Thread: On "Stuffiness" in Worship Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024895
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
This is a spin-off from Gracious Rebel's thread about visiting a Catholic church, because I don't wish to derail hers.

I have long been in search of how to have inspiring liturgical worship without giving off a sense of stuffiness. I've thought about it and decided that most likely everyone is guilty being stuffy at some point or another, but I'd rather minimize it as much as possible.

Before we can really explore how to not be stuffy, perhaps we need to define stuffy. Is stuffy a subjective idea, which is different for each person and dependent on setting? Or is stuffy something that is more quantifiable and objective?

And once we understand more or less what stuffy is, how do we avoid it while remaining true to our liturgical traditions?

Here's an example that may or may not be helpful. I'm pastoring a small United Methodist congregation in a rural area. After spending the summer getting to know the congregation (both individually and collectively), I've decided to get them to try out the order of worship printed in the Hymnal, Word and Table I -- the one that we're supposedly all required to use anyway. The order is very, very similar to 1979 BCP Rite II, the only difference being that the BCP Collect of the Day is replaced by a "Prayer for Illumination" and the Great Thanksgiving is different. Very similar to Eucharistic Prayer A in the BCP, but different.

Anyway, this is a new level of liturgy that we're going to try out for a limited time, and I want to avoid stuffiness if at all possible, while at the same time not being sloppy. I believe God deserves our best sincere efforts, not the leftover bits or a wooden approximation.

So how do we know we're being stuffy? And how do we stop? Or how do we not start being stuffy at all?
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
I can recommend a book - Living Beauty: The Art of Liturgy by Alex García-Rivera and Thomas Scirghi. They distinguish between, on the one hand, "sloppy" and "messy" ("messy" is to be preferred), and "messy" v. "pristine rubrics" on the other.

Basically, the gist is that all human endeavors will be messy; sloppy is when you just don't try or don't care. When we try too hard to eliminate all messiness and follow the rubrics as perfectly as possible, we reduce the liturgy to some kind of magic ritual that, if practiced "correctly," yields some result. This is also a form of idolatry, as the liturgy becomes an end in itself.

With those distinctions in mind, the via media of sorts is to celebrate as a natural response of gratitude for all God has given us. Everything in the liturgy points to Christ's presence among us, and that presence is already there when the people gather - it's not brought about through incantations or performance of any kind. Acknowledge and celebrate that presence.

Another way to put it is in the phrase a friend of mine uses in thinking about liturgy: "What will help the people pray?" For any ritual action or decision, "Will this help the people pray?"

If you're just getting started with a new liturgy, it'll probably be a bit awkward and rough at first. That's very human, so let it be. I think stuffiness can be avoided when we just let go of whatever it is we're doing in the liturgy, realizing it's not about us. Assure your vested participants and others that their mistakes are OK, and in no way detract from the common work of the people. God welcomes us as we are and receives whatever gifts we offer, so the pressure's off. We try to do our best and offer excellence, but nothing depends on anything we do.

Hopefully that wasn't too abstract.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
I think the answer comes from the community coming to "inhabit" the liturgy as something given to them rather than something they do. For that to happen, I think you need to have done the same. For me that would mean learning it and the "whys" of each element, so that you are entirely at ease with it and don't end up taking refuge in a stuffy rubricism. I'm afraid hat I think it is the work of years not weeks or months.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I think the answer comes from the community coming to "inhabit" the liturgy as something given to them rather than something they do. For that to happen, I think you need to have done the same. For me that would mean learning it and the "whys" of each element, so that you are entirely at ease with it and don't end up taking refuge in a stuffy rubricism. I'm afraid hat I think it is the work of years not weeks or months.
I agree with Trisagion, but I would also add that "delivery" can help to increase or decrease stuffiness. If you can pray the Collect for Purity ("Almighty God, to whom all hearts are open....) by heart, you will be much more able to effect an unstuffy air than if you are solemnly holding your copy of the United Methodist Hymnal in your hands. Smoothness and confidence are necessary in the part of the presider, and smoothness and confidence will help to unstuff the congregation as well, over time. Very often, I think the issue of stuffiness in Protestantism is as simple as:

Presider looks at book = stuffy
Presider looks at me = He likes me, he really likes me. So unstuffy.

Of course, to work around that, just memorize as much of the book as you can.

In a Methodist context, I think it's important that you make sure to keep the conversational bits that you formerly had...announcements, joys and concerns to share, whatever...at least until such time as you can phase them down or out entirely.
 
Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:

Presider looks at me = He likes me, he really likes me. So unstuffy.

Horses for courses, but I would find it very off putting to be looked at by the celebrant/officiant. I'm not sure there's any need for a return to the looks of pious boredom affected by clergymen of the last generation, but custody of the eyes still strikes me as a virtue.

ETA: I personally think that 'stuffiness' in worship is a myth. Is this this stuffy, or is it simply splendid in the extreme and worthy of all churches to be imitated. I think we can agree that it's the latter.

[ 26. August 2012, 22:10: Message edited by: (S)pike couchant ]
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
Horses for courses, but I would find it very off putting to be looked at by the celebrant/officiant. I'm not sure there's any need for a return to the looks of pious boredom affected by clergymen of the last generation, but custody of the eyes still strikes me as a virtue.
I understand what you're saying, and for what it's worth, I prefer what you suggest and have been trying to re-stuffify services for years.

Barefoot Friar's situation is different for several reasons:
1) "Custody of the eyes" is simply unheard of in American Protestantism
2) American culture highly values the unstuffy, bonhomie type of leader that can be everyone's friend; and bristles at those who don't go in for this, usually the scholarly academic types
3) American Methodism still bears a Revivalist strain, and the ability to reel in one's "audience" relies on unstuffiness

Can one still conduct a dignified service? Of course, but Barefoot is already moving the congregation from their comfort zone by changing the order of service. He needs to carefully transition them to the new order without frightening them. If he scares them with a service they see as off-putting and distant, then it will backfire and he will most likely have to go back to home-cooked prayers of confession that are theologically incorrect and that rhyme, written by the church's sainted dowager--the one who decorates the communion table every autumn with pumpkins and gourds.

[ 26. August 2012, 22:21: Message edited by: Olaf ]
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Not knowing the UMC order off by heart [Hot and Hormonal] , I believe the best way is to find out what the congregation's sense of "formal" is and start from there. Is this a suite-and-tie place with slightly revivalist hymns where servers wearing albs would look like trying too hard? Try servers without albs for a while.

Are they more fond of classic revivalist and Methodist hymns rather than formal near-chant eucharistic settings? Try just a spoken Lord's Supper with appropriate choral hymns.

What are their favourite hymns? Make sure they get used often during the transition.
 
Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on :
 
As others have said, stuffiness often depends on the worshipping community itself. Even though my own parish is quite different from most Roman Catholic places, I don't think we're stuffy. It's very relaxed attitude that some people pick up. Mostly because we've been doing this sort of thing for years, the priests, the servers, and the congregation are all so used that there isn't that feeling of being a try-hard that often comes with our style of worship.

We've mad huge changes in our worship style form the way things were nine years ago and I can say that people are more understanding if you give an honest explanation for why things are done. Even if it's just aesthetics. And I would say just from what I think, stuffiness is really what some people pick up from people trying too hard. It's a feeling of unnaturalness, that something is forced and not done comfortably and genuinely.

But that said, I once invited a friend and his girlfriend for a service and they gave completely opposite opinions of the same service- He felt it to be too lax and sloppy, she thought it was stuffy and clericalist!
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
Edgeman, that's a very good point. Catholics have been doing an unstuffy by-the-book for decades. One thing that helps make it a bit less stuffy is the presence of many "invitations" that can be ad libbed. (I cannot stress how much I am not a fan of these, but they do make things a bit less stuffy.)
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
In recent times I have taken to issuing an informal greeting a couple minutes before the liturgy begins. This seems to ease the tension a little for those who are not use to (almost) by the book 1928 BCP. I am also not afraid of cracking the odd joke in the notices or sermon. Otherwise it is pretty much 'eyes down and look in' in old-fashioned Anglo-Catholic style.

That said, I tend to be a firm believer in KISS. Most Sundays the 9.00am is a Low Mass, and the 10.30am a simple Sung Mass* - no attempts at elaborate choreography except at Christmas, Easter and Whitsunday. I find this has a doubly beneficial effect. The Lower Church folks do not feel that the place is going to "change at Oxford for Rome" and the really A-C people realize that 'Father is doing what he can with not much.' If you are looking for a smart, High Church liberal-ish sort of a place with a lot of programmes do not come to St Hardup's!

I am not sure how that translates into UMC terms, but I think the knack is to make what you are doing look like the most natural thing in the world. If you do not radiate discomfort, and the folks assisting you are at ease then you can con most of the people most of time!

PD

* - I should perhaps explain that a simple Sung Mass is basically a Low Mass with chant.

[ 27. August 2012, 03:38: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
I'm just floored by the wonderful answers so far. Thank you all.

Olaf, it seems you have visited my church at some point. Oh, well, most Methodist churches really are the same. As I've interacted with you here, it becomes more and more apparent our contexts really aren't that different.

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I am not sure how that translates into UMC terms, but I think the knack is to make what you are doing look like the most natural thing in the world. If you do not radiate discomfort, and the folks assisting you are at ease then you can con most of the people most of time!
I can certainly do that, sir. I am quite at home in the new service, and I'm not demanding perfection. Also, we've been talking about it for just over a month now, so people do know what to expect. We've talked about why we're switching, how the new service flows, and the significance of each part. Also, we're trying it out for four weeks - long enough to work out the kinks, but not too long to be torturous if people dislike it. It always seems to work better if there's a clear ending point. I expect to be able to keep it in place, though.

For that matter, most of the elements are already in place, just in the wrong order. We already recite the creed. I've been calling the opening hymn the "processional hymn" since my first Sunday there, and I've been following the acolytes in. We've been praying a litany since pretty early on, and everyone seems to have caught on just fine. Of course we've been using the Eucharistic liturgy on Communion Sundays (currently the first Sunday of the month). We stand for the Gospel reading. The only real change is that we're adding two readings and a Psalm and re-arranging the current elements into a new format. Oh, and I'm going to have to teach a few versicles and responses, but I would do that anyway. I'm not wearing an alb, nor changing the way the furniture is laid out, nor using incense -- all things that may be on the distant horizon, but which will be eased into very carefully.

SPK, I'll remember that about singing favorite hymns. Really good idea.

Changing gears slightly. I am wondering now if one element of "stuffy" is the congregation's relationship with each other and with newcomers. For instance, a congo that is warm and welcoming and inviting doesn't seem at all stuffy to me, even if there is a lot of formal ceremonial in the service itself. On the other hand, a congregation that doesn't welcome me into their midst, which doesn't offer help when I stand around looking lost, or which seems cold and distant seems to me to be quite stuffy. So you could have ceremonial so high that it scrapes God in the shins, but a warm, loving, caring congregation seems to take the edge off, at least, if not make it downright unstuffy.

Making any sense?
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
Just as a strange side note on this one. I did 1662 BCP Communion this morning - it being the 350th and all that. One of my ex-UMC ladies was absolutely delighted - it was communion as she remembered it as a kid in the 1940s.

PD
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Right

Wear liturgy lightly, don't take it too seriously; remember God looks at the heart and not at the external, so perfection when done by worried people who fearful of doing it wrong is not perfection before God. Equally perfection that has come the core in itself is not a perfection before God. As far as God is concerned compared with the angels we are but children in a kindergarten learning to dance. There should be something of a kindergarten performance about worship, nobody doubts the kids have done their best but it is almost the oddities that make the performance.

So encourage when people make an effort, laugh when things go wrong and get used to finding ways to get back on track, after all its not the end of the world and be humble enough to listen when criticism comes. Above all do not tell people off for getting things wrong, to err is human to forgive divine and in the end it is their show not your. The more you model it as something that helps rather than something that has to be perfected or showed off, the less stuffy it will be.

Jengie

[ 27. August 2012, 09:05: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
Edgeman, that's a very good point. Catholics have been doing an unstuffy by-the-book for decades. One thing that helps make it a bit less stuffy is the presence of many "invitations" that can be ad libbed. (I cannot stress how much I am not a fan of these, but they do make things a bit less stuffy.)
I've just posted on the 'one up for the Catholics' thread about a baptism service I attended yesterday. Stuffy was the last word to describe it. I came away feeling very positive and more importantly, that the many lapsed and non-Catholics there would have felt welcomed. But at the same time I have some reservations about the way the liturgy was performed.

The president was a permanent deacon, a working-class scouser* who related naturally to the predominantly working-class scouse congregation. He was warm and unstuffy, put the children (and adults) at ease and kept up a running commentary on the liturgy.

However, when he came to the formal prayers and texts of the liturgy, he changed style. He carried a large A4 folder which he referred to rather as a waiter refers to the wine list, and read the prayers in a rather disinterested way almost as if he hadn't ever seen them before and wasn't quite sure what they meant. It wasn't the mechanically pious po-faced style I've observed in some traditional anglo-catholics (and possibly in traditional RCs especially when reciting Latin): he somehow gave the impression that these were the words he had to say but that they were mere formulas than meaningful prayers. When he came to the blessing of the font he continued to stand on the sanctuary step and didn't approach the font until the actual moment of baptism.

I would have hoped for a bit more joined-up thinking, and a style of celebrating the liturgy which let it speak for itself. Commentary, and setting the scene (especially in such a context) is no doubt important, but must be secondary, surely.

There must be a middle way between the bored recitation of texts and the hammy laden-with-sincerity making-every-syllable-meaningful performance.

* for those across the pond and elsewhere, a scouser is a native inhabitant of Liverpool or Merseyside in North-west England.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:


There must be a middle way between the bored recitation of texts and the hammy laden-with-sincerity making-every-syllable-meaningful performance.
Yes.
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Just as a strange side note on this one. I did 1662 BCP Communion this morning - it being the 350th and all that. One of my ex-UMC ladies was absolutely delighted - it was communion as she remembered it as a kid in the 1940s.

PD
The 1964 Methodist Hymnal contains a Merbecke musical setting for the Eucharistic prayer. The 1989 United Methodist Hymnal retains it in the traditional language rite.

The Methodist Hymnal in effect in the 1940s would have been the 1939 edition; I have a copy but it isn't in front of me. It was being compiled when the Methodist Episcopal Church and Methodist Episcopal Church, South merged in 1936 to form The Methodist Church. Anyway, the Eucharistic service borrows heavily from John Wesley's Sunday Service, which in turn was a 1662 BCP which he had edited down a bit for use here in America. The sad part (to me, anyway) is that we got over here and promptly threw it out. Anyway, the 1905, 1939, and 1964 services were all very similar to each other and to the BCP.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
The 1964 Methodist Hymnal contains a Merbecke musical setting for the Eucharistic prayer. The 1989 United Methodist Hymnal retains it in the traditional language rite.
Do you mean the eucharistic prayer, or the eucharistic propers (Gloria, Sanctus, etc.?

I've never heard of a Merbecke setting of the Prayer of Consecration.

I haven't heard the eucharistic prayer chanted in the C of E for years (shame), although I get the impression Lutherans are used to it.
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
The 1964 Methodist Hymnal contains a Merbecke musical setting for the Eucharistic prayer. The 1989 United Methodist Hymnal retains it in the traditional language rite.
Do you mean the eucharistic prayer, or the eucharistic propers (Gloria, Sanctus, etc.?

I've never heard of a Merbecke setting of the Prayer of Consecration.

I haven't heard the eucharistic prayer chanted in the C of E for years (shame), although I get the impression Lutherans are used to it.
Yes, I misspoke earlier. In the 1989 Hymnal, we have settings for the Gloria and Sanctus, as well as the Agnus Dei (which is placed after the humble grumble, right before the distribution). This is in Word and Table IV, the traditional language service taken from the old Methodist Church and Evangelical United Brethren services. It's slightly different from the ritual contained in the 1964 Hymnal.

In the 1964 edition, we have a complete setting by Phillip Dietterich, including Gloria in Excelsis, Kyrie Eleison, Sursum Corda, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei. There is also a setting by Merbecke (the 1989 edition came from here), which includes the same items. I don't have my 1939 edition in front of me.

All of this is tangential to the real discussion, though, of stuffiness. I think that my church can fight some of that off by becoming comfortable enough with the order that they know what is coming next; by doing things with excellence, but understanding that perfection this side of glory is going to be impossible; by being very warm and welcoming to newcomers and infrequent attenders; and by not being so concerned that every little detail is in place that we miss out on the movement of the Holy Spirit and the little blessings of God. A bit of holy laughter would be a good thing, too.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
What PD says about making it look natural is the key. The celebrant's comfort level with the service is a major factor.

Extreme stuffiness is, of course, not good--but then, neither is "Oh garsh, I'm jes' folks". Things can be done decently and in order without becoming fetishistic or dumbing the service down!
 
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I think the answer comes from the community coming to "inhabit" the liturgy as something given to them rather than something they do. For that to happen, I think you need to have done the same. For me that would mean learning it and the "whys" of each element, so that you are entirely at ease with it and don't end up taking refuge in a stuffy rubricism. I'm afraid hat I think it is the work of years not weeks or months.
I think you're on the right track. Coming from an Anglican perspective, it seems like Episcopalians today are bad at Christian education in general, including the liturgy. Lots of people have been there for decades and were raised in the tradition, so the formal liturgy seems natural. For a newcomer, though, it must seem very rigid and intimidating, particularly some of the more stilted formulaic language we use.

I dabbled at a Baptist church for contrast a couple of weeks ago and I could see the appeal for newcomers. You had four or five modern, simple hymns that everyone sang together, with words right up on the screen. Then there was a bible reading and a very deliberate lecture/sermon on a passage from Deuteronomy that was informative but simple enough that a newcomer could follow along. It didn't assume years of experience in the church. The prayers were all extemporaneous and accessible. You knew exactly what the pastor was praying about. Then there was a final hymn and coffee.

I think formal liturgy will always have that stuffiness curve built in for newbies. The church could alleviate matters by doing more frequent explanations of the ritual, but even them it will seem stilted and forced to the uninitiated (or even to the initiated). I understand the liturgical place of the "Prayer of Humble Access," but if someone comes into a church for the first time and sees people waxing poetic about being unfit to gather up scraps from under the table, they could easily think we're stuffy or just plain nuts.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Query, Barefoot Friar, does this congregation do a weekly Sunday Eucharist or do you have some other frequency? Were they doing this before, and you are simply using a new order, or are you changing the frequency of the Eucharist?

Changing the frequency of the Lord's Supper does generate more controversy, IME, than changing the order of a hymn sandwich.

My shack up north has the Lord's Supper six times per year, the other Sundays are a Hymn Sandwich. Curiously the current minister changed the order to a "Sermon at the End". He thought it was new. I purchased the United Church of Canada's Service Book for our church and his new order was in fact the UCCan's original order from the Book of Common Order, 1936. He managed to reinvent the wheel.

When I showed him that, he started to listen to me about liturgy more often and more closely.

I've introduced a few changes to my congregation as Worship Team Elder. My rule of thumb is that my church tends to like "Traditional United Church", hymn sandwiches filled with selections from the hymn book, communion with wee cuppies and baptisms that are like what everyone remembers from days gone by. Not that we're stuffy, but they do like a bit of ceremony and gravitas at Holy Communion and Baptisms.

I added in the Reformed Church of France's baptismal blessing (see my niece's baptism, a Scoto-Catholic Event thread) which is both very scriptural, traditional in theology and packed with meaning and gravity. It works really well.
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
Well, funny you should ask.

Up until now, this congo has been having Communion on the first Sunday of the month. I've been talking up frequent Communion, and I've got some heads nodding* about it. But although I briefly toyed with the idea of going on into weekly celebration starting this coming Sunday, I've decided to ease into it, and change only one thing at a time.

I'm moving them to the order of worship that is supposed to be the denominational norm. I'm doing this for various reasons. It is more in line with what other churches in other places are doing (emphasizing our connectedness), and also it flows better than the current order. There are a couple more reasons, but that's not important here.

On non-Communion Sundays I will include a prayer of general thanksgiving where the Great Thanksgiving would ordinarily go, so the effect is the same.

I'm going to see about doing weekly Communion during Advent and Christmas, and then maybe again during Lent and Easter. And then, depending on how that goes, I'll just "forget" to go back to once a month after Pentecost.

_________
*Nodding yes, not nodding asleep.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
That sounds like a good plan, actually.

People expect something a little different during Advent and Lent, so it works that way.

Why does it seem that Eccles denizens like to introduce "temporary" changes and then forget to change back? [Biased]
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
The funniest thing about Barefoot's situation is that his targeted service is actually quite a bit simpler than the hodgepodge service that most Methodist churches employ. And he is very right, all the elements are almost invariably present in Methodist services, but only in a different order.

I can't wait to hear how this all turns out. I'm especially curious about what Barefoot plans to do with the elements of the current service that do not fit in with the outlined Service of Word and Table as contained in the hymnal.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Barefoot Friar

I am going to give you a warning. John Calvin tried to get weekly communion in Geneva and FAILED!

His fall back was monthly and Geneva refused to go beyond the Zwinglian quarterly!

Jengie
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

Why does it seem that Eccles denizens like to introduce "temporary" changes and then forget to change back? [Biased]
We can always claim that, like the Church of Rome, we think in centuries rather than months or years. It *will* be changed back, just... not yet!
 
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :
 
quote:

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

Why does it seem that Eccles denizens like to introduce "temporary" changes and then forget to change back?
Because once the trial period has been in place a couple of years or so, it becomes tradition, and therefore OK... [Devil]
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
I'm especially curious about what Barefoot plans to do with the elements of the current service that do not fit in with the outlined Service of Word and Table as contained in the hymnal.
There isn't anything we've been doing that we won't continue doing next week. We're adding three readings and consistently giving thanks, but that's all we're adding. So I feel like we have a pretty high chance of success. I've communicated well, I've got leadership onboard, and nothing will be missing.

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Barefoot Friar

I am going to give you a warning. John Calvin tried to get weekly communion in Geneva and FAILED!

His fall back was monthly and Geneva refused to go beyond the Zwinglian quarterly!

Jengie
I have given this a great deal of thought and prayer. I feel like doing it during Advent and Christmas, with a defined end date, will be okay with people who don't like weekly Communion. I haven't found anyone who objects yet, which I think is significant, and I have found the key congregational leaders support the idea, which is also significant.

I'm watching and listening carefully to make sure that my message is getting across. If I find anyone who isn't onboard with it we can discuss it. And if people just really want to stick to monthly (the current standard), then we'll take that as it comes.

I'm not sure if Reformed theology holds the Eucharist to be a sacrament or not, but it definitely is in Wesleyan thought, and it is a means of grace. I feel like I have that going for me.
 
Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :
 
Unfortunately, due to the independent and rebellious nature of Southern souls, one has to approach these things slowly. Sacred cows may make gourmet burgers but many of our churchgoers become vegetarian when it comes to butchering the idols. After all, they are imminently more qualified and knowledgeable than their duly appointed pastors, who they think exist to tend to their every whim and offer up a good sermon full of heavenly hope.

Barefoot Friar is following a pattern similar to the one I used in my place to implement the use of liturgy in a revivalist cultural setting. In the American Southeast Methodists are for the most part "Baptist with a Bishop," and they'd gladly shake loose of the Bishop the first chance they get. Preferred music is on the order of Gaither Homecoming and full of references to "going to heaven at the end of life's journey."

My project has gone fairly well except that I have been lately apprised that use of vestments comes across as "too Catholic" (horror of horrors!) which I gather really means "too stuffy" here in Gaither Homecoming land. They do not like the order of the Word and Table and consider it in some ways backwards, despite repeated explanations and references to the hymnal.

However, there is evidence it is growing on them. At the beginning of ordinary time this summer, which I label "Kingdomtide," I organized two services in the way they had done them in the past, took out elements of the liturgy, and let them be "Baptist." Three hymns, offering, sermon. I actually had people telling me how different that was and how they missed certain things. Go figure. I also slowed down on the use of vestments during the summer ordinary time, although I still wear my collar with black shirt.

I also celebrated Holy Communion weekly during Advent and Christmas, monthly during ordinary time after Epiphany, weekly during Lent, then back to monthly. Like Barefoot Friar I include a prayer of general thanksgiving in the place where the Great Thanksgiving would go, and include the traditional dialog and sursum corda before launching into the prayer. I am teaching them thanksgiving goes there and preparing them for gradual implementation of weekly Eucharist.

Some questions but not a full-on rebellion. The little resistance I received was from people who left when we came to Holy Communion. Most of the objection is not theological but more having to do with older people having tired bladders and seemingly unable to make it longer than an hour in worship. Here in the South worship must not go longer than one hour, but a "singin'" may last two or more.

Summer ordinary time is intentionally more laid back to give our Baptist wannabes a break, but this year I kept the liturgy following a mixed blend of Morning Prayer Rite II (BCP) and Word and Table.

I think advice contained herein to make things seem as extemporaneous as possible, such as the fixed prayers, and using familiar (albeit theologically disgusting) hymns at certain places is good advice. One of my tactics has been to frequently use "Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus," a Southern favorite, as a sequence to the Gospel reading.

About the time I have this project complete it will be time to pack up and move on to the next appointment in the itineracy. And the next one after me will no doubt change it all back. Such is the nature of unUnited Methodism.

My two cents. Now I need to pour another cup of coffee ...
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
quote:
Sacred cows may make gourmet burgers but many of our churchgoers become vegetarian when it comes to butchering the idols.
Quotes File!
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Circuit Rider:
After all, they are imminently more qualified and knowledgeable than their duly appointed pastors
Point of order, it does happen sometimes...

quote:
One of my tactics has been to frequently use "Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus," a Southern favorite, as a sequence to the Gospel reading.
Well now, preach a good sermon on how Blessed Assurance is an excellent communion hymn because of "foretaste," and how the congregation would be able to sing it soooooo often if you had communion more frequently.
 
Posted by Edgeman (# 12867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
That sounds like a good plan, actually.

Why does it seem that Eccles denizens like to introduce "temporary" changes and then forget to change back? [Biased]
That was how our place got back to using the altar rail It was during Advent only, and then during Lent only, but easter Sunday came, and then the second Sunday and then Pentecost. [Devil]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Circuit Rider:
One of my tactics has been to frequently use "Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus," a Southern favorite, as a sequence to the Gospel reading.
Lovely words, lovely tune.
 
Posted by Bax (# 16572) on :
 
Personally, I think the word "stuffy" is unhelpful.

In my expereince, it more often than not (along with "fussy") simply a code word for "some sort of liturgical practice that I don't like".

There are many different ways to worship God that are "right" or "true". If you strive for authentic worship, done because you mean it and as well as you can (be it a complex ritual or an entirely informal way of worshiping) they you will not go wrong.

Not everyone will approve, whatever you do, of course!
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I suspect there are as many definitions of 'stuffy' as there are people. If it means anything to me it means the sort of thing exemplified in the parsonical voice. In other words, worship led by people who speak or act in the way they think is 'correct', or 'expected', but without the confidence in what they are doing to relax into it and be themselves.

This is by no means the same as 'formal'. Someone leading a traditional hymn sandwich service, or fronting a praise band, can be as stuffy as the most rigid anglo-catholic (and often more so). Someone can follow the rubrics, and the text of the liturgy, meticulously yet still appear relaxed and prayerful.
 
Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :
 
A few months ago I heard someone say that when you make major changes in a church, such as change the government and ministry to be more outward focused, or change the pattern and style of worship, you have two years to make it fruitful and effective or you will have trouble on your hands. It seems they give you enough rope to hang yourself. I am beginning to see the truth in that.

I came here just over two years ago, spent the first few summer months laying groundwork and introducing ideas, just as Barefoot Friar is doing, and launched into my gradual implementation of liturgical worship in my country chapel. Initially things went great and I got away with a lot of change. Just past the two year mark there have been declines in attendance not due to the change in worship but coincident enough to give the few vocal malcontents enough amunition to demand change. Of me. Let's stone this one and get another one to take us back. Stated reason? Like a funeral, hard to follow. In a word, stuffy.

I am convinced that in our entertainment obsessed culture if you don't have a block-buster special-effects filled multi-media extravaganza the intellectually and spiritually shallow, and emotionally driven consumers will raise a ruckus. In city churches they go elsewhere, in country chapels they demand you go elsewhere.

So, while the implementation of these things is underway, two efforts are necessary. First, get the folks you have to sign on and be committed to it. As soon as you can. Enthusiastically and whole-heartedly. But second and just as important, gain new people who come into the new liturgy and have only that memory of it. If the old guard really want new people they may attribute the growth to the new style. On the other hand, if they are threatened by the influx ...

Assessing what to do next.

[ 07. September 2012, 16:05: Message edited by: Circuit Rider ]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Bax may have hit the nail on the head: "In my expereince, it more often than not (along with "fussy") simply a code word for "some sort of liturgical practice that I don't like"."

I would suggest to Circuit Rider that, if at all possible, he turn away from thinking of those not-on-board as dissidents or the old guard. He may find that a few hours or even afternoons spent in listening to those who differ with him, and meeting them halfway, will be far more productive for the parish. If the parishioners own the changes, then the changes will be far more solid, and less destabilizing. The blunt truth is that many people will not go elsewhere; they will simply go.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
It may be as simple as smiling more, or starting the service by saying "Good Morning" (a practice that annoys me, but may save the rest of the service).

In ELCA Lutheranism, we often have the same tensions between formal and informal. Our last interim wanted us to be "less formal," which it turned out simply meant that every service should start out with 10-15 minutes of chatty announcements.

His desire for that particular practice of yesteryear's rubrics is simply a reflection of his seminary formation when that pre-service announcement rubric was active.

I have almost two years helping to streamline parish announcements and communication, so the enforcement of his personal proclivity was a tremendous setback for us.
 
Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :
 
Olaf, I wish it were a simple matter of saying "good morning," (which my associate does, BTW) and announcements.

At this point I am realizing that to continue is to "cast my pearls" and it occurs to me that the liturgy, a precious gift to the church from the Early Fathers, should not be trampled and subjected to ridicule. It will be lovingly returned to the keepsake chest and used on occasion when people are more receptive. And of course hope to put it to good use at the next place on the itinerary.

Now off to practice up on "He Touched Me." [brick wall]

[P.S.: I really liked "Martin L" better.]

[ 09. September 2012, 01:03: Message edited by: Circuit Rider ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Give every regular worshipper who objects to the way you want to do the services a job to do. It will become theirs, they will own it, when you are long gone they will be defending it.

(it works in trade unions, social clubs, political parties, pubs, and amateur dramatic societies. Maybe it might work in a church)
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Give every regular worshipper who objects to the way you want to do the services a job to do. It will become theirs, they will own it, when you are long gone they will be defending it.

(it works in trade unions, social clubs, political parties, pubs, and amateur dramatic societies. Maybe it might work in a church)
I'm filing this away for future reference. Muchas gracias, amigo.*


_____
*"thank you, friend."
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
You gave it a valiant effort. On this side of the Mason-Dixon, the Great Thanksgiving from the UMH seems to be rather commonplace when Holy Communion is celebrated, and I have even encountered the seasonal variants from the UMBOW on several occasions. It is particularly in the Liturgy of the Word that Methodists cling to their hymn sandwich of yesteryear mentality.

I can empathize, as I have been trying to maintain our church's upper-MOTR ways through an onslaught of interim ministers and pulpit supply. It seems each one leaves in his wake a trail of old practices and bad habits, and then leaves me to clean up the mess. The good news for me, not being the person up front, is that I can vote with my feet whenever I want.

*UMH = United Methodist Hymnal (for the common pewfolk)
*UMBOW = United Methodist Book of Worship (Altar Book-ish)
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
I am always a little bit startled by the generic revivalist hymn-sandwich nature of Methodism in the USA. Either something was lost in the sea crossing, or there were some pretty funny Wesleyan Chapels in Lincolnshire. I found that the Communion service was almost always almost that of the 1662 until they got their modern version. There was also a pronounced hangover from Morning and Evening Prayer in the hymn sandwich, which often had the General Confession, both a psalm and a canticle, OT and NT readings, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Collect. I seem to recall the ex-Primitive Chapels were more sandwichy, but they seemed to get over that a bit when RCL came in...

I know what you mean about rural congregations praying that you go elsewhere.

PD
 
Posted by Deep Fried Catholic (# 17328) on :
 
To me, the only thing that makes a liturgy of any sort "stuffy" is when the priest is reciting the words without any indication he grasps the importance of what he's saying. Either he's reading straight from the book as though he were reading instructions for assembling an Ikea bookshelf, or he's rattling off words he's had memorized for the last thirty years, but his mind is clearly a thousand miles away.

But when the priest knows his parts well and is engaged with the matters at hand, it helps if he is willing to inflect his voice to emphasize important words or phrases, to bring out a fresh meaning from something the people hear every week. It also helps if he adopts a somewhat conversational tone overall; not informal or folksy, but in the tone of voice of one who is speaking to you, not over you.

(As an aside, this is my very first post at SOF. Hi, everyone!)
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Deep Fried Catholic:
It also helps if he adopts a somewhat conversational tone overall; not informal or folksy, but in the tone of voice of one who is speaking to you, not over you.
Hello, Deep Fried Catholic [Smile] I like your point here and I'd add that, for me, stuffiness is also very much about the language we use in our church gatherings (whether the style is liturgical or not). In my view, we should use contemporary language (so no King James Version for me, sorry) and avoid jargon as much as we possibly can. Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler - as I think Einstein said.

And it's not just liturgical-style services where this can be an issue; I was recently at a very happy-clappy, guitars and drums, speaking in tongues service recently where someone gave a message from God in KJV language. [Confused] What's that all about?

This is my issue I need to deal with, I know, but it instantly makes me feel manipulated - whenever I hear non-contemporary language in a church service, the subtext I pick up is 'This is definitely from God so you must take it on board without question or discernment'. (I don't know if this counts as stuffiness, sorry if it's a bit off the point.)
 
Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I am always a little bit startled by the generic revivalist hymn-sandwich nature of Methodism in the USA. Either something was lost in the sea crossing, or there were some pretty funny Wesleyan Chapels in Lincolnshire. ...
It was lost on the frontier. Our dear Father John sent us our own version of the BCP in the Sunday Service and it was promptly thrown in the trash can and forgotten for 200 years. I mentioned earlier in the thread we are a rebellious and independent lot. Here in the South it is on steroids.
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
South Coast Kevin, I couldn't disagree with you more without being a member of the Prayer Book Society [Ultra confused]

Understanding should not be too easily or quickly won. There is nothing wrong with liturgical language that makes people think: liturgy is after all theatre, not teaching. It can lead to enlightenment but its aim is absolutely not instruction.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
South Coast Kevin, I couldn't disagree with you more without being a member of the Prayer Book Society
Understanding should not be too easily or quickly won.
The exact opposite of the original purposes of the Book of Common Prayer!

quote:

XXIV. Of speaking in the Congregation in such a tongue as the people understandeth.
It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer in the Church, or to minister the sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people.

 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
You're all right of course. Obfuscatory (now there's a word!) language for the sake of it, or because it sounds imposing, is obviously wrong. But there is a danger in thinking that because the liturgy (including of course the Bible version used) is in simple language, therefore we can understand. The bits of the faith we can understand with our minds are like the bit of an iceberg that shows above the waterline. Most of it we will never understand in that way, and while there is no point in putting artificial obstacles in the way, we need to leave room for mystery. Which we can be drawn into and 'understand' in a deeper but inarticulate way.

I was presiding on Christmas day a couple of years ago when the then vicar, acting as deacon, read (or rather sang) the Gospel (John 1.1-14) in Latin. Without warning! I was gobsmacked, but his sermon made all clear. The Word was made flesh, and the only way we can really comprehend it is in the person of Jesus Christ and his Body, not (or only incompletely) in words.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The exact opposite of the original purposes of the Book of Common Prayer!

quote:

XXIV. Of speaking in the Congregation in such a tongue as the people understandeth.
It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer in the Church, or to minister the sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people.
A tongue, e.g., Latin. I'd hardly classify the traditional style of English as a separate tongue.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Understanding should not be too easily or quickly won.
Agreed. [Smile] This is what I was getting at with the Einstein quotation; we should neither dumb down nor over-complicate our rituals and theology.
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
There is nothing wrong with liturgical language that makes people think: liturgy is after all theatre, not teaching.
Hmm, not with you here though. What are you implying by saying liturgy is theatre? I'm sure you don't consider it to be entertainment, like secular theatre...
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
...Understanding should not be too easily or quickly won.
The exact opposite of the original purposes of the Book of Common Prayer!
Ah, thanks for your quotation, Ken. It baffles me, this tendency to take something that was originally contemporary and modern some hundreds of years ago (like today's clerical clothing and, I now know, the Book of Common Prayer) and preserve it so it gradually becomes out of date. I'd sort of understand it if people advocated going back to the language, dress, rituals etc. of Jesus' time.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
I tend to think of the Prayer Book language as deriving from a desire to make everything as easily understood as possible to its hearers, whilst also being very, very exact as to its meaning. This is not a combination that is frequently encountered in other contexts, where one usually has a choice being language which is formal and full of difficult jargon (not that I'm thinking of my scientific writing of course...) or easily-read but sloppy (not that I'm thinking of my posts on the Ship of course...) [Smile]

This may be one reason why people respond so differently to it!
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
I'd hardly classify the traditional style of English as a separate tongue.
I wish people would stop referring to Tudor English as 'traditional'. It is no more 'traditional' than Anglo-Saxon, Times leaders or text-speak. 'Tradition' is something that evolves, hence by definition 'traditional' language is what we speak today.

That's not to deny that there are a number of registers of contemporary written and spoken English, not all of which are appropriate in a liturgical context.
 
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
I'd hardly classify the traditional style of English as a separate tongue.
I wish people would stop referring to Tudor English as 'traditional'. It is no more 'traditional' than Anglo-Saxon, Times leaders or text-speak.
Well said!

I think that exclusive use of modern English, even in a poetic and dignified form, does have its problems as far as liturgical use goes. However, so does so-called "traditional" English, which, I believe actually has more problems. A slavish adherence to it is most unhelpful.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
There is nothing wrong with liturgical language that makes people think: liturgy is after all theatre, not teaching.
Hmm, not with you here though. What are you implying by saying liturgy is theatre? I'm sure you don't consider it to be entertainment, like secular theatre...
Theatre is not always (or even mostly) 'entertainment', in the sense of a light-hearted diversion from serious matters. More often than not it focuses on those serious matters and challenges us, makes us think. I wish I could say that I came out of church as moved and challenged as often as I do after a good drama, in the theatre or on TV.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I wish people would stop referring to Tudor English as 'traditional'. It is no more 'traditional' than Anglo-Saxon, Times leaders or text-speak. 'Tradition' is something that evolves, hence by definition 'traditional' language is what we speak today.
You may wish people would stop calling it "traditional," but our BCP has, for instance, two sections of collects labeled "traditional" and "contemporary." That's the sense in which I used the term. [Mad]
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
What are you implying by saying liturgy is theatre? I'm sure you don't consider it to be entertainment, like secular theatre...
Theatre is not always (or even mostly) 'entertainment', in the sense of a light-hearted diversion from serious matters. More often than not it focuses on those serious matters and challenges us, makes us think.
Sure, perhaps my choice of word wasn't the best... But this just adds to my confusion about FooloftheShip's distinction between theatre and teaching. Isn't teaching also supposed to focus on serious matters, challenge us, and make us think?

I don't want to derail this thread with discussion about whether or not we should use liturgy. My focus is on the language we use in our church gatherings, and I think we should pretty much always use contemporary language.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I wish I could say that I came out of church as moved and challenged as often as I do after a good drama, in the theatre or on TV.
Hmm, there's a sobering thought to reflect on!
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
]Sure, perhaps my choice of word wasn't the best... But this just adds to my confusion about FooloftheShip's distinction between theatre and teaching.
I don't want to derail this thread with discussion about whether or not we should use liturgy. My focus is on the language we use in our church gatherings, and I think we should pretty much always use contemporary language.
Not so fast! My point is that the use of language in worship is of itself liturgical. The distinction I'm trying to make is between the didactic and the experiential. There are plenty of occasions where the didactic is appropriate, but for me at least public worship is not among them. Even the sermon, to my mind, should not be an exclusively, possibly not even a primarily, intellectual experience.

By liturgical, and indeed theatrical, I suppose I mean something along the lines of heightened, de-realised, skewed from the ordinary in order precisely to take participants to places which are otherwise hard to reach. It is, in my experience, simply not possible always to reach them with entirely ordinary language. Entirely ordinary language comes with an ideology behind it which is frequently unhelpful, or even completely contrary, to the message one is trying to convey.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I wish people would stop referring to Tudor English as 'traditional'. It is no more 'traditional' than Anglo-Saxon, Times leaders or text-speak. 'Tradition' is something that evolves, hence by definition 'traditional' language is what we speak today.
You may wish people would stop calling it "traditional," but our BCP has, for instance, two sections of collects labeled "traditional" and "contemporary." That's the sense in which I used the term. [Mad]
I wasn't getting at you in particular, Oblatus. I know that both your BCP and Common Worship use 'traditional' in the sense you mention. It's understandable that you should use it as shorthand for 'Tudor'. It's just me being a bit pedantic and also trying to make the point that there is no more reason for using Tudor English than contemporary in the liturgy.

Though there is a difference I suppose between Anglican and Catholic approaches to the use of English (leaving aside for the moment the latter's reversion to literal renderings of the Latin). The customary language of the liturgy for centuries, in the former, was that of Cranmer; in the latter, Latin. There is less reason ISTM (and it does seem like vandalism sometimes) to rewrite Cranmer's prose when it can perfectly well stand alone. It's just that when new texts are introduced, either as new compositions or imports from the Roman mass or elsewhere, it is equally insensitive to write them in a sort of cod-Tudor. Like putting fake half-timbering on a modern house. Many congregations are quite happy to pray 'Our Father who art in heaven...' and sing hymns using thees, thous etc, in the context of an otherwise contemporary liturgy. It's like seeing an ancient picture in a modern gallery and there is nothing wrong with that. It would equally apply to prayers like 'Almighty God, unto whom all hearts be open...' etc. They don't need to be tampered with.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
By liturgical, and indeed theatrical, I suppose I mean something along the lines of heightened, de-realised, skewed from the ordinary in order precisely to take participants to places which are otherwise hard to reach. It is, in my experience, simply not possible always to reach them with entirely ordinary language. Entirely ordinary language comes with an ideology behind it which is frequently unhelpful, or even completely contrary, to the message one is trying to convey.
But I used the word 'contemporary', not 'ordinary'. I think some people have a great talent of using modern language in a very poetic way (not me, sadly; I'm not at all poetic!) but you seem to have equated ordinary and contemporary. Can modern language simply not be as poetic or beautiful as older language, in your view?
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Can modern language simply not be as poetic or beautiful as older language, in your view?
Interesting question. It seems to me that when the function of a word in a sentence is apparent from the form of the word, then an author has more ways to arrange the order of words in the sentence without compromising comprehension. There is more scope for fine shades of meaning, for style, and for poetic arrangements of sound.

Compared to many other languages, English is relatively poor in such features and is gradually becoming poorer. But English does excel in the sheer number and variety of words at an author's disposal, and in its hospitality to further additions.
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
But English does excel in the sheer number and variety of words at an author's disposal, and in its hospitality to further additions.
I guess this is where we say thank you to the Normans, sort of? [Smile]
 
Posted by Deep Fried Catholic (# 17328) on :
 
quote:
Though there is a difference I suppose between Anglican and Catholic approaches to the use of English (leaving aside for the moment the latter's reversion to literal renderings of the Latin).
I would suppose the primary difference is the fact that the native language of the Anglican church is English, and the native language of the Catholic church is Latin. The Anglican church does not need to first translate its texts. And it seems to me it would be easier to update an older English text to a newer version of English; if for no other reason, but the earlier version can still be understood somewhat readily. The syntax even remains virtually the same.

That is, from at least one account I've heard from a priest, a major problem with the new English translation in the Catholic church. This translation adheres quite slavishly to the Latin, not just in word-for-word translation ("consubstantial" - REALLY? "one in being" wasn't obscure enough?), but in its syntax, which mirrors the Latin in its multitude of dependent clauses. The priest in question (who has a program on satellite radio) has said that he frequently finds himself running out of breath before he reaches the end of a complete sentence.

The implication to me is this: if a priest is running out of breath before he finishes a sentence, his listeners are running out of attention span. In English, we are used to shorter sentences. We equate long sentences with babbling, and thus tune them out. And if the congregants are tuned out during the liturgy, how are they getting anything out of it (whether it be teaching or worship)?
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
But English does excel in the sheer number and variety of words at an author's disposal, and in its hospitality to further additions.
I guess this is where we say thank you to the Normans, sort of? [Smile]
Yes, because it makes Modern English much closer in approach to Ancient Greek than Classical Latin. From that flow closer similarities of thought, so that the English is less legalistic and more descriptive.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think some people have a great talent of using modern language in a very poetic way ...
I could mention Allen Ginsberg, Philip Larkin, RS Thomas, Sara Teasdale, Siegfried Sassoon, TS Eliot, WB Yeats, William Carlos Williams...
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Deep Fried Catholic:


That is, from at least one account I've heard from a priest, a major problem with the new English translation in the Catholic church. This translation adheres quite slavishly to the Latin, not just in word-for-word translation ("consubstantial" - REALLY? "one in being" wasn't obscure enough?), but in its syntax, which mirrors the Latin in its multitude of dependent clauses. The priest in question (who has a program on satellite radio) has said that he frequently finds himself running out of breath before he reaches the end of a complete sentence.

The implication to me is this: if a priest is running out of breath before he finishes a sentence, his listeners are running out of attention span. In English, we are used to shorter sentences. We equate long sentences with babbling, and thus tune them out. And if the congregants are tuned out during the liturgy, how are they getting anything out of it (whether it be teaching or worship)?
Cranmer's English is very Latinate, and was used for 3 centuries before "modern-language" liturgies began to be adopted. Your priest ought to learn to breathe at commas; it would make the text easier to hear and understand as well.

And "consubstantial" is hardly a new word, nor are the translators of the liturgy to blame that Christian theological concepts are difficult to grasp. The new translation of the Mass is hardly without faults, but the desire to hew closer to the original text is laudable. The English translation seems to have been the only one to adopt dynamic equivalency (which, in retrospect, was no equivalency at all) as its guiding principle--e.g. the Europeans have been saying the equivalent of "and with thy spirit" since the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, while English-speakers have had to muddle along with "and also with you." Give me slavish accuracy over "close enough for the proles" any day!

Lex orandi, lex credendi*; when all that's sung during Communion are "songs" about bread and hunger, it's no great wonder that belief in the Real Presence dwindles.

*Loosely, "as one prays, so he believes".
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
If the response is "And with thy spirit", why isn't the versicle "The Lord be with thy spirit"?

It makes far more sense to me if both versicle and response agree. In other words, "The Lord be with you" goes with "And also with you" far better than "And with thy spirit".

The Lord be with you.
And also with you.

or

The Lord be with thy spirit.
And with thy spirit.

[ 12. September 2012, 19:48: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]
 
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Cranmer's English is very Latinate, and was used for 3 centuries before "modern-language" liturgies began to be adopted. Your priest ought to learn to breathe at commas; it would make the text easier to hear and understand as well.

And "consubstantial" is hardly a new word, nor are the translators of the liturgy to blame that Christian theological concepts are difficult to grasp. The new translation of the Mass is hardly without faults, but the desire to hew closer to the original text is laudable. The English translation seems to have been the only one to adopt dynamic equivalency (which, in retrospect, was no equivalency at all) as its guiding principle--e.g. the Europeans have been saying the equivalent of "and with thy spirit" since the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, while English-speakers have had to muddle along with "and also with you." Give me slavish accuracy over "close enough for the proles" any day!

Lex orandi, lex credendi*; when all that's sung during Communion are "songs" about bread and hunger, it's no great wonder that belief in the Real Presence dwindles.

*Loosely, "as one prays, so he believes".
Thank you, Father. [Overused]
 
Posted by Deep Fried Catholic (# 17328) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Your priest ought to learn to breathe at commas; it would make the text easier to hear and understand as well.
Well, strictly speaking, he's not MY priest. He is a priest on a radio show that I hear quite frequently. Before becoming a priest, he had a career in media (as an on-air radio personality and in television production). He's not exactly a critic of the new translation, either (for what it's worth, neither am I, really); but he has noted this new phrasing as quite a difference from the previous English translation.

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Give me slavish accuracy over "close enough for the proles" any day!
Given the choice, I too prefer accuracy over "close enough". I wouldn't want to find myself at Mass professing a belief in a fourth person of the Trinity because, "eh, the language fits pretty well."

But when I was first discerning whether the Catholic church was right for me - well before I had decided to find the nearest RCIA class - I discovered that the Catholic church was not an "either/or" church, but a "both/and" church. In other words, two things that appear to be contradictory may not be contradictory at all. Therefore, I don't think there needs to be a flip of the coin on this; heads we make it faithful to the original, tails we make it easy to use.

I'm not a linguistic scholar, so far be it from me to overly criticize ten years of work on this. They brought the text very close to the original meaning, for which I'm grateful. And I wouldn't say that Mass is the appropriate place or time to be overly explicative of theological concepts. However, it feels like it should be possible to express the true meaning of the original text, without making it MORE difficult for people to speak and understand, and thereby participate. Which, of course, is the whole purpose of the decision to allow the Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular. If people aren't understanding it, it might as well stay in Latin.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
Thanks, DFC--I think we're closer to agreeing on this than I first thought.

A couple of thoughts. I hope RC clergy are taking the opportunity for teaching & preaching that the new translation provides. I agree that many people are unlikely to know what "consubstantial" means; they should be taught. Too often it seems as though the RCC treats doctrine as a kind of second tier of Christianity, as though all the laity need to know is caring, sharing, and fulfilling their obligations to hear Mass. Ideally, any Christian layperson should be able to explain the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds. Few of them are equipped to do so.

Second, it seems as though the Church has gone from a clunky and inaccurate translation to one that's more accurate but still clunky. Clearly, more work needs to be done, but I still think the new translation is a step in the right direction.

Lastly, I wonder how much time priests have spent preparing themselves to use the new translation. I get the impression that the most vocal opponents of it have spent much more time complaining about it than actually readying themselves to use it. Not picking on RCs alone here--in general it's my experience that most clergy spend more time thinking about what they're going to have for lunch than in getting ready to celebrate the Eucharist, more's the pity.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
If the response is "And with thy spirit", why isn't the versicle "The Lord be with thy spirit"?

It makes far more sense to me if both versicle and response agree. In other words, "The Lord be with you" goes with "And also with you" far better than "And with thy spirit".

The Lord be with you.
And also with you.

or

The Lord be with thy spirit.
And with thy spirit.
The "You" in "the Lord be with you" is plural, addressed to all the individuals who make up the congregation the priest is addressing.

"Thy" is singular, addressed by each individual in the congregation to the priest.

To address your real point (I think), the priest ought perhaps to say: "The Lord be with your spirits."

Don't see that catching on.

John
 
Posted by Deep Fried Catholic (# 17328) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I hope RC clergy are taking the opportunity for teaching & preaching that the new translation provides. I agree that many people are unlikely to know what "consubstantial" means; they should be taught. Too often it seems as though the RCC treats doctrine as a kind of second tier of Christianity, as though all the laity need to know is caring, sharing, and fulfilling their obligations to hear Mass. Ideally, any Christian layperson should be able to explain the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds. Few of them are equipped to do so.
Let's just say the teaching is ... what's the polite word? ... spotty. Catechesis is not exactly the Catholic Church's strong suit, to be mild about it. I think those further up the hierarchical chain in the Church forget that the rest of us don't live in the rarefied air of one whose vocation it is to know religious stuff.

The new translation aside, the everyday cradle Catholic gets (just) enough religious education in his childhood to get him through First Communion and Confirmation, and then he swims out on his own. The RCIA candidates and catechumens usually know quite a bit more, even before classes begin, but only because they have found themselves internally motivated to become part of the Church; and thus have done a fair amount of learning before ever setting foot inside a Catholic church.

And as regards the new translation itself, the education on its changes and the meanings thereof was not coordinated through the hierarchy, but was left to the individual parish to work out the details of what, if anything, was taught. At our parish, we were given summaries during the last four or five homilies leading up to Advent. Others, I've heard, received bupkis.

But on the plus side, the Church was thoughtful enough to provide "cheat sheets" so we would know the responses when the changes were implemented. That was helpful. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Second, it seems as though the Church has gone from a clunky and inaccurate translation to one that's more accurate but still clunky. Clearly, more work needs to be done, but I still think the new translation is a step in the right direction.
The translation we just got should have been the one in place since the '70s. It accurately reflects what should have been the Catholic church's first awkward attempts at a vernacular Mass in English. But no, someone back then decided to go overboard in their attempt to be "relevant" or something. Now we've lost not only the last 40 years or so, but the folks in the hierarchy who are already skittish about trying new things now have an example to point to, which will hinder further progress. "See what happened the last time we tried to be 'groovy', as the kids say? We wandered away from our roots. We won't be trying anything popular again for a while, let me tell you!"

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Lastly, I wonder how much time priests have spent preparing themselves to use the new translation. I get the impression that the most vocal opponents of it have spent much more time complaining about it than actually readying themselves to use it. Not picking on RCs alone here--in general it's my experience that most clergy spend more time thinking about what they're going to have for lunch than in getting ready to celebrate the Eucharist, more's the pity.
I won't speak for all priests, but ours was magnificent. He made it through the transition with nary a bump. He clearly studied well ahead of the transition date. By contrast, though, I've heard horror stories of priests who cracked their new book open on the First Sunday of Advent just before Mass and discovered to their chagrin that they didn't recognize it at all, and wound up stuttering their way through it for the next few weeks. That had to be painful for the parishioners.

And then there were the occasional rare tales of older priests who have been celebrating the Mass for 35-40 years, seven days a week, and just flat refused to change. They had the old book memorized, and did not see any reason to switch at this late date.

The tl;dr of it is, the hierarchy which should have come up with a coordinated education plan about the new translation, emphasizing the importance and relevance of the changes, instead left it largely up to individual parish priests. Nothing speaks to the universality of the Church like failing to get all the parishes to do the same thing. [Razz]
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
...[T]his is a new level of liturgy that we're going to try out for a limited time, and I want to avoid stuffiness if at all possible, while at the same time not being sloppy.
I just wanted to update with the results of our test.

The first week went very well. There were some moments when people were somewhat unsure of what was happening, but a gentle reminder and we were off again. We all managed to laugh at our slight missteps, and it was the best worship service I've experienced in well over a year. I was on cloud nine all week, and several others reported the same thing. I don't quite know what it was, but the earth moved for several of us.

The next couple of weeks have gone better. I've noticed no stuffiness. We had a meeting last night (roughly analogous to a vestry meeting) where I asked if everyone likes the new style and wants to keep it. Four of the six immediately said they love it, and the other two nodded assent.

We'll be keeping it around for a while. Next step: Weekly Communion. [Biased]
 
Posted by Godric (# 17135) on :
 
I want a Church that has a liturgy because that's what make it different from being in someone's home although the balance has to be struck between formality and informality. Oh dear....where to draw the line?

I would say that we need to avoid the "My name's Dave and I'm a Vicar!" approach where 'anything goes'.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Godric:
I want a Church that has a liturgy because that's what make it different from being in someone's home although the balance has to be struck between formality and informality. Oh dear....where to draw the line?

I would say that we need to avoid the "My name's Dave and I'm a Vicar!" approach where 'anything goes'.
Of course, some people do have their worship service in a family home! That has its benefits and attractions. Obviously, not everyone would feel comfortable doing that.

I'd prefer a vicar to be introduced to me as 'David', rather than Revd. So-and-so, but I certainly don't want the vicar to give off a patronising vibe, as if everyone is expected to admire him for 'getting down to our level'!
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Of course, some people do have their worship service in a family home! That has its benefits and attractions. Obviously, not everyone would feel comfortable doing that.

I'd prefer a vicar to be introduced to me as 'David', rather than Revd. So-and-so, but I certainly don't want the vicar to give off a patronising vibe, as if everyone is expected to admire him for 'getting down to our level'!
I introduce myself to new people as Father Weber, but what they call me after that is up to them. A number of church friends & associates who knew me before ordination still use my first name (only referring to me as "Father" when they want to chide!); some parishioners prefer "Fr Firstname" to "Fr Lastname" and refer to me that way. It's all good.

The only usage I would ever think of correcting is "Reverend Weber," and even then there is a time to gently insist on the correct usage and a time to just let it go.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
"Traditional Language" isn't Tudor English; it's Tudor English grammar and syntax with modern English pronunciation, intonation and phonology.

Real Tudor English would sound quite different and probably even be harder to understand.

Consequently it can be argued that "Traditional Language" in liturgy is a beast apart; not entirely unlike revived Cornish, which is a mediaeval Celtic language with pronunciation based on early 20th century dialectal pronunciation of English (west Penwith in the unlikely even anyone cares*).

*Actually, that's how it is in the books. How it's actually spoken is remarkably similar to RP English... but I digress.
 
Posted by Morlader (# 16040) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
"Traditional Language" [is] not entirely unlike revived Cornish, which is a mediaeval Celtic language with pronunciation based on early 20th century dialectal pronunciation of English (west Penwith in the unlikely even anyone cares*).

*Actually, that's how it is in the books. How it's actually spoken is remarkably similar to RP English... but I digress.
* I care! As a resident of Penwith (there's been no 'West Penwith' since 1974) and a Cornish language bard I can assure you that revived Cornish is not like RP English when pronounced by experienced speakers in conversation. As in all languages, there are different accents, depending on locality, background and education of the speaker and formality of situation. Liturgical use is more formal and more precise in grammar and vocabulary, as might be expected. But there are sounds in revived Cornish which don't occur in RP English: e.g. the reticulated 'r' consonant and the "French" 'u' vowel. Whether those sounds occur[ed] in Tudor English I don't know, but I doubt. (More likely to have been in Tudor Latin, as prime mediaeval sources are the Cornish Mystery plays, recorded by the monks of Glasney College).

[Sorry for continuing the tangent, but I had to take issue with the "RP English" statement.]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0