Ship of Fools: Complaining about your church's worship

Thread: Complaining about your church's worship Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027829

Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :

Does your church have a complaints policy about worship? This sort of thing seems pretty standard in some organisations like schools etc, what about churches?

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

There is a story about a former rector of St. Mary the Virgin, the famous AC church in Times Square. When a member would request a meeting with the obvious intent of complaining about some aspect of the service, the Rector would grant the request, and show up to the meeting with transfer papers and a few suggestions of churches the complaining member might enjoy more.

Our rector is a little more gentle. Any time we try something new, she explains the logic in the announcements, and invites anyone with questions or concerns to speak with her. It isn't a lost cause either. A few months ago, they tried a new incense that had distinct notes of third world trash fire. A member of the choir said something, and we were back to the regular stuff the next week.

Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :

Thanks, Og.

It sounds like an informal complaints system which works!

But how do you stop trouble makers firing off complaints to higher authority? That is where a policy can help - which outlines a procedure to be followed, and what to do if not satisfied.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

What exactly do we mean by complaints about worship?

In the Church of England, within very broad limits set by canon, an incumbent has a pretty free hand over liturgy, preaching, service times, and so on. There are a few exceptions, mostly rather legalistic ones about church property, and some odd rules about who can celebrate and who can distribute Communion. But on the whole the incumbent (or the churchwardens if there isn't one) is the first and last port of call for commemts about the conduct of public worship in the parish.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

It is in any case an unwinnable process. Person A protests vehemently because Priest Z was seen to elevate the host. Person P is furious because Shine Jesus Shine was sung. Person C hates that there's no birthday announcements. Person D wants more inclusive language - person E will withhold their giving if the old words of the hymns are tinkered with. The organ is too loud, the flowers cover up my grandmother's memorial plaque and are the wrong colour anyway, the vicar's alb needs ironing, the previous priest had a much better singing voice and why can't we have that nice prayer about being unworthy miserable sinners grovelling under the table.

I am move than happy to explain why we do what we do (do) but on the whole personal conversations are best. I have been explaining changes that I've been making in my new gig, but of course then someone will complain because the explanations are unnecessary.

Benevolent dictatorship rulz, and if you don't like it, yup, the door is open ... on the whole my litmus test is "is this the best vehicle by which to reserve the integrity of the wisdom of 20 centuries and proclaim Christ to a new generation?" Mileages differ.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

it's usually quite controversial to challenge a standard worship practice or simple quirk in any church. Couching one's comments as a 'complaint' about something is highly likely to cause some upset. Either that or it'll just be ignored.

I think it's better to see oneself as offering suggestions or ideas as to how worship might be developed or enhanced. Ideally, these thoughts will be offered in some sort of official church meeting, because grumbling to a single church leader who has little power to change things on their own isn't going to be very fruitful.

IME, though, if you have one or more powerful lay individuals who dominate how things are done in worship, there's unlikely to be any real change. The clergy often find it easier to defer to powerful laypeople, or to what they presume to be the majority view, than to stand up for change, even if they have some sympathy with what an individual suggests. However, each congregation and each denomination is different.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

Simple solution: The committee meets Tuesday at 7pm. We'd love to have you. If they don't show up, problem solved. If they do, listen to them. Debate. Discuss. Research. Vote. It can't always be said that laypeople know what they're doing, or that the ordained leader does. This is firmly a case-by-case basis. (I should clarify that in my context, there is no higher liturgical authority to which appeal an be made.)

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
It is in any case an unwinnable process. Person A protests vehemently because Priest Z was seen to elevate the host. Person P is furious because Shine Jesus Shine was sung. Person C hates that there's no birthday announcements. Person D wants more inclusive language - person E will withhold their giving if the old words of the hymns are tinkered with. The organ is too loud, the flowers cover up my grandmother's memorial plaque and are the wrong colour anyway, the vicar's alb needs ironing, the previous priest had a much better singing voice and why can't we have that nice prayer about being unworthy miserable sinners grovelling under the table.

I am move than happy to explain why we do what we do (do) but on the whole personal conversations are best. I have been explaining changes that I've been making in my new gig, but of course then someone will complain because the explanations are unnecessary.

Benevolent dictatorship rulz, and if you don't like it, yup, the door is open ... on the whole my litmus test is "is this the best vehicle by which to reserve the integrity of the wisdom of 20 centuries and proclaim Christ to a new generation?" Mileages differ.

Zappa - you have summed up nicely the practice I've adopted for the past 20 or so years - much easier in a large place where there are plenty of alternatives for the dissatisfied - but explanation, discussion, implementation has worked well to date - as someone famous once said: 'It is easier to ask forgiveness than it is to seek permission'.

Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on :

The problem is that the most contradictory complaints usually come from members of the same family - Granny might like Shine Jesus Shine, and Grandson might like the traditional words, for a start.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Surely grown-up people should know the difference between a "complaint" (= it is irreverent, shoddy, too loud, can't hear etc.) and "personal preferences"?

Sadly the two often overlap or get confused.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

In the CofE, I've always understood that, if unhappy about something, you write a letter to the PCC, which then gets discussed at the next meeting. If you just write or talk to one person, they can quietly shelve it and not say anything. But with a whole committee, the problem is out in the open and can ensure a full and fair discussion, which is then reported back on and minuted.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I can partly see the logic of this, Chorister, though I'd be pretty unhappy if a person's first port of call for a complaint about the choir, or for a complaint about the worship was a letter to the PCC rather than a conversation with the Director of Music, or the incumbent (respectively).

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Surely grown-up people should know the difference between a "complaint" (= it is irreverent, shoddy, too loud, can't hear etc.) and "personal preferences"?

Sadly the two often overlap or get confused.

Except that "this is irreverent / shoddy etc." is often the excuse given to complain about a personal preference.

I think "shoddy" is a perfectly reasonable word to describe a lot of "modern" worship songs - they are musically inane, with trite lyrics, and we should be able to bring something rather better to God. (There are other "modern" songs which aren't really to my taste, but I do find to have musical merit.)

For some of my friends, that "shoddy" music is their favorite, and they find it most helpful.

Which brings it all back to personal preference, doesn't it?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I have seen one of these unfortunate situations where parish leadership introduced worship changes as part of a longterm agenda, with the intention of pruning the parish of those of a different mind, and eventually taking the congregation out of the diocese. A number of people tried- some with more grace than others - approaches of meeting with the rector, writing to the rector, writing to the parish council, writing to the bishop, and all to no avail. Responses to their efforts ranged from the uncomprehending ("I don't know what you mean") to the aggressively offensive. None of the usual mechanisms had any effect on a determined political agenda. Looking back, I wonder if the only effective response would have been the one which I abhor--- major confrontation.

Happily, this sort of situation is extremely rare, but I have seen other instances where a mediated conversation could have been a useful approach, helping objectors to refine the grounds of their objection and moving it beyond All Change Is Bad, and proposers to understand their motivations and their goals.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

This is a particularly complex issue in the Roman Catholic Church. In the RCC, many of the idiosyncracies of liturgy in your average parish are not technically allowed based on the rubrics (the modern rubrics do allow for a decent amount of variation, but I have seen very few parishes or priests who do not deliberately break the rubrics in several ways). However, in the RCC, if a layperson has an issue with liturgy s/he should first tell the parish priest and/or any layperson in charge of liturgy (who has to answer to the pastor of the parish anyway). If it really is an issue about not following the rubrics, only after telling the pastor and observing no change afterwards would a layperson be in a good position to write to a bishop, and then it is likely that nothing will happen unless the bishop is one of those crazy ones that have been appointed to small but growing dioceses in the conservative-leaning parts of the US.

I don't think official complaints about priests (or liturgy committees where they exist, which need to answer to the pastor anyway) breaking the liturgical rules are a good idea in any case (unless the priest installs a trapeze over the altar or something like that, in which case a bishop might intervene if told about it).

Many RC priests, especially the ones now in their 60s-70s, do tend to feel that they can change certain things they really aren't allowed to change here and there in order to better fit their aesthetic and theological tastes. Even though they think that what they are doing is for the good of the congregation, they are often a bit annoyed when told that anyone notices it, since I think that some of them tend to be performing a monologue for themselves up there.

This does not mean that many of the very few priests (mostly young zealots) who follow the rubrics to the letter are not pompously living in their own pious bubble when they celebrate Mass.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Surely grown-up people should know the difference between a "complaint" (= it is irreverent, shoddy, too loud, can't hear etc.) and "personal preferences"?

Seeing this in Ecclesiantics has exploded my irony meter.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Well, I'm truly sorry about that. (And that statement is not ironical).

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

At my former church anyone with complaints about worship was directed to the Worship Committee. We also had occasional surveys that went around asking people about their experience of worship, and used that as feedback when planning.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Those who complain should not just be directed to the Liturgy Committee, but told that they should join it and spend some time and effort into the worship of the church. Complaints would probably plummet.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
(unless the priest installs a trapeze over the altar

Now you've got me thinking ...

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Those who complain should not just be directed to the Liturgy Committee, but told that they should join it and spend some time and effort into the worship of the church. Complaints would probably plummet.

I agree with this general point but it's worth noting that some churches don't have a Worship Committee, Liturgy Committee or similar. What might people do in the absence of a formal committee...?

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Those who complain should not just be directed to the Liturgy Committee, but told that they should join it and spend some time and effort into the worship of the church. Complaints would probably plummet.
I agree with this general point but it's worth noting that some churches don't have a Worship Committee, Liturgy Committee or similar. What might people do in the absence of a formal committee...?

Upthread it's been made pretty clear that "contact the worship committee" actually means "tell the pastor -- just with a bit more padding"?

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I agree with this general point but it's worth noting that some churches don't have a Worship Committee, Liturgy Committee or similar. What might people do in the absence of a formal committee...?

Take it up with the church council, leadership team, PCC, or whatever group is in administrative control. There should be a group started, though. Without it, the personal preferences of the priest or music director are the only ones that matter. Let's face facts, there are hundreds of hymns with a theme of "grace," but if the only one the priest knows is "Amazing Grace," you're going to sing that an awful lot. More experience and more viewpoints are needed in order to do a good job.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Upthread it's been made pretty clear that "contact the worship committee" actually means "tell the pastor -- just with a bit more padding"?

I wouldn't say that at all! If this is the case, then the committee needs bolstering. One of the best things a worship committee can do is take the heat off the pastor and musician, by spreading the responsibility (blame) over a larger group of people, which of course is open to anyone.

Once on the committee, people will see that although preference is certainly a factor, collaboration occurs and opinions are taken into account. Any good worship committee makes sure that any reasonable and permissible desires of the congregation are fulfilled.

With a committee, one can say, "Yes, I know that you like to sing 'What a friend we have in Jesus.' I can tell you that we sing it more than anything else here, and that we sang it eight times last year alone, more than anything else. But other people have things they want to sing, too, and we do the best we can to accommodate them, lectionary and season permitting. The next time 'What a friend' will fit with the readings, I promise that I will bring it up as a possibility, and if history is any indication, we might very well vote to use it! P.S. Please come to our next meeting."

[ 27. December 2013, 21:18: Message edited by: Olaf ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Perhaps it depends on how priest-oriented vs. congregational a church is. Like Olaf, if you complain about worship around my church, you're guaranteed to be a candidate for the Eldership in next year's elections to the Church Council. [Snigger]

I'm just finishing up my term as Worship Elder, next year I'm Vice-Chair of the Council. I spent a quarter of my time updating the baptismal and communion services to the new standard in the latest service book, and thankfully the congregation approved of the changes.

The biggest problem in worship planning is not new ideas or doing something different, it is resisting change and then discerning and expanding what the congregation likes. I firmly believe God created the laity to put a firm clamp on the pernicious ideas of ministers (and pesky worship elders).

The United Church of Canada though doesn't go in for the stark differences in worship style that Anglicanism does, partly because the elders are the ones who are really long-term in a church, while ministers move around. The elders usually protect what a congregation has always done and liked, and since they're the ones who Called the minister, they get someone who is compatible with the congregation's vibe. Presbytery, if it insists on any one thing will insist that the Call demonstrate that the congregation and minster are well-matched.

A minister usually confines herself to what is not working. Plus our ministers aren't such fine liturgists as a rule ( [Snigger]

); their balliwick is preaching.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Perhaps the answer is to forestall complaints by dishing out satisfaction surveys to the congregation. Ring from 1-5 as to how much you agree with the following statements.

1. The preaching was inspiring.
2. I agreed with the preacher's theology.
3. The preacher scratched me where I itched.

4. The vestments were cool.
5. There were the right number of candles on the altar.
6. I liked the Eucharistic prayer.

7. The music was too happy-clappy.
8. The music wasn't happy-clappy enough.
9. The service made me feel I was in Heaven.

10. The coffee was good.

Finally a small box to write in anything else they want to say.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I can partly see the logic of this, Chorister, though I'd be pretty unhappy if a person's first port of call for a complaint about the choir, or for a complaint about the worship was a letter to the PCC rather than a conversation with the Director of Music, or the incumbent (respectively).

I agree that in the first instance a situation should ideally be resolved quietly between the persons concerned. The PCC involvement is for if such resolution cannot be obtained and someone feels it's necessary to take the difference of opinion to another level. Some people write directly to the Bishop but to my mind that jumps to a whole new level far too quickly, without some sort of consolidated backing in place first.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

My solution is to come on here and whinge about it ...

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

I'm actually quite opposed to surveys for worship issues. They can breed dissent.

Just listen to people, treat them respectfully, give them what they want (within reason) as often as possible when it isn't at the expense of others' preferences not being used, and make sure they're always welcome to contribute on a committee basis.

Unsurprisingly, the people who really have a bugbear will make themselves heard, no matter what. The others almost invariably are more accommodating. (A good committee thus makes a point to privately engage those more peaceful members, too, and to observe through sight and sound what those other people like. After a year or so, you'll have a good impression of what is desired. Then, make it happen before anybody comes to you with requests!)

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

quote:
Upthread it's been made pretty clear that "contact the worship committee" actually means "tell the pastor -- just with a bit more padding"?

Actually, in my former church the pastor was minimally involved in the work of the Worship Committee -- he'd give them a bit of general guidance, and I suppose he had veto power over any off-the-wall worship suggestions, but he basically lent them his copy of Sundays and Seasons, sent them to synodical worship workshops and let them do their own thing.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
I'm actually quite opposed to surveys for worship issues. They can breed dissent. ...

Sorry if it wasn't obvious. I was trying to mock, but realise I might be being culturally specific without realising it.

In this country, wherever you go, whenever you receive a service, attend a course or whatever, you are asked to complete a satisfaction survey which asks you stupid questions, and you know nobody is going to take any notice of the answers. It's 'your call is important to us' in another form.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
I'm actually quite opposed to surveys for worship issues. They can breed dissent. ...
Sorry if it wasn't obvious. I was trying to mock, but realise I might be being culturally specific without realising it.

In this country, wherever you go, whenever you receive a service, attend a course or whatever, you are asked to complete a satisfaction survey which asks you stupid questions, and you know nobody is going to take any notice of the answers. It's 'your call is important to us' in another form.

I suspected as much, which is why I didn't quote you. That said, you moved me to express my own distaste for worship surveys.

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Those who complain should not just be directed to the Liturgy Committee, but told that they should join it and spend some time and effort into the worship of the church. Complaints would probably plummet.
I agree with this general point but it's worth noting that some churches don't have a Worship Committee, Liturgy Committee or similar. What might people do in the absence of a formal committee...?

Bend the ear of or write long complainy emails to the pastor, the staff, the board.

Whine at their friends/on message boards.

You know, the usual. [Biased]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0