|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Intercessions
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
Prayers of the people can be by formulae, extempore, responsive, etc. Which best reflects the people? If following a formula should all the sections appear every time? Do prayers of thanks have a place or just petitions, requests for blessing? Are request for generic blessings "our priests" better/worse than "James and Caroline" Are they an opportunity to teach? eg Today we pray for St Mable's College which needs new drain pipes."?
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
As usual the answer begins "It depends..."
In our tiny little shack in the heart of Christendom we do "give thanks" and "rejoice with our sisters and brothers in ...[country] who have..." (eg just passed a law on Equal Marriage); or "ask for your presence with our brothers and sisters in [country] who are..."
I personally name names and am quite specific about circumstances; but not everyone does (eg "sick babies", "people with cancer")
I think if it's a place where people don't even know each other (let alone the "intercessee") it's probably better to be general.
One place I know has a box (beside which are pen and note-papers) you can put prayers and they are prayed later in the week by a group. They are usually pretty specific.
Another place I knew had a great big ongoing book you scribbled in which was extempore'd along with the prepared "Intercessions".
What are your specific circumstances? (Apart from the sound of crashing surf in the background and sand on the floor)
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
Prayers of the people can be by formulae, extempore, responsive, etc. Which best reflects the people?
Works differently for different congregations.
I personally hate responsive readings because the rigidly scripted nature feels no more inclusive than one person leading it 'from the front' - but I'm also aware there are others who find it incredibly significant so I'm not going to lead a jihad against those other churches which do use responsive readings.
My current church does a blend of formula/extempore - there are certain elements which are regularly included but the wording is not fixed.
quote:
If following a formula should all the sections appear every time?
Not necessarily so. For example, if there has been no recent major natural disaster you might not include praying for people dealing with that, or if the next major church event is in three months time there's no need to include that twelve weeks in a row.
quote:
Do prayers of thanks have a place
For sure!
quote:
Are request for generic blessings "our priests" better/worse than "James and Caroline"
When praying for people who are sick or struggling with other hardships, I think it's better to be general. The list that the person leading has in their hand will never be complete, and it's good to include those whose names didn't make it to the list.
Don't name somebody unless they have explicitly given their permission to be named in public - you have to respect their privacy and actively protect the church from being blown apart by gossip. The normal place for lots of specific prayer is amongst a prayer team who have committed to respect confidentiality.
Praying for the whole leadership of the church as a collective is a good thing, not just those who happen to be ordained.
quote:
Are they an opportunity to teach? eg Today we pray for St Mable's College which needs new drain pipes."?
No.
The place for teaching is the sermon, and the place to appeal for money is the notice sheet.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I think it's quite a good idea to include some silent bits with an invitation so that people can pray their own prayers (silently) at that point.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
At one church I went to, the best intercessor was a QC who took the view that intercessions were similar to cross-examinations; he wrote the intercessions on the back of the service sheet during the sermon, pulling themes out of the sermon and referring them during the intercessions.
I don't quite dare do that (and hate extempore prayer), but I do leave a lot of blank space on my notes so I can add things during the service. I've found a couple of little references to the sermon really impresses the preacher.
A wise old man once told me that you should never disguise a political opinion as a prayer. Personally I think that's good advice, and will follow it even when I'm all but certain everyone present will agree with me on the political issue.
I personally hate teaching being disguised as prayer, but I recognise that in some churches it plays a useful role. It may be reasonable to allow people to do some 'teaching' while not wanting to trust them with a whole sermon, and intercessions are the only slot in the service anyone seems to have identified for doing this.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
I personally hate teaching being disguised as prayer, but I recognise that in some churches it plays a useful role. It may be reasonable to allow people to do some 'teaching' while not wanting to trust them with a whole sermon, and intercessions are the only slot in the service anyone seems to have identified for doing this.
Easy - give someone a shorter time slot than the usual sermon; or invite someone to share testimony of something that they've recently been working on / thinking about, and encourage them to introduce a bit of theological reflection into it (so it's actually not simply a piece of testimony).
Teaching can (and very much should, IMO!) be done in far more ways than sermon-giving, we just need some imagination and courage. And some listening to people who do teaching / training for a living and therefore know what works well. (I don't mean me, BTW.)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I think I've mentioned before, my view that some parts of a service go predominantly upwards, and others predominantly downwards. Intercessions are addressed to God. So they go upwards. Using them to teach, which comes downwards, really isn't appropriate. Besides, if intercessions are addressed to God, who are we to claim to teach him.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Does anyone have any experience with an "open mic" part of the intercessions? It usually comes toward the end in the Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran services where I have witnessed it (although in at least the Roman Catholic Church I am not sure if it is technically allowed at Mass). The leader of the intercessions says something like, "And we offer our own personal petitions to the Lord, aloud or in the silence of our hearts." And those people who want to pray for something out loud either do so from where they are standing (hoping that others can hear them) or a microphone is passed to them (which requires the awkwardness of raising one's hand)...or people come up to the microphone to state their personal petition. I have never really liked this, even when many of the personal petitions offered have been things that upon hearing I realize I should have been praying for and have not been. It tends to either result in an awkward silence waiting for people to work up courage and being unsure when to give up and move on with the service, or with one or more of the same people every time (or a new visitor to the church) offering either a laundry list, an autobiography, a sermon, or a public display of their mental illness. I am guilty of having a stiff upper lip when it comes to worship - so I'd like to know what other people think about this practice during intercessions.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Does anyone have any experience with an "open mic" part of the intercessions? ...
Yes, and the only conclusion I can get from it is that it should be avoided at all costs. Handing somebody an open mike endorses what they are about to say as being the position of the church, and no amount of denunciation and correction can un-say what has been said.
Better to offer people the chance to submit their prayer requests on the back of the attendance cards on a Sunday or via an email contact to the pastoral care team during the week. Those which are not appropriate for public acknowledgement can be honoured by the leader of the prayers by concluding with something along the lines of "we thank you O God for hearing our prayers, both those spoken out loud and those of our hearts not spoken. In Jesus' name, Amen."
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I think that Open-Mic intercessions are a symptom of "clerical guilt." That is, at least among Catholic-minded folk (not sure why the Lutherans I witnessed did it), priests often feel guilty about how, justly or not, the culture of clericalism sets them separate from and above their flock, and so tend to overcompensate by giving free reign to laypeople desperate to get up on stage while (relatively) ignoring the spiritual needs of the people quietly sitting in their pews.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Yes, and the only conclusion I can get from it is that it should be avoided at all costs. Handing somebody an open mike endorses what they are about to say as being the position of the church, and no amount of denunciation and correction can un-say what has been said.
I experienced an experiment with this for a while in a previous parish, and it ended up a failure because of one parishioner who always stood to say something, and it always started out "Lord, help us to remember that..." followed by what was really a sermonette. Praying for memory help often leads to this sort of thing. Or "Lord, we know that..."
And the person always went on far too long, in a sad, whiny type of voice, but I guess the sort of voice involved can't be helped.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I think thete is a cultural difference between styles of doing church. Evangelicals will often be used to prayer meetings where everyone is welcome, or even expected, to speak. So they may well have learned the style or manner of intercession that's normal in their community.
And yes, it doesn't always fit well in a Sunday morning liturgy. It can be a source of tension. A clash of expectations.
And yes, I cringe at so-called prayers that tell God what God alreadt knows in the hope that everyone else will take note. That's why the notices must come before the intercessions.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
In a small gathering I will often leave space for names to be added and sometimes more. Taizé services often have space for extra petitions. If you invite such things, be sure to leave enough space for people to say something. I remember one early morning Methodist communion when the minister invited us to add bits and then barely stopped. I did manage to shoehorn something in at one point, but then spent the rest of the prayers wondering whether I should have done. Seasick did congratulate me on managing afterwards. Silence needs to be long enough forpforetold to realised you've stopped, give someone else a chance to get in first and then speak. I would only do it in a space where a mike wasn't needed.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Does anyone have any experience with an "open mic" part of the intercessions? It usually comes toward the end in the Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran services where I have witnessed it (although in at least the Roman Catholic Church I am not sure if it is technically allowed at Mass). The leader of the intercessions says something like, "And we offer our own personal petitions to the Lord, aloud or in the silence of our hearts." And those people who want to pray for something out loud either do so from where they are standing (hoping that others can hear them) or a microphone is passed to them (which requires the awkwardness of raising one's hand)...or people come up to the microphone to state their personal petition.
We do that at our (Presbyterian) shack, but not with mics or any expectation to be heard by the entire congregation. The point is simply to allow those who wish to do so to give voice to their petitions. So when the invitation is given, you might hear 4 or 5 voices on all sides of you speaking their petitions in a normal, or lower-than-normal, voice. You might catch names, you might not. It's done in under 30 seconds.
The faint murmur throughout the congregation can actually be quite moving—a mix of personal prayer in the unity of the gathered church, concluding with "Lord, in your mercy/Hear our prayer."
We also have a book like Gallet describes, in which petitions can be written as people come in. This is handed to the minister during the service, and the petitions added that morning are announced before the prayers begin (to avoid surprise during the prayer). Whatever is written there is also added to the prayer list sent by email with the weekly newsletter.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
A formula is certainly a good idea. It should be informed by tradition of the wider church and adopted with whatever minor changes a local committee decides. If the Intercessor cannot keep focused on the format and has a tendency to ramble or obsess about personal bugbears, then it should be crafted in advance and reviewed by at least one other person.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Handing somebody an open mike endorses what they are about to say as being the position of the church, and no amount of denunciation and correction can un-say what has been said.
I take your point that things that have been said cannot then be un-said, but I don't think the open mic approach needs to imply official endorsement of what is said.
If a church were introducing an open mic slot then, sure, there probably needs to be some explanation of the parameters, but beyond that I think the leaders should be clear that sometimes people will say something that the leaders won't agree with, or that contradicts an official church / denomination policy.
That's just the risk you take when allowing people to bring something to the whole congregation in a meeting, and I think it's a risk thoroughly worth taking.
EDIT - Forgot to add; if someone does say something seriously off-key or is dominating the open mic slot then, of course, a leader will have to have a quiet word. But this can be done sensitively and I think the risks are outweighed by the benefits of giving everyone the opportunity to bring a prayer / encouragement / prophecy etc.
[ 28. November 2013, 07:39: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
At the Baptist church where I grew up they had open intercessions (but no microphone).
We discovered this when there for a WPCU* service and were subjected to (a) 10 minutes of prayer for the rest of us who worshipped "false Gods"; (b) 10 minutes for "all not members of this church to be led to the light"; and (c) prayers for a teenaged girl "who has just had an abortion by name.
When a delegation from the other churches represented met with the minister to remonstrate he said the prayers had been drawn up in consultation with him and he saw nothing wrong with them.
So would I approve of open microphone type intercessions - not ruddy likely.
* WPCU = Week of Prayer for Christian Unity
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Wow, that sounds awful. But if the minister approved the prayers in advance then the fact it was an open mic session isn't relevant, is it? Indeed, your sad story suggests that ministers and others appointed to lead prayers might well say inappropriate things, just as someone in an open mic slot might do.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
My theory is that the praying is done by the congregation of the baptized, and not by the "intercessor" so when I'm doing it I do not address God directly, but give the congregation material for them to pray about: "Let us pray for..." Nobody has ever complained and I have been complimented.
Intercessions shouldn't be sermons, but equally they are not primarily exercises in personal devotion.
I'm generally happier if there are at least a few specific names mentioned. It grounds the intercessions in the specific world.
Just my pennorth
[ 28. November 2013, 13:42: Message edited by: venbede ]
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
We tend to use the fairly formal provision of Common Worship(especially the seasonal prayers) at our Parish Mass - with brief interpolations for Church, world, parish, and individuals, depending on current issues/needs.
These prayers are led by a small number of 'regulars', though all are invited to sign up for the task. Now and then, we do get someone who preaches/teaches/emphasises a particular political view, but not to the extent where it becomes awkward or unpleasant! Most people usually allow a short period of silent prayer (which also occurs immediately after Communion).
Daily Morning Prayer is less formal, as we have a chance to highlight prayer requests or special concerns, though still within a structured (Franciscan) format. Extempore prayer may well follow that service, if we feel so led.
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802
|
Posted
I have grave doubts that intercessory prayer works at all. I know I am not alone in thinking that in my own Anglican congregation.
There was a lot to be said for the Prayer for the Church Militant from the BCP - it covers everything and does not involve reading the news to the Almighty which is a fault of most intercessions. After all, God already knows what we need - Matt 6:32.
Having said that, I do think people who are sick or in need etc should be remembered in church, but the emphasis should be on remembering them rather than expecting God to take the action we are asking him to do.
Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
My theory is that the praying is done by the congregation of the baptized, and not by the "intercessor" so when I'm doing it I do not address God directly, but give the congregation material for them to pray about: "Let us pray for..." Nobody has ever complained and I have been complimented.
I have to say, I'm not too keen on the type of communal prayer where the person praying addresses the gathering rather than God directly. To my mind, it makes God seem distant. But since it obviously represents an accepted form of public prayer in many circles there's not much point in complaining to church leaders about it.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clotilde
Shipmate
# 17600
|
Posted
I prefer brief biddings, with a moment of silence at the end. I like variety and find some of the formulae of Common Worship rather worn and verging on the tedious.
I was always told not to include thanksgiving - that is what the Eucharistic prayer part is for!
--------------------
A witness of female resistance
Posts: 159 | From: A man's world | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clotilde:
I prefer brief biddings, with a moment of silence at the end. I like variety and find some of the formulae of Common Worship rather worn and verging on the tedious.
I was always told not to include thanksgiving - that is what the Eucharistic prayer part is for!
Totally agree with all that. The CW intercessions are better than many home made ones, but I sense something a bit mannered about them at times.
In response to Svit -
What I'd prefer is for the president to introduce and conclude the intercessions addressing God, and then the reader (eg me) to give the congregation something to pray about. It is then clearly a corporate activity.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
The pastor of our (Roman Catholic) parish commented that efforts were going to be made to shorten our Prayers of the Faithful after he noticed that they were considerably longer than the time from the beginning of the Anaphora (The lord be with you/And with your spirit/Lift up your hearts, etc.) to the Great Amen in the Eucharistic Prayer (obviously, Roman Missal Eucharistic Prayer II is all that is ever used, and that has a lot to do with it, but most Anglican and Protestant Eucharistic Prayers aren't much longer). I kind of agree. The "great prayer of thanksgiving" is the center of the one big prayer that we call the Eucharist, and the people's intercessions should complement it rather than overshadow it. Emphasizing the Eucharistic prayer as the place where we pray for the Church, world, sick, dead, etc., would also maybe encourage the use of longer Eucharistic prayers (EP I! EP I! Or at least III) where these remembrances are mentioned at greater length.
I can't comment on intercessions at Worship meetings without the Eucharist because I don't attend them very often.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clotilde:
I prefer brief biddings, with a moment of silence at the end. I like variety and find some of the formulae of Common Worship rather worn and verging on the tedious.
I was always told not to include thanksgiving - that is what the Eucharistic prayer part is for!
I attend a church with an RCL-based lectionary. This means that, when I am leading intercessions it makes sense to look on the internet for material that is themed for the Sunday. I might use one source, or combine a couple. But it works best when I find a set of short petitions that have the same rhythm, following the church - world - local - individual - selves - departed kind of pattern. I then insert appropriate biddings, so it ends up as a set of:
Bidding - addressed to the people
Brief silence
Petition - addressed to God
Versicle/Response (Lord in your mercy, hear our prayer or similar)
Sometimes I write from scratch, particularly outside Ordinary time, when the nature of the season helps give a bit more flavour to the content than depending on the lectionary readings alone.
Those of you in places with RCL-based lectionaries should look at The Text This Week, which provides links to a range of resources that you may or may not find helpful.
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
Thank you everyone for your thoughts. I can see that there are horses for courses. I have personal preferences but as an Intercessor ( word?) I think one is enunciating the Prayers of the People not of the speaker so wanted to hear what others think/feel. I don't like bidding because I get confused and think it seems like repetition. We are a fairly new mob and don't have responses from a well trained congregation so, it seems to me, short is better. our Anglican placement puts the prayers as a response to the sermon. Afterwards people who like what they hear or are just friendly say good things but people who don't get it or don't like it rarely say so I asked this wise lot of people for thorts/feelings. Ta
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The pastor of our (Roman Catholic) parish commented that efforts were going to be made to shorten our Prayers of the Faithful after he noticed that they were considerably longer than the time from the beginning of the Anaphora...
There are some quick ones in Appendix V of the Missal, including some seasonally-appropriate ones. These prepared models are very handy for weekday Masses. The Episcopal church provides several very useful prepared options in the BCP79. I wish we had such a thing in our Lutheran worship text.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
I have personal preferences but as an Intercessor ( word?) I think one is enunciating the Prayers of the People not of the speaker so wanted to hear what others think/feel.
I think it is misleading to call the person leading the intercessions the "intercessor". The whole community is supposed to be making intercessory prayer: they are all intercessors. The role of the person leading the prayers is precisely that: leading the congregation.
I have found in the past that explaining that distinction makes a positive impact in the nature of the intercessions written!
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
... I think one is enunciating the Prayers of the People not of the speaker ...
I think if you write that on your heart, you shouldn't go far wrong.
I also think though that means trying to express some element of the prayers you think they'd really like to pray, rather than the ones the official church thinks they ought to pray.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
I sometimes lead the intercessions at our Sunday sung Eucharist. I find doing so very meaningful. It is, then, with reluctance that I say the following: having lay people lead the intercessions is a bad idea more times than not.
I find intercessions extremely difficult to write. I take ages, and generally draw on the lessons of the day, and on a variety of liturgical sources (both Eastern and Western, both recent and older). I've never been happy with any set I've written, nor have I ever managed to please everybody. The last two times I did it, the comments I got were, respectively, 'too Cranmerian in language' and 'too concerned with being "inclusive" and politically correct'. I see where both of those criticisms come from, and they were probably both right.
If I am unhappy with my own intercessions, I cannot say that any of the other people who lead them are much, if at all, better. In my less charitable moments (which I recognize are wrong), I am astonished at how badly they write and deliver them. We are a middle-class and well-educated congregation. I think everyone who leads the intercessions has at least some post-secondary education. Many have graduate degrees and at least one has a degree in theology. The basic problem seems to be a lack of an understanding of how liturgical prose works. A much closer study of Cranmer would help a lot. I'm not saying that they should use the sixteenth century vocabulary or syntax, or have sentences that cover half a page, but something of Cranmer's appreciation for balance between clauses is needed. Good modern liturgy needs that too.
Don't be afraid to steal. I've stolen a line praying for 'a spirit respect and forbearance among nations and peoples', which is from the 1979 American Prayer Book and beautifully combines contemporary English idiom with Cranmerian balance. Similarly, from the same source, the versicle and response, which I regard as one of the finest small gems in any modern liturgical book:
V: Let not the needy, O Lord, be forgotten
R: Nor the hope of the poor be taken away
If as an intercessor, I can cover at least most of what should be said (either because it is something, like the welfare of the poor or the repose of the dead, for which we are bound to pray at every Eucharist, or because it is a pressing concern), avoid saying anything that could be understood as heretical, express everything in balanced prose, and be over in no more than four minutes, I feel that I haven't failed too very badly.
It would still probably be easier and, in most cases, better to just read out the Prayer for the Church Militant, though.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
If I am unhappy with my own intercessions, I cannot say that any of the other people who lead them are much, if at all, better. In my less charitable moments (which I recognize are wrong), I am astonished at how badly they write and deliver them. We are a middle-class and well-educated congregation. I think everyone who leads the intercessions has at least some post-secondary education. Many have graduate degrees and at least one has a degree in theology. The basic problem seems to be a lack of an understanding of how liturgical prose works. A much closer study of Cranmer would help a lot. I'm not saying that they should use the sixteenth century vocabulary or syntax, or have sentences that cover half a page, but something of Cranmer's appreciation for balance between clauses is needed. Good modern liturgy needs that too.
An alternative approach is (at least some of the time) to have a list of things you want to mention but then speak from the heart, in your everyday language, without worrying much about the exact words we end up using. If our regular speech is, on the whole, gracious and uplifting, then our public prayers are likely to be so as well, no?
And, S. Bacchus, you mentioned that your intercession leaders all have a fairly high level of education, yet many still write and deliver the intercessions badly (as you see it). If we set such high standards (unhelpful standards, IMO) for our public speech in the context of church services, then aren't the majority of the congregation going to be excluded from this valuable role? I'd say that holiness and knowing God's heart are far more important for an intercession leader than a good understanding of Cranmerian English and how liturgical prose works.!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
This role of the "intercession leader" who actually writes the intercessions is foreign to me as a US Roman Catholic. Here, a layperson often leads the Prayers of the Faithful, but they are generally never the person who composed them. Usually the prayers are compiled by the pastor and others who work in the rectory (if a parish is big and has active enough laity to have something like a liturgy committee, maybe they compose something like that). But just like the First and Second Scripture Readings at Mass, the person reading the Intercessions has usually never seen them before they step up to the pulpit/ambo/lectern to do so. Hence the terrible time they have trying to pronounce people's names and the frequent confusion about when one petition ends and the next begins (with perplexed people in the pews muttering "Lord, hear our prayer" at all kinds of points). My favorite (and not uncommon) occurence is when an intercession leader reads, "And now we pause to offer our own personal petitions," does not pause at all, and then says "Lord, hear our prayer" and moves on, without once realizing that because the prayer said to pause, they were supposed to actually pause. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) Ah, the joys of being Catholic.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
An alternative approach is (at least some of the time) to have a list of things you want to mention but then speak from the heart, in your everyday language, without worrying much about the exact words we end up using. If our regular speech is, on the whole, gracious and uplifting, then our public prayers are likely to be so as well, no?
I don't know about you, but my regular speech certainly isn't 'gracious and uplifting'. I'm almost absurdly inarticulate (think Hugh Grant, but with less charm and more evident idiocy).
I would never dream of speaking to a group without having carefully drafted and composed my comments. Why should speaking in church be any different?
It puzzles me that people will celebrate sloppiness (as I see it) in church who would never tolerate it elsewhere. When planning a dinner, we agonize over the menu, the selection of wine, who sits next to whom, etc. When getting dressed in the morning, I will consider whether my tie goes with my shirt and jacket, and that my shoes don't clash with my trousers.
I don't see that as being fussy, I see it as good manners, i.e a normal and expected attention to the needs and feelings of other people. Why shouldn't that extend into our church life? If I lead prayers, I want them to be edifying, which they won't be if I don't plan them in advance.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
And, S. Bacchus, you mentioned that your intercession leaders all have a fairly high level of education, yet many still write and deliver the intercessions badly (as you see it). If we set such high standards (unhelpful standards, IMO) for our public speech in the context of church services, then aren't the majority of the congregation going to be excluded from this valuable role?
Firstly, as I've alluded to above, I don't think my standards are particularly, let alone unreasonably, high.
More significantly, I would strongly take issue with the idea that the role of the liturgy is to give people 'important roles'. I find that offensive, because the role of the lay person in the pews is itself a role of enormous significance, whether or not that lay person has some 'public role' (which, by definition, most won't, except in very small churches). I see the role of the liturgy as being the assembly offering an objective and reasonable sacrifice and oblation,* in union with the church throughout the world and throughout all ages. I personally find it useful (and I know that I am very far from being alone) if those planning the liturgy see it as something of Gesamtkunstwerk, witnessing to its theological unity through an aesthetic unity. That doesn't mean that one cannot, for instance, mix music of different eras (e.g. a Mozart Mass with a Byrd anthem and a voluntary by Vierne), but there should in my mind be a very clear understanding of how each element in the service relates to the others. The intercessions, which are the bit of the service subject to the least pre-service scrutiny in my parish at least, often fail in this regard.
*Anglican fudge as to what exactly this sacrifice and oblation constitutes.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
I would never dream of speaking to a group without having carefully drafted and composed my comments. Why should speaking in church be any different?
I suppose it's different, IMO, because when speaking in public giving a speech or sales pitch etc., one is on display in some sense and seeking to convince one's listeners of something. Whereas in a church service, (this is just my take on it) there is something clearly different going on. I view a church service as a community of Christians coming together to share encouragement and help one other (re)focus on Christ. That means we should speak from the heart, not from a script (although I wouldn't seek to ban liturgy completely; I know it can be very powerful and moving).
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
It puzzles me that people will celebrate sloppiness (as I see it) in church who would never tolerate it elsewhere.
I don't think of it as sloppiness, but as authenticity (again, not that liturgy cannot be used with authenticity). I don't like the sense of performance (as I see it) when most of what is said is scripted, rather than spontaneous. But I realise we're coming from very different places on this...!
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
I would strongly take issue with the idea that the role of the liturgy is to give people 'important roles'. I find that offensive, because the role of the lay person in the pews is itself a role of enormous significance, whether or not that lay person has some 'public role' (which, by definition, most won't, except in very small churches).
Apologies, no offence meant. But I hope you see that, given my understanding of the point of church services, it's important for me that everyone has some sort of opportunity take a more active part than being a 'lay person in the pews'.
And, speaking just for myself, I do feel a unity with Christians across space and time, without following a scripted liturgy. This feels to me like a bit of a justification after the fact (not by you personally, I mean that I doubt whether liturgy was originally introduced and standardised for reasons of space-time Christian unity) - after all, people don't all meet at the same time across the globe, they don't all speak the same language etc. There's unity in some matters of practice, but difference in others; so I don't get why it's important that all churches should follow the same liturgical pattern.
[ 29. November 2013, 16:49: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Both/and Kevin. I lead the prayers every few weeks in our parish and I tend to use a mix of liturgical and more extemporary prayers ... but not in a 'Lord we just ...' type way.
It's not a performance. Nor is it a script as you see it. But I do prepare. It's different if I were praying in a small group or on my own - this is public worship we're talking about so things should be clear, concise and well presented.
In my experience the 'best' people (in terms of clarity etc) for extemporary prayer are those who have at least some grounding in liturgical prayer. The two go together IMHO.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
What Gamaliel said, and I've been leading intercessions and training leaders for a couple of decades now.
Keep it short, don't have a personal agenda...these are good things.
One really important thing is to pray as if the people or groups you are praying for are present in the congregation...for example, don't pray for "the poor" as if no one sitting in the pews is "poor". Pray for "the bereaved" with the assumption that someone in the pews in front of you has had someone close to them die in the last fortnight. Pray for the homeless knowing that Mike in the third pew is sleeping on the street with winter coming on. And so on.
IMO, this is not just an intellectual exercise -- if you don't have anyone in the congregation who is poor, or living on the street, or sick and aching about God's willingness to heal, then you have another problem, but that's not a subject for this thread
John
[ 29. November 2013, 18:25: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
One really important thing is to pray as if the people or groups you are praying for are present in the congregation...for example, don't pray for "the poor" as if no one sitting in the pews is "poor". Pray for "the bereaved" with the assumption that someone in the pews in front of you has had someone close to them die in the last fortnight. Pray for the homeless knowing that Mike in the third pew is sleeping on the street with winter coming on. And so on.
That's good to hear. So often I hear intercessions that assume that those with problems need our patronizing support, rather than that they may, and indeed should, be among us.
As regards extempore prayer: the Holy Spirit may just as well inspire someone when they are preparing their text in advance as when they make it up on the spot. And the Holy Spirit then has a chance to inspire them to go over their text and change those elements due to their personal vanity,prejudice or well meaning ineptitude.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
there is also a problem with "the poor" "the bereaved" This is not how we usually refer to people, "poor people" is more like real life language but the repetition of "people" can be annoying.
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
As regards extempore prayer: the Holy Spirit may just as well inspire someone when they are preparing their text in advance as when they make it up on the spot. And the Holy Spirit then has a chance to inspire them to go over their text and change those elements due to their personal vanity,prejudice or well meaning ineptitude.
Thank you...you saved me the effort of typing. Besides, all of the best intercessions I've encountered are open enough to slip in emergency last-minute mentions (e.g. We had already prepared our intercessions a couple weeks ago, before the typhoon in the Philippines, but the pastor was able to deftly insert a mention of it within the prayers anyway.)
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Not that I've been doing it recently, but I used to lead the intercessions in church regularly and for my sins, I got lumbered with writing the weekly prayers for the newsletter with a daily prayer for two or three years. For both I used the CofE themes of the world / international issues, the wider church, local issues and the local church as a general rule, with additions from the lectionary: which saints are being celebrated, themes from the readings and what was happening locally. I often used an outline structure from something Oceans of Prayer or the intercessions from Common Worship: Daily Prayer to give phrases, but borrowed phrases and ideas from a variety of places, including scripture, the news and other events, US and other organisations the church supports.
Both sets of prayers took some hours to write, with lots of prayer and thought, trying to balance them between local and international disasters, between the local needs of the church and the church as a whole and also to be prayers that the full gamut of the congregation could pray, from the most evangelical to the most Anglo-Catholic.
For the intercessions, I made sure they were brief enough to fit on one side of A4, 12/14pt double spaced and with additional spaces to be able to add notes of anything that came up that day or in the service. I used to write them earlier in the week, but not print them out until the night before or that morning so that I could update them if there was something in the news.
Personally, I hate shopping lists of prayers and naming everyone or every disaster - partly because however carefully I plan I will miss someone out, who will undoubtedly be offended, so tend to open ended and include "anyone / anything else held in our prayers" phrases. My favourite prayers are the ones which a short one line bidding and silence, but they are the ones that are universally loathed.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In my experience the 'best' people (in terms of clarity etc) for extemporary prayer are those who have at least some grounding in liturgical prayer. The two go together IMHO.
That's a good point, and I stress again that I'm not at all against the principle of using liturgy. It's the compulsory use that I'm uneasy with, and (the point that sparked my moan yesterday!) the amount of time and worry that is expended in some places on getting things like the prayers just right. I simply don't see just right as a high priority.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
I'm about to prepare the intercessions for tomorrow. Much good stuff to see here. Thanks guys.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
However much time and trouble you take, worship will never be just right. We all fall short of the glory of God. But liturgy is not for God's benefit but the congregation's.
That is precisely why it is worth taking time and trouble to make sure it is adequate for them.
Taking time and trouble to ensure that the intercessions reflect in a reasonably balanced way the concerns of the congregation and the needs of the world is quite different from taking time and trouble over which how many swings of the censer you give.
[ 30. November 2013, 11:17: Message edited by: venbede ]
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
One really important thing is to pray as if the people or groups you are praying for are present in the congregation...for example, don't pray for "the poor" as if no one sitting in the pews is "poor". Pray for "the bereaved" with the assumption that someone in the pews in front of you has had someone close to them die in the last fortnight. Pray for the homeless knowing that Mike in the third pew is sleeping on the street with winter coming on. And so on.
That's good to hear. So often I hear intercessions that assume that those with problems need our patronizing support, rather than that they may, and indeed should, be among us.
Yes we had a set of intercessions which were spoilt by this. Disappointed in myself for not bringing it up with her.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly Plummer
Shipmate
# 13354
|
Posted
People often say they like my intercessions: I don't think they're very different from when other members of the congregation do them, but I do keep the petititions fairly short and leave quite a bit of silence in between.
More silence in church is what we need!
Posts: 577 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurence
Shipmate
# 9135
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I don't think of it as sloppiness, but as authenticity
It's one of those irregular verbs:
I am authentic
You are sloppy
He just, Jesus, really, wants to just, really, really, Jesus, really, just...
Posts: 648 | From: Lincolnshire | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Surely this all depends on the type of church in question? The 'Jesus, we really just...' churches might not appreciate the highly liturgical approach of a traditional mainstream congregation, and vice versa. So long as the person leading the prayers has fully absorbed the idiom and customs of the church they're in, there shouldn't be much of a problem.
In the church tradition I know the preachers and/or laypeople who lead the prayers are usually folk with plenty of experience of worshipping in that environment, so they've generally picked up on what's acceptable. Perhaps it's much harder in a broad church context, where liturgical and stylistic expectations vary greatly? I've lead the intercessions before, but I'd find it rather disconcerting to do so in a church where the expectations weren't clear.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
John D. Ward
Shipmate
# 1378
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
And the person always went on far too long, in a sad, whiny type of voice, but I guess the sort of voice involved can't be helped.
After making due allowances for age, gender, regional accent and any speech defect, isn't a sad, whiny type of voice due to its source in a sad, whiny type of person?
Posts: 208 | From: Swansea, Wales, U.K. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
