Ship of Fools: Presbyterian Common Worship (1993)

Thread: Presbyterian Common Worship (1993) 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=027902

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

The Presbyterian Church of America (which I don't really know anything about apart from the clues in the name) has a Book of Common Worship since 1993.

There is a version for download as a largish PDF (1100 pages), as well as a Companion Book which clearly sets out the reasons for the choices made.

It is different to the CoE's Common Worship.

Does anyone here have any experience of it? It is something normally possessed/used by congregations or only ministers? Does it 'work' for you?

[ 27. June 2014, 01:30: Message edited by: Demas ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Let's see . . . .

First of all, the BCW (1993) was published by the Presbyterian Church (USA), not the Presbyterian Church in America, which is a smaller and much more conservative denomination that broke away from what is now the PC(USA) in the 1970s. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church (a small, historic denomination in the American South) also participated in preparing the book.

The 1993 BCW is the fourth of that name in what is now the PC(USA)—the others were published in 1906, 1932 and 1946. The 1970 version was called The Worshipbook; the 1993 version returned to the former name.

As with all Presbyterian service books and liturgies, use of the BCW is commended but voluntary; The Worshipbook and the 1993 BCW in particular have been very influential in Presbyterian worship. You are not likely to ever find it used as a pew book during worship—use of a liturgical book by the congregation is rare among Presbyterians, though our new hymnal includes the Service for the Lord's Day (with communion), the baptismal liturgy and the liturgies for daily prayer (morning, mid-day, evening and night).

It is much more likely that the BCW will be used by mainly ministers and others involved in planning worship, with anything needed by the congregation printed in a bulletin. Our church has copies for use in smaller gatherings, though, and many individuals will have a copy.

That help?

[ 27. June 2014, 02:42: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

Thanks Nick, that is helpful.

So on an average Sunday, how closely would your church stick to the book's Lord's Day Service? Pretty closely or just roughly? And would this be common for a PC(USA) church?

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Let me rise to praise Horace T. Allen, Jr., a tireless worker for ecumenical reunion, a scholar of the theology the Lectionary and worship in the universal church, an evangelical preacher, a graceful and powerful teacher and teaching elder, a mentor to countless students, and a beloved child of God. In the words of Peter C. Bower, editor, in the Preface of the Companion to the Book of Common Worship

quote:
Special gratitude is due to Horace T. Allen Jr. and Harold M. Daniels, both former leaders of the Office of Worship in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), who painstakingly examined every page and paragraph and sentence, offering numerous helpful suggestions. Their singular gifts and experiences have greatly enhanced this resource for the church’s use. Words cannot express the depth of appreciation for both of these saints, but all of us are blessed by their dedication.

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

One of the interesting features of this book is the placement of the institution narrative - either before the preface dialogue, or in its usual position within the eucharistic prayer, or at the fraction following the Lord's Prayer. I attended a Presbyterian service in NYC (where I will guess the churchmanship is a bit higher than other parts of the country) where the Service for the Lord's Day was followed quite closely (and this congregation celebrates holy communion each Sunday). Save for the vestments, and placing the IN at the fraction, I would have thought I was in a high Lutheran church.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Thanks Nick, that is helpful.

So on an average Sunday, how closely would your church stick to the book's Lord's Day Service? Pretty closely or just roughly? And would this be common for a PC(USA) church?

Pretty closely, at least to the order and structure, though some congregations may shift bits around. Specific words, maybe not as much.

For example, pretty much every Service for the Lord's Day will have a prayer of confession said by the entire congregation early on in the service, as per the BCW. But the text may or may not be from the BCW.

As I said, The Worshipbook and the 1993 BCW have been very influential and have moved Presbyterian (PC(USA)) services to a basic structure that any Catholic, Lutheran or Episcopalian would recognize. The Worshipbook was the impetus for moving to that order, as well as for moving to understanding that the Eucharist is an integral part of the Service that is appropriate weekly rather than an occasional add-on. Most places haven't gotten to weekly yet (though some have), but we've moved from quarterly to (at least) monthly in most places.

The 1993 BCW has particularly influenced the celebration of the sacraments, I think, whether including renunciations, the Apostle's Creed and anointing in the baptismal liturgy or a full Eucharistic prayer in the communion liturgy.

A few things haven't caught on many places. Many congregations will still have two readings (OT and NT) rather than three, though the two are typically drawn from the lectionary. And use of the psalm after the OT reading hasn't caught on most places (though we usually do use the psalm in my congegation). The 1991 Presbyterian Hymnal had a separate section of psalms, many responsorial, just for this purpose. The committee that put together our new (2013) hymnal learned that on the whole and with some glaring exceptions this was the least-used section of the 1991 hymnal. The reason was not the we ignore the psalms, but that Presbyterians are used to metrical psalms used as hymns, and that's how we still tend to use them. So in the new hymnal, the psalms are scattered throughout with other hymns, though clearly marked as psalms.

One other factor to know: We have another document called the Directory for Worship. It is part of our Book of Order and as such is the governing document on worship. It describes what is required, encouraged, permitted and occasionally prohibited. The Directory was last revised around the same time that the 1993 BCW was being put together, so the two reflect and complement each other. General Assembly has just directed study of a draft revised directory for submission to the 2016 General Assembly.

Probably much more info than you wanted.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sonata3:
One of the interesting features of this book is the placement of the institution narrative - either before the preface dialogue, or in its usual position within the eucharistic prayer, or at the fraction following the Lord's Prayer.

The interesting feature to Presbyterians is the option of including the words of institution within the Great Thanksgiving, as would be usual for Catholics and Episcopalians, but was not the usual position for Presbyterians. Our tradition was always to use them before the prayer as the "Warrant" for the sacrament, or at the breaking of the bread.

As I mentioned upthread, the new hymnal includes liturgies. If you're interested, these FAQs on the liturgies in the hymnal include the question "Why are the words of institution in the middle of the Great Thanksgiving?" They also discuss the relationship between the hymnal's litugies, the Directory for Worship and the BCW.

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Let me rise to praise Horace T. Allen, Jr., a tireless worker for ecumenical reunion, a scholar of the theology the Lectionary and worship in the universal church, an evangelical preacher, a graceful and powerful teacher and teaching elder, a mentor to countless students, and a beloved child of God. In the words of Peter C. Bower, editor, in the Preface of the Companion to the Book of Common Worship
quote:
Special gratitude is due to Horace T. Allen Jr. and Harold M. Daniels, both former leaders of the Office of Worship in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), who painstakingly examined every page and paragraph and sentence, offering numerous helpful suggestions. Their singular gifts and experiences have greatly enhanced this resource for the church’s use. Words cannot express the depth of appreciation for both of these saints, but all of us are blessed by their dedication.

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

Ah, what an interesting comparison with the UCCan!

We use the same system, an authorized hymn book paired with a service book. They are always revised as as a set. The first was the Hymnary 1930 ("The Old Blue Book") paired with the Book of Common Order, 1936. The second was the Hymn Book 1970 ("The Old Red Book") with the Service Book 1970 ("The Green Book"). Currently we have Voiced United (1996) and "Celebrate God's Presence (1998).

There are only two required bits in worship, the rest is optional. The first is the ordination service, and the second is the use of the Triune Formulae at baptism.

Up here, perhaps due to the Methodist influence, responsorial psalms have always been popular. They were a significant and loved part of the Old Blue Book, but the Old Red Book was very poor in psalms. That book was a joint publication with the Anglicans in anticipation of church union, but that never happened. There was to be a new Prayer Book which would have the psalms, the Green Book was an obvious trial run for the new Prayer Book.

When Voices United was being compiled, the #1 request from congregations was a bigger and better psalter.

"Celebrate God's Presence" has 10 Eucharistic Prayers plus a guide to compile your own; Prayer I has the WoI out front as a warrant, the rest use the Anglican/Lutheran style. Prayer I says we are moving on from Reformation controversies and I have never heard complaints about EP style.

The Baptism section is excellent. Full blown liturgical greatness for a church that loves big Sunday Morning baptisms. The only change I would make is to add the Baptismal Blessing from the Reformed Church of France. I put that in my church's revised baptismal order and it melted the minister's heart. It melts most ministers hearts.

As the UCCan IS a Huguenot Church with our twenty French-language congregations, that blessing is most appropriate for us, linguistically, culturally and theologically.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
We use the same system, an authorized hymn book paired with a service book.

Perhaps not quite the same system, if I'm understanding you correctly. Our hymnals and service book are "commended for use" by General Assembly, but that's the extent of being "authorized." They are not "paired" as such. Whether to actually use either or both of them is completely up to the Session and minister(s) of a congregation.

quote:
The only change I would make is to add the Baptismal Blessing from the Reformed Church of France. I put that in my church's revised baptismal order and it melted the minister's heart. It melts most ministers hearts.

Many Presbyterian ministers use this as well, even though it is not in any "official" liturgies. I love it too.

For those who don't know what we're talking about, read it here .

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

As an Anglican liturgical geek, I am loving this thread. More, more!

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

I should be clearer. When I say "authorized" I mean "officially prepared and virtually universally accepted". There is no requirement to use Voices United, but everyone does. A fair number of congregations hung on to the Old Blue Hymn Book because the Old Red 1970 Book wasn't loved very much. But everyone has switched to Voices United, particularly since it was in many ways a return to the past, with a big psalter with both metrical and responsive psalter and the restoration of a number of favourites from 1930 that were left out in 1970. "Amazing Grace" made it back in. [Big Grin]

Voices United is well and truly the Old Blue Book's son, by popular demand.

"Celebrate God's Presence" was prepared with Voices United in mind, on the good assumption that you'd have that already. So, for example, there are four sung Communion settings in Voices United and the rest of the Communion service is in "Celebrate God's Presence". You get more value from both books by using the two together and that is the intention.

General Council always commissions the replacement of both the recommended hymn book and service book at the same time, as a joint project. It just makes so much sense to do it that way.

As for the French Baptismal Blessing. [Axe murder]

10% of the hymns and selections in Voices United and "Celebrate God's Presence" have French translations, notably "Guide me, O Thou Great Jehovah" and the Old 100th. In fact the French verses appear as the primary ones for the Old 100th, with the English given second as a translation.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Let me rise to praise Horace T. Allen, Jr., a tireless worker for ecumenical reunion, a scholar of the theology the Lectionary and worship in the universal church, an evangelical preacher, a graceful and powerful teacher and teaching elder, a mentor to countless students, and a beloved child of God. In the words of Peter C. Bower, editor, in the Preface of the Companion to the Book of Common Worship
quote:
Special gratitude is due to Horace T. Allen Jr. and Harold M. Daniels, both former leaders of the Office of Worship in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), who painstakingly examined every page and paragraph and sentence, offering numerous helpful suggestions. Their singular gifts and experiences have greatly enhanced this resource for the church’s use. Words cannot express the depth of appreciation for both of these saints, but all of us are blessed by their dedication.

Amen, and amen! I knew Horace Allen and he was all of that.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
read [French Baptismal Blessing] here .

Oh, that is really nice.

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The 1993 BCW has particularly influenced the celebration of the sacraments, I think,

Looking at the BCW and the companion book, it seems to be trying to make strong case for the Eucharist being an integral part of a normal Sunday service from a genuine Reformed perspective and theology. Are there PC(USA) churches doing communions every week?

Also were the earlier BCWs you mentioned similar to the 1993 one or was it a big departure? (And if big, was it embraced or resisted?)

I must say that reading it through it feels very clean, clear and dignified to me.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Looking at the BCW and the companion book, it seems to be trying to make strong case for the Eucharist being an integral part of a normal Sunday service from a genuine Reformed perspective and theology. Are there PC(USA) churches doing communions every week?

Yes, there are, though still a relatively small percentage. Some do so as part of the main service, some at an early service, and some at alternating services so that there is communion at at least one service every week. But the denomination as a whole has moved. 40 years ago, the average congregation celebrated communion quarterly; now the average congregation celebrates communion at least monthly. Some have taken steps toward more frequent celebration, such as communion each Sunday of Easter. Weekly is still a goal, but we're much closer to it than we were 40 years ago.

quote:
Also were the earlier BCWs you mentioned similar to the 1993 one or was it a big departure? (And if big, was it embraced or resisted?

The earlier BCWs were not similar to the 1993 edition. The Sunday morning and evening services were more a hymn sandwich culminating in the sermon. The orders for communion were just communion itself, starting with the Warrant (words of institution) and invitation to the Table. In my experience, ministers used those books mainly for the sacraments, weddings and funerals, and perhaps as an occasional source of a prayer.

The real departure was The Worshipbook, which first came out in 1970. (A second version that included around 400 hymns came out in 1972.) It began as a revision to the BCW started in the late 50s. That process led to rewriting in the early 60s of the Directories of Worship of the PC(USA)'s predecessor bodies, which up to that point had essentially been using the Westminster Directory. It was the new Directories and the new BCW—given a new, more contemporary sounding name—that operated from the presumption that the Eucharist is integral to the Service for the Lord's Day, and provided a liturgy that assumed communion, giving an option for when it was omitted.

The Worshipbook—Services and Hymns never caught on as a congregational book. It used contemporary language exclusively in both liturgy and hymns, and it didn't have enough hymns. But the structure of the Service for the Lord's Day did catch on. Between new Directories of the early 60s and The Worshipbook that put the principles of those Directories into practice, the structure of the Service for the Lord's Day very quickly became the Presbyterian standard, and the move toward more frequent communion was underway. The Worshipbook was also the liturgical book that really encouraged the use of the lectionary and the observance of the liturgical year among Presbyterians.

The 1993 BCW continued moving in the direction started by The Worshipbook (and returned to the old name), and it was widely embraced. It provided more resources, and perhaps its biggest innovation for Presbyterians was the was the liturgies for Daily Prayer.

Sorry for the long answer.

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

Oop North, the situation is a little different. The legal minimum according to the UCCan's Manual is quarterly, and I would say most congregations are used to 5-6 times per year. My congregation is considering monthly. I's say 20% of our congregations are in the habit of monthly communion.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Sorry for the long answer.

Don't be! It's fascinating.

You said the biggest innovation was the liturgies for private prayer - I can see fairly ecumenical liturgies for morning, evening, midday and compline. Does your congregation use these?

I can see some parts in Evening Prayer such as the Service for Light which would cause some of my relatives to look askance and mutter about candles, and I can imagine some resistance to reciting the Magnificat on a regular basis.

I found what seems to be a copy of the 1906 book online. I love the effort it goes to in the Preface to justify its own existence!

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Thanks, Demas.

I'm not aware of any Presbyterian congregation that uses Morning or Evening Prayer (or Night Prayer) in the same way that, say, an Anglican congregation might, though there may be some that do. There is a small group in my church that meets weekly for prayer, and they use the order for Midday Prayer. Evening Prayer is sometimes used before meetings at church, or, say, for weekly evening services during Lent. Beyond that, in my experiences the services for Daily Prayer are mainly used at conferences, retreats, and the like.

Or, as you suggest, for personal prayer. I am aware of many people (me included when I'm disciplined) who use this part of the BCW for personal prayer. A separate "Daily Prayer" edition of the BCW was published for this purpose. It includes everything necessary for Morning, Midday, Evening and Night Prayer in a smaller, easy to carry book. And a year or two ago, the PC(USA) put out a Daily Prayer app.

For background, the 1946 BCW had a section of "Family Prayers," but no corporate Daily Prayer. The Worshipbook had basic orders for Morning and Evening Prayer, each at 2 1/2 pages and with no seasonal options or variations. These orders didn't reflect historical or ecumenical orders for Daily Prayer. So it was the 1993 BCW that introduced classical orders for Daily Prayer to Presbyterians. We'll see if inclusion of orders for Daily Prayer in the new hymnal assist in making the services more familiar to more Presbyterians.

Given your interest, and your comments about candles and the Magnificat, may I ask your background?

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

In the distant past my ancestors were Scots-Irish Presbyterians who emigrated to Australia and eventually ended up in the Uniting Church of Australia (ie Aussie Presbies, Methodists and Congregationalists combined in a burst of 1970s optimism). Their historic path seems similar to that taken by the PC(USA) if I'm reading Wikipedia correctly - fading sectarianism ending up with something liberal, intellectual (in the good senses of those words). But with residual prejudices against candles and in favour of wee cuppies [Smile]

The UCA equivalent to the BCW 1993 would probably be the 1988 "Uniting in Worship". I believe there was a cut-down version for non-clergy, but I don't think it was ever popular. From memory I don't think either version has a daily office, whether for communal or personal use but I don't have a copy to check.

Alas the PC(USA) Daily Prayer app doesn't seem to be available outside the US.

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

The United Church of Canada did the same thing as the UCA and has the same parents, but did it in 1925, so let's not harp too much on the 1970's. Even if it is the Decade the Taste Forgot.

The UCCan puts our Morning and Evening Prayer service orders in the hymn book as well as having options in CGP.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
In the distant past my ancestors were Scots-Irish Presbyterians who emigrated to Australia and eventually ended up in the Uniting Church of Australia (ie Aussie Presbies, Methodists and Congregationalists combined in a burst of 1970s optimism). Their historic path seems similar to that taken by the PC(USA) if I'm reading Wikipedia correctly - fading sectarianism ending up with something liberal, intellectual (in the good senses of those words). But with residual prejudices against candles and in favour of wee cuppies

Ah! I have some cousins whose family started out Aussie Presby and are now UCA.

Residual prejudice against candles disappeared here a long time ago. And one of the side-effects of congregations moving to more frequent communion is that wee cuppies aren't being used as often. Between Sunday Communions and special days (Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Maunday Thursday, etc.), we have Communion maybe 18–20 or so times a year. We use wee cuppies maybe twice a year. I've noticed a similar trend in other congregations.

And sorry about the app.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
let's not harp too much on the 1970's

But it's so easy [Devil]

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The UCCan puts our Morning and Evening Prayer service orders in the hymn book as well as having options in CGP.

Do you know how often they are used?

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
one of the side-effects of congregations moving to more frequent communion is that wee cuppies aren't being used as often. Between Sunday Communions and special days (Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Maunday Thursday, etc.), we have Communion maybe 18–20 or so times a year. We use wee cuppies maybe twice a year. I've noticed a similar trend in other congregations.

Why is that, do you think? As a fan of wee cuppies I'm a little bit saddened [Tear]

Is it a resources issue (too much washing!) or a change in the meaning that the congregations are applying to the service?

The UCA churches near me seem mostly to have monthly Communion.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
one of the side-effects of congregations moving to more frequent communion is that wee cuppies aren't being used as often. Between Sunday Communions and special days (Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Maunday Thursday, etc.), we have Communion maybe 18–20 or so times a year. We use wee cuppies maybe twice a year. I've noticed a similar trend in other congregations.
Why is that, do you think? As a fan of wee cuppies I'm a little bit saddened

Is it a resources issue (too much washing!) or a change in the meaning that the congregations are applying to the service?

I think it is partially a resources/logistics issue. As a congregation moves to more frequent communion, there are 3 main onbjections: it will be less "special" because we do it more, it will be more work before and after, and it will make the service longer.

Taking wee cuppies out of the equation and replacing them with 3 or 4 chalices makes preparation and clean-up after much simpler. In our congregation, at least, having everyone come forward also requires fewer elders to serve—usually no more than 5 as opposed to 8 for pew service. And coming forward tends to move a little faster than pew service. So that helps with two of the objections.

I'm sure there is also some desire on the part of ministers and others interested in worship to move back toward a common cup. In my experience, at least, people under 60 tend to prefer coming forward to receive rather than wee cuppies in the pews, while older congregants may skew the other way. And for the younger generations (like my kids), coming forward to receive is the main method of serving they've known, so for them, it's the "normal" way of doing it.

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

IME the MP and EP orders aren't used very much, but mostly it's a personal thing. But my minister uses something like that on Tuesdays when he has a MP service with the Secretary. He also has a kneeler in his office.

Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:[QB}
As a congregation moves to more frequent communion, there are 3 main objections: it will be less "special" because we do it more, it will be more work before and after, and it will make the service longer.
[/QB]

With an important codicil to that third point that the sermon time tends to get squeezed down in communion services, something the moderator of the Session (i.e. the teaching elder who gives most of the sermons) of a given church may or may not push against.

I've never seen the BCW in any PC(USA) pews, but it seems to have influenced many congregations to do so something a bit more than the previously common "hymn sandwich".

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
With an important codicil to that third point that the sermon time tends to get squeezed down in communion services, something the moderator of the Session (i.e. the teaching elder who gives most of the sermons) of a given church may or may not push against.

I've never seen the BCW in any PC(USA) pews, but it seems to have influenced many congregations to do so something a bit more than the previously common "hymn sandwich".

Agreed as to your codicil, though I have actually known of a few congregations that manage to shift from thinking of an hour as the maximum time for worship to something more like an hour and fifteen minutes. Believe it or not.

And yes—even if Presbyterians were inclined to have liturgy books in the pews, the BCW is much too big for a typical pew rack.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

For congregations that still do the visiting before communion, having it more frequently is a huge amount of extra work. I also think any that keep at all communion season with its time of preparation as a community will fell it place extra work.

I think "it will not be as special" is actually a feeling that if the preparation outside the worship is lost then something special is lost.

If this is the case then both of these are actually the same grumble about frequent communion as the Burgher of Geneva made to John Calvin. That is they did not have the resources to prepare people properly for the event in this timescale.

The irony is that it seems to be traditionalist (not necessarily conservative) Presbyterians that have the biggest attachment to having a serious act of confession and repentance before communion. In other words while they may not hold with confession being a sacrament yet they hold it is necessary to participate in the sacrament. The form may be different from private confession to a priest but the intention is not.

There is a lot of talk in the ecumenical world of being enriched by the high traditions in the sacraments and a tendency to look down on the "low" traditions. I have fallen for it myself. The more time I spend looking at "low" liturgical behaviour the more I think we are in danger of loosing an understanding of sacraments that is perhaps more held within a social understanding.

Yes I would like frequent communion but I am not sure it is good to separate communion from the communal relationship which involves both personal and communal repentance/confession, as well as activity that is situated around defining the bounds of the community.

Jengie

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

For all the derision heaped upon them, it is only with wee cuppies that I have truly felt part of a shared act and prayer done in remembrance of a shared meal, because we all prepare, then all eat at the same moment. So although the theology might be 'lower', it feels less of an individual act just between me and God (done at the same time as many other similar individual acts) and more of a communal act between *us* and God. I hadn't before this quite thought of the feeling this way, so thank you for helping me actualise that. Feelings are personal and subjective of course.

Not so sure about the boundaries thing, mind you. Is the wedding feast not filling because some have gatecrashed?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
For congregations that still do the visiting before communion, having it more frequently is a huge amount of extra work. I also think any that keep at all communion season with its time of preparation as a community will fell it place extra work.

I think "it will not be as special" is actually a feeling that if the preparation outside the worship is lost then something special is lost.

That's not really an issue on this side of the pond. Visiting by elders prior to communion and communions seasons with services of preparation died out a long time ago—in the 1800s, if my recollection is correct. So far as I know, not even the most conservative of smaller Presbyterian bodies in the US follow these practices anymore. For a while, we kept the requirement that notice must be given a week in advance so that people could prepare themselves privately, but even that has been gone for decades. I think the sentiment was why require a week's notice if the working assumption is that weekly is the norm/ideal and anything else is a deviation from that?

So here, the "it will not be as special" sentiment is purely a matter of "if we do it too often, it won't seem like a special occasion." To which my response has always been, try suggesting to your spouse that you should only have supper together every three months so that it can be more special.

I actually agree that something has been lost by not placing a focus on preparation. But for us, that loss really came long before the memory of folks now living. I think our task is to explore how to restore that sense of preparation in our current context.

quote:
If this is the case then both of these are actually the same grumble about frequent communion as the Burgher of Geneva made to John Calvin. That is they did not have the resources to prepare people properly for the event in this timescale.

My understanding was always that their primary concern was that people were used to communion once a year (Mass weekly, but actually communing only during Easter), so they thought that moving to weekly (with the assumption that everyone would commune at every celebration) was too much of shift. Perhaps that melded with concerns about preparation.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
For all the derision heaped upon them, it is only with wee cuppies that I have truly felt part of a shared act and prayer done in remembrance of a shared meal, because we all prepare, then all eat at the same moment. So although the theology might be 'lower', it feels less of an individual act just between me and God (done at the same time as many other similar individual acts) and more of a communal act between *us* and God. I hadn't before this quite thought of the feeling this way, so thank you for helping me actualise that. Feelings are personal and subjective of course.

Indeed they are, and associations play a big role. The congregation in which I grew up did not have a practice of holding the bread or wee cuppie until all had been served and then eating or drinking together. You took a piece of bread or a cuppie, passed the plate or tray and then immediately ate or drank. That was all I experienced, in that church and in others, until I was in my 20s.

The congregation I joined as an adult had the practice of holding the cup (but not the bread) until all had been served. Not being familiar with that practice, it felt very strange to me. I never got used to it; I hate to say it, but the only association I ever made was that of drinking a toast. But I know that others found it deeply meaningful. Now that we rarely use the wee cuppies, it's no longer an issue.

I think it's always good to be reminded that we all experience things differently. It fits with what has become something of the motto I use to remind myself when the liturgy (or hymn choices, or whatever) are not what I would have preferred: "It's not about me."

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

In my childhood Presbyterianism, it was the grace reflected in ensuring everyone had been served before we began to eat. This formality at the daily dinner table was mirrored in the formality of the communion rite.

It wasn't the thought of everyone eating or drinking at once. It was the courtesy (graciousness) of waiting until all were served.

Lest my encomium above was too close to a eulogy, Horace T. Allen, Jr., while retired, is very much alive.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The congregation I joined as an adult had the practice of holding the cup (but not the bread) until all had been served. Not being familiar with that practice, it felt very strange to me. I never got used to it; I hate to say it, but the only association I ever made was that of drinking a toast.

The blood of Christ, bottoms' up everyone! [Two face]

Yes that could be a bit disconcerting. Did they have an expressed reason why they only did it to the cup and not the bread? (ie did they ground the preference in a theology? Or was it just local custom?)

Silent Acolyte's observation about the mirroring of the shared family meal resonates with me as well. I remember noticing as a child that the elders distributed to us and then we waited while the minister and the elders gave to each other - then we all ate together. So no one took, all were given.

I guess my point was that I emotionally connect with wee cuppies for the same reason that others emotionally connect with a single shared physical cup - the symbolism of a shared covenantal (as opposed in merely individual) encounter with God.

Visiting by elders before communion which Jengie refers to had disappeared before my time in my area as far as I know, and we had adopted an open table.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Demas:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The congregation I joined as an adult had the practice of holding the cup (but not the bread) until all had been served. Not being familiar with that practice, it felt very strange to me. I never got used to it; I hate to say it, but the only association I ever made was that of drinking a toast.
The blood of Christ, bottoms' up everyone!

Ha!

quote:
Yes that could be a bit disconcerting. Did they have an expressed reason why they only did it to the cup and not the bread? (ie did they ground the preference in a theology? Or was it just local custom?)

No idea. If there was a reason, which I'm sure there was, I never heard it. A compromise perhaps? One more individual practice and one communal one?

And I can definitely appreciate what you and TSA are saying about the meal aspect. I think that's one of the strengths of service in the pews. That, and as my grandmother used to say, the reminder that Christ comes searching for us and finds us wherever we are.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0