "There is a balm in Gilead" or "Amazing Grace."
My husband went through this sort of procedure as a teenager. He was baptised in the White River near Daleville, Indiana. (I was sprinkled in a Lutheran church; my children were sprinkled in an Episcopal church.)
Mind you, in some branches of Anglo-Catholicism, laying-on of hands is quite a standard proceedure. I am thinking specifically of healing ministries at a couple of churches I know, where at the end of a low mass, people are invited to approach the altar rail and either be prayed for and annointed with oil (if they're sick) or to pray for and be annointed on behalf of someone who is sick.
To be honest, in spite of my extreme proddy background (or perhaps because it was so corset-like!), I have never really attended a service which had a altar call of the variety we are referring to here...
It's the kind of thing associated with Billy Graham's Crusades. But not exclusive to him of course.
Nancy, on one level I think your Lutheran church has an exciting thing going by chasing up visitors, and this is a good ministry... Bit tough for MWs who might want to MW your parish, but hey.
On another level, I know plenty of people, who if my church did this, would not set foot inside the door again... Having said that Fr Terence spends a great proportion of his week ringing people and visiting them... mainly those who haven't been in a while.
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Wood,I am reminded of an incident illustrating how to set oneself up for failure. I visted an evangelical church, where just before the altar call, the minister casually mentioned that for forty years his father issued an altar call at every service, and no one ever came foreward. Like father, like son, apparently.
Greta
Ouch!
We only have them once in a blue moon, fortunately.
Worse than an altar call is the 'show of hands' thing, where everybody is made to stheir eyes and anyone who wants to be saved puts their hand up and the minister goes, 'thank you... thank you sir, thank you... you can put your hand down now...'
We assume the minister's responding to actual hands and not making them up... but how do you know?
This was the standard practise in an Elim Pentecostal church in Edinburgh. Sometimes people were invited to come up to the front, sometimes to raise their hands. I have only ever seen this done in a CofS church during a Billy Graham rally. But it has been fairly common practise in pentecostal or charismatic churches.
bb
And with some success, too.
The service itself was very freestyle. Various elders and deacons sat at the front, around a table with a bread roll and some win e on a white tablecloth. We sat in silence for minutes on end, and every now and again a man (women weren`t allowed to speak, they must be silent and cover their heads) would stand up and read a passage from Scripture, or announce a hymn (to be sung a capella) or pray. After about half an hour of this, we had communion: after a long prayer, the bread roll was passed around, and everyone took a miniscule piece of it to eat. I could see that more than half the roll would be left at this rate, and so when it came to my turn I tore off a big chunk[1], and slowly chewed and swallowed it while we sat in silence. The silence continued for so long that I began to wonder whether I couldn`t have torn off an even bigger chunk than I did, before another long prayer preceded the wine. Again, people were taking the most miniscule of sips, so I took a big gulp.
As it happens, I do that in Anglican churches too, a lot of the time. I take as big a gulp of the wine as I reasonably can, bearing in mind how many people are yet to receive (if I`m second to last, I might take half if there`s not much left). I justify it to myself as a service to the celebrant, who has to finish it off and then drive to another church.
Although I found them fairly narrow theologically - and did not like the "Women keep silent in church bit" (though they would let women sing and even sung hymns written by women - which struck me as hypocrital) - I quite enjoyed the periods of silence.
Also coming from a fairly "low" church background I found that they had a much higher view of communion or The Lord's Supper
and I think that if I had not spent some time with them I would not regard communion as important as I do now.
Further to Wood's comments about Baptist ministers, one of the corollaries of the individual church actually being able to vote in the church meeting to do whatever it likes, a church can in fact appoint anybody it so chooses to be its minister - whether or not either theologically trained or 'ordained'. Meanwhile the BU has a reputation for being reluctant to ordain new young ministers because there are already too many old ones out there without churches to look after!
Smacks of interfere-ism!
With regard to Communion, I think it depends whether you're trying to replicate the specifics of what the Gospels tell (in which case the bread would be unleavened and the wine alcoholic) or the spirit (in which case a full meal might be best but a bite/sip of one's common food and drink will do, so wine is maybe not the most appropriate (water, anyone?); and is the reason why leavened bread is used in non-conformist churches).
I'm sure that the temperance movement is the reason non-conformist churches moved to non-alcoholic, and suspect that the individual cups despite the justification (we drink together to show that we are one body) were introduced for hygiene reasons.
I used to go to a Brethren church in my youth and heard of but never actually had to have a Letter of Commendation. We sat on all sides of the communion table, to emphasise our equality before God; and whoever felt like it (but had to be male) would 'consecrate' the bread and wine.
Ian
pell-mell down the stairs in case they didn't make it to the front in time - so we ran with them, and then we ll slowed down to a reverent stroll when we hit the main arena.
quote:
As far as I know altar calls are quite common in the U.S. especially
among Methodists (as H.T. observed),
something i have to say here. i will admit my experience is rather limited, as i've only gone to two different churches in my life (from birth til about six years ago, the methodist church in my hometown, and after i moved to the city, my current church), but prior to coming to ship-of-fools i'd never heard of an alter call.
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
prior to coming to ship-of-fools i'd never heard of an alter call.
I love that spelling mistake! An altar call makes you alter your life.
bb
I think services at Methodist churches in NYC would tend to be quite different from those you might encounter at a Methodist church in "the Bible belt" or in rural/small town areas, where worship would likely be more informal, rather "old-fshioned", and somewhat evangelistic.
This is the case in other denominations as well. The two major Baptist churches in NYC (Riverside Church and Judson Memorial} are a far cry from, say, Liberty Baptist of Lynchburg, VA, or First Baptist of Peoria, IL.
The Crystal Cathedral, (of television fame) is in the same denomination as First Reformed of Holland, Michigan, but they are as similar to each other as Disneyland is to Geneva.
I think that (with some exceptions) the larger the city where the Methodist church is located, the less likely it is to have an altar call. Then again, I'm not a Methodist (although some of my best friends are), and I may be totally off base.
Greta
Why are my Protestant friends so reticent?
Perhaps they want to eavesdrop on an Anglican-to Anglican explanation, so here goes. The short answer is that it depends. The classic altar call is for one to come foreward in order to become a Christian, to go to the front to be led by the pastor or counsellors in the "sinners prayer", and thus to become a Christian {saved/born again).
It may also be a public confession of one's conversin experience that may have occurred during the service.
In some churches the altar call may also be an opportunity for one to come forward to express his or her desire to become a member of the church, to be baptised, to be healed from disease, to commit one's self to the Christian life, to re-commit oneself to such a path, to renounce some major sinful conduct (aka 'backsliding'), or to recieve prayer to overcome such conduct. Some of these aspects of the altar call would cover the same ground as auricular confession, but the setting is of course very different.
Greta
there is a large Methodist church in my neighbourhood in which, I am informed, one may see a processional cross and lights carried in at the beginning, and BCP-style communion.
The "altar call" at the church I mentioned earlier was, I am informed, generally designed so that people may "dedicate" their lives or problems or concerns to God. I get the impression that it serves the same purpose as the "healing ministry" now undertaken in so many Episcopal churches.
HT
She says they go to the altar rail, have wine in a goblet which is for intinction only, and have tiny glasses with grape juice for those who don't want to receive by intinction.
She says she didn't know the parts of the mass until now, and, of course, I had to tease her about going to mass on Sunday now.
The Methodist Hymnal has, in the front pages, a communion service which is identical to the USA 1928 BCP rite. (her church uses a different rite, I haven't seen it, which is printed in their service leaflet, which has about 6 pages)
I was Methodist when I was quite young, and remember going to communion services with my mother. They were on Sunday evening, and I remember the communion cards, they were blue. I had forgotten all about them, thanks for the reminder.
Your post reminded me of a Methodist church I visited once where the altar call was of the non-evangelistic variety. Nearly all the congregation came foreward and knelt at the rail. The pastor went from person to person and placed his hands on their heads and whispered a blessing (I think). This was not necessarily for those in need of physical or spiritual healing, but seemed to be almost sacramental - an action that imparted God's comfort and grace for whatever the person's needs might be.
Greta
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Why are my Protestant friends so reticent?Perhaps they want to eavesdrop on an Anglican-to Anglican explanation, so here goes.
HT asked a similar question at the start of this thread. The answer is that those of us in the low churches have been absolutely staggered by all of the tat, rituals and bizarre practises in the high churches. We never stopped to think that our own churches might seem strange to others. Well, after all they are just so normal, and it is the high churches that are abnormal.
I was very surprised at the amount of interest in pew-cloths, communion cards and the like. I suspect that if people from the higher side of things went to the churches that have been mentioned here they would still be in for some surprises. But it can be so difficult to work out which of the very ordinary things we do might be strange to others.
Mission Time:
Your mission should you choose to accept it is to visit a church of a vastly different tradition between now and Christmas.
bb
[ 18 October 2001: Message edited by: babybear ]
quote:
Meanwhile the BU has a reputation for being reluctant to ordain new young ministers because there are already too many old ones out there without churches to look after!
It seemed that a few years back the URC seemed to be appointing a lot of Baptists as their ministers, possibly a surplus og Baptist ministers and a shortage of URC ministers, or as at that time a few Anglican priests were going over to Rome (over women's ordination) it could just have been part of denominational musical chairs
Please don't interpret this as a chellenge to your post on confession, but I know that in many Protestant churches, the minister spends a fair amount of time in pastoral counseling. Wouldn't the counseling often include disclosure and attempted resolution of spiritual problems and/or sin and assurance of God's aid and mercy? It seems to me that this is not entirely dissimilar fron auricular confession (minus the tat of course). If I am mistaken, please set me straight. Btw, I remember a church in Paris that had removed its confessionals and replaced them with a glassed-in area in the transept which was furnished with a desk, leather chairs and a sofa, much like a therapist's or minister's office.
Greta
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
...I know that in many Protestant churches, the minister spends a fair amount of time in pastoral counseling. Wouldn't the counseling often include disclosure and attempted resolution of spiritual problems and/or sin and assurance of God's aid and mercy? It seems to me that this is not entirely dissimilar fron auricular confession
It's very similar indeed - but it's not institutional, and not considered theologically/ecclesiologically essential in and of itself, rather it's simply another way in which a pastor discharges his/her responsibilities to his/her congregation.
Were y'all aware that Baptist ministers are paid by their congregations, and depend pretty much on the offering in a given year?
(I must MW them sometime...)
. But not by me, at least not yet, as I have a class at 1 and I still havn't done all the marking (and I have a hangover... groan... partook rather freely of Staggers hospitality last night... don't remember much of the journey back to London ).
quote:
Originally posted by Jasper:
It's like that at my parents' church (a Christian Fellowship) ....
(I must MW them sometime...)
A little reminder to all MW-ers:
quote:
First, please try to choose a church where you are unknown. A report on a service in your home church will not be accepted for publication; a report on a church where you are an occasional visitor is tolerable, but not ideal. The ideal is a report on a church where you are completely unknown.
I don't know how if Jasper is known in his parents' church, but if he is recognised on sight then I don't think that the church would qualify to be MW-ed by Jasper.
However, if you want to tell us about practises in that church that the MW crowd might be interested in then please do so.
bb
----
MW Host
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
I don't know how if Jasper is known in his parents' church, but if he is recognised on sight then I don't think that the church would qualify to be MW-ed by Jasper.
Jasper's a she, named after her dog, IIRC.
Sometimes it gets a bit hard to remember everyones sex. Tubbs is female and married to Polly (who is male and named after the cat). Jasper is female and named after the dog.
Will try harder next time,
bb
Firstly all churches have bizarre practises.
Secondly it is very revealing the way we develop spiritual interpretations for practical actions.
I once heard a beautiful explanation about how the removal of cloths before communion marked the rolling away of the stone on Easter Sunday. It really was very good. The only problem was we had a long serving elder listening in and he informed us the real reason. To stop plaster getting into the elements the items were covered for as long as possible.
Standing for the Bible at least in the congregation I attend is because of the amount of disregard that was shown to the Bible when it was simply processed.
Non-Alcoholic wine is due to the temperance movement on the whole and today is largely continued by the desire to make communion as inclusive as possible. I have heard that some recovering alcoholics do not like to even take the small quantity of aclcholic involved in communion. Others who are keep the pledge would on principle not take communion if the wine is alcoholic. Non-Alcoholic communion wine is truely awful hence the use of grape juice.
Tiny glass communion glasses are an import from America. It started off as a worry over hygiene (just think back to the scares over the common cup at the start of the 1980s when AIDS was first in the news and you will get what motivated it though far earlier). It is often continued for convenience. You can serve a lot of people fairly quickly with this method.
Confession has never been discontinued completely in the reformed tradition. Just it is not held to be a sacrament. It holds an ambiguous status and the rarity of personal confession I think comes from this. In actual fact every Sunday communal confession takes place in most URCs. It is a formalised process but includes a declaration of sin possibly silence to bring our own sins before God and an assurance of pardon.
Elders visits are still surviving as are communion cards in the congregation I go to. It is a complicated affair and actually provides the backbone to the pastoral system in the congregation. Pastoral responsibility in the URC is held in the elders meeting which is made up of elders and ministers.
There are true liturgical practises that are unusual. One church moved the communion table into the body of the church for communion to symbolise that this was a meal of the whole church not something the celebrant did. Equally many URC all eat the bread together and drink the wine together. You equally can not have communion in any URC without the proclamation of the Word. This is preaching rather than the reading of scriptures.
What may help you grasp why some of these customs persist, is that 'the presence' at communion for those of my theological bent is in the action of the congregation and not contained in the elements or performed by the priest.
Sorry this is long I tend to glory in my tradition and so enjoy explaining it. I hope this has been useful.
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie:
Tiny glass communion glasses are an import from America. It started off as a worry over hygiene (just think back to the scares over the common cup at the start of the 1980s when AIDS was first in the news and you will get what motivated it though far earlier). It is often continued for convenience. You can serve a lot of people fairly quickly with this method.
As I understand it, we've had the little glasses much longer than that.
quote:
What may help you grasp why some of these customs persist, is that 'the presence' at communion for those of my theological bent is in the action of the congregation and not contained in the elements or performed by the priest.
I think that's what we've been getting at - only noot as succinctly. Thank you
quote:
Sorry this is long I tend to glory in my tradition and so enjoy explaining it. I hope this has been useful.
Nothing wrong with that. No need to apologise.
[ubb code]
[ 19 October 2001: Message edited by: babybear ]
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
As I understand it, we've had the little glasses much longer than that.
Wood, Jengie isn't saying the little glasses came in the eighties, just for similar hygiene reasons as the AIDS scare in the eighties - note the phrase: "though far earlier". We also had these glasses in the church that I grew up in (Methodist). I just wish we'd had grape juice instead of what I suspect was neat Ribena. (Sorry Stooberry).
Our Church buys wine in boxes from Sainsburys, this the lasts us a few Sundays, we drink it out of normal wine glasses, with ribena for the children (this is normal practice in the House churches). We pass around chunks of bread which we rip pieces off from, and then the Children scrabble for the crusts after the service.
We do not always have the bread first, it depends on which makes its way around the room first...
Neil
Actually, they probably wouldn't recognise me - I rarely go there, and even if I'm with my parents, they still mistake me for my sister
Starbelly - that communion sounds familiar - except that in my parents' church, even the children are allowed the wine (usually a Stowells of Chelsea box!). We used to polish off the bread afterwards, too!
How old do children have to be to join in Communion at your church? At SCF, there was never an age limit - it was up to the individual child or parents.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Another one which occurred to me at the church business meeting tonight: where ministers get their salary from.Were y'all aware that Baptist ministers are paid by their congregations, and depend pretty much on the offering in a given year?
At my Baptist church we rather do it the other way round - we have agreed on a salary for our pastor before and then have to give as much as is needed to pay him, the mortgage for our meeting house and all our other expenses. The meetings where we all decide on next years finances are well attended and normally financial matters are discussed openly - and sometimes rather endlessly
At the end of the year we are informed how the money was spent and how much - if any - is left over.
Abo
quote:How old do children have to be to join in Communion at your church? At SCF, there was never an age limit - it was up to the individual child or parents.
[tidied UBB]
[ 23 October 2001: Message edited by: babybear ]
quote:
Originally posted by angloid:
back to bizarre practices - what about the ultra-protestant end of the CofE and its strange custom of the minister (not priest surely) standing at the 'north end of the table'?
Angloid -- did you wear a black scarf? I have never seen this custom in practice. Do you stand facing the Holy Table, as the Prayer Book enjoins, so that the people see you in profile, or do yo stand facing them?
starbelly -- is there some significance to the boxed wine, or is it merely chosen for the sake of thrift?
The thing about the pint glasses is probably the most bizarre thing I've read here. I won't look at my beer the same way again.
HT
quote:
is there some significance to the boxed wine, or is it merely chosen for the sake of thrift?
In my experience, the boxed wine was chosen because it was cheap, less likely to be spilt, and easier to store half-used in a cramped cupboard, along with the OHP, slides, Sunday School boxes, and all the other paraphenalia a house church gathers. (A cramped cupboard because we met in a school hall, and were allocated two locked cupboards in a little-used corridor as storage).
quote:
Originally posted by Abo:
At my Baptist church we rather do it the other way round - we have agreed on a salary for our pastor before and then have to give as much as is needed to pay him, the mortgage for our meeting house and all our other expenses. The meetings where we all decide on next years finances are well attended and normally financial matters are discussed openly - and sometimes rather endlessly
Abo
Err, actually, that's more or less exactly what my church does - and of course, if we can't make the salary... we go overdrawn.
In practice, it works out OK, because we have a reasonably sized congregation and a number of people with a healthy giving ethic.
In the UK, those Baptist churches with congregations too small to support a minister get subsidised by the BUGB Home Mission fund.
But Baptist ministers, IIRC, don't generally get paid the same amount as other clergy, except in HUGE churches.
I have a bizarre practice from the URC I used to drop into in another town from time to time. During the communion hymn 4 elders would make their way to the big chairs behind the communion table. About 8 servers would make their way to the front pew. After the narrative of the institution, prayers and blessing, the minister would squeeze out from between the table and the elders to pass out the plates of bread, the servers would serve the congregation and return things via the minister. S/he would then serve each of the four elders in the big chairs, then sit down, serve her/himself and invite us all to eat. The whole thing was then repeated with the trays of cups.
My question: what was the point/funtion of the 4 elders in this? (In other URCs it seems usual that the elders round the table serve the congregation and finally the minister/president).
Has anyone else come across this one?
'frin
Yes other URCs do. Mine has only 2 but the still fill the same role.
It would be quite common among URCs that have their routes in the Presbyterian Church of England.
What do they do. Well I think they are in charge of the setting of the table before the service, the allocation of duties to the elders for serving communion, the keeping of the minister on the right track during communion e.g. making sure the non-alcoholic communion wine goes to the right elder. The count of how many attend communion etc etc. They basically do all the behind the scenes coordinating. It includes choosing the communion wine!
I guess the duties change from congregation to congregation.
If other people can tell me why this complicated method of serving came about I would be pleased.
The change happens with the 'wine'. M serves the elders and organist, then the elders take the 'wine' to the congregation.
It makes me wonder how many different ways there could be of administing the whole event!
bb
quote:
although it's then their job to do the serving.
'frin
quote:
Originally posted by frin:
sorry, I'm not clear - the serving of the minister or the congregation?
The congregation. The minister is the last person to partake.
Well, I'm not really aware of many HUGE Baptist churches - lots of a good size, but they get huge it's my impression they don't tend to stay Baptist but just end up as a large independent evangelical/charismatic - or am I wrong there?
But I also wasn't aware Baptist ministers were particularly badly off, compared to the UK C of E stipend (let alone the poor RC priests!). I'm not knowledgeable about it but such discussions as I have been in on have been about achieving a balance between the average congregational wage and reflecting the professional training undertaken.
I think that giving in such congregational churches is often pretty strong precisely because there's no-one else either demanding it or giving it, so everyone knows the score and has no excuse to get disgruntled about it.
Ian
[UBB code]
[ 23 October 2001: Message edited by: babybear ]
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Metcalfe:
Well, I'm not really aware of many HUGE Baptist churches - lots of a good size, but they get huge it's my impression they don't tend to stay Baptist but just end up as a large independent evangelical/charismatic - or am I wrong there?But I also wasn't aware Baptist ministers were particularly badly off, compared to the UK C of E stipend (let alone the poor RC priests!). I'm not knowledgeable about it but such discussions as I have been in on have been about achieving a balance between the average congregational wage and reflecting the professional training undertaken.
I think that giving in such congregational churches is often pretty strong precisely because there's no-one else either demanding it or giving it, so everyone knows the score and has no excuse to get disgruntled about it.
Ian
I guess it depends on what you call HUGE I'd say Mutley Baptist in Plymouth was what I was thinking of (although I couldn't possibly comment on the minister's salary, not being privy to that kind of information ) - although you're right, it is more of an evangelical alliance kind of place than a Baptist.
Of course, my understanding of minister's salaries may, of course, also be off the mark.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
The minister is the last person to partake.
Another bizarre practice. The Prayer Book instructs:
"Then shall the Minister first receive the Communion in both kinds himself"
So the priest and other ministers always receive FIRST. I have never known the altar party to recieve last.
The only Methodist church I've ever taken Communion in followed the Prayer Book instructions.
So -- among protestants, is it celebrant receieving first or last? I am informed that in the ELCA the celebrant receives last.
HT
Lutherans will have various procedures. At my church we stand in the round. At others, folks kneel at an altar rail. I have been to churches, both Lutheran and Episcopal, especially when there have been stairs between the main seating area and the altar area, in which servers will go out to people who cannot easily come forward--wheelchair uses or other people with mobility handicaps.
The age of first communion is variable. When I was growing up, it was at confirmation--about age 13 or 14. In the Episcopal church where my children were baptised, the idea was if the child could walk up unassisted and had teeth (or at least one of these criteria!) then communion was OK. The idea is that the child would grow up with the memory of always having been fed at the Lord's Table.
At my current church, which I began attending when my sons were ages 4 and 7, they were at the time doing the "after confirmation" criteria. My little one cried after going forward and getting only a "blessing," and so I made an appointment to talk to the pastor about it. Bless his heart, he went to the church council, which was divided on the issue. Finally, he blurted out, "I'm NOT going to ex-communicate a 4-year-old!" So the congregation instituted the following procedure: if parents and child felt that the child was ready to receive, there would be a private meeting with the pastor, and communion would be explained, and then the child was able to choose to take communion.
We serve wine in a common cup and wine in little glass cups and grape juice in little glass cups. Most of the children think the wine tastes "icky" and go for the grape juice. Those who are pregnant or alcoholic or whatever often take the little cups of grape juice, also.
My kids are much older now: The Winningham boys at church.
quote:
So -- among protestants, is it celebrant receieving first or last? I am informed that in the ELCA the celebrant receives last.
In most of my experience, the celebrant/ president receives last then says one of the standard distribution phrases (The body of Christ/ take, eat ... / drink this, all of you, in remembrance of me) and everyone eats or downs their shot glass of grape juice together.
Nancy, I remember the utter fury I experienced the first time I went to a church which assumed I could not be a communicant (I was younger than 8). Though, lest anyone think otherwise, I would note that children receiving communion seems very much to be up to the individual church meeting to decide in the URC.
'frin
However, in my congregation it has long been the practice for the communion assistants and pastor(s) to receive last. Having stood on both side of the (non-existent) altar rail, I find it very meaningful to serve others first. And it fits with the commitment to the biblical concept of hospitality that has engaged and informed the worship and service of this congregation for decades.
Unusual, but probably not unique?
Welcome, Joyce. There are certainly a lot of librarians from the Maryland/DC/Virginia area floating about here!
HT
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
starbelly -- is there some significance to the boxed wine, or is it merely chosen for the sake of thrift?
HT
It just keeps better that way.
Neil
FCB
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I think the pastor would like to change it (he has said that he sees great merit in the view that you cannot give what you have not received -- sounds a bit sola gratia
Ah-ha! You see, that's part of the point - sola gratia (by grace alone, for those of you not versed in Latin - for those of you who are, yes it is *by* grace alone, beccause it's ablative, which ends in the same letter in the first declension, but which is correctly pronounced 'sol-aah grah-ti-aah', cos the last syllable is long. err, sorry. Latin tangent. PM me if you think I'm wrong), is, like 'the priesthood of all believers', one of the most fondly held doctrines of the NC protestant churches. Like, probably the last one they'd ever be willing to let go.
The real reasons why we do stuff in 'odd' ways (daft little glasses, ribena, leavened bread, minister takes last etc.) may well be lost to the mists of time, but often theological aetiologies* are given to these things - an argument I've heard about the minister taking last is precisely what FCB has highlighted: you can't give what you've not received... but then, it's not the minister doing the giving. It comes directly from Christ.
Because of the doctrine of the 'Priesthood of all Believers' (henceforth POAB, cos I'm sick of typing it repeatedly), there is no real need for anyone to mediate between Christ and the Church. Obviously, someone's got to lead the communion, but that can be anyone with a gift of leading and the blessing of the church.
It's not just a question of 'bizarre practices', really - the fact that NC Protestants do things so differently is often underpinned by a fundamental difference in doctrine and ecclesiology.
___________
*Aetiology: the attribution of a plausible origin to something that doesn't have one, sometimes without any regard for the correctness of the reason.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
*Aetiology: the attribution of a plausible origin to something that doesn't have one, sometimes without any regard for the correctness of the reason.
Bless you Wood - I've been looking for a word to describe that process for years!
Your Latin is correct. No need for anyone to dispute it. The question is, as an ablative absolute, is it being used as a clause, or as statement of condition? I suppose it depends on its place in the sentence, but then we haven't been given the sentence/poem from which to deduce its position...
Why the name change, O Wood? I thought being called after so many noble things would be infinitely superior to being called after the milkman (and may I ask how your father feels about this?)...
Mr Milkman dear, we have high hopes for you now.
bb
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
I just don't understand iconoclasm. It is not unique to Scottish Presbyterians. It is also a common illness in the Diocese of Sydney...
Scary.
I understand it...
I just don't see the point to be honest. A beautiful thing is a beautiful thing. I'm reminded of the Taliban blowing up those Buddhas a few months ago.
Haven't seen it in evidence in Swansea, thankfully. But then I haven't seen many icons. I mean, Hell, even the Catholics don't have that many around here.
Well, I suppose they did restore the cathedral recently. It looks lovely (even if it is singularly devoid of the Spirit). What I really object to is that they found an unexpected window when they pulled out the old organ in the north transept, depicting the crucifixion of our Lord, with the Peter and St Andrew on either side, also crucified. Their response was extreme embarrassment, and the sound-box now obscures the lower half of the window.
There is not a cross in the entire building. I was pleasantly surprised when the Dean decided afterall to have a new stone cross carved for the pinnacle of the roof at the east end (the old one was crumbling, as Sydney sandstone is wont to do), and put it in place.
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
But you see, Wood, some of these extremists are determined to continue the drive of the reformation - the reformers of the C of E didn't go far enough. Cromwell was more progressive - and it is in a similar spirit they go about destroying or precluding art...
But they're still extremists.
You can't just identify them with protestantism in general.
But they see themselves as "protestantism" in its purest form. I know this is common in extremist circles (cf Taliban), but the chilling thing is how seemingly rational they are about it - which has earnt the Sydney vangies a huge following.
Much of Cromwell's desecration (and earlier than that, the desecration of places after Henry viii disestablished monasteries) was carried out by yobbos who were out for a bit of public rowdiness and harrassment. The Sydney-type of extreme evangelical iconoclasm is a cold calculating dismissal, almost surgical in its attempt to castrate mystery and its manifestations from the church. And it's much more subtle, achieved not by rampaging armies, but -
I am going to stop here. I raved about it in Hell and am not going to continue it here.
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
I am going to stop here. I raved about it in Hell and am not going to continue it here.
OK. Fair enough.
Pax.
Scriptural and theological considerations were rarely allowed to interfere with established practice! (I do not refer to the Methodist Church official doctrine or liturgy of the Sacraments - they were largely derived from Anglican sources and would I am sure be regarded as "sound" by most Protestant traditions). A perennial question was, "What to do with the left-over elements after the service?" I knew one congregation where the stewardess used regularly to give them to the Sunday School children (in those days children did not share in the Communion itself), and the youngsters came to regard this as a special treat. They were most disappointed when the Leaders Meeting decided that this was perhaps not the right thing to do and the stewardess was instructed to discontinue the practice! In another place the remaining bread, always cut into small cubes, would be seen out on the grass outside the vestry door. "It's for the birds" was the justification! No doubt St Francis would have approved! I'm not sure what happened to the wine, but suspect it either went back into the bottle for next time or down the sink with the water in which the used communionglasses had been washed.
I am glad to say that with the institution of the Uniting Church, with input from other traditions and a conscious decision by our leaders to go back into ancient liturgies in order to form new ones based on old insights, a much stronger and deeper understanding of the theology and practice of the Sacraments is now widely recognized. But whatever our shortcomings may have been, I have no doubt the Lord accepted all of us who "loved him and came to Him in humility and truth". But He must have had trouble at times not bursting out laughing!
liturgy:
from a number of sources:
- old methodist service book
- new methodist service book
- pre-release experimental version of NMSB
- iona liturgy
- church of south india liturgy
- hotchpotch devised by minister
- spoken responses
- sung responses
frequency:
some of the congregation feel communion should be at least every month. some feel once a year. some complain whenever it happens that it's too frequent.
wine:
as i understand it, the wine is de-alcoholised (is that possible?) and bought from a specialist supplier. almost always served in little glass cups (dating at least from the 1930s) unless it's a special service when a chalice sometimes comes out. actually the chalice is gaining a great amount of support amongst the congregation...
bread:
always used to be mothers pride sliced into little cubes. these days is a large breadcake torn up on the spot.
position for receiving
usually kneeling at the communion rail (which has little holders for the cups), occasionally standing (if the communion rail has been removed)
cloths
always covering the elements before and after
disposal of the elements
wine back into the bottle. bread usually into the bin...
and perculiar to our church i imagine is the moment when one organist gets up to take communion and the other continues playing the same tune by reaching around them - the retiring organist slides out under their arms. this is done with varying degrees of success - a smooth changeover is greeted with nods amongst the congregation, a poor attempt prompts whispered comments.
quote:
Nunc wrote:HT, I have seen this North-end thing in practice. Some older parishes in Sydney still use it; some stand at the north end of the table facing south, or at the south end facing north - I've seen it done both ways. I am thinking particularly of St Philips Church Hill. Admiral Holder will be able to fill us in on that, as he attended there for a while.
At St Philip's Church Hill in Sydney I seem to remember them facing North (IIRC) always -I attended the evening service. As this is the only 'traditional' parish church I've been to in Sydney I can't say if it is the norm. As Nunc said, other parishes have no fixed rule - and often use a standard office / school table rather than a special table!
A mistaken bizarre practise here in Dublin. On my first adventure into an Anglo-Catholic church I noticed during the saying of "The Nicene Creed" people bowed at regular intervals. After moving from puzzled amusement to attempting to stifle laughter to extreme worry, I realised that all of them had placed their Prayer Books on the top of the pew in front of them and were bending over to refresh their memory as to the words every so often!!!
Admiral H.
Frequency: There are also Methodist churches that celebrate weekly, and there are Methodists (I am one!) who think that this is A Good Thing
Wine: Rubrics say that grape juice should be used. As Adrian says though, lots of places use non-alcoholic communion wine.
Chalices: I have never been to a Methodist Communion service where there hasn't been a chalice. Admittedly, it is usually only used during the consecration (as in the minister lifts it etc. at the appropriate points) and for the communion of those leading the service. The communion of the people is generally (though not exclusively) done using little glasses.
Disposal: Sounds like some of us need to read the rubrics! 'After the service, the elements that remain should be reverently consumed, or otherwise reverently disposed of.' (From the Methodist Worship Book)
quote:
Originally posted by Admiral Holder:
A mistaken bizarre practise here in Dublin. On my first adventure into an Anglo-Catholic church I noticed during the saying of "The Nicene Creed" people bowed at regular intervals. After moving from puzzled amusement to attempting to stifle laughter to extreme worry, I realised that all of them had placed their Prayer Books on the top of the pew in front of them and were bending over to refresh their memory as to the words every so often!!!Admiral H.
Anglo-Catholic in training, hey Admiral? Then let me enlighten you!
We bow in the liturgy at the name of our Lord (some also at the name of Mary, just a really little nod of the head), and if these guys are dinky di, they (or the sanctuary party) will perform a genuflection at the words in the creed "And was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary. And became Man." Then they should be standing again for the crucifixion under PP. We also nod and "who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified". You may find this is parallelled at Evensong, when they all incline their heads for the gloria patri, wherever it occurs - I think it's used as a symbol of worship, submission to the deity etc etc.
quote:
Sounds like some of us need to read the rubrics
But we know that rubrics are there to be ignored, or else why was there no gospel reading at the communion breakfast on Wednesday?
Is that a bizarre practise, omitting the gospel at a communion service? Wednesday was the second time I've come across it, and the first I think was even more bizarre. We had a visiting preacher (the Rector of the benefice as our team vicar was away) who after members of the congregation had read the lectionary OT and NT readings stood up and announced that he wasn't going to read the Gospel but some bit of 2 Chronicles because that's what he wanted to preach on (because he'd been to a service where someone standing in for the normal minister had preached on that passage). I was fuming, why couldn't he just have communicated in advance and asked for that to be read as the OT rather than replacing the Gospel, which is an essential part of the communion service (as the Methodist Service Book makes clear, as I noted on Wednesday when we just had the one reading - despite the rubric saying '*here two or three readings of scripture the last of which shall be the Gospel' or words to that effect) Welsh BCP doesn't make it explicit in that way, but that doesn't change matters.
Carys
On to another practice at a low Anglican church here in Ireland which is not as bizarre as some practices mentioned previously, but still struck me as different.
The hymn before the gospel reading was actually sung in two parts - you got half of the verses; the gospel reading; then the rest. Is this common?
Admiral H.
*AVLI: As the Vicar Likes It
Singing a canticle before and after the gospel is something that I have experienced before. It seems to break the mood for me.
quote:
The hymn before the gospel reading was actually sung in two parts - you got half of the verses; the gospel reading; then the rest. Is this common?
Not that common, but we did it in the church were I grew up - it was something the new vicar introduced, so maybe it's more common in Canada where he trained. It used to catch the organist out as he'd forget to stop! Singing a gradual before the gospel is quite common. Tony did have an explanation for why we split it I think but I can't remember it - it did give the Gospel procession music to move to both sides.
Carys
Around 30 years ago Christmas Day was not an official holiday. My Dad used to have to work on christmas morning.
Christmas was the sacred time, and New Year was definitely secular. It seems that both have been turned into a huge alcohol induced feasting time.
In my parents' church there has been a midnight service on Christmas Eve for about 25 years. This draws in Christians from all over town, as well as some party go-ers. On Christmas morning there is a joint service in one of the local churches, each year a different church hosts the service. It really is fantastic sharing with Christians of different traditions over Christmas.
bb
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Singing a gradual before the gospel is quite common. Tony did have an explanation for why we split it I think but I can't remember it - it did give the Gospel procession music to move to both sides.
Can I be shown to be the ignorant Philistine I am and ask what a "gradual" is?
Thanks,
Admiral H.
There is a reason why it is called this (of course!) but I only have a hazy recollection about it being something to do with a step!!
The book is at home (I think). If I can find it I will check it out - though I suspect that there are others with better memories who will know what it's all about.
The Gradual (along with the Tract and on big liturgical occasions, a Sequence instead, and the Alleluia used after Easter in "Ordinary time" or Trinity) is sung before the Gospel, and I presume used to be the "cover music" for the gospel procession - a meditative pause before the reading of the gospel.
That's the best I can explain it; someone else will probably be able to do much better... Cosmo for instance. (BTW, WHERE is Cosmo these days? Has he returned after the All Souls/All Saints orgy?)
quote:
The Gradual (along with the Tract and on big liturgical occasions, a Sequence instead, and the Alleluia used after Easter in "Ordinary time" or Trinity) is sung before the Gospel, and I presume used to be the "cover music" for the gospel procession - a meditative pause before the reading of the gospel.
Whether or not this counts as a 'protestant' practice I don't know. It might be argued that in this case only St Clement Philadelphia and St Luke Southport are in catholic christendom.
Cosmo
CCSL gets round the problem by doing everything... Psalm between OT and Epistle, then gospel procession/hymn, gradual/tract/sequence/alleluia then sung gospel.
Cosmo
In their absence I shall have to observe that I certainly am glad that Catholic Christianity isn't farting about wasting their time doing something so silly as read the Bible in church.
In general, Lutheran churches will do an Old Testament reading, an Epistle reading (and call it that) and a Gospel reading. Sometimes there is a reading from the appocripha (I'm SURE I mangled the spelling on that, too lazy to go for a dictionary), but this is rare, and the occasion of much nasty talk in the congregation if it happens. If such a reading is done, it takes the place of the Old Testament reading.
Various churches will intersperse a psalm--often sung responsively. There is usually a little verse as the pastor walks up to the gospel book: "Alleluia! Lord, to Whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Alleluia, alleluia." Or in Lent: "Return to the Lord your God, for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and abounding in steadfast love."
The Gospel reference is announced, i.e., "A reading from the gospel according to Luke, such and such a chapter, starting at such and such a verse." "Glory to You, O Lord" is then sung by the congregation, which is standing. After the gospel reading, the pastor says, "The gospel of the Lord." The congregation responds, "Praise to You, O Christ."
Then the homily (sermon) and the hymn of the day. The hymn of the day is chosen to reinforce the main sermon message. (Unless Pastor Joyce is preaching, in which case the hymn of the day is sung BEFORE the sermon, but I can't get used to that.)
Of course, I'm quoting just the most common liturgy from the Lutheran Book of Worship; we actually use 3 different liturgies during most of the year, and another during Lent because it is more somber and penitential.
If the service is really long--for example, there are special events such as a baptism or reception of new members or dedication of workers for service in ministry or some other infrequent service during the Sunday morning worship--the Old Testament lesson and the psalm are the bits most likely to be omitted.
Carys
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
On the subject of readings in Church something which tends to amuse me if I go to a 'Bible-based' church is that they only have one reading from the Bible, whereas these 'dead' churches which use liturgy have at least 2 and quite possibly 3!Carys
Yes, I have noticed in Baptist Churches once it was normal to have an Old Testament reading, a New Testament Reading and probably a responsive Psalm. Now the tendancy is to have one Bible Reading. I blame the theological colleges.
Be thankful that CW hasn't cut back to one reading.
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Speaking of psalms, are they read out (or sung?) in protestant churches?
There is a huge variety of practise. It used to be in the CofS that psalms would be sung. The metrical psalms were often printed at the back of AV Bibles. In more recent years re-workkings of the psalms have taken place, and they are quite popular.
In some Free Presby churches in Scotland they used to sing nothing but the psalms. (Sit to sing, stand to pray.)
In my church often a snippet of a psalm is used to start the service. Occasionally psalms are sung during the morning service, but are normally only read if that is the what the sermon is going to be based up. In the evening service it is the tradition for a psalm to be read in parts, normally the preacher will read a verse, then the congreagation, but sometimes the congregation is split in some way.
bb
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Speaking of psalms, are they read out (or sung?) in protestant churches?
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
On the subject of readings in Church something which tends to amuse me if I go to a 'Bible-based' church is that they only have one reading from the Bible, whereas these 'dead' churches which use liturgy have at least 2 and quite possibly 3!Carys
Sorry, Carys, can't let you get away with that one. You seem to miss the point that while your reformed type may only have the one reading, it is, for good or ill, normally followed by 30+ miniutes of exegesis directly pertaining to the passage. The question is not, in the reformed Christian's eyes, one of quantity, but of quality.
In the baptist church (in my experience, anyway), the psalms are simply treated
like any other scripture, although some hymn books have the psalms turned into hymns, for example the hymnbook of my old bête noir, the Metropolitan Tabernacle.
And if some degree of clergy vesting is allowed, why is, say, a Geneva gown appropriate and a surplice trantamont to kissing the Pope's toe?
Greta
I know how to spell 'tantamount'. My fingers and my eyes have been in conspiracy to turn my posts into even greater nonsense than they would otherwise be.
Greta
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
There is another Portestant practice that I have difficulty understanding, and that is the matter of vesting.
And if some degree of clergy vesting is allowed, why is, say, a Geneva gown appropriate
Greta
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
I did not intend to call my friends 'Portestants' (I hope it is not an inslting term!)
Not to worry.
Anglican are Gin-bibbers
Protestants are Portestants.
As for robed choirs, I have never seen a robed choir, except on television or on film.
bb
Greta
Some churches do not have choirs, some have a presentor.
bb
It comes from the Latin of course, and refers to the place of the person in procession, the person who is precentor preceding the choir. But now it has more connotations with singing, esp in versicles and responses.
Similarly, I believe St Paul's London has a Succentor - ie the role is the same musically and liturgically, but they succeed the choir in procession.
Or something like that. No doubt people who live in London and know St Paul's will jump down my throat, but there you are.
quote:
Originally posted by the milkman of human kindness:
All of this stuff with succentors and precentors assumes that you have a procession in the first place.
the precentor in an old presby kirk does no processing. He (and it used to be a 'he') stands up facing the congregation and sings the first line of the psalm. The congregation then follow on. It's a bit like when there is a worship leader who wants the people to go back to a previous verse and chips in with the first line? In our church, the pastor just walks in and we start.
We're completely without liturgy, too, so the chap leading responsorial psalms and stuff would be kind of redundant.
quote:
Originally posted by the milkman of human kindness:
Wow.In our church, the pastor just walks in and we start.
We're completely without liturgy, too, so the chap leading responsorial psalms and stuff would be kind of redundant.
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Gin is beyond the pale.Ice-cream is far better
Stephen is a heretic.
quote:
Originally posted by the milkman of human kindness:
In our church, the pastor just walks in and we start.
In all honesty, sincerety and with no hint of irony or wit, I have to say that I cannot, in the deepest regions of my imaginings, grasp this.
Do you really mean the chapo just walks in as to a business meeting and says "good morning" or "right then" or "let's start"?
Of all the Bizarre Protestant Practices, this one (really!) strikes me as the most strange.
HT
[thinking I can guess the answer to this question, but... do you stand up when the pastor enters?]
Garrison Keillor, American writer, humorist and host of "Prairie Home Companion" explains:
Why Lutherans Love to Sing
I suspect gin is rarely found in Lutheran refrigerators. But beer is another story.
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc_Dimittis:
BB, that would be preCentor... The preSenter is someone who reads the News!!!
That is nothing in comparision to spelling mistakes I have made in the past. But am glad to have brought a smile to your face by my wobbly spelling.
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Do you really mean the chapo just walks in as to a business meeting and says "good morning" or "right then" or "let's start"?
Yup! But you knew that would be the answer, didn't you. In my church the duty elder and the preacher walk in together. The preacher climbs into the pulpit, and the elder goes to the lectern and delivers the announcements for the week. Then the minister stands up and the service starts.
If it is any help, I still find the idea of a procession with all the trimmings to be so alien.
bb
[ 10 November 2001: Message edited by: babybear ]
Greta
bb
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Do you really mean the chap just walks in as to a business meeting and says "good morning" or "right then" or "let's start"?Of all the Bizarre Protestant Practices, this one (really!) strikes me as the most strange.
Yep. Well, more or less, anyway. It usually starts with a word of scripture or an (extempore, of course) blessing.
quote:
thinking I can guess the answer to this question, but... do you stand up when the pastor enters?
We used to, until a few months ago, but for reasons that escape me, this practice was discontinued, so basically, everybody goes quiet as soon as the pastor walks in - the door he - and the deacons - enter by is next to the pulpit, behind the lectern, so it's easy to see when they come in.
It doesn't sound orderly or reverent, but somehow it manages to be, and I've been told that people new to the church somehow find it easier and less intimidating to just shut up rather than to stand up with everybody else. Don't know about that meself, but there you go.
In one of the churches that I have preached the pulpit was 8 feet above the congregation! I have heard about the "preacher being 6 feet above contradiction", but never 8! And the best part was that the organist was higher yet. Make you wonder who yields the power in that chapel.
bb
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Stephen is a heretic.
I'll get you for that HT!!!
I think I'll rite you in - sorry write you in - Tomb of Horrors!!!!
... and Ultraspike would take great pleasure in running H.T. through the full gamut of Anglo-Catholic tortures.
Greta
About robed choirs:
I have had it explained that a robed choir is useful to keep people from being distracted by the nice (or not-so-nice) clothes of the singers. Which may explain why minority churches so often have robed choirs--no embarassment about being poor and unable to afford nice clothes for church. This is especially true when the choir is out in front.
In the church where I grew up (age 6 to 12 years) the choir was in a balcony in the very back--no one saw them, so they did not robe.
In the Episcopal church where I was a member in Indianapolis, 1986-1993, the choir sat at the side on the right (it was a cross-shaped room). So they were "on display") and they were always robed. In this case, it was more that people could be distracted by the finery of their street clothes. A very affluent congregation (expect for me, of course; there were several members who had Jaguars and such; I was the only member who owned a pickup truck!).
yes, its all rather informal. and cozy.
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
I'll get you for that HT!!!
I think I'll rite you in - sorry write you in - Tomb of Horrors!!!!
I already did...
The argument Nancy put forward for chior robes sounds very similar to my Mum reasoning why children should wear school uniform. I think that it is a valid reason. One choir I knew wore black skirts/trousers and a white shirt. The men wore a special chior tie, the women, the choir's scarf. It was a very low cost way of making a people look like a group.
bb
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
It seems that there is a vast difference in practise between American and UK protestants. Anyone any idea where the Australians fit into this?bb
I can only comment on standard Sydney Anglican practice.
At a "standard" parish, the minister is generally sitting in the front row when the service begins! HT, I hope you haven't passed out!
The "worship leader" starts the service. Depending on the church and worship leader, it will either be a "G'day" and then a scripture reading, or a "G'day" and then a story with some theological basis.
The minister does not wear robes unless it is a baptism or confirmation. A suit and dog-collar (if that) generally. However, if the church has a Prayer Book service the minister may wear robes as generally only 70s+ attend and would expect it.
The choir in the Chinese congregation at my church wore robes (plain white with minimal decoration) and seated themselves in the first two pews. I have not that much experience of their services as I was in the English congregation. I think the minister may have worn a robe there sometimes.
Admiral H.
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Stephen,
... and Ultraspike would take great pleasure in running H.T. through the full gamut of Anglo-Catholic tortures.
Greta
Oh,absolutely.....got that humeral veil,Ultraspike?
in any case, what difference does it make, for the purpose of leading the congrgation, if we're at the rear of the church, the middle, or up in the choir stalls?
besdies, its mostly the organist they're following, not us anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
babybear, i'm sure you don't really mean to say my church is daft ....
besdies, its mostly the organist they're following, not us anyway.
Sorry, I don't mean that your church is daft. Tis the idea of the choir entering part way through the service that striles me as being daft.
I had always thought that the role of the choir was to lead the people. I find it easier to follow someone singing than following an organ. What do others think? What are choirs for, in the context of congregational singing?
bb
Angel
I once heard a vicar who said the choir shouldn't wear a uniform because that is alien to our culture. But think of all the other groups and teams who wear one: for football, netball, rugby, cubs, scouts, brownies, guides, golf clubs and bowling clubs, etc. not to mention uniforms worn for work and school. Not as alien as you might think, and it does help inculcate a sense of being a team and working together; also discourages a casual sloppy approach - we must give the best we can to worship.
A middle of the road CoE church near where I once lived re-produced an article from their parish magazine of about 100 years ago about how the parish objected to the Rector wearinga dog-collar as it was popish and he should stick to a cravat.
By mid 20th century virtually all ministers/priests/pastors wore dog-collers even free evangelicals.
However now it is unusual to see one worn by an minister outside the Church of England.
Although one Baptist minister I knew kept one for hospital visiting!
So by the end of the 20th century it's normal coller and tie. Now in the 21st century open necked shirts seem the norm.
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
However now it is unusual to see one worn by an minister outside the Church of England.
Although one Baptist minister I knew kept one for hospital visiting!
Most of the Methodists I've met seem to still wear them.
Also, a recognisable clergyman shows they still exist. The more who wear a dog collar, the less the ones who do are seen as a rare breed.
Maybe with the rise in informality, people learn not to identify the person as a 'clergyman' (generic) but a particular type of priest, e.g. anglo-catholic priest?
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
(either that or he is on his way to a vicars and tarts fancy dress party - do people still have these by the way?)
Oh yes... once, when my dad was a curate, we were invited to a parishoner's t&v party. So mother dressed as a vicar and dad cross-dressed (complete with fishnets and mother did his makeup) as a tart. Apparently the parishoners were so shocked that the party sank like a lead balloon!
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Apparently the parishoners were so shocked that the party sank like a lead balloon!
Coh! There's nothing quite like the clergy to undermine good old fashioned British provincial prurience, eh?
What upset them most? The clergy in funny clothes, or the woman in a dog collar?
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
What upset them most? The clergy in funny clothes, or the woman in a dog collar?
Oh, definitely mother (this was pre-WO as well) - I mean, come on, they saw dad in drag every Sunday anyway...
though even so, the first hymn IS the start of the service essentially... theres darn little that comes before... when i say the minister makes some introductory remarks, i don't mean that as a euphamisim for, he makes a mini-sermon and half the service goes by! he makes a few remarks, a prayer, and the service starts with the hymn!
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
However now it is unusual to see one worn by an minister outside the Church of England.
I don't know any CofE ministers, but all of the other ministers (URC, Congregationalists, Independants, Methodists, CofS, PCW, Baptists) that I know only wear the collar for 'official' duties. That normally means if they are leading a service, going to a meeting, visiting etc.
For the last 10 years I have only lived in small towns, and the ministers are recognised with or without collar.
The exception to that is the RC priest in Aberystwyth. He wore clerical garb to do the gardening.
And as for announcements! They drive me crazy! I got to all the trouble of making a diary for the congregations, photocoping it, and then the read it at the start of every service.
There was one minister that I have heard of who insisted that the notices be in the middle of the service, because those events were also worship. But he refered to the reading of them as "Let's find out what is happening in our Lord's garden". ::yeuk::
bb
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Is it a bizarre practice that protestants pas sthe peace even when they are not celebrating the Eucharist?
We don't pass the peace at all, even when we are celebrating the Eucharist.
Now the Right Hand of Fellowship, on the other hand, is a wholly different matter
In the past few months in my church we have had preachers from the PCW, Methodists, Congregationalists, Elim, Baptists and URC. This is by no means unusual in rural Wales. We even have ministers from other denominations leading communion services. More credance is given to the preacher/minister than which denomination they come from.
bb
Is there a reading of the Decalogue, and, if so, does it occur at all worship services?
Greta
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Please can someone tell me about Elim? I have pased by their chapels, but what they do or believe I know not.
One of the two biggest British pentecostal denominations. From my experience (8 years since I was in one, mind) lots of repetition of choruses, long extempore prayers (incluidng from the congregation), long-ish sermonns and a bit of tongue occasionally. To be fair, they do did have a "structure" - you could see where the preparatoy bit was, there was an element of saying sorry, and intercessions. You'd run out of the bulding screaming at their eucharists, I'm afraid, HT.
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Please can someone tell me about Elim? I have pased by their chapels, but what they do or believe I know not.
There tends to be two 'breeds'. The first tends to be very into old (and I mean old) choruses, have long lists of things that are not suitable for Christians to do (pub, cinema to name 2), and rather boring. The second set are almost indistinguishable for Vinyard/John Wimber type churches. But in both you will get a very warm welcome, and they are genuinly caring people.
As for beliefs, right in there with the rest of the mainstream denominations, but often with a heavier emphasis on the work of the HS.
I to do not think that HT would be happy with that style of worship and practise.
bb
For non-communion services, the Apostles' Creed is used if a creed is recited.
I don't know when I last heard the 10 commandments done in a church service.
Around here, we have what I call "The Ten Commandments Cult." These are the people who insist that the United States started going wrong when "they took prayer out of the schools" (where it should never have been in the first place) and that if communities just post the 10 commandments in public places, we will have an ordered, civilized, and non-violent society. And better television shows, too. You see little signs in people's yards with the 10 commandments printed on them, sometimes whole neighborhoods full.
Of course, my St. Francis under the bird feeders is idolitrous and evil, not to mention the sacred heart Jesus in the wooded area by the creek . . .
[edited to change a wrong word]
[ 15 November 2001: Message edited by: babybear ]
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Some of my dad's presbyterian churches use the Shorter Westminster Confession rather than the Creed.
Sieg
"During the singing of the hymn the officiant should sing with the congregation, unless he be otherwise occupied with the conduct of the service. The time should not be employed looking out the lessons or other propers. Neither should the officiant beat time with his book, nor should he look about him, nor should he bellow at the top of his voice. If he knows the hymn well enough to dispense with a book, his hands should be extended upon his knees, palm down, right thumb crossed over the left thumb, or with one hand in the sleeve of the other arm. Under no circumstances should he cross his feet or legs."
The Conduct of the Service, Piepkorn, 1965.
The whole thing--it's pretty long--is, I hope,
I was standing in the space just behind the minister. Nobody had actually told me that this minister had the habit of conducting the congregation during the hymns and that I should watch out for his flailing arms whizzing around near my head.
I think the Lutherans have the right idea.
What is the rule on candles and crosses? I have been in Methodist churches that feature 2 lights on the Holy Table and a brass cross.
However, sometimes Protestant posters act as though candles smack of popery.
What is the story?
HT
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Reviving this thread.What is the rule on candles and crosses? I have been in Methodist churches that feature 2 lights on the Holy Table and a brass cross.
However, sometimes Protestant posters act as though candles smack of popery.
What is the story?
HT
In our church, we only really have them in the Midnight Meeting on Christmas Eve. Because it's dark.
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
What is the rule on candles and crosses? I have been in Methodist churches that feature 2 lights on the Holy Table and a brass cross.However, sometimes Protestant posters act as though candles smack of popery.
What is the story?
Once upon a time, the Methodist Church was part of the Church of England. Because the CofE had high churches and low churches, so did the Methodists. (Still has, but far more low churches).
Candles seem to come out at very special occasions in the low church, eg Advent, Christmas or Easter. Most of the time they are not seen except at alt.worship services.
As for crosses, it is quite common for a low church to have a cross on 'display'. Normally it will be a very plain one, with very little ornamentation. I have never seen 'Jesus on the cross' in a P church. (our hope is in the Risen Saviour).
bb
re candles: fire hazard, fire schmazzard! One of the most moving services I have been to (last week) was at the local hospice carol service, held in a packed church, remembering those who had died, each person 'lighting up a life'. There must have been about 1,000 candles in the building and the atmosphere was terrific - calm, quiet and thoughtful. Give me candlelit services anyday (although I suppose they would cease to be special if done on that scale all the time).
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
re candles: fire hazard, fire schmazzard!
The 'fire hazard' crack was a flippant reference to the Baptist church's tendency to be somewhat utilitarian in its use of stuff in worship...
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Midnight Meeting
What's the deal with "meeting".
I've noticed this before as a protestant substitute for any of the following:
going to church
going to chapel
going to service (or Divine Service)
going to Morning Prayer (or Mattins)
going to Mass
I can understand why protestants eschew "mass". But why is it more Prot to go to meeting rather than to service?
Meetings are things I go to under protest in a conference room, and sit there being bored and scribble rude drawings in the margins of a note-book I keep for that purpose.
Carys
I just picked it up. 'm not sure why they call it that.
re candles, yep I realised your remark was flippant, but it was interesting that when we were leaving the hospice service I mentioned above, holier than thou turned to me and said 'I dread to think what would have happened if there had been a fire'
I've only recently joined the crew of the SOF and have just skimmed through some of the stuff here about Protestant church practices. Our Church @ Warilla (just south of Wollongong 1 hour south of Sydney) would make some of the correspondents on this subject faint I think. We don't do liturgy, we don't pass the peace, almost anyone can have a go at doing Communion (although their are 'standards') - even women! and my 18 year old son had a go at our Sunday Night Live! service using coke and Pringles. (Word of warning - never use Pringles the crunch when everyone bites into them totally destroys any reverential atmosphere you may have built up!). Our services start when the band (complete with drums) stops playing and the service leader jumps up and says 'G'day' or 'Good morning'. Announcements are at the start (as is prayer). No doxology and often the benediction is 'Thanks for coming, please stick around and join us for coffee or tea up the back!' Our ministers also never wear a dog collar and hardly ever wear a tie. Music is contemporary (whatever that means).
However it somehow works and most people seem to enjoy coming and worshipping God there.
In my experience of English Baptist churches, the term "Church Meeting" would refer to the meetings of those enrolled as church members (not necessarily all of the congregation) that were held to discuss Church business.
They would typically be held mid-week, in the evening, often every other month (frequency varying from Church to Church). The purpose of the meeting would be to discuss issues such as admission of new members to the Church, arrangements for forthcoming events ("What are we going to do for Harvest Supper?" and the like) Church finance, changes in staffing of the Sunday School/Junior Church etc. They are not primarily "services", but would obviously start with prayer and might include a Bible reading and brief exposition by the minister (particulalry relating the passage to the Church's current situation).
The meetings thus had a similar purpose to Annual Parochial meetings in the CofE.
I have not come across "meeting" used for a Church Service, although I have heard it used for a mid-week meeting (for Bible study, often held in someone's home). But this a more informal use of the word.
quote:
HT asked:
But why is it more Prot to go to meeting rather than to service?
It isn't, it is just a different way of describing it, reflecting a slightly different theology.
"meeting"/"going to the meeting" - short for going to the meeting of the church. Basically, we are the church whether we are 'gathered' or not. - a church service is the meeting of the church.
I used to share a flat with 3 Brethern women, the rarely went to church, normally it was 'the meeting'.
I also remember it from 'The Waltons'.
There is also quite a range of ways that Ps describe the Mass. It ranges from the Eucharist, the Lord's Supper, Breaking Bread, Communion, the Lord's Table. Each shows a slightly different understanding of the same act.
bb
I have even seen the term "Sacrament Meeting", which seems to combine a Catholic understanding with a very Protestant one.
Greta
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
I have even seen the term "Sacrament Meeting", which seems to combine a Catholic understanding with a very Protestant one.Greta
This terminology is used by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (AKA the Mormons). Dose anyone know of any more "mainstream" group using it?
Greta
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
This may not be the appropriate thread or board for such a question, but (hoping that babybear is not reaching for her biretta) do Protestants consider the Momons to be Protestant? If not, what litmus test do they fail?Greta
This is being discussed even as we type in "What is a church?" in Purgatory (or should that be "What is a Church in purgatory?")?
I live, interestingly enough, on the same road that has all three of these churches between me and a town that is very Bible Belt--hellfire and brimstone and Bible-thumping churches for the most part; no Catholic or Lutheran or Presbyterian or Episcopal church in the town--and "God Bless America" on the sign outside the high school, which is technically illegal on a public building (as I understand Supreme Court rulings). There is also rumored to be a snake-handling church nearby here, but I don't know exactly where--if the rumor is true, I will definitely mystery worship there!
quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
This may not be the appropriate thread or board for such a question, but (hoping that babybear is not reaching for her biretta) do Protestants consider the Momons to be Protestant? If not, what litmus test do they fail?Greta
What do you mean by protestants?
Do you mean protestant christians?
If so then the question is no, as they hold beliefs that are not compatable with christianity. e.g. Jesus was created, there is a huge addition to the Bible called the book of mormon etc.
If you mean protestant relgionists, then I suppose they are along with Reform Jews, Methodists, Zen Bhuddists, and Baptists.
There are a few gray areas, Seventh Day Adventists - have been mentioned, some protestant christians accept them as christians some don't. From my very limited contact with them I would say that SDA's would accept the creeds, but add to them the OT food laws, worship on the 7th day, and the belief that Jesus has already returned to earth and is up in theair sorting the good from the bad. Also they hold the same beliefs about baptism and communion as most Baptists so.
Is it particularly protestant to bedeck the church in greens for Advent/Christmas?
I've even heard of a couple (I believe that they were baptist) planning their wedding to coincide with Christmas because the church would already be "decorated".
HT
How about this one then?
They also banned line-dancing as sinful.
They seem to have a thing about driving out their handful of high profile members.
The Free Church (the bigger denomination) have had a split too over Professor Donald Macleod who some see as too liberal because he allows things like Christmas carols (there were also nastier allegations made against him).
Macleod's actually a very good preacher (i've heard him and I was the only woman in that church without a hat - not natural territory for a liberal like me! ;-)
I don't know if antipathy to secular music counts as a bizarre practice, but the lack of charity in refusing baptism to Morrison's children takes some beating.
On the whole, they're pretty scary.
I think Father Hummerstone from Great Torrington should be sent on a mission to the Isles to sort them out.
cheers,
Louise
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I think Father Hummerstone from Great Torrington should be sent on a mission to the Isles to sort them out.
You mean the Great Torrington site isn't a pisstake?
This is probably of interest to nobody but I'd like to mention my local Free Kirk (of Scotland) minister because he has helped me banish my misconceptions or at least generalisations about the denomination. He is not only completely sane but intelligent and broad-minded, and has been able to come to certain sensible beliefs which are not exactly encouraged in the Free Kirk but are matters of conscience rather than doctrine.
Just for the record.
Hope
(Although they do have a few extreme people too - as the case against Donald Macleod seemed to show up)
L.
so we have
Free Church
Free Church Continuing
Associated Presbyterian (APC)
Free Presbyterian
is there still UPC (United presbyterian) ?
Anyone hazard a guess as to the differences between them all ?
it makes for some fascinating reading.
americans, you should be able to find it in a library cataloged as 291.0973 h.
Which of these is the "Wee Frees"?
Thanks
Chapelhead
but I'm not an expert.
Over Christmas I'll try and get someone to write it all down for me.
It might help.
Louise
Do you have any information about the Burghers and Anti-Burghers, and how they both managed to produce Old and New Lichts?
bb
As for the Altar calls, it is very interesting. In the protestant faith, altar calls are common and invite the listener to receive Christ as their Savior so that the blood of christ can atone for their sin and they can be brought in to right relationship with God and his son jesus christ by the holy spirit since the bible says that "no one comes to the Father unless the Holy Spirit draws him". There are also altar calls and whole services for the healing of the sick via the laying on of hands, anointing with oil, regular praying, Included in healing (and delierance) services, can be prayer tunnels in which the person is prayed for by altar workers (people who pray for you when you go up to the altar), intercessors (people dedicated to
intercede for God's people and others) and the pastors (main pastor, youth pastor, other pastors that may attend there) and regular christians who love God.
here is a text illustration.
the pluses are christians and the * are people walking and getting prayed for and anointed with oil.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
* * * *
* * *
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If a person is plagued or starts manifesting evil spirits he or she is taken to the side to be prayed for or is surrounded by christians to be prayed for where they are at. (there are also special classes and services for that too, but back to the altar issue.)
People come to altar (the platform on which the pastors speaks) and kneel down or stand half crying and half praying. However, according to Ken who is catholic, the altar is sacred and holy and to be treated with the utmost reverance. In effect, If i remembering right, it would make light of the altar and because of the differant traditions of A/C and EBs, the concept of "a altar call" would be alien to them. (a/cs, that is. (I wanted to find site that explained this better but I can't. maybe I email ken later.)
I will leave you with something my pastor's often says. "we are but one expression of the body of Christ (in terms of worship, prayer, preaching and all the "tat" .) (I am so happy that ruthw put the defination to that word on the board because I was going up the wall trying to figure out what it was and shoddy clothing didn't fit.
You should have a thread called the weird stuff of ACs/Highs or may be one called If you do not come from a lit background, here is what I mean when I say.....(fill in the blank) (I.e. what is triuble...more on this in the "Lil" thread to be written later)
thank you for the enjoyable board!
God's blessings and peace and happy posting.
Oh yeah, I noticed that you mentioned "the right hand of fellowship" which to me is the greeting of fellow christians and showing them that you are glad they are there. You may not of heard of its' cousin, "the left foot of fellowship". This happens to people who get kicked out of churches because of disputes of doctrine, theology, or personality. Happens to bapticostals alot. (as well as people from other denomations as well) What is a bapticostal you might ask?
A baptist that raises their hands, sings hymns, and believes in miracles and speaking in tongues as a Pent would (and can.)
All in all, a good mixtures of many of the wonderful atttibutes and practices from other denomanations helps you be a better christian any way.
Lastly, a lil more humor. After all, your board is spiked with all sorts of humor from light-hearted to sarcatic to witty to barbed to british :P. Why do Episcopalians make excellent painters? Because they always remember to put a good amount of coats on.
As for confession, the bible says: "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.(james 5:16).
So, confessing your sins to others has a biblical basis so to help one in their relationship to God and be held accountable for their actions as well. (side note: I want to comment that a church can have both accountability and strong leadership in response to a earilier post.) If they feel quickened to confess their sin, it is good that they have a pastor, christian friend or lay leader to confide in. I would agree with a earlier post that stated that humans can't absolve other people's sins. In fact, this is what infuriated the Priests of Jesus's day. When the paralysed man was brought to jesus, jesus said to him, "your sins are forgiven" because that is the most important part-forgiveness of sin and right relationship with God. The pharisees said in their hearts, Who is man, this man! that says I forgive your sins. This act (and jesus did it a couple of times) was saying I am God because only God forgives sins. This was major major no-no (blas.) for the Jews. Then Jesus read their hearts (discernement) and said which is harder ? to say your sins be forgiven or rise up and be healed? To show you that the son of man has the power of forgive sins (and in essence is God) I say to the man take up your bed and walk and the man is healed instantly (because salvation in God is forgiveness of sins followed by healing, delievering, and blessing and everything good that comes down from the Father of Lights. In fact, this directly correlates to Moses encounter with God's glory and God flew (or moved) passed him saying "The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7
Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."
Exodus 34:7-bible gateway)
Many times Christ would act in such ways to call to rememberance the acts of God in the OT and how he was God and the fulifullment of promise but not everyone caught on.
that's all.
I would hope and believe that this just you
ragging on E/Ps. I know Catholics read their bible despite stories otherwise.....As for reading the bible in church, it is marvelous to hear the word proclaimed and jesus exalted. It boggles me how many of the sermons in the MW area are 15min or less! If you ask why we speak so longer, I would ask the reverse: Why are yours so short! There are commerical breaks that are longer than some of the sermons listed. (Granted, if God touches it, 8 to 12 minutes is plenty of time, this is too short a time normally!!!!!!! In all seriousness, upcoming this week (starting on jan 7 until sat) we will be reading the Word and prclaiming it over tampa and other areas From 7am to 6pm and praying 24/7 for our city (tampa, florida) (all on this board are invited to pray and seek God for your own districts, tampa, the nation etc) thank you
two, in the post about the horrifed anglican who had lay leaders have communion on the beach...I would ask what was the intent..If they were just having a beach communion with fellow believers and they prayed over and blessed the bread and wine, and then acted in a godly way, I wouldn't see a problem with it. Now, if they were mocking communion or doing it with less than godly motives...then I could see the problem.
On a side note, i might as well just write everything here rather than a separate thread but then again. I believe objects can be blessed just as the aprons and napkins were sent out from Apostle Paul to heal the sick and open the eyes of the blind and deliver those who were posessed.
In regards to communion, (what is ribera and blackberry current?) I believe that they are three main beliefs about the power of communion. One is the catholic belief of transmutgation, which the bread and the wine actually become the body and blood of christ. The second believes that the bread and wine are merely symbols of christ's sacifice and are taken in rememberance of christ's communion and sacifice. Then, there is the third group which is in the middle. They believe that the bread and wine are not just symbols, but after being blessed, they are infused with the anointing of God so that they may bring in real time the healing that was represented in the stripes jesus took. (The person Should confess their sin before taking communion) If you confess your sins and then drink wine, (we drink welch Gj and another type of Gj) you have this burning senation in that all your sins are melted away. However, the third group does not believe it turns in to the actual body and blood. (i am in the third group)
In college our communion (methodist-CW) is intinction, we have a special chalice and plate for the elements and the elements are covered. For (CW) we use this bread called King maui bread and welch grape juice. (chapel usf uses wine and traditonal wafers and you can choose between intinction style or drinking from a shared cup of the Lord. )
At Cw, pastor keith recites the last supper narrative and then holds up the bread and prays and thanks god for it and blesses it and then breaks it. he prays and thanks god for the wine and blesses it too. Then he says, come as you are able." As you receive communion, (both places cUsf and CW) say,
abundantjoy, his body broken for you and blood shed for you so that you might be set free. then you would go sit down and pray personal prayers and then the helper would give keith communion and keith would give the helper communion.then we might pray again and then respectable eat the left over bread and wine since the communion is always fresh and new. At Chapel USf, (epl'ian, lutheren, church of christ, and pres'b) they have a special sink that has a drain that goes straight to the ground because it would be wrong to throw blessed wine down into the sewer. (I saw on a special one time Tim Allen, who was raised epl'ian and was altar boy and all and wondered if they had blessed plumbers to put those sinks in.) At my regular church, (pent) we have little plastic sealed containers that have the wine and the communion bread in them. Pastor Deb was really surprised when I told her this one time. We were talking after church about communion and I had mentioned that when you take the tops of the cups they make a pbts sound and she was like "they are sealed? Yes. She was in shock. She commented it could be communion on the go that came with a lil tape of preaching decorated in box. Joking aside, she had issues with plastic cups and throwing away blessed items. She would still take communion with us if she ever came to my church, though. If she is has to visit people she wears the black dress with collar (why dog collar ? isn't that a lil demeaning ? (same with "low") but other times it is the polo with slacks. Any way, the ushers pass out the trays with communion and people take them. I think the age limit is understanding of communion. I always make a little cross impression on the bread and as my g'ma always prayed "god help me to take communion worthly. then when ever one got one, the pastor (who shouldn't be the only one celebrating) reads the last supper narrative and speaks a little bit and then we all lift the bread together and bless it and pray over and then eat it together and then we lift up the wine and bless it and God for it and then we all drink it and then we pray both personal prayers and corporate prayers and then the usher come and get the lil cups. I think it is in the older church that still have little glasses.
quote:
Originally posted by AbundantJoy:
Where ARE all the protestants?
In bed asleep while you were posting.
Welcome to MW, AbundantJoy.
You have asked quite a number of questions, and have raised various points. Don't be surprised if it takes us a little while to answer all the points. But some suggestions as to where to start in MW.
Anglo-catholicism for beginners is a good place to start reading, and also for asking questions.
Creating the MW Dictionary is where we are making a new dictionary for MW. We already have a couple of excellent dictionaries in the webguides, but in MW sometimes words have very specific meanings. And also the dictionaries don't have many non-Anglican or non-Catholic terms.
In the Styx, you asked about 'kirk'. It is a Scots word for 'church'. I believe it is from 'kirkos' (Greek, meaning circle). The congregation used to meet in circular buildings. When it is written as 'Kirk' then it usually refers to the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian).
bb
----
MW Host
quote:
in the post about the horrified anglican who had lay leaders have communion on the beach...I would ask what was the intent..If they were just having a beach communion with fellow believers and they prayed over and blessed the bread and wine, and then acted in a godly way, I wouldn't see a problem with it.
I haven't gone back over the thread to find the post referred to (it's a long thread). But my answer would be that in the Anglican church only an ordained priest is allowed to celebrate the eucharist and bless the bread and wine (or bless anything else if it comes to that). A lay reader is not permitted to do that.
If what they were using was reserved elements (i.e. consecrated on a previous occasion by a priest) then that could be permitted, but I would still question under what authority they had carried the elements to a beach (I think they would need the priest's permission).
I have Anglican friends who consider themselves to be quite high but wouldn't get worked up at this. To my mind that just shows how little most Anglicans know about their Church.
But, one important thing is that most of the churches have reunited and come together in the end, and ended up as CofS, even tho some people insisted on staying separate. ............................................One thing I miss is the congregation being able to choose the minister. Here in the CofE, I wait to hear the news of who will be our new vicar and we haven't even heard him/her preach, tho the PCC did get a chance to meet the short-listed candidates. So my sympathies are definitely with the Disruption of 1843 when more than half the church left in disgust at the removal of their (as they believed) God-given right to choose their minister.
quote:
Originally posted by AbundantJoy:
Question: Why would HT (and why that nickname?) run screaming out of a pent communion?
Hello Abundant Joy and welcome to our little churchy corner of cyberspace.
It was actually Dyfrig who suggested that I might run screaming from Elim communion. I imagine he thinks that the practices of the Elim community would be so far at variance with the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer that I screaming and running might be the natural reaction of a Prayer Book devotee like me.
As to your other question, I assume people call me HT because they cannot be bothered to type out "Hooker's Trick".
Oh yes -- Ribena is a soft drink, and blackcurrant is one of the flavours it comes in. Think "grape flavoured drink" as an American equivalent.
HT
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Louise, thanks for that diagram. I had to know all that stuff about Auld Lichts and New Lichts at uni .....and I've forgotten exactly their differences
One of the primary reasons my own denomination came into existance was this very problem.
On the American frontier in the late 1700's and early 1800's, there were many Scot-Irish immigrants who were not able to recieve communion because ministers were few and far between, and often of the "wrong" kind of Presbyterian church. The divisions made some sort of sense in Scotland, but were utterly irrelevant on the American west (i.e. western Pennsylvania and Ohio).
Alexander Campbell was raised in the Old Light, Anti-Burgher Seceeder Presbyterian Church, and was aghast that he was not allowed to commune with New Light Anti-Burgher Seceeder Presbyterians. This led to his departure from the Prebyterians and the beginings of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the US and Canada.
As for our "bizarre" practices:
1) Baptism by immersion, although we accept transfer from other traditions.
2) Weekly celebration of communion/Lord's Supper. We have a joke that you might be a Disciple if you visit another of our congregations and learn yet another way to "do" communion. Every congregation has a slightly different way of doing it.
3) In larger congregations, the minister usually wears a geneva gown and stole (I do this). In smaller and more rural congregations, he will wear a suit and tie.
4) Choirs most often wear robes, at least in larger congregations.
5) Ministers are called by the congregation rather than appointed. The call process includes consultation with the Regional Minister (analogous to a bishop in the ministry of oversight).
6) Communion is generally with the individual cups of Welch's grape juice. Our history includes strong prohibitionist tendencies. We are trying to live that down now. The bread is usually small unlevened wafers (about 1/8 by 1/2 inches). There is a trend among us to move to the single loaf of (pita) bread and intinction in a common cup. We will often do this on special occasions.
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I haven't gone back over the thread to find the post referred to (it's a long thread). But my answer would be that in the Anglican church only an ordained priest is allowed to celebrate the eucharist and bless the bread and wine (or bless anything else if it comes to that). A lay reader is not permitted to do that.If what they were using was reserved elements (i.e. consecrated on a previous occasion by a priest) then that could be permitted, but I would still question under what authority they had carried the elements to a beach (I think they would need the priest's permission).
Thanks for the info, I appriacate it.
It is seem a bit strict, though.
cheers to BB for the un-kirking of sparkling grape juice to welcome me.I have Anglican friends who consider themselves to be quite high but wouldn't get worked up at this. To my mind that just shows how little most Anglicans know about their Church.
My friend Greg (who i will post some discussion in the L year T) and many others agree that many people don't know what their church believes. One time, a guy who went to a Methodist church told Greg that they don't do that tithing stuff at his church to which Greg reply, yes they do (but a lil stronger) so it is not just the anglicicans. (ps. is a AC the same a regular catholic or is one more strict than the other or etc. PS. Take time answering questions thank you for all
"tat" you have done.
peace out.
It was actually Dyfrig who suggested that I might run screaming from Elim communion. I imagine he thinks that the practices of the Elim community would be so far at variance with the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer that I screaming and running might be the natural reaction of a Prayer Book devotee like me.
I was rereading this and I thought to type that I love to pray (and intercede) but usually in exposo form regularily or if God specially lays something on my heart.
An earlier part of this thread was discussing how some of the more extreme Scottish presbyterian groups are very particular about whom you mix with. And I'm sure that many Protestants are very strict about alcohol (although my brother is an elder or something in some sort of free church which doesn't seem to have any effect at all on his alcohol consumption). The comments about ribena and grape juice remind me that the canons of the Church of England require that the fermentedjuice of the grape must be used for communion.
You asked about the difference between AC and regular catholic (by which I expect you mean Roman Catholic). There are plenty of others on these message boards better equipped than I to say and there is a "What is Anglo-Catholicism" thread, although I couldn't find it just now - and it probably doesn't answer such fundamental questions.
However, for what it's worth, a Roman Catholic is obviously a member of that church and a follower of the Pope. An Anglo-Catholic is a member of an Anglican church (CofE or ECUSA) who follows in the footsteps of the C19th Oxford Movement of renewal in the CofE, which emphasised the catholic, ritualistic heritage of Anglicanism. They're also often quite conservative theologically. If you want to taste high church ritual (incense/vestments/precise movements) done properly nowadays, forget the Romans and try out an AC church.
(Actually this is not necessarily a new phenomenon: it was said in 1876 of St Barnabas in Oxford, which I used to know well, "The poor humble Roman Church hard by is quite plain, simple and Low Church in its ritual compared with St Barnabas in its festal dress on high days and holidays" For those who know Jude the Obscure, but Thomas Hardy, St Barnabas appeared as St Silas's.
quote:
In the Styx, you asked about 'kirk'. It is a Scots word for 'church'. I believe it is from 'kirkos' (Greek, meaning circle). The congregation used to meet in circular buildings.
Actually, I think the word "kirk" (and likewise the English "church") derives from the Greek word kyriake, an adjective meaning "the Lord's".
quote:
Originally posted by LatinMan:
Actually, I think the word "kirk" (and likewise the English "church") derives from the Greek word kyriake, an adjective meaning "the Lord's".
That was a suggestion of the etymology at
bartleby.com. However it goes on to say:
quote:
but this is most improbable, as the word existed in all the Celtic dialects long before the introduction of Greek. No doubt the word means “a circle.” The places of worship among the German and Celtic nations were always circular. (Welsh, cyrch; French, cirque; Scotch, kirk; Greek, kirk-os, etc.) Compare Anglo-Saxon circe, a church, with circol, a circle.
bb
singing "As with Gladness", as a way of "looking forward to Christmas" in kingdom season. the Local Preacher taking the service used advent and Christmas interchangeably.
It wasn't even Christ the King! Admittedly, this was in a methodist church.
Angel
quote:
The Frees are quite different from the Free Presbyterians, if that hasn't been spelled out, and shouldn't be tarred with the same brush.
(Although they do have a few extreme people too - as the case against Donald Macleod seemed to show up)
Yes, that was why I gave the full name of the denomination I was talking about, but as you realised it didn't clarify things for anyone who didn't already know about the various groups using the words "free", "church" and "Scotland" in their names. So thanks. Oh, and thanks for the diagram as well which I'm going to need to refer to at times I think!
The guy who was above all responsible for my impression of the Free Kirk (as we all know, boys and girls, experience of one person is not a good reason for disliking any group ) was also in the Free Kirk of Scotland.
Chapelhead said:
quote:
Which of these is the "Wee Frees"?
I think it's the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, but that's only the way I've heard the phrase used. The implication when I've heard it is that Wee Frees are "stricter" than (the presumably somewhat larger) Frees.
Hope
(Sorry Angel, carry on! )
I am sure these cannot be Elizabethan trays of the tiny glasses that we've discussed.
What, pray tell, is a Communion Cup?
HT
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
What, pray tell, is a Communion Cup?
A brief history of communion cups.
Before the removal of the cup from the laity (from about the twelfth century), in the West two types of chalice were used; the celebrant's chalice and a ministerial chalice (called a scyphus), from which the laity would drink (this was necessarily larger than the celebrant's chalice and had two handles for ease of holding.
After the priest had consecrated the wine, some of it would be added to the wine already in the ministerial chalice, consecrating the whole. The laity would then drink from the ministerial chalice (which they would do standing up, sucking the wine through a silver or gold object rather like a drinking straw). In large churches several ministerial chalices might be used, each receiving a little of the wine from the consecrated chalice.
After the cup was removed from the laity the ministerial chalices were no longer used. In addition the celebrant's chalice became smaller, as it was no longer necessary to consecrate wine to add to the ministerial chalice (the celebrant's chalice was used by the celebrant alone, so could be quite small).
When the cup was returned to the laity in the Church of England after the reformation, it was found that the chalices were not big enough for practical use, so larger communion cups were made and purchased, hence the reference you have found.
Possibly, the objects we use today could more properly be called communion cups than chalices, but this may be getting into pedantry (not that that has ever stopped shipmates in the past).
This is what I grew up with, though now in my dotage I am more inclined to the common chalice as a symbol of our unity at the Table of the Lord, and breaking a single loaf rather than the little chicken pellets we usually use.
I am not blaming Victorians as I also seem to recall it originated in United States of America.
quote:
Originally posted by Campbellite:
I think what is meant by "communion cup" at least in our corner of Protestantism, is the small "shot glasses" that are passed in trays. Each tray usually has 40 or so communion cups.
Nowadays this is a common use of the term "communion cup", but I have no doubt that in the context that HT has come across is the term is being used for the item we would often now (incorrectly) term a chalice.
Interestingly, the 1662 BCP (and every other service book I know of) uses the correct term "cup", except in the rubric where is states
quote:
And here to lay his hand upon every vessel (be it Chalice or Flagon) in which there is any Wine to be consecrated.
This suggests to me that some parishes hadn't got round to buying a communion cup and were continuing to use the smaller chalice, replenishing it from a flagon when necessary.
What do non-Lent-observing protestants do to prepare for Easter?
Lent is not a season, but a practise that is carried out throught all of the year. "We don't save up our sins to confess them in Lent!" "Before each service we examine ourselves, and confess our sins."
This a differnt perspective. But the major mark of Lent in Presby churches in the UK are ecumenical Lenten Study groups.
There is also a certain section of the church that seems to havefeast muddled with fast. The year before last I came out of church on Christmas morning thinking "Today of all days is when I want to rejoice and give thanks, instead I am made to feel like a miserable sinner."
I am definitely a sinner, but surely even sinners can have a chance to glorify the Lord at Christmas.
I think that the AC have quite a bit to teach us about how to feast.
bb
quote:
Ah, but that is where you come across the differing theology. Easter is not once a year. Every Sunday we acknowledge, remember and rejoice in Easter.Lent is not a season, but a practise that is carried out throught all of the year. "We don't save up our sins to confess them in Lent!" "Before each service we examine ourselves, and confess our sins."
But so do those who mark the liturgical year. It is for this reason that (in the West at least) that Sundays are not part of Lent because every Sunday is a fast day.
But the liturgical year changes the focus so that we can take things in better, because we cannot hope to include everything all the time. Or that's my perspective.
Carys
quote:
Carys said:
But so do those who mark the liturgical year. It is for this reason that (in the West at least) that Sundays are not part of Lent because every Sunday is a fast day.
Surely you mean that every Sunday is a feast day . . .
bb
quote:
Surely you mean that every Sunday is a feast day . . .
Of course I did. That'll teach me to post when I'm not awake!
quote:
Yup Carys, I know. But HT wanted the whole Lenten-non-event thing explained. I believe it is all down to Calvanistic theology.
I know that, it was just that the way you explained it implied that those of us who do keep the liturgical year wouldn't agree with that statement, or at least that's what I inferred! Sorry, I'm sensitive on this matter having had four years of odd looks for thinking that the liturgical year is important and valuable and something to be used to the full rather than paying lip service to it because otherwise some in the congregation will moan.
Carys
quote:
What do non-Lent-observing protestants do to prepare for Easter?
Eat Cadbury Easter Creme Eggs!
But seriously, why do you have to "prepare for Easter"?
Stephen
(a protestant who does not observe Lent and really doesn't know why you need to)
quote:
Originally posted by Papa Smurf:
You know this year is the first time I've heard mention of Sundays not counting in Lent -sound to me just like an excuse to break your fast, and go back on your word.
The fasting is less "impressive", because then you're just doing it 6 days in a row...
Sundays "cannot" be fast days because they are days of celebration (of the resurrection), and clearly we have more to celebrate than to give us reason to fast. Sundays have never counted as part of Lent (at least, not since Lent has existed in the form we understand it) which is why Lent lasts for 46 days despite (in part) commemorating the 40 days Jesus spent in the wilderness. Those who observe Lent still get 40 days of fasting/abstinence.
quote:
Originally posted by Oriel:
I thought Holy Week counted as a separate fast, so it`s still 40 days up to Palm Sunday?
Well, you get up to some strange things north of the border . But I'm sure that Lent is 46 days because Sunday's are not fast days, because they are celebratory (and you get bread and wine).
quote:
Originally posted by Papa Smurf:
So how many non church, (for want of a better word) people who are familiar with the idea of fasting from something for Lent know about not fasting on a Sunday ?
Not many, I imaging (especially considering the number of church people who do not know that Sunday is not a fast day). But it goves a good chance to explain the gospel when explaining why Sunday is not a fast day
I think the teaching was that we are to live every day in a disciplined way, and to do something 'extra', like giving up a bad habit, for just a while was not sufficient. We needed to be giving that up permanently. The only reason for giving up a legitimate pleasure would be to use the money saved to help someone in poverty.
Also, Jesus fasted completely for 40 days - if we were to fast, for a reason, like seeking God's will about something, or as an adjunct to intercessionary prayer, then we would do it, privately, but not on the way to a celebration like Easter.
Jesus fasted for a particular reason and that was all about him, not necessarily for us to copy. There is definitely an awareness that Jesus was special.
Easter Sunday is a special celebation, but it is celebrated as an extra awareness that Jesus is alive. There is no 'acting out' the Easter story, as in long services on Good Friday (not a holiday in my childhood - is it nowadays, Papa Smurf?), or any feeling of 'mourning' Jesus - after all, he's alive and that's what's important because if he'd stayed dead we wouldn't have been saved and we wouldn't have any hope ourselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Sunday's are not fast days, because they are celebratory (and you get bread and wine).
We don't get bread and wine every Sunday, and I'm sure ours isn't the only church not to....
quote:
Originally posted by Papa Smurf:
We don't get bread and wine every Sunday, and I'm sure ours isn't the only church not to....
Shame on me for forgetting my low church (Baptist) roots and making such an apparent assumption.
quote:
Originally posted by Papa Smurf:
And I think nowadays in most places Good Friday is taken as a holiday, but only because it is everywhere else, i.e. it is a UK Bank Holiday....
Our University, due to a desire to have fixed term lengths, no longer necessarily corresponds the Easter holiday with Easter itself. Should Easter fall outwith the holiday, we get Easter Monday as an extra day off. Easter Monday. Not Good Friday.
Easter Monday was definitely a major holiday, when everyone (whole families) went for a picnic and rolled dyed eggs down hills. They were very often red - don't know if any significance, or because cochineal was available, and sometimes stripy brown (onion skins tied around them while they boiled).
And in C of S, we didn't have communion necessarily either on Easter Sunday.
The Baptist church I later joined had 7am Easter Sunday service with comunion as the after-service. That was a wonderful praise service.
In my presbyterian congregation until about 10 years ago all the elders (who were at that time of course also all men) wore tail coats to dispense communion.
And, re the general restrictivness of the Free Church of Scotland: I had a free friend who told me I ought not to be wearing trousers since these were male attire. I tried to point out to him that since mine had a side zip and a 25 inch inside leg that they could hardly be for any man, but he wasn't having it.
bb
quote:
I had a free friend who told me I ought not to be wearing trousers since these were male attire. I tried to point out to him that since mine had a side zip and a 25 inch inside leg that they could hardly be for any man, but he wasn't having it.
You should have got him a pair of the same for him to wear to church
quote:
Originally posted by Lovely Doggie:And, re the general restrictivness of the Free Church of Scotland: I had a free friend who told me I ought not to be wearing trousers since these were male attire. I tried to point out to him that since mine had a side zip and a 25 inch inside leg that they could hardly be for any man, but he wasn't having it.
Rhetorical question (I am musing.....) if the church is so restrictive, why is it called a 'free' church???
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Tail coat as in white tie and tails, or do you mean a frock coat?
Well really HT, I'm surprised at you. I'm sure that Lovely Doggie meant a Morning Coat or, as Colonialist Rebel Rubes such as Alastair Cooke might call it, a 'Cutaway' coat. A frock coat, as worn by the clergy and all other professions in their everyday working life, is different from a Morning Coat which is worn for daytime formal wear and a Tail Coat is only worn with a white tie in the evening for extra formal wear (in place of the dinner coat and black tie). Thus the Church of Scotland elders who, no doubt, were dispensing communion on behalf of their Governor, Queen Elizabeth, were quite correct to wear Morning Coats. If only more laymen were as well versed in these matters as they.
Cosmo
quote:
daisymay recalled:
Easter Monday was definitely a major holiday, when everyone (whole families) went for a picnic and rolled dyed eggs down hills. They were very often red - don't know if any significance, or because cochineal was available, and sometimes stripy brown (onion skins tied around them while they boiled).
Actually, yep, there is a reason for red eggs, and it's all to do with Mary Magdalene.
From
this web page (which incidently also has a really nice icon image of her)
quote:
The Eastern tradition tells us that after the Ascension she journeyed to Rome where she was admitted to the court of Tiberius Caesar because of her high social standing. After describing how poorly Pilate had administered justice at Jesus’ trial, she told Caesar that Jesus had risen from the dead. To help explain His resurrection she picked up an egg from the dinner table. Caesar responded that a human being could no more rise from the dead than the egg in her hand turn red. The egg turned red immediately, which is why red eggs have been exchanged at Easter for centuries in the Byzantine East.
This page has a slightly different version, and symbolic meanings for other colours.
Counting the days til Easter...
Kirsti, who did know about the Sunday's feasting thing since becoming a Catholic, but didn't in my Anglican days.
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
A Tail Coat is only worn with a white tie in the evening for extra formal wear (in place of the dinner coat and black tie).
I think that, if one is being very particular, "black tie" (dinner jacket and black bow tie) is the alternative to the more proper "white tie" (tail-coat and white bow tie) rather than the other way around.
I was taught that if an invitiation to dine included the words "Dress informal" then it referred to black tie (which is informal, compared with white tie, the normal attire for dining).
One of my pet peeves is that so few men (especially orchestra conductors, it seems)understand the difference between tail-coat trousers and dinner jacket trousers.
And I am very disappointed that Lovely doggie's elders have stopped wearing morning coats. I have no doubt that it added a great deal of charm to the service. Does anyone still have such a tradition?
Pip pip
Inanna,
Now, the Scots got their Stone of Destiny from Syria (and it was originally Jacob's pillow), so it's quite possible that we got the egg tradition from the East as well. We didn't aquire the RC church till much later, and there are interesting theories about the Celtic Church.
We were usually taught at Sunday School that the eggs were representing the stone rolled away from the tomb, but I do vaguely recollect something like the 'breaking open to new life'. And we did have to break them - when you rolled them down the hill you tried to smash other peoples' eggs.
Wouldn't that be every so much more interesting? You know, "Service of Holy Communion. Decorations to be worn."
The following requires an understanding that Baptist ministers get very wet during baptisms (but usually not as wet as those baptised).
The pastor of the church at which I was baptised wore "casual" clothes for baptisms (shirt and trousers), but I used to know a pastor who thought it unseemly for him to lead a service in other than a suit and tie, consequently for baptisms he had a washable suit (one suspects a high polyester content).
I have also heard that some minsters have a set of "waders" to put over their other clothes when baptising, in order to keep their clothes dry, but I have never seen these in use (I have also heard it rumoured that the vatican has an ancient set of such waders, suggesting a long tradition for them - but this may be entirely untrue).
Could people share with me their own traditions and experiences of clerical attire for proper "dunkings"?
Pip pip
It is true that in many immersionist congregations (which includes Baptists and Disciples) you will find that the minister will wear hip waders to baptize. That makes it easier for the minister to change into dry clothes (While the choir sings an anthem or hymn) before returning to the pulpit to continue the service.
It seems odd that I did not come across waders in my Baptist days. The ministers I knew got wet and then got changed. Perhaps they are in greater use outside the UK. Does your minister use them?
) used to wear waders for baptisms. Now he came from the north-east of Scotland, where there are loads of fishermen, and they all use waders in their day-to-day lives. So maybe it's just because they are locally commonly available.The Brethern halls in Fife also used waders to keep their elders dry when they were baptising. Once, the water in the baptistry was too deep and slopped over the top and the elder was so weighed down that he nearly couldn't drag himself out of the pool.
Another time a wee elder was baptising half a dozen young strapping six footer fishermen. He managed all right for the first five, but slipped and was dragged under with the sixth.
We were baptised in white overalls, and strictly instructed to wear thick, non-transparent bras and pants - no wet t-shirt parades allowed. However, when it came to my children's era, daughter was baptised in dungarees and son in jeans. Two men in the congregation did the baptism, one on each side, very easy and efficient. They dressed in shorts and t-shirts.
Once we had a visitor who was amazed that we could have a whole baptistry full of "holy water", not realizing it wasn't.
We had immersion heaters to warm the water up, and once nearly boiled people - luckily someone noticed steam rising and added cold water.
My friend's litle girl baptised her teddy one Sunday after the baptismal service...
Surely that's cheating.
The dresses were fairly non-see-though when wet, but we were instructed to wear swimming costumes underneath, for the sake of decorum.
Does anyone know if, in very traditional Baptist (and similar) churches, female candidates wear hats (bonnets?) when getting baptised?
.I meant that candidates of both sexes were instructed to wear swimming costumes under their other clothes when getting baptised.
When my husband was baptised he wore shorts and T-shirt.
Hope
Also instructions to lean back without bending my knees and the water would bounce me back up - which it did. The minister wore a black academic robe I think, ( ), but it was a thin one, not the usual heavy one he wore to preach.
What did you lot do about drying? I was whisked off to a vestry where there was a tin bath to stand in and drip. But in Westbourne Grove, they had 2 vestries, men and women, and not only did the floor-boards come up to reveal the baptistry, but there were lead-lined sections of floor which led all the way to the vestries from the platform. The ancient (long disused) white women's robes there were made of 'nun's veiling'.
An old friend of mine who was baptised about the turn of the 19th C said after her baptism, the girls and women all spent ages combing and brushing and drying their long hair in a specially warmed room.
We had dresses of a rather dull lilac, with big white collars, and special little straps under the skirts, which we tied round our legs to avoid the "billowing" problem.
I remember being most miffed coz the people from the other church being baptised all had these rather elegant flowy white robe things.
And you came up out of the water, and the two elders baptising you then prayed in tongues until you basically collapsed "under the Spirit" in their arms and so got redunked!
Kirsti
, that we (most of the church) had to wade out a long way to get enough depth of water, and then the musicians with guitars had to try and avoid little waves of sea-water joining in the fun baptising their instruments. No particular dress code.Our local vicar borrowed Westbourne Grove for an immersion baptism and dunked the young man 3 times - "In the Name of the Father, in the Name of the Son and in the Name of the Holy Spirit."
Making sure it was Trinitarian.
He did better another time - dunked an 80yr old woman very gently only once.
quote:
Our local vicar borrowed Westbourne Grove for an immersion baptism and dunked the young man 3 times - "In the Name of the Father, in the Name of the Son and in the Name of the Holy Spirit."
Making sure it was Trinitarian.
Quite right too. Generally you only say 'in the name of' but it gives extra time if dunking each time. While we're on this subject, what words are used in non-liturgical churches?
Carys
I've also heard, "X, ....I baptise you in the Name of Jesus."
There would always be a "testimony" of how the person came to be converted, or an interview if they were really nervous. Also they might be asked a few questions about their faith and why they wanted to be baptised.
quote:
An old friend of mine who was baptised about the turn of the 19th C said after her baptism, the girls and women all spent ages combing and brushing and drying their long hair in a specially warmed room.
Good Heavens!! turn of the 19th C would make your friend about 200 if she were here today! Either that, or, how old are you!!!
(I think you meant turn of the 20th C...)
- but I did mean about 1900. Still can't get used to the 21st C.
quote:
Mostly, "X, , on your profession of faith, I baptise you in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Splash!!!!I've also heard, "X, ....I baptise you in the Name of Jesus."
It's the latter that I heard at my friend's baptism at an independent evangelical Church. Which gives me a problem, in that I'm not convinced baptism in the name of Jesus alone is valid - read Matthew 28:19. As she doesn't reckon that my baptism (as an infant) is valid, that leaves us in an interesting position. I try not to think about it too much. But why do some Churches baptise in the name of Jesus only?
Carys
Every verse, bar the one that Carys mentioned, said about being baptised in the name of Jesus.
Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ."
Acts 8:16
because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 10:48
So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ
Acts 19:5
On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
bb
Incidentally, some Catholic parishes have started baptizing adults by immersion, and even more are pouring water so the entire person gets wet, as in the pictures here.
FCB
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Incidentally, some Catholic parishes have started baptizing adults by immersion, and even more are pouring water so the entire person gets wet, as in the pictures here.
How splendid.
White is a more appropriate colour to wear after the baptism, and in the early church, when most baptisms were carried out on Easter Sunday, the candidates would then wear their white robes until Low Sunday.
I believe also that at a time when very many Baptisms were also carried out at Pentecost, the number of people being baptised and then wearing white became so great that it became known as White Sunday (Whitsun).
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Quite right too. Generally you only say 'in the name of' but it gives extra time if dunking each time. While we're on this subject, what words are used in non-liturgical churches?Carys
When I was an assistant minister in a Protestant German church they told me before my first baptism that I had to use the trinitarian formula unaltered.
Apparently one of my predecessors (young and foolish like we all were) had baptised "In the name of God who is to us father and mother, in the name of JX who is our Lord and Brother etc...."
Theologically perfectly ok (after all the entire imagery is biblical) if a bit unusual. So one should think. But a huge row followed when an elder complained to the Church HQ. The problem was that ecumenical recognition of baptism with Orthodox and RCC is in danger if we don't stick every word with the biblical words in Matth 28.
And the fear of having anabaptism going on is very strong...
In order for me to be a member of the CofE it is necessary for me to have been baptised. The test for whether a baptism is "valid" in the eyes of the CofE is that it must have involved water and be in the name of the Trinity (see the rubric towards the end of the service of "Private Baptism of Infants" in the BCP, for example).
Because my baptism fell into this category it is regarded as valid by the CofE, but a baptism in the name of Jesus would not be so recognised (at lest, it should not, according to Ecclesiastical law). My Baptism would be recognised as valid by almost all Christian denominations and groups, except for the Orthodox and some protestant churches with strict requirements for baptism within their own churches.
But this is in danger of getting a little non-bizarre.
Did those of you baptised as adults have to "give a testimony" as part of the service, telling the church how and why you came to make the decision to get baptised? I did, and looking back on it I don't know how I managed it.
The little cups of grape juice are served to people where they are - probably to signify that those who've attained the dizzy heights of deacon-hood aren't any better than the other celebrants.....
AND doesn't everybody know that when Jesus turned the water into wine and drank some, it turned right back into water before hitting his stomach..... [EMAIL]null[/EMAIL]
quote:
Originally posted by Duns Scotus:
And the fear of having anabaptism going on is very strong...
I'm a good anabaptist.
Chapelhead said, "Because my baptism fell into this category it is regarded as valid by the CofE, but a baptism in the name of Jesus would not be so recognised (at lest, it should not, according to Ecclesiastical law). My Baptism would be recognised as valid by almost all Christian denominations and groups, except for the Orthodox and some protestant churches with strict requirements for baptism within their own churches."
We had a discussion about this, when some Anglican friends visited a baptism and some of the candidates were baptised "in the name of Jesus" and others "trinitarianly". They came to the conclusion that as it all took place in the context of a trinitarian service, the baptism was validly trinitarian, and the words were not to be taken legalistically.
quote:
some of the candidates were baptised "in the name of Jesus" and others "trinitarianly".
Why? That just strikes me as bizarre.
Carys
Bongo
quote:
Originally posted by Bongo:
I really should know the answer to this question, but what are Presbyterians?!Bongo
quote:
but what are Presbyterians?!
To an extent it depends where you are. In Wales it is the old Calvinistic Methodists. In England most of them united with the Congregationalists to form the URC - though not all did - and in Scotland the CoS and the Free CoS and the wee frees are all Presby (as I understand it).
Carys
quote:
Originally posted by Bongo:
what are Presbyterians?!
In the US, these are Presbyterians.
quote:
Originally posted by Bongo:
what are Presbyterians?!
Seventeenth-century regicides.
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
I'm a good anabaptist.
Are you sure? (about the anabaptist bit - I'm sure you're good).
Even in my Baptist days I would never have described myself as an anabaptist, which I regard almost as a term of abuse. I am/was a baptist, not an anabaptist.
But for an adult, with full emersion, they they are done once,at the end of the 'formula'.
bb
It think
quote:
Originally posted by Bongo:
I really should know the answer to this question, but what are Presbyterians?!Bongo
I think Bongo's question was perhaps more along the lines of description, or dictionary definition, rather than "which groups are Presbyterians ?"
basically the governing of church and congreagtional matters is done by elders (who are members of the church / congregation)or presbyters, and not by Popes, bishops etc....
But in the Presbyterian Church, presbyters are the congregation. All of the congregation are priests. The minister, and the elders are people that the people have deemed worthy to serve them.
bb
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
In the Methodist and Anglican church, presbyter is the term used for odained priest/minister.But in the Presbyterian Church, presbyters are the congregation. All of the congregation are priests. The minister, and the elders are people that the people have deemed worthy to serve them.
Ditto Baptists.
I mean in terms of leadership/government, theology, and idiosynchracies (sp?!), if any.
NB: I speak as a MOR Church of England gal.
Bongo
quote:
Originally posted by Bongo:
So what exactly is the difference between Baptists and Presbyterians?I mean in terms of leadership/government, theology, and idiosynchracies (sp?!), if any.
In Canada, being formerly a member of a Baptist church and now a member of a Presbyterian church, the biggest difference that I see is that Baptists only baptize adults whereas Presbyterians baptize infants. Of course, there maybe other differences.
Most of the other differences are structural and administrative, I imagine.
quote:
Originally posted by Bongo:
Quite. So what exactly is the difference between Baptists and Presbyterians?I mean in terms of leadership/government, theology, and idiosynchracies (sp?!), if any.
NB: I speak as a MOR Church of England gal.
Bongo
Basically Church Government and Baptism.
Taking Church Government First
Presbyterians have a central form of Government which is usually a synod which rather like the synod of the CoE makes the decisions for the Presbyterian Church. The amount of power it has varies from Presbyterian denomination to denomination (a word I hate but I want to distinguish between say the Church of Scotland and The Wee Frees both of which are Presbyterians but are rather diffferent) So in some Presbyterian churches the synod has absolute power in other it is like the CoE's. Unlike the CoE's synod it is totally lay even the ministers there are lay (though since they believe in the priesthood of all believers you caould say that they are totally a house of priests!)
Baptists and Congregationalist churches have the local church as the ultimate authority
and all decisions are made by the church meeting of members of that local church - including the appointment and pay of any minister(s). However they do link together with other Baptist (or Congregationlist) churches in Associations or Conventions
voluntarily but it is the local church that appoints members to the association and decides whether it should be a member or not. In Great Britain most baptist churches belong to a local assocation and in turn the asociation co-operate in the Baptist Union of Great Britain, but in theory the Baptist Union has no power over its member churches. As membership is volentary there are other associations such as Grace Baptist which has nothing to do with the Baptist Union and is stricter demanding Calvinist beliefs.
In England most Presbyterians and Congrgationalists joined together to form the United Reform Church which has a hybrid form of church government.
OK now Baptism
Presbyterians go for infant baptism like the CoE, in fact their baptismal beliefs tend to be the same as the CoE. Congregationalists hold similar views.
Baptists get their name from their distinct teaching on baptism which is called believers baptism. That is infants are not baptised but only those who make a public confession of their faith are baptised. Inn the case of children of Baptists the children are allowed to decide if or when they are baptised (the most common tiome to choose is mid-teens). Before anyone can be baptised at least the minister must be convinced of them being a christian. However a conversion experience is not necessarily required as Baptists are not necessarily evangelicals although the majority probably are.
One further difference is that Presbyterians have historically tended to be Calvinist (though that is not so true today) while Baptists have been divided between Particular Baptists (calvinists) and General (or FreeWill) Baptists (non-calvinists) and only formed a union at the end of the 19th century when non-calvinism became the majority view amoung the particilars.
I don't know how bizarre Protestant or Baptist church governance is (I'll leave it for you to decide), but I do know that it is not a bizarre practice.
So please open a separate thread to discuss the ecclesiology of calvinists, congregationalists, presbys, regicides, baptists, adult-dunkers, Amish or any other such.
Here, though, can we please discuss the bizarre practice of public confessions of conversion?
HT [MW Host]
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
I'm a good anabaptist.
That's a contradiction in terms.
Cosmo
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
That's a contradiction in terms.Cosmo
Why, what have the Mennonites (or Amish) ever done to upset you?
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Here, though, can we please discuss the bizarre practice of public confessions of conversion?
[MW Host]
Yes please. I had to do it (and apparently so did daisymay, so let's have a few more confessions of profession.
[Aside]My great apologies if my previous comment seemed detreimental to those happy to describe themselves as anabaptist. I was thinking only in terms of the usual UK use of that term and in particular my own understanding of it. [/Aside]
[ubb]
[ 20 March 2002: Message edited by: babybear ]
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
That's a contradiction in terms.
Cosmo, read the 3rd Commandment recently? Cos you have just broken it.
quote:
Name-calling and personal insults are not allowed, regardless of the context. The same goes for comment which stereotypes or attacks people on the basis of their race, nationality, age, gender, religious belief or sexual preference..... When discussing a specific people group, please mentally substitute the name of a shipmate for the group in question before you post your message.
If you want to start a thread discussing the merits and demerits of the Anabaptists, then please do feel free.
bb
----
MW Host
quote:
I don't know how bizarre Protestant or Baptist church governance is (I'll leave it for you to decide), but I do know that it is not a bizarre practice.
You obviously have never been to a Baptist Church Meeting - very bizarre
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Here, though, can we please discuss the bizarre practice of public confessions of conversion?
What, you mean 'testimony'?
It's common in our church services but by no means all-pervading. It's usual for a personal statement of one's faith and/or conversion to be given before one is baptised, usually in the same service.
I remember this happening in an Anglican church of my acquaintance. A, um, minister with a guitar ministry and his ex-model wife were leading the service. She gave her testimony - which involved 20 minutes or so of described what she used to do - modelling, hanging around in Hollywood, lying next to swimming pools, etc, etc - and then, noticing that she'd gone way over time, was concluded in less than a minute with something along the lines of "And then I became a Christian and now I do this."
Hmmm.
A couple of weeks agao, we had a 'testimony' from a woman who then went on to speak for half-an-hour on a variety of rambling subjects, some of them possibly quite offensive.
Our Pastor was not pleased. Neither was I, for that matter.
But when it's done properly - and honestly, testimony can be very useful, both as an alternative (ie. non-sermon) way of communicating beliefs, as something which can be both encouraging and challenging, and which can also help us to get to know people in the church other than the leadership.
It's not about 'therapy' - it doesn't work like that, and it's often more edgy that 'cuddly'.
And it doesn't have to be about conversion, either.
Anabaptists or Mennonites are not fairly mainstream as Astro claims (in the way that Quakers or the Salvation Army are not fairly mainstream). Not only do they uphold the doctrine of the baptism of believers only (ie no infant baptism) they also deny that any baptism an infant received was not a true baptism and that they need to be re-baptised. That is a complete denial of the baptismal regeneration and a denial of the saving grace of God. After all, it means that we tell God if his grace is working or not. 'No God. You were firing blanks with little Leo twenty years ago. Now he's grown up, he can now tell you to forgive him. Thanks a lot.'
Not even the strictest of strict Pius X Society Catholics would claim that a Trinitarian baptism, done at Westminster Abbey or a tin hut in Indiana, needs to be done again.
That's what I mean.
Cosmo
quote:
Seventeenth-century regicides.
Those are Independents/congregationalists, HT, Scottish Presbyterians opposed the regicide, accepted Charles II as King and went to war with Cromwell. In consequence thousands of Scots Presbyterians were killed fighting for Charles II.
I don't think the English Presbyterians supported the regicide either.
Louise
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
I'm not having a go at daisymay herself for describing herself as a 'good anabaptist' but questioning, like Chapelhead, whether she really understands what that means.
I would like to point out that I have already apologised for any offence my comment might have made (although none was intended). I would also point out that I am/have been someone to whom the term anabaptist could be applied (incorrectly in my view, presumably correctly in Cosmo’s view) and that, far from regarding anabaptists as ‘not good’ I have no problem with the views normally termed ‘anabaptist’.
Back to the thread…
Whenever someone is asked to give a testimony and talk about ‘their Christian life’ my thought is always to want to hear about their ‘non-Christian life’, which sounds much more interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
I'm not having a go at daisymay herself for describing herself as a 'good anabaptist' but questioning, like Chapelhead, whether she really understands what that means.
...
That's what I mean.
But that is not what you said. By saying saying that "good anabaptist is a contradiction in terms" you took a little pot shot at anabaptists, and Daisymay considers herself to be an anabaptist. So by extention you were also having a go at her. That is why I included the quote from the 3rd C. It explain what is and is not acceptable.
I didn't think that you meant to have a go at Daisymay. So I didn't ask for an apology.
If people would like to continue to debate about anabaptists then please start a new thread.
bb
----
MW Host
Now, these testimonials. I rather imagine them taking place like this:
Wood: "Hello, my name is Wood, and I am a Christian."
Baptists: "Hello Wood!"
Wood: "Before I was a Christian I whored around and drank myself silly."
Baptists: "Amen".
Wood: "After I found Jesus, I don't do that stuff anymore."
Baptists: "Amen brother!"
Wood: "Now that I found Jesus, I am saved."
Baptists: "Amen Amen."
Wood: "And now instead of boozing and shagging, I evangelise people."
Baptists: "Amen!"
Followed by some splashing in a large pool.
Now, I am sure it must not really be like that, so won't you please assist us?
By the way, Astro, I *have* been to a Baptist Meeting, in Virginia. It was not bizarre, but it was very boring. We all sat down in very uncomfortable pews. We sang a hymn and several (maybe 7?) men in suits filed in and sat on a dais in the front in big chairs like bishops' thrones. In turns, each one of them got up and read a lesson or lead a prayer. This was interspersed with time for quiet prayer. Then there was a very long sermon given by an elderly man in a suit. There followed a collection of money, more praying and lessons, and another hymn. The whole thing lasted nearly two hours. No one actually shouted amen or raised his hands in that air -- it was all very staid.
I had forgot about it until now. There was a pulpit and one or two lecterns and no Holy Table. And no altar hangings or coloured cloths at all. I assume the baptism pool was secreted under the dais, but I am not sure.
HT
What gets said when someone "gives a testimony" at a baptismal service? Well, looking back at my own baptism, I got up an explained how I was not brought up in a "religious" household and that church-going was not something that we did as a family. As a teenager a friend of mine became a Christian and in a fairly typical teenage way we talked about life, death, the universe and everything, including Christianity. He invited me to attend his (Baptist) church, which I did for a few months before deciding to attend the church I was being baptised in (which another friend attended). After learning more at both of these churches about God, Christ, Christianity and so forth I became convinced intellectually of the truth of Christianity and then determined to commit my life to the Christian faith. Consequent to this I decided to get baptised, as a public demonstration of my decision to "die to Christ" and commit to the Christian faith.
Now, that probably sounds horribly twee, but in the context of the service it seems very different (just as everyone taking one sip from big cup and then it being passed to the next person sounds pretty twee if taken out of context).
One of the great surprises of this thread is finding out how my particular corner of the Church is perceived by other parts of it (I sometimes think that "high-church" types think we "low-church" types live on another planet). We may be pretty strange, but our hearts are generally in the right place (as are yours, of course).
quote:
By the way, Astro, I *have* been to a Baptist Meeting, in Virginia.
That sounds like an apology for a worship meeting - what I was referring to is a "Church Meeting" i.e. a meeting of church members to discuss church business. I think that the nearest equivalent the Episcoplian church has is the vestry but that has a limited membership so less oppurtunity for agruements. Actually you tat lovers might enjoy Baptist Church (businness) meeting as most of the time is spent discussing what color flowers should be used, church decorations and other vital matters. While unimportant things like the church budget, pastoral matters and doctrinal discussions get dealt with very quickly, as most of the time has been spent on whether the vestry door should be painted with gloss or matt paint.
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Now, these testimonials. I rather imagine them taking place like this:
Wood: "Hello, my name is Wood, and I am a Christian."
Baptists: "Hello Wood!"
Wood: "Before I was a Christian I whored around and drank myself silly."
Baptists: "Amen".
Wood: "After I found Jesus, I don't do that stuff anymore."
Baptists: "Amen brother!"
Wood: "Now that I found Jesus, I am saved."
Baptists: "Amen Amen."
Wood: "And now instead of boozing and shagging, I evangelise people."
Baptists: "Amen!"
Followed by some splashing in a large pool.
Now that I have recovered from my paroxysms of helpless laughter...
HT - first, you clearly haven't been to a business meeting. It's a different proposition entirely, although Astro is (hopefully) taking the mickey a little about the content...
Now. First: a 'testimonial' is a footie match rlayed in honour of a retiring footballer. A 'testimony' is exactly what it says - a bearing of witness.
Leave out the 'amen's', first. Only our American cousins do that, AFAIK. And the statements are rarely so simple. Think instead as a very short sermon, delivered using personal experience rather than whatever it is your preacher man uses to make his points with.
Greta
bb
For example: Those who do not believe in infant baptism consider it extremely bizarre that one would take a tiny baby, one who barely has sentience (I can probably find the exact age at which developmental psychologist Jerome Kagan postulates that sentience occurs in the human), and have a sacramental ceremony **done to** him/her, outside of the child's understanding and consent.
On the other hand, those who do not consider the apostolic succession to be important consider it bizarre that other people would consider that a mystical force is **handed down** by the laying on of hands. And that without such a proof of unbroken succession, the person saying the formula for doing the eucharist is not the proper person to do so and the eucharistic meal is therefore "invalid." Can the apostolic succession people really prove an unbroken line all the way back to St. Peter? Because I would consider a paper trail surviving that long to be very much miraculous!
So let's cut one another a little slack, shall we?
Can the apostolic succession people really prove an unbroken line all the way back to St. Peter? Because I would consider a paper trail surviving that long to be very much miraculous!
...........................................
It´s not nescessary to trace the line back to S:t Peter! There was after all thirteen apostles, including Paulus. If you read Eusebius and the other early writers, you will find that the notion of apostolic succesion is there from the beginning.
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:We had a discussion about this, when some Anglican friends visited a baptism and some of the candidates were baptised "in the name of Jesus" and others "trinitarianly". They came to the conclusion that as it all took place in the context of a trinitarian service, the baptism was validly trinitarian, and the words were not to be taken legalistically.
Carys,
I think it was just the idiosyncricity of the different people doing the dunking, and because there were many candidates, the baptisers changed every so often - they didn't have parents baptising their own children, for example.
The other thing was that the candidates gave their testimony while still dry, but while in the water they were prayed for and prophesied over, so it took a while for each baptism. And I think that the church as a whole woudn't have distinguished or bothered about the actual words, as they were not into the legality of the thing. The importance was the actual public witness to having accepted Jesus as Lord and Saviour. That's what made the baptism valid, not a form of words, although since everyone was well taught , they would have automatically used the right words as they would come from deep within them.
My own children were dedicated, and the service is very similar to C of S "baptism', without the water, almost same words.
The bit that always moves me is when we hand the babies over to the minister or whoever is leading the dedication service, as a symbol of our recognition that the baby belongs to God, not us, and then are given back the baby in trust, so that we bring them up lovingly and carefully - a great responsibility and privilege.
