Ship of Fools: Order And Aesthetics Versus Inclusivity?

Thread: Order And Aesthetics Versus Inclusivity? 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=025462

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

At a church where I preach occasionally there is a mentally retarded ( “cognitively impaired”, if you prefer) woman who completely dominates the singing by enthusiastically bellowing the hymns at the top of her voice without any regard for their tunes.

The congregation is used to her, and the pianist, a friend of ours, is quite unpretentious and easy-going, so it is nice to see the acceptance she enjoys, but also extremely difficult – for a visitor, at least, and I suspect for others – to concentrate on the music or words.

In our own church, we used to have a man in the early stages of dementia who, with the regularity of a metronome, made a sort of clicking noise, which was not loud, but quite audible.

We presently have a woman with a whole spectrum of physical and cognitive challenges who often has “turns” during services, the least severe of which mean a couple of nurses in the congregation getting up to attend to her, and the worst of which necessitate calling an ambulance and having paramedics treating her and then wheeling her out, while the worship goes on around her (one of the pastors always prays for her on behalf of the rest of us, of course).

Such events must be a bit disconcerting for our excellent worship team at times but, like the rest of us, their attitude is that people, especially the most needy, are more important than impeccably choreographed worship timetables.

I occasionally watch services from megachurches on television, in which the participants all appear young, healthy, sane and well-dressed, without a wheel-chair or a walking frame in sight, and certainly no eccentric or disruptive behaviour on display, and I am instantly suspicious.

How far does this principle extend?

For example, I have only been to Evensong at King’s College, Cambridge, once in my life, and I wonder how I and others would have reacted had there been someone present who revelled in the music, but lacked (for whatever reason) respectable, middle-class inhibitions about joining in the singing in a voice loud enough to be heard in the rest of the Chapel.

I was struck by the description by Malcolm Muggeridge’s biographer, Gregory Wolfe, of his reception into the Roman Catholic Church: “The Mass was concelebrated by the Bishop of Arundel, Cormac Murphy O’Connor, Fr Bidone and the local priest, Fr Maxwell. Fr Bidone had brought with him a number of children from his home for retarded youth. At first this filled Malcolm with trepidation. ‘Trepidation because I foresee the children fidgeting, moving about, emitting strange sounds. In fact, when this actually happens, quite unexpectedly and mysteriously a great satisfaction possesses me, transforming what might otherwise be a respectable quiet ceremony into an unforgettable spiritual experience’”.

The examples cited largely involve those who are not responsible for their behaviour, but there is also the issue of zealous, well-intentioned fellow-congregants who, while not actually heretical and therefore in need of direction and control, perform worship tasks such as music or reading in a really crappy way.

Does a tolerant perception of sincerity ever trump the need for excellence in public worship?

Any thoughts?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Does a tolerant perception of sincerity ever trump the need for excellence in public worship?

I'd say 'Yes, almost all the time'. People say that God wants our best, but IMO that means (a) God wants the best each of us individually can offer, not the best in terms of only the most skilled / gifted being permitted to lead or contribute, and (b) God wants us to serve him fully and wholeheartedly in everything we do; it's far broader than what happens in our church services.

Mind you, your experience of a woman who sings badly but with great gusto is a difficult one, because it could easily be very off-putting for other people. Where does one draw the line, hmm...

At a church I used to be part of, they had a couple of people who clapped enthusiastically but very out of time during the songs. Someone had the bright idea of having a quiet word and making flags for the people to wave around instead of clapping. AFAIK it worked a treat; certainly the people seemed happy waving the flags around near the front or at the side of the hall.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

What is this thing for "excellence in worship" in the sense of everything going as expected?

If worship involved putting on a show, then some degree of going according to plan is important. If it is about people engaging with God, it shouldn't go "according to plan".

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

This is tough to deal with, I can see that. I can remember a church in Chiswick that I attended about twice. Each time I went a mentally disabled man stood up and shouted at several points during the service. It happened during the sermon too and the vicar, clearly agitated, told the man (whom he knew by name to 'be quiet'). I could see both sides, but I never went back.

Their do seem to be some questions about what do you think is happening during your 'worship' (which means 'singing songs' in this context, no?). You could end up like this lot link .

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

We have a mentally disturbed woman like that who comes so randomly that we wonder if she has escaped from somewhere.

She is a bit disruptive. Irrelevantly vocal, doesn't speak much English, scrabbles in her bag, asks for drinks of water, once poured us each a Coca Cola from a big bottle into disposable cups she'd brought. One Sunday she brought an almost life-size poster of Cristiano Ronaldo which she unfolded on The Table before the service. Then she folded him up into her bag again and unfolded him again during the intercessions!

There was a discussion and I was shocked to hear an Elder say she should be "escorted out". I provocatively invited her (the Elder) to do so but she demurred.
The Elder claimed it made "people" uncomfortable enough to leave.

In the end I suggested that I'd move to the very back pew and ensure that she sat with me when she came again.
That was agreed upon and most of us were happy with that I think.

Posted by AngloCatholicGirl (# 16435) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Does a tolerant perception of sincerity ever trump the need for excellence in public worship?
I'd say 'Yes, almost all the time'. People say that God wants our best, but IMO that means (a) God wants the best each of us individually can offer, not the best in terms of only the most skilled / gifted being permitted to lead or contribute, and (b) God wants us to serve him fully and wholeheartedly in everything we do; it's far broader than what happens in our church services.
l.

I think this is key, as long it is the best that person can offer then that is what should be offered in worship. I've never had a congregation that hasn't had a few special needs and I think if everyone is included it makes for a better worship for all.

Plus, I had one young girl who was developmentally delayed who quite frankly read better than some of the adults as she practiced thoroughly, knowing she needed to. (top tip for adults who read the lessons in church - your priest knows damn well went you haven't looked at the reading prior to arriving at the lecturn!)

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

At some point, you have to ask, what is the best thing for this person?

We have a fairly (I believe) autistic man in our congregation, who volunteers to be a greeter / usher and reader. Being greeted by him can be a little awkward, and he doesn't so much read the reading as recite from (sometimes shaky) memory with somewhat awkward inflection and hand gestures. But he really loves what he does, he sees himself as a vessel for the Holy Spirit, and we accommodate him- he gets picked to read whenever the epistle is short enough for him to memorize it, and they team him with an understanding partner.

Other times, we have had visibly drunk people stumble in from off the streets. In one instance, on Thursday night of holy week, a man joined the procession, dragging a suitcase with all of his belongings, and sat down next to one of our nicest parishioners. He proceeded to spend the next fifteen minutes making loud comments, feigning like he was going to hit the man next to him, and laughing when he flinched. Someone eventually took him downstairs, made him a meal, and sent him on his way. Which was probably what he needed, more than a service.

Recently, a man who was coming down from a bender walked up to the choir before service, and asked us to pray with him. We invited him in, and he sat there for about ten minutes before leaving. That man probably needed to go to an AA meeting more than he needed to go to a church; someone at AA could have talked to him better than we could about the pain of coming off of a manic bender.

So I think that you need to examine what will best meet the needs of the individual, and accommodate them as best you can, understanding that sometimes the best thing you can do is get theme somewhere that is not your church.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Life is messy sometimes, with people we don't like or find annoying. The reverential bits of church contrast quite sharply with that. As a lay assistant I was taught to always do whatever you're doing at the front with dignity and deliberately. The best example of this I've seen was a disruptive man who approached the sanctuary get met by a lay assistant you shook his hand and gently steered him toward the side, sat with him and helped with with the books (BCP and hymnal), and remained with him until the end. The other lay assistants filled in, and at communion an off duty lay assistant in just street clothes helped with distribution of the elements. This one came out well, perhaps it all depends on the circumstances, behaviour, preparedness to deal with it and instinct.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The church I sometimes attend has a small group of people with a range of mental problems, who come with their helpers.

They disrupt the service. They often turn up late and leave as soon as the service has finished. They shout out during the singing and the talk.

So what? The service is not very formal anyway, which might help. There is a degree of interactivity anyway. Now my singing is not particularly sweet or pleasant, so why should I have a problem with other peoples contributions?

I do think that if congregational contribution detracts from a service, then it is not a service but a performance. YMMV.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Some good responses here. I think in fact a degree of discomfort from people shouting and being strange, is a good thing. It makes us ponder what on earth this is about. Is it about being on our best behaviour, or having a perfectly smooth service?

But there are degrees and degrees, obviously. I'm impressed by how strange people are looked after.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

In the congregation - everyone welcome. Those with mental disability who come to my church seem to prefer to sit at the front where they can see what is going on more easily. One group sit near the children's corner (at the front, but slightly to one side) as they enjoy watching the children play.
If the church has a choir or an orchestra, then I think it is acceptable to require a minimum standard of musical ability (depending on the type of choir/orchestra), but for the general congregation everyone should be accepted. There are a lot of people without mental disabilities who cannot sing! 'All are welcome'.

Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on :

Can I agree with everything positive that has been posted above about looking after those with learning difficulties or psychiatric issues?

Those who do exclude, including by diversion to another part of the building to avoid "disruption" (as distinct from something like Sunday School), lose the chance to share with people who often have amazing faith that would shame the rest of us. I've led worship for learning disabled groups in my time, and it is immense fun. The language is simplified, but the depth of meaning is there.

Friends of mine got married two years ago, and invited a pile of people with learning disabilities to the service, people the bride had worked with in Causeway Prospects and l'Arche. To help them settle in a strange church, albeit among friends, the first song was Our God is a great big God - with actions - and the danger of disruption due to panic attacks etc, which had probably been low in the first place, was fully mitigated.

There is one danger, of course, and that is neurotypical "well" people who wish to disrupt deliberately using what we could reasonably call "accidental" disruption as an excuse for their wilful bad behaviour.

[ 08. June 2013, 09:48: Message edited by: AndyB ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Not a mental health issue but similarly a potential disturbance.

We have a number of people from Africa in our morning congregation and one of two of them are very good at that noise that African women make when they are joyful. It's loud!

It's brilliant to hear when we're singing a rousing song with the brass band paying and the 'respectable' people clapping along, but sometimes the songsters (choir) will sing a prayer/devotional song and as the chord dies away we sometimes get that noise. Most are used to it, some love it! and others look like they're chewing a wasp and pretend tat it's actually hurting their ears!" LOL

I'm not going to stop it and I remember someone saying that 'it spoils the atmosphere after we've sung. To whicjh, my reply to the who choir was, 'We're not here to create an atmosphere.'

I feel we're are there to enable and inspire worship and if that is then expressed in a vocal way, then we've succeeded.

Anyway my attitude to live music is like that of Brian May (I think it was) who said the job of a live band was not merely to reproduce the studio recording, there will always be a very different sound when a song is played live. With that in mind I would suggest that if church people don't want a bit of noise in their music and singing in church on a Sunday they should stay at home and either listen to a CD, turn on Radio 3 or watch Songs of Praise.

[ 08. June 2013, 09:51: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Another false dichotomy bites the dust: Tolerant perception of sincerity FULFILS the need for excellence in public worship.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Another false dichotomy bites the dust: Tolerant perception of sincerity FULFILS the need for excellence in public worship.

As with many of your posts, I don't understand... sorry

[Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

That's OK Mudfrog.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Another false dichotomy bites the dust: Tolerant perception of sincerity FULFILS the need for excellence in public worship.

As with many of your posts, I don't understand... sorry

[Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

erm... don't know why that was repeated.

Could you explain your post please? Ta.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I could mate, but ... if it has to be explained, that spoils you working it out. And MUCH else besides.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Another false dichotomy bites the dust: Tolerant perception of sincerity FULFILS the need for excellence in public worship.
As with many of your posts, I don't understand... sorry

I share your perplexity at plenty of MPCn&SB's posts but this one's simple, isn't it? He's saying that 'excellence in public worship' is shown by how we include and tolerate all kinds of people, rather than by the technical quality of the singing, musicianship and so on.

A sentiment with which I totally agree, as I expect is obvious from my earlier posts!

EDIT - Sorry to spoil your fun, Martin! [Big Grin]

[ 08. June 2013, 11:34: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

SCK [Razz]

if Mudfrog had sweated it, he'd value it. Now he won't. We learn through suffering.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I understand it now [Smile]

It might have been clearer had you not omitted the 'The' from the beginning of thes econd sentence.
[Razz]

[ 08. June 2013, 12:06: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I guess it depends what unusual activity is performed in church. There was one occasion when a man stripped off his clothes mid way through the service and started to masturbate publicly. I think any activity which would not be acceptable on the street is not acceptable in church. In his case the police were called to deal with the man. However, I certainly don't think a little bit of extra noise should be a problem especially if the person is making a joyful noise unto the Lord.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

People with any & all forms of challenges , mental & physical should be included in the
worship services of the church. To exclude them is just plain wrong. Yes they make odd sounds, listened to some choirs lately ?! They
may behave oddly, so what . They are God's children and should be included in the family of God . And remember there well maybe instances when the church is the only family they have left. Include not exclude.
[Votive]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...I remember someone saying that 'it spoils the atmosphere after we've sung. To whicjh, my reply to the who choir was, 'We're not here to create an atmosphere.'

And I can't say enough how refreshing it is to read the responses on this thread!

Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on :

"It is not the strong who need a physician." I often remind myself of this on a Sunday morning. My parish has two churches, one of these is the inner city ; it has a gathered congregation of people who used to live in the area but are now out in the suburbs or in towns nearby.
Our inner city is pretty dead out of hours but seems to host and home a lot of people with "issues." Be they mental health issues, addictions or life coming off the rails in some other way. It is by nature a transitory population but if some people in need find in us a place where they are welcomed and accepted, even to the point of our "regulars" being unphased by someone obviosly having visual hallucinations at the communion rail then there is something very right about this church.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

In the church services I attend here in Brazil, there is normally a drunk guy present, he's actually the husband of one of the other members. He is very disruptive.

While I agree that church should also be about people who are like this, I don't know if the whole service should be all about him, and if this is really helping him.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Most church services (regardless of theology) have quite precise expectations of what attenders ought to be doing, and when. This is going to make certain people feel excluded. I applaud congregations that are willing to be challenged about this, but it's always going to be a problem, considering the way things are structured.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I occasionally watch services from megachurches on television, in which the participants all appear young, healthy, sane and well-dressed, without a wheel-chair or a walking frame in sight, and certainly no eccentric or disruptive behaviour on display, and I am instantly suspicious

When I was in my pre/early teens we had a local parishioner who attended every service. He would sing hymns very enthusiastically, loudly and without discernible connection with either the pitch or the tempo of the tune. Other than that he was, as far as I am aware, a fairly normal older man who lived on his own across the road from the church. My parents would invite him and a couple of older single ladies to take Christmas lunch and tea with the family and he was always politeness personified (if a little formal).

Imagine the fun that was had by all when the BBC decided to bus in an assortment of choirs and broadcast (radio only) Sunday evening service live from the church, only to find in rehearsal that this chap was right under one of the carefully located microphones. I wasn’t there but I understand that the poor chap was virtually wrestled out of his usual seat and removed to a “more suitable” location.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Another false dichotomy bites the dust: Tolerant perception of sincerity FULFILS the need for excellence in public worship.

Fair cop, MPCn&SB.

For a start, I should have written “excellence” rather than excellence and, more importantly, some sort of rush of blood to the head made me write what I did instead of, “Does the need for excellence in public worship ever trump a tolerant perception of sincerity?” (the implied answer being, “Rarely, if ever”, which, as I hope my preceding comments made clear, was what I meant).

A few years ago we were attending an early morning Christmas service at St Paul’s Cathedral when a young man walked in and started vaulting back and forward over the communion rail while shouting gibberish.

The officiating clergy approached him in a friendly way and attempted to talk him down, at which he tried to kick and punch them.

They finally called in some police (who in a bizarre twist were wearing Santa Claus hats instead of their official caps) who escorted him out.

Should the clergy have simply ignored him and got on with the service despite his antics?

I’m just glad it wasn’t I who had to make the call!

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

PS The St Paul's Cathedral to which I referred is the one in Melbourne; it suddenly occurred to me that it has its counterparts elsewhere!

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Matariki: Our inner city is pretty dead out of hours but seems to host and home a lot of people with "issues." Be they mental health issues, addictions or life coming off the rails in some other way. It is by nature a transitory population but if some people in need find in us a place where they are welcomed and accepted, even to the point of our "regulars" being unphased by someone obviosly having visual hallucinations at the communion rail then there is something very right about this church.

My church group in the Netherlands regularly organizes services within a homeless shelter (together with other churches in the city). I like these services: unexpected things can happen, but if our regular churchgoers and the homeless can get a little closer to eachother, then that's a good thing.

It's a bit different in the church I attend in Brazil though. Maybe this is because it's just one person there, I don't know. It's not that he sings loudly out of tune, I wouldn't care about that. In fact, it's almost impossible for us to sing or pray or for the preacher to preach. He is that disruptive. When I go to this church on Sunday morning, I see a drunk guy shout and that's more or less it.

Maybe we should be more receptive and inclusive, but I'm not sure what that would mean. Maybe we should give up trying to sing and read the Bible and turn it in a therapy session for him? I'm not sure if we're qualified to do that, surely the AA would be a better place for this. But I wouldn't want to exclude him either.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

In my youth church was for the able-bodied and able minded. Eight stair steps to get into the building, with no railings, no ramps - if you needed a wheelchair or walker (at any age) to get around you stayed home. Culturally anyone not neurotypical was kept pretty much out of society. The concept of church was built around the assumption of healthy attenders.

I think some churches see that era as the model church.

I love that one pastor, if he hears a baby start fussing and sees a parent start to gather up the child as if to leave, interrupts whatever he is saying (prayers, sermon) and says "we love babies, don't leave."

Ironically, in that same church the mentally limited men were told (by the organist) they had stop attending the formal service and go to the contemporary one instead because their occasional need to leave early (whenever their van arrived) was "disruptive" even though they were super quiet in catching a signal I never saw and slipping out.

And yet - at a recent conference I was annoyed that the people directly behind me started chatting with each other - not just a brief comment but an ongoing conversation. I guess they had lost interest in the unusual music I was enjoying. I asked them to be quiet, they complied briefly then resumed their conversation. I moved.

So while maybe there's a difference between people who can't be quiet (physically or verbally) and people who choose not to, I can understand the distress if a sermon seems addressed to you, or a song is one is drawing you in, and right then someone - baby or adult - starts non-stop screaming.

Maybe we're just plain doing church wrong, if it depends at all on the laity being quiet?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It's a bit different in the church I attend in Brazil though. Maybe this is because it's just one person there, I don't know. It's not that he sings loudly out of tune, I wouldn't care about that. In fact, it's almost impossible for us to sing or pray or for the preacher to preach. He is that disruptive. When I go to this church on Sunday morning, I see a drunk guy shout and that's more or less it.

For all my initial bluster upthread, I guess there has to be a line somewhere. I mean, you can't turn every church service into a therapy session for this guy. If people have tried speaking with him when he's sober (if you ever see him sober!) and he still disrupts pretty much every meeting then I suppose you have to get the police involved or physically exclude / restrain him yourselves.

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
In my youth church was for the able-bodied and able minded... The concept of church was built around the assumption of healthy attenders. I think some churches see that era as the model church.

...Maybe we're just plain doing church wrong, if it depends at all on the laity being quiet?

Belle Ringer, I think you and I are very much on the same page when it comes to how church could be 'done' differently. I really want to agree unequivocally with your final statement, however I think there has to be a 'but'. Even if a church service / meeting consisted of all the attenders freely sharing and contributing on an equal basis, it would still be very disruptive if there were - at almost every meeting - one person who constantly interrupted in some way. You'd still have to deal with it, wouldn't you? If you're talking about pretty much every meeting like in LeRoc's example from Brazil, I mean.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I guess there has to be a line somewhere.

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
...Maybe we're just plain doing church wrong, if it depends at all on the laity being quiet?
I really want to agree unequivocally with your final statement, however I think there has to be a 'but'. Even if a church service / meeting consisted of all the attenders freely sharing and contributing on an equal basis, it would still be very disruptive if there were - at almost every meeting - one person who constantly interrupted in some way. You'd still have to deal with it, wouldn't you?

Yes, and the question is, where's the line? I protested upthread about people conversing during the worship music at a conference, but they were just reflecting the cultural habit of regarding music as background to conversation.

Where's the line? Coughing? Quietly chatting? Game playing on an electronic toy that occasionally beeps? Cell phone texting? Crying (adult or child)? Getting up and walking around (or should you stay home on a day your back hurts)? Laughing at a line in a hymn or sermon that strikes you as amusing? Disagreeing with the sermon when the sermonizer says something stupid like "I'm sure we all agree..." and you don't? Saying "ouch!" if a muscle spams hits, shouting "glory!" if you especially feel God's presence -

Most churches I've attended all of these cross the line. Maybe that line is too tightly drawn?

But there are people who emotionally need to be the center of attention, and that's inconsistent with the concept of a church gathering around Jesus being the center of attention.

And there are people whose physical needs throw them into the center of attention at times, and that can become a question of how much is too much. When are genuine needs of someone outside the mainstream ability-set unreasonable to expect a church gathering to provide for/design around?

In my grandmother's day it was considered unreasonable to expect a church to redesign the building to provide way for wheelchairs or people on walkers to get inside.

I know an autistic woman who can't handle unexpected changes, surprises are too exhausting, so she requests a church provide someone to sit next to her and just tell her if something is going to be different - like they announce hymn 345 but it's really 354, help her by telling her "they announced the wrong hymn, it's this one" instead of leaving her floundering in confusion. Most churches think personal help is too much to ask. Why would anyone want sit with and focus on a stranger every week instead of their own family and friends?

Maybe churches need to identify what needs they are able to accommodate and which not, and be clear about it. We have a ramp and a hearing amplification loop, we do not provide signing, we do not have provisions for people who need extra cleaning after toileting. We are a meditative style of worship and are the wrong place for people who need to be physically or vocally active. We are a family church and welcome kids/adults making noises but not running. Etc.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Belle Ringer: Where's the line? Coughing? Quietly chatting? Game playing on an electronic toy that occasionally beeps? Cell phone texting? Crying (adult or child)? Getting up and walking around (or should you stay home on a day your back hurts)? Laughing at a line in a hymn or sermon that strikes you as amusing? Disagreeing with the sermon when the sermonizer says something stupid like "I'm sure we all agree..." and you don't? Saying "ouch!" if a muscle spams hits, shouting "glory!" if you especially feel God's presence -

All of these things are pretty much standard in Brazilian churches. And if it's a rural church, I probably should include some chickens cackling loudly and a couple of dogs doing following their natural instinct in the back of the church, to great delight of the children [Biased]

Church services aren't perfectly organized here, and I like that. In fact, I consider these things part of the aesthetics.

quote:
Belle Ringer: Yes, and the question is, where's the line?

I guess a line can be drawn when the whole thing becomes dysfunctional.

I'm not a member of this church where I am now, I'm just participating occasionally. But it's almost impossible to sing, to read, to preach. Everything has to be 'negotiated' for minutes with this drunk guy before we can even start. It is clearly uncomfortable for the preacher who doesn't want to exclude him, but who also has the rest of the community to attend to. It generates tensions within the community, a number of people are staying away because of him already. No-one gets much out of the service anymore, neither the disturbant nor the rest of the community. Clearly something needs to be done.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

We had a tough case in our congregation with a disabled veteran whose Vietnam experience had truly undone him (his assignment was traveling back in forth with the bodies of the war dead). When this man was on his meds he'd be okay, but when he wasn't he'd randomly stand up in church, announce, "Pastor, I have something to say," and then proceed with a rambling, several-minute patriotic/pietistic screed. The first few times this happened people understood; they really did. I was actually proud of the way people responded to him and gave him space to say what he needed to say. But over time it seemed that his rants started getting meaner, and that he was kind of wilfully abusing the courtesy/empathy extended to him. Then one Sunday he went off again, this time directing anger at a particular person in our congregation, and at that point we knew we had to do something. The pastor, who had been finessing a smooth ending to these little speeches from week to week, actually cut him off this particular week, and after the service he took the man aside and basically told him not to act like an asshole; that his freedom to speak to other people in the congregation ended when he started becoming abusive towards others. Well, this didn't go over well and we didn't see the guy again for a year or two. Then he came back and the whole cycle began again, and he went too far, and got corrected, and stomped off again.

I want to borrow a friend of mine's terminology and say that we should always lead with a grace foot; but I think it also comes down to cases, and to whether or not the disabled/problematic people are posing a threat or antisocial presence to the others present. To me the congregation needs to get over whatever discomfort it may have with people like CP patients who don't have good motor control or DD people who sing a little too loud -- there needs to be an understanding, starting from the top down, that the Body of Christ needs to show the same hospitality and inclusion that Jesus did, no matter how hard that might be --but on the other hand, if the "difficult" people involved have some control over their behaviors, they need to be taught/corrected, and if they pose any kind of physical or emotional threat to others the church leadership needs to intervene on behalf of the congregation and remove them. I don't think that's being mean or denying problem people access to the benefits of the church.

Our church also, BTW, had the experience of dealing with not one but two sex offenders who were welcomed into worship but given some clear directives from our pastor and their parole officer about interacting with people in the church outside the worship experience; they were told that they weren't to seek out female companionship with church members or approach children/teens in any way, or they'd no longer be allowed in the building; they'd still have access to pastoral care, but not to the church itself. In both cases, the individuals involved were unable to follow those guidelines and were banished from further direct involvement with the church. We also had our bishop involved in crafting some guidelines for these cases, and this was the best we could offer these men while still protecting the interests of the rest of the people in our church.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Most churches think personal help is too much to ask. Why would anyone want sit with and focus on a stranger every week instead of their own family and friends?

Because, of the regulars, I am the only one who *can* and I am not prepared to have someone ejected from church.
Within reason.
I do worry about terrorists or louts. But the Minister is not prepared to engage a trained Security Person.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Where's the line? Coughing? Quietly chatting? Game playing on an electronic toy that occasionally beeps? Cell phone texting? Crying (adult or child)? Getting up and walking around (or should you stay home on a day your back hurts)? Laughing at a line in a hymn or sermon that strikes you as amusing? Disagreeing with the sermon when the sermonizer says something stupid like "I'm sure we all agree..." and you don't? Saying "ouch!" if a muscle spams hits, shouting "glory!" if you especially feel God's presence -

Most churches I've attended all of these cross the line. Maybe that line is too tightly drawn?

Wow, yeah I'd certainly say those churches are drawing the line too strictly! I like your example of the autistic woman who can deal with the unexpected if she has someone sitting with her to explain any surprises. That's a great illustration of how our church gatherings should seek to include people. As for your question:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Why would anyone want sit with and focus on a stranger every week instead of their own family and friends?

I think the ideal is that there's only a short timeframe in which your question is relevant, because people quickly make acquaintances and strike up friendships when they start getting involved in the church. Once that has begun to happen, hopefully a newcomer will have several people who might sit with them and provide whatever help is needed, without being asked or feeling obliged to do so, but simply because hey, I'll sit next to this friend of mine at the service today.

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I want to borrow a friend of mine's terminology and say that we should always lead with a grace foot; but I think it also comes down to cases, and to whether or not the disabled/problematic people are posing a threat or antisocial presence to the others present... I don't think that's being mean or denying problem people access to the benefits of the church.

*Nods in appreciative agreement* Nice to see you back, LutheranChik!

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Most churches think personal help is too much to ask. Why would anyone want sit with and focus on a stranger every week instead of their own family and friends?

Because, of the regulars, I am the only one who *can* and I am not prepared to have someone ejected from church.
Within reason.

Even when I wrote that I was thinking "wouldn't bother me any to be appointed to sit with a quiet person who just needs a little help with changes." But of course the clergy don't know which few in the congregation could and would - many are already busy helping grandma or their own kids, or church is their one hour a week to relax into having no responsibilities.

And then there's the need to coordinate between an appointed helper and backup when that person is sick or out of town.

There's a large group excluded from church who would love to go if only someone would offer a little personal help Sunday mornings - the elderly who no longer drive. I haven't yet succeeded in getting a group formed to provide rides, and I'm out of town so often on weekends I can't promise regular help to anyone by myself.

From the viewpoint of a requester for weekly personal help it's little to ask, from the viewpoint of the church it's another rota to recruit for and keep track of, with a question of liability of something goes wrong.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Thanks.I just wanted to add, in the case of our brief association with the sex offenders, we had any number of church folks who were happy to be "minders" of the men and make sure they were behaving appropriately in the church building. (In both their cases their problems arose from their contacting women/girls from the church outside the context of Sunday worship.)

And, in response about the comments about where the line is between appropriate and inappropriate behaviors: Our congregation is pretty rough around the edges, and a lot of the members, especially the newbies, don't have what's considered good church etiquette in our tradition. Some adults have a tendency to just get up and wander back and forth from the sanctuary to the fellowship area --even nick snacks from the coffee area! -- some of them talk in conversational tones about inappropriate subjects during quiet parts of the service like the Eucharistic distribution. (You'll note I haven't mentioned kids...I don't have issues with kids being kids; just an issue with parents not being parents when their kids are being blatantly mean or destructive, like coloring on furniture or hitting their siblings.) I don't think being annoyed with rudeness and distracting behavior is "rejecting" anyone or "creating a barrier to worship." There's a difference between wishing something would stop, and even discreetly suggesting to that person to do otherwise because it's annoying to others, and rejecting that person personally/ kicking that person out of church. (And maybe part of hospitality and inclusion is giving people ongoing guidance, in some discreet way, in how to behave in one's church service so they don't make a disruptive faux pas. For instance, in one church we attend once in awhile there's a high tolerance for pre-church chit-chat in the sanctuary, but about 5 minutes before the liturgy begins the pastor stands up, says it's time to prepare for worship with prayer and reflection. And the bulletin repeats that. There are also other bulletin cues like reminding people to turn off cell phone ringers.)

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

From the viewpoint of a requester for weekly personal help it's little to ask, from the viewpoint of the church it's another rota to recruit for and keep track of, with a question of liability of something goes wrong.

We have a couple of elderly ladies who live in "senior living apartments" and no longer drive. They are usually brought to church by one lady, and occasionally by another, but this is a private agreement between the people concerned. The elderly ladies would hate to think that they were the subject of a church rota. They are happy to be collected by someone who is passing anyway, but wouldn't want to be seen as a chore.

People who can make it to church, but are physically infirm don't generally need assigned help, because everybody automatically holds doors for the old man with the sticks, makes room for him at the end of a pew and so on. It is less obvious that the autistic woman needs help, so unless she sits next to a friend, she's probably not going to get it unasked.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

There is another side to this. Public worship is also corporate. In a highly structured service, the corporate intention is set out by the structure. If someone is there who cannot be part of that structure, there is at least a case for saying that they need to find a body where they can participate in the corporate intention, rather than cutting through the whole corporate intention to make the service exclusively about themselves. And there can be no mistake: whatever the intention, that is what happened.

I am surprised to find myself saying this, but I think it's a point worth making. The people who went with the intention of forming part of the intended corporate worship are also entitled to consideration.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I think a real conundrum exists when you have competing needs/conditions within one congregation. For instance, my partner has service-connected PTSD, and some of her strongest panic-attack triggers involve things other people enjoy or at least endure without much protest -- strangers hugging her during the Peace, a certain musical loudness/tempo, spontaneous interruptions of routine (like our mentally ill guy and his extemporaneous speechifying), rapid images flashing one after the other. I imagine people with conditions along the autism spectrum have similar difficulties with parts of worship in some congregations.

How do we, as a family living with this issue on an ongoing basis, balance our need for a certain type of slow, reflective, dependable worship experience, with the needs of, say, people whose schizophrenic family member goes random in the middle of the liturgy, or the able-bodied/minded folks who simply enjoy hugs or spontenaity or contemporary music with a heavy bass beat and fast-and-furious strobing background visuals on a screen? What is our expectation of the rest of the congregation, and what is the congregation's expectation of us?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Sharing the peace shouldn't be that much of a problem, since it hardly sneaks up unawares; the liturgy tells you exactly when it's going to appear. You can step out of the room for a while, or someone can lead you to a more private area for the duration. In the past, when I've felt unhappy during a church service, for whatever reason, I just leave, and return a few minutes later.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

LutheranChik's account is a good example of why churches should always offer a quiet service along with the usual main liturgy. The congregation will always be on the smaller side, often only a dozen or so, but for a single-point parish, there is little reason why the cleric cannot offer a 8.00 or 8.30 for early risers, then follow it with a 10.00 for the main congregation. They can even re-use the sermon-- few will be at both services to notice.

Some clergy find it very difficult to understand that not everybody wants all of the bells and whistles all of the time. And, it seems, not everybody can.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Apologies for the double post, but in a TEC outlet in Florida I once saw a button with a teddy bear on it, and a red bar through the bear. I enquired, and was told that it was for elderly congregants who had undergone surgery which made it unwise to hug them. They received friendly smiles/saccharine grins instead.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Sorry for the double post...I thought the first draft didn't go through.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

LutheranChick

Very good to see your posts here again. I've deleted the first of your unintentional doublet.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

[ 11. June 2013, 08:39: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Just posting as a Shipmate now. This is a difficult issue. I have this sense that wise leadership in a any church needs to ride two horses at once. The first is to encourage maximum tolerance consistent with reasonable order. The second is to have a good notion of what reasonable order might mean; which may be a some way ahead of what the congregation generally feel comfortable with, but not so far ahead as to create controversies which draw folks' attention from the reason why we congregate for worship in the first place.

I think a line does have to be drawn, very probably pragmatically, and it is a test of wisdom to know where it is. LutheranChik's examples show very well some of the real difficulties inherent in this.

My modest take on the need for order, space and peace takes me in a slightly different direction. I tend to regard a large-ish congregational setting as one where my expectations of that are low, and not just because of distracting behaviour! Some glimpses, some moments of reflective time, are very precious, but I don't expect them to last too long. In any case I know they make a lot of extroverts uncomfortable, and one of them may be leading the service.

We use the Northumbria Community daily offices at home, just the two of us, and there is plenty of scope for peaceful and reflective worship in those times. So if Sunday morning has been too informal, too noisy for us, has taken us out of our comfort zones, that doesn't seem so bad, or so unexpected either.

Actually, I think we all need "poustinia" times; on our own, in very small groups. Is it reasonable to expect too much of that on Sunday mornings? I guess it may be. Some degree of abrasion seems to be a normal consequence of bringing our diverse natures and pilgrimages together.

[ 11. June 2013, 08:40: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
We use the Northumbria Community daily offices at home, just the two of us, and there is plenty of scope for peaceful and reflective worship in those times. So if Sunday morning has been too informal, too noisy for us, has taken us out of our comfort zones, that doesn't seem so bad, or so unexpected either.

Actually, I think we all need "poustinia" times; on our own, in very small groups. Is it reasonable to expect too much of that on Sunday mornings? I guess it may be. Some degree of abrasion seems to be a normal consequence of bringing our diverse natures and pilgrimages together.

Using a daily office or some other spiritual rhythm on your own or as a family is a great idea. As you say, B62, whatever our weekly gathered church experience is like, it's not going to fulfil all our spiritual needs. I don't think it's meant to, although that does seem to be a common viewpoint.

I think when we meet together in our local church, we have to come with an attitude of give-and-take. Some of the activities and people are going to fit well with our character, others will jar with us. But that's fine and indeed necessary, I think - 'some degree of abrasion' is surely very good for us!

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Sharing the peace shouldn't be that much of a problem, since it hardly sneaks up unawares; the liturgy tells you exactly when it's going to appear. You can step out of the room for a while, or someone can lead you to a more private area for the duration. In the past, when I've felt unhappy during a church service, for whatever reason, I just leave, and return a few minutes later.

If it were easy to avoid the "peace" I'd be doing it! In a long narrow building structure there's no simple stepping outside the hall - it's a long walk you'd have to start way ahead of the "peace" with loads of people looking at you being unusual in behavior; there exists no "more private area" in the hall. Remain seated reading a hymnal and people come to you anyway.

My hand (periodic slight arthritis or something) can ache for two days afterwards. Offer the off hand and people still grab the usual hand. Don't participate and people think you are mad at them.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Belle Ringer

I can understand that newcomers might have this problem, but since you're a regular at this church it's a shame that they still don't understand that you have a problem with your hand! I suppose this just proves that in many cases churchgoers really don't know each other very well. When people don't know and don't understand each other it's hard to be 'inclusive'.

Does the minister understand your problem? Can't they suggest a solution? Perhaps they could propose from the pulpit that those who feel unable to share the peace should sit and pray, and request that others don't disturb them - IMO it's the height of bad manners to disturb someone whose head is bowed in prayer! Maybe a (rotating?) group of two or three could be chosen to sit together during every Communion service to offer 'peace prayers' together rather than sharing the peace with handshakes. If this practice is formalised in the church notices or announcements then everyone should get used to it eventually.

Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on :

... particularly if it's a bonecrusher handshake like mine?

Perhaps a starting point is to ask why the "awkward" person is present.

If they are here for the express purpose of worshipping God, and there are no issues considering the personal safety of others, I am going to suggest that any behaviour or care requirements attributable to their condition or health is something that has to be at worst coped with by the others present. Those present to worship should be welcomed, not just tolerated or suffered.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Sharing the peace shouldn't be that much of a problem, since it hardly sneaks up unawares; the liturgy tells you exactly when it's going to appear. You can step out of the room for a while, or someone can lead you to a more private area for the duration. In the past, when I've felt unhappy during a church service, for whatever reason, I just leave, and return a few minutes later.
If it were easy to avoid the "peace" I'd be doing it! In a long narrow building structure there's no simple stepping outside the hall - it's a long walk you'd have to start way ahead of the "peace" with loads of people looking at you being unusual in behavior; there exists no "more private area" in the hall. Remain seated reading a hymnal and people come to you anyway.

My hand (periodic slight arthritis or something) can ache for two days afterwards. Offer the off hand and people still grab the usual hand. Don't participate and people think you are mad at them.

When my arthritis is acting up I tuck a hymnal in my arm thusly and offer the off hand.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Belle Ringer , try doing what some in our congregation do - hands under the chin as in prayer, and then a light bow to the the other. It is a proper greeting, fits into the liturgy, and is dignified.

[ 11. June 2013, 23:29: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

When a lady I'd never met turned to me after being told "we will now do(?) the peace" I merely advised her that "I don't do this". End of story.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
When a lady I'd never met turned to me after being told "we will now do(?) the peace" I merely advised her that "I don't do this". End of story.

That sounds a bit brusque. I presume that your reasons are more to do with your beliefs rather than your health or mental state, but if you've freely chosen to attend a church service it seems a bit unfair to give the impression that you don't approve of what's going on.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
When a lady I'd never met turned to me after being told "we will now do(?) the peace" I merely advised her that "I don't do this". End of story.
That sounds a bit brusque. I presume that your reasons are more to do with your beliefs rather than your health or mental state, but if you've freely chosen to attend a church service it seems a bit unfair to give the impression that you don't approve of what's going on.

Hopefully it came across as said gently, she didn't appear upset or surprised (I'd not been an active participant in the service up to then). Forty years of selling should mean that I can be firm without being aggressive, it's about precluding argument without causing offense.

(Said service was a double-christening/wedding-anniversary-with-eats-after event to which I had been invited by family who knew I was an atheist - and I'd never been to a happy-clappy CofE service before!).

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

The whole peace question is a minefield. How do you include first time visitors perhaps to any church - to whom it's just another weird bit of behaviour? How do you accommodate those in the church who want space or just don't vare for the exercise as it is rarely done well and can become a free for all with people wandering around?

Cards on the table: I find neither the concept nor the expression of the peace within a service, very easy. And, I've been a regular Sunday attender for 35+ years in different denominations and expressions of denominations.

Conceptually, I struggle to the idea that I can get to that point in the service without dealing with any "issues" or without greeting the people around me. The place to do that is before church starts. In fact, I don't think you should get to church with the need to seek and offer peace, unresolved. The sign of peace and the expression of peace should be a constant practice not a one off item that we "do" then and not again until we meet next.

It does coem across as a bit of - yes we "do" this now - without even considering that it means more to "be" peace. I'm not even sure you can "do" it.

Practically there are all sorts of issues that make it a minefield. Visitors as I've said (thinks what do i do - is this is snog fest?): the wandering hand club; the timid; those who don't welcome attention from strangers; those who get left out. Then, there's the disruption as people are wandering around and conversations start up (they do - it's human nature).

We're not liturgical at all here - but I do wonder how the more liturgical churches "cope" with this disruption in the flow of Sunday worship.

Quite honestly - but YMMV - I find the peace far less peaceful and far more stressful that so called "misbehaviour" and/or "interruptions" from people in the congregation. We have a few people of all ages with so called learning difficulties but try to involve them; there's often a low murmer off to one side in the sermon as the message is translated for those whose English isn't good; we get people off the street the drunks and the addicts; we have people who are working through mental health challenges - nobody but nobody has complained about any of these disturbing the service.

On the occasions, though, that visitors have introduced the "peace", the response has not exactly been a torrent but it's been challenged negatively by others.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

quote:
We're not liturgical at all here - but I do wonder how the more liturgical churches "cope" with this disruption in the flow of Sunday worship.

I'm not much of a touchy-feely person, so the actual tactile portion of the "peace" could disappear entirely from the liturgy and I'd be fine with that; I grew up with it being a purely verbal thing. And it does seem to be a strange interruption in the midst of the service, especially for people who've not worshipped in a liturgical church before -- one minute it's the usual back-and-forth, the next people are wandering all around shaking and hugging. (And there's usually no explanation of this in the course of the service.)

I think it does help to put the "peace" up at the beginning of worship, after the general confession and absolution, instead of midway after the prayers of the people. In the ELCA there are churches that do one or the other, and as a participant it just seemed that it fit more thematically right after we've made our confession of sin and been assured oF God's forgiveness. That seems to be a good point to insert a ritual act of peace/reconciliation/fellowship.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The whole peace question is a minefield. How do you include first time visitors perhaps to any church - to whom it's just another weird bit of behaviour?

Easy - most people know what a handshake means - even if they don't know what form of words to use and respond, 'Cheers mate'.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

(Whenever I share the peace with the drunk guy in our community, I choose a strategic moment when he's surrounded by other people trying to do the same thing. This is usually sufficient guarantee that I'll get my hand back [Biased]

)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(Whenever I share the peace with the drunk guy in our community, I choose a strategic moment when he's surrounded by other people trying to do the same thing. This is usually sufficient guarantee that I'll get my hand back )

But if people crowd around him to shake his hand then his presence at church surely isn't as awkward as you indicated earlier in this thread. Could it be that his behaviour unnerves you more than it unnerves the other churchgoers?

I'm an introvert like most of the other people here, but I appreciate sharing the peace, even if it makes me feel a bit vulnerable. I think that if people aren't supposed to interact with each other just a little bit at church then they might as well carry out their religious devotions at home. And I agree with leo - most British non-churchgoers are perfectly okay with shaking hands with a stranger. In British culture handshaking is usually a rather formal way of greeting someone, and it doesn't imply an invasion of personal space.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
SvitlanaV2: But if people crowd around him to shake his hand then his presence at church surely isn't as awkward as you indicated earlier in this thread. Could it be that his behaviour unnerves you more than it unnerves the other churchgoers?

No, there are a number of people that are quite visibly annoyed, much more than I would be.

I think they shake his hand for the same reason I do: I don't want to exclude anyone, especially at this moment.

I'm quite neutral with respect to him, I just observe that this isn't a sustainable situation in the end.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

LeRoc

I'd certainly feel 'excluded' if I could see that people were 'visibly annoyed' with me! I don't know if a handshake and a smile through gritted teeth would hide the general sense of disapproval!

In teaching, it's sometimes said that the way to contain troublemakers is to give them something to do. Is there nothing that can be done to distract this man when he looks as though he's likely to make a noise? (I'm presuming the main problem is to do with noise.) I'm curious to know what methods have been tried to help him feel comfortable. Are there times when he's more likely to shout than others, e.g. during hymns, prayers or readings? It sounds like quite a liturgical, traditional church, which is a pity in a way because it means you have less room to adapt what you do. For example, in a classical Pentecostal service it doesn't matter so much if someone calls out during a sermon, because this is expected! (But Pentecostals are less tolerant of theological difference, of course. It's swings and roundabouts.)

To be honest, I feel you're privileged to have this kind of problem, though I'm sure it doesn't feel like it to you. In most cases, a man in this state, with a wife who attends church, wouldn't dream of showing his face at a place of worship. Yet if he keeps on coming, despite the visible disapproval, he must be getting something out of it. Other attenders might have something to learn from this man.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
SvitlanaV2: I'd certainly feel 'excluded' if I could see that people were 'visibly annoyed' with me! I don't know if a handshake and a smile through gritted teeth would hide the general sense of disapproval!

I guess we could argue until Kingdom come on whether the disapproval is being caused by something he does, or by the reaction of the others. I'd invite you to come to the service for yourself, I bet that you'd know the answer really soon.

I don't think I shake his hand with gritty teeth, I'm an easy-going guy. But I do make sure that I get my hand back.

Like I said before, I'm just an occasional visitor to this church, so I don't feel qualified to implement a solution. Maybe giving him some tasks could be a solution, but I have strong doubts if he would be able to do them in this condition.

quote:
SvitlanaV2: (I'm presuming the main problem is to do with noise.)

No, it's more like this.

Preacher: Now we're going to read from Luke 8.

Drunk guy: Preacher! Preacher!

Preacher: Yes.

Drunk guy: I..ah...I'm going to re...read it.

(At this point she either allows him to, which results in disaster, or she denies him and a five minute fight ensues over whether he may read.)

It goes like this with all the parts of the service: the songs, the prayers, the Bible reading, the sermon... Everything we do has to be 'negotiated' with him for minutes.

quote:
SvitlanaV2: Other attenders might have something to learn from this man.

I guess what I learn from him is that people like him exist, and that they have a place in God's Kingdom as well. Great. But is it too much to ask to learn some other things in church sometimes as well?

[ 13. June 2013, 17:20: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
SvitlanaV2: I'd certainly feel 'excluded' if I could see that people were 'visibly annoyed' with me! I don't know if a handshake and a smile through gritted teeth would hide the general sense of disapproval!
I guess we could argue until Kingdom come on whether the disapproval is being caused by something he does, or by the reaction of the others. I'd invite you to come to the service for yourself, I bet that you'd know the answer really soon.

People disapprove of his behaviour - I understand that very well.

If I attended this church I'm sure I'd be frustrated by the man's behaviour too. But I'd also be frustrated by a lack of creative ideas to address the problem. I must admit that a lack of creativity in the church frustrates me a lot, so it's not a criticism that's specific to this situation.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
SvitlanaV2: But I'd also be frustrated by a lack of creative ideas to address the problem.

I haven't visited this church often enough to know how many ideas they have tried already, but I can understand what you're saying.

FWIW, my creative idea would be to talk with his wife. She comes with him to church, and then sits there quite passively while he does these things. Why does she bring him? What does she think of the situation? Is there anything she needs from the church?

If I manage to speak with the preacher the next time, I'll try find a diplomatical way to suggest this.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

LeRoc. No LeRoc. No mate. That is weak. That isn't loving him. Or the others. That's for one on one and even then. From STRENGTH. And I tolerate virtually anything in Triangle, as they are ill and stoned and that's the deal. But no mate. Stop it. No negotiation. Rules. Rules agreed with EVERYBODY. By majority. And even then. Lead.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: LeRoc. No LeRoc. No mate. That is weak. That isn't loving him. Or the others. That's for one on one and even then. From STRENGTH. And I tolerate virtually anything in Triangle, as they are ill and stoned and that's the deal. But no mate. Stop it. No negotiation. Rules. Rules agreed with EVERYBODY. By majority. And even then. Lead.

Weak? Perhaps. And I agree with you that the ideal would be rules that are set and agreed by everyone. I just don't think that I'm the one who should lead.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

LeRoc

I certainly hope the couple are getting some decent pastoral support from their church!

[ 13. June 2013, 19:38: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
SvitlanaV2: I certainly hope the couple are getting some decent pastoral support from their church!

With this I agree.

[ 13. June 2013, 19:39: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
[QUOTE]Mind you, your experience of a woman who sings badly but with great gusto is a difficult one, because it could easily be very off-putting for other people. Where does one draw the line, hmm...

At a church I used to be part of, they had a couple of people who clapped enthusiastically but very out of time during the songs. Someone had the bright idea of having a quiet word and making flags for the people to wave around instead of clapping. AFAIK it worked a treat; certainly the people seemed happy waving the flags around near the front or at the side of the hall.

This brings me to a giggle. About ten years ago I was (and y'all know I'm pretty "out there") staying in a Texas cowboy town, Bandera, in between "going home to California." I was in Bandera Texas for 15 months during which the very conventional Episcopal church and its (AFveteran) priest had to put up with my California ways.

We had an organist there who was fantabulous. He did BACH! And he did BACH fabulously ... as it was meant to do.

Well, one sunday he did an entire contata of Bach that went on for a full FIFTEEN MINUTES! It was amazing. It took over the service. We were all enthralled.

Now you know, Texans have their own irrepressible culture--cowboys. And I caught it the way one would catch the sniffles from being around people.

So, when the contata was complete after fifteen minutes of digital brilliance, in an expression of pure joy and applause, I SHOUTED OUT: "Yee-hah!" which is what Texans say to drive cattle.

The other members were not amused. I never did that again, and I left Texas right after that.

Emily

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Emily--

ROTFL! I love it.

Pres. Lyndon Johnson, a Texan, visited the Taj Mahal and let out a big whoop to test the echo!

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

So who LeRoc? And thank you for your courage. The 'preacher' is WEAK. Make him strong. It's so easy I know ...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0