Ship of Fools: Discussions during church services

Thread: Discussions during church services 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=008511

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It's become de-rigeur in 'lively' Anglican parishes and in Baptist churches I know, for the congregation to 'break down into groups' in order to discuss this, that or the other in the interests of greater interactivity.

I can understand the motivation. As discussed on these boards, sermons can have limited value in pedagogy.

Thing is, I do wonder how valuable such times are, not in a small group or mid-week context but in the context of a Sunday morning meeting / service.

I find they interrupt the 'flow' and besides, I have no desire to have an inconsequential 3 minute discussion in the context of a church service.

I also wonder about the pastoral wisdom of the practice.

This morning, for instance, Mrs Gamaliel headed off for the hybrid service they have here in summer which combines elements of both the 9am (traditional) and 11am (lively) services.

She was playing the organ for the two hymns they included alongside the worship band a short sermon, communion and lots of lengthy interactive, non-lectionary related messing around with wheelie-bins and discussion.

The bins were there to represent our sins being dealt with and the discussion centred on the theme 'Hopes and Dreams'.

As I'd printed out the order of service I knew better than to attend. As she was playing the organ, my wife was able to perch safely in the organ loft away from the discussions and interaction.

She was, as ever, sanguine about the whole thing but did observe how awkward it would have been had she been down in the melee and asked about her 'Hopes and Dreams.'

What could she have said?

'I have incurable cancer. My hope and dream is to live as long as possible before it gets me ...'

I mean, come on, whilst most people are likely to be hale and hearty there on a Sunday morning, there are going to be plenty of others who have little by way of hope, dreams or expectation. Why inflict this crassness on them?

Ok, not everyone is in our situation and some might find this sort of thing helpful. Do any Shippies have positive experiences of these kind of short in-service discussions?

Can they work? Do they work? Are they better than the alternatives - a traditional sermon or liturgy?

What think ye?

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

I echo your reservations about discussions possibly interrupting the flow in a service of worship.
The teacher in me values the role of discussion in the learning process in other settings. I have learnt so much in discussion with other people, the Ship being a case in point.
But my heart longs for pastoral sensitivity in how we handle these discussions and what we choose to discuss.
Having been on the receiving end of both bad and good,I still believe it is possible to do this well but it does require skill!

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Not part of my church experience of 60+ years (i.e. since I was in Sunday School!), so I'm not really qualified to comment, except to say that it's not something I would be comfortable with in the context of, for example, the regular Sunday morning Eucharist. Such things seem to me to have an infinite capacity for going pear-shaped...

In a less formal setting, whether in church or wherever, I'd probably be OK at taking part, but that's not what you're asking. Mrs. Gamaliel was fortunate in having her organ-loft as a tower of refuge.

IJ

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

But what are you supposed to *do* with a short period of discussion that is then followed by a return to some kind of (other) worship? How does it get followed up? Where is it going? What is the object of the session and how does the discussion period contribute to achieving it?
Unless there is a convincing answer to these questions, this sounds like the kind of poorly thought through exercise that inexperienced teachers (I know, I was one) put into their teaching sessions under the impression that introducing another dynamic for a short while is worthwhile in itself. More experienced teachers know that while variety can be hugely useful, the choice of teaching method needs to be part of a carefully thought out plan.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I appreciate having a time of discussion during church services, but I realise that it's not the norm, and most churchgoers won't be used to it. Some preachers also fear the loss of control that it entails.

The appeal of this sort of thing must also depend on the type of church it is. In my limited experience the MOTR CofE setting isn't a place for close congregational relationships, so I can understand that individuals wouldn't want to raise their health problems in a discussion with people they barely know.

In other churches people are expected to be more open about these things, and more closely involved with each other's lives. Black Pentecostal worship can be very interactive. I've also experienced interesting congregational discussions during Methodist and other church services.

Personality will have something to do with the appeal. I'm a bookish person, but I do get fidgety in church and often wonder how others can sit so utterly still most of the time. Yet others are full blown kinaesthetic types, and probably find normal church services difficult, if they stick around at all.

Discussions during worship services do need to be meaningful, and thoughtfully done. IME sometimes the discussion questions are too banal, or the time given is too short. Without a well-managed plenary session useful responses can be lost, or waffle can take over.

On a practical level, some churches have these discussions during Sunday services because many members are unwilling to attend small discussion groups at other times.

[ 13. August 2017, 16:48: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by BabyWombat (# 18552) on :

Corporate worship is… well, corporate. We, all of us individuals, gather as God’s people called, ransomed, healed, restored, forgiven. For me, breaking into small groups fractures that “us-ness” of worship – my frailty may need to be buoyed by your presence as part of the body, but without chatting about it, or being asked “to share”. Today I may have nothing good to share, but being in the corporate body of Christ heals me in ways I cannot explain. To see your faith, but not hear about it or be in a position to question it, or you to question me, might be healing.

I do think small group discussion can be useful and helpful. If I’d responded to an advert of a parish discussion group, limited to 12 or so, at least I’d know that sharing was expected, or I could avoid it. But to come to corporate worship and encounter such would be very off putting, and I would feel tricked. And, I would wonder if the pastor just didn’t have time to prepare a proper sermon or homily, and took a short cut that was now making me uncomfortable.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

We do it occasionally but it can be a bit hard on a casual visitor to have to 'share'.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

BabyWombat

If it's a serious element and not just a bit of friendly chit-chat then discussion as a part of a church service will require the leader to put in just as much preparation as they do for a 20 minute monologue, not less.

The preacher/facilitator needs to know what they want out of the discussion. If there's a plenary, they need to have predicted the likely responses, so they're able to respond to the issues raised.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, interesting points everyone.

Our local parish church has thriving house-groups - although we don't attend - too busy and I find them too banal, pietistic and insular.

So there's plenty of opportunity for people to discuss things and share times of close fellowship if that's their bag.

I suspect the vicar just does it because it's trendy and what 'lively' CofE churches do these days.

As has been said, no follow-through and no opportunity to consolidate. A few years ago now the vicar told me off because I intervened after one such discussion - although not loudly and publicly - because one of the discussion groups fed back with something sub-Trinitarian and frankly heretical in Christological terms. The vicar did bugger all to correct it even though it could have easily been done without embarrassing anyone. 'Thank you for that ... but the Church's understanding is that Christ is both fully man and fully God ...'

I think the scope for it to go pear-shaped is very wide - unless, as seems to be the case in the settings SvitlanaV2 describes, there's an established 'tradition' of inter-activity as it were.

I've done loads of interactive stuff and then some, but I can't see how it can be vired successfully into something which retains the vestigial skeleton of an Anglican communion service.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

In my last church morning worship with 70-80 people and held in the pewed sanctuary was formal.

The evening service, with 10-18 people present and seated on a semicircle of chairs in the small church hall, was by its nature less formal. Following requests for discussion-style services, we held these about once a month. Some folk loved them, some stayed away. Most who came along who already attended worship in the morning.

The discussion always fitted into the general "liturgy" of the service; it was always prefaced by a short introductory talk. The questions were carefully prepared though some folk found them too difficult! We did not break into small groups. The themes quite often followed the Lectionary readings of the day.

This was not done in an attempt to be "trendy" but because some folk had specifically asked for this format of service. As worship leader I still maintained quite a tight control on things: it wasn't just a free-for-all.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

That's the sort of scenario I think I was referring to in my earlier post - the informal setting does not mean that the service/group/discussion has to be 'sloppy', but I guess it does make a bit more work for the worship leader.

My local Baptist chapel used to follow a similar pattern on Sundays to Your Former Place, BT.

If it's what folk want, and if it works, go for it! Whatever you do that's a bit 'different', some will stay away, though.

IJ

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The difference there, though, Baptist Trainfan is that it was a service people had requested and could 'opt into' knowing what to expect.

It wasn't done as part of the main morning service whether people wanted it or not.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Curiously, I've some experience of this.

I suspect it's quite difficult to do well. Also in a lot of churches the acoustics work agains it.

Personally, I don't like being split into little groups. It's a forced structure. It also means that the congregation as a whole doesn't get to share any pearls of wisdom. Should there be any, only the people in that group get the benefit of it. Besides, Sunday morning worship is when the church meets as whole.

Also, it's hard on the deaf. They probably find it hard enough to hear with one person talking at a time, yet alone with a babble of different voices from different parts of the church.

It's best treated as an alternative way of doing the sermon, and making sure it's kept firmly under the management of the person preaching. There is a risk of the whacky leaping in with their particular wackinesses. If that happens, it's the responsibility of the preacher to control it.

It's also important to keep it as the same slot as the sermon. If so, it isn't really that difficult to fit it into the structure of Common Worship. For a Communion Service, rather than a Service of the Word, it may be worth moving the confession section to where it used to be in the BCP, so that the readings and discussion style sermon come together at the beginning.

As a teaching method though, it has the great benefit that people have less opportunity merely to sit, listen and think 'lovely sermon vicar'. It's harder just to be pew fodder. With luck, people can engage more in the subject matter.

It also has some of the authority of antiquity for it. I've been told it's more like what happens in a synagogue now, and what did happen in the synagogues of the first century. So it could well be how things were done in the primitive period of church history. It is also a bit more like

quote:
When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation I Cor 14:26

than the way most of us are doing things most of the time.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Gamaliel

Regarding that 'Hopes and Dreams' discussion, it could be argued that the title's so broad that you could answer it as deeply or as superficially as you like. It could refer to oneself or to the whole world, and anything in between. It's hardly a phrase that forces anyone to mention things that they find too private or awkward.

So is your beef with the indelicate topic, or with the idea that the laity were expressing unscripted thoughts during an 'Anglican communion service', or with the lack of purpose in the discussion, or with the loss of 'flow', or ... what exactly? IMO each of those is a separate issue.

Mind you, with the wheelie bins there as well I'm wondering if this was an all-age service. When the kids are a priority sometimes the sensible older folks just have to grin and bear it. Did your wife think the service went according to plan, or were there lots of stony faces and trips to the loo?

Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on :

For the past two decades, my tiny, remote congregation has a sermon discussion... When I arrived last year, well, I was informed that that is the way it is.
The farmers come, with their families. We sit in a circle around the heater. I give the message, and then we naturally evolve into discussion. There is not enough of us to go into groups. Then the discussion evolves into Intercessory prayer.
Once I got used to it.... Well. I like it. It feels very much like family.
It only works because we are a small, and informal group, and because folk are committed to each other, to God and to the process.

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Also, it's hard on the deaf. They probably find it hard enough to hear with one person talking at a time, yet alone with a babble of different voices from different parts of the church.

An important point here. I wear fairly powerful hearing aids and what Enoch says is well worth considering. Morning coffee time is a nightmare for just this reason and I do not attend.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Funny, I got severely crabby this morning because the pastor took over our Bible study class and essentially stifled all discussion. That man does like the sound of his own voice!

(Must consider my own sins in this regard, oh woe... goes away muttering)

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Damn, have I been taking over your church again, LC? [Biased]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

heheheheh. Would that you had. At least it wouldn't have been boring. (I was wickedly browsing the Ship)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lothlorien:
I wear fairly powerful hearing aids and what Enoch says is well worth considering. Morning coffee time is a nightmare for just this reason and I do not attend.

Likewise

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Gamaliel

Regarding that 'Hopes and Dreams' discussion, it could be argued that the title's so broad that you could answer it as deeply or as superficially as you like. It could refer to oneself or to the whole world, and anything in between. It's hardly a phrase that forces anyone to mention things that they find too private or awkward.

So is your beef with the indelicate topic, or with the idea that the laity were expressing unscripted thoughts during an 'Anglican communion service', or with the lack of purpose in the discussion, or with the loss of 'flow', or ... what exactly? IMO each of those is a separate issue.

Mind you, with the wheelie bins there as well I'm wondering if this was an all-age service. When the kids are a priority sometimes the sensible older folks just have to grin and bear it. Did your wife think the service went according to plan, or were there lots of stony faces and trips to the loo?

Ehem!

My wife has incurable cancer, SvitlanaV2. She is going to die of it. It's unlikely she'll live to see her grandchildren.

Now, I'll give you our phone number if you like and you can ring her up and ask her about her 'Hopes and Dreams'.

Did you not read my post?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Mrs. G. [Votive]

was indeed sensible to stay in her organ-loft. This sort of off-the-cuff 'discussion' can be so hurtful...much better if conducted in the manner described by Baptist Trainfan.

...and I'm afraid I'm another one who stays away from coffee-time (mostly) on account of the unbearable acoustics of our Hall (the Church is much, much better, acoustically, and is where I often have post-service pastoral conversations).

IJ

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

SvitlanaV2, it's just as well I'm in a good mood otherwise you'd find a Hell Call in my answer and some very strong language awaiting you were you to accept my invitation thence.

As it is, I'll give you a somewhat more polite, but perhaps no less robust, answer here.

Yes, it could be argued that 'Hopes & Dreams' is a pretty broad and anodyne topic for discussion. Granted. But if you've got incurable cancer then it ain't going to look so anodyne is it?

Besides, what's the bloody point of discussing / airing one's hopes and dreams in that context? Don't these people have homes to go to, family and friends to talk to, pubs to drink in? I can see it having some social benefits for people who're lonely ...

But what's the pedagogic point? What's it meant to achieve? Team-building? A sense of community? Reinforcement for people's aspirations?

Besides, what possible bearing did the topic have on the lectionary readings for that day? Which were ignored. If the Good Lord hadn't wanted us to have lectionary readings he wouldn't have put them into the lectionary ...

Here's my beef. It contains strong language.

It is fucking crass.

That's my beef.

And no, I don't give a flying fart if the laity express 'unscripted thoughts' during an 'Anglican communion service' - they'll be thinking them anyway so voicing them isn't going to do any harm - but if I go to a communion service, guess what? I want to receive communion not listen to some ding-a-ling's half-baked thoughts about how they want to be a pop-star when they grow up or how they want to learn to tap-dance or save up and buy a conservatory or whatever else inane crap might have been 'discussed' that morning ...

So yes, lack of purpose. Abso-bloody-lutely. What is the bloody point other than the slavish copying of the latest trendy slurry to come dribbling out the arse-end of the dregs of New Wine?

The loss of flow, it'd be great if there were some flow. They lost that long ago.

Wheelie bins? Sure, I can cope with them. It was an all age service. Mind you, had I been there and anyone asked us about 'hopes and dreams' they might have found themselves inspecting the wheelie bins from the inside ...

Yes, it was an all-age service. That's some excuse at least.

My wife endured the service up in the organ loft out of harm's way. One of the old fellas, the church warden, joined her up there. He was trying to escape.

Everyone else seemed to be enjoying it. Perhaps they've already been lobotomised by the 11am services ...

Does that answer your question?

In short, the way Baptist Trainfan does it makes sense. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with discussions being part of church services - as several people have described on this thread. I have every problem in the world with what I've described though.

Why? Because it is shit.

[Razz]

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

The sermon is part of the liturgy, not an opportunity for the exchange of opinions. This is why the right to preach is so jealously guarded (though, of course, it is reasonable to question how effective that process is). Much occurs by the engagement of the congregation in the sermon, just as it does in connection with the intercessions, but in both cases it is and needs to be silent. Otherwise the body of Christ gathered in that place is broken into its constituent parts.

Or (addressed to those who propose or defend this kind of nonsense) take your half-baked notion and shove in exactly the same corner of hell as the Alpha course lives in. As you prefer.

[ 14. August 2017, 19:30: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Gamaliel raises another point, because at least two people at that service were able to take refuge from something they did not want to be part of.

People present at other, similar, services elsewhere, may be unable to escape, but, having gone innocently to church, find themselves trapped willy-nilly.

Not A Good Thing, IMHO.

IJ

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

I did do this on occasion, and some liked it and some didn't, but everybody talked. It seemed to work for the services I had the discussions in and for the type of church we are.

Then I was given pause for thought last year, when someone felt so uncomfortable with it (and not in a "uncomfortable, but able to learn from it" way) that they actually left the service. We've spoken about it since and things are OK between us about it, and she still comes to church. But I've not done it since then: if you don't want to take part in these, there really is nowhere else for you to go in our church. And if you turn up not expecting this and not feeling comfortable discussing these things in groups, it's going to be a tough time for you.

(There's also Thunderbunk's point that the sermon isn't first and foremost a teaching time, something that I've come to realise more and more as I've preached more and more.)

That said, there have been times where I've either invited comments/answers from the congregation or allowed people to speak when they've wanted to. Again, I think this can work in our context (a reasonably small church where most people know and trust each other well), and I actually think that done in plenary, people will feel less forced to talk; maybe there's nowhere else physically to go, but there's less focus on you as an individual, less pressure to say something if you don't want to.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Stejjie, the person you mention was possibly an introvert. I am, and that is exactly how I would feel.

Introvert clergy should not be obliged to carry out such exercises, and introvert members of congregations should not be obliged to suffer them.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Stejjie, the person you mention was possibly an introvert. I am, and that is exactly how I would feel.

Introvert clergy should not be obliged to carry out such exercises, and introvert members of congregations should not be obliged to suffer them.

I'm an introvert too (though one who doesn't mind too much talking in small groups, as long as it's with people I'm comfortable with). But you're right; and as I said, it did give me pause for thought and reason to stop doing it.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Stejjie, the person you mention was possibly an introvert. I am, and that is exactly how I would feel.

Introvert clergy should not be obliged to carry out such exercises, and introvert members of congregations should not be obliged to suffer them.
I'm an introvert too (though one who doesn't mind too much talking in small groups, as long as it's with people I'm comfortable with). But you're right; and as I said, it did give me pause for thought and reason to stop doing it.

More seriously, there's a (possibly purgatorial) debate to be had about when such things are useful extensions of one's comfort zone, and that of the congregation as a whole, and when they constitute cruel and unusual punishment and/or make the baby Jesus, his mother and all the blessed angels weep bitter tears, and must be ceased forthwith.

I really do think this belongs in the latter group, but if asked to justify that I can only say that it goes against the whole tenor of the occasion, confounds its flow, and gives those it makes uncomfortable no way of regrouping before engaging in solitude with the rest of the service.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Gamaliel - the church in question sounds truly dreadful and I'm not surprised you avoid such banality. 'Hopes and dreams' indeed! [Votive]

for Mrs G.

Discussion can work in cafe church type settings, where people are sat at small tables anyway and it lends itself to a more informal kind of talk. But in a regular church set-up it's very awkward and seems pointless. If you're a kinesthetic learner then how will sitting in groups chatting help anymore than joining in with the liturgy? It's not exactly physically active.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I loathe and despise the things. They run them along in my church about twice a year, which I can avoid by skipping church that Sunday. I would never attend a church where it was a regular practice. Sooner would I convert to Wicca.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Gamaliel

OK, thanks for your response. If you'd called me to hell I wouldn't have had much to contribute anyway. I didn't mean to upset you.

However, I still don't understand why your family has remained attached to that church, in spite of all your longstanding criticisms, and the alternatives available to you.

FWIW, my mother died of cancer a couple of years ago. I wouldn't have wanted her to worship, or to be associated with, anywhere that made her as angry as this church has made you. I don't understand how any good could come from such a connection.

But my misunderstanding is my own problem, and it's not your job to clear it up. I apologise for what I said, and probably ought to retire from the thread.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

No, please don't leave the thread, SvitlanaV2. You have a lot to contribute to discussions on these sorts of topics - as on much else.

I over-reacted and I know you meant no offence or harm.

On Pamona's comment about our parish church sounding 'dreadful' ...

Well, that's in the eye of the beholder to some extent and to most people there it seems marvellous. It's certainly the most 'successful' and thriving church in the Deanery. The people are lovely, even though I find the whole thing hard to take myself.

As to why we persist with it ...

Well, when we moved here 10 years ago, I had a thing about supporting one's nearest church or parish church, whatever the style or ethos - and it's our parish church and a short walk away. I was more evangelical then, but in a kind of 'emergent' way and also with the kind of interests I have now and which I have often shared on the Ship.

The kids were younger then too, of course, 11 and 9, and we thought they'd appreciate the lively style and the youth work. In the event, they didn't.

I think this is the last straw for me, though, although my wife doesn't want to bail out and start somewhere else at this stage. She generally lets it wash over her and doesn't get too exercised about it. The traditional 9am service is ok as far she's concerned - although she wishes it wasn't too early. The other Anglican parish is a bit too 'high' for her - she's very much at the 'lower' end of the spectrum, although, like me, no longer an evangelical in the GLE sense.

Anyhow, my apologies for the rant. I know you meant no harm.

Peace be to all.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
...If you're a kinesthetic learner then how will sitting in groups chatting help anymore than joining in with the liturgy? It's not exactly physically active.

Quite. You'd be much better off doing the Stations of the Cross.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
If you're a kinesthetic learner then how will sitting in groups chatting help anymore than joining in with the liturgy? It's not exactly physically active.

OTOH, it works very well for those who are akinesthetic.

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

I have always hated this sort of idea in the main service and much prefer the traditional sermon, even as a visual learner. If I am listening to a sermon heavily based on fire and brimstone or precepts of the Old Testament I can list heresies, take stock of the church architecture, count the number of times the preacher says certain phrases or think of something else entirely.

I have helped with services like this in the evening service slots we used as experimental (around the monthly Evensong and other irregular services: Stations of the Cross, Labyrinth Prayer, Compline). They are really difficult to do well and require willing participants to engage (with nightmare memories of trying to lead a prayer walk in Fairtrade Fortnight with an adult who challenged at each station).

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I'm intrigued by your last post CK, not because I disagree with it (in fact what you've done closely parallels what I've done) but for two phrases you used.

For you talked about "think[ing] of something else entirely" when a formal sermon started taking you to places that you didn't wish to visit; and suggested that discussion services "require willing participants". Again I don't demur; but those phrases do beg the question of why folk should come to church apparently without a desire to engage with the ministry on offer and even perhaps wanting the liturgy to just "flow around" them?

(And yes, I realise that I come from a tradition in which preaching occupies a more significant place within worship than in some others, where the Sacrament is regarded as primary).

[ 15. August 2017, 08:15: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

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

I was mainly thinking of sermons I have encountered visiting other churches, often on holiday, most of which shall remain nameless There was:

the Church of Scotland sermon based on Samuel that I desperately tried to sleep through rather than let my blood pressure go through the roof - I knew what I was in for when I looked at the service sheet properly and realised what the readings and hymns probably were leading up to.
Nicky Gumbel's sermon at HTB loosely based on Nehemiah 1:1-4 because he wanted to fundraise to build something (it definitely wasn't a lectionary reading and I couldn't see any other reason for this), and I spent most of that sermon distracting my companion working out which OT stories were depicted on the west window - partly because the sermon didn't need much concentration - there wasn't a whole lot of material in it. He definitely was in the school of telling everyone something three times.
an Easter Sunday service at a church I'd attended before. The service was led by a new vicar and where the sermon wasn't about Jesus or Easter but all about a pilgrimage. That one I was focusing on the statues and other works in the church and what they meant - it's an ancient church.

I could go on, but won't.

The willingness to engage in different services as they are provided - go with the flow and take what you can from them - was thinking about services where I've seen people not engage. But it also suggests that the service should be advertised in a way that people know what to expect.

I was also partly referring to the prayer walk I set up and led as a Sunday evening service in Fairtrade fortnight. This prayer walk was open for people to wander around during the week, and just led on this one occasion. It was a number of stations with a few phrases and time to pray, think, use the activities or meditate on the themes. For example, one station had quotations from Deuteronomy about helping the poor and some suggested prayers, another was the bead into a bowl of water with time to reflect on actions spreading out and suggested prayers, another had a cross and nails to nail prayers to, a side chapel had the Lord's Prayer to pray with incense sticks to light. It didn't work as a led activity when one of the participants challenged every single station.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I was also partly referring to the prayer walk I set up and led as a Sunday evening service in Fairtrade fortnight. ...

It didn't work as a led activity when one of the participants challenged every single station.

The prayer walk sounds excellent, the constant challenges appalling and rude (did they "want to make a point", was it not "gospel-centred" enough for them?)

FWIW last Sunday - with plenty of forewarning! - we held a shortened service followed by a prayer walk around our neighbourhood. We stopped about 10 times and prayed for community cohesion, transport, education, some redevelopment going on, our mission, our neighbours and even the pub! It was quite strictly led (I wrote prayers for people to use, they didn't have to do so but I did ask them to stay "on topic"). Strangely enough I too preached on Nehemiah, but about going round the walls and being stirred to action as her saw the ruins.

[ 15. August 2017, 09:28: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, please don't leave the thread, SvitlanaV2. You have a lot to contribute to discussions on these sorts of topics - as on much else.
[/b]

Thank you.

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
[qb] ...If you're a kinesthetic learner then how will sitting in groups chatting help anymore than joining in with the liturgy? It's not exactly physically active.
Quite. You'd be much better off doing the Stations of the Cross.

IME the process can involve quite a bit of movement: re-arranging any tables and/or chairs, deciding which group to join, changing position, assisting elderly people or young children, sorting or sharing out pens and paper, manipulating material prompts. In Gamaliel's case there were also things to put into wheelie bins....

I suppose it does sound banal, but not everyone necessarily wants to be other-worldly and sombre in church, or not all the time. And sometimes what other pew-dwellers have to say can be be more memorable or thought-provoking than the sermon! That depends on the quality of your preacher, of course.

Perhaps the most kinaesthetic thing about a small group is that you can respond to each other physically. In most historical church congregations this just isn't something you can do with a sermon.

Interactive sermons are one solution, but preachers aren't trained in how to do them, and I suppose most current worshippers in the mainstream wouldn't be keen.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think it depends on the context, SvitlanaV2.

I'm sure it'd work a lot better in Baptist Trainfan's setting than in an Anglican communion service. I'm not saying that one of the other is 'better' or preferable, simply that there's a different dynamic going on - and in one that makes the kind of discussion exercise I've described work better than it would in the other.

I'd have had no problem if the discussion element had taken place at a different time or in a different type of service.

I agree with CK and Baptist Trainfan that if you are going to do the interactive stuff, whether it be Prayer Walks or 'stations' or whatever else then it needs proper thought, planning and preparation.

It isn't something you can simply vire in and expect to work.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I suppose whether or not something 'works' in church depends on whose criteria are under debate. As you said, most of the other worshippers at that particular service didn't seem too bothered by the discussion. That might be a failing on their part, but there it is.

But my religious hinterland is obviously very different from yours. Firstly, the churchgoers I know are older and more willing to share their health problems. I also have far less of an emotional or theological investment in communion services, CofE or otherwise.

Also, Methodism doesn't have the same kind of anxiety about these things. There're fewer 'trendy' ministers, and the stationing system soon removes any unwelcome specimens from a circuit. Moreover, the ministers are often too busy running 3/4/5 churches to change the worshipping style significantly of any one of them.

OTOH, Methodist worship doesn't rely a great deal on mood, IMO, so a discussion segment hardly spoils the 'flow', or the atmosphere. A waffly monologue sermon might have to be cut in length to allow for a 'share with your neighbour' moment, but I'm not the one to complain about that, frankly.

Are discussions or interactive sermons, etc., necessary? Well, they're obviously a response to a changing cultural climate. If we were living under different religious conditions, folk would just turn up and sit quietly in the pews regardless, and ministers would have no incentive to offer 'trendy' diversions (especially when they have so little training to do it well. But who would train them?). That's just not happening.

Since we are where we are, I can't fault our preachers for trying. From where I'm sitting they should be assisted in their efforts so they can improve, though I realise that this will simply be unacceptable to many people. My solution in the past would have been that some churches should specialise in experimentation and others, in tradition, but if the CofE wants people to attend their local church regardless of churchmanship/style then that won't be of help to Anglicans.

[ 15. August 2017, 21:52: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm very familiar with Methodist churches and how they operate, thank you very much. I'm also familiar with Baptist, 'new church' and Pentecostal churches and I've spent most of my time in evangelical settings of one form or other.

It's not about my wife being reluctant to discuss health issues either.

But bloody hell, SvitlanaV2, put yourself in her shoes. You go to church one morning and they break up into small groups to discuss something. The topic is 'Hopes & Dreams'. You have incurable cancer.

How would you feel?

Quite apart from that, it's supposed to be a communion service and it takes ages to get to the actual communion part because you've had to wade through a few interactive exercises of one form or other plus two discussion times - one about hopes and dreams, another following the sermon, before you actually get there ...

That's what I mean about the 'flow'. I'm not saying it should be some evocative mountain-top thing with everyone floating 6 inches above the ground ...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I mentioned my religious perspective and background because they're different from yours. I was explaining why I don't entirely share your perspective. But if you think that's irrelevant then fair enough, considering what your family is going through.

I don't know how I'd feel in your wife's position. Yet I'd like to think that we can always have hopes and dreams for the outside world, if not our own lives. When my turn comes I hope I can dream dreams on behalf of other people, like Moses who knew he wouldn't enter the promised land.

But you rejected that idea when I hinted at it before. Perhaps you were right to do so. Perhaps it's just too much to ask. I think my dying mother would have agreed with you, to be honest.

As it happens, I do think churches should be much more open about the disappointment, pain and pointlessness of much of human life. Many of us would be able to relate to that, including me, although I don't know if someone like your wife would find it any more helpful than the jolly stuff.

All the same, I wouldn't want hopes and dreams to be a forbidden theme during an interactive church service. (After all, which minister would avoid preaching a sermon on that topic?) Perhaps your vicar could have dealt with the possibility of upset by having had two discussion themes, one less personal. Groups or pairs could have chosen one of the two to discuss, according to preference.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I'm also aware that people often hate it when services overrun. If discussions + communion have that outcome then I'm sure that'll cause some displeasure.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure. I'm not saying it's wrong to have 'Hopes and Dreams'. I'm not saying my wife doesn't have them. They are necessarily limited, though, given the circumstances.

So it ain't going to go down very well being asked about them in public.

I also think it's a bloody bland thing to discuss in the context of a church service, but your mileage may vary. I'm no misanthrope but I don't give a flying fart what hopes and aspirations the person in the next pew has provided it doesn't harm anyone else and no animals are hurt in the making of their particular movie.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

This happens from time to time at our (Methodist) Church. This latest was last Sunday. For the first time ever I enjoyed it, in the past it has quickly turned into a general chat time - but this time we were kept on track. The groups were led by stewards who guided the discussion, which made us all think. Thiinking is pretty rare for me, in Church, these days.

The theme was the woman caught in adultery and each group was asked to respond in the 'voice' of a different person in the story.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Again, good guidance and preparation were the key to success - and a passage/topic amenable to discussion.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Gamaliel

Ha, well, I think church often gets quite close to being 'bloody bland' anyway. Sometimes I think I'd rather hear the 'limited' hopes and dreams of the 89-year old lady sitting next to me than yet more rambling from the middle aged, middle class specialist standing up at the front!

But that's just me. We're all so different. Pity the poor religious institutions that claim to be for everyone!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

There's nothing wrong with blandness per se. Getting up in the morning can be pretty bland. And yes, the 89 year old lady may very well have a lot more to say and teach us than the 'middle-class, male specialist' blarting away at the front.

But if a mid-service discussion is going to work then it has to be led and managed properly - as the one Boogie's described seems to have been and as Baptist Trainfan observes. At least in Boogie's instance it was actually on an issue based around a scriptural text or story.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Of course, a scriptural text might also give rise to a discussion about hopes and dreams. The text would have to be chosen and presented carefully by the leader to avoid a very personal response.

I'm wondering if Boogie and Baptist Trainfan have their discussions during all-age worship, or only with the adults. My experience has usually been with the latter. I should think it's easier to focus on serious theological issues rather than personal stuff if only adults are present.

(OTOH, one of the arguments for having these discussions with adult worshippers is that it forces them to look at biblical passages in the light of their own - and their contemporaries' - experience. This isn't something that people listening to a monologue sermon automatically do.)

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Yes, they are during the sermon time, when only adults are there.

[Smile]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

I must admit that when I attend a worship service as someone in the pews, I wouldn't expect to have to then turn my mind over to classroom mode and start engaging in discussions; especially a discussion that must necessarily be unhelpfully circumscribed by the circumstances of liturgy, location etc. I'm supposed to be giving myself over to worshipping, to the possibilities of God saying something in a moment of silence, or in the words of a hymn, or the action of a cup being lifted, or the preacher saying something that for some reasons just sticks with me, or happens to momentarily speak to my situation.

I'm there to appreciate the community of fellow worshippers, and also to have space - which is respected by everyone else - to reflect, meditate, think my own thoughts or not think at all, if that's how God is getting through to me at that moment.

If I want a discussion - which requires a completely different set of mental activities and attitudes - I'll go to Bible studies, lectures and workshops etc.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

As always, 'what Anselmina said'.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

Oh yes, indeedy!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Absolutely.

I've just come back from the annual conference of The Fellowship of St Alban & St Sergius. Enough for plenty of Ship threads there ...

But suffice to say that there were lectures, Q&A, discussions, an excursion, chats over coffee or in the pub ... but when it came to the worship it was as Anselmina describes.

So over the last couple of days I've attended an RC Mass - with an Ordinariness priest's wife leading the singing including some glorious Gregorian Latin chant, an Orthodox liturgy, Anglican Common Worship prayer and the most stratospherically High Anglican eucharist I've ever attended or even imagined possible that made both the RC and Orthodox Eucharists feel like the Plymouth Brethren ...

Ok, I know we were there to discuss, debate and chew the fat but to have introduced a stop-start discussion thing into the services themselves would have felt completely wrong.

The Quakers do a lot of talking and debate. They don't do it on a Sunday morning when they gather in silence - although there may be spoken ministry of course.

Yes, it will vary from tradition to tradition but is the worship time - and yes, the whole thing is worship - really enhanced in some way by any of this? When you already have housegroups and so on, why do you need to introduce this sort of thing into the services themselves.

It makes no sense.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I wonder why we assume that 'worship' is what a Sunday morning church service should primarily be about. It's a tradition that we take for granted, but the reasons for it are rarely enunciated. Not to pew-dwellers, anyway, and not to the majority of Christians who don't think 'attending worship' is important.

But even if there are umpteen brilliant reasons why worship is more important than anything else we might do together in church, why isn't having a discussion included as worship? It is less worshipful than listening to a 20 minute monologue sermon or singing a bunch of hymns?

Well, perhaps it depends on the discussion - but in that case it also depends on the sermon, hymns and prayers, etc. The hymn sandwich experience doesn't always make us feel that we've truly 'worshipped' God, does it?

Some people argue that all sort of things count as worship. If so, then there's no reason why a discussion can't be one of them.

Of course, I personally respect the weight of our worshipping tradition. I don't think anyone could endure a lifetime of churchgoing if they didn't.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It's an issue of context, of course. If you have a worshipping tradition where discussion rather than,say, a sermon, homily or whatever else, forms part of the practice then fine, pursue that. People would expect that to be the norm and act accordingly.

However, if you were to vire impromptu discussion into an established format where it didn't balready feature,then there's a problem.

I met a nose-bleed High Anglo-Papalist priest this week who sometimes holds more informal evening services with a discussion element in addition to the morning eucharist which is celebrated with as much ceremony as is possible in the CofE without everyone passing out with altitude sickness.

To me, that makes perfect sense. It respects the tradition and expectations of his congregation and also gives space for discussion and interaction without it impeding the flow and format or atmosphere of the particular way the eucharist is celebrated in his circles.

It's the High Church equivalent, if you like, of the services Baptist Trainfan described and both are consonant and commensurate with the integrity of each tradition.

Shoe-horning an ineptly managed discussion time into an Anglican communion service violates both formal and informal approaches - to my mind. It does not 'work' in any level.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Well, in your case it apparently 'worked' on at least a single level - i.e. most of the congregation appreciated it.

But as I say, if doing things in a traditional way in certain services is essential then the reasons why need to be made much more explicit to all worshipping Anglicans. In these modern times the allegiance and understanding of the people can't be taken for granted.

The RC has it easier; AIUI tradition is believed to be one of the holy pillars of the Church, and the laity and priests are so much more deferential. The CofE is simply too broad, and probably too much in decline, to enforce traditional standards in every case.

And I suspect that the push for more evangelism in the CofE is dangerous for traditional worshipping traditions.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I wonder why we assume that 'worship' is what a Sunday morning church service should primarily be about. It's a tradition that we take for granted, but the reasons for it are rarely enunciated. Not to pew-dwellers, anyway, and not to the majority of Christians who don't think 'attending worship' is important.

But even if there are umpteen brilliant reasons why worship is more important than anything else we might do together in church, why isn't having a discussion included as worship? It is less worshipful than listening to a 20 minute monologue sermon or singing a bunch of hymns?

Well, perhaps it depends on the discussion - but in that case it also depends on the sermon, hymns and prayers, etc. The hymn sandwich experience doesn't always make us feel that we've truly 'worshipped' God, does it?

Some people argue that all sort of things count as worship. If so, then there's no reason why a discussion can't be one of them.

Surely, we can give God at least an occasional hour or so of exclusive discursive-free attention, as part of our public testimony to his worthiness to be worshipped?

Isn't there a time and a place for everything?

I do think your comment about feeling as if 'we've truly worshipped God' is important, however. What does that feeling feel like, I wonder? What kind of boxes have to be ticked, emotionally, intellectually, psychologically before I can leave the church having felt that I have truly worshipped?

Ought the question not to be: Does God feel as if he's been worshipped when we've finished our Sunday shenanigans?

I think the best we can hope to do in our Sunday services is to say: I have tried to give to God the worship he deserves today, to the best of my ability. It won't have been enough; there'll always be a vacancy in my devotion, love, gratitude towards him. But I have attempted at least to give him the time, the space and the opportunity to receive some of what I can offer - without ego, without self, with him at the centre - and to receive from him the bit of oomph I need to get through the next week.

If I get anywhere near 'feeling' that way about worship, I reckon I've probably done as much as I humanly can.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'd go along with that ...

I would caution against SvitlanaV2's endorsement of 'if people like it and vote with their feet then it must be ok', approach.

Aryanism was clearly popular and 'working' for many people in the 4th and 5th centuries.

Slavery was clearly working for slave owners too ...

I'm not against discussions and workshops and whatever else. But as Anselmina says, there's a time and place.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Anselmina

I'm still not sure why quietly listening to the minister talking is somehow godly and ego-denying, but congregational talking is out of place. If nothing else, the former routine practice is pretty questionable as far as the minister's ego is concerned!

More importantly, some might argue that the problem with the laity's silence is that it allows their self-satisfaction and lack of effort to go unchallenged. They can switch off and allow all the fine words to wash over them. This might not be happening, of course, but who knows? Who cares?

As you say, some churches do have small groups for discussion and learning, but my guess is that most churchgoers don't attend them. In most denominations its Sunday 'worship' that's prioritised.

Gamaliel

I certainly haven't said that growth is all that matters. I agree that there's a place for utterly traditional forms of worship service in which the congregation listens to, and sings and prays along with someone else's words. They can be very beautiful and calming. I just don't believe that all Sunday morning services should be that way.

But a purer, more traditionally worshipful CofE would need to be even smaller than it is now. You'd have to lose the 'right' people and avoid picking up the 'wrong' ones.

I imagine that many FE's are unhelpful in this regard, because they give seekers inaccurate and inappropriate experiences and expectations of church life.

[ 19. August 2017, 18:42: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well yes, and it's an issue within Orthodoxy, for instance, that a lot of the punters only turn up part way through the Cherubic Hymn ...

But if lectures, conferences and mid-week meetings are, whatever the tradition, something for the keenies, then I'm not so convinced it'd make a great deal of difference to introduce them into the main services. - unless they were handled very skilfully.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I don't like these sort of discussions very much at all. But if we have to have them, I would much rather have the sermon first and then we actually have something to discuss. Otherwise it just encourages those who like talking about themselves to talk about nothing much at all - I fail to see how this helps anyone to greater understanding.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Indeed, and in the context of an Anglican service where such things take place you only have 4 or 5 minutes anyway, which hardly seems time enough to develop anything ...

I've rarely known anything of any great weight to emerge from these discussions, and I have heard quite serious heresy being touted by one discussion group during a service that went uncorrected and unchallenged by the vicar.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The question to ask is what purpose the discussions are meant to be serving.

The Baptists benefit from a heritage of seriousness regarding biblical knowledge, so their clergy can always argue that if members don't want to attend weekday meetings then the teaching has to take place during the Sunday 'worship'. I know of one such church where seasonal Sunday discussions and plenaries have specific pedagogic aims.

But I suspect that in Methodist and CofE congregations interactive sessions are more often about encouraging sociability and/or generating a change of pace during a service. This would explain the 5 min light-hearted 'share with your neighbour' activities.

This isn't surprising. After all, both denominations tolerate a wide diversity of theological perspectives, so 'teaching' is simply less important. And how can the CofE make a big deal out of 'heresy' when the vast majority of its adherents hardly ever step inside a church?

Finally, there are the interactive sermons, which are a good way for a minister to ensure that the congregation is still hanging in there, although some ministers waste the opportunity by asking silly questions about the peripheral stuff rather than getting us to respond to the real core of what they're trying to stay.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The CofE wasn't making a big deal of heresy. I was.

The issue I had on that occasion was that the vicar did bugger all to politely correct outright Arianism from a group that received a round of applause from the rest of the congregation for its heretical observations.

The vicar isn't Arian. But he felt that to tackle it publicly would have been to put people off. Rightly or wrongly, his hope was that the main culprit would pick things up by osmosis if he was made welcome and continued to attend.

I'm the event the fella stopped coming after a while.

I'm not saying I handled it properly either, politely tackling the guy after the service ...

But hey, if the discussion had revealed a Christological error that the vicar addressed in subsequent teaching, then no harm done ...

But even so ...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

That is a very real issue, if you subscribe to the "all views are equally valid" school of thinking (which I don't), or if you as leader don't want to publicly put someone down - though there are ways of doing it politely.

This is where discussion possibly works better in a small group where people know each other than in a public "all comers" service.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Anselmina

I'm still not sure why quietly listening to the minister talking is somehow godly and ego-denying, but congregational talking is out of place. If nothing else, the former routine practice is pretty questionable as far as the minister's ego is concerned!

More importantly, some might argue that the problem with the laity's silence is that it allows their self-satisfaction and lack of effort to go unchallenged. They can switch off and allow all the fine words to wash over them. This might not be happening, of course, but who knows? Who cares?

I suppose I feel that worship, in the way I'm understanding it, is a contemplative, receptive and mentally active, absorbing, internally reflective and provocative exercise which we direct towards the Object of worship. Indeed, I feel I can't state that enough.

And I truly feel that talking ABOUT God, as in a discussion, is not the same thing at all as making his presence real to us, which is the object of an act of worship; where he is the sole and careful focus of our energy, our thoughts and our attention. Not the arguments of our discussion, or our pew-mates. Not at that moment.

I totally agree the minister's ego - indeed the choir's, the organist's, the readers' egos - can all get in the way, even of a good liturgy. Sadly, that is the penalty of being human. It's also why it's even more important to make sure that the worship is directed towards God and away from distracting and unnecessary human interpolations. I don't even like it when the notices go on too long! It's about God, not why we're having to call back the plumber to fix the boiler - again! And while I would be thrilled to discuss my pew-mates take on the opening verses of John's gospel, or the annihilation of the Amalekites, or whatever the reading is for the day in a time and place suitable for that discussion, when I want to focus on hearing God's voice - well, that's what I want to do. Undramatic, undemocratic, boringly non-verbal as it may be!

Similarly, I'm willing to run the risk, when listening to a sermon, of hearing something which while it might be self-regarding from the preacher, might nevertheless shed a bit of light, or give a bit of hope. Some sermons have even been known to challenge the self-satisfaction and lack of effort you refer to. We can't have it both ways!

Still, the space of the sermon, gives me time and space to do with that time, what I want, or what God wants, more to the point. If I'm receiving discursive input from folks around me, demanding a very specific range of interaction and response, I get no chance to just 'be' in God's presence. And I think that that is what God calls us to, when he calls us to worship him.

Finally, I can't pronounce as confidently as you seem able to on the laity's complacence and what is meant by their silence during worship. I know that both each individual and God knows what's going on. For one hour every week, I would say that's enough for me to know about the hearts of the worshipper at that moment. It's been my experience that congregation members are not backwards at expressing feedback either.

Sometimes, too there are many times when having fine words wash over you is as refreshing and healthful as being plunged head first into a jacuzzi of busy, noisy, water!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

Some sermons have even been known to challenge the self-satisfaction and lack of effort you refer to. We can't have it both ways!

Yes, sermons often exhort listeners to do better. The problem is that just listening to a monologue can have a limited ability to effect change. This is something that John Wesley realised.

quote:

Still, the space of the sermon, gives me time and space to do with that time, what I want, or what God wants, more to the point. If I'm receiving discursive input from folks around me, demanding a very specific range of interaction and response, I get no chance to just 'be' in God's presence. And I think that that is what God calls us to, when he calls us to worship him.

I agree that a sermon can have this effect, but for me I think sitting in silence without listening to a sermon is more likely to do so. I suppose it depends on the kinds of sermons we're talking about.

I do actually feel that we need more silence in church, but I mean total silence, not just congregational silence.

quote:

Finally, I can't pronounce as confidently as you seem able to on the laity's complacence and what is meant by their silence during worship.

Unfortunately, I've heard several preachers express exasperation at how impervious their congregations can be when it comes to taking on board and actually living the messages they've heard during worship. It's as if there's an impenetrable barrier between theory and practice. This is what church discussions, at their very best, can address.

However, I accept that we come from different traditions and have different expectations of worship. You're also a minister, I understand, so yours is a very creative part of this process. Sitting very still in the pews is presumably a refreshing break for you, not a permanent way of being.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I've heard people from all traditions say they would value more silence.

It think discussions can address the issues you mention, but not in the way they're applied in the example I've given. In other settings, and in Baptist Trainfan's example, I'm sure they can and do.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've heard people from all traditions say they would value more silence.

One church I served was adjacent to a railway line with a very frequent service, many trains rushing past hooting as they went. We would sometimes have a time of silence but this could often last for rather less time than intended, usually with giggles from the congregation ...

It would not have made a good Quaker Meeting House!

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've heard people from all traditions say they would value more silence.

It think discussions can address the issues you mention, but not in the way they're applied in the example I've given. In other settings, and in Baptist Trainfan's example, I'm sure they can and do.

Preachers who are also celebrants (within a C of E/RC eucharist) have only themselves to blame in this regard. Dragging people to their feet to recite the creed before they have had any time to digest the sermon ensures that the latter is forgotten by the time the elements are distributed.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

It has become the custom at Our Place, almost by accident, to now have about a minute for silent reflection between the homily and the Creed. Not a lot, I know, but every little helps.

The same applies after Communion, before the Post-Communion Prayer.

IJ

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

There is little difference, in practice, between the phrases, "We are going to split into groups for discussion," and, "Anyone on the autistic spectrum can fuck off now."

When you have difficulty in switching off distractions it is almost impossible to concentrate on the discussion you are in when you can hear the discussion of the next group and there is also birdsong from outside.

Discussion is great in a home group setting, but several groups in the same space - no thanks. It is hard enough to keep attention on one thing. When several things are happening at once... I'm listening to the birdsong from outside.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've heard people from all traditions say they would value more silence.
One church I served was adjacent to a railway line with a very frequent service, many trains rushing past hooting as they went. We would sometimes have a time of silence but this could often last for rather less time than intended, usually with giggles from the congregation ...

It would not have made a good Quaker Meeting House!

Doubtless not helped by you rushing out with your camera and notebook every time it happened.... [Smile]

One of the things I always liked about worshipping at Southwark Cathedral was the sound of the trains going by at high level in & out of London Bridge. Made it feel very grounded.

[ 20. August 2017, 21:23: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Doubtless not helped by you rushing out with your camera and notebook every time it happened....

Cheeky! they were actually London Underground trains (= Not Exciting) [Cool]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Unfortunately, I've heard several preachers express exasperation at how impervious their congregations can be when it comes to taking on board and actually living the messages they've heard during worship. It's as if there's an impenetrable barrier between theory and practice. This is what church discussions, at their very best, can address.

To be sure, I'm not saying that listeners are sitting there taking it all in and going out being brilliant responders to what they're hearing. I'm just saying I don't know what's going on inside their heads! Many individuals within congregations are evidently impervious to even good sermons; God knows, I often am! I'm also saying that I don't think any amount of in-worship discussion will necessarily make up for the flaws of sermonizing. My fear is that forced discussion would either exacerbate the flaws of a bad sermon or pull the punch of a good one. And discussion in place of a sermon would just be a complete non-starter for me. I'd rather have silence, or just move on.

I like that you're obviously open to, even excited about the possibility that discussion during worship could be that ideal time to increase opportunities to expand on points made during exhortations which could help people practically work out ways of building on what they hear. And maybe I'm just too narrow in my ideas to see the potential. Too wedded to how I perceive worship.

quote:
However, I accept that we come from different traditions and have different expectations of worship. You're also a minister, I understand, so yours is a very creative part of this process. Sitting very still in the pews is presumably a refreshing break for you, not a permanent way of being.

Sitting still is a great challenge for me. I'm a dreadful fidgeter! Maybe another reason why I need the verbal 'space' of liturgy; to help me submit to the discipline of making myself physically aware that I'm in God's presence.

Thanks for this discussion, by the way! You've made me think hard about some things, which is helpful. It's been very thought-provoking for me and I've enjoyed it.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
....! they were actually London Underground trains (= Not Exciting)

Some would say that was fighting talk...

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
[QUOTE]Sitting still is a great challenge for me. I'm a dreadful fidgeter! Maybe another reason why I need the verbal 'space' of liturgy; to help me submit to the discipline of making myself physically aware that I'm in God's presence.

Yes! That's what I really benefit from, at church. The sitting still, not at a keyboard or with a book. Then, even if you're not listening to the sermon, you can really hear the Spirit.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I've just been listening to a programme on Radio as to whether the time for sermons is past.

I have thought of a half-way house which has sometimes been used, which is to have a discussion by two people at the front, with others listening but not contributing (think "Newsnight", though you don't necessarily need a neutral interviewer).

This could be useful if one is trying to examine two sides of a moral/ethical issue, or a passage of Scripture which admits of diverse interpretation. Of course it is personnel-heavy as it needs those two "experts" rather than a single preacher!

(One could even come back for a Q&A or congregational discussion over coffee afterwards).

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I seem to remember back in the fifties or sixties of the last century, one of the 'smart' churches in London deliberately installed two pulpits so they could do this, but I can't remember which church it was. The two pulpits may even still be there - possibly occupied by cats (see references to cats above).

Does anyone know?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I can't answer your question - but I do remember that idea. I seem to link it in with Malcolm Muggeridge, but obviously others took part.

I was thinking perhaps of something slightly more informal; a couple of chairs or lecterns (depending on architecture) rather than pulpits.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Possibly St James Piccadilly?
I've seen something like what you suggest, BT, used at Lent evening services, very effectively.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

We sometimes have discussions during Liturgy. If it gets too loud, Father will tell them to take it outside. I'll get my coat.

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

I've been part of something like that one Lent - a series of dramatised interviews followed by discussions in groups and a final plenary where the groups fed back and overall themes drawn out. That was looking at buildings - foundations, water, electricity - so the interviewees were an architect, an electrician, and etc.

And another one where the evidence for the resurrection was tried as in a court followed by group discussions and plenary

But these were discussion groups rather than services, even if topped and tailed with prayer.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

I am used to something slightly different.

Bible passage read

Quite often a spell of silence

Leader may give a five-minute intro

It is opened to the floor

However, not really a discussion. More like a Quaker set of leadings. Someone will comment on something. When finished normally a spell of silence. The next person may develop the comment or they may take a totally different tack. Sometimes an idea will take off and three or four will comment, other times the tack will change with each speaker and you will have maybe six different perspectives. There is no agenda topic to be discussed. It continues until everyone is finished (there is no requirement to contribute) when we will return to the formal liturgy.

It works in the setting but the setting is highly collaborative anyway and there would be genuine discomfort by some with a traditional sermon to this audience. The setting is small (half a dozen will be a good turnout). The core group actually know each other quite well and expects this so no surprise. The core group has a dominant personality trait which means that it is happy to not have the ministry of the Word tied down to three neat points.

Jengie

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

And I bet those discussion groups took a fair bit of organising!

@BT and Albertus - yes, St. James, Piccadilly, sounds familiar, perhaps during the incumbency of Donald Reeves? Wikipedia articles on the church, and on Mr. Muggeridge, don't mention twin-pulpit debates, though, and the church itself appears to have just the regular one pulpit.

Some knowledgeable Shipmate will be along soon to lighten our darkness, I hope.

IJ

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

I have thought of a half-way house which has sometimes been used, which is to have a discussion by two people at the front, with others listening but not contributing (think "Newsnight", though you don't necessarily need a neutral interviewer).

Not the same thing, but that reminds me of those lovely Peter and Jesus dialogues that were popular a while ago. Little dramatic set pieces, which could fit in so nicely into an act of worship. Thought provoking, dialogic but contextual to the liturgy.

Mousethief, I laughed out loud when I read your post! I could almost be persuaded about discussions...
[Big Grin]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Little dramatic set-pieces can indeed work well within the context of a service, and the thought reminded me of the rather delightfully subversive dialogues in the Lutheran Satire cartoons of Hans Fiene.

Go to YouTube, enter 'Lutheran Satire', and enjoy!

IJ

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Possibly St James Piccadilly?

Donald Reeves's meant an extra hour added to a service.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Not the same thing, but that reminds me of those lovely Peter and Jesus dialogues that were popular a while ago. Little dramatic set pieces, which could fit in so nicely into an act of worship. Thought provoking, dialogic but contextual to the liturgy.

Eh Jesus.., Yes Peter by John Bell and Graham Maule

Jengie

[ 22. August 2017, 20:50: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

I have thought of a half-way house which has sometimes been used, which is to have a discussion by two people at the front, with others listening but not contributing (think "Newsnight", though you don't necessarily need a neutral interviewer).

St. Bride's, Fleet Street have used this to great effect (although a separate event, not part of a service). The one I went to was a discussion between Rowan Williams and Simon Jenkins (the other one), I seem to remember RW sounding more impressive.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Not the same thing, but that reminds me of those lovely Peter and Jesus dialogues that were popular a while ago. Little dramatic set pieces, which could fit in so nicely into an act of worship. Thought provoking, dialogic but contextual to the liturgy.

Eh Jesus.., Yes Peter by John Bell and Graham Maule

I have to admit that things like that are just as off-putting to me as discussions in lieu of a sermon, maybe even more so. I really can't stand them.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Indeed, Nick Tamen. Not everybody's cup of tea, of course.

And if they are done, even for those of us who don't mind their occasional appearance - for my money - they have to be well done, or not at all.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
There is little difference, in practice, between the phrases, "We are going to split into groups for discussion," and, "Anyone on the autistic spectrum can fuck off now."

That may well be true (and I do think changes in worship style ideally ought to be explored and interrogated by a whole congregation as part of a shared vision, not just randomly imposed by a minister) but as it is, church must be unpalatable for folks who find it very hard to sit totally still, or who are frustrated at being empty receptacles for other people's contributions on a routine basis. Those people can '*@#* off' too. I should think most already have - long ago.

Thinking about it more broadly, the problem is that the church service, as commonly understood, is really only suitable for a limited group of people. We've developed something that doesn't speak very well to certain personality and psychological types, probably at both ends of the scale.

Of course, it's a very difficult issue to address without upsetting the kinds of people who are already at home in the pews, or the leaders whose leadership style suits those people.

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

I like that you're obviously open to, even excited about the possibility that discussion during worship could be that ideal time to increase opportunities to expand on points made during exhortations which could help people practically work out ways of building on what they hear.

I'm glad my comments have been thought-provoking.

Putting aside the occasional and lighthearted 'share with your neighbour' interludes (although I don't think they detract from the average MOTR service as I know it), it would certainly be exciting to encounter serious, proficient, focused examples of interactive and educational preaching, or well-organised group discussions followed by plenaries. I can see why the Baptist churches are particularly good places for this kind of thing - and why other churches might not be.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
church service, as commonly understood, is really only suitable for a limited group of people. We've developed something that doesn't speak very well to certain personality and psychological types, probably at both ends of the scale.

Yes - we forget that most people rarely listen to monologues any more. If we are mission-oriented, we must appeal to them. Or die.

[ 25. August 2017, 12:17: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I think that Baptist settings lend themselves to this kind of thing better than some others. I've certainly seen it done better in Baptist churches than in Anglican ones.

It depends on what the expectations are.

Swings and roundabouts to a large extent.

I've had goose-bumps and a sense of the numinous in ultra-High Anglo-Catholic communion services - which were choreographed to the nth degree - in a way I mightn't at a Baptist communion service, for instance. But in the latter I might very well be moved by something else, the sense of simplicity and of sharing in community for instance ...

Thinking about it, the priest I saw involved with a vertiginously high eucharistic service tells me that he holds informal evening services several times a month where there is room for discussion and debate ... He's not against those things, but feels they should be kept separate from the eucharistic services.

So, in the discussion/interaction sense I feel that Baptist churches are better geared up for that and so such times don't feel as if they are artificially vired in as they might in an Anglican service - of whatever 'height' as it were.

It's all down to context.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The problem, I suppose, is that the Baptists (and most other groups) only have limited coverage. Only the CofE is present in every community, and so in theory could provide interactive worship wherever there were people who wanted it.

Perhaps people expect too much of the CofE, though. There's almost a sense that it ought to satisfy every Christian need or requirement. But as it closes more churches in the upcoming decades this attitude may decline. Closures will make churchgoing Anglicans more accustomed to travelling to the churches of their choice (as Christians in other denominations have to do) and the rarity of the traditional communion service could enhance its appeal.

[ 26. August 2017, 20:04: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

To an extent that's happening already, SvitlanaV2.

People who want traditional Anglican services and are prepared to travel a bit, already do so.

I'm not so much concerned here about Anglican services as distinct from other types of service, simply making the observation that the style and ethos of Baptist churches making the 'discussion' element a better 'fit' in that context.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

All church leaders would say that they take their 'context' into account, so I'm not sure if that word necessarily moves things along.

What the Baptists have above all, ISTM, is not so much the right context for this kind of thing, but a significant amount of agreement as to what constitutes the right context.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

With the disclaimer that I am a geeky person who does enjoy listening to monologues of all kinds...I have a hard time understanding how a group discussion fits aesthetically into a worship service. In my experience " discussion sermons have not gone too well in my churches -- either the " frozen chosen" decline to participate, or the most needy/least functional people present monopolize the conversation with things that have nothing to do with the sermon. (If your experience varies, you're fortunate.) I am also inclined to be a " do- bee," and if noone participates I feel pressured to help the pastor, which makes me anxious and I'm sure gives others flashbacks of the teacher's pet back in grade school.

One pastor I know offered anyone interested about a half-hour block before the service to review the day's lessons and do a Q and A...not universally attended, but some people appreciated it. My pastor now does an " ice cream theology" session at am ice cream parlor that's a favorite of the congregation, after the Saturday evening service she goes to the ice cream shack ( which has a spacious interior and porch with room for a small group) and likewise discusses the sermon, or other things.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Among other things I answer random Bible etc. questions from the public at my new job. The file of Q&As past is labeled "Doughnut theology" because Lutherans tend to do that over coffee and doughnuts...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sounds like the right context to me.

Pub, ice-cream parlour or doughnut and coffee place ...

Those are the right contexts.

The middle of a communion service, less so.

Meanwhile, SvitlanaV2, if there is a greater deal of consensus among the Baptists as to what the right context is for discussion in worship, then surely that reinforces the point I was making - that Baptists have a 'better' context to contextualise these things ...

That isn't to say that the others - including the Lutherans (who are almost invisible here in the UK because they are like hen's teeth) - can't do it, but they can find somewhere within their own context that works.

As our Lutheran friends have said here, they do it through Q&A sessions and what-not within settings that suit. What they don't seem to do is plonk it in the middle of a communion service where it doesn't 'fit'.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

All right Ecclesiology and liturgical theology time from an English orthodox dissenters perspective. Yes I know, there are some who believe this does not exist.

There is a particular group within in English orthodox dissent* that holds that worship is primarily an act of the Congregation. The leader is, therefore, a facilitator and is not called to lead the performance of the liturgy. Indeed the fullest possible participation by members of the congregation and the most non-hierarchical performance of liturgy is to be desired. What is more, the congregation is a hermeneutical community and what is the Word in one congregation does not translate to another.

They would key this as the 'priesthood of believers' and often adopt a Quaker like belief in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit residing within members of the congregation. They will often have lay led services and also tend to favour lay communions. They strongly believe that the leadership of worship should be connected to the community.

In a congregation with this approach to worship, the replacing of the sermon by a discussion is something to be desired.

Jengie

* Sorry for the long term but it is not URC specific, but held by some Congregationalist, Baptists and others who come from this ilk. They actually tend to be theologically liberal. Actually not a UK phenomena, I read once a description of Marilynne Robinson's home church worship and it fitted with this form exactly.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

There's a very theologically liberal chapel near my brother in South Wales that appears to take this sort of approach, Jengie Jon.

I've not visited it, but he has and his description accords with yours - although not expressed in as 'theological' a way.

It seems largely made up of refugees from more conservative non-conformist chapels and the congregation comes from a wide area rather than the immediate vicinity.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Discussing the readings is also something done in the base communities of Latin America.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It seems largely made up of refugees from more conservative non-conformist chapels and the congregation comes from a wide area rather than the immediate vicinity.

I think I am right in that these places historically are those among orthodox Dissent who tended to draw on the Radical Reformation than on the Magisterial Reformation (Lutheran, Reformed, etc). The Magisterial Reformers tended to emphasise the teaching role of the Presbyter.

Jengie

[ 27. August 2017, 19:02: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Possibly, I don't know much about the origins of this particular chapel but I get the impression it formed as part of a merger of two independent groups with a congregationalist flavour. They get some Methodists along too.

If their roots were small o orthodox, that's not where they are now.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

'orthodox' here mainly implies Trinitarian. Technically an acceptance of the historic creeds of the church at least as a starting point for developing doctrine not necessarily as nonnegotiables.

Jengie

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Some might quibble with that definition!

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Is (possibly) Outrage!

IJ

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The problem, I suppose, is that the Baptists (and most other groups) only have limited coverage. Only the CofE is present in every community, and so in theory could provide interactive worship wherever there were people who wanted it.

Where worship is concerned 'interactive' for me is about being as absorbed and focused on God as Object of worship as possible. My whole mental and physical state is therefore interactively taken up with responding to him. At least that's the hope.

Maybe it's a personality thing.

All I can say is that being still and knowing God, reflectively in worship, is to me the non-negotiable heart of what worship is. Talking about God with others, valuable and essential as that is in numerous other contexts is another thing altogether. I can, of course, benefit from discussions to such an extent where I learn more about the God I worship, and that can feed back into my worship and enhance it.

I still think that different approaches to different aspects of relating to God require different activities with different parameters.

A formula 1 racing driver isn't going to enhance his performance during a race by building into it opportunities to consult and discuss the contents of the car-manual with his support team; no matter how much interesting and even vital knowledge it might contain.

It's as well we're not all the same, of course! How tedious and fruitless Christianity would be if there were only ever one way to experience and relate to God.

Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on :

I suppose the whole question is what is worship? What do we mean by Christian teaching?

I agree with previous comments about hearing impared people - also ADHD and Autistic spectrum folks - sitting still while someone spouts, is not ideal and in fact can be detrimental.

Discussion groups can also pose serious questions about inclusion, as already said.They work much, much better in small groups where folk are willing to participate - so long as someone doesn't dominate. It is the leaders duty to put the kybosh on that.

I agree with Baptist Trainfan's ideas re the use of discussion.

There are many different learning styles and yet in most churches we only focus on hearing. I find that difficult. God has given us 5 senses, not just one! In the past I have sat with a sketch pad or doing sewing. It does help the concentration.

Over a great many years I have asked the question of whether the sermon is indeed the best method of communication today. I usually get my head bitten off by traditionalists.

Do they never listen to music, watch TV/films?YouTube, watch drama, listen to poetry or indeed dance. God has given us gifts and different ways of communicating. Why in church do we stick to one boring (for many) method based on the thoughts of one person - no matter how gifted or anointed? We are all only human - albeit inspired by God's Spirit.

Why can't we use a variety of communication methods? Graphics, clips, illustrated talks/sermons. What can't the minister/priest work with a small team - his/hers the initial inspiration but developed and helped by the gifts of others? Why do we think that a priest/minister/preacher can drop pearls of wisdom week after week in a 20+ mins monologue?

I have been in church services where there are poetry and drama readings (relevant and properly done), clips from all sorts of resources, cartoons and pictures: all to enhance and illustrate what is being said and taught from the passage of scripture bu the "preacher". Much more meaningful and inclusive. Maybe we might get more young people too into our churches by using diverse methods.

As for discussion? Keep it for small discussion groups where people who want to participate can and if something good comes out then share it with the rest of the congregation at an appropriate time.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

How do we listen to dance?

Heh heh heh ...

The kind of multi-media approach wild haggis describes sounds like what was known as alt-worship 20 years back.

I often wondered what happened to that.

I've often heard Orthodox people claim that their worship is more kinaesthetic and so on, even if to the untutored eye it looks like most of it is being done by the priest, deacon and choir.

So they'll wander around, nip out for a ciggy, light candles, kiss icons, snuff out candles etc etc ...

I don't have a problem with hands-on stuff or with multi-media presentations and so on in theory. In practice they tend to leave me cold, though. Why? Because a lot of the clips, samples, poetry and so on deployed in contemporary worship contexts is pretty dreck.

Dire is too polite a word for it.

If I want poetry I'll go to a Stanza group or organise an open-mic. At least that way you get some decent beer.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

Apologies to all, but the idea of formally breaking into chat groups as distinct from people turning the passing of the peace into a mini goss session appalls me.

If you want to learn, go to a bible study or do an alpha course or whatever.

I'm not angry enough to do a proper rant, probably because I realise that people like different sorts of stuff. Suffice it to say that I would flee from such a church. The only time I've participated in such a process in church was when I was single and going to the same church as a woman I liked who was involved in leadership there. I should have known the relationship was doomed...

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I think I'm a veteran of too many Bible studies and other small groups where people wander off topic. I can't imagine myself voluntarily going to a worship service that waa going go break into small grouos midwzy. I'd rather atrend a,service eith no sermon time at all, just lessons and the Euchsrist.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I think I'm a veteran of too many Bible studies and other small groups where people wander off topic. I can't imagine myself voluntarily going to a worship service that waa going go break into small grouos midwzy. I'd rather atrend a,service eith no sermon time at all, just lessons and the Euchsrist.

My spelling is somewhat similar if I am using my telephone screen for typing!

I have for some years, unless I am travelling, have managed to just as LutheranChik likes. Younger friends are appalled, and simply do not understand my preference at all at all, as they seem to really like things like discussions and sermons, but seem to ascribe it to my advancing years. I have also found that going to services in languages which I don't quite follow expertly is also useful both for learning and for being able to ignore tangents.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

oh yes. I've been to a few orthodox services of various varieties and not being able to follow the service is magical. I lose myself in the gestures, the vestments, the singing... I liked the Armenian Orthodox the most.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Perhaps it is an age thing ... when you 've been round the block a fair few times you've pretty much heard most things preachers are going to come out with - I find I can anticipate which illustrations or points they are going to use - or simply can't be bothered having earnest discussions part way through a service ...

I horrified a preacher on these boards once by observing that I'd probably pretty much heard anything that preachers are ever going to say ...

He felt I was being unteachable. I'm sure this person was and is a very good and engaging preacher, that wasn't the point ... I'm sure he serves his congregation well and delivers well-crafted and thought-provoking / moving and engaging sermons. Again, that's not at issue.

But I dunno, the older I get the less sermons I want to hear and as for discussion ... well, I can do that in other contexts. I want to be left alone during church services, not have to engage in futile discussions with whoever happens to be sitting near me at the time ...

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
He felt I was being unteachable. I'm sure this person was and is a very good and engaging preacher, that wasn't the point ... I'm sure he serves his congregation well and delivers well-crafted and thought-provoking / moving and engaging sermons. Again, that's not at issue.

But I dunno, the older I get the less sermons I want to hear

I think I know what you mean and also hold to some of that sentiment myself (but perhaps I'm un-teachable and irascible also). I did wonder if the internet had ruined my attention span - but then I listen to large amounts of audio through the week just fine.

Joking apart though - and given your arts background - I'd like to ask a couple of related questions which are somewhat involved and so may take more than one post.

Do you think at one level you just 'sermoned out' ? Perhaps you just - at some level - need a rest from being bombarded with even more propositional truth with slight variations.

I once heard a quote along the lines of 'the purpose of a sermon isn't to make the truth clear, but to make it real'. It seems to me that tied into that statement is the notion of the preacher engaging artistically with the truth in order to express it in a fresh way. Do you think this is what is lacking ?

On the other hand, perhaps there is some regular artistic event you attend that leaves you equally cold - in which case the question may be moot.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But what are you supposed to *do* with a short period of discussion that is then followed by a return to some kind of (other) worship? How does it get followed up? Where is it going? What is the object of the session and how does the discussion period contribute to achieving it?

I assume you are supposed to come up with the sets of canned answers that helps the preacher make their point.

Which is why I hate and detest such things - both within and outside the church (there is a load of this kind of thing in corporate circles).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
He felt I was being unteachable. I'm sure this person was and is a very good and engaging preacher, that wasn't the point ... I'm sure he serves his congregation well and delivers well-crafted and thought-provoking / moving and engaging sermons. Again, that's not at issue.

But I dunno, the older I get the less sermons I want to hear
I think I know what you mean and also hold to some of that sentiment myself (but perhaps I'm un-teachable and irascible also). I did wonder if the internet had ruined my attention span - but then I listen to large amounts of audio through the week just fine.

Joking apart though - and given your arts background - I'd like to ask a couple of related questions which are somewhat involved and so may take more than one post.

Do you think at one level you just 'sermoned out' ? Perhaps you just - at some level - need a rest from being bombarded with even more propositional truth with slight variations.

I once heard a quote along the lines of 'the purpose of a sermon isn't to make the truth clear, but to make it real'. It seems to me that tied into that statement is the notion of the preacher engaging artistically with the truth in order to express it in a fresh way. Do you think this is what is lacking ?

On the other hand, perhaps there is some regular artistic event you attend that leaves you equally cold - in which case the question may be moot.

I think those are good questions, Chris. I'm not sure I have immediate answers.

I think familiarity does play into these things. For instance, I'm involved with judging a poetry competition at the moment and I find I can very quickly sort the wheat from the chaff as I pretty much know what to expect with a high proportion of entries ...

Ok, some are self-selecting, the 'Raving Looney' category is the obvious one ... but then there are those that 'have something' but lack that special ingredient or spark ... or those that look like they've come out of workshop sessions I can readily deconstruct and identify ...

Like you with the audio, I find I have no difficulty sitting through lectures and so on at theological or ecumenical conferences. I've been to one recently and thoroughly enjoyed it.

But a lecture is a different thing to a sermon.

I'd posit that a sermon is a harder thing to 'pull-off' and get right ...

I think your thing about making the truth 'real' is a pertinent point.

I also think that you're right that I don't want to be bombarded with the same propositional truths over and over again.

I'm not suggesting that it's simply the case that traditional liturgies - whether RC, Orthodox or Anglican - have a hypnotic or 'zone-out' aspect to them - although I think they can at times - as charismatic worship can too ...

But I dunno, I find there's space to 'swim' in these things, even though there's a definite set-pattern and even though I know what's coming next.

But then, there's a certain predictability about charismatic worship too, at least how it's developed and become 'normalised' and domesticated.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I'm against the stereo-typical hymn/prayer sandwich with a nice sermon in the middle down at Blogg Street Baptist or Stanley Road URC ... that can be 'done well' too, as it were - and I'm sure I'd derive spiritual nourishment from such things were I to go to them more regularly.

But I dunno ... there's something about discussions and sermonising in a 'bog-standard evangelical' setting that doesn't 'do it' for me these days ... it's not that I think these people are off-kilter or 'lacking' in some way ... I've no doubt about the integrity or sincerity. But I dunno, there's a certain je ne sais quoi that isn't there for me any more.

That said, occasional nuggets and trigger-points within all that would have an 'Ah! Bisto!' effect on me, I'm sure. I'm a sucker for Welsh hymn tunes in the minor key and certain evangelical tropes ...

But I dunno ... I dunno what it is.

At the conference I attended recently the token evangelical speaker was asked to close a panel discussion in prayer. For some reason, the way he prayed sounded odd - even though I've prayed that way myself a million times. I asked a cradle-Orthodox delegate what he'd thought and he said it'd sounded wierd to him too, not because he disagreed with the content nor found the delivery 'lacking' in some way but it just didn't sound 'right' somehow ... perhaps because he was so used to praying set liturgical prayers rather than extemporising.

I s'pose it's a case of what you're used to and getting tuned into things wherever you happen to be ...

... Or moving on from somewhere you've been ...

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

I'll get back to you Gamaliel once I've digested your post and pondered my followup. In the meantime, back to something a little closer to the OP:

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
With the disclaimer that I am a geeky person who does enjoy listening to monologues of all kinds...I have a hard time understanding how a group discussion fits aesthetically into a worship service.

I think in addition to the curse of the jejune, I'm not entirely sure that discussion during the sermon/worship time could cope very well with dissent. It may require much more time than was available - which would mean that the temptation would be to either go the way of everyone sharing their opinion and agreeing with each other, or alternatively tightly managing the sorts of (leading) questions that are asked.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I'm against the stereo-typical hymn/prayer sandwich with a nice sermon in the middle down at Blogg Street Baptist or Stanley Road URC ... that can be 'done well' too, as it were - and I'm sure I'd derive spiritual nourishment from such things were I to go to them more regularly.

But I dunno ... there's something about discussions and sermonising in a 'bog-standard evangelical' setting that doesn't 'do it' for me these days ...

It strikes me that there could be several reasons for this, eg:

- the same texts and stories coming round and round, with nothing new for you to bite on;
- superficial and obvious comments which don't force you to think more deeply;
- a lack of originality in style, use of language and presentation;
- failing to relate the Biblical era to present-day life;
- shying away from real controversy ...

There may be many more! I agree that a sermon is not quite the same as a lecture, where the "didactic" element comes to the fore, sometimes allied with the attempt by the speaker to persuade you of their point of view. Sermons do all that but should also inspire, indeed they have a quase-sacramental value in linking hearers to the Divine.

It may be the lack of the last bit which is lacking in discussions ... tho' we congregationalists of course believe that God can speak through any member of the fellowship.

[ 06. September 2017, 15:00: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, I get all that Baptist Trainfan and I'm sure it's a combination of each of those things.

Something 'sacramental' doesn't have to involve goosebumps, of course and I'm not talking about tan tan tarahhh! fanfares and such ...

There have certainly been times in Baptist and other congregational settings where I've heard sermons that have taken me 'somewhere else' - and as I've said before on these boards, some of the best sermons I've ever heard have been in Baptist churches.

I think what I find irritating in some evangelical Anglican sermons these days is that there is little sense of 'mystery' or that they are trying to answer putative questions or objections that I either no longer have or which I feel are a non-issue in the first place ...

Or they try to tackle some issue of theodicy only to beg more questions and make matters worse. I even heard a vicar try to make out that you couldn't 'blame' God for the eruption of Mount Vesuvius and the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum because perhaps they shouldn't have settled there in the first place ...

Yeah?

I think what happens is that clergy people hear the usual 'excuses' for non-church-going roundabout and then try to address them in sermons for the faithful ... When those aren't necessarily issues for the regulars at all ...

Something like that.

But that's one aspect ... There are others.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Meanwhile, what Chris Stiles said about the jejune and the lack of opportunity to develop any discussion or tackle any topic properly in the constraints of a Sunday morning service unless it's managed properly.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I think those are good questions, Chris. I'm not sure I have immediate answers.

I think familiarity does play into these things. For instance, I'm involved with judging a poetry competition at the moment and I find I can very quickly sort the wheat from the chaff as I pretty much know what to expect with a high proportion of entries ...

.. and if you weren't judging the competition but just going weekly to hear this poetry being recited how would you react to it, do you think?

What I'm trying to get at is whether what you miss is the sense of the numinous or sacramental (thanks bt!). At least that was the thrust of my original question - but it does lead me to wonder whether the sacramental alone is all you miss ? Or would it also need to be crafted well?

[Of course, listening to someone else's half formed thoughts to a leading question is likely to be the painful antithesis to all of this.]

I wonder also if its down to a certain house style? I've noticed that I can spot when someone has been through certain seminaries and colleges, and after a while the particular cadence becomes jarring because it's at odds with the material. [Perhaps shades of your critique of more recent Anglican preaching here].

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Interesting questions again.

On the poetry thing, all recitals are a mix of the good, bad and indifferent,but generally you know there'll be some good stuff tucked away.

Beyond that ... I'm struggling to answer your question ... I'll have to give it some more thought ...

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

A good sermon is great, but I don't go to church to think. I go to church to feel.

As long as the sermon doesn't piss me right off, I'm ok with the usual points.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Yes, but surely you do not read a novel to think? There is a very reductionist approach to sermons on this thread that treats them as if they were pure catechesis. I am sorry but the breaking forth of the Word through the sermon is so much more that someone actually had to point it out to me that there was an element of that in them. Basically many of you are treating the sermon as Memorialist do the Eucharist.

Jengie

[ 07. September 2017, 07:35: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

No, I think it's the opposite, at least in my case, Jengie.

I'm expecting the sermon to be more than 'memorialist' as it were but too often it fails to transcend that and become 'fully sacramental' if you like, in the way you describe.

I take your point, though.

The problem I have with many evangelical Anglican sermons I've heard recently is that they try to cover all bases, try to answer ineffable questions, try to catechise, try to put the world to rights, try to ...

Can you see what I getting at? They are trying to get the sermon to do more than can reasonably be expected of it. Some of the best sermons I've heard have simply whetted the appetite or touched on something tantalising ...

You feel you've touched the hem of His robe ... If that doesn't sound too over the top ...

What we most often get may be exegetically ok - I've heard few gaffs of that kind in evangelical Anglican sermons - but lacks a certain lightness of touch.

I'm struggling to describe what I mean ...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

A question for Gamaliel:

How long have those Evangelical Anglican sermons been? And, in your opinion, were they too long or too short?

I ask this because I have been in many Anglican services with sermons that are 8-10 minutes long and in my view come to an end just as they're getting interesting! Admittedly 20 or 30 minute Baptist sermons can be infuriatingly sprawling and unfocussed, making one think, "Why doesn't he just get on with it?" (I say "he" deliberately as the few female Baptist ministers I have heard seem to sound pretty Anglican in style!)

Also, do you think there is any difference between sermons which are read, perhaps fairly dispassionately, and those which are more lively and less tied to a script? Might there be more of a feeling of "engagement" with the latter, which leads one closer to God? Or am I confusing emotion(alism) with spirituality?

[ 07. September 2017, 08:07: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I was much enhumbled recently by a member of our congregation complimenting me on my homily that morning. 'Best sermon I've ever heard you preach! I was concentrating on EVERY word!', she said.

I'd had the period from 2 minutes before the service (when we realised the visiting priest wasn't going to Turn Up) until the Gospel, in which to think of something...so perhaps I just managed (with God's help) to provide that 'lightness of touch' to which Gamaliel refers!

[Help]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Absolutely ... you could nothing but depend on God's Spirit to inspire you (although clearly you had a bank of knowledge and experience to draw from, too).

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Basically many of you are treating the sermon as Memorialist do the Eucharist.

I was under the impression that the last few posts were treating the sermon as anything but that, and the thrust of the OP was in fact that it interrupted the non-memorialist aspects of the sermon ...

I'm also don't think it's necessarily down to length, or whether it's read/not read and/or spontaneous [I don't think the numinal/sacramental aspects of the sermon can be reduced in that way].

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
A question for Gamaliel:

How long have those Evangelical Anglican sermons been? And, in your opinion, were they too long or too short?

I ask this because I have been in many Anglican services with sermons that are 8-10 minutes long and in my view come to an end just as they're getting interesting! Admittedly 20 or 30 minute Baptist sermons can be infuriatingly sprawling and unfocussed, making one think, "Why doesn't he just get on with it?" (I say "he" deliberately as the few female Baptist ministers I have heard seem to sound pretty Anglican in style!)

Also, do you think there is any difference between sermons which are read, perhaps fairly dispassionately, and those which are more lively and less tied to a script? Might there be more of a feeling of "engagement" with the latter, which leads one closer to God? Or am I confusing emotion(alism) with spirituality?

As ever, I agree with Chris Stiles ... but to answer Baptist Trainfan's question ...

Firstly, let's make some generalisations and observations:

1. The 8 to 10 minute (or shorter) sermons one hears in Anglican circles tend to occur in MoTR or more higher up the candle churches. Evangelical parishes would feel short-changed if that's all they had.

2. On the issue of length of sermon - I don't have a problem with longer sermons Baptist-style - provided they are in the right kind of context. A lengthy sermon with some kind of discussion element just doesn't fit well, time-wise, into an Anglican eucharistic service - even a very 'low' one. It disrupts the flow.

Evangelical Anglican parishes still retain the 'Service of the Word' option, even if they may not call it that these days. Why don't they include longer sermons and discussion if necessary in those? Rather than viring them into a communion service with the eucharist tacked on at the end like some kind of after-thought?

Ok - as for the evangelical Anglican sermons I've heard recently ...

Sure, on one level they're fine. Well-constructed, pertinent points, fairly engaging. What's not to like? I really don't know. Perhaps it's simply that I'm no longer evangelical in that old-fashioned sense? They are probably attempting to scratch where I no longer itch.

At worst, they are too long, rather too many illustrations (why use three when one will do?), rather rambling and try to cram as much in as possible ...

They also tend to set up opposing views that they then challenge and tear down - be these objections to the Gospel, objections from unbelievers / non-evangelicals or whoever else ...

The problem is, some of these objections are either straw-men or non-issues. They may be an issue to the preacher, but not necessarily to anyone else. Nine times out of 10 they aren't an issue to me.

[Biased]

Now, I hasten to add, that I'm sure there is a place for this type of preaching. I also have a lot of sympathy for Jengie Jon's 'high' view of preaching in almost sacramental terms ... we need word and sacrament ... both/and ...

On the discussion issue, one of the most egregious ones I've encountered took place in a very conservative Anglican parish I know during an interregnum. The minister (he wouldn't have allowed himself to be called 'priest') presented the issues/topics in such a dice-loaded way that there could only be one conclusion ie. one that corresponded to his own highly conservative evangelical take on things.

I was rebellious and cited chapter and verse to show that alternative or more nuanced viewpoints could also be reached without apostasy - and I'd like to think that was helpful to some of the people in the group.

Does that help?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I missed the thing about reading sermons as if they were a script ...

In my experience that tends not to happen so much in evangelical Anglican settings, more in MoTR, liberal catholic or some high-church ones.

It's not a practice I'm fond of.

That's probably purely a cultural thing on my part.

Coming back to Jengie's point about the sacramentality of sermons ...

Back in the day, in my restorationist charismatic days, the sermon was always the climax, highlight of the meeting/service ... it somehow rounded off the worship-time and cynics could say that people were worked-up by that in order to be more pliable to the emotional manipulation of the sermon.

To be fair, it wasn't always like that and there was a strong sense of the word being 'opened' as it were ... although looking back I'd have very grave concerns about some of the stuff that was preached.

It wasn't all dodgy of course, not by a long chalk.

I suppose if I were to sum up I'd suggest that the ideal would be:

- Services of the Word: or whatever you want to call them, where there is more time and space to develop a theme through expository preaching.

- Communion service with short-homily (on the readings for the day, please!)

- Discussion times to be reserved for smaller groups/house-groups unless they are of the kind Baptist Trainfan has outlined where it's clear what's expected and what people are letting themselves in for.

Will that do?

Is it not a reasonable request?

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

We worship at the Cathedral here in our home city and it is in the catholic tradition.
We attend the Sung Eucharist and the sermon slot is 12 minutes long. Most of those preaching write their sermon out and then read it- the results are varied from the point of view of delivery as some people are more animated in how they read their sermons and therefore much more engaging than some others. I am fairly sure our clergy team and some visitors who are all superb preachers may well depart from reading an actual script but they manage to remain on the point and within the time. My husband and I were given the sermon slot before after our time in Kenya and wrote our full script out and delivered it by reading, all the while attempting to sound engaging.....once we got to Kenya we were made honorary Lay readers with the expectation that we would preach hour long sermons-
my husband managed it [Big Grin]

but the teacher in me would only ever do that if we were in a more discussion based parish weekend type of set up.
I have sat through many a 40 minute plus sermon and with even the best of preachers it is difficult to remain focused for that length of time, listening to one voice even with good visual aids.
I honestly think this discussion about discussions boils down to what our different traditions believe to be the central components of worship and then crafting our services/ using the already crafted liturgies to make that happen.
Discussion might then work in a church where the sermon takes central place and the church wanted to make their teaching more accessible than a monologue might be.
I also think it is important that visitors know what to expect when they visit our churches so up to date noticeboards and websites explaining this are IMHO vital!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Will that do?

Is it not a reasonable request?

(Wipes brow). Yes!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Re. preaching: I have just come across this quote in an article written in 2002.

"Preachers are called to reflect both the freshness of God’s neweverymorning mercy and the faithfulness of his eternal nature. This is reflected in a theology of preaching which sees it as a moment of encounter between God and his people, an encounter into which others too are invited to enter as they observe and overhear it. Far more than an offloading of information from pastor to congregation, preaching is a time in which we meet the God of today, and find him also to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Scriptures and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ".

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, given that, though ... I don't know how anyone can stand up in a pulpit or at a lectern without quaking in their boots ...

Perhaps they do ...

Same with those who preside at communion ...

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, we do so quake. And it behoves us to, given of Whom we are preaching, and Who it is in the form of the Blessed Sacrament.

[Ultra confused]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, given that, though ... I don't know how anyone can stand up in a pulpit or at a lectern without quaking in their boots ...

Why do you think if I possibly can I do not preach?

Jengie

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Jengie, that's assuming I even assumed you could ...

[Biased]

But yes ...

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

I wish more would assume I couldn't.

Jengie

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Heh heh heh ...

Never assume, as they say, it makes an ass of u and me.

I'm sure you preach very well.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't know how anyone can stand up in a pulpit or at a lectern without quaking in their boots ...

Perhaps they do ...

Standing up and talking to any group of people is a bit scary.

Preaching is only going to top that level of fear if you hold it to be more sacred or special than any other spiritual thing that a Christian might do. I'm not sure that all churchgoers believe this to be true. But perhaps we do, which would help explain why we're so wedded to the sermon. Those of us who aren't just have to make do or else stop going to church.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, given that, though ... I don't know how anyone can stand up in a pulpit or at a lectern without quaking in their boots ...

And some of us have to do it every Sunday, sometimes twice. Please excuse us if our ministry is, at times, 99% human with only a 1% mixture of the divine.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well aye, I've already said that I think preaching must be very difficult to 'get' right' and is different to giving lectures ...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disparaging sermons as such nor discussions per se - the issue for me is context and application. Some approaches don't fit particular contexts.

I take my hat off to preachers who can engage congregations week by week, but it ain't all about the preaching. The liturgy and hymnody should carry some of the load as well.

The main thing that bugs me are attempts to do cack-handed apologetics in sermons rather than simply presenting a case and letting the scriptures do their job ...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

If sermons are as much a blend of the human and the divine as any other religious activity then why are sermons so fetishised? This what I find so fascinating.

There are several reasons why sermons became normative, but at this stage I think it's primarily about the cohesion of the religious community. They connect us to our heritage (IOW they're 'appropriate' in a traditional sense) and they help to reinforce our sense of belonging to a religious group.

Sermons do sometimes 'connect us to God', as in Baptist Trainfan's quotation, but many other things also serve this purpose. And of course, that has nothing to do with whether or not a sermon is 'appropriate', which is a cultural judgement.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0