Thread: Is worship provided for a perceived need? 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=024980
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
This comes out of yesterday morning's church service which I attended as a first time visitor. It was a very happy clappy service called Family Worship. Afterwards, I got chatting to someone who had been part of the team running it and his response made me wonder whether church services are provided on perceived needs not actual needs.

Me: Sorry, this isn't my preferred style of worship. I'm much happier at All Saints Margaret Street*
Him: Yes, actually that's what I like too.
We then got into talking about silence, monastic services and reciting the psalms.

It made me wonder how many of us have been providing church services for others, rather than what we would find helpful ways to worship. And if so, does that mean that there are a lot of church services out there providing for a perceived need rather than the known needs of the congregation? How do we found out what congregations really find helpful? Do we get swayed by small vocal factions? And do the congregations then put up and shut up on the grounds of community and togetherness?

* This was a London church. All Saints Margaret Street, also known as ASMS, is another well known London church and runs very formal Sunday services with robed minister and choir, bells and smells, full liturgical service with Eucharist and sung settings.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
There are three types of worship that one has to choose between the provision of:

1. what you like
2. what you think the congregation likes
3. what the people who don't go to church but might if they saw any point might like.

The problem with both 2 and 3 is they're based on assumptions. 2. might be improved by actually asking people; 3. would be a jolly good idea but God alone knows how you'd really find out; all you know is it's "not what we or anyone else around here is doing."
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Ages ago I went to church in my home town and a pretty stodgy, establishment place it was too (the church, not the town, although the town was as well).

Afterwards an old lady with a Devonian accent sitting in front spoke to me. (Her age and sex were typical of the congregation, her class was definitely not.)

"You mustn't mind we have all these modern hymns" she said, "but we have them for the young people."

I thought that was very kind, generous and open minded on her part. But I thought how much better to worship with conviction rather than do something which others might like, but as Karl points out, you don't know that they do.

The thing that is likely to put people off is perceived lack of conviction.

[ 26. November 2012, 11:22: Message edited by: venbede ]
 
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :
 
There is definitely a tension there. On the one hand, isn't doing worship the way "we" like it kind of the definition of inward-thinking? On the other hand, Karl is right when he says that there's no real way to see what outsiders might like, and no guarantees they will be able to accurately describe it.

On the one hand, people tend to turn to the traditions of the church at pivot points in their lives -- baptisms, weddings, and funerals, for instance. On the other, people say that liturgy is too dry and boring, and want something that is up to date. The Church is living 20 years ago, they say.

On the one hand, God is such a huge God and we can't put God in a box by saying that God only likes this style or that one. We therefore should offer worship outside our own comfort zone so that we have a balance. On the other hand, relating to God through a different worship style can be challenging at best.

On the one hand, the traditions of the Church have been handed down from generation to generation and, having withstood the test of time, are given to us as a great gift. They provide us with guidance for finding and worshiping God. On the other, we need to be well-rounded disciples who can comfortably worship in many ways, not just in one specific rite; worshiping in different styles helps us grow into more mature disciples and helps us experience and respond to God in ways we would have missed otherwise.

In my current situation, I'm looking to begin pushing the church to begin growing this year. We need to get to a point where we have several different things going on that will attract and (much more importantly) minister to many different people. None will be huge -- this is a rural area, after all -- but there is room to grow. We also need to be similar enough to nearby churches that people don't feel too lost when they come in, yet different enough that we're not just a cookie-cutter of everyone else, but a unique gathering of believers.

Some of that undoubtedly will get me out of my comfort zone. But that's okay. Jesus is all about getting us out of our comfort zones and into things that challenge and grow us.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm not convinced that young people necessarily 'like' the modern hymns and worship songs. My teenagers can't abide them.

Ok, you could say that they've imbibed something of their father's contrariness - but they don't like old hymns and chants and so on either.

In fact, they find all kinds of church music 'cheesy' and 'embarrassing'.

A friend's teenage son used to play the drums at the more happy-clappy 11am service at our local parish. He stopped doing so because the sight of middle-aged people raising their arms, swaying and pulling beatific facial expressions (what I call 'spiritual gurning') freaked him out. 'Mum,' he said, 'It's like a freakin' cult ...'

Out of the mouths of babes ...
 
Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :
 
Interesting. My own background is middle-of-the-road tending towards Anglo-Catholicism. Personally, I really struggle with music that is not well written(whether Victorian or modern), I don't like not knowing what's coming next in a service, ie, making it up as you go along, I like a fair bit of quiet, and extempore prayer makes me nervous, not prayerful ("and Jesus, we just want to thank you so much for your awesome love that's just so awesome...").

But I'm serving my curacy in a parish that's quite a bit further down-candle than I've known, and whose greatest success so far is a 45-min bouncy family service in the community hall at which we average 100 kids and adults.

It is not a service I would choose to attend, if I weren't the curate. But I am, and my calling/job is to make it work for those who come. I see it as being called to facilitate worship for those who feel drawn to God, not being called to foist my preferred style onto people who probably don't want it.

If a cleric ends up in a church where the worship is right up his/her street, and everyone likes the same things he/she does, then that is an outstandingly lucky situation, but these days, one that is becoming rarer.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There are three types of worship that one has to choose between the provision of:
...
2. what you think the congregation likes
...

The problem with both 2 and 3 is they're based on assumptions. ....
Karl

You have just given away that you are not a cleric. How do clerics know what the congregation want. Well the congregation tell them often unsolicited! The nice sermon on the way out is a minor part of it; letters, pastoral conversations, grumbling to others who then relay it to the cleric etc are all going on most of the time in most congregations. It is therefore not an exercise in mind reading. As a rule the congregation are rather open about their preferences and quite active lobbyists at least within the URC.


The corollary of this is they are very good at conscripting non attenders to support their preferences. "If you want people who used to come to church you need to use the old hymns" "If you want younger people to come to church you need to use music they relate to" etc.

Jengie
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
But Jengie, that feeds into my point, that it's often the vociferous members of the congregation say what they like. A lot of congregants may have quietly chosen to be in that church because it offered what they wanted, only to be overridden by a noisy group making their feelings felt.

Panda - I was saying we, because I've led things as a lay person that I've been told people want and wondered if it was true.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
There is no way everyone can be consulted, but it is not as simple as the vociferous group holding the limelight. Think about it, it would require that people were forced to respond to a questioner. The letters, emails and chats during pastoral visits are not vociferous in the sense of making a loud noise but they still influence the lobbying. Indeed I suspect they are often more effective. The channels are open to everyone.

I have also seen out right rebellion in worship by the congregation, it also was not vociferous, indeed the exact opposite. Nor was it planned. Just complete silence when asked to participate in a particular way. There must have been some unanimity of desire there.

Jengie
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not convinced that young people necessarily 'like' the modern hymns and worship songs. My teenagers can't abide them.

Ok, you could say that they've imbibed something of their father's contrariness - but they don't like old hymns and chants and so on either.

My kids are the same Gamaliel. The service they can cope with best is the one that's shortest, because it's over the quickest. I really envy these people whose kids actually like church.

(pssst... much of the time I don't like it either [Hot and Hormonal] )

[ 26. November 2012, 14:22: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
My overriding need is for the main act of worship (OK, now that I am retired, the only one for me) on a Sunday to be the Eucharist. I have my own preferences about how that should be presented (liturgical, formal-but-relaxed, and so on) but they are less important than the matter of what we gather to do. I'd survive with any church that offered that as an invariable diet every week.

I struggle with churches (increasing in number, even in the C of E) where the Eucharist is treated as an optional extra. Especially those places which simply advertise 'Morning Worship' (as if it could be called Afternoon or Evening Worship when it takes place at 10.30am) without specifying its form. I'd be happier with a happy-clappy "Family Communion" than with Solemn Mattins; though I would prefer Solemn Mass to either.

But challenge this attitude and you will be told: 'we have to cater for those who are not members'; or 'the Eucharist is a a strange and puzzling rite and puts people off'. Yet frequently little or no attempt is made to advertise the Service of the Word to its supposed constituency; frequently the language and concepts used are alien and puzzling. Whereas at least the Mass, however simply or elaborately it is offered, contains movement and a sense of drama, apparent to any observer.

I wish we could stop forever rushing around trying to re-invent the wheel, in order to cater for either the presumed wishes of non-attenders, or the often theologically-ignorant prejudices of some regulars.

It should be apparent from the above that I am writing from a Church of England context. I know that many or most other non-Catholic churches are used to Services of the Word as the norm. But in the C of E it seemed as if the Parish Communion movement had convinced most parishes, of all traditions, that the ideal was for the Lord's People to gather at the Lord's Table on the Lord's Day. I'm not convinced by most of the excuses used for backtracking on that.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
This layman agrees with you, Angloid.

It's not that I want something that's aesthetically satisfying (and it never is wholly): I need an opportunity to fulfill my duty as a baptized member of the priestly people of God by participating in the eucharist.

I don't mind if that involves bouncy castles now and again (and I might well find it a bit of a hoot). But just hanging round somebody else's primary school class is not the point.

Do people refrain from sex on the basis that it is a strange and puzzling activity ?

[ 26. November 2012, 14:51: Message edited by: venbede ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Do people refrain from sex on the basis that it is a strange and puzzling activity ?
No. Do it more often so as to get used to it.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I agree Angloid.

Which puts me in an awkward position.

I can just about cope with the 9am service at our parish for the reasons you've outlined - even though it's snake-belly low with traditional hymns where they've mangled the words ... (even, to my horror, 'King of Glory, King of Peace ...' Herbert would be turning in his grave ...

I've had a few mild run-ins with our vicar because he doesn't use the Lectionary and sits very, very loosely indeed by anything canonically or recognisably Anglican - he just about manages to scrape through, I think ...

I sympathise with the curate who has to attend the bouncy Family Service and can see why he feels the need to sublimate his own inclinations in order to do so.

The trouble is ... what kind of diet are people getting alongside all this music and movement and so on?

It all seems like carcinogenic, fast-food Christianity to me. There's not 'bite' or flavour to it ...
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Also agree with you, Angloid, and with Gamaliel regarding it being 'fast food' Christianity. Even if I preferred a non-Eucharistic service, I would still want something more sustaining than what a lot of churches provide. There's no spiritual meat to them.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Angloid, you've expressed more clearly what I was wondering - are churches offering something they perceive to be more appropriate without checking to see if it is?

Talking to someone who had helped organise this service (non-Eucharistic, service of the word) who said it was not what they found a way to find God, really made me wonder how many people were providing something that they felt they ought to provide.

And yes, all of that Barefoot Friar.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree Angloid.

Which puts me in an awkward position.

I can just about cope with the 9am service at our parish for the reasons you've outlined - even though it's snake-belly low with traditional hymns where they've mangled the words ... (even, to my horror, 'King of Glory, King of Peace ...' Herbert would be turning in his grave ...

I've had a few mild run-ins with our vicar because he doesn't use the Lectionary and sits very, very loosely indeed by anything canonically or recognisably Anglican - he just about manages to scrape through, I think ...

I sympathise with the curate who has to attend the bouncy Family Service and can see why he feels the need to sublimate his own inclinations in order to do so.

The trouble is ... what kind of diet are people getting alongside all this music and movement and so on?

It all seems like carcinogenic, fast-food Christianity to me. There's not 'bite' or flavour to it ...
Yes, this is a problem. One of the issues - oh what the hell - I've blogged about this specifically with regard to children's provision but the principles still hold.

WRT Eucharist every Sunday, I'm in a bit of a quandary over this one, as one issue our local gaff has is that it's a joint benefice with three churches and only one priest; insisting on a main Sunday Eucharist is actually a bit of a problem there. It's terribly important, however, that a non-Eucharistic service is just as "meaty", if you like, as a Eucharistic one - when it becomes Service Lite is where you have a problem.

I'm also a strong advocate of short services - especially when you've got an all-age audience. That doesn't have to be "fast food" or "service lite" - there's all the difference in the world between McDonalds and a Sushi bar. It's amazing what you can do with say half an hour, if you've got someone with the requisite talents.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Indeed. What narks me is this apparent desire to 'dumb everything down' as if people are stupid or something ...

Panda has my sympathy. I've been wondering what I'd do in his shoes. There could be inventive ways of introducing some meat and two veg and chewy fibre into the pap. If he, as a curate, can find a way of doing that then he'll have done an utterly good and praise-worthy thing IMHO.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
You may be reading more into Panda's post than is necessary. They only said that the service isn't their style, not that it's necessarily religion-lite.

If it is, I'm sure there are a lot of people on here with some ideas.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
My overriding need is for the main act of worship (OK, now that I am retired, the only one for me) on a Sunday to be the Eucharist.
Ahhhhh-bloody-men. The older I get the more eucharistically gittish I become. I do not believe worship is about evangelism. I believe worship is about adoration and above all thanksgiving. My biblical theological background says that eucharist is the heart of christian being: we are called to be the tenth leper who gives thanks. Paul again and again calls us to give thanks: did he mean liturgical eucharist? No. But it is the best form that we have, blessed by the praying of the fathers and mothers of antiquity, and our alternative gabfests often no more than trivialize by weak mimicary the hard won poetry of our forebears in faith.

It it "relevant", as so many of my evo colleagues bleat? No. Is good sex "relevant"? No. But we grow into it from our fumbled-stuttered starts with a partner who we love. So for God's sake, lets have the balls and ovaries to grow into the hard love of eucharistic union with the Divine.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Bless you, zappa.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Zappa - you may not mean this, but in your post I'm reading "and if it just leaves you cold, it's your problem because you've failed to grow the bollocks."

ITYFIABMCTT.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
Not quite that dispassionate ... but as a priest I have a role, and that is precisely to lead people towards this central moment.

I also coach/umpire netball. If a player wants to pick up the ball and juggle it that's fine. Except that there are certain rules and traditions that suggest they've missed the point.

My role is to nurture, perhaps move lovingly IRL than on a bulletin board, "my" people towards that encounter with Christ=God-in sacrament.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Nice when it works. I think my problem here is more All Saintsy so I'm taking it there.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
The problem is because we have collapsed two services into one. There used to be the outreach service (often evening, aimed at attracting people and yes user friendly, religion light and such) and there was the church family service (usually morning, serious preaching and often Eucharistic, religion heavy). The idea was that the evening service was to attract people but you did not leave them there, they were supposed to progress to the family service when they made a commitment.

The person immediately around the church is really not ready for a full diet of Christian worship, the faithful starve without it. Paul knew this.

As for church children guess what, they went to the morning service and then had their own teaching sessions in the afternoon. Yes I know this is not what people expect.

Jengie

[ 27. November 2012, 10:47: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Where do you people get these children from who'll sit through a normal church service? I wish I had one.

I'm seriously starting to think that I've begat three very strange kids.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, and in the early-ish days they used to kick catechumens and visitors out before the eucharist ... hence the thing they still do in Orthodox services where the Deacon cries, 'The doors ... the doors ...' and 'Depart ye catechumens ... let all catechumens depart ... let no catechumen remain ...' and so forth - even though nobody actually closes and bolts the doors and even though no catechumens - should any be present - actually depart.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Over all, though, whatever people say about 'relevance' or how they are wanting to make services attractive to outsiders and so on - I think what they're really saying (nine times out of ten) is:

'Listen, this is the way I want to do it and I'm using the excuse of making it accessible to outsiders and so on to make it sound less like I'm imposing my own way on you lot whether you like it or not ...'

It's the same thing with those vicars/clergy who don't wear clerical garb and yet remain in a tradition where such garb is worn. They'll say, 'I'm not wearing it because it's another barrier towards the unchurched ...' when really what they mean is, 'I don't like wearing it for various personal or theological/churchmanship reasons so I won't wear it and use the excuse that it somehow makes me more accessible to the Ordinary Joe in the street even though I've got little evidence to indicate whether this is indeed the case ...'
 
Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :
 
What was the OP again? Oh yes. Nothing to do with bashing people who appreciate low church style at all. Just checking.

Surely the way the OP is phrased reveals the problem at the heart of many churches of different stripes. Worship should not be regarded as something that is "provided" at all. Services are provided, as a forum to which people may bring their worship, where the worship is then offered to God by the church as a united act of praise.

If you can't bring worship to God in a variety of different contexts is there a problem with the context or with your notions of God?
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Where do you people get these children from who'll sit through a normal church service? I wish I had one.

I'm seriously starting to think that I've begat three very strange kids.
Well it is partly socialising the child and partly socialising the adults. I found a blog from a couple who by chance had always gone to the sort of church where children were in for the adult service. They had changed denomination but by coincidence gone to another one where there was no babysitting service during the main service. They had brought their children to it and ended up in conversation with an older member. They apologised for the children's noise and the response came back basically along the lines of "but that's what I expect them to be!"

The major problem is not the way children behave but the unrealistic expectations of adults.

Just to make things difficult if my memory is right these are the people who have hour long sermons!

Jengie
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Where do you people get these children from who'll sit through a normal church service? I wish I had one.

I'm seriously starting to think that I've begat three very strange kids.
Well it is partly socialising the child and partly socialising the adults. I found a blog from a couple who by chance had always gone to the sort of church where children were in for the adult service. They had changed denomination but by coincidence gone to another one where there was no babysitting service during the main service. They had brought their children to it and ended up in conversation with an older member. They apologised for the children's noise and the response came back basically along the lines of "but that's what I expect them to be!"

The major problem is not the way children behave but the unrealistic expectations of adults.

Just to make things difficult if my memory is right these are the people who have hour long sermons!

Jengie
Wild horses wouldn't be able to drag them there. Mind, you'd need a few wild horses to get me to a service with an hour long sermon, unless I was allowed a pillow and a good book, and possibly a couple of bottles of Old Pec.

The issue for us has never been how the children behave, but how bored they were and how much they hated being there. In the end we gave up whenever there wasn't a Sunday School because we'd have had to drag them bodily there.

[ 27. November 2012, 12:07: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Angelfish - my gripe is more that it's getting harder and harder to find a number of different contexts. I suspect part of that is church people may well be supporting services they think are needed (by those outside church, those on the fringes of church) but not feeding them. I'm not sure that helps growth of faith. Different ways of meeting God are more helpful than just one way, surely? Which would mean there should be a variety of services on offer.

Do we go on trust and against the tide and say, actually, it may not be relevant, but the Eucharist is what we, this congregation, need and ignore those who say it's inaccessible? Do we say, yes, there is a problem here, we need to maybe provide different services for different people at different times and stages?
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
It's curious, parish churches, desperate to get bums on seats, bring in new vicars and some kind of light-rock 'praise band' or some such. The liturgy is replaced with a Jesus-themed light entertainment with lots of YouTube videos--ideally with some rapping or a graffiti artist assuring us how 'real' it all is. Those congregations, as a whole, are dropping--that is despite the herculean efforts of things like the Alpha Course, etc. Cathedral congregations, with sung liturgy and robed clergy and choir, with a mixture of ancient and 'more recent' (20th c.) repertoire, are growing. It is overwhelmingly young people who make up the new numbers at Cathedrals.

Go figure…

K.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, and in the early-ish days they used to kick catechumens and visitors out before the eucharist.
That used to happen in Nonconformist (Baptist) services which had Communion "tacked on the end" - there would be a gap before it started, and lots of folk would leave (even if the Communion was theoretically "open").
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
It's curious, parish churches, desperate to get bums on seats, bring in new vicars and some kind of light-rock 'praise band' or some such. The liturgy is replaced with a Jesus-themed light entertainment with lots of YouTube videos--ideally with some rapping or a graffiti artist assuring us how 'real' it all is. Those congregations, as a whole, are dropping--that is despite the herculean efforts of things like the Alpha Course, etc. Cathedral congregations, with sung liturgy and robed clergy and choir, with a mixture of ancient and 'more recent' (20th c.) repertoire, are growing. It is overwhelmingly young people who make up the new numbers at Cathedrals.

Go figure…

K.
Can someone clarify here? I also keep being told that it's the Charevo congregations that are growing and liturgical ones are dying on their feet.

Can someone conduct a bloody census and actually find out which it is?
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
Couple of (hastily found) links:

Church of England

This one has links to the C of E stats.

K.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Couple of (hastily found) links:

Church of England

This one has links to the C of E stats.

K.
That's cathedrals. Do we have anything about (a) numbers at liturgical non-cathedral churches, or (b) attendances at bottom of the candle charevo churches?
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
Found this.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
When I have worshiped in cathedrals, I have not asked my fellow worshipers for a survey of their age, race, sexuality or class.

My impression is that they are a bit older than average and white.

"Young people" are going to be as varied in their tastes as anyone else.

But I don't go to the eucharist for emotional highs: I go in faith and fulfilling my duty.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Found this.
Seems to point to the Charevos getting the greatest gains.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The figure that is usually quoted is that London churches are growing, and that's usually understood to be the HTB effect.

2007 survey

London Church survey 2011 and actually reading the summary, it's more about church membership than attendance
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
It seems to me our mission is to make disciples of Jesus, which is not the same as getting people to attend church services. Hence, I think some of these questions (like meatiness or triviality, and liturgical or charismatic) in our services is a bit irrelevant - for me the key question is whether our church services (and whatever other activities there are) encourage people in their becoming disciples themselves and also in their helping others to become disciples.

Obviously, looking at whether people are being enabled in those two areas is far from easy, and rather fraught with danger - I mean, for example, the risk of judgementalism. But I think we have to try, otherwise we'll fall into the trap of doing things the way we do for poor reasons; maybe because it's what we're most comfortable with, or it's how our faith tradition has always done things, or it's what the vocal minority in our church want. And all those reasons are rather missing the mark, IMO.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I come from an urban environment, and most of the churches I know worship in a way that's probably developed out of the expectations and inclinations of their current congregations. I.e., the historical churches have remained with a fairly 'traditional' style of worship. Most of the historical churches I know don't have a core of young people, or the expertise with young people, to build on. Perhaps money has something to do with it as well: not every church in the vicinity could afford to kit out a 'worship team', even if they wanted to.

The Black-led churches are focused on trying to engage the youth, which is probably because they still have a young contingent to work with.

In my local ecumenical network the Baptists have developed the strongest youth profile. Komensky's link shows that the Baptists may be doing something right, because they've practically bucked the relentless downward spiral that's afflicted most other historical churches. Apparently, things are looking up for them.

Back to worship: on Sunday evening I went to 'Sung Compline' at the CofE. It was my first time at this kind of service! Very soothing, but hardly designed to entrap the 'yoof'. The gentlemen choristers, vistiting from the cathedral, were all rather young, though.

[ 27. November 2012, 13:44: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Compline is lovely. I've seen it used in university/postgrad type contexts ... but it doesn't attract large numbers ...

Angelfish, I'm not out to 'knock' low church styles in and of themselves - I just think we all ought to be more open and honest about our worship preferences. People who go in for bells and smells generally do so because they like that sort of thing not because they think it's going to attract newcomers.

I'd suggest that the same applies to other styles of worship - but in some traditions they aren't always so open about the fact that they do it that way because they like it or prefer it ...

All that said, yes, I think it is true overall that it's the happy-clappy or the less 'formal' churches that are holding their own numbers-wise ... which is a lot to do with the spirit of the age, of course. I think this explains why the Baptists are doing comparatively well ... there's something about their more 'democratic' style and focus on individual 'soul competence' and so on - the priesthood of all believers - that resonates with the zeitgeist. There's also something about choosing consciously to be baptised rather than having it done as an infant before you had any say in the matter than can have a powerful appeal.

I'm not knocking it.

I'm just saying that people who like worship bands and TV chat-show style presentation should simply be upfront about it and say that they prefer that style and equally people who like liturgy and choirs and so on should acknowledge that the reason they like that sort of thing is because they like that sort of thing ...

Whatever the style of church or the style of worship, people become socialised into involvement.

I first encountered happy-clappy worship in my late teens/early 20s. I didn't take to it at all initially but I soon became acclimatised/socialised into it the more services/meetings (meetings is what we'd have called them) I attended. The same goes for more liturgical styles. I didn't like those either, after years on the free-wheelin' charismatic circuit but I gradually became acclimatised to them ...

That's how this stuff works.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Unless you've got an extremely well-resourced church that can put on at least two services every Sunday that attract a reasonable attendance, there will always be the dilemma. Does the one act of worship each week act as the focus for the life and mission of the congregation, or is it a 'Christianity-lite' outreach to attract new people?

Many places try to resolve this dilemma by alternating: Parish Eucharist one week, Mission Praise the next... or even a complicated schedule to try and cater for all tastes, including BCP Mattins, 'Family Communion' etc. I don't know what experience shipmates have of the effectiveness of such a pattern, but my feeling (backed up by some evidence) is that it is doomed to fail, at least as a way of attracting outsiders. It's difficult enough for regulars to remember what is happening on a particular Sunday. How the **** is a tentative enquirer, thinking they might just try this 'church' thing, supposed to know that they should come on the third Sunday of the month if they want a service tailored to their (supposed) needs?

I have a strong feeling that many regular congregation members prefer an undemanding fast-food liturgy and pretend they are doing it for the sake of the kids or the newcomers.

[PS about Compline: I can't see how useful it is as a regular service. It only lasts about ten minutes: how many people will be prepared to trek out to their parish church on a dark evening for this? It works as the conclusion to a quiet hour of meditation or something similar, but it isn't a stand-alone service except in the context of a residential community. Tarting it up à la Evensong with hymns and a sermon just destroys its contemplative nature. It would be interesting to know what SvitlanaV2's experience was like, and how Compline can work in a parish setting.)

[ 27. November 2012, 14:50: Message edited by: Angloid ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
Is the increase in numbers at cathedrals reflected by the possibly of being there but remaining anonymous?

Is it as "faith lite" as with many other services in the sense that you are (often) an observor in that context and not a participant? If you want to dip in and our wander around and not be confronted or challenged, then cathedral worship could be the answer - if sometimes an anodyne or unthreatening one.

As noted above BUGB baptist Churches (not the "Grace" or Reformed types) are holding their own numerically speaking. But don't be misled: that statistic hides a troubling reality - baptist Churches are increasinly seeing a concentration of resources in "larger" churches at the expense of the smaller ones, especially in urban/suburban areas. In the New Jerusalem we have people travelling to the Sunday services from across the city.

Even in a very rural area like between wood and water, 7 BUGB churches closed in a similar number of years. Families will now travel to find a church that meets their needs, if they don't drop out altogether. Some travel almost 20 miles, passing numerous churches of all denominations on their way.

Many of those churches are down to a handfull of people. They express faith sincerely but are hampered by giving being swallowed up in maintenance, sharing a minister perhaps with 6 others and set in modes of worship that have been unchanged for decades. Who's surprised that choice operates and people travel to get their needs met?
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I come back to what I tried to imply at first: if you are doing things not because you find it compelling and convincing but always looking behind your shoulder to attract others, the whole thing will end up self-conscious and self-defeating.

I'm not at all convinced that evangelism is a primary purpose of the main act of worship of a Christian community: it is for those already committed to worship God revealed through Jesus. If it is done by God's grace with conviction, God will use it to bring others to join.

PS I think Mark has a point about cathedral worship - the sermons can be meatier, but they can be pretentious and they can equally encourage a superficial religious commitment. However there is nothing the matter with anonymity. I like worshiping at cathedrals on holiday and they need a regular congregation to keep going.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Is the increase in numbers at cathedrals reflected by the possibly of being there but remaining anonymous?<snip>
Yes, I think that's part of it. Too much of the Charo-Evo stuff puts emotions into the mouth(s) of the congregants: "I'm dancing for joy" [I'm not], "I'm gonna [sic] shout" [no I'm not], "I'm so happy" [today I don't feel happy.. have I come to the wrong place?]. Cathedral worship permits the liturgy to unfold and the congregants to participate as *they* see fit. It may not be for everyone, but clearly it is filling a space that a growing number of parish churches are struggling to fulfil.

It also avoids the sermon-centric approach, which has created a whole separate set of problems.

K.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Angloid

My personal bugbear is churches that don't put vital information on their noticeboard. Too many church noticeboards advertise an evening service when they no longer have one, or only have one occasionally. As a 'circulating churchgoer' I find this irritating.

quote:


[PS about Compline: I can't see how useful it is as a regular service. It only lasts about ten minutes: how many people will be prepared to trek out to their parish church on a dark evening for this? It works as the conclusion to a quiet hour of meditation or something similar, but it isn't a stand-alone service except in the context of a residential community. Tarting it up à la Evensong with hymns and a sermon just destroys its contemplative nature. It would be interesting to know what SvitlanaV2's experience was like, and how Compline can work in a parish setting.)
I can't say how it might work in a parish setting as I'm not an Anglican, and don't know how it all works. The church is a parish church.

The service I went to was longer than 10 minutes. There was one congregational hymn, and also a sermon (not mentioned on the order of service, so perhaps this isn't usual). The vicar mentioned his distress at the decision made at the General Synod recently, and expressed hope that discrimination in the church would end (including discrimination based on sexuality, which was the first time I'd ever heard this mentioned in a sermon). I've met the vicar briefly before. He's very cultured.

Since the young men are from the cathedral perhaps Compline is a regular feature there, but they can only be in one place at a time, so there can't be many such services in the city. (I don't know how commonplace choirs are in the CofE, nor whether they're all expected to be able to sing this kind of music.)
 
Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Angelfish - my gripe is more that it's getting harder and harder to find a number of different contexts. I suspect part of that is church people may well be supporting services they think are needed (by those outside church, those on the fringes of church) but not feeding them. I'm not sure that helps growth of faith. Different ways of meeting God are more helpful than just one way, surely? Which would mean there should be a variety of services on offer.

Do we go on trust and against the tide and say, actually, it may not be relevant, but the Eucharist is what we, this congregation, need and ignore those who say it's inaccessible? Do we say, yes, there is a problem here, we need to maybe provide different services for different people at different times and stages?
I agree with you, but it is possible to have the Eucharist in an accessible way, isn't it? I really get bored when every particle of the Eucharist is explained in case someone just came in and wasn't aware of what it all means, but there must be a middle ground, using plain English and making it clear when people can get up, sit down, move about and in which direction etc. i am all for holding the Lord's Supper (as they call it in my church) every Sunday. Actions speak louder than words, and it can be tremendously edifying on a level that no amount of teaching or singing could reach. However, there has to be a way of presenting it that doesn't completely mystify the less seasoned churchgoers. Mystery without mystification.

Eta: i also agree that a variety of liturgical styles is very healthy. It's really a matter of taste, after all, so the church as a whole needs to provide for various expressions of devotion. However, I was just getting a bit grumpy because the accusations of "this is what I want so I will pretend it is what others want" were being levelled mainly at the lower church, whereas I, as a person so far down the candle I don't even know where the candles are kept, see this attitude in the stick-in-the mud traditionalists too.

[ 27. November 2012, 17:31: Message edited by: angelfish ]
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Some of the best ideas I've seen include putting an illustrated explanation inside the service booklets. So people who know what the Eucharist is already can skip those pages but, while waiting for the service to start, anyone feeling uncertain can read the introduction, look at the pictures showing the symbolism and their explanations, and at least be ready for when they appear in the service.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
Some research I read a few years ago, which I'm sorry I can't find a reference to ATM. Suggested that the churches that were growing were those that 'did music well' it didn't matter what type of music, it was the quality of production that mattered.

Cathedrals by and large have much more musical resources than the average parish church.

Another thing is that even within a congregation - there can be a wide disparity in expectations and preferences. Example one of our group of churches has some congregation members asking for some 'livelier music, others who moan at the slightest change.

The organist recently took a break, the substitute musician, who was not an organist but by no means a worship band, was hated by some and loved by others. And I do mean hated and loved, to the point that some are lobbying for a repeat, others saying they will stay away if it happens again..
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Zacchaeus

Did this lead on to a conversation about the need to compromise for the sake of love and unity?
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
Sadley no, there are just a lot of people thinking that they know the best way for the church to be, to be attractive to others....
 
Posted by Pia (# 17277) on :
 
Finding this thread really interesting.

I think that ExclamationMark has a point about the anonymity of cathedral worship. I have been worshipping at my local cathedral for the last couple of years, and in the first instance, yes, the idea of being able to slip in unnoticed and just blend into the background was a large part of what drew me there, rather than anywhere else, after a long (30 year!) absence. That and the fact that I knew pretty much what I'd be getting there, despite the 30-year absence. Oh, and the fact that there was a Eucharist service every week (I'm with Zappa and Angloid on that) rather than only once a month.

That's what drew me in, but what keeps me there two years on is very different. I am no longer anonymous, but known, greeted, involved... I am part of a community. It's not strictly a local community as it would be if I attended my (charismatic/evangelical/not-really-'me') parish church, but it's certainly not anonymous; on the contrary, having lived in this city for nearly 10 years feeling very much like an outsider, I finally have a nascent sense of belonging here thanks to this community which has accepted me into itself.

It's true that the demographic does tend to the white, middle-class, middle-aged-or older - a fact about which I can hardly complain, being all three of those things myself. But there are a good number of children (and their parents) at the service I attend (between the ages of zero and ... well, whenever they stop being a child, I suppose - the 'Junior Church' caters for those up to about 13 or 14), and they are welcomed (not just 'tolerated') even if they do make noise/run around. And the regular congregation also includes adults with learning difficulties, homeless people, BME worshippers... a 'proper mix', I guess. And they are there every week - they're not tourists (this isn't really a tourist town!).

So (and with apologies for rambling), the anonymity can be one thing that draws people in (along with the wonderful music, and any number of other things), but when people are drawn in and made to want to stay, then other things are also being done well, in my view.

Oh and Karl... I have one child who loves church, is a server (which means she's in for the whole service), likes traditional music and language (she insists that the 'modern' Lord's Prayer they use at school, substituting 'sins' for 'trespasses' is 'just wrong' and insists on 'saying it my way'), and can't get enough of the whole thing. She's the one getting me up and at 'em for a 9.15 service on a Sunday morning, and having not been to church at all for the first 8 years of her life, she chose herself to be baptised and confirmed earlier this year, And then I have another who doesn't want to know. Which goes to prove precisely nothing, I know, except perhaps that whatever you do it won't please everyone!
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think I'd be very tempted by cathedral worship if I lived in a cathedral city ...

I've only attended about three or four cathedral services and they've all made an impression.

On the Compline thing ... I agree that it works best in a residential community setting. The services I've been to have been longer than 10 minutes too - probably more like 15 - and don't have hymns or a sermon - but do include a Gospel reading.

Here it is: http://www.churchofengland.org/media/41115/dpnight298-323.pdf

Where I've been the Psalms and the prayers have generally been chanted antiphonally - if that's the right term - and it can be a bit intimidating for newcomers who might not know how to chant. I don't have any formal training in this and probably don't chant them properly but I've sort of picked it up and the priest says I've got a good voice ... (she must be tone deaf) ...

I've never seen Compline done in a parish church setting but am aware that some parishes do have them.

I've not seen/heard it done with a trained choir either - just a priest and a handful of attendees struggling through ... but it's always worked out well in the end.

On ExclamationMark's point about 'participation' in worship - and that cathedral worship may not encourage that.

I can see what he means and at one point I'd have been pretty judgemental about people who just went along to 'watch' ... I'm not suggesting that EE is being similarly judgemental though ...

But after years and years of being told what to do in charismatic evangelical circles - 'Let's all stand/clap/raise our hands/dance/speak in tongues/stand our chairs (I kid you not)/whatever else ... - I actually find it very, very refreshing to just go into a service and allow myself to drift in and out of it or engage with it on a more 'mystical' or zen-like level ... as it were.

And yes, cathedral sermons are generally pretty good too.

I wish there was one nearer.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Pia - in some circles your post would be called testimony - and pretty powerful testimony it is too. I was very glad to read you.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I've seen Compline in a parish. We do it at the end of the Maundy Thursday vigil - at midnight. And we've done it as part of the Sundays@Six series.

Sundays@Six was my idea and I pretty much organised the lot before I burnt out and walked. Instead of just having a monthly choral evensong that occasionally moves around other commitments, so dealing with irate people the day it didn't happen, we tried using that slot consistently and using it as a way of providing alternative outworkings:
Attendance varied from 2 to 50 - really mixed bag, but it was catering for some people who didn't get to the morning service, or wanted something quiet and contemplative instead of upbeat and jolly. There were times when just having the church open was worth it. The time someone was desperately looking for an open church after spending the day in hospital with her dying father, the times people just wanted somewhere to come and sit and pray.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Where do you people get these children from who'll sit through a normal church service? I wish I had one.

I'm seriously starting to think that I've begat three very strange kids.
No. I have (as some know) eight kids. To my great sorrow none have grown up loving liturgy. [Tear] Or even Christianity, really. Maybe one day.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
That sounds good, Curiosity Killed ... but very ambitious. I can understand how 'burn out' might take place - with other commitments and so on.

But a worthy initiative, I would suggest.

I suspect the key to such things would be to have a team of keen and committed people so that the onus didn't always fall on one or two individuals.

Backing up a bit - and not wishing to disagree with Angelfish necessarily - I can see why some people have taken this thread as being yet another 'bash the happy-clappies or the lowy-lowies' fest. But I'm not sure that's entirely fair.

At the risk of repeating myself, I would contend that whatever style of worship people appreciate or prefer they pursue that for those reasons - and not generally out of altruistic reasons such as the desire to make things more accessible to outsiders/newcomers etc.

I'm not saying that the latter motivation is absent - far from it - but generally I would suggest that people - regardless of churchmanship - veer towards styles of worship that (to use a cringeworthy expression) 'meet their needs' at particular times.

I was very happy (by and large) with full-on happy-clappy when I was moving in those circles almost exclusively. I gradually developed a taste for other styles and modes of worship as I got older and had been around the block a few times ... that isn't to say that I was wiser, more mature and more switched-on than I'd been hitherto ... although there will have been an element of that, one hopes.

People change over time. I prefer more liturgical and reflective forms of worship now but 20 or 30 years ago I'd have preferred something loud and lively. About 15 years ago I was probably transitioning (another dreadful word) between the two. It's been a process and continues to be a process.

I s'pose it all gets to be a problem if there's one predominant mode that doesn't apparently 'fit' where you happen to be at the time.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
Interesting thread. What I'm missing from a number of the posts about what style or catering to what people "want" is passion. I don't necessarily mean loudness or waiving hands in air, but doing church in a way that *you* delight in, that pulls *you* into God, that makes Sunday morning (or whatever time) the highlight of *your* week.

When we do something because we are passionate about doing it, that attracts others. Doesn't matter if it's mathematics or horse riding or incense waving or hand waiving or bands or silence -- the passion with which you do it attracts the interest of others.

When we do something to try to attract others, that repels others, partly it's manipulative, partly if you aren't deeply valuing what you do why should I value it?

I can't tell you how many regular church goers I know, including vestry or board members, who speak of church as boring but a duty. If boring duty is why you go to church, that will communicate to others no matter what you say or what style or music you use. If you truly look forward to it with anticipation, that, too will communicate.

Get people doing what they love doing -- however high or low that is, whatever style of music -- and they will do it well, and both their passion and the quality of the work will attract others.

Who was it said upthread the quality of the music matters far more than the style. Yes. Part of that is because quality comes from liking doing it and being eager to practice enough to do it well.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I certainly use the word "duty" to explain why I go to church, but it is not a boring duty. I don't always feel passionate - doing my duty is putting me in touch with what is passionately central to my life, however I feel at the time.
 
Posted by Pia (# 17277) on :
 
I agree with Belle about passion. I have always tried to apply that principle in my teaching - whatever it is, teach it with passion - and I have found that the passion is often contagious.

Venbede, thank you for your comments. I thought I was just over-sharing (as usual).
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Interesting thread. What I'm missing from a number of the posts about what style or catering to what people "want" is passion. I don't necessarily mean loudness or waiving hands in air, but doing church in a way that *you* delight in, that pulls *you* into God, that makes Sunday morning (or whatever time) the highlight of *your* week.
That is something of which I cannot begin to conceive.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
I would agree with Belle that what is needed is passion, as long as that does not mean continuingly saying how passionately you feel. That sort of thing would only make me giggle. That is why I would prefer to say “carry conviction”.

Some might think liturgical worship lacks emotional power because individual emotions are not expressed That is just not so. Taking part in a ritual which touches on the deepest levels of human need and experience provides a safe space to acknowledge sometimes overwhelming emotion.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
Ah yes, 'passion'.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Komensky. That David Mitchel clip was absolutely wonderful. It reminded me of my time recently Croydon University Hospital, where each day I was given the laminated menu, informing me that they were passionate about providing good, varied and healthy food.

I realised they were trying, but fortunately my severe stomach infection prevented me from sampling their micro-waved pap, apart from a mug of disolved Marmite. I knew I was on the mend when I could drink a whole mug without throwing up.

(Pity Mitchell thinks Christianity means PSA.)
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Belle Ringer - your earlier post has stuck with me. I think there's another thread in that.

Probably fall flat on its face, but I'm going to give it a go anyway.
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
Modern music, praise band, innovative liturgy and intellectually stimulating sermons.

Currently not experiencing any of the above except a token attempt at contemporary Christian music.
 
Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Backing up a bit - and not wishing to disagree with Angelfish necessarily - I can see why some people have taken this thread as being yet another 'bash the happy-clappies or the lowy-lowies' fest. But I'm not sure that's entirely fair.

At the risk of repeating myself, I would contend that whatever style of worship people appreciate or prefer they pursue that for those reasons - and not generally out of altruistic reasons such as the desire to make things more accessible to outsiders/newcomers etc.

I'm not saying that the latter motivation is absent - far from it - but generally I would suggest that people - regardless of churchmanship - veer towards styles of worship that (to use a cringeworthy expression) 'meet their needs' at that time.
That's not saying very much though, is it? If you are not claiming any disingenuity on the part of those pushing their preferences on the rest of the congregation, then all you are saying is that people assume that other people will like the same things as them. That's an obvious and very natural mistake, to my mind, and not one you can really blame people for.

You can hope that whoever picks the hymns adopts a servant attitude toward the congregation, but speaking from experience, it is virtually impossible to serve with any conviction for a protracted time if you secretly loathe the material you are given to work with. In the end, those who are annointed to fulfill a particular role in church (be it picking songs, buying loo paper or arranging the flowers) should be allowed to do it in they way they see fit. What people really need is the freedom and authority to exercise their ministry, so that the voices of naysayers (and there will aways be one or two) are put into proper perspective.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It might not be saying much and I'm not saying that there is 'blame' to be attached necessarily. I'm just saying how things are ...

I agree with you that you can't serve somewhere indefinitely if you loathe the material on offer.

I'm not sure what the answer is, I'm just saying that people incline towards their own preferences and a lot of this talk about doing it for the sake of newcomers is pious baloney.
 
Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :
 
Many worshippers do, but equally, if you have a service now and again that is noticeably different from the norm, you will get regulars putting up with it when they actually prefer the other, for the sake of the people it might be attracting. That's if they're charitable: if they're not they'll come up with 1001 reasons why the people it might be attracting don't like it either. And then that leads to churches that have a 'trad' service at 9.30 and a 'family' service at 11, if they have the wherewithall to support them both.

The same clerics will almost certainly be leading both, and will almost certainly have a private preference as to which they'd rather lead, but nine times out of ten that preference has to take a back seat, because it's a cleric's job to lead the services that work for that church.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Ahhhhh-bloody-men. The older I get the more eucharistically gittish I become. I do not believe worship is about evangelism. I believe worship is about adoration and above all thanksgiving. My biblical theological background says that eucharist is the heart of christian being: we are called to be the tenth leper who gives thanks. Paul again and again calls us to give thanks: did he mean liturgical eucharist? No. But it is the best form that we have, blessed by the praying of the fathers and mothers of antiquity, and our alternative gabfests often no more than trivialize by weak mimicary the hard won poetry of our forebears in faith.
[Overused]

You've hit it out of the park, with the first post in the whole thread containing the word "thanks."

quote:

Is it "relevant", as so many of my evo colleagues bleat? No.
It's plenty relevant to anyone interested in longevity. There is now empirical research suggesting that a habit of gratitude tends to make us live longer. This fact (assuming that it is a fact) might just be an Achilles heel for atheists and unbelievers. It's pretty hard to be thankful without someone to be thankful to.

This correlation seems to hold true at a corporate as well as individual level. The longest-going institution in the history of the West has always maintained, as its most definitive common activity, a rite of thanksgiving. Coincidence? Maybe not.

quote:
Zaccheus saith:
Some research I read a few years ago, which I'm sorry I can't find a reference to ATM. Suggested that the churches that were growing were those that 'did music well' it didn't matter what type of music, it was the quality of production that mattered.
As Alexander Pope appreciated well: "Some to church repair, Not for the doctrine, but the music there." (And, as one of my teachers added, we may never know how many people stay away from the church because of the music there. When those who stay away today include professors of music-- an art whose cradle was the church for centuries-- maybe we have cause for concern.)

In addition to an expression of thanksgiving, one looks for reassurance that the world does not have the last word: that things are not as they seem; that slaves and paupers are actually royalty and heirs to great riches. When such an unlikely destiny is the church's promise, is it too much to expect her to treat us in accordance with this promise rather than with the depressing worldly environment in which we spend most of the week? Of course, resources are always limited, but art based on sonic consonances deriving from laws of mathematics and physics, especially in "the immemorial sound of voices" to quote Herbert Howells, is remarkably inexpensive in material terms. Only the desire may be lacking.

I don't know what unusual wealth the Tractarians had at their disposal when they managed to ennoble slumdwellers with such ritual courtesy. It seems that the principal obstacles they faced came rather from visitors from more bourgeois neighborhoods, who rioted against the outrageous threat to social stability of treating the poor better than they "deserved."

There is not much rioting anymore, but the same attitude persists in more genteel guise. Sorry, I don't want to be a party to it.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
Many worshippers do, but equally, if you have a service now and again that is noticeably different from the norm, you will get regulars putting up with it when they actually prefer the other, for the sake of the people it might be attracting.
The time of service often makes a difference. A local Lutheran church offers two services on Sunday morning: an early-morning "traditional" service with an average attendance of over 300, and a late-morning "contemporary" service with an average attendance around 50. It is probably safe to assume that some of those 50 prefer traditional but are late-risers, that others don't really care one way or another, that some are there for the reason you mention, some are the musicians that have been counted in the number, and perhaps a handful of them are there because of the "contemporary" label.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0