quote:

---

Originally posted by Francophile:
This is a very good question, or set of questions. I don't know the answer but I suspect that its to do with worshipping God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francophile:
This is a very good question, or set of questions. I don't know the answer but I suspect that its to do with worshipping God.

---

I agree that it's a great question, though I thoroughly disagree with this answer! ISTM the New Testament defines 'worship' in a far broader way than as something we do at church services; I'm particularly thinking of Romans 12:1-2, which says the way to worship God is to offer our bodies as a living and holy sacrifice.

I think the NT says other things about what church services are for - basically I'd say we gather together for mutual strengthening and encouragement. Here's my more detailed answer...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olaf:
For those who believe that Christ is present in the Word and Sacrament, we gather for an up-close-and-personal encounter. For those who believe differently, the purpose is often formative and supportive.

The former group could not do without gathering together. The latter probably could.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think the NT says other things about what church services are for - basically I'd say we gather together for mutual strengthening and encouragement.

---

• showing compassion to people without any strings attached
• inviting them into our church community to experience the presence of God for themselves.

• Up - Praise of God because he's worth it!
• In - mutual strengthening and encouragement through fellowship, teaching, prayer, etc.
• Out - welcoming outisders and sharing with them an experience of the presence of God

Exactly how that works out in practice is multifaceted in many and various expressions. See Mystery Worshipper for examples But I guess the basic pattern (in the west at any rate) has been around for centuries (though not since the NT). Anyone know when this pattern (recognisable "church services") started?

p.s. South Coast Kevin love the phrase in your blog:

quote:

---

I've been thinking for a long time about how our rhythms of church can (unintentionally) encourage us to let our spiritual life drift between meetings.

---

• enjoying God's presence
• hearing God speak
• receiving God's grace

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undercover Christian:
Fascinating ideas so far.

So let me ask this.

We've had quite an array of ideas about what a church service is for - what needs it is meeting.

So is there a way a church could deliver the needs we've identified here either better or to the same level of success without holding services?

Are there any churches that run without services, instead perhaps a series of thematic events that people pick and choose according to their need?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There are highly sacramental types who go for Communion, but most Protestants probably still feel that preaching should be at the heart of the church service.
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There are highly sacramental types who go for Communion, but most Protestants probably still feel that preaching should be at the heart of the church service.
...

---

I'd count myself as evangelical not just protestant, but I would like Communion to be at the heart of most worship services. My eucharistic theology might be memorial rather than sacramental, but the action that Jesus instructed his disciples to do in remembrance of him was break bread together, not sit and listen to a sermon together.
Angus

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Undercover Christian:
Fascinating ideas so far.

So let me ask this.

We've had quite an array of ideas about what a church service is for - what needs it is meeting.

So is there a way a church could deliver the needs we've identified here either better or to the same level of success without holding services?

Are there any churches that run without services, instead perhaps a series of thematic events that people pick and choose according to their need?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
I'd count myself as evangelical not just protestant, but I would like Communion to be at the heart of most worship services. My eucharistic theology might be memorial rather than sacramental, but the action that Jesus instructed his disciples to do in remembrance of him was break bread together, not sit and listen to a sermon together.
Angus

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
I'd count myself as evangelical not just protestant, but I would like Communion to be at the heart of most worship services. My eucharistic theology might be memorial rather than sacramental, but the action that Jesus instructed his disciples to do in remembrance of him was break bread together, not sit and listen to a sermon together.
Angus

---

IME of Nonconformist and newer churches, Communion isn't served every week, so it can hardly be 'at the heart of most worship services'. Are you CofE, Lutheran or something like that?

Jade Constable

I didn't know that Gospel Hall folk had Communion every week. That's very interesting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
CoE evangelicals tend to have Communion monthly, and the Lutheran church in the UK barely exists. There are certainly Nonconformist churches that have weekly Communion, they tend to be in the strict Reformed/Brethren line (I wouldn't call them 'newer' churches). Also some charismatic evangelical churches have Communion weekly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
CoE evangelicals tend to have Communion monthly, and the Lutheran church in the UK barely exists. There are certainly Nonconformist churches that have weekly Communion, they tend to be in the strict Reformed/Brethren line (I wouldn't call them 'newer' churches). Also some charismatic evangelical churches have Communion weekly.

---

I have no idea where A. Pilgrim comes from! Could be the UK or anywhere! But I've never seen a Lutheran church in the UK, no.

There must be huge regional differences in what's available. I don't know where I'd have to look to find an evangelical church that celebrates weekly Communion in my city, other than at a CofE church that has different Sunday services, some with weekly Communion and some not. I do know of a Gospel Hall congregation, but had no idea they had Communion every week. Is this normal for the whole denomination or does it depend on the individual church?

---

It says the UK at the bottom of their posts I actually used to live right next to a Lutheran church in Coventry but never attended - according to Wikipedia, there are 19 Evangelical Lutheran churches in England. However in the US and elsewhere I think the Lutheran church is akin to MOTR Anglicanism and probably doesn't have weekly Communion in that case.

Certainly for smaller denominational groups, they are often clustered in one part of the country, although IME Elim churches have weekly Communion? I used to attend one when I very first became a Christian and there was weekly Communion there although it might not be for all Elim churches.

Re Gospel Halls, I have never attended one but all the ones I've gone past have advertised weekly Breaking of Bread. I don't know that much about the denomination to be honest apart from them being like (or part of?) the Brethren.

Possibly the further away churches are from the Catholic Church in terms of relationship/identity, the easier they feel about weekly Communion, if that makes sense? Like, for evangelical Anglicans, being in the same denomination as Anglo-Catholics makes it a bit too close to home maybe?
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Ah, I looked in the wrong place for the info about someone's whereabouts.

I've seen a few Gospel Halls around, but not noticed references to 'Breaking of Bread'. I'll have to look again.

It would be interesting if the Elim had weekly Communion. IME, Pentecostals don't have Communion very often at all. But there are so many different types of Pentecostal, and the ones I know are probably quite different. Also, I think the Elim folk are moving away from the Pentecostal label. Maybe this indicates a slightly higher churchmanship than many other Pentecostals would have?

Still, going back to my earlier point, I don't think it's terribly wrong of me to suggest that Protestants in general are usually considered to place a high importance on preaching. This doesn't mean that Communion is neglected. In Methodism, the tradition I know best, Communion is important, though it takes places once a month, not weekly. But preaching is weekly, and since lay preaching is such a strong part of denominational identity it would be hard to see it as less important. People might turn up especially for Communion, but they might also turn up for a favourite preacher, or avoid another.

(I also realise that not all CofE folk see themselves as Protestant.)
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
At least for the Reformers, preaching was sacramental. Exposition on the Gospel was just as much an offer of God's grace as the Eucharist. The only difference was the medium through which Jesus was mediated to the congregation.

What didn't cut it, for the Reformers, was the thought that there could be exposition of the Gospel without a listening Church. The Gospel creates a Church—there was no thought that worship and congregation could be separated.
 

---

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :
 
For Jade Constable and SvitlanaV2:

I've had first hand experience of Brethren churches. Yes they do have communion every week and it is held as probably the most important service of the week. In some Brethren fellowships it would also be followed by preaching but this isn't always the case.

The main feature of the Breaking of Bread is that it is an entirely open format. There is no structure anyone is able to contribute by sharing, reading from the Bible, praying, asking to sing a specific hymn, etc. then for communion anyone is able to break bread and pour the wine ( though often this would fall to the Elders). One of the things I like about this format is that the expectation is on everyone to "come prepared to offer a sacrifice of praise". So the emphasis is on what we bring to God in praise not we receive. I remember going to Brethren services when I was younger where even the teaching was open. Whoever felt led by the Spirit to preach got up and spoke. Some of my most powerful experiences of the presence of God have been in Brethren-style Breaking of Bread services.

However there are some downsides, for example, the format only works up to a certain size before group dynamics start inhibiting contributions. So more progressive Brethren churches that have grown substantially but not planted smaller offshoots usually have to find a new way to do communion. But you will find it there somewhere every week.

"Gospel Hall" is a dead giveaway for a Brethren church. Though if it is still using this designation it is probably a dyed-in-the-wool congregation that hasn't moved on. IME this will mean, for example, women are still not allowed to participate. So when I said earlier "everyone" that means for some congregations just the men. Personally, I believe this violates their own principle of the priesthood of all believers but there you go.

I would characterise the core essentials of a "Brethren" fellowship as:
A central place is given to an open-style Breaking of Bread service,
There is a strong emphasis on Bible teaching and every member growing in Bible knowledge
Plurality of leadership: there is no one leader or pastor but a group of Elders.

Apart from that you will probably find a huge spread in belief and practice amongst Brethren churches (or those with a Brethren heritage) around things like gifts of the Spirit, women's participation, etc, etc.

I hope that helps.
 

---

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 

quote:

---

Yes they do have communion every week and it is held as probably the most important service of the week.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm in the West Midlands and have never been a 'Brethern' church here, although I've seen a number of Gospel Hall ones. They're usually in very small buildings, so weekly Communion must feel like a very intimate experience there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm in the West Midlands and have never been a 'Brethern' church here, although I've seen a number of Gospel Hall ones. They're usually in very small buildings, so weekly Communion must feel like a very intimate experience there.

I share the sense that Communion can feel like a 'bolt-on'. It's a pity that in the Methodist Church it always occurs towards the end of a service rather than early on. I'm often getting a bit sleepy by that point, and sometimes it seems that the minister is rushing through the liturgy every so slightly. Methodists don't like a service to 'overrun', but Communion services do tend to be a little longer than others, on average.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I share the sense that Communion can feel like a 'bolt-on'. It's a pity that in the Methodist Church it always occurs towards the end of a service rather than early on. I'm often getting a bit sleepy by that point, and sometimes it seems that the minister is rushing through the liturgy every so slightly. Methodists don't like a service to 'overrun', but Communion services do tend to be a little longer than others, on average.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Gamaliel:
Back in the day, in my experience - and this may have been a regional thing - the Assemblies of God had more of a focus on communion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
p.s. South Coast Kevin love the phrase in your blog:

quote:

---

I've been thinking for a long time about how our rhythms of church can (unintentionally) encourage us to let our spiritual life drift between meetings.

---

Very thought-provoking. Our meeting together is supposed to be an encouragement and support for daily discipleship not a replacement for it, yet sometimes that seems to be the (unintentional) consequence....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

On the contrary, Christianity is a whole-life thing, I'm sure we'd all agree. So I think what we do in our church services should enable and encourage us to live our whole life as an act of worship to God, which arguably is a 180 degree rethink. We don't prepare ourselves for the act of worship at the church service; the church service prepares us (or rather, we help prepare one another at the church service) to go and worship God as we make our way in the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
I'd count myself as evangelical not just protestant, but I would like Communion to be at the heart of most worship services. My eucharistic theology might be memorial rather than sacramental, but the action that Jesus instructed his disciples to do in remembrance of him was break bread together, not sit and listen to a sermon together.
Angus

---

IME of Nonconformist and newer churches, Communion isn't served every week, so it can hardly be 'at the heart of most worship services'. Are you CofE, Lutheran or something like that?

---

Just for the record, and for clarification, I don’t describe myself by any specific denominational label at all, so no, I’m not CofE or Lutheran. As I have a perhaps idiosyncratic combination of theological beliefs, ecclesial views, and preferences for style of worship, I don’t fit in to any denomination that I’ve come across. Attending any local congregation requires a compromise on something.

Though from what I’ve read in posts following the one I’ve quoted, maybe I might fit into an Elim church. This is rather intriguing, as I’ve never had any contact with or knowledge of Elim churches before now. And reading that they had roots in the Wesleyan movement affirms my wondering, as I’ve thought for quite a while that the Wesleyan combination of non-conformism and a high view of the eucharist would suit me. Mind you, it would have to be open brethren, not closed like the community in Coventry described by Jade.

I’ve learned a lot from this thread. My thanks to the contributors.
Angus
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
None of the local Elim churches have weekly communion.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
However I think it is very much a both/and thing. I agree totally that gathering together should prepare us to worship God as we make our way in the world. However, I also think that preparing to come and bring a sacrifice of praise (as I mentioned earlier) is also important. IMO a vital aspect of gathering is also to take us out of ourselves, to focus on the Lord and adore him in a way that does not seem possible when we are scattered. The knack is to keep both of these in balance over the long term...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Hearing the word of God proclaimed in the congregation on Sunday is just as much a moral, concrete obligation as loving the poor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
I'd count myself as evangelical not just protestant, but I would like Communion to be at the heart of most worship services. My eucharistic theology might be memorial rather than sacramental, but the action that Jesus instructed his disciples to do in remembrance of him was break bread together, not sit and listen to a sermon together.
Angus

---

IME of Nonconformist and newer churches, Communion isn't served every week, so it can hardly be 'at the heart of most worship services'. Are you CofE, Lutheran or something like that?

---

Just for the record, and for clarification, I don’t describe myself by any specific denominational label at all, so no, I’m not CofE or Lutheran. As I have a perhaps idiosyncratic combination of theological beliefs, ecclesial views, and preferences for style of worship, I don’t fit in to any denomination that I’ve come across. Attending any local congregation requires a compromise on something.

Though from what I’ve read in posts following the one I’ve quoted, maybe I might fit into an Elim church. This is rather intriguing, as I’ve never had any contact with or knowledge of Elim churches before now. And reading that they had roots in the Wesleyan movement affirms my wondering, as I’ve thought for quite a while that the Wesleyan combination of non-conformism and a high view of the eucharist would suit me. Mind you, it would have to be open brethren, not closed like the community in Coventry described by Jade.

I’ve learned a lot from this thread. My thanks to the contributors.
Angus

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think so, Curiosity, and I think it's where I'm headed ...

There have been threads on this sort of thing before. It's something that interests me in the same way that informal fellowship groups etc interest South Coast Kevin.

Essentially, I think, South Coast Kevin and I are after the same thing ... only approaching it from different directions. But that might be another thread ... a more Ecclesiantics one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
However I think it is very much a both/and thing. I agree totally that gathering together should prepare us to worship God as we make our way in the world. However, I also think that preparing to come and bring a sacrifice of praise (as I mentioned earlier) is also important. IMO a vital aspect of gathering is also to take us out of ourselves, to focus on the Lord and adore him in a way that does not seem possible when we are scattered. The knack is to keep both of these in balance over the long term...

---

Hmm, I've always been a bit puzzled by that phrase 'a sacrifice of praise'. What exactly does it mean? Would you explicitly link it to gathering together, or can we offer a sacrifice of praise just as well on our own, would you say?

And I still don't really get the idea of our gathering together being to focus on and adore God in a way that's different from what we can do on our own. I think we need to be much more concrete and specific about what benefit can be gained from our gathering together. Because coming up with some answers to that question will then guide our thinking on what things we should do when we meet together. How will the time be best spent; are there specific things (e.g. communion?) that God has commanded us to do when we meet together as church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Good question.

God's? I'm not sure I can presume to speak for him.

As for ours ... well, that may vary according to where we're coming from theologically and so on.

But it's a good question. Not sure what the answer is - other than church services, of whatever flavour, being an opportunity to focus our attention collectively on God in an intentional way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Could that mean the daily discipline of prayer and Bible readings that many people in monastic or third order groups engage in?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think so, Curiosity, and I think it's where I'm headed ...

There have been threads on this sort of thing before. It's something that interests me in the same way that informal fellowship groups etc interest South Coast Kevin.

Essentially, I think, South Coast Kevin and I are after the same thing ... only approaching it from different directions. But that might be another thread ... a more Ecclesiantics one.

---

I would be interested to know if SCK has ever tried the kind of thing you're interested in (and which interests me too).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
However, I don't think that means that the only function of Sunday services is to equip us for the week ahead (though again that is an important component). For me, giving God adoration, praise and thanks is an end in itself (though it should also have the side-effect of encouraging us in our walk with God). "It is right to give him thanks and praise" - just because he is God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
So I think I am saying that ideally Sunday services and through-the-week discipleship should be a mutually reinforcing feedback loop. Part of the purpose of Sunday should be to equip us for the week ahead but also our experiences through the week should give us cause to come to God with thanks and praise on the Sunday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
My answer, for what it's worth, would be that in the prayer of the Church Christ himself opens up the scriptures to his people and where right glory (ortho doxy) is given to God.

---

Yikes, I don't even know what this means! Is it not possible to avoid jargon when we talk about stuff like this, or do we all inevitably draw on images and metaphors from our own Christian tradition, that others might not grasp?

Mind you, have I used jargon just as much in my posts on this thread? I hope not but please, anyone, let me know if I have...
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
My answer, for what it's worth, would be that in the prayer of the Church Christ himself opens up the scriptures to his people and where right glory (ortho doxy) is given to God.

---

Yikes, I don't even know what this means! Is it not possible to avoid jargon when we talk about stuff like this, or do we all inevitably draw on images and metaphors from our own Christian tradition, that others might not grasp?

Mind you, have I used jargon just as much in my posts on this thread? I hope not but please, anyone, let me know if I have...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
By the prayer of the Church I'm referring to the liturgy and in the liturgy Christ opens up the scriptures to his people, the Church. Think of the St. Luke's Gospel and the Road to Emmaus. In the liturgy we also give God right glory, which is what orthodoxy means and which, I would say, is very much linked to the old adage, the law of prayer is the law of belief (lex orandi lex credendi). Right glory (orthodoxy) is something we owe God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But what does giving God 'thanks and praise' entail? I think many churches / denominations ... think of this in terms of coming together to sing songs and, while that's a good and worthy thing to do IMO, it's not the only way. As I said earlier, I think it would benefit every Christian community to think from time to time about why they gather together and, from that, plan what they'll do at those gatherings.

---

I love signing God's praise so I don't want to denigrate that in any way but clearly it isn't the only form of praise - though it helps massively if it's spoken out rather than silent
I'm not from a liturgical tradition but I would imagine that the liturgy performs this function (amongst others) but prayers and testimony can also include thanks and praise in more "free-form" services. Though I totally agree with Gameliel that you don't have to look too hard to see unwritten rules and structure (even in a "totally open" Brethren-style Breaking of Bread service).
I'm probably painting a target on my forehead by saying this but the lack of liturgy possibly means that more thought needs to go into the planning of services across the long term. Without the rhythm of liturgy it is easier to get stuck in a rut or style and not mix things up a bit more to keep it fresh and both God-honouring and useful to the congregation - but that might be the point you were making.

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
So I think I am saying that ideally Sunday services and through-the-week discipleship should be a mutually reinforcing feedback loop. Part of the purpose of Sunday should be to equip us for the week ahead but also our experiences through the week should give us cause to come to God with thanks and praise on the Sunday.

---

Oh, I like this! For me, it's been a great church service when I've been reminded by my brothers and sisters of who God is and how awesome he is, and heard stories of how he is at work in their lives. This is what equips and enables me to live in a more godly way.

But there also needs to be the challenge of how to maintain my connection with God in between church services; it can't just be about the (usually) Sunday gathering. It just doesn't work for me if I go on Sunday merely expecting to receive and be recharged for the week ahead. There's got to be more of an expectation that I will have something to contribute (both in the services and in the broader life of the church), even though I'm not ordained or in a position of leadership.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Like it or not, your services/meetings are probably far more liturgical than you might be prepared to acknowledge. There'll be a pattern and structure, unwritten cues. People will know by repetition and involvement what is going to happen and when.

I bet you a pound to a penny that if I attended your church for three or four consecutive weeks I could give you a chart or a set of notes that show what the pattern is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
I'm probably painting a target on my forehead by saying this but the lack of liturgy possibly means that more thought needs to go into the planning of services across the long term. Without the rhythm of liturgy it is easier to get stuck in a rut or style and not mix things up a bit more to keep it fresh and both God-honouring and useful to the congregation - but that might be the point you were making.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Because of my church background I have never really "got" the distinction between clergy and laity. We are all full-time Christians aren't we? - it's just that we are serving God in different spheres. So this is just an unspoken assumption for me.

---

Oh, me too. I was just trying to use the language that most Christians are familiar with. I think in my ideal world (my thinking may, of course, change on this!) there'd be no full-time church leaders, with each church being led by a group of volunteers or maybe part-time elders. When I look at the New Testament I just don't see paid church leaders in the sense we have them now; and the structure of our churches is one of those things about which I think we should pay careful attention to the New Testament witness (i.e. I doubt it's just a cultural / contextual thing).
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Fair points, South Coast Kevin but I wasn't trying to sidetrack the thread, simply hoping to clarify a point that we both agree on - that liturgy isn't simply what's written down. There can be unwritten liturgies too.

On the part-time leaders/volunteers thing ... well, in certain minority sacramental churches in the UK -such as the Orthodox, the priests/clergy tend to have part-time or full-time jobs very often as their congregations are often too small to sustain a paid cleric.

So the idea of clergy/leaders with secular jobs isn't restricted to new churches and non-conformist churches. Indeed, I wouldn't surprised if this becomes more widespread in future, even among the 'established' churches ... non-stipendiary ministry and so on.

I s'pose the point I'm making is that this is already happening to a certain extent but not in the way/style that you might be envisaging.

Meanwhile, at the risk of introducing a tangent ...

I've been thinking about the whole empowerment thing and asking myself whether I feel any less 'empowered' or disempowered than I was when I was involved in the restorationist house-church scene or among the Baptists ... and I'm not sure I do feel any less empowered to be quite honest.

I've 'presided' for want of a better word in the breaking of bread/distribution of communion in both house-church settings and in a Baptist church - even though I wasn't on the leadership team nor 'ordained' in any way. They were cool with that and so was I. Do I feel less empowered because I can no longer do the same in the CofE?

No, I don't think I do. It's not as if I go up to receive communion and think, 'Dang, I wish I was doing what that vicar bloke/woman is doing ...'

It's all down to context, of course. In the context I was in that was fine and appropriate. It wouldn't be in the one I'm in now. It's no big deal as far as I'm concerned as to whether I am 'allowed' to do that or not. The issue isn't what I do or don't know in a worship service context but how I live my life the rest of the week. That's what I need to work on.

Anyway, for whatever that's worth it's simply an observation ...

I may start a new thread on how we sustain faith from week to week and how we might build in viable feedback loops ... there must be lots of ways to do that.
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
My post wasn't meant to be partisan though, of course, I would have a very definite idea of what the prayer of the Church is. Anyway, I haven't the heart right now to get involved in a partisan discussion. I'm at work, it's six o'clock in the morning and I have a hangover. However, I might be ready later on in the evening when I've had a nap and some food in my belly.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Tut tut ... and its supposed to be the Advent fast too ...


 

---

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Because of my church background I have never really "got" the distinction between clergy and laity. We are all full-time Christians aren't we? - it's just that we are serving God in different spheres. So this is just an unspoken assumption for me.

---

Oh, me too. I was just trying to use the language that most Christians are familiar with. I think in my ideal world (my thinking may, of course, change on this!) there'd be no full-time church leaders, with each church being led by a group of volunteers or maybe part-time elders. When I look at the New Testament I just don't see paid church leaders in the sense we have them now; and the structure of our churches is one of those things about which I think we should pay careful attention to the New Testament witness (i.e. I doubt it's just a cultural / contextual thing).

---

I grew up in a Brethren church that had exactly that leadership structure and I think there are advantages to shared leadership. However, there are downsides too to a solely voluntary leadership - e.g. Availability/time.
I have been a church leader for about the last 10 years in a shared leadership team of mainly volunteers like me who have full-time 'secular' jobs. Believe me I really, really, really value and appreciate the gifts, skill, experience, availability and many other things about the full-time member of the leadership team (who we recognise as 'the pastor') it is a massive strength to have someone full-time. I cannot imagine how any church (above a certain size) can survive nowadays without full-time and/or part-time employees supporting various ministry areas. I hugely value their ministry.
However that does not mean that I see people in those roles as "clergy" compared to everyone else who is "laity". I strongly believe in shared leadership and every-member participation in church life both to share the burden and as part of daily discipleship. But I also believe the best shared leadership teams are a mix of full-time/volunteer leaders.
With Gamaliel (should I be worried I am agreeing with Gamaliel so much on this thread ) I think that many church structures are heading in this direction anyway and I personally believe that the formal church structure does not inhibit operating the principles of shared leadership and every-member participation.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't know why anyone should be so worried about agreeing with me ...

However we 'do' church I think that personalities and individual giftings/inclinations come into the equation irrespective of what structures we do or don't have.

So, for instance, you can find highly hierarchical structures where the individual clergy/ministers/office holders are anything but hierarchical in their attitude and approach ...

However we 'do' ministry, the whole thing should be 'servant ministry' so just because someone's wearing a dog-collar or a mitre it doesn't mean that they think they're a cut above everyone else. Far from it.

Equally, just because someone doesn't have a fancy ecclesiastical title and wears jeans and T-shirt rather than a cassock and stole it doesn't follow that they are going to be any more pastoral or any less hierarchical in their approach ...

There are control-freaks and mini-Popes around in all churches - just as there are leaders/ministers/clergy or whatever else we happen to call them who demonstrate genuinely Christlike behaviour and tendencies.

Chaucer had his 'poor Parson of a town' as well as his money-grubbing, grotesque Pardoner and Summoner ...
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the part-time leaders/volunteers thing ... well, in certain minority sacramental churches in the UK -such as the Orthodox, the priests/clergy tend to have part-time or full-time jobs very often as their congregations are often too small to sustain a paid cleric.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've been thinking about the whole empowerment thing and asking myself whether I feel any less 'empowered' or disempowered than I was when I was involved in the restorationist house-church scene or among the Baptists ... and I'm not sure I do feel any less empowered to be quite honest... It's not as if I go up to receive communion and think, 'Dang, I wish I was doing what that vicar bloke/woman is doing ...'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
I have been a church leader for about the last 10 years in a shared leadership team of mainly volunteers like me who have full-time 'secular' jobs. Believe me I really, really, really value and appreciate the gifts, skill, experience, availability and many other things about the full-time member of the leadership team (who we recognise as 'the pastor') it is a massive strength to have someone full-time. I cannot imagine how any church (above a certain size) can survive nowadays without full-time and/or part-time employees supporting various ministry areas. I hugely value their ministry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

However we 'do' ministry, the whole thing should be 'servant ministry' so just because someone's wearing a dog-collar or a mitre it doesn't mean that they think they're a cut above everyone else. Far from it.

Equally, just because someone doesn't have a fancy ecclesiastical title and wears jeans and T-shirt rather than a cassock and stole it doesn't follow that they are going to be any more pastoral or any less hierarchical in their approach ...

There are control-freaks and mini-Popes around in all churches - just as there are leaders/ministers/clergy or whatever else we happen to call them who demonstrate genuinely Christlike behaviour and tendencies.

---

Absolutely. I entirely agree (again! Oh dear..... )

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Full-time employees; fine with me. Full-time ministers; I'm not so sure. If churches are going to deliver things like, oh I don't know, youth clubs, parent and toddler groups, food banks and the like, then employees will most likely be necessary. It's specifically the spiritual leadership / direction role that I think might be best as shared and voluntary (not least because that's the New Testament pattern, ISTM).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
alongside businesses / charities set up with a Christian ethos but managed according to the best of contemporary secular wisdom (insofar as that doesn't contradict God's ways, of course).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't see how my 'status' - if that's the right word - as a believer is somehow compromised because someone else gets to serve the communion and not me.

Anymore than it's compromised by someone else being the treasurer, or the creche-person or youth-worker or cleaner or ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Final comment trying to bring this back to the purpose of this thread: shared leadership and every-member contribution regardless of church structure and hierarchy can be modelled in church services. The different leaders can be "visible" in different ways and members can contribute and participate in lots of different ways. So in some congregations every-member participation is aided by liturgy, or in other styles by having different people lead the (sung) worship, by varying who gives readings, says prayers, speaks, shares testimony, etc, etc.

---

quote:

---

Beeswax Altar: Well, yes, but if you feel called to preside at communion then you should seek ordination.

---

Or you can join my church
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
What's the big deal about 'being up the front'?

In most liturgical settings I know, the laity (for want of a better word) are involved in all sorts of things including:

- Reading the scriptures set for the service.
- Singing in choirs or singing in a congregational fashion.
- Leading the prayers/intercessions.
- Preaching (in some instances).
- All sorts of other things besides ...

Heck, there's nothing as ritualised or regulated as the Orthodox but I've seen services there where they simply pass the readings round for people to read out or intone as whatever their custom demands ...

As for going 'up the front' and sharing testimonies and so on, that presupposes that people are going to have testimonies worth listening to.

I don't know about you, but my testimony this week would be that I've pretty much got on with things as usual ... and I'm grateful for that.

I'm sure exciting testimonies do happen but why's it such a big deal for these to be shared in the context of a worship service rather than over a cup of tea or something?

It's as if you're fixated with what does or doesn't happen in the actual service/meeting ... as if the rest of life doesn't count as much in some way.
 

---

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
Gamaliel, testimonies don't have to be 'exciting'.

I am personally very leery of testimonies that give the impression that the Christian life consists of 'ten miracles before breakfast'.

But now and then we do have testimonies in my church. Opportunities for people to give thanks for something specific, or to share something specific from a conference or retreat they've been on, or to share how God helped them through a particularly difficult time. Such testimonies are invariably encouraging and uplifting. They are usually the result of the person concerned asking our vicar if they can do this. I think this is a good outworking, in public worship, of St Paul's exhortations that we exhort and encourage each other.

I worship in a liturgical church so the testimonies occur during the service and don't 'overwhelm' it.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, Laurelin, I quite appreciate that. But then, you are worshipping in a liturgical context within a more evangelical/charismatic tradition.

I'm thinking of liturgical churches where the necessity/desirability of 'testimony' in that sense wouldn't be quite so urgent or deemed so important.

I'm not disagreeing with the Pauline exhortation to encourage one another ... it's simply that testimony times in services may or may not be the most appropriate way for that to be done.

There's a balance somewhere.

At worst, some liturgical/sacramental settings can descend into a kind of spiritual filling-station approach ... you come in, receive the sacrament and then clear off as quickly as you can without engaging with anyone else. I've heard that this can happen in some RC settings, for instance.

I s'pose what I'm angling at in my discussions/debates with South Coast Kevin is the apparent assumption that if there isn't room for testimonies and apparently spontaneous contributions 'at the front' then somehow we're all missing out.

In those churches that are more sacramentally inclined the people are likely to believe that they are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ ... so any testimony, whether good, bad or indifferent - whether 'exciting' or '10 miracles before breakfast-ish' or whether more down-to-earth it may well be interesting and edifying ... but it's inevitably going to take second-place to what they believe is taking place at the altar - which is where the action is ... the Mystery of the eucharist ...
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's as if you're fixated with what does or doesn't happen in the actual service/meeting ... as if the rest of life doesn't count as much in some way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
Gamaliel, testimonies don't have to be 'exciting'.

I am personally very leery of testimonies that give the impression that the Christian life consists of 'ten miracles before breakfast'.

---

Oh my, yes. I absolutely had in mind everyday kind of stuff, like 'I felt God gave me strength last week to deal with a difficult situation', or 'I met up with a couple of friends and we all felt God to be powerfully among us as we chatted'.

Spectacular stuff would be cool with me too, but I think we should simply share more of how we feel God is with us in the relatively mundane stuff. I think this sort of thing can help us to be more expectant of and attentive towards God; and to appreciate that our engagement with him is absolutely not just about what happens in the main services / gatherings of our church.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I think that is a long way from the truth too, South Coast Kevin ... I tend to exaggerate to make a point ... I can post hyperbolically at times.

Fair point on the role/place of testimonies - but how's about this to think about?

The Eucharist is always the Eucharist. There's an objectivity about it that reminds us of the sacrifice of Calvary ... that draws attention to the central issues around our salvation and our sharing in Christ. We eat his body, we drink his blood - whether we understand that figuratively or in a more 'realised' sense.

Sure, other things can mediate similar thoughts/impressions but whereas with a testimony or other contribution of that kind it might be flawed, it might be off-beam ... with the sacrament (or ordinances) we are on more solid ground. The Eucharist reminds us of/indeed makes 'present' the One Perfect Oblation in a way that our subjective experiences during the week may not.

Sure, God gave you strength during the week and I'd be pleased to hear that was the case. But given the choice between hearing that and sharing in the Divine Mysteries ...



Of course, I am exaggerating to make a point once more. But there's a serious point to be made.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
I've been in (Anglican) churches that had testimonies (Communion was monthly). Generally, a bit of a mess and could often leave the service going off on the wrong note. Yes, there is a role for talking about how God is working with us, but I think a midweek homegroup/cell group is possibly more appropriate.

I am more and more convinced that denominational differences like this are down to personality type rather than any spiritual differences - I don't think SCK would disagree with me on very many things theology-wise, but I need a service with a lot of structure and he doesn't. That's surely a personality difference rather than a spiritual difference.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
What kind of testimonies are you talking about? What would someone say during such a testimony?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think SCK does need structure, Jade Constable, we all do - but it's a structure of a different kind.

I do think that personality types and so on come into this but that there also theological issues ... SCK, rightly IMHO, has an emphasis on the immanence of God ... he's expecting things to happen, for people to have 'experiences' of God and tangible evidence of divine intervention which they can then share to encourage one another when they meet.

I don't have a big problem with that but find it rather 'over-realised' to some extent. Most weeks we all just muddle through and the kind of encouragement we need is of a different order.

I know he's not saying this, but I also think it can lead to a kind of self-centred religion which is obsessed with one's own spiritual experiences and progress at the expense of getting involved with the world and seeking to make a difference there ... although there are plenty of examples of good stuff done in the community etc etc by churches of that ilk.

I think that the feed-back loop thing that Jammy Dodger has highlighted is key to all of us ... but the way it works will differ, of course, according to churchmanship and theology and also personality type and ... dare I say it ... where we are at on the Stages of Faith continuum.

SCK would be shocked to read this but I don't mean it as any implicit criticism of him or his mates - but I'm assuming he's single and doesn't have a family close by in which case the sort of fellowship structures he advocates make a lot of sense.

I'm older, more jaundiced and have family responsibilities. I'm not in the least bit interested in hearing people's subjective testimonies and random thoughts about God, the universe and everything.

I just want things straight. Serve me the Eucharist. I don't want the flim-flam testimonies and pietistic mewlings.

That sounds harsh and intentionally so, but I hope not unduly dismissive. I think there's a place for all the things SCK describes ... but I'm not sure I'd want them week by week on a Sunday morning.

SCK will presumably think that this goes counter to the NT. Which is why, presumably, whilst remaining courteous and considerate towards those of a more liturgical bent, he considers that there's something 'missing' in those settings where there isn't space for people to 'come to the front' and share things.

I've been to the front and shared things loads of times. I've been in loads of meetings where other people have gone and shared things 'from the front'. I wouldn't write it all off but it's just not where I'm at. It wouldn't bother me unduly if I never went to a meeting where people shared things 'from the front' ever again ... not because I think they're nuts or I think it's crap - but because I'm not really that interested in what are generally fairly jejune and mundane observations - although there can be some gems in all of that too.

But if you said to me that I would never be able to receive communion again I'd be much more concerned.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
What kind of testimonies are you talking about? What would someone say during such a testimony?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Eucharist is always the Eucharist. There's an objectivity about it that reminds us of the sacrifice of Calvary ... that draws attention to the central issues around our salvation and our sharing in Christ. We eat his body, we drink his blood - whether we understand that figuratively or in a more 'realised' sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I had in mind really ordinary kind of things, like I mentioned upthread: e.g. 'I felt God gave me strength last week to deal with a difficult situation', or 'I met up with a couple of friends and we all felt God to be powerfully among us as we chatted'.

---

quote:

---

More spectacular things - I was raised from the dead last week - would be fantastic too, of course! But in my experience those kind of things don't happen very often and when they do, the reality is often not quite as spectacular as was first reported...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That's why I'm a strong advocate of the eucharist and liturgical approaches these days. Neither of those depend on how I do or don't feel.

---

quote:

---

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there isn't scope for people celebrating and sharing the good things of God with one another but I often wonder how some of the more bouyant, bouncy testimonies make people feel who are feeling quite the opposite ...

---

As a charismatic introvert, I couldn't agree more. Bouncy testimonies tend to piss me off.

quote:

---

One of the most heartfelt and striking 'testimonies' I ever saw was in a full-on charismatic church when the pastor was outlining some initiative to do with Christian 'night-club' type activity aimed at students.

An unemployed and rather vulnerable/difficult lad who was part of the congregation came up and grabbed the mic:

'Fucking students!' he raged. 'Why's everything geared up for them? What's so special about fucking students?! I'm fucking fed up with everything in churches being aimed at fucking students! I've only ever had one job and that was shit!!!'

The pastor dashed to wrest the mic off him and prayed fervently that the Lord would prevent the students there from 'receiving' the bad words that the poor lad had just said.

I sat there thinking, 'There's only been one prophetic word given today and it was through that poor lad ...'

---

Yes. And the church too smug, too caught up in its own Christianese, to see it.

Jesus would have responded to that hurt, angry and vulnerable young man rather differently.
 

---

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
Gamaliel

So much of what you say resonates very deeply with me and I too no longer feel comfortable in those types of services/ gatherings but......I know that many people do find such things helpful. So I have a question for you.
Are you aware that you zig-zag between giving other people the space to make their own choices in such matters and sounding like you are not at all happy with those choices?!

That said, I long ago came to the conclusion that anything I choose to talk about to do with my own Christian walk be it in a small, medium or large group setting needs careful and sensitive communication. I am talking more about story-telling rather than the use of charismatic spiritual gifts.
What I find interesting is that we are swift to judge one another in this way in a church context but these things happen in other places too. I remember someone flying out of a school staff room in tears when someone else shared their own good news of a pregnancy when they were struggling to conceive...
The balance of weeping with others and rejoicing with others is a really tricky one!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, wise words Mrs Beaky.

And yes, I'm aware of the tensions in my own approach.

I suppose one of the reasons I post on Ship is to explore and 'work-out' those tensions.

I often feel, for instance, that the format and cut-and-thrust of online debate drives me to positions I wouldn't take over a cup of tea or face-to-face chat ... so I probably sound more strident on these issues than I am in 'real life'.

I'm very conscious of that when I debate with South Coast Kevin, for instance, because I like the guy and don't want him to feel as if I'm picking him up on minor points all the time ... when in fact that's what I am doing ...



I'm more than happy for South Coast Kevin to be free to express himself in his church settings in whatever way he chooses ... testimony, chorus-singing, tongues, prophecy, whatever else ...

It's just that I sometimes get the impression - and I know he's not implying this, at least not directly - that he feels that there's something deficient about those churches which choose not to go in for those sort of things - as if they are defying some kind of NT 'norm'.

Laurelin is in a church which combines both the charismatic and the liturgical, so she probably gets the best of both worlds.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
Kevin, I think it is very important that testimonies given in the context of a Sunday morning service are SPECIFIC and not vague. Re: your first example, people in my church have shared in public about how they felt God and/or the church family supported them during a difficult time, e.g. illness or bereavement. Or when people have been on a conference and report something helpful back. My vicar, a full-blown charismatic in many ways, is always delighted when anybody wants to 'share' upfront, but he is also wise about not allowing wild tangents to develop.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's just that I sometimes get the impression - and I know he's not implying this, at least not directly - that he feels that there's something deficient about those churches which choose not to go in for those sort of things - as if they are defying some kind of NT 'norm'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Intolerance alert and confession time - frankly, I do think there's something deficient about a church where all the members / attendees don't have some kind of opportunity, in the official services / gatherings, to share something of their faith and journey with God.

I just see this as a fundamental part of what a church should be like and, yes, this largely derives from what I see as a New Testament 'norm'. Christians get an awful lot of our sense of what constitutes right behaviour from the New Testament, and I think the same should be the case when it comes to what our churches should be like (in terms of how they're structured, what happens in the services / gatherings etc.).

---

I understand this and in many ways agree with it. The Nonconformist churches - who are the spiritual ancestors of today's 'new' churches - have tried over the centuries to recover this NT praxis. In many cases, successfully. (One of my personal faves is the Moravian church. Read up on them. What a history. )

The more ancient churches would argue, of course, that they, too, are being faithful to models both in the OT and NT. I don't agree with the Catholic theology of priesthood but I do understand the thinking behind it.

I've learned a lot from all the traditions, that's all I can say. I agree a lot with Nonconformism but I am also very grateful that we have the historic 'mother' churches.

As Gamaliel said, in one sense I get the best of both worlds by being in a church that is both liturgical and - in a very lite sense - 'charismatic'. (Not that my church is perfect, I hasten to add. Far from it.)

I will add that it was a historic liturgical church that recognised and validated my ministry to be a lay preacher. For which I am deeply grateful.
 

---

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
SCK
Yes, of course you have got to be honest! And you're right, Gamaliel did use the word first.
How do we (not necessarily this thread, or even on the Ship but wider too) discuss things with honesty but without putting each other down? I remember when I stood for election and friends of mine who voted for a different political party gave me such a hard time, beyond a political discussion, it had a really personal edge to it to which I reacted very badly.
It's one of my passions really, honest communication without judgment so sorry if I sounded critical!
 

---

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Presumably it's the same as anyone who thinks the Eucharist, presided over by an ordained person, should be at the heart of every church service. Such a person would, I guess, consider a church which doesn't operate like this to be deficient in some sense (again, without necessarily using that word unless pushed).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Presumably it's the same as anyone who thinks the Eucharist, presided over by an ordained person, should be at the heart of every church service. Such a person would, I guess, consider a church which doesn't operate like this to be deficient in some sense (again, without necessarily using that word unless pushed).

---

You're right. I've learnt from the Ship that some (probably many) Catholics regard your church and mine as 'deficient'. They wouldn't necessarily dismiss either of us as not being 'real' Christians, but they do regard us, too, as 'missing out'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm not a Catholic, and I wouldn't use the word 'deficient', but if I'm brutally honest I do think that church which doesn't have the Eucharist at the heart of it, every service, is missing the point of church. IMO you are missing out, big time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Unfortunately I do think there is a cultural memory/prejudice of anti-Catholicism at the root of that - I can see no other explanation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Sure Jammy Dodger, but not all deficiencies are equally deficient. Not putting Jesus' presence in the the Eucharist which He instructed us to have at the centre of church is a rather big one. There are churches who would happily have baptisms every week, so why not the Eucharist every week? Unfortunately I do think there is a cultural memory/prejudice of anti-Catholicism at the root of that - I can see no other explanation.

---

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 11:25 (NET)
 In the same way, he also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, every time you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
One thing that I know a variety of churches are doing (regardless of liturgical/non-liturgical style) is including (maybe very occasionally) a "this time tomorrow" item. Someone is asked (in advance obviously) to share a bit about what they will be doing "this time tomorrow", how God is relevant to them in that situation or how they have seen God at work in that arena recently and then the service leader leads the whole congregation in praying for that person and those whom they represent in similar situations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
And just to riff on that for a bit... for some of us the reason we're "non-eucharistic" is because the eucharist as practiced seems so clearly deficient!

Token food and drink received from a symbolic benefactor is so far removed from the shared meal we see in Jesus' practice that it seems better to avoid it altogether...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I was just wondering about this, and how to frame my thoughts. Whatever Jesus had in mind with the 'this' in 'do this in remembrance of me', I'm sure it wasn't about eating a small piece of bread or a wafer, and drinking a sip of wine or juice. It was a community meal, shared among people who considered themselves family.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Chris Stiles and Gamaliel (and anyone else, of course) - you say some churches 'sacralise' other practices, like preaching or enthusiastic singing. What do you mean, exactly; what would you say are the markers, the identifiers that would indicate another practice has been 'sacralised'? I'm thinking that you mean something rather stronger than simply that there's a strong emphasis placed on the preaching, singing or whatever.

---

Well, maybe one example would be this: my experience of charismatic worship is that it attempts to lift people into a 'vatic' (Gamaliel's useful word) atmosphere where they can encounter the Almighty. It's an attempt to create sacred space. I've been in worship meetings where something very beautiful has taken place, when the worship is led sensitively. But this kind of thing can also be very manipulative in the wrong hands. I absolutely hate things being hyped up. There's no bloody need. The Holy Spirit doesn't need us to put on a show.

In a very similar way, things like incense and chanting are intended to create a sacred space. And our more Catholic brethren would say there was more biblical and church-historical precedent for incense and Psalm-chanting than trying to whip up people's emotions.

I think they've got a point.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
I thoroughly agree with you, Laurelin, that God doesn't need us to hype things up. In fact, yes, hype can be jolly dangerous and manipulative.

But I don't think I'd have defined a sacrament or sacralising as being about creating a sacred space. Is this a misconception on my part? I am quite hazy on the whole sacrament thing, mind you; mainly I think because my view is that pretty much anything can be a vehicle (so to speak) for encounter with God.

I do acknowledge the concept of 'thin places' - places where God's presence seems particularly tangible - but my theology and experience is that God can be experienced powerfully in any circumstance or situation.
 

---

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But I don't think I'd have defined a sacrament or sacralising as being about creating a sacred space. Is this a misconception on my part?

---

Gosh, no, I certainly wasn't intending to imply that was the whole definition of a sacrament, that all it does is 'create sacred space'. Heaven forbid!

A sacrament is the outward symbol of an inner reality. As a Protestant, I believe that the New Testament mandates two: baptism and Communion (which is firmly rooted in the Passover meal, with all the incredible richness of what that symbolism means).

I have never, I'm afraid, been very impressed by the newer churches' approach to Holy Communion. Communion should NOT be a case of everybody swarming up, chattering like a flock of budgies, to grab a bit of bread and wine, as they do in a New Frontiers church I know. Ugh. That is missing out, tragically, on the richness of biblical roots. That's neither one thing nor the other: it's not the rich, solemn, formal drama of the Eucharist as practiced by our more Catholic brethren, but neither is it a warm, intimate agape meal modelled on the Passover - which is, of course, a family meal as well as a religious ritual, a lovely marriage of two elements.

Intimacy with God should not be the same thing as familiarity. Evangelicals sometimes don't seem to get that, maybe because we place so much emphasis on the immanence of God, as Gamaliel said upthread.

And this is why I'm still an Anglican. Because the Eucharist really, really matters. I hate a sloppy approach to it. Even the Brethren - who I grew up with, and they had their own issues - had a far deeper, more profound approach to the Lord's Supper than many new churches do. They didn't treat it lightly or casually. None of us should. This is about the core of what Jesus did for us, and what it cost Him.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
There's a thread on feedback loops over in Ecclesiantics, South Coast Kevin if you'd like to join in over there too. Your contributions would be appreciated.

http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=008002;p=1#000000

On the sacramental thing ... well, yes, my theology/spirituality too would say that almost anything can be a channel/medium for the conveyance of divine grace ... and in my experience almost (if not all) the people I've met who have a sacramental approach to things would say the same.

So, I'm not saying that the presence of God etc can't be mediated - as it were- through Quaker stillness, through a walk in the countryside or over a cuppa with friends ... of course God is involved in all of this.

The way I look at it is like this - and bear in mind, I started out very anti-sacramentalist and far more evangelical/charismatic in my views (and I'm not knocking either emphasis, so bear with me) ...

It's this whole thing of 'Is nothing sacred?'

Because, if nothing's sacred then ... well, nothing is sacred.

The Sabbath for man not man for the Sabbath.

The Sabbath was set apart as a 'representative' day if you like ... it doesn't mean that the other days of the week are any less special or holy.

In the same way the bread and the wine are 'set aside' - consecrated if you like - for a particular purpose. It doesn't mean that any other food or drink aren't special or that the sharing of those together can't be a means of drawing closer to God and to one another.

In the same way, it's why I no longer have an issue with vestments and so on - whilst I'd have been virulently opposed to them at one time.

If I receive the bread and wine from a priest/minister - call them what you will - it doesn't mean that I regard them as a special benefactor of some kind ... however I receive the bread and wine ultimately I'm receiving them from Christ because they are a means that he has ordained.

That doesn't mean that there aren't other means and that all other practices are somehow invalid - why should it?

All of life is sacred. All of life is holy. I don't see how we detract from that if we hold special days, special services and special times and seasons and so on ... provided we don't get all Pharisaical about it ... and it's possible to become that way in the opposite direction too ... a kind of prissy, pietistic pride in not holding to these things. I've been there and done that.

I'm not saying you're guilty of it, I hasten to add.

On the 'sacralising' of the worship time and so on ... yes, I agree 100% with Laurelin. You hear it in the way people talk about the 'worship time' - as if the whole thing isn't an act of worship but only those few minutes in the middle of the service when the praise/worship songs reach a crescendo and people 'zone-out' to it.

The difference with the RC/Orthodox/Anglo-Catholic ways of doing things - by and large is that people don't 'zone-out' or get hypnotised by the whole thing ... although I'm sure that can happen with a combination of chant/incense/candles/iconography etc ... that can be as heady a mix as charismatic drum-n-bass ....

Now, I'd be the first to acknowledge, like Laurelin, that there can be very special times during charismatic worship ... I've certainly experienced that. But there are then attempts to somehow 'bottle' or 'sacralise' that by repeating the formulae or repeating the procedure in order to achieve the same kind of feeling, atmosphere or spiritual 'high.'

The difference with the more liturgical traditions, I submit, is that no-one there is under any illusions about it being ritualised and formulaic. They know full well that this is what it is. It's not as if it takes them by surprise or that they are being deliberately deluded or hoodwinked.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that there is deliberate manipulation going on in all charismatic gatherings - although there can be - but I bet you a pound to a penny that at most charismatic services I could spot/highlight the cues that are going to encourage or induce particular forms of behaviour.

The reason I backed off from the Toronto thing back in the day was because I realised how easy it was to induce these things ... I'd begun to feel pride, that there was something special about me because people would fall over when I prayed for them ...

It's a tricky and complex area and things aren't clear cut on either side.

What I would say, is that there is a tendency in many contemporary charismatic settings to some how try to enhance or even replace the standard means of grace ... the introduction of 'prayer ministry' even in quite conventional Anglican communion services is an example of this IMHO. Not that I have a problem with prayer or people praying for one another ... but it's as if the communion service, the prayers, the hymns and sermon etc are insufficient in and of themselves and they have to introduce something where the real action takes place ...

I can only speak as I find and that's how I find it.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But I don't think I'd have defined a sacrament or sacralising as being about creating a sacred space. Is this a misconception on my part?

---

Gosh, no, I certainly wasn't intending to imply that was the whole definition of a sacrament, that all it does is 'create sacred space'. Heaven forbid!

A sacrament is the outward symbol of an inner reality...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
I have never, I'm afraid, been very impressed by the newer churches' approach to Holy Communion. Communion should NOT be a case of everybody swarming up, chattering like a flock of budgies, to grab a bit of bread and wine, as they do in a New Frontiers church I know. Ugh. That is missing out, tragically, on the richness of biblical roots. That's neither one thing nor the other: it's not the rich, solemn, formal drama of the Eucharist as practiced by our more Catholic brethren, but neither is it a warm, intimate agape meal modelled on the Passover - which is, of course, a family meal as well as a religious ritual, a lovely marriage of two elements.

---

Hmm. *Reflects on how communion is done at my church* Yeah, we don't have an 'agape love feast', but neither do we always achieve the solemnity and profundity of the way communion is done at many 'higher' churches. Certainly, I am prone to treating the Lord's Supper fairly casually.
 

---

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Okay, thanks. So if, for you, there are two sacraments, namely baptism and Communion, what does it mean to call those two things 'sacraments'. 'Outward symbol of an inner reality' seems quite vague; there must be other things we do in church activities that would also qualify under this definition.

---

quote:

---

Although if the purpose of church services is at least partly contained in celebrating / performing / taking part in the sacraments then ISTM important that we are clear on what a sacrament is (and what it means for something to be a sacrament).

---

Certain people thrashed this out about 500 years ago.

What is baptism all about (irrespective of the mode, whether it's infant or believer's baptism)? What is Communion all about (whether you interpret it literally, metaphorically or as a memorial)?

I'm not arguing for religion in which all that matters is ritual. God has never been about that anyway: the sacraments and rituals of OT Judaism are all about Him meeting with His people in glory. He says in Isaiah (and other places) that He detests religion which goes through the motions but doesn't care about the suffering of the poor. He wants men and women who live for Him, who are sold out for Him, and I'm pretty sure He prefers people with a fuzzy idea about the sacraments yet love Him and seek to share His love with others, to people whose theology is correct but whose hearts are cold.

And Gamaliel is right (again) - all of life can be sacramental. Loving prostitutes and drug addicts can be sacramental. Caring for your elderly, frail parent suffering from dementia can be sacramental. Etcetera. But that doesn't mean we have to be all 'oh, what are the biblically ordained sacraments again?'

I'm trying to think of that CS Lewis quote where he said that the church that forgets its distant past will be enslaved by its present. Or something like that. (I've Googled but without success, probably because I haven't got the quote quite right.) I think the quote is in 'Mere Christianity' but I could be wrong.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the sacramental thing ... well, yes, my theology/spirituality too would say that almost anything can be a channel/medium for the conveyance of divine grace ... and in my experience almost (if not all) the people I've met who have a sacramental approach to things would say the same.

---

Yes, I would agree that almost anything *could* be a medium/channel of grace (saving rather than common), yet there are particular things to which - as Laurelin alludes to - God attaches special promises. Part of being Protestant is appreciating the special place of baptism and Communion. To assume something else can somehow 'take their place' on a regular basis is what Luther and others would term a theology of glory. That God is gracious in using other things as a channel of his grace should not trick us into thinking that we can use these to channel his grace.

Incidentally, I didn't mean to make you feel guilty SCK. You are easily one of the most likeable opponents on these boards - and amongst the most humble.

[ 12. December 2013, 13:57: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'd second your comments about South Coast Kevin, Chris ... he's likeable, humble and an all round good egg ...



On the sacraments - or ordinances as some more Protestant Protestants would have it - whether there are two (Protestantism) or seven (as our more Catholic friends would have it) I think the principles you've outlined here do apply ...

It's not that any of us here - Laurelin, yourself or indeed any of the more Catholic folks - and there haven't been many of them on here for a few exchanges' worth now - are denying the efficacy of the sort of thing SCK and his church get up to ...

At least, I'm not. I don't think you are either.

But I totally agree with Laurelin on the eucharistic aspect. I wasn't brought up Brethren but had some exposure to them soon after my evangelical conversion and I'd agree, they took these things very seriously.

Part of me thinks that one of the reasons that so many of the newer outfits tend to become fixated with the quirky, the whacky and the faddish (at least for a season) is because they haven't properly explored the depths of the received tradition ... the sort of thing Laurelin was driving at with the elusive C S Lewis quote.

That may well be the fault of those of us who do espouse the 'old paths' - and I'm not knocking innovation necessarily.

But there are things we can fall back on and rely upon that are tried and tested and noble and of good report.

That certainly doesn't obviate the efficacy of small groups and so on - but it does act as brake and counter-balance to subjectivity and faddishness.
 

---

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

quote:

---

because they haven't properly explored the depths of the received tradition

---

This, exactly this....
(says she speaking as one who has known both the challenges and the blessings of the new church way of doing things and has joyfully returned to that received tradition!)

And, yes I too wholeheartedly agree with the comments about SCK.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Laurelin - I didn't mean to imply that communion and baptism being sacraments was some wacky idea you'd come up with yourself; apologies! It's just that you and Gamaliel had suggested preaching and singing as other things which some Christians and churches make into sacraments, and I was trying to get at what that meant. Never mind, though; it's not that important, I don't think.

Gamaliel and chris stiles - sacraments, ordinances... Am I verging on the heretical because I probably wouldn't use either of these words?! I do think communion and baptism are very important (and, like I said, I'm reflecting on my attitude towards the former) but if someone asked me to explain what, for me, is at the heart of Christianity, it'd take me a little while to get to baptism and communion. Hmm...

MrsBeaky - Agreed, I think it's important to draw on the undoubted treasure that can be found in the various Christian traditions. But I think I'm doing pretty much the same thing whenever I hark back to what I see as the New Testament example; drawing on treasure from the most ancient Christian witness of all!

And, er, thanks all of you... Pleasure chatting with y'all!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't to bander terms like 'heretical' around unless in reference to things which are clearly outside the boundaries of generally accepted Christian orthodoxy (small o) ... so no, I don't think you're verging on the heretical, South Coast Kevin.

Any more than I'd say that Mudfrog was 'heretical' because the Salvation Army don't practice baptism and the Lord's Supper. Whereas I would say that they were heretical if they were to suddenly adopt a unitarian stance on the Trinity ... which I don't see them doing any time soon.

Indeed, I'd say that there were people and ministers/priests etc within the historic churches and denominations who were far more heretical in their views than anything that might be found in the 'independent sector' as it were ... churches like yours and the various 'new churches' etc.

That's not the issue.

That said, I do think that to sideline sacraments/ordinances - or whatever we want to call them - in favour of ... I dunno, something dreamed up by someone or other much later on, is to push things towards some pretty choppy waters ...

If nothing else, these things provide 'ballast' and anchor us to the broad thrust of received tradition (small t and Big T) if you like.

I'd suggest they do rather more than that but that's another issue.

As far as the Vineyard goes, I think they are drawing on a strand/strain of vatic and experiential spirituality that is very real and has continued to be there - in various forms - from the earliest times.

Provided they keep any innovations/developments within the broad framework of the classic tradition then I don't have an issue. However, I would say that groups like the Vineyard are inevitably prone to fads and fancies ... witness the Kansas City Prophets who exercised influence on the Wimber scene for a while.

Conversely, of course, the older, historic churches can be prone to atrophy and a reluctance to take risks ...

So there are pros and cons all ways round.

That's all I'm sayin'.

I'd happily visit your Vineyard church if I were passing through your town, but I wouldn't actively seek out a group like that as my permanent spiritual home, as it were.

Neither would I expect you to abandon the group/tradition you're comfortable with unless you had good reason or convictions about doing so.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Gamaliel and chris stiles - sacraments, ordinances... Am I verging on the heretical because I probably wouldn't use either of these words?! I do think communion and baptism are very important

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Laurelin - I didn't mean to imply that communion and baptism being sacraments was some wacky idea you'd come up with yourself; apologies! It's just that you and Gamaliel had suggested preaching and singing as other things which some Christians and churches make into sacraments, and I was trying to get at what that meant. Never mind, though; it's not that important, I don't think.

---

I think there's been a semantic confusion somewhere. I for one would never suggest that charismatic worship was some kind of sacrament. I think what Gamaliel mentioned was the idea of 'sacred space', which is different.

quote:

---

Gamaliel and chris stiles - sacraments, ordinances... Am I verging on the heretical because I probably wouldn't use either of these words?!

---

No. Not heretical. You don't have to use those precise words! I do think it is very important to understand what baptism and Communion are all about, though.

quote:

---

I do think communion and baptism are very important (and, like I said, I'm reflecting on my attitude towards the former) but if someone asked me to explain what, for me, is at the heart of Christianity, it'd take me a little while to get to baptism and communion. Hmm...

---

I think that's fair enough. When sharing my faith with folk (which I'm not brilliant at doing, by the way), I certainly don't drag sacraments into the conversation.

But learning about the significance of all this - what baptism is all about, what celebrating Communion is all about - should be, IMO, an essential part of spiritual formation or what our Catholic friends would call 'catechesis'.

Of course, learning to be a disciple of Jesus is an on-going, organic process, the work of a lifetime.

[code]

[ 13. December 2013, 15:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yep ... I agree with that.

On the 'sacred space' thing ... I do think I was saying rather more than that.

It seems to me that some charismatics act as if the worship time .... the bit in the middle where they go all gooey ... IS the pinnacle and central point of any service ... just as in some traditions it's the sermon.

So to that extent I do think they can 'sacralise' it over and above what are generally regarded as sacraments.

This would be last apparent, I would suggest, in a setting like yours which combines the eucharistic/liturgical with the charismatic dimension.

Nature abhors a vacuum and in the absence of sacraments/ordinances people tend to replace them with other things which are then 'sacralised' instead.
 

---

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 
I.... think church itself serves no purpose.

It took a lot to admit that to myself.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It might not serve any purpose for you. Doesn't mean it doesn't do so for anyone else.
 

---

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 
Yes, I was thinking that over dinner.

I think there are a whole range of possible benefits to the individual. However, I don't believe it makes any difference regarding the relation between the individual and the divine. Hence I don't believe in praise worship (or at least don't believe that God takes any notice of what we sing), don't hold to any sacraments or say any creeds.

Of course, others can think differently. But they're wrong.
 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
And just to riff on that for a bit... for some of us the reason we're "non-eucharistic" is because the eucharist as practiced seems so clearly deficient!

Token food and drink received from a symbolic benefactor is so far removed from the shared meal we see in Jesus' practice that it seems better to avoid it altogether...

---

quote:

---

Posted by Mudfrog as part of a long discussion about “Sacraments and Salvation”:

Let me just clarify my view - that of The Salvation Army.

We believe in the immediacy of grace at all times and in all places.

We believe that the bread and wine are a valuable means of grace and we would never deny their efficacy when received by faith.

However, we would not be happy to say that Christ is present uniquely in/under the bread and wine - Salvationists wholly believe in the real presence of Christ in many, many tangible signs and tokens.

Is a cup of cold water given in the name of Christ not a sacrament as much as the wine?

Is the sandwich given to the homeless man at a Salvation Army van not the bread?

What about the meal shared by Christian friends where 'Christ is the unseen guest, the silent listener'?

Is that not the breaking of bread as much as the individual kneeling at the altar rail?

Thank God that there is no need to 'contain' Christ in bread and wine and likewise no need to exclude him.

Our plea is that the whole of our tangible, God-given life, work, worship and service be seen as sacramental - a means of grace to others.

These things are all given as means of grace so that people might see, know and finally experience the love of God and his grace that leads to salvation.

---

This has been extremely helpful in our discussions as to "how to do church" in our outreach (and "inreach!).
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think that Mudfrog quote is spot on ... the only thing I'd differ on would be that, unlike him, I would practice the sacraments - whatever that means - and make room for them ... but not at the detriment of the other points that he raises.

Both/and, not either or.

@Pydsey Bear ... well, it ain't all about you, is it?
 

---

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :
 


It certainly is all about me, I'm the sole member of the pre-existing Orthodox, Anglo-Evangelical Church of the New Testament, Reformed and Reborn by the Power of the Holy Spirit, don't you know.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, another Pope ...
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0