quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:
The other day I was wandering round some backstreets of an area of town I otherwise know quite well. I was trying to find a shortcut that avoided the main thoroughfares. Along the way, I found a small church building that I'd been completely unaware of. This morning, I had a chance to look up the church and found myself going down a very dark rabbit hole of a niche of christian belief I had hitherto been completely unaware of: British Israelism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felafool:
2) does the church have pews? If so, then I'm out of there. Uncomfortable, inflexible, anachronistic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Surely the theology is something you only get a handle on once you've stepped inside?

---

Not entirely. I look at the notice board and see how they describe their main Sunday service. If it's "Mass" or "Eucharist" it's probably my kind of place, if it's "Holy Communion" I'd be prepared to give it a go, but if it's "Morning Worship" I'd walk very quickly in the opposite direction
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
If it said 'Liberal', 'inclusive', had anything about interfaith worship or yoga in the community hall, I wouldn't darken the door.
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felafool:

I have been in churches where we spent a lot of energy and resources arguing about seating, and life's too short to revisit that particular internal issue ever again. Besides which pews are damned uncomfortable. No, No, No!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Salicional:
- drum set enclosed in plexiglass cage
- long-haired man in ripped jeans singing into a microphone while playing guitar
- profuse use of buzzwords such as "vibrant, inclusive community"

I know these things shouldn't irk me so much.

---

Why shouldn't they?


 

---

Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If it said 'Liberal', 'inclusive', had anything about interfaith worship or yoga in the community hall, I wouldn't darken the door.

---

• "Praise band" and/or "worship songs".
• "The Lord's Supper".
• the word "Alliance" in any context.
• sales of "The English Churchman".

• Meeting in a schoolhouse or vacant office or any place else other than a proper church
• Bible-believing
• Drum kits behind plexiglas shields
• Musicians dressed in what would elsewhere be considered rags (what are called schmattas in Yiddish)
• Clergy dressed likewise
• Family oriented
• Room lights dimmed as at a concert
• Eating and drinking during the service (and I don't mean communion)
• Being asked to wear a name badge
• Being asked to stand up and introduce myself -- or, worse yet --
• Being pointed at, singled out as a stranger, and then asked to stand up and introduce myself
• Tracts offered for sale that promote creationism

I've also been known to walk out on "clown masses."

[ 16. November 2016, 21:28: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]
 

---

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If it said 'Liberal', 'inclusive', had anything about interfaith worship or yoga in the community hall, I wouldn't darken the door.

---

On the other hand if it says 'Illiberal' or 'exclusive' I wouldn't darken the door.

Other threshold barriers for me include mention of:

• "Praise band" and/or "worship songs".
• "The Lord's Supper".
• the word "Alliance" in any context.
• sales of "The English Churchman".

Anything else I might find off-putting, I can manage to ignore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
A big banner for me that says "illiberal" is mention of Forward in Faith. I would now also tend to run from any mention of oversight by a non-diocesan bishop.

---

I wouldn't run away from a F-i-F church; I just wouldn't become a regular there (especially not if the preaching regularly railed against the "monstrous regiment"!) Not having a woman at the altar doesn't worry me; being told a woman can't be at the altar would worry me - hence I wouldn't become a regular. I think the things that would stop me attending a church are the things that would stop me worshipping. Hence, "worship groups" and "praise songs"; the sort of things that I know will just leave me cold or - worse - that will make me cross are things that would stop me going in. On that basis, I have no objection to pews if they're comfortable (who can worship if they feel they can't move because of a cripplingly uncomfortable seat?) but I would avoid churches that are punishingly cold. I've worshipped in plenty of churches where I've had to wear my coat (even under a cassock!) but if I'm in the congregation and need to stay bundled up in the corner in coat, hat, scarf, gloves and am still cold then I don't want to be there. If I don't want to be there, then I shouldn't be there; my worship in such cases is good for neither Him nor me.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
If the noticeboard(s) in the porch or outside are a mess - lots of out-of-date material, handwritten messages on scraps of paper, etc - then I'm likely to give a wide berth. Similarly, I never cease to be amazed at the number of churches that have a openly visible piles of junk at the back. Best ever example was a place I dropped into in Kent that had magazines and periodicals more than a decade old, plus dirty coffee mugs, biscuit crumbs and a bowl of scummy washing-up water in a rear corner - although it did reflect the initial impression given by the large vase of very dead flowers on the table next to the Visitors' Book.

Anywhere with lots of dog-eared home-produced hymn sheets is also a turn-off.

(Forgot this next!)
As a visiting organist I once had to spend 30 minutes - and 6 wipes - getting a loft into some semblance of order before a wedding: dirty tissues, sweet wrappers, pencil sharpenings, etc, etc, etc, plus neither light on the console worked and there were teetering piles of dubious American Organ albums

[ 16. November 2016, 23:18: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Despite what I said earlier about giving in to curiosity, I have to agree that much of what others have listed are turn-offs for me also.
[list]
[*]Meeting in a schoolhouse or vacant office or any place else other than a proper church
[

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe: Meeting in a schoolhouse or vacant office or any place else other than a proper church

---

So no new or growing or mission parishes, then, just those that are old, established and rich.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felafool:


2) does the church have pews? If so, then I'm out of there. Uncomfortable, inflexible, anachronistic
hip opportunities (not a one size fits all)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If it said ......'inclusive'.....I wouldn't darken the door.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:
I look at the notice board and see how they describe their main Sunday service. If it's "Mass" or "Eucharist" it's probably my kind of place, if it's "Holy Communion" I'd be prepared to give it a go, but if it's "Morning Worship" I'd walk very quickly in the opposite direction

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If it said ......'inclusive'.....I wouldn't darken the door.

---

One of our more evangelical members suggested we describe ourselves as inclusive after we had a disabled toilet and wheelchair ramps installed. He seemed to have no idea that others might interpret "inclusive" differently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Everyone gabbling in tongues, deal breaker.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If it said 'Liberal', 'inclusive', had anything about interfaith worship or yoga in the community hall, I wouldn't darken the door.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe: Meeting in a schoolhouse or vacant office or any place else other than a proper church

---

So no new or growing or mission parishes, then, just those that are old, established and rich.

---

Doesn't follow. It's possible that a new or growing or mission parish can take over an old abandoned but perfectly, erm, serviceable church building; or can afford to build their own. It's also possible that an established but far-from-rich parish can still afford to keep their building in good repair.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:

I find it odd that some expect churches to be open at all times, just in case someone wants to drop in. It takes resources that not everyone has.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If it said ......'inclusive'.....I wouldn't darken the door.

---

One of our more evangelical members suggested we describe ourselves as inclusive after we had a disabled toilet and wheelchair ramps installed. He seemed to have no idea that others might interpret "inclusive" differently.

---

quote:

---

- long-haired man in ripped jeans singing into a microphone while playing guitar

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
We have a severely disabled toilet in our church. Nobody seems to be able to sort it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:
I find it odd that some expect churches to be open at all times, just in case someone wants to drop in. It takes resources that not everyone has.

---

quote:

---

Every ex-anglo-catholic church still feels like a defeat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felafool:

2) does the church have pews? If so, then I'm out of there. Uncomfortable, inflexible, anachronistic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I have the opposite opinion. I have small children. Pews are much more flexible than chairs. Chairs are exactly one-size-fits all: it doesn't matter what size your nether regions are: you get one chair. So the kids are either on your lap, or in the next chair, but can't be snuggled close. Plus pews provide a nice flat surface for driving toy cars up and down, lying down, and many of the other things that my small children have done in church.

So I completely disagree that they are an indicator of an "inability to adapt". There are some of those, of course - but there are some pretty dogmatic and inflexible chair churches, too (it's just a slightly different dogma). Perhaps one dog sits more comfortably with you than the other.

---

Thank you, Leorning Cniht. You stated my thoughts, but in a much better way than I could have.


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think k the issue with redundant chapel buildings in Wales, West Yorkshire or other former strongholds of non-conformity is the same as that of the vast Anglo-Catholic barns in many cities ... Many of them were built in hope and expectation and were never as full as popular legend suggests.

Nevertheless ...
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Well, that was very much Michael Gill's take in "The Myth of the Empty Church" - he felt there was a great deal of competition and pride among the chapels and that there was far too much capacity.

I once spoke to him and he produced the figures for the church I was then serving, from 1904 (often regarded as the high point of church going). In a chapel that could seat 800, there were just over 400 people present. Yet my older members asserted that, 20 or 30 years later, it was "packed" - simply not true!

The church was replaced by a smaller one in the 70s.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Sorry, it was Robin Gill.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Back to the OP...

Worship bands. I don't object to the musical style per se - it's been pointed out that given my predilection for folk rock I shouldn't have an issue with it. I don't. It's just that the material nearly all comes from a stable with which I do have an issue. That and the terribly emotionally intense delivery, the hands in the air and the buzz which makes me decidedly uncomfortable.

Sermons over 15 minutes. Life's short enough anyway. I've yet to come away from a long sermon with anything worth the time it took.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Remarks on another SoF thread remind me of other deal-breakers:
Prosperity Gospel. The first whiff and I'm out.
Hate, even veiled. I can spot euphemisms excellently well, thanks.
Nutty sexuality. I'm sorry, but boys should have friends who are girls and vice versa. A rigid segregation of the genders is not healthy.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I don't get that last bit. Are you saying that there are churches (outside Africa where I know it happens) which say that men sit one side of the aisle and ladies on the other? Or that each must have their own "class" and never meet socially? (Although I suspect you may be saying something else).
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Segregation of the sexes inside church buildings during services happens in a surprising range of churches - I've seen it in Gypsy Pentecostal churches in Spain for instance and it's common in the Middle East and in some Orthodox jurisdictions - but that's far from universal.

I've heard from conservative evangelicals that's gender segregation on either side of an aisle is common in conservative evangelical churches across mainland Europe - or at least it was back in the 1990s.

I suspect Brenda Clough isn't referring to seating (or standing) arrangements so much as a particular sub-culture within elements of US evangelicalism. That wouldn't surprise me in the least.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Pews – yes I can see they have certain advantages. But they imprison the congregation in fixed rows and make moving around difficult. If worship is simply attending a performance and sitting passively while the professionals do and say certain things, they make sense. But if it is about the Body of Christ coming together to hear the Word, to renew their Baptism, to celebrate the Eucharist, not to be able easily to move to appropriate places for these things, or to stand and watch while 'special people' move about, impoverishes the worship of the community.

In the same way, there is an advantage in a building that appears too big... a small congregation can fill a large church with movement and activity. Of course in our climate you have the problem of heating, so compromise is necessary... though they seemed to manage in the Middle Ages.
 

---

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :
 
Moo wrote

quote:

---

I have problems standing for long periods without some support. If there is a pew behind me, I can press the backs of my legs against it, and this enables me to stand. If I press the backs of my legs against a chair, it moves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Pews – yes I can see they have certain advantages. But they imprison the congregation in fixed rows and make moving around difficult. If worship is simply attending a performance and sitting passively while the professionals do and say certain things, they make sense. But if it is about the Body of Christ coming together to hear the Word, to renew their Baptism, to celebrate the Eucharist, not to be able easily to move to appropriate places for these things, or to stand and watch while 'special people' move about, impoverishes the worship of the community.

---

quote:

---

So I completely disagree that they are an indicator of an "inability to adapt". There are some of those, of course - but there are some pretty dogmatic and inflexible chair churches, too (it's just a slightly different dogma). Perhaps one dog sits more comfortably with you than the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felafool:
But then again, do you/will you take your children to cinemas and ask for a pew?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felafool:
3) Comfort. How many of us would watch a good movie in a cinema with pews? Or watch TV at home from a pew? I rest my case.

---

quote:

---

quote:Originally posted by Felafool: But then again, do you/will you take your children to cinemas and ask for a pew?

BaptistTrainFan wrote
Well, you might ...

---

That sums it up...inflexible,unadaptable, uncomfortable. I certainly don't want to sit in the corner by the wall.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
By the way, I did once go to a small church in Birmingham which had been thriftily fitted out with reclaimed cinema seats. Not only were they too low, but it was a real pain having to push the tip-up seats back down after standing for each hymn!
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But no one said that pews must be arranged in ordered rows, front to back. With a little creativity of arrangement and with adequate space between them, they can certainly allow for movement and for seeing more than just the backs of others' heads.

---

Our pews are immoveably fixed, and uncomfortable. But I recently went to a church, built in the 1970s, which had moveable pews - they could be placed in all sorts of arrangement, not necessarily straight lines. This sort of thing.

(This does remind me of one well-known London Vicar who controversially removed some pews from his church. On being interviewed for his next position he was asked, "Do you believe in moving pews?" and immediately replied, "I don't know, I've never seen any!" He got the job).
 

---

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :
 
It's interesting that my anathema against pews has stirred up so many responses.

There don't seem to be similar defences raised against other dislikes such as terminology, glossolalia, worship leaders with beards and jeans etc.

Guess it proves how shallow I am for eschewing pews

I take the points about comfort (or lack of) with modern chairs, and the matter of seating arrangements for a group of people is always a compromise between budget, availability, space, and functionality.

I like the idea of movable pews, particularly if they can be moved over a cliff edge.

All I'm saying is that if someone like me (who is more than willing to worship and fellowship in a wide variety of formats with differing theologies up and down the candle/chandelier) is put off by pews, what about those who the church is trying to reach, whose first impressions may be the difference between giving it a try or walking away?
 

---

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I toured a church once in the suburbs. The rector said that they used to keep the doors unlocked all the time. Then one night a drunk guy came in with a rifle. Luckily the windows didn't take a bullet, but the cross over the altar still has some slugs in it -- you can see them. They locked the doors, after that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felafool:

2) does the church have pews? If so, then I'm out of there. Uncomfortable, inflexible, anachronistic

---

I have the opposite opinion. I have small children. Pews are much more flexible than chairs. Chairs are exactly one-size-fits all: it doesn't matter what size your nether regions are: you get one chair. So the kids are either on your lap, or in the next chair, but can't be snuggled close. Plus pews provide a nice flat surface for driving toy cars up and down, lying down, and many of the other things that my small children have done in church.

So I completely disagree that they are an indicator of an "inability to adapt". There are some of those, of course - but there are some pretty dogmatic and inflexible chair churches, too (it's just a slightly different dogma). Perhaps one dog sits more comfortably with you than the other.

---

Yes I agree with this! Pews are particularly child friendly. Also how incredibly wasteful and environmentally unfriendly to rip out perfectly good wooden pews and replace then with chairs that are most likely to contain significant amounts of material made of petrochemical byproducts.

Our church has removed a couple of rows of pews and replaced with padded chairs with arms that are easier and with more leg room for parishioners who have difficulty with the pews for whatever reason. (usually elderly people for whom arms on chairs help).
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
As a trivia-chasing aside to the pew debate, many if not most of the anglo-catholic churches that were built at the turn of the 19/20 centuries seemed to have spurned pews from the start, adopting rush-seated chairs on parquet floors. In England at any rate. And even where chairs were not used, light (and easily moveable benches) often took the place of fixed pews.

Can anybody give an example of an anglo-catholic church, which has always been in that tradition, where fixed pews have been the norm? I can think of one but am hard pushed to identify another.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The Orthodox tend to eschew pews, of course, although I've heard that some Greek parishes go in for them.

They tend to make do with benches around the walls for the elderly or people who find it hard to stand for extended periods.

Cradle Orthodox Eastern Europeans I've spoken to say they feel 'trapped' by pews.

I must admit, I've never thought of the style of furniture as a deal breaker if I were considering visiting a church of whatever tradition.

I can't comment on whether pews or rush-seated chairs are more common in Anglo-Catholic churches ... Because some places seem to have both ... And also, although I often discuss higher up the candle stuff, I've not had that much experience of Anglo-Catholic services - most Anglican parishes I encounter tend to be evangelical, MotR or liberal catholic.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Our Place has been of the Carflick tradition since the church was built (1909). We have pews - quite comfortable and spacious they are, too - but they're not fixed to the floor.

We can, therefore, move them about if necessary, but it does take 3 or 4 strong peeps to shift one...

IJ
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
The good thing about pews and small children is that you can effectively box in a couple wee monsters between two adults. If they want to escape they'll either have to go over the top or dive under. But chairs, well, you can escape them left,* right, forward, back... you can also tip them over, particularly if you are turned around backward to the despair of your mother.

Give me a semi-immovable pew any time.

* yes, I've seen those inventions of the devil that are connected chairs. Those are the things that force every arse to be the same size or else intrude on the chair of one's neighbor.

[ 19. November 2016, 01:37: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felafool:

But then again, do you/will you take your children to cinemas and ask for a pew?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The good thing about pews and small children is that you can effectively box in a couple wee monsters between two adults. If they want to escape they'll either have to go over the top or dive under.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:


- flamboyant vestments that look as though they are intended to say 'it's all about me'.

---

Quite. When dressing up or dressing down becomes personal taste, rather than the minister clothing him/herself in anonymity.
 

---

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :
 
Lamb Chopped wrote

quote:

---

I've seen those inventions of the devil that are connected chairs. Those are the things that force every arse to be the same size or else intrude on the chair of one's neighbor.

---

quote:

---

So, we've settled it, our backsides literally provide the bottom line ... It's not theology, churchmanship, emphasis or even gut-feel. When it comes to the deal-breaker, we don't vote with our feet we vote with our butts

---

But my butt isn't the only reason for rejecting pews, though it seems to have attracted more attention than it deserves!
 

---

Posted by Signaller (# 17495) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felafool:
Please don't blame the devil for 'health and safety gone mad'. In UK connected chairs became a requirement for fire safety reasons. In case of fire and ensuing panic, unconnected chairs can more easily be tipped over, strewn about, and cause a barricade blocking escape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felafool:
My butt isn't the only reason for rejecting pews, though it seems to have attracted more attention than it deserves!

---

I'll wait to pass judgment until I've seen it.

[Miss Amanda will get her wrap.]
 

---

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Signaller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felafool:
Please don't blame the devil for 'health and safety gone mad'. In UK connected chairs became a requirement for fire safety reasons. In case of fire and ensuing panic, unconnected chairs can more easily be tipped over, strewn about, and cause a barricade blocking escape.

---

<tangent>
In twenty years in health & safety (OK, not in churches) I've never come across that one. Can you provide a source? I would have thought a row of connected chairs would be quite easy to tip over (I've seen it done, admittedly with old wooden chairs rather than modern designs), and then would be even more of a trip hazard and barrier to escape than loose chairs.
\<tangent>

---

quote:

---

It is important that loose seating does not hinder evacuation in an emergency. Where temporary seating is in rows and not fixed to the floor, the loose seats near exits should be fixed together to ensure individual chairs are not knocked over...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felafool:
Lamb Chopped wrote

quote:

---

I've seen those inventions of the devil that are connected chairs. Those are the things that force every arse to be the same size or else intrude on the chair of one's neighbor.

---

Please don't blame the devil for 'health and safety gone mad'.

---

What, you mean you actually have a government that the devil does NOT have a significant impact on?

Send me your address, we're moving.

 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think Enoch and Baptist Trainfan are both in the money.

Anything manipulatively emotional or clearly hyped has to be a no-no ... Although such things can develop insidiously within ostensibly sane congregations and eat them up from the inside ...

I think every Christian tradition bears something within it that can turn toxic - even the most anodyne of them.

That's nota fall for paranoia or suspicion, but I do think we need to be on our guard ... Lively worship can easily topple over into emotionalism, dignified and restrained worship can just as easily topple into a form if liturgical fascism.

A strong emphasis on the scriptures can tumble into fundamentalism, a strong sacramental emphasis into hyper-sacramentalism.

There are dangers all ways round.

I'd also suggest that most traditions carry within themselves the antidotes and solutions to their own particular besetting sins and problems.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Whoops ... 'on the money' not 'in the money ...'
 

---

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felafool:
All I'm saying is that if someone like me (who is more than willing to worship and fellowship in a wide variety of formats with differing theologies up and down the candle/chandelier) is put off by pews, what about those who the church is trying to reach, whose first impressions may be the difference between giving it a try or walking away?

---

quote:

---

The problem is it appears to rest on a generalized assumption—that most, if not all, of those whom our churches are trying to reach will be just as put off by pews as you are, But that likely isn't the case. Some of those we're trying to reach will be put off by pews, but some won't. Some will be put off by chairs, and some won't. Some actually could be put off by the absence of pews because "it doesn't look like a church." Others will be more drawn to a place that doesn't look like a church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felafool:
The same could be said for all the other reasons given for not entering a place. Some will be drawn by the idea of Mass, others repelled. Same with loud enthusiastic music.

---

quote:

---

The OP asked what would prevent me, and I'm still not going to commit to a church with pews. I said I was shallow!

---

quote:

---

Another generalisation, though probably based on broad observation and surveys, is that most people respond to personal invitations from church going friends in their first visit to church. If so, then I suspect the theology, architecture, churchmanship, furnishings, music etc...(even the welcome?) may have little to do with it initially.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe: Meeting in a schoolhouse or vacant office or any place else other than a proper church

---

Having worshiped in a living room, City Council chambers,
storage room of a jail, and a dinning hall I can assure you these were all proper churches. Altar on rollers included.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ah, but does it?

Sipech has already indicated what various descriptors are code for ... So 'Morning Service' is equally coded for those in the know ...
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Our Place's noticeboards give info re Father F***wit, Readers, and Churchwardens, also times of regular services (1030am Parish Mass etc.). These are permanent, albeit replaced/updated as required e.g. on change of personnel.

Until I was no longer able to do so*, I put up further notices as applicable for special services or activities, using really brightly-coloured paper, so that they could be easily spotted. All three noticeboards are close to the road/pavements, and readily legible to passers-by.

IJ

*and no-one else seems to have had the gumption to carry this on in my absence*
 

---

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:


Until I was no longer able to do so*, I put up further notices as applicable for special services or activities, using really brightly-coloured paper, so that they could be easily spotted. All three noticeboards are close to the road/pavements, and readily legible to passers-by.

IJ

*and no-one else seems to have had the gumption to carry this on in my absence*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ah, but does it?

Sipech has already indicated what various descriptors are code for ... So 'Morning Service' is equally coded for those in the know ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
As a trivia-chasing aside to the pew debate, many if not most of the anglo-catholic churches that were built at the turn of the 19/20 centuries seemed to have spurned pews from the start, adopting rush-seated chairs on parquet floors. In England at any rate. And even where chairs were not used, light (and easily moveable benches) often took the place of fixed pews.

Can anybody give an example of an anglo-catholic church, which has always been in that tradition, where fixed pews have been the norm? I can think of one but am hard pushed to identify another.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
As a trivia-chasing aside to the pew debate, many if not most of the anglo-catholic churches that were built at the turn of the 19/20 centuries seemed to have spurned pews from the start, adopting rush-seated chairs on parquet floors. In England at any rate. And even where chairs were not used, light (and easily moveable benches) often took the place of fixed pews.

Can anybody give an example of an anglo-catholic church, which has always been in that tradition, where fixed pews have been the norm? I can think of one but am hard pushed to identify another.

---

The Anglo-catholic church I know well had exactly that rush-seated chair seating originally, now replaced with connected chairs. However English Heritage suggested the pews should be returned when they visited at one point - as they listed it to Grade II*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felafool:
Leorning Cniht wrote

quote:

---

So I completely disagree that they are an indicator of an "inability to adapt". There are some of those, of course - but there are some pretty dogmatic and inflexible chair churches, too (it's just a slightly different dogma). Perhaps one dog sits more comfortably with you than the other.

---

Good point, well made - the one good thing about pews that has been put forward. If that was suggested as a convincing reason to keep pews, then I might be sympathetic. It's just that there are other ways to drive a toy racing car in church and stay close to Mum/Dad.

But then again, do you/will you take your children to cinemas and ask for a pew?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:
Something I find very annoying are intrusive and unnecessary directions, eg: “The service starts on page one of the service book”. In fact the service has already started with an opening hymn and you wouldn’t start on page five, would you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:
Something I find very annoying are intrusive and unnecessary directions, eg: “The service starts on page one of the service book”. In fact the service has already started with an opening hymn and you wouldn’t start on page five, would you?

---

You obviously never used the ASB or Common Worship communion books.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felafool:
Leorning Cniht wrote

quote:

---

So I completely disagree that they are an indicator of an "inability to adapt". There are some of those, of course - but there are some pretty dogmatic and inflexible chair churches, too (it's just a slightly different dogma). Perhaps one dog sits more comfortably with you than the other.

---

Good point, well made - the one good thing about pews that has been put forward. If that was suggested as a convincing reason to keep pews, then I might be sympathetic. It's just that there are other ways to drive a toy racing car in church and stay close to Mum/Dad.

But then again, do you/will you take your children to cinemas and ask for a pew?

---

quote:

---

Would you take your children to cinemas and demand they change the seating arrangements because you find them objectionable?

---

No, but I might never darken the doors of that cinema again, which is the point of the OP.

And judging by the progress made in cinema seating over the years, you might consider that a significant amount of time and money is invested in the ideal seating design and layout for the activity that is expected in a cinema, and considering the comfort of the customer. You want them to come, so give them an experience that might bring them back. Heck, there are even cuddle seats available in some places. (I predict some wags will respond to that last bit.)

All I'm saying is that IMHO pews do not readily or comfortably facilitate many of the activities that go on in the churches I would like to be part of. With the exception of the point made about driving toy cars close to one's parents, there has been no further positive reason given for the pew's superiority. If you were building a place for Christian worship today, why include pews?


BTW I'm also conscious that this is a 'developed world problem'. I have had the joy and privilege of worshipping in mud huts with solid earth benches where your knees are tucked up around your ears when you sit down (if you are built like me). But again, as the OP asked, in my own habitat pews would put me off from setting foot (or butt) inside a church on any basis other than as a visitor. Again, I'm obviously that shallow.

I may butt out now, I feel like my pew view has taken a life of its own in a thread that is about more than just pews.

Anyone got a cuddle seat?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Thing is, there are only so many variations on church seating ... You either have pews, rush-seated chairs, plastic bucket chairs or conference style seating - or perhaps in some quarters, bean bags and scatter cushions.

I knew of a Vineyard church that went in for the latter - together with coffee, pastries and the Sunday papers ...

Why bother? Why not simply go to a cafe or a boozer to hang out with your mates?

I can understand people having a go at pews, but I can't think of any form of seating that'd make me go, 'Goodness me! I must visit THAT church ...'

But then, I'm not Felafool ...
 

---

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :
 
Forms of seating wouldn't stir up a longing to visit, but some forms just might deter me - I'd rather have pews than bean bags, I can never get out of a bean bag with any form of decorum.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
No-one seems to have mentioned the sort of modern pseudo-pew or bench with the qualities of the traditional pew, but which can be stacked/moved around much more easily:

http://www.treskechurchfurniture.co.uk/c/bespoke-stacking-church-benches

Usual disclaimer applies, but ISTM that these combine the best of both worlds. Not cheap, though, which is something the poor Felafools of this world might not take into account, when reviling churches for their unwillingness to 'adapt' (whatever that might mean).

IJ
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:


On the subject of noticeboards: IMO churches should have one nearest the road listing service times, church office/ vicar 'phone number and nothing else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
No-one seems to have mentioned the sort of modern pseudo-pew or bench with the qualities of the traditional pew, but which can be stacked/moved around much more easily:

http://www.treskechurchfurniture.co.uk/c/bespoke-stacking-church-benches

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felafool:
Mousethief wrote

quote:

---

Would you take your children to cinemas and demand they change the seating arrangements because you find them objectionable?

---

No, but I might never darken the doors of that cinema again, which is the point of the OP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
No-one seems to have mentioned the sort of modern pseudo-pew or bench with the qualities of the traditional pew, but which can be stacked/moved around much more easily:

http://www.treskechurchfurniture.co.uk/c/bespoke-stacking-church-benches

Usual disclaimer applies, but ISTM that these combine the best of both worlds. Not cheap, though, which is something the poor Felafools of this world might not take into account, when reviling churches for their unwillingness to 'adapt' (whatever that might mean).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I've been to Crete twice and in all the Greek Orthodox churches I've been to there they all sit on chairs in rows. Like normal churches.

St Titus, Heraklion, Crete

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


I can understand people having a go at pews, but I can't think of any form of seating that'd make me go, 'Goodness me! I must visit THAT church ...'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
I have seen notices outside churches which advertise eg 10am John Smith, and no other details are given. I presume John Smith is the preacher and that we are not called to worship him. I certainly would not go to a church that didn't list what the service was. However, if I do venture into a church I would leave very quickly if there were drums and guitars and a large screen obstructing the chancel. I also left a church where the minister told me that they didn't bother with anyone over the age of 40 as only the young mattered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


I can understand people having a go at pews, but I can't think of any form of seating that'd make me go, 'Goodness me! I must visit THAT church ...'

---

Jacuzzis.

---

 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ha ha ha ... Jacuzzis it is ...

On the Greeks and chairs/pews ... Yes, they also have harmoniums ... Something the other Orthodox would steer clear of.

Mind you, I've seen fiery online debates among the Orthodox about clerical dress. Some of the Antiochian Orthodox clergy in the US have taken to wearing suits rather than cassocks in public. Is outrage.

Pews? Outrage.

Harmoniums? Outrage.

Suits ....
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
I have seen notices outside churches which advertise eg 10am John Smith, and no other details are given

---

quote:

---

I would leave very quickly if there were drums and guitars and a large screen obstructing the chancel.

---

I know of a died-in-the-wool URC man who, on holiday, went to the local chapel to find exactly this set-up. He said, "I couldn't very well leave, and they were very nice people. But, as I was leaving, I turned round to check on the noticeboard that they were really were URC. And, when I saw that they were, I thought, 'They really ought to have put up a health warning'!"
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Lifting ourselves off our butts and getting back to the OP ...

What are those of us who are broadly Nicene and orthodox (small o) saying about churches that might also fit that criteria but which diverge in some way from what might be considered to be 'the norm'?

(I chuckled at Mudfrog's comment about Orthodox as opposed to 'normal' churches - which I'm sure will have been tongue-in-cheek - as Orthodoxy is the 'norm' in Crete and so on ...)

But in terms of 'Western' churches, other than pews and plexiglas drum-kit installations, what would be deal breakers in terms of:

1. A visit out of curiosity or fraternal fraternisation as it were ...

2. More regular engagement/attendance?

So, for instance, I'd be happy to attend a Seventh Day Adventist service, just to say 'hi' to people and see what they got up to - but I wouldn't make a regular habit of doing such a thing ...

From the OP it sounded to me that a belief in some kind of Real Presence in the eucharist would put Sipech off even visiting an RC or other highly sacramentalised setting ...

I find that strange, although perhaps at one time I'd have taken a similar line. I've attended RC masses and plenty of Orthodox services but feel uncomfortable with some of the stuff at the stratospheric end ...

I've attended an RC Exposition and Benediction and that had my Protestant neurons buzzing and fizzing and short-circuiting ....

Although I understand the theology and the 'idea' behind it.

That wouldn't stop me attending an RC service again, though, any more than stuff I'm uncomfortable with on the Protestant side would deter me from visiting various Protestant churches, even if they'd deter me from closer involvement and engagement in some instances.
 

---

Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on :
 
Pews vs chairs seems a trivial issue. Our parish has 2 churches, one with pews and one with chairs. Both have advantages and disadvantages. I am comfortable enough in either and neither arrangement would put me off worshiping there.

However, I will never volunteer for the cleaning roster in Chair Church. Impossible to vacuum properly under and between them and I am too old to move dozens of chairs in order to vacuum the floor and then have to replace them all. Pews are much easier to vacuum between and I don't have to move them.
 

---

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Not exactly “wouldn’t set foot inside”, but certainly “wouldn’t go back a second time”. A few years ago I was visiting a French town with a famous cathedral. It was Easter weekend and despite not being RC, I decided to go to Mass on Easter morning, expecting a beautiful and edifying experience.

Two reasons I would never, ever go back, except to admire the architecture:

First up, the sound system was lousy and I could hardly make out a word the venerable bishop said. Possibly he preached an excellent homily but I literally had no idea what he was talking about. I felt like I was back in the Dark Ages when the mysteries of the Mass were off limits to the vulgar people.

Second, there was no singing to speak of. The choir sang. Sort of. The congregation didn’t even make the effort to mumble along. I had never realised until then but communal singing is a non-negotiable part of church for me. As I didn’t know the hymns, I couldn’t sing along either because there wasn’t enough musical support to follow (I have a good ear, and can usually pick up a hymn after a stanza or two), and I found the whole thing thoroughly dispiriting.

Between the talk I couldn’t hear and the songs that I couldn’t sing, I left feeling utterly un-nourished.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've heard that congregational singing in Polish RC churches is something else ...

But generally the RCs don't tend to sing with a great deal of gusto, if they sing at all.

Orthodox churches vary to the extent that the congregation join in the singing. I've been to some services where the congregations participate along with the choir, others where their only vocal response is in the Creed and the Lord's Prayer - the rest of the time they cross themselves at appropriate moments or else light candles and wander about doing whatever it is they do ...

Congregational singing in Protestant churches is a relatively recent innovation in historical terms - there wasn't a great deal of it in Presbyterian and Anglican churches - other than metrical Psalms - until the 18th century and the real boom in congregational singing came in the 19th century after the effects of the pietistic and Methodist revivals filtered through into the 'mainstream' ...

There are moves within Orthodoxy at the moment to revise some hymnody and aspects of congregational participation - so watch this space ... in 500 years time ...


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Thinking about it, I once heard some delightful congregational singing emanating from a side-chapel in a Breton cathedral ... but this was on a week-day and it was a special service of some kind.

What struck me was that those involved weren't fervent young charismatics or anything but what looked to be bog-standard middle-aged or elderly Bretons. Whatever was going on, it showed that French RCs can sing when they put their minds to it.

Here in blighty, a late and much lamented RC parish priest who stayed around after his retirement would often bob into one of the Anglican parishes because he said he liked to hear the Psalms chanted properly and also because he preferred the congregational singing there to how the RCs did it at his own parish ...
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... On the Greeks and chairs/pews ... Yes, they also have harmoniums ... Something the other Orthodox would steer clear of.

Mind you, I've seen fiery online debates among the Orthodox about clerical dress. Some of the Antiochian Orthodox clergy in the US have taken to wearing suits rather than cassocks in public. Is outrage.

Pews? Outrage.

Harmoniums? Outrage.

Suits ....

---

And I've seen Orthodox priests with hair cuts and trimmed beards. Is definitely Outrage.

I think they might have been Roumanian.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Trimmed beards and hair-cuts are becoming more common across all Orthodox jurisdictions in the 'diaspora' and among convert clergy, from what I can gather.

You still see some plenitude, though, in terms of facial hirsuteness and ponytails ...

I've teased Orthodox friends that they need the local barber as well as Occam's Razor ...


 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
The congregation didn’t even make the effort to mumble along. I had never realised until then but communal singing is a non-negotiable part of church for me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I've been to Crete twice and in all the Greek Orthodox churches I've been to there they all sit on chairs in rows. Like normal churches.

St Titus, Heraklion, Crete

---

That's Greeks.

---

quote:

---

Ok, I'm intrigued as to exactly what kind of seating arrangements Felafool might favour ... Sofas? Armchairs? Cinema seats?

---

I'm going to duck this one because I'm so shallow. I know what I don't like, but can be happy with a lot of other options. More important to me is fitness for purpose, which means the following (at the risk of repeating myself):

Can these seats be used in a variety of ways for different activities that might allow for a variety of worship activities?

Do they help the sense of community and participation where layout can play an important part? (cf the RC cathedral in Liverpool has pews arranged in circular fashion around a central altar)

Do they convey a sense of adaptability and engagement with surrounding culture, or are they giving out an unhelpful message (to some like me)?

Are they comfortable? This is subjective, of course. If I'm expected to sit and listen, then the same seat can be uncomfortable for 5 minutes, or un-noticed for an hour, depending on the listening experience. I have been in both these situations many times on many different seats!
Personally, I need lots of legroom, preferring a cushioned seat and a fairly high back. First class airline seats are not bad, although I think the arm rests should be removable (and they are necessarily fixed to the floor).

I go to church to participate in worship with, and identify with, a Christian community. The physical layout is important to me for this, as it is also for theological reasons which have already been touched on in other posts. Seating is part of this, and I find pews hinder a sense of community and participative worship

Jacuzzis are a nice idea, but I would then need to become an anabaptist.

To sum up, I'm not that fussy - just no pews, please!
 

---

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
A few people have mentioned drum kits surrounded by perspex - what's the issue here?

I mean, you have to keep the drummer penned in somehow
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
At the risk of getting shot at from all sides ... some folks might say the same thing about organists

Ouch! Help! Yikes! Aargh! Stop it! That hurts!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
That reminds me of a comment about organists I heard attributed to a Welsh archdeacon ...

Can't remember all the details but it had something to do with a knife between the shoulder-blades ...

Meanwhile, @Mudfrog, I rather think the Orthodox in Palestine, Syria and parts of Asia Minor would lay claim to being Orthodox before the Greeks.

So no, the Greeks couldn't claim to be the 'original' Orthodox ...

Besides, I seem to remember reading somewhere that they'd picked up their penchant for pews and harmoniums from the delinquent and nefarious West ...


 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That reminds me of a comment about organists I heard attributed to a Welsh archdeacon ...

Can't remember all the details but it had something to do with a knife between the shoulder-blades ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
A few people have mentioned drum kits surrounded by perspex - what's the issue here?

I mean, you have to keep the drummer penned in somehow

---

Inasmuch as there's a serious question in there (not much, I know), if you have a worship band including a drum kit in most normal church venues, something needs to be done to muffle the percussion to keep everything in balance at an acceptable volume level.

As far as I'm concerned the jury's out on a drum kit behind perspex, but I would certainly struggle to worship in a context where the drum kit is there and no perspex.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Of course that is true. But (!tangent alert!) I do sometimes think that some groups use a quite disproportionate (and messy!) amount of sound equipment for what is just a simple set-up in a small local church.

As a general principle, shouldn't all church musicians of whatever hue do all they can to turn worshippers' attention to the devotion of God, and strive to not draw attention to themselves?

[ 21. November 2016, 16:36: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Yes, as long as the clergy do the same.

An off-put for me is a service which really should be billed as 'The Father F***wit Show', or 'Look How Holy I Am'....



IJ
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
A few people have mentioned drum kits surrounded by perspex - what's the issue here?

I mean, you have to keep the drummer penned in somehow

---

Yes, but why with perspex? I mean, I don't think it is actually soundproof, is it?
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
What about a Salvation Army Brass Band ?

They're not bad

[ 21. November 2016, 18:13: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think the Archdeacon was saying that it was he who would bury the blade in the organist's back, Baptist Trainfan ...



On the drums thing, I think I could happily absent myself from any church service that had a drum kit these days, plexiglas or no plexiglas ...

That doesn't mean I object to them anywhere else. Just provided I don't have to listen to them.

I'm fine with drums in rock bands and I like drums and bass and electric guitars like any old rocker ... it's just I can't be doing with them in church.

I'd go to a rock concert or to listen to a pub band if I wanted to hear drums and bass and so on.

To be frank, the whole worship-band thing puts me off too, although I can stand it in small doses and providing they don't have too much kit and caboodle nor act as if they are mainlining at Greenbelt or Soul Survivor or wherever else ...

But then, you can find similar levels of exhibitionism at the t'other end of the spectrum.

I don't have an issue with vestments and so on but some of them can be a bit 'look at me' when the whole idea of them is to draw attention away from the individual and to the particular liturgical actions they are carrying out ...
 

---

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What about a Salvation Army Brass Band ?

They're not bad

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the drums thing, I think I could happily absent myself from any church service that had a drum kit these days, plexiglas or no plexiglas ...

---

However a set of timpani can be quite delightful on Easter for "The strife is o'er."

 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
And, of course, at funerals, with the Purcell Funeral Sentences. (That's what I want at mine, anyway!)
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
A few people have mentioned drum kits surrounded by perspex - what's the issue here?

I mean, you have to keep the drummer penned in somehow

---

Inasmuch as there's a serious question in there (not much, I know), if you have a worship band including a drum kit in most normal church venues, something needs to be done to muffle the percussion to keep everything in balance at an acceptable volume level.

As far as I'm concerned the jury's out on a drum kit behind perspex, but I would certainly struggle to worship in a context where the drum kit is there and no perspex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What about a Salvation Army Brass Band ?

They're not bad

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
The closest I have been to the jaws of hell was with a Salvation Army tuba player at the door of a hospital room wherein I was briefly trapped a few days before Christmas, a few years ago.

---

There's nothing like a good bit of music.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Hallo Johann Sebastian, are you there?
 

---

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


On the drums thing, I think I could happily absent myself from any church service that had a drum kit these days, plexiglas or no plexiglas ...

That doesn't mean I object to them anywhere else. Just provided I don't have to listen to them.

I'm fine with drums in rock bands and I like drums and bass and electric guitars like any old rocker ... it's just I can't be doing with them in church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


On the drums thing, I think I could happily absent myself from any church service that had a drum kit these days, plexiglas or no plexiglas ...

That doesn't mean I object to them anywhere else. Just provided I don't have to listen to them.

I'm fine with drums in rock bands and I like drums and bass and electric guitars like any old rocker ... it's just I can't be doing with them in church.

---

Why is that?

Granted, a drummer going off like Keith Moon would clearly be inappropriate, as would a guitarist going into guitar heaven for 10 mins, but if the instrument is played properly and fits in with the style of music etc, where's the problem?

---

Baggage.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Baggage? You mean not particularly wanting to see and hear drum kits in church?

Can't see why that's more baggage-laden than not wanting to go to churches which have pews or not visiting one because they happen to have a different view of the eucharist/communion to oneself ...

I'd be more than happy to visit a church that had a drum-kit. I'm not sure I'd want to attend such a church regularly.

That's all I'm saying.

I'm not calling for all drum kits to be smashed or anything of that kind.

Now synthesisers ...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
For what it's worth, our parish church has a drum kit. Mercifully, they don't use it at the 9am service which is the only service I attend there these days.

They reserve it for the 11am service, which is also the service where they provide buckets at the door for you to leave your brains in when you enter ...



No, seriously, it ain't that bad ... It's just that I can't be doing with action-songs and the standard three chorus/worship song medley that has become almost universal across Anglican mildly charismatic evangelicalism.

I'd rather watch paint dry.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


No, seriously, it ain't that bad ... It's just that I can't be doing with action-songs and the standard three chorus/worship song medley that has become almost universal across Anglican mildly charismatic evangelicalism.

I'd rather watch paint dry.

---

Really? You've never mentioned it before.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
@Albertus
Only the Purcell arranged sentences? Surely not, because then you miss out on what is, IMHO, the best - I am the resurrection and the life.

As you know, Purcell only composed three sentences -Thou knowest, Lord, the secrets of our hearts, Man that is born of woman, and In the midst of life; the rest of what are sometimes called 'Purcell's' Sentences are in fact by William Croft.

When Croft published his Sentences he included in them Thou knowest, Lord, clearly identifying it as the work of his illustrious predecessor at Westminster Abbey. Of course, it was the Croft sentences that were sung at Handel's funeral.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I hadn't realized the plastic drum-set enclosure was so common. They installed one in our church because the congregation complained that the drums were too loud. The sanctuary was designed so that things said or sung at the front can be heard by everybody in the pews; it was never set up for modern music. There isn't any way to turn down a drum set (you can dial down the amps on guitars and electric pianos) so they muffled it.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Baggage? You mean not particularly wanting to see and hear drum kits in church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felafool:

All I'm saying is that IMHO pews do not readily or comfortably facilitate many of the activities that go on in the churches I would like to be part of. With the exception of the point made about driving toy cars close to one's parents, there has been no further positive reason given for the pew's superiority. If you were building a place for Christian worship today, why include pews?

---

I find that a pew facilitates all the activities that I would like to happen in churches than I am a part of, whilst inhibiting activities that I don't want

A seat, comfortable without being too cushy, that facilitates paying attention to a sermon and the readings. Built-in kneelers to accommodate kneeling whilst praying. Seating space allocated to each person is adjustable according to width. Scope for small children to lie down, play with toy cars, and so on whilst remaining safely confined so as not to cause excess distraction to other congregants.

For church activities where I want to look at the faces of my fellows: bible study, small group discussions and the like - we have small rooms with furniture appropriate to that use. You can't have a sensible interactive discussion with a church-full of people - meeting for discussion in a room that only holds a couple of dozen people is an advantage, as it prevents the size from becoming unwieldy.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok, fair point Leprechaun, and Karl too.

I can visit places like that without having panic attacks or the lurgy. I know a curate who used to be part of the same charismatic evangelical 'network' as me and she says she feels physically sick if she's exposed to that style of worship now.

I don't feel like that. I just sound off about it on here ...

But seriously, I'd have no problem being a visitor at churches like that, but a visit would be all it would be.
 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
@Albertus
Only the Purcell arranged sentences? Surely not, because then you miss out on what is, IMHO, the best - I am the resurrection and the life.

As you know, Purcell only composed three sentences -Thou knowest, Lord, the secrets of our hearts, Man that is born of woman, and In the midst of life; the rest of what are sometimes called 'Purcell's' Sentences are in fact by William Croft.

When Croft published his Sentences he included in them Thou knowest, Lord, clearly identifying it as the work of his illustrious predecessor at Westminster Abbey. Of course, it was the Croft sentences that were sung at Handel's funeral.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, fair point Leprechaun, and Karl too.

I can visit places like that without having panic attacks or the lurgy. I know a curate who used to be part of the same charismatic evangelical 'network' as me and she says she feels physically sick if she's exposed to that style of worship now.

I don't feel like that. I just sound off about it on here ...

But seriously, I'd have no problem being a visitor at churches like that, but a visit would be all it would be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Unfortunately almost everything is currently "putting me off from setting foot inside a church". I don't really want to be in a "typical" baptist-style chapel. I don't want to be accosted by someone who wants to know where "I'm in fellowship". I don't want to have my thoughts interrupted by loud music (of many kinds, I dislike organ music as much as drums-and-guitars). I don't really want to be in a High Anglican or the lowest house church.

I'm so tired of the whole thing that I'm not even sure what I do want any more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Unfortunately almost everything is currently "putting me off from setting foot inside a church". I don't really want to be in a "typical" baptist-style chapel. I don't want to be accosted by someone who wants to know where "I'm in fellowship". I don't want to have my thoughts interrupted by loud music (of many kinds, I dislike organ music as much as drums-and-guitars). I don't really want to be in a High Anglican or the lowest house church.

I'm so tired of the whole thing that I'm not even sure what I do want any more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


I've not given up on churches per se - but at the same time I don't have any high expectations of them. They are what they are. They do what they do. They are full of sinners and fallible people. And yet ... and yet ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
but it does mean that we have to learn to take the meat and leave the bones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
What Exclamation Mark said!

Re Sung Eucharist - could be that it's sung by the congregation (maybe with a cantor leading):

Re The Peace - adopt an attitude of deep prayer, with eyes closed, and hands modestly folded. The bugg...er...huggers will leave you alone.

IJ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Ethiopian Orthodox use drums. They've got some strange practices too, mind, as well as a lot more books in their Bible than anyone else....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So that's ExclamationMark stuffed on the choral side and me stuffed on the percussive side 'It's all about context,' is going to become my new mantra alongside both/and not either/or ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
What Exclamation Mark said!
Re The Peace - adopt an attitude of deep prayer, with eyes closed, and hands modestly folded. The bugg...er...huggers will leave you alone. IJ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I think/work/prepare hard to have a "liturgy" which engages with everyone but which doesn't require them to switch off their brains. The reverse in fact: I want to make people think but also to engage with their heart. ...

I find that a lot of charismatic worship (presents a package that it doesn't really unwrap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I think/work/prepare hard to have a "liturgy" which engages with everyone but which doesn't require them to switch off their brains. The reverse in fact: I want to make people think but also to engage with their heart. ...

I find that a lot of charismatic worship (presents a package that it doesn't really unwrap.

---

I doubt, EM, if you'd like our worship - we have a choir anthem every Sunday, we sometimes do the Peace (but very gently), and I have been known to ask people to sit or stand ...

BUT I certainly agree 100% with what you've written there! And I'm sure our brother Gamaliel would, too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

I have significant theological issues with the concept anyway - why wait until you are told to express koinonia? Why not do it as soon as you meet? [Cynic as I am, I wonder whether everyone does really wish me "peace" (even if hey know what shalom means) or whether it's become empty words? Do they really know and do they mean it?).

---

Do we really know or intend any of the things we pray? How are we to judge? Surely the choice to be there and participate indicates a desire to know and to intend even if not fully realising that desire?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Baptist Trainfan is right, I do find myself agreeing with you, EM.

On the choir thing, there are choirs and there are choirs ... some are pretty dire, others aren't bad. It depends. Of course, it helps if you like choral music (I quite like it) and if your wife's into it (as mine is, or was until the chemo took hold ... ).

My wife used to sing regularly with a very traditional robed Anglican parish choir in a medieval church a few miles north of here. She and a friend liked to practice with them on a Friday night and in exchange would sing at high days and holidays and at weddings.

I liked going along, Candlemass, choral evensong, various special Easter and Christmas services. Sure, they aren't the best choir in the world but there's something down-to-earth and villagey about them and the choir director is an expert on 18th century church music ...

Ok, not a great deal of fire and passion there but I liked it to dip in and out of, even though the choir itself was bigger than the congregation on most occasions.

Closer to home, most of those who like robed choirs and traditional anthems have fled to a rural Zoar about three miles away, where they have swelled the village congregation. That happened about 17 or 18 years ago and people still talk about it ...

The more liberal Anglican parish here has a choir but they're pretty ropey. I admire their efforts though, they make the best of what little talent they've got ...

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm among those who feels that something was lost when the old church wakes and bands were replaced by more dignified robed choirs from the mid-1800s onwards - as per Hardy's Under The Greenwood Tree and so on.

But given the choice between a surpliced choir singing 18th century anthems and a band made up of Soul Survivor wannabes or, worse, dad-dancing middle-aged dorks trying to recapture the glory-days of the 1980s/90s Bible Weeks, then I know which I'd go for ...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The thing about 'the peace' is an interesting one. I know of people who say they don't go to church at all because 'the peace' puts them off ...

It doesn't bother me at all, but I can understand people's reservations about it.

The thing is, however we conduct our meetings and services, none of them are as free-flow and spontaneous as we might imagine them to be - there are always something that is standardised or stylised. That's unavoidable.

I've noticed when I host/compere poetry open-mic/live music evenings that my ab-libbing can become somewhat formulaic after a while. I don't fret about that, sometimes you have to work hard to appear spontaneous ...

If we're going to worry about 'the peace' become ritualised and losing its meaning and force, then we might as will worry about each and every aspect of a church service or meeting - from the sermon to the prayers, the way communion is conducted, the way people are or aren't greeted and so on and so forth ... where do we stop? Where do we draw the line?
 

---

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
But the peace (in its original eucharistic context) is a ritual.

So is shaking hands someone when you meet them.

What's the matter with ritual actions? The idea that they are somehow less "sincere" than words is very misleading.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well yes, although it's a particularly 'Baptist' thing to be concerned about 'empty rituals' - hence EM's unease I suspect.

I know he wouldn't go as far as some Baptists I've come across though who were convinced that Anglicans were 'insincere' in their faith purely because they used set liturgical prayers rather than using their own extemporary ones ...

As though extemporaneousness in and and of itself was a mark of sincerity.

I can understand the concern. I mean, I always puzzle as to why the Orthodox insist on retaining the bit about 'the doors ... the doors ...' and 'Depart ye catechumens ...' in their Liturgy when nobody has shut and bolted the doors since the time of the Roman persecutions (other than, perhaps, in Soviet Russia) and I've yet to see a catechumen get up and depart as bidden.

But yes, our daily live and transactions are full of little rituals, many of which we are completely unaware of.
 

---

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:
But the peace (in its original eucharistic context) is a ritual.

So is shaking hands someone when you meet them.

What's the matter with ritual actions? The idea that they are somehow less "sincere" than words is very misleading.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well yes, although it's a particularly 'Baptist' thing to be concerned about 'empty rituals' - hence EM's unease I suspect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Not really - it's part of my make up. I prefer actions/words to be considered and intentional. I can't see the point - and doubt the efficacy - of just doing things because you always have.

Theology is faith seeking understanding not simply just doing stuff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

I would add, though, that temporarily withdrawing the cup was an even less welcome precaution. The CofE is utraquist to its core.

---

Gosh, I've been ordained 50 years and it's the first time I've come across that word. I had to look it up.

Maybe you are right. Though I have nearly always administered the reserved sacrament to the sick in one kind, without any eyebrows raised or questions asked. As for 'temporarily withdrawing the cup': I wonder how widely that was practised even at the height of the infection scare. The (not-far-off-nosebleed) anglo-catholic church where I was worshipping at the time just carried on as normal administering the chalice (the vicar at the time was a qualified surgeon so he would have been competent to assess any risk).
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Evangelical charismatics I knew simply ignored the thing about withholding the cup during the Foot & Mouth scare - either they thought that God could heal people or they were simply being awkward ...

Or perhaps it was both/and ...
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
And we just kept on using our hygienic wee cuppies ...
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
We made a concerted effort to shift from Sipping to Dipping. Not only is this (sorta) more germ-free, but it saves loads on wine.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
According to any research sipping is much more hygienic than dipping. Dipping was completely banned at the height of th swine flu epidemic as a result.
 

---

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I'm not a great fan of The Peace per se , but will take part if it seems right to me to do so.

---

I'll admit that one thing I love about the transition I have made in post-decanal months to Māori Anglicanism is the utter absence of the Peace. I have defended it as a symbolic gesture for years, but dear God it's a pleasure not to have to put up with it!

This pleasure is slightly offset by a somewhat cavalier attitude to liturgical propriety, for Tikanga Māori's origins were very 19th Century CMS.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
According to any research sipping is much more hygienic than dipping. Dipping was completely banned at the height of th swine flu epidemic as a result.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It was to do with fingertips and nails touching the wine with far more germs than mouths. Even though they should only be dipping wafers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
According to any research sipping is much more hygienic than dipping. Dipping was completely banned at the height of th swine flu epidemic as a result.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Since we are on this tangent, the 'lavabo' of the priest's hands before the eucharistic prayer, if done properly, should help. If it also includes sanitising gel better still. However, the traditional place for this is after the priest has handled the bread to put it on the paten or in the ciborium. Has anybody been bold/sensible enough to change the traditional order?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Not really - it's part of my make up. I prefer actions/words to be considered and intentional. I can't see the point - and doubt the efficacy - of just doing things because you always have.

Theology is faith seeking understanding not simply just doing stuff.

---

There's a whole load of assumptions in those two "justs". Doing things that you always have (and, as importantly, our forerunners in the faith did too) takes us out of the present and into the eternal. It means we spend less time thinking about what we're doing, what to do next, what to say next, and more about what the words and actions mean for us. If I make the sign of the cross it is a prayer asking for God's blessing, it is a reminder of Christ's sacrifice, it is a reminder that God created the world and values the physical along with the spiritual, it is an expression of hope that I may find a place among the great crowd of witnesses that have made that sign up and down the ages. Words specific to an occasion and made up on the spot have their place, as do words carefully considered and composed for a particular time and place, but so do the timeless expressions of faith, drawn from scripture and the practice of the church passed down through the generations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
What Exclamation Mark said!

Re Sung Eucharist - could be that it's sung by the congregation (maybe with a cantor leading):

Re The Peace - adopt an attitude of deep prayer, with eyes closed, and hands modestly folded. The bugg...er...huggers will leave you alone.

IJ

---

I was going to say something similar about not sharing the peace and no-one is required to share it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I accept all of that but I wonder how many people really think about what they're saying?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
as a Pentecostal church leader said to me many years ago, "I can tell you within 5 minutes not just who's going to speak in tongues or prophesy, but also what they're going to say".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The final straw for me (in the kind of charismatic environment discussed above) was when a good friend told me that if I disagreed with his God-given prophetic declaration* then I was disagreeing with God. Sadly I haven't spoken to him since - I refuse to be bullied in this way. From what I've heard from other sources, this pattern of behaviour continues to this day, so any reconciliation would inevitably lead to further such incidents.

*it was about something really stupid the details of which I forget.

---

This is one of the two issues that really trouble me about claims that someone is 'prophetic' or prophesying.

Using the word in the charismatic sense really raises the ante. It is saying, 'This is the voice of God - believe or else'. So either I am refusing to listen to God, or they are a false prophet.

The other is the use of the word 'prophetic' in other parts of the church to mean no more than 'say something abrasive in a really loud voice'. Usually in that context, what is alleged to be prophetic is something about politics. It isn't actually speaking to power. It's addressed to people most of whom will agree. It's saying what they'd already like to say to power if they had either the guts or access to the channels to do so. And it's invariably something that requires no great insight into the counsels of God. Indeed, it is often something that would be fairly obvious, often platitudinous, if it were being said by someone who wasn't a religious person who is expected to be bland.


If prophecy is to have any meaning at all, it has to be about proclaiming insights about God, his counsel to the situation, his message to those listening, something profound which they can't work out from studying scripture or theology. It must have a supernatural element.

The first of the two uses I'm concerned about shares that view of what prophecy is, but unless really genuine - which is rare > unknown, is a serious form of spiritual abuse.

The second is a denial of what is at the core of that understanding, and of everything Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist and the others stand for.


I've a sort of suspicion that in our times, if anything were genuinely prophetic, one of its markers would be that it made no claim to be.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well yes, and I'm afraid I can no longer say, 'nothing wrong with that', Baptist Trainfan as I now think there's everything wrong with it ...

At an editorial meeting for a Christian magazine I help out with - I shall not mention its name to protect the innocent and the guilty - I received some funny looks and tut-tuts recently for openly challenging the idea of 'Treasure Hunting' - you know, that form of cold-reading that has for some inexplicable reason become de-rigeur in some charismatic circles and seems to have spilled over into some settings that really ought to know better ...

I stuck to my guns and when I stressed that it was all simply a case of confirmation-bias or finding whatever it was we are looking for - such as if you bought a green car you'd suddenly notice how many other green cars there are around - I was told, 'You wouldn't say that if you met the one or two people for whom it has been deeply meaningful ...'

Well, excuse me, I bloody well would still say it.

In and amongst the stream of consciousness detritus that passes for prophetic words in such circles then I suppose you are bound to get one or two that 'fit' - or appear to fit - sooner or later.

But don't get me started ...



Oh, dear, I see that I already have ...



Coming back to the OP and issues of taste and so on ... yes, I'm sure that the bulk of our distaste or run away ... run away responses are largely subjective and that the vast majority of practices in each and every setting are pretty harmless.

The issue then is a question of taste and subjectivity. I can't come up with any theological objection to percussion, for instance - I just can't be bothered regularly going to services where I know they'll have a drum beat going.

But when it comes to the charismatic side of things, I fluctuate between tolerance of the mildly charismatic side to zero tolerance and wanting to debunk the whole thing ... although even on a bad day I wouldn't quite go that far.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
For me, it is the note of non-discussion and suggestion it is an unequivical final statement that grates. OK, if other people want to sit around and listen to people (and they are usually the same people) saying this kind of thing, then fine. I don't.

Thinking about this, I remembered another occasion where we were visiting a church, thinking about getting more involved. In the end we didn't, and that was largely because during the "prayer time", someone who was not in a leadership position would stand up and preach a mini-sermon in a loud voice, usually claiming to be giving a prophetic witness about some error in society. One thing if it is the minister doing that, another thing if it is someone in the congregation.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
@ Enoch: I tend to agree. However:

1. I don't think Scripture - at least the NT - gives a mandate for that kind of bullying. After all, the instructions for church order in 1 Cor. 14 say: "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said" - hardly an uncritical reception.

2. I have often wondered how we would regard a genuine OT prophet such as Elijah or even John the Baptist? Would we give them the room to speak, or would we dismiss them as religious fanatics? (Same thing applies to Jesus).

3. Saying that "My way is God's way" is surely not confined to charismatic churches? There is allegedly the story of the RC priest and CofE Vicar having an amicable chat which ends with one of them saying, "That's fine, we'll agree to differ. You can go on worshipping God in your way and I'll go on worshipping him in his".

[ 28. November 2016, 12:08: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

3. Saying that "My way is God's way" is surely not confined to charismatic churches? There is allegedly the story of the RC priest and CofE Vicar having an amicable chat which ends with one of them saying, "That's fine, we'll agree to differ. You can go on worshipping God in your way and I'll go on worshipping him in his".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Hygiene wise I'm sure the risk is pretty minimal - although one of the Misses Mark is an infection control nurse and says that there is still a risk.

For some of us, the whole one cup thing is more a matter or squeamishness, I think. Even the thought of some people's lipstick/dribble/whatever in the big cup is enough to call halt and ask for the individual little cup.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It was to do with fingertips and nails touching the wine with far more germs than mouths. Even though they should only be dipping wafers. There was some Canadian research published when all the bans came in that I sourced at the time - and linked to the Ship, bur it was a few years back and I am not sure the Ship threads exist any more.

There was information in the report about germ transmission when the priest dipped and put on tongues, and I *think* that wasn't great either, but I am not certain so won't swear to it, and I'm not even going to attempt to search for it on a phone on a train.

---

There are also 'folk practices' like the case I had to deal with where the communicant received the wafer, took a bite out of it and then intincted the bitten host.
 

---

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
I think I've mentioned before the funeral where I was administering the Chalice. Like at many funerals, many of those attending were not accustomed to the Episcopal way of receiving. One whole rail-full watched as the first person to receive took the Host, intincted, and consumed it. So they all received that way, but not being used to it, most of them slobbered all over my fingers despite my best efforts. This was in the height of flu season. After Communion when I took my chalice back to the Sacristy, I washed my hands thoroughly with much soap and water.

Of course, the most famous story (at least in the U.S.) of someone imitating what the person before him did is that of Ronald Reagan, watching Nancy receive ahead of him. She inadvertently dropped her bread into the chalice. The President had been told to do as she did -- for he followed suit.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Since we are on this tangent, the 'lavabo' of the priest's hands before the eucharistic prayer, if done properly, should help. If it also includes sanitising gel better still. However, the traditional place for this is after the priest has handled the bread to put it on the paten or in the ciborium. Has anybody been bold/sensible enough to change the traditional order?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

I would add, though, that temporarily withdrawing the cup was an even less welcome precaution. The CofE is utraquist to its core.

---

Gosh, I've been ordained 50 years and it's the first time I've come across that word. I had to look it up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hmmm ... I've never been to a funeral service where communion was offered ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oblatus:
Interesting; close to 100% of those that take place in our parish do include Communion, as they're either a Requiem Mass (black vestments, traditional Requiem propers) or a Mass of the Resurrection (white vestments, simpler propers).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hmmm ... I've never been to a funeral service where communion was offered ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


Which brings me to a more serious point. This particular parish might be cheesy but it is active in the community other than on a Sunday and it is welcoming.

Irrespective of tradition or worship style, that has to be a 'draw'.

If somewhere feels remote and disengaged that it's unlikely to encourage a repeat visit.

Warmth, friendliness and authenticity will carry a church a fair way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


Which brings me to a more serious point. This particular parish might be cheesy but it is active in the community other than on a Sunday and it is welcoming.

Irrespective of tradition or worship style, that has to be a 'draw'.

If somewhere feels remote and disengaged that it's unlikely to encourage a repeat visit.

Warmth, friendliness and authenticity will carry a church a fair way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Am I right in thinking that Oblatus and Pigwidgeon are in America? And TEC? Hence that most funerals would be of church members.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Graven Image:
Found my off put Sunday. The first Sunday of Advent not even mentioned and entire church decked out for Christmas. Pastor, "announced thanks to all who had worked so hard getting our church ready for the Christmas season."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Am I right in thinking that Oblatus and Pigwidgeon are in America? And TEC? Hence that most funerals would be of church members.

---

Yes, and most funerals are indeed of parishioners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hmmm ... I've never been to a funeral service where communion was offered ...

---

I rarely go to one where it isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Am I right in thinking that Oblatus and Pigwidgeon are in America? And TEC? Hence that most funerals would be of church members.

---

Yes, and most funerals are indeed of parishioners.

---

In the English context parishioner simply means anyone who lives in the parish. In that sense most of the funerals are of those who were parishioners at some point in their lives - though they may rarely have darkened the door of the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
What's exclusive about it (necessarily)? The funeral isn't for the benefit of the mourners but to commend the departed to God, and those who respect the deceased but don't share their faith should also respect their expression of it.

A requiem mass wouldn't be pastorally appropriate for someone who wasn't a communicant, or whose family were unhappy with it, but in the case of the funerals of church members already referred to it would be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
What's exclusive about it (necessarily)? The funeral isn't for the benefit of the mourners but to commend the departed to God, and those who respect the deceased but don't share their faith should also respect their expression of it.

A requiem mass wouldn't be pastorally appropriate for someone who wasn't a communicant, or whose family were unhappy with it, but in the case of the funerals of church members already referred to it would be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

I don't understand the attraction of funerals, bloody horrible things.

---

quote:

---

From my experience of Requiem Masses when there may be many people present who are not used to this type of prayer ,some people are simply uncomfortable about being in church,full stop and would certainly not want to go forward to Communion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't understand the attraction of funerals, bloody horrible things.

---

My wife says the same, only she sort of 'got' it at her Aunt's funeral recently and began to talk openly about plans for her own - she has incurable cancer.

As for not understanding the attraction of funerals, you haven't lived in South Wales long enough. Hang around and it may begin to draw you in ...



Seriously, there's a strong community element to funerals in South Wales. That brings in a bitter-sweet element and don't forget that us South Walians love being maudlin and wallowing in tragedy, enjoying ill-health and describing our ailments in great detail to anyone who will listen.

It's the only part of the country I know where complete strangers will tell you about their bowel movements or other intimate medical details at bus stops and so on.

This may shock you, but we enjoy funerals down there. I enjoyed my Dad's funeral. I loved every minute of it. I'd hold it again if I could.

Don't get me wrong. I was sad at the same time. I didn't want to get up and dance on his grave - if he'd had one ...

But there is a sense of community cohesion and a kind of Welsh sentimentality that comes into play on such occasions. I'd imagine it'd be similar - but without the Welsh element - in other former industrial areas - the former mining areas of Durham and South Yorkshire for instance.
 

---

Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :
 
Church funerals are rarer than hen's teeth around here where most of the funeral directors steer the bereaved towards civil celebrants who operate out of the chapels at the crematorium or cemetery.

I've heard the civil celebrants at work over the intercom at the crem whilst waiting for my funeral to start and they are often empty and without hope. Sometimes they use psalms but take out references to God. At my FiL's committal of ashes we were told by the funeral director that he was going to read a poem which started 'Our Father...' He was very surprised when my husband and I joined in.

Every time we do get a funeral in church we work really hard on our welcome. We will get it wrong but we try.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
We don't live far from the cemetery (it isn't a big town but it is quite a large cem) and often see funeral processions including sometimes horse-and-carts.

I find the cultural attachment to burial very distasteful. I was talking to someone the other day about their "need" to commemorate the mining disaster, which co-incidentally happened today in 1860. To me, that's quite a strange thing. One thing to remember or commemorate someone who you knew, quite another to feel social pressure to formally do something for an event that happened 150 years ago and for whom it would be almost impossible for you to have known anyone involved.

Of course I understand the personal needs and religious wishes for grief, I just can't get my head around the idea why those who have nothing to do with it think they have any kind of ownership on the process.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I told you, you haven't lived in South Wales long enough. You don't get it.

I thought you might to some extent as you grew up in the Forest of Dean if I remember rightly, another former mining area.

The fact that you are puzzled why a mining disaster in 1860 still holds traction shows me how you didn't get it at all.

There is little hope for you, I'm afraid ...

You may as well move out of South Wales now.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


You may as well move out of South Wales now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You may as well move out of South Wales now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
An event that happened 150 years ago and for whom it would be almost impossible for you to have known anyone involved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I didn't say that funerals spill out onto the streets or you have to queue round the block.

All I've said is that we do enjoy a good funeral in South Wales. I'll introduce you to my brother, he thrives on them.

---

quote:

---

But the point others have made about collective memory and memorials, the lighting of candles and so on - yes, those things resonate with many people.

Of course, they don't with everyone, Mr cheesy being a case in point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
'See how these Christians love one another (not)' may be one of the reasons many folk never set foot inside a church. By this, I mean the constant squabbling over Dead Horses, amongst other things...

IJ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Like a mighty tortoise moves the Church of God scans better....

IJ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Indeed it does, and it's a powerful image!

There's a serious point here. Leaving aside questions of locked doors, out-of-date noticeboards/websites, liturgy, churchmanship etc., the sheer amount of time and words wasted by churches on Dead Horse issues is for many, I'm sure, a real off-put.

If I were to move to another town, it's the inclusive churches I'd be checking out.

IJ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

An event that happened 150 years ago and for whom it would be almost impossible for you to have known anyone involved.

---

The folk in your town must be extremely long-lived if anyone can have known someone who was involved ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Indeed it does, and it's a powerful image!

There's a serious point here. Leaving aside questions of locked doors, out-of-date noticeboards/websites, liturgy, churchmanship etc., the sheer amount of time and words wasted by churches on Dead Horse issues is for many, I'm sure, a real off-put.

If I were to move to another town, it's the inclusive churches I'd be checking out.

IJ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
In general I'd agree - except that one of the elderly basses in my choir had a grandfather who, having been born in 1798, fought at Waterloo. The grandfather was 58 when my friend's father was born and lived to the age of 101; my friend's father was 79 when Michael (his last child) was born and also made it past the 100. The upshot is that my friend was regaled with tales of his grandfather's exploits at the Duchess of Richmond's ball, Waterloo and later attendance as part of Wellington's staff at the signing of the Treaty of Paris at only second-hand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Maudie Hopkins (d 2008) was said to be the oldest civil war widow (the US one, obvs). She married William M. Cantrell in 1934 when she was 19 and he was 86 - goodness knows why.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The key word there is 'widow.' She got widows' benefits. For the rest of her life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The key word there is 'widow.' She got widows' benefits. For the rest of her life.

---

Yes. And it appears someone alive in fairly recent times knew someone alive from the 1860s.

Even - shudder - in the bibical sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Who's going to be the first to take down their crucifix and put up a big smiley-face?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The people at one of our churches voted against removing a large hanging crucufix.

It was claimed that several people found it 'gory' and 'gruesome' and that they'd neve set foot inside the church ever again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The people at one of our churches voted against removing a large hanging crucufix.

It was claimed that several people found it 'gory' and 'gruesome' and that they'd neve set foot inside the church ever again.

---

Leave them to their smug, complacent and selfish little lives with no wish to know what is happening in local Accident and Emergency departments, hospice for the dying or homeless hostels, let alone refugee camps and war zones throughout the world. Christian hop and resurrection can only come though the cross.
 

---

Posted by Edith (# 16978) on :
 
Well, being an RC I'd seek one out, but if I saw a biretta or info about the Latin Mass, or other pre V2 practices I'd remove myself quickly. I'd be happy with any MOTR or High Anglican Mass / Eucharistic service too.

My most acutely embarrassing experience was attending the dedication of two nephews at an evangelical service which was held in a cinema smelling of popcorn, with a worship band of vile music and testimony from a number of people describing lucky escapes which they attributed to God directly intervening. And it lasted an hour and a half. Never again.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Only an hour and a half? You were lucky...



IJ
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edith:
Well, being an RC I'd seek one out, but if I saw a biretta or info about the Latin Mass, or other pre V2 practices I'd remove myself quickly. I'd be happy with any MOTR or High Anglican Mass / Eucharistic service too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The people at one of our churches voted against removing a large hanging crucufix.

It was claimed that several people found it 'gory' and 'gruesome' and that they'd neve set foot inside the church ever again.

---

Leave them to their smug, complacent and selfish little lives with no wish to know what is happening in local Accident and Emergency departments, hospice for the dying or homeless hostels, let alone refugee camps and war zones throughout the world. Christian hop and resurrection can only come though the cross.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

Some like a cross showing the suffering of Christ for us. Others like an empty cross showing the promise of the resurrection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The people at one of our churches voted agaijnst removing a large hanging crucufix.

It was claimed that several people found it 'gory' and 'gruesome' and that they'd neve set foot inside the church ever again.

---

Leave them to their smug, complacent and selfish little lives with no wish to know what is happening in local Accident and Emergency departments, hospice for the dying or homeless hostels, let alone refugee camps and war zones throughout the world. Christian hop and resurrection can only come though the cross.

---

Overly judgemental. You have no idea if they are smug, complacent, or selfish.
Some like a cross showing the suffering of Christ for us. Others like an empty cross showing the promise of the resurrection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andras:
Christianity has never preached an empty cross, only an empty tomb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by andras:
Christianity has never preached an empty cross, only an empty tomb.

---

Yes. An empty cross shows only that he died and they took him down so they could use the cross to kill somebody else. Which is true of every victim of crucifixion. That speaks more to efficient executioners than resurrection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
All sorts of assumptions here and above about how what a symbol can mean to a person.
It reminds me of a Buddhist meditation course where I was told that a particular tanka was THE representation of compassion.

---

quote:

---

And while I agree with the unreliability (subjective interpretation) of words, it is a mistake to think that the language of images is immune from its own unreliability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

And while I agree with the unreliability (subjective interpretation) of words, it is a mistake to think that the language of images is immune from its own unreliability.

---

I'm not sure I did. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

The other is the idea that words are the principal means of understanding rather than symbolism and images. ...

And current post-structuralist philosophy indicates how very unreliable words are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

Some like a cross showing the suffering of Christ for us. Others like an empty cross showing the promise of the resurrection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

Some like a cross showing the suffering of Christ for us. Others like an empty cross showing the promise of the resurrection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

Some like a cross showing the suffering of Christ for us. Others like an empty cross showing the promise of the resurrection.

---

And still others prefer the empty cross because of blinkered Prot iconoclasm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

Some like a cross showing the suffering of Christ for us. Others like an empty cross showing the promise of the resurrection.

---

And still others prefer the empty cross because of blinkered Prot iconoclasm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

Some like a cross showing the suffering of Christ for us. Others like an empty cross showing the promise of the resurrection.

---

And some prefer a Christus Rex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

Some like a cross showing the suffering of Christ for us. Others like an empty cross showing the promise of the resurrection.

---

And some prefer a Christus Rex.

---

Thanks for this. It is new to me. An internet search returned this interesting post Christus Rex: The ancient Cross

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

Some like a cross showing the suffering of Christ for us. Others like an empty cross showing the promise of the resurrection.

---

And still others prefer the empty cross because of blinkered Prot iconoclasm.

---

Where does this venom come from. Certainly not from the suffering Christ on the Cross, if His words are anything to go by.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Dear all,

Please, can posters avoid perjorative language about one anothers' traditions. It is not helpful, and we try to keep things respectful hereabouts!

Your assistance is as ever appreciated.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:
The Evangelical argument is that an empty cross witnesses to the Resurrection.

The Catholic argument is different - an empty cross fails to illustrate the crucifixion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I think it may have just been due to plain old iconoclasm. The corpus on the cross is an image. That's bad. It has to go. Toss it on the fire with those statutes of Mary. What's left when you remove the corpus from a crucifix is an empty cross.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
History is one thing, present understanding can be another.
I understand that until late antiquity the cross was a T cross.

But the discussion does demonstrate that the meaning and communication of symbols cannot be divorced from the social context in which they live.

---

Agreed.
 

---

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
History is one thing, present understanding can be another.
I understand that until late antiquity the cross was a T cross.

But the discussion does demonstrate that the meaning and communication of symbols cannot be divorced from the social context in which they live.
 

---

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
What will put me off is an extremely long period of announcements. Some churches have an announcement period before worship begins, others will have them at the end. Some even do them in the middle of the service.

The ones in the middle of the service, to me, sounds like a commercial break.

My congregation has them at the end of the service, but I would much rather have them at the beginning so that at the end people go out into the world for service. However, the majority of the congregation like the announcements at the end.

So, this past week, several individuals got up to make announcements, and they ended up taking more time in total than the time for the sermon. I ended up emailing the pastor and told him the announcement time was a big turn off. He has yet to reply to the email--which is also a big turn off.

Something I have learned about announcements--the longer they are the lesser the people remember. Also, visitors are really not interested in the affairs of the congregation.

There are so many ways to convey announcements now. Bulletins, email, newsletters, social media, even phone trees. There is simply no need for a lengthy announcement period, before, in the middle or after.

I rest my case.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
There is no "right place" for announcements! I know in Anglican churches it's quite common to have them at the end, before the final hymn and benediction. In Nonconformist churches they often come about 20 minutes in, after the opening family worship but before children leave for their classes and the offering is uplifted. A newer trend is to have rolling announcements projected on Powerpoint as worshippers enter.

In my view, you need to have a good notice-sheet and only announce items which need to be "underlined" or last-minute important stuff which missed the deadline. And never have different people each give "their" announcement unless it's something very special (eg a specific charity offering) you wish to highlight.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Wot Baptist Trainfan said.

The church I go to at present has the notices after the Peace, and before the Offertory Hymn, which does indeed seem like a commercial break. A



IJ
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Notices: while there are some that need to be announced - Banns of Marriage - most are just drawing attention to things advertised on posters in the porch.

Solution at my current shack: At the end of the intercessions Banns are published (if there are any) followed by quick prayer for those preparing for wedding, then intercessions closed. Then hymn for Offertory announced, any special retiring collection (Disaster Relief, etc) drawn to attention of faithful, all urged to take and read pew sheet, then The Peace, 15 second pause followed by Hymn.

It works. And the 15 seconds means we don't have hoards of people milling around 'sharing' the peace.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There is no "right place" for announcements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What you Anglicans don' realise is that, for most Nonconformists, spoken notices are a liturgical necessity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

I really like the idea of banns being included before the intercessions and then included in the prayers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What you Anglicans don' realise is that, for most Nonconformists, spoken notices are a liturgical necessity.

---

Especially if they can be called "Intimations".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There is no "right place" for announcements.

---

I've seen them given before the service starts, where this means the canon giving the notices at the advertised start time of the service, but then leaving the front and returning to the vestry to the sounds of organly noodling, followed by brief silence, then processing in to the first hymn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What you Anglicans don' realise is that, for most Nonconformists, spoken notices are a liturgical necessity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What you Anglicans don' realise is that, for most Nonconformists, spoken notices are a liturgical necessity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
At my church they have plumbed a new depth of horror for announcements. They have put them on video. It is a Hell undreamed of by Dante.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What you Anglicans don' realise is that, for most Nonconformists, spoken notices are a liturgical necessity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What you Anglicans don' realise is that, for most Nonconformists, spoken notices are a liturgical necessity.

---

If there's nothing really going on, do you make something up to fill the space?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
In many Baptist churches it used to be the custom to announce the total of the previous week's offerings ("Your tithes and offerings brought into the Lord's House last Sunday amounted to £159.17p"). I haven't come across this for years

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Would you believe this is still common in many churches in Africa. Including RC and Anglican churches!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
If there's nothing really going on, do you make something up to fill the space?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
"It is a joy and a privilege to welcome new faces to our service today, and we look forward to shaking hands with them afterwards."

---

How do you shake hands with a face?
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I was hoping someone would spot that!

[ 10. December 2016, 14:13: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 

---

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

1. In many Baptist churches it used to be the custom to announce the total of the previous week's offerings ("Your tithes and offerings brought into the Lord's House last Sunday amounted to £159.17p"). I haven't come across this for years - I think Gift Aid, Standing Orders and Direct Debits have (thankfully) killed it off!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
"It is a joy and a privilege to welcome new faces to our service today, and we look forward to shaking hands with them afterwards."

---

How do you shake hands with a face?

---

In the case of pedantic gits they get a hand to the face instead.

[ 10. December 2016, 16:03: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Notices are in the newsletter, the magazine, and given out from the front, but people still say they didn't know that events were happening. Complaints about starting the service late due to the time the notices take are matched by the complaints when they are not given out at all.

I think it better to leave verbal notices out altogether, unless it's something extraordinary. If people miss the newsletter deadline, don't reward it with a special notice.

---

We found that people didn't read the newsletter, despite it coming by email on Thursday and also given out in pape form on Sunday.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
We have had things put in both the church magazine and weekly pewsheet, announced verbally in church and perhaps even emailed round - yet people still say, "We never knew"!!!
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Let them be cast, therefore, into outer and unknowing darkness. You can do no more...



IJ
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
What will put me off is an extremely long period of announcements. Some churches have an announcement period before worship begins, others will have them at the end. Some even do them in the middle of the service.

The ones in the middle of the service, to me, sounds like a commercial break.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Gosh ... but wasn't the OP about what would put you off from setting foot inside a church in the first place?

Surely, the way they do the announcements (at the beginning, before the service starts at our parish, BTW ...) isn't going to be a deal breaker before you set foot inside the building or meeting hall?

---

If I'd heard:
(a) that they have a ten minute break in the middle of worship in which someone reads the notices from the weekly sheet (which I'm quite capable of reading myself, thank you) or
(b) that they have a ten minute break in the middle of worship in which someone reads the notices because they don't have a weekly sheet
then I wouldn't set foot inside the building in the first place. Does that satisfy your inner pedant?
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Gosh ... but wasn't the OP about what would put you off from setting foot inside a church in the first place?

---

For years, it was the way I was treated by "Christians" my own age. Both at high school, and when I was dragged to my grandmother's church (before I refused to go).
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Good point - it may indeed not be anything your local church has or has not done, or is or is not doing, that puts you off entering its gates (if you can find them), but simply your previous personal experience of 'Christians'.

A shame, if that's the case...

IJ
 

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
What put me off of going to any church at all in the past was firstly that I had other things to do on a Sunday, and didn't want to change my routine, and also that I had swallowed the urban myths which said you could be a Christian without going to church, and that they were only after money.
 

---

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:


The reason why I put down announcements--or notices--is that for many visitors they are basically inside news Nothing makes you feel like an outsider than when one hears inside information, IMHO. I know if I had been a new visitor I would not have wanted to come back again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
The reason why I put down announcements--or notices--is that for many visitors they are basically inside news Nothing makes you feel like an outsider than when one hears inside information, IMHO. I know if I had been a new visitor I would not have wanted to come back again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Using terminology that is unfamiliar to outsiders is also unhelpful. Ask them to sign the guest book by the entrance rather than in the narthex, for example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
I think west doors, and hence narthexes, are more common across the pond.

---

It strikes me as rather odd that you should think west doors rare in the UK. I don't think they are at all. It is less common (but certainly far from rare) for churches, particularly cathedral churches, here to have a narthex too. Certainly, the finest and most beautiful cathedral* in the land has a narthex.

*Lincoln
 

---

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
My mentioning "entrance" rather than "narthex" was just supposed to be an example of using terminology that a newcomer might understand rather than obscure, churchy terms.
 

---

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
My mentioning "entrance" rather than "narthex" was just supposed to be an example of using terminology that a newcomer might understand rather than obscure, churchy terms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:

Something I have learned about announcements--the longer they are the lesser the people remember.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Much of what is said in churches is in obscure, churchy terms, for whatever reason.

---

It strikes me that there are two different kinds of mystery connected with worship. First, we have the mystery of the divine, which we try to distil in words, music and liturgy but which must inevitably remain as God in all his glory is ultimately incomprehensible to finite human minds. Second, we have the mystery of the church with all its strange phraseology and customs, familiar t the cognoscenti but off-putting to the outsider?

And dare I say that Jesus was very good at both displaying the first kind of mystery and cutting through the traditions of the second?
 

---

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
I beg to differ specialised language is a factor of all subcultures, somewhere between a dialect and idiolect. A gym-goer may talk of 'presses' and 'leg curls' and be totally weird to the new person. The answer is, not that need to lose the language, but they need to explain it. That is part of being welcoming and helps someone new feel they are being accepted.

What is more the biggest danger in trying to speak in common language is that we distort the meaning of common words to fit concepts within the culture of the congregation and so by mislead those from the outside. As a statistician, I rue the individuals who first applied the terms 'normal' and 'significant' to their technical meaning within statistics. These applications disable communication rather than help it.

Jengie

[ 13. December 2016, 09:11: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I don't disagree with you Jengie Jon, but context, context. If you're speaking to your servers and lay assistants, to say narthex is quite acceptable; if your audience is a group at a local service club (Rotary, Apex etc) porch is probably better - not strictly accurate, but better.
 

---

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Not really, the insistence on using common language rather than contextual is an insistence that they are not part of the community. The more open you are with the contextual language, the more open the community of that context appears. People are not fools, they know it exists and when they do not hear it, they think that you are hiding it so as to keep them away from it. Doing so creates the idea that the language is somehow spiritually superior or in the extreme a 'Sacred Language' that has to be kept from those who do not belong for issues of purity.

I am not saying we should use deliberately obscure language but that we should not be afraid to use the normative language within the congregational setting. We just need to be willing to explain it.

Jengie

[ 13. December 2016, 09:56: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Are you then suggesting an educational role - the speaker says that there is an impressive stained glass window in what we call the narthex, which you might think of as a sort of porch.

[ 13. December 2016, 10:10: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I love the precise use of language and have a great deal of sympathy with what Jengie says. (One of my pet hates is the use of the word "literally" - such as in, "The noise was so loud that it literally split my head in two" - really?) I also despise the "dumbing-down" of everything in the name of "relevance" - as she rightly says, people are not stupid and like to be treated with respect.

Nevertheless I think that churches must recognise that they are a "minority interest" in a largely secular society and do need to explain difficult concepts in ways that people understand. For instance, some time ago I preached a sermon on the "Yet, but not yet" hope within Advent. Underlying it all ( as my wife correctly discerned) was the word "proleptic" - but I never used it. It would have been entirely appropriate within academe or even - perhaps - a home Bible study group, but not in the context of Sunday morning worship.

Our faith is for everyone; and we must be careful to not give the impression that the Church is just another specialised in-group. I submit again that Jesus succeeded in talking about God in ways which were intriguing, accurate and accessible. After all, in Matthew 7 we read of him telling a parable and the people being astounded because he did not teach like the scribes and Pharisees.

And - a suitably seasonal thought! - doesn't 'incarnation' mean that we have to live among ordinary people and speak their language in order to reveal God?

[ 13. December 2016, 10:34: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
P.S. to above: do we somehow harbour the thought that churchy language is more "dignified" or "reverent" than ordinary speech? If so, why?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
My experience has been that there is just as much, if not more, 'insider' language in apparently more informal church settings as there is in the older traditions.

I agree with Jengie Jon. We should use the language that is normative within whatever faith community and tradition we are operating within, but be willing to explain it.

I'm not suggesting we use rarefied or hi-falutin' terms for the sake of it, but it's just as irritating to hear clergy/church leaders adopting a kind of faux-street speech as it is to hear a parsonical or overly 'elevated' voice.

My brother-in-law moved to a new city a while back and they did the rounds of the churches in their area. They were expecting to end up in a large and lively setting but gradually gravitated towards their small, friendly local Methodist church.

Why? Because they were quickly put off by the somewhat affected style of some of the young preachers at the large and lively churches they sampled.

'Jesus was hangin' and chillin' with his mates, right? Yeah? And this guy comes up to him, yeah? And he's like, "Hey Jesus ..."...'



Whereas in the Methodist chapel the preaching was direct and practical, wore its learning lightly and whilst not scintillating (or even theologically sound) every week it was at least pitched in a way that didn't set their teeth on edge.

Obviously, with the circuit system the range and quality varies, from the dire to the thought-provoking and insightful or inspiring. My brother-in-law has started supporting various relief/humanitarian causes as a result of hearing sermons there that allude to some of these issues.
 

---

Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Are you then suggesting an educational role - the speaker says that there is an impressive stained glass window in what we call the narthex, which you might think of as a sort of porch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
P.S. to above: do we somehow harbour the thought that churchy language is more "dignified" or "reverent" than ordinary speech? If so, why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not suggesting we use rarefied or hi-falutin' terms for the sake of it, but it's just as irritating to hear clergy/church leaders adopting a kind of faux-street speech as it is to hear a parsonical or overly 'elevated' voice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
I have seen notices outside churches which advertise eg 10am John Smith, and no other details are given

---

As you say, it's quite common amongst nonconformist churches which stress the preaching tradition.
[...]

But I've always found it a strange notion - what does it mean to the passer-by? We, however, do promulgate the service's theme each week.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Some churches don't even put services times on their noticeboards. I had to go to such a church once, but certainly wouldn't have made the effort otherwise. If they're so suspicious of strangers why would I impose myself on them!?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Or the service times listed will be wrong because no one thought to change the notice board when the service schedule changed ten years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
P.S. to above: do we somehow harbour the thought that churchy language is more "dignified" or "reverent" than ordinary speech? If so, why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:


In our Deanery, starting times of the main (or in some cases, only) Sunday service are 930am (2), 10am (3), 1015am (1), 1030am (3), and 11am (3).

IJ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pancho:
It's very common for Catholic parishes to have an anticipated Sunday Mass on Saturday afternoons (the so-called "vigil Mass"). It's somewhat less common to have one on Sunday afternoon but the larger or busier parishes usually have one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
P.S. to above: do we somehow harbour the thought that churchy language is more "dignified" or "reverent" than ordinary speech? If so, why?

---

In a resonant acoustic, traditional church texts well spoken bestow a certain beauty, with all the Anglo-Saxon directness and poetic sensibilities, and all the voiced th's tend to soften the sound. For me, at least. It's the voice of the solid past speaking to us moderns beaten down by banality.

I don't insist on attending worship in Tudor-style English, but I do appreciate it and even our modern rites' lack of everyday empty phrases.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I'm no longer a morning person, and for me 1030am is about as early as I can manage - 11am or 1115am would be better...I am told (by a former student) that even as late as 1115am is too early for most students!

---

Some campus ministries have Sunday-night services for students, and they seem to be well attended. I live within hearing distance of the bells of Madonna Della Strada Chapel at Loyola University Chicago, where they have a 10.30am Sunday Mass but also a 5pm and a 9pm. I often hear the bells ringing at 9 and 10pm on a Sunday and momentarily wonder why, then remember they're ringing before and after the 9pm Mass. They also have a 9.30pm Taize service on Wednesdays, and I hear the bells for that as well. I'm glad I like bells.

Our parish church in downtown Chicago is not far from the Loop, which has a large university-student population. With good planning and use of social media, maybe nearby churches could offer late-evening services. Holy Name Cathedral (RC) offers early-evening ones that are well attended.

[ 14. December 2016, 14:29: Message edited by: Oblatus ]
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

As far as churchy language goes, several people I know who have no church background have expressed to me their curiosity as to what a eucharist might be, as they often saw the word on notice boards. When I told one graduate student that it meant a communion service or mass, she asked why clear terms were not used

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
FWIW quite a few churches now include a description of "What to expect" on their websites. Here is an example, selected at random from the Internet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

As far as churchy language goes, several people I know who have no church background have expressed to me their curiosity as to what a eucharist might be, as they often saw the word on notice boards. When I told one graduate student that it meant a communion service or mass, she asked why clear terms were not used

---

I inherited a church noticeboard that announced 'Parish Mass every Sunday 10.30'. My judgement then was that it announced the church as for Anglo-catholics (or maybe even Roman catholics) only, so I changed it to Eucharist in an attempt to be more inclusive. On reflection I think that was wrong, since many people have some idea (even if very vague) of what a Mass is, whereas you need to be very much an insider to understand Eucharist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Sounds like the battle of Fr Chantry-Pigge's church noticeboard in The Towers of Trebizond.
The Lord's Supper will be celebrated, God Willing, at....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Whatever you say, you'll trip up. Words like "Parish Mass" or "Family Praise" say quite a lot to the "insider" but not to the passer-by. "Morning Worship" satisfies no-one!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


The vicar has differentiated the more traditional 9am service [at our church] from the more family-worship or even 'happy-clappy' style 11am one (which I avoid) by referring to the first as the 'formal service' and the second as an 'informal' service.
[...]
The other vicar in town immediately recognised [informal] as a sub-text for 'happy-clappy' so made sure she avoided it when she came to visit shortly after taking up her post at the liberal-catholic Anglican parish down the road.

---

quote:

---

As for what is so 'formal' about the 9am service - well, they don't 'process' and it's pretty snake-belly low and rather reminiscent of a Methodist service if anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

The issue I have with 'formal' and 'informal' is that neither sounds attractive and neither really describes what goes on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

The issue I have with 'formal' and 'informal' is that neither sounds attractive and neither really describes what goes on.

I like the idea of asking the regulars but I'm not sure what they'd say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
They've recently changed the name to 'service with hymns' - which sounds odd to me too.

---

At least they don't call it "service with worship."
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
'Service with hymns' does sound odd - if you hail from an era where almost all services were expected to have hymns. But that's not the case for all forms of Christian worship today.

Church noticeboards and websites are going to have to use more descriptive language in future, as the kinds of worship available diversify.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Heh heh ... well, I did ask the vicar why he didn't call the 11am service 'service with worship songs'.

He said that they sometimes sing hymns at the 11am service as well as worship songs.

So I suggested they call it, 'service with worships songs and sometimes hymns', which didn't go down very well.

On the thing about the names for services having to change as time goes on, well yes ...

But why can't someone come up with some sensible names?

I mean, with the Fresh Expressions end of things you end up with cool, trendy sounding names like Zone or Space or Fusion or The Works or something daft like that ...

These mean bugger all to anybody.

Alright, terms like Vespers, Evensong, Matins, Eucharist and so on don't mean a lot to anyone who isn't all churchified already.

But c'mon, why do we have to have silly names that sound like night-clubs or coffee bars?

Surely we can explain things to people?

The traditional title of a non-eucharist Anglican morning service used to be Service of the Word - at least in evangelical Anglican circles.

Sounds a bit portentous, but it's better than 'formal service' or 'service with hymns'.

The other thing that narks me about all of this, and perhaps it betrays my incipient sacramentalism, is that the focus is put on the songs and music style rather than Communion, the Eucharist, Lord's Supper or whatever we may call it across our respective traditions.

Communion then becomes an add-on extra with the focus being on the words/style of the hymns or songs.

This should never be.

Unfortunately, it's what we've come to ...


 

---

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Non-eucharistic CofE services- what's wrong with Morning / Evening Prayer as the case may be? Maybe 'MP/EP with sermon' if appropriate. Nice, authentically Anglican, reasonably plain terms.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Just so - and if the service is Eucharistic, then plain 'Holy Communion' is also authentically Anglican. Agreed, it's a technical term, but there's no escaping at least some such terms.

IJ
 

---

Posted by Charles Had a Splurge on (# 14140) on :
 
We have a similar "Formal/informal" service split at our Baptist place.

Except the "formal" service is now the "Relaxed" service.

In distinction to the latter service with the full "Worship Band" - which I like to think of as the frenetic service
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Warning - Rant alert

Gamaliel and Amanda B Reckondwythe, you've both hit something that is a really raw spot with me.

First, it's referring to the singing as 'worship' as in 'we had a time of worship, then we had a sermon and then we proceeded to break bread together'.

Then it's 'worship leader' which turns out not to mean the person presiding or leading the service, but the head musician.

It's the assumption that the music is 'worship' and the rest isn't that really drives me up the wall.

If the concept of Christian worship means anything at all, then whether we call it the Eucharist, the Mass, the Holy Liturgy, Holy Communion, the Lord's Supper, the Breaking of Bread Service or whatever, then whatever else we do, and however else we may praise and thank God, that must be fundamental to informing what we understand worship to be about.

Well, that's my view.

Rant over
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Rant agreed with!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Rant seconded.

On the 'relaxed' thing ... Blah-dee hell ...

'Relaxed' my arse.

That's worse than 'informal'. It conjures an image of people lounging around on bean-bags.

What's so 'relaxed' about it? Unless it's not frenetic like the worship-band led service?

'Relaxed' is one of those words that ought to be banned from the lexicon on pain of being strapped to a pillar and forced to listen to [insert blush music of choice] until you repent in sackcloth and ashes.

Enough of this 'relaxed' tosh already.

'How are you feeling now you've been condemned to be devoured by lions in the arena, Ignatius of Antioch?'
'Well, I'm feeling pretty relaxed about it ...'

'How do you feel about your impending execution, Pastor Bonhoeffer?'
'Pretty relaxed ...'

There might have been silence in heaven for half an hour according to John's Apocalypse, but what were they doing? Relaxing?

I mean, c'mon ...

'Relaxed'. I ask you ...
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Gamaliel, your rant seconded too. And your parallels. 'Hey lions, isn't it great that we can chill out together like this, and that I can give you your dinner.' 'Ach mein Führer, how proud I am to assist full employment among your executioners'.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Well, we're covering old territory here.

On the positive side, it shows that certain unimpressed gentlemen will obviously never darken the doors of any church where 'informal/relaxed' worship is taking place, hence leaving those who enjoy this sort of thing to worship in peace. So it's all good....

ISTM that the CofE's broad church policy inevitably creates churches that its own churchgoers wouldn't want to set foot in; regardless of the parish system, people will choose the church that's right for them and drive straight past the one they don't like. Otherwise, as we've seen, a well-heeled church will have multiple congregations, each one designed to attract - or repel - a different demographic.

We might argue about the labels, but if something's available and people want it, eventually they'll find it. And if they don't want it, it doesn't matter what you call it.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, we're covering old territory here.

On the positive side, it shows that certain unimpressed gentlemen will obviously never darken the doors of any church where 'informal/relaxed' worship is taking place, hence leaving those who enjoy this sort of thing to worship in peace. So it's all good....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Quakers have done that already, SvitlanaV2. I don't see thousands of people beating a path to their door.

How deconstructed and simplified does it all have to be before anyone takes any notice?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My guess would be that Christianity in the Western world will become such a minority sport, as it were, that attempts to deconstruct and simplify things beyond a certain point will prove counter-productive.

If there are only three of you meeting in someone's front room you may not want a full Tridentine rite, but then you aren't going to be able to have lots of speakers and dry ice and Power-Point slides and so on either.

So you might as well have a fairly simple liturgy ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...If there are only three of you meeting in someone's front room you may not want a full Tridentine rite...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:


I do get the impression that a lot of non-churchgoers are particularly fond of the AV. They think its words are beautiful, ancient and poetic, which is true - but they don't have to listen to it at church every week, do they??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I think that's certainly the case, Baptist Trainfan ...

As for Shippies not being prepared to 'set foot' in Pentecostal settings, I'm not sure you're right, SvitlanaV2.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


In the case of a non-Trinitarian outfit like the Unitarians, or a non-Trinitarian Pentecostal church, I'd regard them as having some family resemblance but beyond the pale in fundamental respects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Non-Trinitarian Pentecostals I used to hear about from traditional Pentecostal friends in South Wales were always somewhere else ... and, I would imagine, white-working class.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I don't think I would have allied the phrases "social concern" and "prosperity Gospel" ... although I recognise that the latter flourishes in conditions of deprivation.

---

I'd have said they're at opposite ends of a spectrum.q
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Don't misunderstand me, I don't find Quakerism particularly nourishing in and of itself.

I couldn't become a Quaker, I'm far too sacramentally and liturgically inclined for that, I think - although I do admire them as individuals and feel that they are 'onto something' to a certain extent ...

But it's a something I'm happy to dip in and out of rather than to pursue, as it were.

I have a friend who currently feels drawn that way, and that's great ...

But I can't say that it would do for me ...

Although I have a lot of respect for Quakers and for Quakerism.

I can see what you're saying about Trinitarianism, but I s'pose my contacts with Orthodoxy have rubbed off on me insofar as I don't see a concern about the Trinity as some kind of cerebral or abstract theological concept but a living reality.

When I first encountered Orthodoxy the thing that really struck a chord and resonated with me was the strong Trinitarian emphasis. Not that I wasn't used to that already, but it somehow seemed more 'realised' if I can put it that way - and yes, largely because it's such a big feature in their Liturgy.

So, I'm as Trinitarian as they come. It runs through me like a stick of rock.

That's why I'd roll my eyes at the creedal 'lightness' of something like the Unitarian Christian Church or whatever it calls itself - and why I think that various non-conformist groups can find themselves teetering close to the edge when it comes to their lack of creedal discipline and formality - if I can put it that way.

The history of the Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Baptists is riddled with schisms and down-right apostasising over this issue - the Trinity and the Deity of Christ.

No, I'm not saying that Baptists are heretical, but they can be creedally compromised if they aren't careful.

Of course, Anglicans and people from other older churches and denominations can be too - I'm sure there are plenty of clergy who are nominally Trinitarian as well as many people in the pews.

I can't speak for them. I can only speak for myself. I am inveterately Nicene.

Here I stand, I can do no other ...


 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I don't think I would have allied the phrases "social concern" and "prosperity Gospel" ... although I recognise that the latter flourishes in conditions of deprivation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
And we're now back into doctrinal argument - which the one thing more than any other that the unchurched find off-putting when they make an occasional foray into a service.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The history of the Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Baptists is riddled with schisms and down-right apostasising over this issue - the Trinity and the Deity of Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Congregationalism in the USA fed pretty directly into Unitarianism (pace your example of King's Chapel). During the early 19th century, all the Congregationalist churches in Boston went Unitarian, with the exception of Old South. Indeed, the United Church of Christ (the largest Congregationalist denomination in America) has a warm relationship with the UUA, and no doubt harbors plenty of Unitarians within its tent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
. . . but don't think Presbies are immune either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Nick Tamen I think the presbyterian splits you recall were in Scotland.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
Don't assume younger people will come out for worship bands. That was actually a boomer trait.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What I'd be less happy doing would be to put my big toe over the threshold of anything that had anything to do with Hagin, Copeland or the Word of Faith crowd, or anything too charismaniac or rigidly fundamentalist - or anything that had a label on it that said it was avowedly non-Trinitarian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
after all, we are addressing the Most High God. But our words must also convey meaning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've not said anything about whether I'd attend a service in another religion entirely. I've only attended Jewish worship never Hindu or Muslim or anything else. I would certainly visit given the opportunity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've not said anything about whether I'd attend a service in another religion entirely. I've only attended Jewish worship never Hindu or Muslim or anything else. I would certainly visit given the opportunity.

---

Tangent alert//

I think there is an immense difference between "visiting" or "observing" the worship of another faith, and "agreeing" with it, "participating" in it or making that faith one's spiritual home.

//Tangent ends.

---

quote:

---

I've been to a Quaker Meeting. Like Gamaliel, I wouldn't want to be one, but I enjoyed it, and was impressed with their friendship with each after before and after the meeting itself.

---

So....during the meeting they had a fight?
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Perhaps they looked hard at each other? Then when things got really rough, they looked daggers instead?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
After the first Quaker meeting I attended, the Friends had an unseemly spat about how ethical and appropriate it was to bring chocolate biscuits along for the post-meeting coffee, rather than fruit or nuts.

Heck, they weren't even Fair Trade biscuits ...

I was amused by this and quite encouraged. The Quakers were just as petty as the rest of us.
 

---

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
That settles it. What would put me off from setting foot inside a church is any congregation that could object to chocolate biscuits!


(I've only attended one Quaker Meeting in my life -- about 50 years ago -- and I don't recall any refreshments following the meeting.)
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Quakers were just as petty as the rest of us. [/QUOTE} yet they rather act "holier than thou" in their pacifist views
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
My experience is that they act holier than thou in all those areas where they are distinctive, same as Baptists, same as Anglicans, same as RCs same as ...

That's what I found strangely encouraging.

They are no better or no worse than the rest of us.

We all do the same sort of thing, it's simply easier to spot when we see it in other traditions and in other people rather than in ourselves. Which also could be construed as a holier than thou statement but isn't intended as such.

On the pacifist thing, I've found that the Quakers are very aware that they aren't the only ones to hold those views. As with everyone else, though, they do like to emphasise what makes them distinctive.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the pacifist thing, I've found that the Quakers are very aware that they aren't the only ones to hold those views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...I wouldn't be a Quaker, not because they are pains in the arse - they are no more pains in the arse than anyone else...

---

Although in my admittedly limited experience, they do tend to talk a bit too much (when not worshipping, of course) for my liking.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
They are not alone in that, Albertus, but I take your point. Perhaps they feel the need to make up for the silence in their worship by talking too much the rest of the time ...
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Baptists and other "informal Evangelicals" can certainly talk too much, in the services.

Such as in prayers which go: "Dear Lord, we would bring before you our beloved brother Gamaliel, Lord. You know that he starting a new job on Monday, Lord, and we praise and thank you for your goodness and mercy in his life until now. And now, Lord, we would ask your blessing upon him as he begins this new phase of his life, Lord. Please go with him and before him, making smooth his path and blessing him in all that he may be asked to do ....(etc.)".

Why not, "Dear God, we thank you that Gamaliel is starting a new job on Monday: please help him"?
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Baptist Trainfan suggests "Dear God, we thank you that Gamaliel is starting a new job on Monday: please help him".

How about " O God, thank you for Gamaliel's new job: please help him"?

Even more minimalist..

IJ
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Gosh ...

Seeing as I'm not starting a new job on Monday, I thank you for your prayers and concern ...



But yes, Baptist Trainfan does capture the essence of that kind of extemporary prayer.

It reminds me of an anecdote I once heard about a prayer meeting where they were praying for someone in prison ...

'Lord, we know you work in strange ways ...'

For non-UK readers, Strangeways is the name of a prison in Manchester.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Actually, it's more likely to go as follows:

"Dear Lord, Father ... Lord Jesus ... we really just ... we really just Lord God ... Father ... we really just pray, Jesus ... we really just pray for our brother Gamaliel, Lord. You know Lord Jesus, Father God, that he is is like ... just ... really just ... starting a new job on Monday, Lord, and we praise and thank you for your goodness and mercy in his life Lord God ... until now Jesus. And now, Lord, we would really just ask your blessing upon him Lord Jesus as he begins this new phase of his life, Lord. Please go with him Father God and just before him, Lord Jesus, making smooth his path and blessing him in all that he may be asked to do ....(etc.) really just ... Lord ... Father ... really just ....".
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

It reminds me of an anecdote I once heard about a prayer meeting where they were praying for someone in prison ...

'Lord, we know you work in strange ways ...'

For non-UK readers, Strangeways is the name of a prison in Manchester.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Actually, it's more likely to go as follows:

---

quote:

---

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Baptist Trainfan suggests "Dear God, we thank you that Gamaliel is starting a new job on Monday: please help him".

How about " O God, thank you for Gamaliel's new job: please help him"?

---

Or even 'Lord, Gamaliel? You know what to do.'
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I was seriously tempted to include "vouchsafe".

---

quote:

---

Almighty God, the fountain of all wisdom, who knowest our necessities before we ask, and our ignorance in asking: We beseech thee to have compassion upon our infirmities; and those things, which for our unworthiness we dare not, and for our blindness we cannot ask, vouchsafe to give us for the worthiness of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Brevity? The Orthodox don't do brevity. Neither do traditional evangelicals and Pentecostals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Brevity? The Orthodox don't do brevity. Neither do traditional evangelicals and Pentecostals.

---

Indeed! But they might have a few more people setting foot inside their churches if they did!

---

quote:

---

Almighty God you are the fountain of all wisdom. You know both what we need before we ask, and the ignorance in our asking. We ask you to have compassion on our infirmities. Because we are unworthy, there are things we dare not ask for; because we are blind, there are things we cannot see to ask for. Despite that, because your Son Jesus Christ is worthy and is our Lord, we ask you to give us whatever we might need. Amen

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That said, our nearest Orthodox priest tells me that women in his congregation get stick because they don't get home early enough to cook Sunday dinner for their husbands ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
...I wouldn't be a Quaker, not because they are pains in the arse - they are no more pains in the arse than anyone else...

---

Although in my admittedly limited experience, they do tend to talk a bit too much (when not worshipping, of course) for my liking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
And here's a rendering into modern English I've written on the fly, with no 'vouchsafe' in it:

quote:

---

Almighty God you are the fountain of all wisdom. You know both what we need before we ask, and the ignorance in our asking. We ask you to have compassion on our infirmities. Because we are unworthy, there are things we dare not ask for; because we are blind, there are things we cannot see to ask for. Despite that, because your Son Jesus Christ is worthy and is our Lord, we ask you to give us whatever we might need. Amen

---

---

I like that- thank you.
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
On the subject of brevity, the C of E's own 'A Church Near You' website (free for any parish to use) does indeed include the facility to indicate the duration of any service or event.

FWIW.

IJ
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Ah, but when a church says "Morning Worship 10.30 - 11.30 am", is it the truth or wishful thinking?

FWIW, a lot of church now include a "What to expect if you come to one of our services" page on their websites. This typically includes information on transport and parking, style of worship and music, even what to wear!
 

---

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Fair comment - but if you can't trust a church to be truthful, who can you trust?



Agreed, though, that the sort of useful info BT mentions can indeed be useful.

IJ
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Gamaliel

You've given one good reason for services to be shorter: it would enable women who have families to cook for to get back home sooner. Considering that most churchgoers are women, and that some outreach efforts of the future (as in the past) are likely to attract women but not their children or partners, perhaps this isn't such a frivolous issue.

FEs or other specially adapted services will obviously vary in length. Shortness is a definite advantage in some cases, for example in the case of weekday or Saturday services that are designed to attract shoppers, or office workers on their lunch breaks. But Sunday can be equally busy for some people these days.
 

---

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Baptists and other "informal Evangelicals" can certainly talk too much, in the services.

Such as in prayers which go: "Dear Lord, we would bring before you our beloved brother Gamaliel, Lord. You know that he starting a new job on Monday, Lord, and we praise and thank you for your goodness and mercy in his life until now. And now, Lord, we would ask your blessing upon him as he begins this new phase of his life, Lord. Please go with him and before him, making smooth his path and blessing him in all that he may be asked to do ....(etc.)".

Why not, "Dear God, we thank you that Gamaliel is starting a new job on Monday: please help him"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
It's like their first time was a quickie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Brevity? The Orthodox don't do brevity. Neither do traditional evangelicals and Pentecostals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Indeed! But they might have a few more people setting foot inside their churches if they did!

At this point in time it's the more MOTR congregations that could be using brevity as a selling point. (Methodist sermons should be a bit shorter, though, IMO.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
... Service still came in under 20 minutes though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
... Service still came in under 20 minutes though.

---

Even if not exactly praiseworthy, that really is an achievement. Even if one subtracts the time spent signing the various registration documents, and forbade having any hymns, it would be difficult > impossible to get through a CofE wedding in 20 minutes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
A question to Mousethief for clarification: are your "church weddings" also the "legal weddings", or are they separate? That makes a big difference as to what one is "allowed" to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Sometimes we get the vomitous ceremony of the couple taking two candles and lighting a third then blowing out their own candles, indicating that they have ceased to exist as individuals, and lost their souls to the Borg.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

But there are no vows, no "I do" or "I will" pronouncements other than to say you're not encumbered by engagement to anyone else, and are entering into the marriage freely, nor any "I now pronounce you" pronouncements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Sometimes we get the vomitous ceremony of the couple taking two candles and lighting a third then blowing out their own candles, indicating that they have ceased to exist as individuals, and lost their souls to the Borg.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think all forms of worship that don't currently have well over a 100 year pedigree are likely to seem 'contrived' to somebody. I imagine that fewer and fewer people will have an issue with this, as the shared memory of inherited forms recedes.

However, I think there will always be places where the most beautiful traditions will be carefully preserved. People who want them are going to have to adopt a sectarian rather than a parish mindset, and be willing to travel a considerable distance in order to set foot inside the churches that offer the worshipping styles and doctrines that they prefer. I understand from the Ship that many churchgoers in rural areas are already doing this.

---

Some people say this quite a ,lot on here and it may be true. but why should it be the good stuff that gets relegated to the rare minority taste? Why can't more people just be arsed to think about the value of inherited beauty?
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

But there are no vows, no "I do" or "I will" pronouncements other than to say you're not encumbered by engagement to anyone else, and are entering into the marriage freely, nor any "I now pronounce you" pronouncements.

---

Ah, that's not an option here in Britain (except for the "I pronounce you") - the marriage would not be valid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Well, nature abhors a vacuum, and people love ceremonies--and so, in the absence of the ancient, decent and orderly ceremonies of the Church, people will invent their own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
[snip]
Some people say this quite a ,lot on here and it may be true. but why should it be the good stuff that gets relegated to the rare minority taste? Why can't more people just be arsed to think about the value of inherited beauty?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
That sounds about right, MT. Plus in some cases a sort of faux-humble inverted-snobbish idea about 'authenticity'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

'I Mickey Mouse take you Minnie Mouse to be my wife .... ',

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

Sounds like UK law is based on the services of the Church of England, and forcing that model on all the noncons as well.

---