Ship of Fools: MW 2698: Desert Palms Presbyterian, Sun City West

Thread: MW 2698: Desert Palms Presbyterian, Sun City West 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=027897

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

In MW 2698: Desert Palms Presbyterian, Amanda B. Reckondwythe noted the following:

quote:
There was a communion table up front with a loaf of bread and jug of wine on it, but there was no communion today – odd, I thought.

I can see why that seemed odd, and I thought I could shed a little light on it.

In 2006, a Sacraments Study Group convened by the Office of Theology and Worship of the PC(USA) issued a document entitled Invitation to Christ . This document was endorsed by the 2006 General Assembly. In an effort to deepen sacramental life in the PC(USA) and foster sacramental renewal, Invitation to Christ recommended five simple practices to congregations:

1. Set the font in full view of the congregation. (Yes, some churches needed this suggestion.)
2. Open the font and fill it with water on every Lord’s Day.
3. Set cup and plate on the Lord’s Table on every Lord’s Day.
4. Lead appropriate parts of weekly worship from the font and from the table.
5. Increase the number of Sundays on which the Lord’s Supper is celebrated.

These suggestions received a positive response. As a result, it is increasingly common to see water poured into the font, either at the start of the service or at the confession/declaration of forgiveness, and to see the confession/declaration led from the font. Likewise, it is common to see chalice, paten and perhaps flagon on the Table even when there is no communion.

I have been in a few congregations, including worship in the PC(USA)'s Montreat Conference Center, where bread is placed on the paten even when the sacrament is not celebrated. One minister I talked with explained he did this to show more clearly what the culmination of worship is, and to remind the congregation of the hunger that can only be satisfied at the Table. The bread may be shared with visitors after the service. Other ministers I know have qualms about putting bread that will not be eaten on the paten, as though it is a prop.

Hope this explains the oddness a little.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

It explains it well, and while it's not my practice given my different tradition, I rather warm to it ...

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

This odd little practice seems similar to what I saw, perhaps a decade ago, at a predominantly Haitian Catholic Church parish. At a tableau set out for the Maundy Thursday liturgy—and during the watch-up-to-midnight vigil afterward—a sort of picnic scene was set up: red gingham table cloth spread, with a rough loaf of bread and a basket-wrapped bottle of wine, backed with a cross draped with a purple cloth. This was set up in a city with a extremely strong, though diminishing, tradition of laying out very elaborate altars of repose to receive the blessed sacrament after the stripping of the main church altar, with city-wide pilgrimages of Making the Seven Churches. It was hard for me to believe that this bread and this wine had been consecrated.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I have been in a few congregations . . . where bread is placed on the paten even when the sacrament is not celebrated. <<snip>> Other ministers I know have qualms about putting bread that will not be eaten on the paten, as though it is a prop.

Hope this explains the oddness a little.

It explains it, but it still seems odd to me. "Come to the table, children, but don't eat the food."

I thought it odder that the choir walked out at the beginning of the sermon.

[ 10. June 2014, 16:08: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

This sounds somewhat like reservation of the Blessed Sacrament in a peculiar broad church Presbyterian fashion.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
It explains it, but it still seems odd to me. "Come to the table, children, but don't eat the food."

I can see that; I was just trying to give a sense of where the idea came from.

And to be clear in case I wasn't, Invitation to Christ specifically recommends that an empty paten and chalice be on the Table (and that other things not connected with the Eucharist, such as an open Bible or flowers or offering plates, not be on the Table). The idea is to allow the Table to be more fully seen as the place where the community gathers to be fed by Christ, rather than a handy place to put whatever needs to be put somewhere.

This is being done in many Presbyterian churches now. However, I can count one hand, and have a finger or two left over, the churches where I have seen bread placed on the paten when there is no Communion. And I have had discussions with ministers who readily place an empty paten on the Table but find the thought of placing bread that won't be eaten on that paten to be troublesome and, yes, "odd."

quote:
I thought it odder that the choir walked out at the beginning of the sermon.

Indeed!

Posted by listener (# 15770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
[QUOTE]I thought it odder that the choir walked out at the beginning of the sermon.

Perhaps the choir had already participated in the 8:30 service?

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I have seen choir movement at that part of the service and I can think of two possible reasons.

The choir want to be in a seat which gives them full view of the preacher. This is the reason I have seen them move
the choir moves so as not to distract other members of the congregation from the preaching of the Word

Both of these reasons would be an indication of the seriousness with which hearing the sermon is taken within the congregation.

I do not know if either of these were active in this situation.

Jengie

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

I could understand it if they moved out of the choir stalls and down into the congregation. I have seen this done elsewhere. But they left the stalls and walked out the door, as if they were protesting the sermon!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

It would be interesting to know if they are a professional choir, paid to sing (but not to listen to the service) ...

Or do they have to go on to another church to sing there, perhaps?

It does seem odd, I agree.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I think I've cracked it! According to their website, from October to May (inclusive) they have two services, at 8.30 am and 10.30 am, both with the Chancel Choir singing. In the summer they only have one service, at 9.30 am.

This means that the day of the MW report was the last of the "two-service" mornings ... presumably the choir had been there since 8 am or thereabouts, had attended the first service, and were now on their way home.

This would make even more sense if the same sermon is preached at both services, which I think may be the case.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think I've cracked it! According to their website, from October to May (inclusive) they have two services, at 8.30 am and 10.30 am, both with the Chancel Choir singing. In the summer they only have one service, at 9.30 am.

This means that the day of the MW report was the last of the "two-service" mornings ... presumably the choir had been there since 8 am or thereabouts, had attended the first service, and were now on their way home.

This would make even more sense if the same sermon is preached at both services, which I think may be the case.

I have attended churches where the choir departs the sanctuary before the sermon, but they usually return afterwards. I believe this is due to the choir being positioned directly behind the pulpit, which could serve as a distraction from the sermon.

If the choir simply left the whole church itself without any kind of practical reason, however, that is odd, and was obviously a distraction to the MW, and likely others as well.

[ 11. June 2014, 17:18: Message edited by: GCabot ]

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

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think I've cracked it! <<snip>> presumably the choir had been there since 8 am or thereabouts, had attended the first service, and were now on their way home. This would make even more sense if the same sermon is preached at both services, which I think may be the case.

They could still have stayed on for appearances' sake. There are worse places to be on a Sunday morning than in church.

However, if the pastor worked the football metaphor to the point of nausea at the first service, as he did at the second, I can forgive them.

(BTW -- they are not a paid professional choir.)

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
(BTW -- they are not a paid professional choir.)

I was going to say, I've never heard of a professional choir in an American Presbyterian church. Paid section leaders, yes—I was one while in college. And occasionally choirs for which one must audition. Both would likely be found in more urban churches. But beyond the possibility of a congregation or two in NYC, Chicago or LA, I don't think one would find a professional choir in a Presbyterian church.

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

The practice of the choir leaving the sanctuary before the sermon and seating themselves with the congregation (usually rows reserved in the back) is what I remember growing up in the Presbyterian church. That let them unrobe and be able to focus on the sermon as well.

Posted by Salicional (# 16461) on :

Which, of course, is a good argument against having the choir and organist front and center, as they are in many American Protestant churches. As someone who plays the organ for two services every Sunday, I frequently wish I could slip out unseen during the second service for some fresh air or a bite to eat. (Especially when the preacher is having one of his not-so-good days...)

Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Salicional:
Which, of course, is a good argument against having the choir and organist front and center, as they are in many American Protestant churches. As someone who plays the organ for two services every Sunday, I frequently wish I could slip out unseen during the second service for some fresh air or a bite to eat. (Especially when the preacher is having one of his not-so-good days...)

You mean you have no secret door by the organ bench? Very poor planning.

In a couple of churches I know, the organist is able to slip out during the sermon and wait in the kitchen until time to go back in. In one case, there were three services in the morning and in another there were two. In two former churches, there was an extra speaker in the kitchen and it was often useful for slipping in under the cover of a prayer or hymn.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

But why? Do organists not need to hear the word broken open?

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
But why? Do organists not need to hear the word broken open?

I've no doubt that they do - the question is whether they are all aware of this fact...

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

And also, if I've understood some of the above posts right, whether they need to hear the same sermon multiple times. We have multiple services on a Sunday but they aren't on the whole repeats so the question doesn't arise in the same way - occasionally the 8am and the 9:30am have the same preacher (almost always the same readings) but the 8am is said so little overlap in congregration.

Carys

Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
But why? Do organists not need to hear the word broken open?

Yes, of course, but a weekly diet of the same sermon three times in a row is a bit much and the opportunity to slip out and move around a little was welcome. Staying in for the last service was usually optimal as the sermon was well practiced by then.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0