Thread: "I don't blame them wanting a lie-in on Sundays" Board: Ecclesiantics / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=008453
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
says Church of England adviser.
Feelings of enthusiasm and commitment are gone, says Professor John Mbiti, an adviser to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.
How has your church reached out to those who get up early each day and want a lie in one day a week? Can spirituality be fulfilled within fewer attendances? How do you balance the needs, wants, of society with the eternal message of salvation and Love and its expression? I'd be loathe to throw out 2000 years of tradition, but what are people's thoughts on services that meet the needs of society, as well as the committed?
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on
:
I do not apologise for having an extra hour in bed on a Sunday morning (rising at 7.30 rather than 6.30). 11.00 am is a civilised hour for worship - allows time for breakfast, walking the dog, Mrs Gwalchmai to get ready etc.
That said, I have on occasion been known to attend the 8.00 am BCP communion.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
An earlier start time seems pastorally sensitive, especially in our day when, due to cultural changes relating to working hours, people are less accustomed to fasting. A late start time on a Sunday would make the communion fast more difficult for a large number of people.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
But a later start time would help our older members who struggle to get themselves ready for a 10.00 start.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Well there's always Evensong at 6pm, if you want a really long lie in.... or a Eucharistic service at another church in the benefice at 11, or the monthly midweek Messy Church at 4pm....
Although there are not many people about early on a Sunday morning, I notice that we compete for space in the car park with an enthusiastic group of cyclists who gather at the same time for an early morning spin. I guess people are always able to get up for things they really want to do.
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on
:
Our church meets at 4.30 pm - initially because the school we met in was being used by another group in the morning.
When we got our own building we stuck with the time.
We get lots of 20s and 30s age group, and those who have young children bring food and feed them together after the service.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
Most churches around here offer either a Saturday or Sunday Eucharist around 5 p.m. Our church has it at 5:00, and it's mostly attended by those who want to sleep in on Sunday morning. It's also good for those who work or have other obligations on Sundays.
(We have two Eucharists on Sunday mornings -- the Saturday service is in addition to, not in place of.)
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
But a later start time would help our older members who struggle to get themselves ready for a 10.00 start.
Interesting - in every parish I've been associated with, the 8 o'clock or 8h30 service skewed decidedly geriatric.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
But a later start time would help our older members who struggle to get themselves ready for a 10.00 start.
Interesting - in every parish I've been associated with, the 8 o'clock or 8h30 service skewed decidedly geriatric.
The same is true with every church I've known. But saying that that 8 o'clockers are all over 70 is not the same as saying that all people over 70 can (or want to) get up early.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
I’m a big fan of Sunday evening services. After a week of being in the office at 8:30 am every day, a weekend sleep-in is the only thing that keeps me functional. I am never at church at 10:00 am unless I have to be.
The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
But a later start time would help our older members who struggle to get themselves ready for a 10.00 start.
I was taught (admitedly some years ago now ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
) in an FIEC church that an earlier start allows people to spend the rest of the day in ungodly activities like a drive to the seaside or sleeping. So we stuck with 11am - that'll teach 'em. Really!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Well there's always Evensong at 6pm, if you want a really long lie in.... or a Eucharistic service at another church in the benefice at 11, or the monthly midweek Messy Church at 4pm....
Although there are not many people about early on a Sunday morning, I notice that we compete for space in the car park with an enthusiastic group of cyclists who gather at the same time for an early morning spin. I guess people are always able to get up for things they really want to do.
Some people. If they were churchgoing types they'd be the ones turning up for the service. I stopped going out with my club on Sunday mornings because the 9am start means getting up far earlier than I'm happy to do on a day off. The exact same was true of the 9.15am service. I was terribly pleased when we found somewhere that met at 12.30.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Sunday evening worship has declined so much in Britain over the decades, yet I think it's making a slow comeback as church communities realise that morning worship isn't suitable for everyone. FEs often meet in the afternoon or evening.
I don't know if Switzerland or other European countries are adapting in this way. Rev. John Mbiti seems to be advocating that Sunday morning worship should start later - but if he as a minister and respected theologian can't persuade his congregation to consider adapting their worship times, then who can?
His belief that regular church worship isn't necessary is probably quite common among the mainstream clergy, but they don't usually admit it (or get the chance to admit it) in interviews. One problem with this tendency is that greater burdens then fall on those members who do attend regularly. If you don't know when occasional attenders are going to appear it's harder to arrange for them to participate in things.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
But a later start time would help our older members who struggle to get themselves ready for a 10.00 start.
Interesting - in every parish I've been associated with, the 8 o'clock or 8h30 service skewed decidedly geriatric.
The same is true with every church I've known. But saying that that 8 o'clockers are all over 70 is not the same as saying that all people over 70 can (or want to) get up early.
Personally at the age of 36 the 0800 is what I tend to go for if I'm visiting another town. As most people I stay with aren't churchgoers it means I can slip out for half an hour and then get back before the extended mid-morning breakfast or whatever they've got planned. It's a challenge sometimes with a raging hangover and 4 hours sleep, but if you want it enough....
There's also the angle that with a said eucharist you know exactly what you're going to get (especially as this is often the BCP ghetto), whereas turning up in a strange church for the 10 or 11 o'clock means taking pot luck on hymns/worship songs/praise bands/10 mins of sharing the peace, etc.
Away from home, give me the early shift every time.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Some people. If they were churchgoing types they'd be the ones turning up for the service.
"Some people" is it. We are no longer constrained by daylight, the demands of agriculture, and so on. As a consequence, people are free to adopt a wide range of waking times, particularly on days when work or school do not impose constraints.
For every early bird who is cheerfully chirrupping at dawn, and objects to a long drawn-out wait before the day gets started, there's a bleary-eyed duvet dweller who wants nothing more than an extra hour in his warm snuggly nest.
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
Every week I hear the bells of the Chapel of Madonna Della Strada start ringing just before 9pm, and I remember (again) that there's a 9pm Mass at Loyola University Chicago. Bells ring at the end, too, promptly at 10pm.
They have a 10.30am Mass, but the most popular Sunday Masses are at 5pm and 9pm. Ah, student life!
Made possible by the one-hour Communion fast rule, no doubt.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
"lie in" isn't a usual term; I am reminded of John and Yoko's Bed-in for Peace in Montreal, 1969.
Of course it is completely reasonable for busy and tired people to sleep on Sunday mornings. It is also clear that church has lost its exclusivity when it comes to matters spiritual. Church is a place where some people find God and some find nothing. There is no felt obligation to go for most people. Thus even if timed differently....
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
"lie in" isn't a usual term;
It is ubiquitous in British English.
A lie-in doesn't necessarily imply sleep: a morning tucked up under the duvet with a cup of tea and the paper or a good book is also a lie-in.
Whereas if you sleep in, the implication is that you're actually asleep.
[ 14. February 2017, 14:20: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
It's also the case that many children and teenagers (and inevitably their parents too, at least fathers) take part in sports activities on Sunday mornings. I don't know why more Anglican churches don't offer a Saturday early evening eucharist.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
"lie in" isn't a usual term;
It is ubiquitous in British English.
A lie-in doesn't necessarily imply sleep: a morning tucked up under the duvet with a cup of tea and the paper or a good book is also a lie-in.
Whereas if you sleep in, the implication is that you're actually asleep.
In Canada , it's an antiquated term for maternal post-birth staying in bed. Sleep-doesn't necessarily imply you're sleeping here.
A- I slept in on Sunday.
B- Were you sleeping?
A- No, we woke up at 6 and read, had coffee.
I realize how odd that sounds.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Some people. If they were churchgoing types they'd be the ones turning up for the service.
"Some people" is it. We are no longer constrained by daylight, the demands of agriculture, and so on. As a consequence, people are free to adopt a wide range of waking times, particularly on days when work or school do not impose constraints.
For every early bird who is cheerfully chirrupping at dawn, and objects to a long drawn-out wait before the day gets started, there's a bleary-eyed duvet dweller who wants nothing more than an extra hour in his warm snuggly nest.
Well yes; I'm a natural Owl and weekends are my one chance to escape the Lark dominated world of work. As from nowish they're starting a new rota at work which will see me starting at 8am some days. This means setting of from home at 7am and frankly it's enough to make me consider changing jobs, it'll be that painful. Yet there are people who are happy to be already at their desk at that ungodly hour!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
quote:
"Lie in" isn't a usual term;
In Canada , it's an antiquated term for maternal post-birth staying in bed.
That's true in Britain too; but it's so antiquated that no-one would think of it! However this building still exists in London near Waterloo Station, albeit it hasn't been a hospital for years!
[ 14. February 2017, 15:19: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
FEs often meet in the afternoon or evening.
FEs?
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I think it means 'Fresh Expressions' of worship - a C of E/Methodist thingy...
http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/
A two-church parish in the next town down the motorway used to have the following pattern of Sunday services:
10am Parish Communion in the principal church:
5pm Informal worship (Communion/Family Service/Parade Service or whatever) in the second church. This service was preceded by tea at 415pm.
IIRC, there was also a monthly 8am Communion and monthly 630pm Evensong in one or other of the churches.
The congregations at both services were about the same size (40+), but the afternoon service had the youngest demographic.
It seems, however, that the afternoon service has recently been discontinued, and worship is concentrated on the morning service at the main church - I know not why, but suspect a lack of human resources...
That's not to say that a similar pattern might not work elsewhere, of course, and I agree with Angloid that, at least in some places, a Saturday afternoon Family Eucharist might be worth trying.
IJ
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Sunday morning is one of the times when couples have sex - doesn't the Church encourage marriage etc.?
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Sunday morning is one of the times when couples have sex - doesn't the Church encourage marriage etc.?
Surely every hour of every day is one of the times that couples have sex. Yet most couples manage to make time for other parts of their lives.
We already avoid weddings on Saturdays so that couples can consummate their marriages on their wedding night without concerning themselves with breaking the communion fast. I don't see that moving the Sunday Eucharist is necessary or beneficial.
[ 14. February 2017, 17:17: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Hmm...possibly leo was being ironic? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Regarding the Eucharistic fast, I guess it's pretty strictly adhered to in Orthodoxy, but I beg leave to doubt if it's widely observed by other churches (I'll be happy to be proved wrong - I observed it myself until illness and medications made it, if not impossible, then inadvisable).
IJ
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Some of our older folk (and families with children) take a long time to get organised in the morning and couldn't possibly get to church any earlier.
Other older folk (and families with children) get up with the lark and would love to get to church earlier.
One size does not fit all.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I think it means 'Fresh Expressions' of worship - a C of E/Methodist thingy...
Thank you.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Just to prove it. One lark who prefers evening worship.
Jengie
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It's also the case that many children and teenagers (and inevitably their parents too, at least fathers) take part in sports activities on Sunday mornings. I don't know why more Anglican churches don't offer a Saturday early evening eucharist.
Isn't that what the Catholics do so they can go out late on Saturday Nite and sin as much as they like?! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Must admit that, when I move house, one of the things I'm looking forward to is a Eucharist which starts at 11am.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
The mind boggles at the thought of Saturday Nite in Creamtealand.
More seriously, the early services in Sydney Anglican churches are usually called Traditional Services as they follow the 1977 Prayer Book. Over the years, St Sanity has gained older parishioners for whom getting to an 8 am service is very hard; they can come to our 10 and get a 1995 Prayer Book service much more easily, even if it's a bit more of a journey.
[ 15. February 2017, 01:23: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Sunday morning is one of the times when couples have sex.
Only ones who don't have children yet. Or have bedroom door locks.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Sunday morning is one of the times when couples have sex.
Only ones who don't have children yet. Or have bedroom door locks.
Or, traditionally, drop their kids off at Sunday school.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Sunday morning is one of the times when couples have sex.
Only ones who don't have children yet. Or have bedroom door locks.
Or, traditionally, drop their kids off at Sunday school.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
There's a Methodist church around the corner where the adult congregation is all at least 60 but the Sunday School is full...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Or, traditionally, drop their kids off at Sunday school.
I think that this (in Britain anyway) is now extremely rare. Can't speak for the rest of the UK.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Indeed. I think the congregation Karl mentions must be made up of grandparents looking after the grandchildren whilst the latter's parents have sex.
Or drink coffee.
Or are out at B & Q looking for bedroom door locks..
IJ
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I'm intrigued as to how one may drop off children "traditionally". Is there a specific technique?
FWIW I had an elderly gentleman in my first church. He had first been sent to Sunday School because his mother was giving birth on the kitchen table and they wanted him out of the house. That was in around 1916.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
We already avoid weddings on Saturdays so that couples can consummate their marriages on their wedding night without concerning themselves with breaking the communion fast.
Erm . . . just what would they be consuming, one wants to know.
[Miss Amanda will get her wrap.]
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I'm intrigued as to how one may drop off children "traditionally". Is there a specific technique?
The technique as observed in our part of the world is something like this. Parent parks as close to entrance of car-park as possible, just long enough to drop child/children off. Then scarper quick, to return towards the end of Sunday School session or some time thereafter; to again sit in car - usually in the entrance to the car-park - waiting for release of offspring.
Occasional parent might actually come in to the hall to collect child/children. But usually to be found loitering in the vestibule, making semaphoric signs to child to hurry up; thus avoiding the dangerous necessity of having to talk to a church person.
To be fair, actually, some of our parents will accompany their kids to church. And a few might even remain in church when the kids go into Sunday School.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
One of church's problems is not adapting itself to real lives of people I think. We have 8 am and 10:30 services. 8 is mostly too early, though I have gone alone. 10:30 means the day is more than half gone by the time we are home.
The local RC church has a Saturday service at 4:30. It is the most popular. Church, then make supper plans. Not inconvenient. Full of young people. The Millenials. Who do not come on Sunday mornings.
Should church not fit people's lives? Must it be inconvenient, or convenient to the greying group? We have seen more modern language of liturgy, more modern hymns.
As it is, we don't attend weekly - more like monthly - because it doesn't fit in.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Of course, you also have to build service times around the availability of clergy and other worship leaders who - with the best will in the world - can't be at St. A's and Holy B's at the same time!
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
"lie in" isn't a usual term;
It is ubiquitous in British English.
A lie-in doesn't necessarily imply sleep: a morning tucked up under the duvet with a cup of tea and the paper or a good book is also a lie-in.
Whereas if you sleep in, the implication is that you're actually asleep.
In Canada , it's an antiquated term for maternal post-birth staying in bed. Sleep-doesn't necessarily imply you're sleeping here.
A- I slept in on Sunday.
B- Were you sleeping?
A- No, we woke up at 6 and read, had coffee.
I realize how odd that sounds.
Huh. I would definitely say lie-in rather than "sleep in" if I wasn't actually sleeping. But then I have living grandparents who immigrated from Britain, so my default may be a bit more "mid-Atlantic" than some of my compatriots.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We have seen more modern language of liturgy, more modern hymns.
Both of which, as a "younger" person I run a mile from!
as ever, MMV
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The difference in Canada is that many have no religious background, save some loose, in name only RC (about 50%) and unstructured protestant (the term protestant actually appears to be passé here). Thus, no understanding of archaic language (the quick and the dead sounds more like zombie avoidance advice) and no familiarity with older hymns. So they run from that.
So in MMV, I think churches have to play to their desired audience. Anglican churches here are filled with retired people of British heritage (a breed which is dying out) whose children are doing yoga and attending modern gatherings which emphasize social connection and something that touches them emotionally. The diocese here has closed a series of churches in a growing city. The modern churches continue to be constructed.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I think it means 'Fresh Expressions' of worship - a C of E/Methodist thingy...
Thank you.
Yes, that's what I was thinking of.
IMO many denominational and/or congregations have the problem that what current churchgoers want (both lay and ordained) and what potential future churchgoers want may be rather different. There's the fear of upsetting those who give their time and money to the church with no guarantee that newcomers will replace them in numbers or commitment as a result of whatever changes are proposed.
The alternative is the FE. The FE can gather at another time, perhaps at another place, and enjoy another process, which allows the traditional congregation to turn up on Sunday at 10.00am to do its usual thing.
However, FEs themselves require dedicated manpower, money and resources, which may then be unavailable to the 10.00am congregations.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So in MMV, I think churches have to play to their desired audience.
No argument from me on that (although naturally I think that most of the CofE's problems could be solved in an instant if we just all went back to 1662 and Hymns Ancient & Modern).
OK, I'll allow the New English Hymnal (as long as it's the first edition) as well for those further up the candle.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We have seen more modern language of liturgy, more modern hymns.
Both of which, as a "younger" person I run a mile from!
as ever, MMV
Many modern hymns - no better than the dirges they replaced, sometimes worse. Modern language in the liturgy - I can never work out what's particularly holy about the vernacular of 1500.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Karl
Out of interest, is there any religious music that you like, or do you find it mostly unpleasant?
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We have seen more modern language of liturgy, more modern hymns.
Both of which, as a "younger" person I run a mile from!
as ever, MMV
Many modern hymns - no better than the dirges they replaced, sometimes worse. Modern language in the liturgy - I can never work out what's particularly holy about the vernacular of 1500.
well that's MVing again isn't it? It's not that it's more holy, it's just that for me there's a beauty and majesty in the language which helps (me) focus on what I'm saying, and ponder on the ineffable mystery of it all.
Which I don't get from most of Common Worship.
I appreciate that's coming dangerously close to Sebastian Flyte believing in things because they're a lovely story (although when pushed I'm obviously more concerned with the content than the language) but there we are.
If it does nothing for you then that's fine, but neither you nor I are the yardstick. As far as it goes of course, we're *both* the yardstick! Different strokes...
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
One of church's problems is not adapting itself to real lives of people I think. We have 8 am and 10:30 services. 8 is mostly too early, though I have gone alone. 10:30 means the day is more than half gone by the time we are home.
...
Personally, I'd love an 8:00 am service. That way I'd be home before second breakfast.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Karl
Out of interest, is there any religious music that you like, or do you find it mostly unpleasant?
Plenty. But most congregational stuff does leave me cold.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
In a sense, all of us are the wrong people to be discussing these issues - as we (mostly) are folk who attend churches. It's like a doctors' surgery asking the people who come in to fill in a questionnaire about opening hours - the result is inevitably skewed.
Surely, though, the issues of what music we like and what times are best for us should fade into insignificance if we are serious about attracting new folk: it should be about what ticks the boxes for them (with us fitting in). Of course, trying to find that out isn't easy; at its best, that's what the FE movement seeks to do. Of course, there's no guarantee that anyone will turn up even if we get things right!
But I do get the impression sometimes that the Christian community is turned in on itself and more concerned with what its members prefer than with thinking about those who are not yet within its orbit. Somehow we need in a spirit of sacrificial Christian love - lay aide what we "like" if it is good for the Kingdom that we do so. The Church isn't a private club, run for its members' benefit.
[ 15. February 2017, 16:05: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The local RC church has a Saturday service at 4:30. It is the most popular.
...with people who don't do anything on Saturdays? If you do anything in the day on Saturday, you're not done by 4:30.
Our place used to have a 5pm Saturday service. It got cancelled because of chronic low attendance. Our congregation has a mix of older people, families with teenagers, and families with young children. There are few 18-30 aged people living here - they're all away at college, or living in the city.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Expanded version...
I think the problem I have is that both lyrics and music are equally important to me. Now, there's an old joke about a chorus being a good tune with bad theology, and a hymn being good theology with a bad tune, but in reality there are good hymn tunes (Hyfrydol, Abbots Leigh), some that are made good by a good descant or accompaniment (Adeste Fideles, Sine Nomine, Woodlands) and some that are bloody awful (Unde et memores and many once sung, always forgotten, Hymns that Emptied a Thousand Pews). Generally the theology's OK, albeit in some cases if you've got a dictionary of Victorian English and can parse the sentences back through the tortured forced scansion. I grew up in a choral tradition at school, but wheezy badly specced organs, organists who haven't graduated to playing the pedals yet and choirs consisting of three old women singing in unison just don't do it for me. A fault on my part, perhaps, but that's how it is.
Most modern stuff, well, don't get me started - I did a Rant of the Month on that the best part of twenty years ago (have we really been sailing all this time?)
Most of my preferred secular music occupies an arc from Steeleye Span through to Metallica via Jethro Tull and Deep Purple. There is Christian music in that style (well, the heavier end of it) but most of it is lyrically - erm - unsophisticated, not to say bloody terrible. I mean, remember Stryper? "This song's for you to sing along/Wooooooo lala!" Best you can say is most of it hails from an Evangelical theology I don't share.
I've been spoilt by lyricists like Al Stewart and Ian Anderson, singers like Sandy Denny, musicians like Ritchie Blackmore and Jon Lord; composers like Bach and Handel, high quality well maintained organs played by music scholars and choirs of sufficient size to attempt the hard stuff and the ability and willingness to do it and get it right. I don't go to church for the music, I'm afraid.
I know someone's going to come and reduce all that to "Ah! Not good enough for you, eh!?", which will merely demonstrate they've completely missed the bloody point, but someone always does.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
... choirs consisting of three old women singing in unison ...
Theoretically. The reality may be otherwise. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Most of my preferred secular music occupies an arc from Steeleye Span through to Metallica via Jethro Tull and Deep Purple. There is Christian music in that style (well, the heavier end of it) but most of it is lyrically - erm - unsophisticated, not to say bloody terrible. I mean, remember Stryper? "This song's for you to sing along/Wooooooo lala!" Best you can say is most of it hails from an Evangelical theology I don't share.
I've been spoilt by lyricists like Al Stewart and Ian Anderson, singers like Sandy Denny, musicians like Ritchie Blackmore and Jon Lord; composers like Bach and Handel, high quality well maintained organs played by music scholars and choirs of sufficient size to attempt the hard stuff and the ability and willingness to do it and get it right. I don't go to church for the music, I'm afraid.
I know someone's going to come and reduce all that to "Ah! Not good enough for you, eh!?", which will merely demonstrate they've completely missed the bloody point, but someone always does.
Au contraire Karl, you can keep Metallica but everything else in in my record collection - to which you can add BJH, Fotheringay, Richard Thompson, etc.
I certainly don't go to church for the music either (although it was sublime in my Pusey House days). I'd rather it was (for me) sympatico to an extent however!
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
... choirs consisting of three old women singing in unison ...
Theoretically. The reality may be otherwise.
Like when the members of the Drones Club play Lady of Spain and there's a prize for the one that finishes first....
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Baptist Trainfan
I think that at various points in the 20th c. British churches genuinely thought that they could attract outsiders by making certain changes to church life.
Many congregations don't have such faith any more. They also have less energy, less money, fewer people, and the people do they have are often older than the surrounding population.
The average church simply can't offer an appealing alternative to what's available elsewhere - fun leisure activities and environment, cool friends, and total freedom of belief and behaviour. So the idea that churches belong to outsiders doesn't mean much in practice (although FEs are specifically designed for this purpose).
'The Church', though, presumably exists beyond walls and denominations, and includes all who claim to be believers even if they don't attend.
[ 15. February 2017, 16:41: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Sadly, I must largely agree with you - which does beg the questions of why some churches are good at attracting newcomers (and not necessarily Christians transferring from elsewhere).
I did have in the back of my mind the American model of the "Seeker Service", not as a quick-fix one-size-fits-all approach to get folk to church, but in its original basis of having carried out a sociological survey of the neighbourhood in order to work out what sort of church might be most attractive (and, yes, I'm aware that there are definite questions to be asked about that approach).
Not sure about your final comment though: although believers are individuals, isn't the Church fundamentally a collective entity? (That could be rather tangential ...).
[ 15. February 2017, 17:01: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
On the last point you only need go back to the link in the OP. John Mbiti in Switzerland doesn't see non-attenders as automatically on the outside of the Christian religion, which must mean they can't be outside 'the Church' either.
British culture doesn't see Christianity and churchgoing as inevitably combined, and IME mainstream lay and ordained churchgoers don't always think of churchgoing as essential either. This is the fruit of a fairly tolerant, inclusive theology, but I think it's also psychological; it makes church decline easier for churchgoers to bear.
On your first point, I'm taken back to John Mbiti again. He seems slightly perturbed that people don't attend church, but not burdened by the fact. He doesn't seem to be doing anything about it - not even changing the time of services, which he says is an issue.
Internal challenges and the state of the surrounding territory notwithstanding, it's clear that growing churches are likely to be taking the situation much more seriously than this.
[ 15. February 2017, 18:11: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Sunday morning is one of the times when couples have sex - doesn't the Church encourage marriage etc.?
Surely every hour of every day is one of the times that couples have sex.
The study says otherwise
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
9am on Sunday? Plenty of time to get the conjugal nastiness out of the way in time for church at 11am!
IJ
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The local RC church has a Saturday service at 4:30. It is the most popular.
...with people who don't do anything on Saturdays? If you do anything in the day on Saturday, you're not done by 4:30.
4:30 is evening and dark in the winter here.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
So it is here in UKipperland, of course.
We've found that 530pm on a Saturday is a good time for our 'Crafty Church' (like Messy Church, only for a slightly older age group - 7s to 12s). It's only once a month at the moment, but those who run it are now thinking more in terms of a sort of 'Family Service', with parents present at least for the short act of worship which precedes the games/craft activities.
Worth a try, maybe, or then again, perhaps best left 'as is' until we get a new priest-in-charge?
IJ
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
4:30 is evening and dark in the winter here.
It's dark here, too, in the winter. That doesn't make it the evening - not since we've had widespread electric light. If we've gone on any kind of day trip as a family (museum, zoo, hike, whatever), we won't be back by 4:30. We won't still be hiking, but we might well be in the car on the way back.
Winter sporting activities are usually still going on then (ice hockey, indoor soccer, and so on - all things for which natural light is not required.)
Plus, of course, it's the best part of the day in the summer - everyone is outdoors doing something or other. (And who wants to come home early from a family day at the beach or pool, clean off the chlorine and sunscreen, and dress up for church?)
I know it wouldn't work for us, and I know it wasn't popular here when we had a service at that time. But everyone is different, and if you have a crowd for whom it works, great.
[ 16. February 2017, 01:50: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
"Amen!" to those last two sentences!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Mainstream lay and ordained churchgoers don't always think of churchgoing as essential either. This is the fruit of a fairly tolerant, inclusive theology, but I think it's also psychological; it makes church decline easier for churchgoers to bear.
I'm sure you're right. But is there possibly a bit of a "downward spiral" here: if the churches themselves say that (regular) church-going isn't important, then won't attendance by members of the congregation inevitably decline? Won't they say, "Well, the minister doesn't think it's important, so why should I?"
I realise that mainstream churches may well say that they don't want to pressurise people in their Christian faith. I respect that view, but might it be counter-productive? Might one of the reasons that some churches are growing be precisely because they do expect a higher level of commitment, and younger people are more attracted by that than by the laissez-faire attitude of more traditional churches?
[ 16. February 2017, 06:43: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
9am on Sunday? Plenty of time to get the conjugal nastiness out of the way in time for church at 11am!
IJ
not if you take your time and believe in a 2nd coming
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Sunday morning is one of the times when couples have sex - doesn't the Church encourage marriage etc.?
There's a lovely bit in Penelope Fitzgerald's The Gate of Angels about how the village afternoon Sunday School is the occasion for the parents to have sex.
As Miss Prism said, I've often spoken to the lower orders on the subject, but they don't seem to know what trift is.
[ 16. February 2017, 19:38: Message edited by: venbede ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Is there possibly a bit of a "downward spiral" here: if the churches themselves say that (regular) church-going isn't important, then won't attendance by members of the congregation inevitably decline? Won't they say, "Well, the minister doesn't think it's important, so why should I?"
[...]
Might one of the reasons that some churches are growing be precisely because they do expect a higher level of commitment, and younger people are more attracted by that than by the laissez-faire attitude of more traditional churches?
It is counter-productive to attendance in the long run, yes. Churches with high expectations are more likely to hold and attract members.
But it seems hard to marry high expectations with an acceptance of pluralism. If people are free to develop their own theological perspectives privately (which includes how often they choose to attend church) then small groups are less necessary, and the sense of community is going to be relatively limited.
Moreover, we have to live with the context as it is now. The CofE as England's national church can't come out and say that non-churchgoers are not a part of the universal church. By doing so the CofE would only emphasise its numerical weakness, and would make enemies of non-attenders who tell pollsters that they do belong. The state church has arrived at a point where it has to (try to) be all things to all men.
Thanks to the CofE's coverage and finances it's also better able to afford its partly relaxed attitude to attendance than some of the Nonconformist groups. In the face of severe numerical decline, there are Methodists and URC folk who say it doesn't matter if their denominations cease to exist, but I've never heard of a member of the CofE saying such a thing. A liberal vicar's pride at being part of a 'church for people who don't go to church' is predicated upon the continued existence of the CofE, regardless of how many people have a lie-in on Sundays.
[ 17. February 2017, 11:28: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
There's a lovely bit in Penelope Fitzgerald's The Gate of Angels about how the village afternoon Sunday School is the occasion for the parents to have sex.
So we have it! The crisis in pension provision caused by a declining birthrate and our "greying" society is a direct result of churches deciding to move Sunday School from the afternoon to the morning in the 60s and 70s (and assuming that parents would come with their children rather than merely sending them).
QED.
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I’m a big fan of Sunday evening services. After a week of being in the office at 8:30 am every day, a weekend sleep-in is the only thing that keeps me functional. I am never at church at 10:00 am unless I have to be.
The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
But doesn't the "sabath" begin at sun-down on the previous day, and end at sun-down. So a Sunday evening service is actually not on the "sabath". Which I always understood to be the reason why the RCC starts its Sunday services on Saturday evening.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The local RC church has a Saturday service at 4:30. It is the most popular. Church, then make supper plans. Not inconvenient. Full of young people. The Millenials. Who do not come on Sunday mornings.
But if they're that early Saturday do they still count as Sunday? Our 18:30 only really qualifies half the year round.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
But doesn't the "sabath" begin at sun-down on the previous day, and end at sun-down. So a Sunday evening service is actually not on the "sabath". Which I always understood to be the reason why the RCC starts its Sunday services on Saturday evening.
The Christian liturgical tradition (well, the Western one anyway) has always combined the Jewish system of timing with the more secular one. Hence Sunday begins with First Vespers/ Evensong on the Saturday and concludes at midnight on Sunday. The same applies to 'Solemnities' in the Roman calendar and to similar major feasts in Anglican ones. So I suppose you get two (or one and a bit) sabbaths for the price of one.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I’m a big fan of Sunday evening services. After a week of being in the office at 8:30 am every day, a weekend sleep-in is the only thing that keeps me functional. I am never at church at 10:00 am unless I have to be.
The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
But doesn't the "sabath" begin at sun-down on the previous day, and end at sun-down. So a Sunday evening service is actually not on the "sabath". Which I always understood to be the reason why the RCC starts its Sunday services on Saturday evening.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The local RC church has a Saturday service at 4:30. It is the most popular. Church, then make supper plans. Not inconvenient. Full of young people. The Millenials. Who do not come on Sunday mornings.
But if they're that early Saturday do they still count as Sunday? Our 18:30 only really qualifies half the year round.
Sabbath is arguably a misnomer, for strictly speaking, it refers to Saturday rather than Sunday. Sabado in Spanish and sabato in Italian, are the words for Saturday, having resonances of sabbath. Lord's Day is a better name for Sunday in our culture (for want of a better word). Domingo in Spanish and domenica in Italian have resonances of the Latin 'Dominus' - 'Lord', and so Lord's Day.
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
[QUOTE]Sabbath is arguably a misnomer, for strictly speaking, it refers to Saturday rather than Sunday.
Hence my quote marks.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
[QUOTE]Sabbath is arguably a misnomer, for strictly speaking, it refers to Saturday rather than Sunday.
Hence my quote marks.
OK! My linguistic consideration is the added information.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0