Ship of Fools: High/low perspective (MW:2653 St Barnabas, Dulwich)

Thread: High/low perspective (MW:2653 St Barnabas, Dulwich) 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=027855

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

I was interested to read the MW report about St Barnabas, Dulwich as it's close to where I used to live and I used to know some people who worshipped there (although I don't know where that photo of the choir came from - it definitely wasn't taken in St Barnabas!)

Sipech, the reviewer, obviously comes from a non-liturgical background which would explain why a lot of the service would have seemed alien. I was a little surprised to see the service described as "High church Anglicanism". From what I remember of St Barnabas, they certainly go in for formal and traditional liturgy, but I would never have described them as "high church", but from Sipech's perspective they obviously are. (If Sipech wants to encounter real high church, s/he should wander along to somewhere like All Saints, Margaret St!)

This go me thinking though. From what perspective would the level of Churchmanship be described? There is a moderate Evangelical parish I know of where they certainly don't go in for ceremony, they have a mixture of traditional hymns and modern worship songs and the priest wears surplice, tippet and hood to celebrate the Holy Communion. Now, I regard that as low church, yet many of the congregation regard themselves as "middle of the road" and I suspect someone from a non-liturgical background, such as Sipech, may even regard it as being "high".

So who sets the level of the candle? At what point does worship become high, low, MOTR, happy-clappy or whatever?

[ 02. February 2014, 11:49: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Mr Beamish (# 17991) on :

I've been to about ten different churches in the last ten years due to much moving, all of varying stripes. I would say that things start becoming high with the addition of choirs in surplices, and climb with incense, birettas, Benediction, Roman Rites and other things disapproved of by the Low Churchman's Guide. Vestments are now so widespread that their existence cannot be used to determine whether or not something is "high", although a cleric in a polyester shower curtain is probably not so far up the candlewick as one in a Latin cassock with "AM" stitched in gold. Traditional language is now identified as "high", I think, which is curious because a service done precisely according to the BCP's instructions would look more Lutheran than Anglican to many. But then, people also associate "modern" with "low" which is erroneous.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

To be fair, Sipech's exact phrase was 'High church Anglicanism'. I don't know if any distinction was intended between 'High church Anglicanism' and 'high church Christianity' - but maybe that's a helpful distinction to make. Across the whole of worldwide Christian practice, the service at St Barnabas was, I'd guess, certainly not 'low church' (although maybe not really high either) but across Anglicanism specifically? Perhaps it would then be at the lower end.

Does that seem to be a sensible distinction?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

One CofE church I know has choirs (more than one, I think) in surplices. I once referred to this church as 'high' to another CofE vicar who knew this church well but was herself appointed elsewhere. From her expression she seemed not to agree with my use of the word.

I once attended another CofE church that struck me as evangelical due to its taped worship songs and a spot of arm-waving; but the vicar was in vestments. I found that a strange combination.

Basically, I'm not in the CofE and find its varieties of churchmanship difficult to understand. (I'm pretty sure the cathedral is high, though. Aren't they all?)

Posted by Mr Beamish (# 17991) on :

"High" also means "Catholic" to many Anglicans, although that's not really a helpful association. Cathedrals tend to represent a fairly middle-of-the-road but highly formal worship, with overtones of the prevailing winds in the diocese. The Eucharist Prayer is often chanted at Norwich Cathedral. Bishops are prone to waving their hands in the air whilst singing at Southwell Minster.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

It looks nice outside, and also really excellent singers!

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

"High" "Low" are relative terms that mean different things to different people. What is high to some is low to others and vice-versa. Much more definite are the terms anglo-catholic and evangelical.

Back in 1965, the legalisation of vestments measure came about, which to some was just a mere formality, carrying on as before. However, many years ago, I met a former Anglican cleric, who was a conservative evangelical, who told me that he had resigned his Church of England ministry, because of the passing of this measure. With the passage of time, the use of vestments became more and more taken for granted and it is a case of - some do and others don't.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
I don't know where that photo of the choir came from - it definitely wasn't taken in St Barnabas!

The photo appears on the home page of the St Barnabas website.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

Must have been taken somewhere else (perhaps on a choir tour?) as it's definitely not St Barnabas

[ 02. February 2014, 15:56: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
From what perspective would the level of Churchmanship be described?

Their Parish Profile states:

quote:
Our worship has traditionally drawn on a diversity of liturgical experience and Christian traditions. At St Barnabas we use Common Worship and our worship is of a broadly central Anglican style. Clergy wear robes, and responses are usually sung. We celebrate the Eucharist with bread rather than wafers.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Must have been taken somewhere else (perhaps on a choir tour?) as it's definitely not St Barnabas

That being the case, I substituted a different photo from their parish profile.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I winced at the Mystery Worshipper's use of the term 'religiosity', as though however they choose to express their faith isn't equally 'religious' in some way ... just a different way.

There are none so blind ...

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One CofE church I know has choirs (more than one, I think) in surplices. I once referred to this church as 'high' to another CofE vicar who knew this church well but was herself appointed elsewhere. From her expression she seemed not to agree with my use of the word.

I once attended another CofE church that struck me as evangelical due to its taped worship songs and a spot of arm-waving; but the vicar was in vestments. I found that a strange combination.

Basically, I'm not in the CofE and find its varieties of churchmanship difficult to understand. (I'm pretty sure the cathedral is high, though. Aren't they all?)

In my meanderings around the CofE – I have found in every church that can muster a choir it is robed. In fact one of said churches was described by the area dean as ‘snake belly low’ and it also sung responses..
Also I only know one church where the vicar does not wear vestments for main Sunday worship as a matter of course.

Neither of these make an accurate judge, of highness or lowness…

To me it is a combination of factors that make the call, and I have found that Middle of the road churches may have a pick and mix of things that might be described as high or low.

Though if a go to a church that uses incense then to me that is definitely high…

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Even with incense, there are degrees. Wafting some around before the start of the service is a little different from censing the altar a specified number of times at a particular point in the service.

Where does the use of bells during consecration fall on this scale?

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

At what point does something become "low"? And from whose perspective? A few years ago I attended the Sunday Eucharist at Manchester Cathedral. An Anglo Catholic friend of mine who was also there complained that the service was "too happy clappy". OK, so Manchester doesn't go in for the level of pomp and ceremony that some other cathedrals do, but it was still a formal and dignified service with the choir singing a choral mass setting. Happy clappy it certainly was not!

[ 02. February 2014, 16:39: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Even with incense, there are degrees. Wafting some around before the start of the service is a little different from censing the altar a specified number of times at a particular point in the service.

Yes but then there is high and very high
[Devil]

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

Hello all. I am mystery worshipper Sipech. Just to answer a few questions and clarify. I use the terms "high" and "low" as a very loose idea, solely to give a general impression. I have no interest into getting into an anal argument about ranking churches.

As South Coast Kevin correctly states, Christianity is a great and varied thing. If one were to look solely at the church of England, then you would miss a great wealth of different expressions.

If someone were to tell me that their church is "low" I wouldn't expect any liturgical chanting or for those leading the service to be dressed up in special clothes. Denominations which might fit this bill could include Assemblies of God, New Frontiers or Elim.

Compared to these, Anglicanism might well be considered "higher", but not to be imagined as in any way superior to these different expressions. They are just different as tomatoes are different to aubergines; neither one is inherently better than another, they just taste different.

If one were to narrow in on just one denomination, then of course there are differences. I have been to some that might be considered "lower" such as All Souls, Langham Place or St Mary's, Luton. This was just more formal and "religious" than other Anglican churches I have been to.

I did not use the term "anglo-catholic" as that implies what a church's theology is like; which might not be clear from one visit. Though theology and praxis are linked, one should be careful not to conflate the two.

Gamaliel seems to have misunderstood my use of "religion" and its cognates. In this area, I confess to being heavily influenced by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. For a exposition more eloquent than I could imagine, see his letters to Eberhard Bethge from 30th April & 18 May 1944.

In closing, it was nice to visit a church from the different end of the ecclesiastic spectrum once every month or two. It is a habit I picked up as a teenager. I wish more people would do it. From time to time, I read/hear criticisms of groups of churches from those who have never been to the kind of churches they are so critical of. It's even happened on these boards occasionally. If we step out of our own bubbles occasionally and visit our brethren, I think that's all for the best.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, I'd go along with Bonhoeffer but I think you may have missed the point of what I was saying.

I think your use of the term 'religion' is unnecessarily judgemental in this context. 'These people are guilty of religiosity. I am not.'

There's an implicit judgement in there.

Take the plank out of your own eye.

I can see what you're getting at the kind of broad distinctions you've made between what you consider 'low' and what you consider 'high'.

I would suggest that the terms 'low church' and 'high church' don't really apply outside of an Anglican context - although there is possibly a distinction to be made within Roman Catholicism along similar lines to a certain extent.

Originally, the term was used to refer to whether people had a 'high' view of the authority of the Church or a 'low' one - ie. either a 'high' view of tradition and a 'lower' view of scripture - or vice versa.

Hence you could be 'High and Dry' - ie, both High Church and rather Calvinistic and with a high view of scripture AND tradition. Plenty of 17th century examples of that.

In terms of the way you've used it in your otherwise unexceptionable MW report, I'd suggest it was misleading.

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

You seem to be reading things into an honest report that are not there. Your ad hominems are as unjustified as they are unnecessary.

I went in, sat through the service and wrote up my observations that afternoon. If it was not quite as exciting as you'd hoped, then there is nothing I can do about that. I would not be willing to falsify a report or present an opinion which I didn't hold.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

The church I am currently attending has incense on festival days like today but I certainly wouldn't describe the service as formal and dignified.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

The MWer didn't make it absolutely clear, either in the report or in their post above, that they were from a non-Anglican background, but I assumed that. You can't expect an outsider to have an awareness of the subtle gradations in churchpersonship, especially as they are rarely consistent. i.e. one church might have a robed choir and north-end celebration; another might have Benediction every week with lots of 'happy-clappy' style choruses at other times... etc etc. It's hard enough for those of us who are insiders to get the hang of it all.

From the MW report it seems the worship at St Barnabas is fairly formal and middle-of-the-road, very possibly more formal than the local RC church though it is far from anglo-catholic. So to a nonconformist observer it would appear to be 'high church'.

Many middle of the road Anglicans who haven't travelled much seem to use 'high church' as an expression of disapproval for anything different from what they are used to. They are as likely to use the term for a priest who celebrates in scarf and hood at the north end of the Table, as for one who wears a biretta and a fiddleback.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:

I went in, sat through the service and wrote up my observations that afternoon. If it was not quite as exciting as you'd hoped, then there is nothing I can do about that. I would not be willing to falsify a report or present an opinion which I didn't hold.

Fair enough and I appreciate that the church was of a tradition you are unfamiliar with. No criticism there, as I sometimes attend churches outside my own tradition and find their practices alien, but even if I'm uncomfortable with it, I try to be respectful and to understand what is going on.

I'm sure this wasn't your intention, but coming from the Catholic end of the spectrum, I found your comment about the curate "randomly bobbing her head from time to time around the paraphernalia on the table" as bordering on being offensive. I realise that it must have looked very strange to you, it also shows a lack of understanding and respect. If I were to attend a charismatic service and described the worship as "people randomly shouting gibberish" that would be just as offensive to the very sincere and faithful people worshipping there.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
If I were to attend a charismatic service and described the worship as "people randomly shouting gibberish" that would be just as offensive to the very sincere and faithful people worshipping there.

No, I think 'people randomly shouting gibberish' would be fair comment; if no one has explained what's going on then ISTM fair enough to describe it as gibberish. Just like if no one explained (e.g. in a service book or leaflet for newcomers, if not from the front / stage) what the bobbing of the head is about then I think TheAlethiophile's phrase was also fair comment.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I sympathise with the MWer. From what you've said on this thread, TheAlethiophile, you wanted to describe worship that had some of the outward expressions of Anglican Catholicism, without wanting to imply that the church's teaching actually matched. This was precisely something I attempted to look at in a Purgatory thread not long ago. I felt I wasn't successful precisely because I felt people kept coming back to the "trappings" rather than focusing on what really constituted an Anglo-catholic ethos. Perhaps I was wrong: perhaps it is only the outward appearances that define us.

But I think you put your finger on the one question I keep coming back to: what';s the difference between an Anglo-catholic and a liberal in snazzy vestments?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One CofE church I know has choirs (more than one, I think) in surplices. I once referred to this church as 'high' to another CofE vicar who knew this church well but was herself appointed elsewhere. From her expression she seemed not to agree with my use of the word.

I once attended another CofE church that struck me as evangelical due to its taped worship songs and a spot of arm-waving; but the vicar was in vestments. I found that a strange combination.

Basically, I'm not in the CofE and find its varieties of churchmanship difficult to understand. (I'm pretty sure the cathedral is high, though. Aren't they all?)

Coventry Cathedral is not high at all, moderately evangelical. I'd imagine there are other cathedrals of historically low dioceses that are the same.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

All Church of England parishes secretly believe themselves to be MOTR.

In a CofE context (and its hardly relevant anywhere else) the one unfailing sign of "high" is calling the priest "father"

1662 and congregational chanting used to be indicators of conservative evangelicslism. I think that changed in the 70s or 80s.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Liverpool cathedral is 'low' in that vesture for the eucharist is surplice and stole, with cope on Sundays. They tend to have fewer servers than most, but with additional quasi-vergers who wear strange art deco robes in lurid colours. Otherwise the liturgy and music is fairly standard Cathedral stuff.

Being in an evangelical diocese there are many other things happening which could be described as 'evangelical', but not in a specifically theological way. The former Dean (now ABC) welcomed a Walsingham festival to the cathedral involving much incense and veneration of the Blessed Sacrament.

[edited to clarify that I'm talking about the cathedral, since Ken crossposted between Jade and myself...

Commenting on Ken:

quote:
In a CofE context (and its hardly relevant anywhere else) the one unfailing sign of "high" is calling the priest "father"

... or Mother.

[ 02. February 2014, 21:47: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

This old thread may be relevant.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

'If someone were to tell me that their church is "low" I wouldn't expect any liturgical chanting or for those leading the service to be dressed up in special clothes. '

As current canon law says CofE clergy must robe for their services. The wearing of robes is not an indicator of low/high - though what robes they were is a different matter.......... [Big Grin]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Coventry Cathedral is not high at all, moderately evangelical. I'd imagine there are other cathedrals of historically low dioceses that are the same.

Actually, I was thinking of St. Philip's in Birmingham. I'd be interested to know how a well-travelled CofE person would categorise the churchmanship there.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
'If someone were to tell me that their church is "low" I wouldn't expect any liturgical chanting or for those leading the service to be dressed up in special clothes. '

As current canon law says CofE clergy must robe for their services. The wearing of robes is not an indicator of low/high - though what robes they were is a different matter..........

Those who break the rules on robes are definitely easy to distinguish as being low, though [Biased]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
All Church of England parishes secretly believe themselves to be MOTR. ...

That gets a [Overused]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
You seem to be reading things into an honest report that are not there.

I think what Gamaliel is "reading things into" is the phrase "all the formalism of religiosity".

Religiosity is usually used in a negative sense. It usually refers to some strict sense of legalism in observance that lacks any genuine commitment.

Perhaps that isn't what you intended.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
All Church of England parishes secretly believe themselves to be MOTR.

Mine doesn't

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

I don't think our parish would describe itself as MOTR but rather "gentle Tractarian with baroque overtones". This with three sacred ministers in birettas and maniples, exclusively eastward celebration, Our Lady wearing a pretty veil during Christmas and Easter, etc.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'll accept that my comments verged on the ad hominem The Alethiophile, and I apologise for that ...

However, mdijon has nailed it. There was implicit criticism of the 'religiosity' of the participants that bordered equally on the ad hominem ...

In my experience, people from certain non-conformist and 'new church' backgrounds consider more 'formal' or less 'enthusiastic' Christians to be 'religious' but don't apply the same epithet to themselves when it comes to their own practices and attitudes. I'm suggesting that these are equally 'religious' but in a different way.

'Who can discern his errors?'

There was also your comment about it being 'joyless' - which may simply mean that it was sober and dignified. But it may also mean that it actually was joyless ...

Although such things tend to be in the eye of the beholder to a certain extent. 'These people aren't smiling or beaming beatifically, therefore they must be joyless ...'

Also, I didn't say that your MW report was 'unexceptional' but 'unexceptionable' ie. little there to take exception to - other than the things I had taken exception to ...

There is a difference, and I apologise if I hadn't made myself clear.

I'm certainly not knocking your attitude in attending and sitting through something that clearly wasn't your bag ... full marks for doing so.

I also don't envy you having to write that particular MW report as there didn't seem to be an awful lot to 'go at' - I'd have struggled to write one there too, I must admit.

So, please, don't get me wrong - I think there are elements to applaud in your approach and treatment of this subject but at the same time I agree with Spike, that your attitude towards the curate 'nodding' and so on before the 'paraphernalia' could be taken to be offensive by those for whom such gestures are important.

I take Spike's point and second it.

I also find myself with some degree of sympathy for SCK - despite clashing with him at times over issues to do with worship and liturgy etc.

I have seen handy hand-outs and leafets at quite high-church or high-MOTR Anglican churches which show and explain what's going on - even with convenient diagrams showing the postures and gestures with descriptions of what they are intended to convey.

I think that's a good thing to do.

As for the 'tongues' instance that Spike cites - I've been in gatherings where attempts have been made to explain what's going on for the benefit of new comers. It doesn't work.

I remember one Sunday after a Luis Palau crusade when a whole bunch of people turned up at our charismatic church having been allocated/assigned there by the 'counsellors' after they'd 'gone forward' at the crusade.

There was an extended time of speaking/singing in tongues and the pastor tried to explain what was going on for the benefit of the newcomers.

None of them were there the following Sunday.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I don't think our parish would describe itself as MOTR but rather "gentle Tractarian with baroque overtones".

I don't know your parish, Thurible, but either you have a highly clued up congregation who spend all their waking hours on this board, or your description would only be recognised by the clergy and a few enthusiasts.

For the average Anglican in the pew, especially those who have been in the same pew most of their lives, 'Church of England' is what their church does and hence = MOTR.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

Oh, indeed. We were never the advanced parish, though, and the general view would be that we're high but not too high...

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I don't want to be in the middle of the road. I want to be going forward.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

As for the 'tongues' instance that Spike cites - I've been in gatherings where attempts have been made to explain what's going on for the benefit of new comers. It doesn't work.

I remember one Sunday after a Luis Palau crusade when a whole bunch of people turned up at our charismatic church having been allocated/assigned there by the 'counsellors' after they'd 'gone forward' at the crusade.

There was an extended time of speaking/singing in tongues and the pastor tried to explain what was going on for the benefit of the newcomers.

None of them were there the following Sunday.

Perhaps this is a good argument for keeping newcomers in a separate environment for a while. After all, even the Alpha course doesn't introduce people to speaking in tongues straight away.

The church environment, whether high, low or anything else, is an acquired taste. Unless people come to faith as a direct result of admiring and feeling at home in a particular kind of church culture, it's always going to be difficult to integrate converts into the life of the church, I think.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

For Methodists, particularly United Methodists, we're nosebleed high, and trending higher. Honestly, I don't know one other UM pastor in my annual conference who regularly wears cassock, surplice, and scarf for non-Eucharistic services, or cassock, alb, and stole (and occasionally chasuble) for Eucharistic ones. I suspect Canterbury UMC in Birmingham uses albs (or at least has in the past), but I'm not certain.

For Anglicans, particularly Episcopalians, we're laughably on the low end of middle.

For our friends across the street, the Baptists and the Congregationalists, we might as well be on the moon. I wonder if some of them think we worship Mary and the Pope.

What I'm getting at is that High-Middle-Low language is relative, and subjective. As the Altimeter thread demonstrated, there is no real way to objectively rate these things, because there are so many variables and so many subjective opinions.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I get the impression that American Methodism is broader than the British variety.

The British Methodist circuit system combined with a shortage of staff and finances means that each minister will have to care for several churches at once, and that local preachers appear far more often in a given pulpit than a minister. Moreover, ministers are stationed for only 5 years at a time, which isn't really long enough to change the overall character of a church. (Renewals are possible, but not inevitable.) All this means that the churches in a single circuit are unlikely to be very different from each other. Or rather, their differences have more to do with social, ethnic or financial factors rather than churchmanship.

I was a Methodist church steward, but never heard much discussion at all about churchmanship among Methodists. Reference was sometimes made to 'evangelicals', but in my circuit there was never any talk to the effect that such and such a church was evangelical. 'The Methodist Recorder' newspaper doesn't seem to spend time categorising churches in this way either.

BTW, what does 'nosebleed high' mean?

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

so high you get a nosebleed (as in altitude)

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I don't want to be in the middle of the road. I want to be going forward.

You can be going forward if you are in the middle of the road. On the other hand there is a greater risk of being squashed by people driving in either direction.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The only way is up (the candle)!

Ian J.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Perhaps this is a good argument for keeping newcomers in a separate environment for a while. After all, even the Alpha course doesn't introduce people to speaking in tongues straight away.

The church environment, whether high, low or anything else, is an acquired taste. Unless people come to faith as a direct result of admiring and feeling at home in a particular kind of church culture, it's always going to be difficult to integrate converts into the life of the church, I think.

Well, yes, people are 'socialised' into the kingdom ... hence the use of a lengthy period of catechesis in the early Church.

Whatever form or 'style' of church we're talking about, people have to become acclimatised and accustomed to it.

That's fine, if we recognise that, but in certain charismatic circles there's an expectation that people are going to get 'zapped' and get it all in one fell swoop ...

As for the Alpha course, my contention would be that the tongues element is introduced at the stage in the process that it is, in order to up the ante and ratchet things up a notch or two ...

The only people likely to hang around after its introduction are those who are susceptible to such things. Everyone else would have cleared off ...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Gamaliel

I suppose every church has to be true to its itself. If people are going to leave, they'll leave.

Put very crudely, the kinds of churches you've mentioned are often more proactive when it comes to evangelism. As a result, they get first dibs when it comes to introducing people to Christianity. ISTM that unchurched people who might prefer a high church spirituality won't become aware of that until they've been through the other sort first - if they stay in the churchy scene for long enough.

I don't know if there's a solution to this problem, because the churches just do what they do. Pentecostal churches may gradually become less Pentecostal, but I'm not convinced that this really helps the high churches become more attractive to people.

[ 04. February 2014, 15:02: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

This thread in Limbo has a highly detailed dissection of what is high, love, middle and so on.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think you put your finger on the one question I keep coming back to: what';s the difference between an Anglo-catholic and a liberal in snazzy vestments?

Whether or not they'll lay hands on a woman?

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Isn't it one of those irregular verbs? I am Anglo-Catholic. He is High Church. She is a liberal in snazzy vestments.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:

But I think you put your finger on the one question I keep coming back to: what';s the difference between an Anglo-catholic and a liberal in snazzy vestments? [/QB]

I have the greatest respect for Adeodatus. However this is completely clericalist. If he'd said "what's the diffence between an Anglo Catholic
priest and a liberal in snazzy vestments..."

that would have been fine. But he didn't. I'm an anglo-catholic, I accept women as catholic priests if they've been episcopally ordained, I'm gay, I accept any episcopally ordained priest as validating the sacraments, I use the rosary, I attned Benediction and pray before the reserved sacrament, I'm not ordained and there is no reason for me to wear vestments...

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
there is no reason for me to wear vestments...

... except when singing in choir or serving at mass.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

They are robes not vestments.

Thurible

Posted by Mr Beamish (# 17991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

But I think you put your finger on the one question I keep coming back to: what';s the difference between an Anglo-catholic and a liberal in snazzy vestments?

As alluded to elsewhere, these things are neither mutually exclusive, nor necessarily different, depending upon how we are using the word 'liberal'.

Moreover, as Gildas alludes,

quote:
Isn't it one of those irregular verbs? I am Anglo-Catholic. He is High Church. She is a liberal in snazzy vestments.

and therefore the difference is in the eye of the beholder, depending upon his views of "soundness" or exclusivity or whatever.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
They are robes not vestments.

I refer to the surplice. Surely you don't sing or serve in anything but? [Ultra confused]

The Catholic Encyclopedia says of the surplice: "The surplice belongs to the liturgical vestment in the strict sense, and is the vestment most used. It is the choir dress. . . ."

That's good enough authority for me.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
They are robes not vestments.
I refer to the surplice. Surely you don't sing or serve in anything but?

OK, choirs wearing surplices I can accept, but servers in surplices make the Baby Jesus cry.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

A belated reply to SvitlanaV2 ... yes, I'm sure you're right.

The problem, though, is that the evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal churches rarely alert people to alternatives ... so if you're a new-comer or a try-er-outer and you find it's not your bag, then they rarely provide alternative directions for people to explore ...

So, people often 'drop-out' very quickly ... and these kind of churches aren't generally very good - in my experience - in dealing with that or finding the reasons why ...

They are, though, as you say, good at getting people over the threshold and having 'first dibs' ...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Do many churches routinely suggest alternatives? They might do if asked, but telling visitors they might be happier at the church down the road is sometimes shorthand for 'Please don't come back here!'

This kind of sharing probably happens best in areas where ecumenical relationships are good. But if only one or two churches are doing all the serious evangelism, they might be unimpressed by any expectation that they should channel newcomers towards the churches that do rather less.

Sadly, I think most churches are rather poor at finding out why people leave.

[ 05. February 2014, 19:47: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would suggest that the terms 'low church' and 'high church' don't really apply outside of an Anglican context - although there is possibly a distinction to be made within Roman Catholicism along similar lines to a certain extent.

I know that there's been a tendency on the Ship to apply these terms to Catholic churches but I've always been very much against it because, as you say, they come out of an Anglican context and so carry some Anglican/Episcopalian assumptions and baggage.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
servers in surplices make the Baby Jesus cry.

But he cries more profusely over servers in anything under their, erm, robes than black slacks, black socks and black leather shoes. (OK, servers who are members of a monastic community or are of the female sex can go slackless and sockless but they must wear the sandals of their community or black flats, respectively.)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It depends, of course, on what we mean by 'serious evangelism', SvitlanaV2 - but that might be material for another thread.

I can see what you're getting at, though. Mind you, some of the outfits that are more 'serious' about evangelism tend to be unable - in my experience - to envisage anyone possibly wanting an alternative to what they have to offer ...

Which might be one of the factors that makes them so serious about evangelism in the first place ...

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
They are robes not vestments.
I refer to the surplice. Surely you don't sing or serve in anything but?
OK, choirs wearing surplices I can accept, but servers in surplices make the Baby Jesus cry.

Where I come from both choirs and servers make the baby and the adult Jesus cry

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

With joy.

Thurible

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Must have been taken somewhere else (perhaps on a choir tour?) as it's definitely not St Barnabas
That being the case, I substituted a different photo from their parish profile.

If I have got the right church, I think it is where I went to a licensing of a new priest-in-charge on 6 February 2006, but the (male) priest concerned has since retired and no longer in post. But I am not sure if I am mixing up the church with another church in a neighbouring district in that part of London.

I notice that the report says that the choir went on a tour of Germany last summer, which is almost certainly where the baroque-appearance photo came from. That style of architecture is far removed from the church I went to on that date. OK the different photo has now been substituted, which seems familiar from my visit.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
servers in surplices make the Baby Jesus cry.
But he cries more profusely over servers in anything under their, erm, robes than black slacks, black socks and black leather shoes. (OK, servers who are members of a monastic community or are of the female sex can go slackless and sockless but they must wear the sandals of their community or black flats, respectively.)

I can do better than that: trousers underneath cassocks make the Baby Jesus cry, there is no such thing as a female server, and nothing other than skimpy cottas please the Lord our God. Every notch of the candle has its fine gradations and its orthodoxies...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
They are robes not vestments.
I refer to the surplice. Surely you don't sing or serve in anything but?
OK, choirs wearing surplices I can accept, but servers in surplices make the Baby Jesus cry.

So he won't like Clifton RC Cathedral then!

Their servers wear surplices, perhaps in competition with All Saints, C of E over the road where they wear cottas and use more incense.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
With joy.

Thurible

Nope with horror and disdain

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
They are robes not vestments.
I refer to the surplice. Surely you don't sing or serve in anything but?
OK, choirs wearing surplices I can accept, but servers in surplices make the Baby Jesus cry.

Fortunately, the Howls of the Divine Infant are overcome by the volume of Hallelujahs from the side chapel of Blessed Percy.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
With joy.

Thurible
Nope with horror and disdain

You not liking something doesn't make it wrong. Why the intolerance? Choirs in particular have brought many people to God, but I suppose they can't really be Christians to you.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Choirs in particular have brought many people to God.

And they've chased many people out of church.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
With joy.

Thurible
Nope with horror and disdain

You not liking something doesn't make it wrong. Why the intolerance? Choirs in particular have brought many people to God, but I suppose they can't really be Christians to you.

I never said they weren't Christians Jade however much you suppose I did. They may be as individuals or they may not be: profession of belief for choir members in some pretty well know churches is not essential - which I have to admit I do find puzzling.

Choirs don't appeal to me for the simple reason that when they are present, there's a temptation (all too often succumbed to), to turn church into a performance. When choirs are present, the settings of the hymns if often tinkered with such that the key is always set considerably higher than normal to accommodate said choir. It doesn't allow for a great deal of participation which, to me, is essential for worship.

I may be intolerant but I'd rather see it, more positively, of being well aware of what I like and respond to personally. I accept YMMV but you certainly wont like some things I do.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Choirs in particular have brought many people to God,

I'll ask my usual question of you when you make such sweeping claims, Jade. Where's your evidence?

It's not the first time that you've made what amounts to an ex cathedra type of statement to try and bolster your argument, now it's time to put your facts on the line. Other people might have issued a hell call well before now on that basis .......

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Choirs in particular have brought many people to God,
I'll ask my usual question of you when you make such sweeping claims, Jade. Where's your evidence?

It's not the first time that you've made what amounts to an ex cathedra type of statement to try and bolster your argument, now it's time to put your facts on the line. Other people might have issued a hell call well before now on that basis .......

But surely it's quite well-known? Many people I know, particularly those who have come to faith later in life, found the beauty of choral singing to be a sign of God's creation/goodness etc. Maybe less common in your churchmanship, but it's far from uncommon in higher church circles.

I'm not sure how I could be expected to provide hard evidence for such an objective thing anyway? I think that's quite unreasonable, and I don't get this thing about 'ex cathedra' statements? I'm not a bishop, clearly, and haven't come across the phrase before outside that context I'm afraid. Yes, I might generalise but that's a normal part of speech and I don't see how that's worthy of a Hell call at all. Do you require hard evidence for every single thing someone says? If I'd added that this is true in my experience (which should surely be obvious), would that be OK or still not good enough for you? Am I not allowed to talk about what is true in terms of my experience? [Help]

As for choirs turning into a performance, I can see that in churches with large choirs that can be an issue, but most churches (in the CoE at least) don't have choirs big or talented enough for that. It's rather less common than worship bands turning worship into a performance, in my experience. However, all forms of music can bring people to God and I wouldn't say that worship bands or choirs or any other kind of music in church is wrong, or no music at all for that matter.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Any music worth presenting in church runs the danger of becoming a performance, from praise bands through to chanting.

If we followed that logic to its conclusion church music would be accompanied by bland chords in crotchets sounded out on a piano.

I wasn't converted by hearing a choir, but it certainly kept me in the church at a point where I was struggling to maintain enthusiasm.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Choirs in particular have brought many people to God,
I'll ask my usual question of you when you make such sweeping claims, Jade. Where's your evidence?

It's not the first time that you've made what amounts to an ex cathedra type of statement to try and bolster your argument, now it's time to put your facts on the line. Other people might have issued a hell call well before now on that basis .......
But surely it's quite well-known? Many people I know, particularly those who have come to faith later in life, found the beauty of choral singing to be a sign of God's creation/goodness etc. Maybe less common in your churchmanship, but it's far from uncommon in higher church circles.

I'm not sure how I could be expected to provide hard evidence for such an objective thing anyway? I think that's quite unreasonable, and I don't get this thing about 'ex cathedra' statements? I'm not a bishop, clearly, and haven't come across the phrase before outside that context I'm afraid. Yes, I might generalise but that's a normal part of speech and I don't see how that's worthy of a Hell call at all. Do you require hard evidence for every single thing someone says? If I'd added that this is true in my experience (which should surely be obvious), would that be OK or still not good enough for you? Am I not allowed to talk about what is true in terms of my experience?

As for choirs turning into a performance, I can see that in churches with large choirs that can be an issue, but most churches (in the CoE at least) don't have choirs big or talented enough for that. It's rather less common than worship bands turning worship into a performance, in my experience. However, all forms of music can bring people to God and I wouldn't say that worship bands or choirs or any other kind of music in church is wrong, or no music at all for that matter.

Thanks - happy to accept that it's in your experience. It's not in mine even when I was in the Cofe. As you rightly state the same issues of performance etc. occur with worship groups. I wouldn't deny that. It's a matter of fact too, that lots of people are, in my experience, not interested in debates about who wears what and the more that we as churches perpetuate this, the bigger the laughing stock we get. I'd argue it's time to ditch the lot and go back to basics but then again, what basics and it's just me .....

Ex cathedra? Well neither you nor I are bishops ( but I used it in a general way of describing a statement that comes across with the authority that says it is the final word on such matter. This is my view/opinion/observation so that's it type of thing.

It just didn't stack up with me or my experience. Apologies for the brusque wording: late night, long meeting, bad head.

Personally though I'd rather see people come back to church in any way possible. Even if my flippant thoughts about surplices are overridden. I am concerned though that the historic truth of older people returning to church or coming to church is becoming less evident: older people have rejected church for In their eyes) very good reasons - will they come back to something they've consciously rejected? For those who haven't done so, my concern is that they aren't exposed enough to authentic faith in whatever expression to make the step to attend.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

I can offer myself as an example - I always 'believed' but I only became a church-going, confessing Christian as a result of choral Evensong. Dunno if that's the same as a choir 'bringing people to God' but seems pertinent I guess.

So yeah. I'm evidence [Cool]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Of all the newcomers who've stayed with the church where I play over the past 12 years, 80% have come through, or because of, the choir.

For a small rural parish we have a large electoral role, but once the youngest child has got the place at the local CofE secondary school many are never seen again.

And the choir don't just sing: they are run stalls at the fete, make up three-quarters of the regulars on churchyard working party days, do catering, drive the community bus, clear gutters, etc, etc, etc.

And all of that on top of putting up with the decision of some of the PCC not to allow the heating to be put on earlier so that church is above freezing for rehearsals.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Hmmmm ...

I don't think it's choirs or the lack of them that is the issue, really ... it seems to me that choirs in this part of the world - semi-rural Cheshire - are quite participative ...

That said, there are those who have fled the town churches with their more 'contemporary' worship styles to seek out the rural idylls where sung Evensong and so on still takes place.

I can see both Jade Constable's side of the argument and ExclamationMark's ... I've worshipped in both Anglican and Baptist settings too so I can see the ups and downsides and the strengths and weaknesses in each case.

I do think, though, that there is an inherently judgmental attitude among some of our more Baptist-ish friends ... that if something is 'scripted' or more 'high' in tone then somehow it loses authenticity.

I'm not counting ExclamationMark in that number necessarily ... but I have come across some Baptists who believed that Anglicans were 'insincere' because they were using 'set prayers' rather than praying in their own words ...

As if extemporary prayer in and of itself were some kind of indication of sincerity ...

As ever, there are rights and wrongs on both sides.

Speaking for myself, though ... my wife sings with a very traditional church choir in a medieval church a few miles up the road. She practises with them on Friday nights in return for singing at a few weddings and on high days and holidays.

Whenever I accompany her to one of the services where she's singing and they sing an anthem or whatever, I don't feel as if I'm not participating or any less involved than I do when it's one of the congregational hymns or songs where we all join in with the choir.

What's the problem?

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Yes, that's all well and good, but which of us hasn't sat through services where the choir made a bunch of alley cats sound like the Cambridge Singers?

Such choirs invariably feature at least one prima donna soprano who may have been able to sing at one time, but is now decidedly past her Use By date, and all she can do is make the neighborhood dogs howl. But no one can tell her anything, least of all the choir director, lest she depart in a huff and take the majority of the congregation with her.

And speaking of the choir director -- he or she may have studied piano for two or three years as a child, and now thinks that qualifies him or her as an organist.

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

Point is, he's still likely to be the best organist in the congregation. What then?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Music and choirs of all kinds and all traditions tend to be one of those toxic focii for all manner of shenanigans in churches.

There's no way around that, except for dispensing with music and song altogether - whether accompanied or acapella - and sitting quietly like Quakers.

There's no way round it.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I do think, though, that there is an inherently judgmental attitude among some of our more Baptist-ish friends ... that if something is 'scripted' or more 'high' in tone then somehow it loses authenticity.

I'm not counting ExclamationMark in that number necessarily ... but I have come across some Baptists who believed that Anglicans were 'insincere' because they were using 'set prayers' rather than praying in their own words ...

As if extemporary prayer in and of itself were some kind of indication of sincerity ...

I'm wounded by the barbs of a friend Gamaliel - fancy equating me to a Baptist! Not even those who know me in BUGB would ever say that: I'm here because it enable same to find Christ and to serve others in His name ... being Baptist isn't on the register.

I may have decided views but well .... a hatred of liturgy isn't actually among them and tbh I've not experienced that kind of sour comment in Baptist churches for may a long year. Scripted paryers - great bring them on: I use them. Extempore prayer - yep that too - but it's no better than just in addition to.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

[/qb][/QUOTE]I'm wounded by the barbs of a friend Gamaliel - fancy equating me to a Baptist! Not even those who know me in BUGB would ever say that: I'm here because it enable same to find Christ and to serve others in His name ... being Baptist isn't on the register.

I may have decided views but well .... a hatred of liturgy isn't actually among them and tbh I've not experienced that kind of sour comment in Baptist churches for may a long year. Scripted paryers - great bring them on: I use them. Extempore prayer - yep that too - but it's no better than just in addition to. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Well, if you've been barbed by my comments then I apologise, but suspect your wounds are self-inflicted ...

You obviously didn't notice the caveat where I said that I wasn't laying any charges at your door, necessarily, when it came to the kind of attitudes I was caricaturing.

Baptist is as Baptist does and you can distance yourself from the label as much as you like ... it doesn't stop there from being one ... it's very evident in the way you post that you're a Baptist. Like it or not. Embrace it.

[Biased]

I'm all for Baptists being true to their Baptist identity as I am for RCs being true to theirs, Quakers to theirs, Anglicans to theirs and whatever else ...

We are large, we contain multitudes. We can be in the BUGB and be bigger than the BUGB. We can be both in the CofE and bigger than the CofE ...

I know that it's both/and not either/or when it comes to extemporary prayer and liturgy ... and on the whole I think most Baptists in the UK these days achieve a balance in this respect.

That said, I could point you to a Baptist church I know where people left because the minister invited an RC priest to lead some Lenten meditations ... and this was just a few years ago, not back in the dim and distant ...

Please don't get me wrong. I am more of a friend to the Baptists that might appear at first sight. They are my favourite non-conformist group ... not that I dislike any of the others - the Methodists, URC etc ... far from it.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0