Thread: Worship & loss of awe across traditions a coincidence? 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=027912
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
I am at the beginning of starting to think this through and may well not contribute much to this thread but I am wanting to take a step back from the minutiae of worship and consider things more generally.
It was a comment by a Roman Catholic who set this off and that was a comment about loss of awe in Roman Catholic worship in the later part of the twentieth century. Now I would not know about that, but I have heard the same complaint made about Reformed worship.
It could be the increase in informality. This does seem to be a trend across denominations and society in general. However, formality does not necessarily lead to awe. It can just be dry, rigid and cold.
It could be nostalgia. In other words, worship is more "awe-full" in the past than it is in the present. The same way children were always better behaved. This has been my presumed theory to date, I am beginning to question it.
It could be a change in society. The anti-institutionalism that tends to want to attack that institutions has led us to be a society where awe is more difficult to experience. This might interconnect with the first. We are taught to be sceptical of the processes that create it.
It could be a change in theology, we would have domesticated our notion of God so as to remove awe from him. This would be the claim from a contingent within the Reformed tradition.
Or perhaps you have some other reason for this complaint.
Jengie
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
It's a great mystery of our faith that God is both transcendent and immanent. I think people rightly identify a greater emphasis on God's immanence now than 60 years ago in Roman Catholic worship, and I think that would be a reasonably uncontroversial claim. What would be controverted would essentially be the question, have we gone too far? Various people would give the answers, "yes," "no, we're in the right place now" and "no, we haven't gone far enough."
Humans, being finite, find it very hard to hold both poles of a tensive mystery together, and tend to collapse the mystery to one of its poles, giving lip-service to the other. I think there has been a trajectory over the last two generations to err on the side of immanence. But, I'm often equally worried by some of the 'reform of the reform' voices who, to my mind, can't see any way to restore balance except to all but jettison immanence.
[ 29. August 2014, 14:39: Message edited by: Hart ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
I'm often equally worried by some of the 'reform of the reform' voices who, to my mind, can't see any way to restore balance except to all but jettison immanence.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. Do you have any examples in mind? The sacraments themselves testify to the immanence of God because he works directly through them. I remain unconvinced that the reform of the liturgy did anything to emphasize God's immanence. I thought is was more slash and burn.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
I certainly understand what Jengie Jon is referring to here, and I would agree that there is a tendency in some circles to treat God as a kind of mascot or teddy bear. I find that extremely off-putting, which shouldn't surprise anyone.
I don't know whether at root this has to do with transcendence vs immanence, though that issue is certainly part of it. I am seeing more of a loss of the idea of the sacred, and I think that's a terrible shame. Of course this can't all be blamed on Vatican II, though; long before that council convened there were priests who treated the celebration of Mass as an unpleasant duty to be discharged as quickly as possible.
Seems to me it's up to the clergy to set the tone. If the pastor or priest behaves as though what's going on is important, and takes it seriously, then that attitude will spread to the congregation (unless they're completely hostile to their minister, in which case you've got much bigger problems). If you don't approach the mysteries with fear and trembling, there's little chance that the people will do so.
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
ISTM that much of the problem (if you will) of 'Liturgical Reform' lay in the rather wide chasm between the intent and the effect of said reforms.
In my opinion (based on considerable experience) this was the result of a) most liturgical authorities being academics with little or no pastoral experience/interest, and b) the failure to submit the reforms to 'trial use' until well on into the process.
(I'm aware that 'trial use' is a loaded term, I am a veteran of Green Book, Zebra Book, Son of Zebra, and many, many pamphlets in TEC, and I was an official 'reader consultant' for Prayer Book Revision.)
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
I should have said also that I know each denom has its own way of dealing with reform, and that not all are as convoluted as those of TEC, but I would bet that each has its own share of 'Boffins.'
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Worship used to send a shiver down my spine.
Maybe I've got used to it so that it doesn't have any effect on my anymore.
Or maybe it's liturgical revision.
Eastward facing or north end eucharists had a certain mystery that facing the people doesn't.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Its not only a loss of 'awe' but any sense of reverence as well.
The only coincidence is with the tenor of society.
Nobody respects anybody anymore.
And Churches, including the clergy, are so concerned to 'get with it' that all respect, reverence and the like are abandoned in favour of a shallow 'matiness'.
This is not incarnational theology at work. It is a capitulation to the mores of society.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
... loss of awe ... It could be ...
All of the above, I think. Including the nostalgia making it seem even more so.
Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Its not only a loss of 'awe' but any sense of reverence as well.
The only coincidence is with the tenor of society.
Nobody respects anybody anymore.
And Churches, including the clergy, are so concerned to 'get with it' that all respect, reverence and the like are abandoned in favour of a shallow 'matiness'.
This is not incarnational theology at work. It is a capitulation to the mores of society.
I don't think it's entirely shallow and disrespectful but there is an alignment with the mores of society.
When I began work in the 1960s I was thoroughly encultured to call older people and those in positions of authority by their titles and last names. In church (Anglican) Jesus was very rarely spoken of without an attached "Our Lord" or "Christ".
Now everyone in the workplace is on first name terms and in church and out-of-church conversations so is Jesus.
Awe and reverence, like courtesy and respect, were automatically expected in former times. Now they are more likely to be the result of conscious choice.
Whether this change is matiness or intimacy, good or bad, depends very much on circumstances, intent, values and attitudes.
As a lover of liturgy I never found it dry or dull even if badly delivered by a seemingly disinterested party. It was always, and still is, deep and reverent and reflective of a humble relationship with an awesome triune God. The triune part matters. It is not just a binary language problem of Father=Transcendence vs Son=Immanence.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I tend to find the incessant talking and noise in many churches interferes with any sense of awe. I really like the opportunity for contemplative silence, but so few churches offer this.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
There is a balance and I think that if we are seeing a pendulum that has swung too far - in both Catholic and Reformed settings - then it may swing back the other way and find an equilibrium.
An RC priest I met the other week told me about a fiercesome and fiesty Irish nun who could often have Cardinals quaking in their boots.
He told me that he was once at a gathering of clergy where they were all discussing how various priests of their acquaintance served the Mass - in rather Fr Ted style.
'Sure, Fr O'Reilly, now he's your man,' said one. 'He serves a good Mass.'
'That's so, but Fr Fitzgerald also, why he's your man for a great Mass ...'
This went on for some minutes until the nun, exasperated, struck the table and said, 'Brothers! The Mass is the Mass is the Mass!'
Even as a Protestant I can sympathise with what the sister said, however, I think there is something in the way we deliver these things ...
That applies just as much to Reformed settings to more Catholic ones and all stations in between.
I've got to be honest, I find the way that some RC and Orthodox clergy run through their Liturgies to be about as inspiring as a racing commentary or someone reading a railway timetable.
I was at a joint Anglican/Orthodox conference recently and, naming no names, attended an Orthodox Liturgy that was garbled and rattled off at such a pace that one of the choir rebelled in the middle of it ...
By contrast, one of the Anglican eucharists was delivered in such a dignified yet warm and engaging way that it made the hair stand-up on the back of my neck ...
It is possible, I believe, to combine awe, dignity and warmth ... and again, this applies equally within Reformed settings which don't go in for a lot of ceremonial.
I've been to one or two more Reformed style services where there has been a sense of expectation and awe when the scriptures have been opened and expounded.
I've also attended some which had about as much sense of reverence, awe and the numinous as a committee meeting in the local town hall.
I must admit, any sense of reverence has all but disappeared at our local parish church. A bunch of old ladies at the back talk incessantly throughout the whole thing ... the notice, the sermon, the intercession ... and the more 'informal' services are so informal that they've turned into a completely dire and formless mess.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
I am reading even if not posting. I need time to think this through. Below are some stray thoughts
from the posting.
I chose awe deliberately rather than reverence as to me they are not synonyms. For me the truly awe filled moments have quite often felt irreverent. How could they not be when you encounter the Living God? In this circumstance Peter's stumbling suggestion that they build tents on the mount of transfiguration seems to me totally typical. God himself seems irreverent in some ways, that is he seems to take his own dignity pretty lightly. Yet God remains God or becomes more so as I can not imagine a human taking such status as lightly.
Similarly are immanence and transcendance truly polar opposites? Or are they overlapping. Can we not be close and filled with awe? The Reformed tradition has tended to think that to keep Gods majesty we must let go of his love; I think it is wrong so to do. However, is the converse true that inorder to communicate God's love we must let go of his majesty. It seems to me to disservice to God.
Jengie
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I can see what you're getting at there, Jengie Jon and completely agree.
A sense of awe and a sense of divine irreverence - if I can put it that way - can and do go hand-in-hand.
It's the sort of thing that is difficult to describe but you recognise it when you see it ... usual caveats applied of course.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've got to be honest, I find the way that some RC and Orthodox clergy run through their Liturgies to be about as inspiring as a racing commentary or someone reading a railway timetable.
Oi! - railway timetables can be FASCINATING - journeys in one's mind!
And didn't we just love James Alexander Gordon reading the football scores?
Seriously, I know exactly what you mean: something to be dutifully "got through" as quickly as possible.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
England has a very, very long history of anti-clericalism, or at least being simultaneously over-familiar and awkwardly reticent when it comes to worship. Medieval English Catholics were both faithful and orthodox Catholics, and distinctly jocular and irreverent towards church/the clergy - there seems to always have been a distinction between church and faith, church being seen as an obligation and faith the personal stuff.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Even in the highest of high churches, where awe and reverence are paramount, the choir humour in the vestry is instantly recognisable. It's as if we can't take ourselves too seriously in religion, there has to be a safety valve. I've no idea what it's like for the congregation, though.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've got to be honest, I find the way that some RC and Orthodox clergy run through their Liturgies to be about as inspiring as a racing commentary or someone reading a railway timetable.
Oi! - railway timetables can be FASCINATING - journeys in one's mind!
And didn't we just love James Alexander Gordon reading the football scores?
Seriously, I know exactly what you mean: something to be dutifully "got through" as quickly as possible.
Fr. Ted has a Mass like that:
Ted: mrrrmrmrmmrmmr
Cong: mrrrmrm
Ted: mrrmrmmmrmrmmr
Cong: mrmmrmr
and so on for about 30 seconds. I went to a Carflick mass once where they used the Peruvian Gloria. I swear it was done at crotchet=500
[ 03. September 2014, 09:24: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
It can be seen here.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Why do I see this thread and keep thinking of the story about the filming of whatever Biblical epic it was? -
quote:
Actor (woodenly): Truly this man was the Son of God.
Director: Can you say it with a little awe?
Actor: Awww, truly this man was the Son of God.
Anyhoo ...
I'm generally a fan of the "awe" thing in worship, but with a couple of caveats. First, I don't think it can be manufactured. At best, I think worship can be done in such a way as to be more conducive to an experience of awe. Secondly, one person's awe is another's kitsch. Theatrical stage-trickery is not awe. There is a story that in one CofE church, there was a spotlight aimed at precisely the spot where Father would elevate the Host during the Eucharistic Prayer. While this might give a new angle on "Shine, Jesus, Shine", I'd say it's more kitsch than awe.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
I must confess I'm struggling with the whole idea of regularly feeling awe/being awestruck in a church service. The very nature of the thing[1] seems conducive to removing awe in all but exceptional circumstances.
Which isn't to say that they are all necessarily mundane, prosaic events; indeed I would hope not. But in the general case awe seems to be such an overwhelming and personal response, and generally something felt when one is jolted out of the normal course, not when going through a familiar rubric[2]
[1]Across various traditions and styles.
[2]Although I do understand how for the right person, and in the right settings, the regular repetition of something can in and of itself take on a depth and a transcendent quality
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
This thread came to mind this week. I went to an Anglican "induction/installation" or however it is named for a new priest with whom I shall be working. It was formal and 'correct' to the point of frigidity. One line in the printed Order of Service urged the congregation to applaud loudly at one point. ( It wasn't after the sermon!) Went to a Methodist equivalent the next evening. Might as well have gone to the pub. Entirely devoid of any 'sense of occasion'. They didn't even take a collection!. Got home in time to hear Radio 4 debate on "Is there a future for Methodism?" Ironic.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Even in the highest of high churches, where awe and reverence are paramount, the choir humour in the vestry is instantly recognisable. It's as if we can't take ourselves too seriously in religion, there has to be a safety valve. I've no idea what it's like for the congregation, though.
Certainly we shouldn't take ourselves too seriously! But if the liturgy isn't worth taking seriously, then what is?
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
A collection is necessary to a sense of awe? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Seriously, I think what gives a service a sense of awe is "mindfulness" - cliched, I know. But what mean be that is that everybody, clergy and laity, needs to be there in mind and spirit in awareness of God's tremendous love and generosity to us unmerited. Choice of music either lively or profound may aid this, as would an occasional sermon gently emphasizing this point. The prayers need to be measured enough to absorb without being dirge-like. The sermon needs some meat, not just clever anecdotes. And the Communion should be conducted in full realization of what God has done and and how he continues to bless us with the gift of his body and Spirit. Try -hard- not to let yourselves just go through the motions.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Seriously, I think what gives a service a sense of awe is "mindfulness" - cliched, I know. But what mean be that is that everybody, clergy and laity, needs to be there in mind and spirit in awareness of God's tremendous love and generosity to us unmerited. Choice of music either lively or profound may aid this, as would an occasional sermon gently emphasizing this point. The prayers need to be measured enough to absorb without being dirge-like. The sermon needs some meat, not just clever anecdotes. And the Communion should be conducted in full realization of what God has done and and how he continues to bless us with the gift of his body and Spirit. Try -hard- not to let yourselves just go through the motions.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
And perhaps all of that matters vastly more than the effect of a sense of awe, which will sometimes comes and sometimes not, whether the liturgical style is one way or another.
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on
:
Adeodatus said:
quote:
Why do I see this thread and keep thinking of the story about the filming of whatever Biblical epic it was? -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actor (woodenly): Truly this man was the Son of God.
Director: Can you say it with a little awe?
Actor: Awww, truly this man was the Son of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyhoo ...
The film was The Greatest Story Ever told and the Actor was none other than John Wayne.
Its extremely likely its an urban myth - but its always better PR to print the myth.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I don't recognize any of this. Gamaliel, I wonder if it's a pond thing, or we're just blessed here with a number of Orfie clergy who really "feel" it. I've never been to a service that felt rushed, in any of the dozen or so Orthodox churches I've worshiped in.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Can't say I've ever seen rushed liturgies either. That goes for now as an Orthodox and also back when I was an RC.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
Gamaliel, I'm with mousethief and Ad Orientem on this. I've heard the horror stories, but having been all over American Orthodoxy (mostly OCA, ROCOR, and Antiochian), I've never seen anything approaching it.
The closest was at a Divine Liturgy in Hong Kong celebrated by Metropolitan Nektarios. We were in and out in under 59 minutes. A sprightly pace, not particularly rushed. The sub-hour mark was reached by hacking out large swaths of whatever typikon he was working from.
Perhaps it's a Greek thing, not a Pond difference.
[ 06. September 2014, 16:54: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Eastward facing or north end eucharists had a certain mystery that facing the people doesn't.
I think I'd want to drive a wedge between those two. Eastward facing has a theology, which may not be popular post Vat II but which was still a theology. North End is praxis of antipathy, not a theology: I'm standing here waving at those things over there because I am not a nasty papist ...
I defend eastward facing, I defend westward facing, but never in a pink fit could I find a defence of flopping around one side of the sanctuary like a miscastrated seal, self-consciously half-flapping one carefully understated wing in a southward direction, simultaneously hoping that some semaphore trickles down on the bikkies and jesus juice to make it remember it's meant to represent the radical absence of jesus in the rite.
[ 07. September 2014, 02:39: Message edited by: Zappa ]
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
Now ... as for a sense that modernization means ipso facto a loss of reverence, pifflication. I suggest those that reclaimed a sense of "gather round" liturgical form were not necessarily planning to sing coitus nauseamus love songs to Jesus and dance to the latest Myley Cyrus riff, but to emphasize the immanence of the post-Pentecost Christ. Given that by the 1950s many churches had a clockmaker god so far removed from human experience that the Grand Architect of the Universe needed the Alma telescope to find its footsteps some correction was probably necessary. My shady memory of attending a C of E church as a child (Isle of Wight, mid-sixties) was that God was so bloody remote and severe, and His Ordained Minister™ so pompous and socially frigid, that I would rather copulate with Boadicea than ever visit Miserable Divine Service again.
But there is a happy medium. At this very moment I am wrestling to find it in a cathedral, and I will probably never get it right. But somewhere between God In A Deep Freeze Beyond The Furthest Black Hole and God in my Doughnut there is a meaningful balance ... perhaps God on a Cross for starters.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Eastward facing or north end eucharists had a certain mystery that facing the people doesn't.
I think I'd want to drive a wedge between those two. Eastward facing has a theology, which may not be popular post Vat II but which was still a theology. North End is praxis of antipathy, not a theology: I'm standing here waving at those things over there because I am not a nasty papist ...
I defend eastward facing, I defend westward facing, but never in a pink fit could I find a defence of flopping around one side of the sanctuary like a miscastrated seal, self-consciously half-flapping one carefully understated wing in a southward direction, simultaneously hoping that some semaphore trickles down on the bikkies and jesus juice to make it remember it's meant to represent the radical absence of jesus in the rite.
There was a theology of the north end - that the priest didn't get in the way between God and the people.
As I experienced it as a boy, the elements were moved, after the prayer of humble approach, from the centre of the table to the north end so that the priest could perform the manual actions.
I still use north end once a year - when I preside at the final part of the Good Friday Liturgy.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
I had always understood that the north side provision envisaged altars which had been moved away from the east wall and placed in the midst of the choir as in Hailes Church in Gloucestershire.
It did represent a theological shift from the idea of a sacrifice of the Mass by the priest for the people towards the idea of a shared participation in the Lord's Supper (the Prayer Book's primary title for the sacrament), led by the priest on behalf of the people (a change reflected also in a new expectation of their verbal participation in the service).
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
I defend eastward facing, I defend westward facing, but never in a pink fit could I find a defence of flopping around one side of the sanctuary ...
Nonconformist ministers (nearly) always stand behind the Communion Table and face the congregation. Many of our churches are oriented to the surrounding road layout anyway, rather than to points of the compass.
What are more interesting re. the OP in our contexts are the increased informality in worship and the diminution in use of the pulpit.
[ 07. September 2014, 17:00: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
I have a thought:
There is a huge difference between playing marbles and playing marbles when you know you are on a live volcano.
I do not think that playing marbles on a live volcano is per se a bad thing to do. Indeed for many people who live under a live volcano the getting on with the mundane actions of everyday life is precisely the most sensible thing they can do. However, there is something about being conscious of dealing with something that is not predictable.
What worries me is not that we are informal in church rather it is the loss of the sense of God as not being totally governed by our sensibilities. As C.S. Lewis has Narnian's say "He is not a tame lion". I think nor is he a stuffed lion in a museum or a cuddly lion. I think Lyda Rose is therefore is onto something with here with mindfulness.
I perhaps would go onto say that maybe we are loosing awe of God because we have come too comfortable in our own ability and have lost sight of God's "wildness".
Jengie
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on
:
As wiser heads have said, on this thread, it doesn't begin and finish with the minutiae of every tiny liturgical nuance. There are literal liturgists who have no awe and are quite shitlessly absolutely boring. Jengie is right: you need to feel the story. God isn't a desexed Rectory Tom.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I don't think it is so much a loss of awe as a loss of confidence. In the past the service spoke for itself - it followed the same pattern each week, which I imagine is what Jengie means about the Reformed tradition.
The trouble now is that it all has to be explained all the time ("we all say together the very beautiful prayer on page 9")and the congregation have to be placated by having any potentially tricky or difficult bits left out.
In the past, people may have been repeating and doing things by rote, but at least the service and scripture could speak for themselves instead of being endlessly replaced by didactic and infantilising commentary.
The end result is to give the message that if the minister doesn't have any faith in the contents of the service.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
What worries me is not that we are informal in church rather it is the loss of the sense of God as not being totally governed by our sensibilities.
Absolutely. Agree 100%
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
Interesting conversation because Sunday at coffee a woman told me she grew up Roman Catholic (her wording), went to 8 years of Roman Catholic parochial school and then 4 more of parochial high school, but she no longer recognizes the Roman Catholic, it's gotten so informal, they've changed the wordings of the prayers. She went to a non-denominational church for a while, stopped in at TEC and felt at home - it was the familiar service she had grown up with, same style, same prayers, same feel.
I didn't know the Catholic church has gotten informal.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Interesting conversation because Sunday at coffee a woman told me she grew up Roman Catholic (her wording), went to 8 years of Roman Catholic parochial school and then 4 more of parochial high school, but she no longer recognizes the Roman Catholic, it's gotten so informal, they've changed the wordings of the prayers. She went to a non-denominational church for a while, stopped in at TEC and felt at home - it was the familiar service she had grown up with, same style, same prayers, same feel.
I didn't know the Catholic church has gotten informal.
We went to a RC mass-cum-baptism a few years back, and told the kids it would be a lot like our service, and told them to look for parts that were analogues.
Boy were we surprised. I've been to nondenominational baptist services that seemed more formal.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Just posting something because I found it and I think it is relevant
quote:
Belden C Lane says
The highest from of play is one that dares to toy with the deepest fears. It entertains the dragons threat so as finally to see the dragon face defeat. That's something that play less give to boldness can never quite obtain. The soft and harmless play we often prefer may be too gentle, too cloying and sweet. It lacks ambiguity altogether, occasioning no surprise, promising no danger, bringing no reward. Only a bold and rowdy playfulness can draw the whole of what I am to God who toys with death for the sake of stubborn love.
(The Solace of Fierce Landscapes Chapter 6)
Replace play with worship and I think there is something of the critique I am getting at there.
Jengie
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I have a thought:
There is a huge difference between playing marbles and playing marbles when you know you are on a live volcano.
I do not think that playing marbles on a live volcano is per se a bad thing to do. Indeed for many people who live under a live volcano the getting on with the mundane actions of everyday life is precisely the most sensible thing they can do. However, there is something about being conscious of dealing with something that is not predictable.
What worries me is not that we are informal in church rather it is the loss of the sense of God as not being totally governed by our sensibilities. As C.S. Lewis has Narnian's say "He is not a tame lion". I think nor is he a stuffed lion in a museum or a cuddly lion. I think Lyda Rose is therefore is onto something with here with mindfulness.
I perhaps would go onto say that maybe we are loosing awe of God because we have come too comfortable in our own ability and have lost sight of God's "wildness".
Jengie
Sometimes my brain doesn't get nuance, but isn't this just another way of saying "We should be careful because God can get tetchy and then he might squash us?"
Like in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBqe5xvYnNc
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
No. It's a way of saying God is not just an expresssion of our wish fulfilment.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Belatedly ... for our Orthodox friends. I'm told by one of my off-line Orthodox contacts here that the individual concerned was rather notorious for taking the Liturgy at a rush and in a way that showed little concern for the community aspect ... he may as well have been doing it on his own ...
I have to say, it's the first Orthodox Liturgy I've attended that was taken at the gallop and I was rather taken aback ...
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I think Karl is mistaking awe for fear. It's not that - it's rather wonder and peace and gratitude experienced totally unexpectedly.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
It's the reference to live volcanos that did that. They're something one is generally afraid of.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Belatedly ... for our Orthodox friends. I'm told by one of my off-line Orthodox contacts here that the individual concerned was rather notorious for taking the Liturgy at a rush and in a way that showed little concern for the community aspect ... he may as well have been doing it on his own ...
I have to say, it's the first Orthodox Liturgy I've attended that was taken at the gallop and I was rather taken aback ...
So it's a one-off. Hardly a trend, then.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's the reference to live volcanos that did that. They're something one is generally afraid of.
But they are also are exciting, for some people. They pay good money to go up to the top of Mount Etna.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I have a thought:
There is a huge difference between playing marbles and playing marbles when you know you are on a live volcano.
I do not think that playing marbles on a live volcano is per se a bad thing to do. Indeed for many people who live under a live volcano the getting on with the mundane actions of everyday life is precisely the most sensible thing they can do. However, there is something about being conscious of dealing with something that is not predictable.
What worries me is not that we are informal in church rather it is the loss of the sense of God as not being totally governed by our sensibilities. As C.S. Lewis has Narnian's say "He is not a tame lion". I think nor is he a stuffed lion in a museum or a cuddly lion. I think Lyda Rose is therefore is onto something with here with mindfulness.
I perhaps would go onto say that maybe we are loosing awe of God because we have come too comfortable in our own ability and have lost sight of God's "wildness".
Jengie
Sometimes my brain doesn't get nuance, but isn't this just another way of saying "We should be careful because God can get tetchy and then he might squash us?"
Like in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBqe5xvYnNc
A volcano is not tetchy unless you are going to anthropomorphize it; it is something we cannot control or predict. It no more wants to squash us than it wants to give us good soil to grow crops on.
Do mountains hate mountaineers or why are many of them killed on mountains?
Jengie
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
... Went to a Methodist equivalent the next evening. Might as well have gone to the pub. Entirely devoid of any 'sense of occasion'. They didn't even take a collection!. Got home in time to hear Radio 4 debate on "Is there a future for Methodism?" Ironic.
I agree that 'awe' isn't something obviously associated with Methodist worship. Or rather, individuals are free to discover a sense of awe in worship, but I don't think it's something that preachers automatically reach for when planning services. Congregations simply expect God to be in their midst.
I'm unsure what taking a collection has to do with it, though. I've sat through plenty of collections at church, and never thought, 'Wow! How awe-inspiring!' LOL!
(BTW, thanks for the ref to that radio programme.)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Mousethief, I'm not sure I said it was a trend.
I did acknowledge that I was rather taken aback as most Liturgies I've attended - although highly ritualised and formulaic from the perspective of more 'informal' ways of doing things - were conducted in a way that appeared to 'engage' people.
This one was done at a dash as if the celebrant were the only person in the room.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I have a thought:
There is a huge difference between playing marbles and playing marbles when you know you are on a live volcano.
I do not think that playing marbles on a live volcano is per se a bad thing to do. Indeed for many people who live under a live volcano the getting on with the mundane actions of everyday life is precisely the most sensible thing they can do. However, there is something about being conscious of dealing with something that is not predictable.
What worries me is not that we are informal in church rather it is the loss of the sense of God as not being totally governed by our sensibilities. As C.S. Lewis has Narnian's say "He is not a tame lion". I think nor is he a stuffed lion in a museum or a cuddly lion. I think Lyda Rose is therefore is onto something with here with mindfulness.
I perhaps would go onto say that maybe we are loosing awe of God because we have come too comfortable in our own ability and have lost sight of God's "wildness".
Jengie
Sometimes my brain doesn't get nuance, but isn't this just another way of saying "We should be careful because God can get tetchy and then he might squash us?"
Like in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBqe5xvYnNc
A volcano is not tetchy unless you are going to anthropomorphize it; it is something we cannot control or predict. It no more wants to squash us than it wants to give us good soil to grow crops on.
Do mountains hate mountaineers or why are many of them killed on mountains?
Jengie
God and people are personal. Volcanoes are not personal. The comparison should be more with people who might harm you rather than inanimate objects.
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on
:
I mis-read the title of this thread, as Worship and Loos . What came to mind was the sound of a toilet flushing, well withing hearing range of worshipers.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I'd rather that than the usual church arrangement, i.e. nothing.
Besides, we all know that everyone over the age of 3 needs to use the loo so why the coyness over the sound of a flush?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Maybe 'worship and [audible] loos' = 'worship and loss of awe'. I.e., noisy plumbing may have a detrimental effect upon one's attempts at having an otherworldly spiritual experience....
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Karl
Lets take it the other way. How is your God different from the God of "new" Christians who provides parking places if he can only do what you want him to do, what you classify as nice? A predictable God which is what you seem to want is as much a mechanical God as their vending machine model. Even the Hell Fire God is only another form of this mechanical God. The hell fire God is still responding as predicted, just the predictions are bad. Still that God can be controlled; "just pray the believer prayer and you will be saved from these bad things". It is time you opened up to the Godness of God.
God is not personal, he is meta-personal. Personal only works by analogy, the reality of God is always not what we say it is. That is why we need to understand is cannot control God. Saying the "right" words, doing the "right" deeds or behaving in a specific fashion does not guarantee how God will respond. It is no good trying flattery, or manipulation with God, God not only sees through it but is above it. Therefore, God is very different from any other person. God is not bound by human made institutions. God essentially responds as God responds. That is not the nature of God I am talking about.
If God is such then God is capable of unexpected/unprecedented good as much as anything else. What evidence there is suggests that his mercy extends far beyond that of any person. This good however is a good that is capable of restructuring society, not something that will leave us with the status quo. As the evidence suggests that God is not bound by our concepts of what is proper and what is not proper.
Jengie
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Heh heh heh ...
I've heard that even the Rule of St Benedict makes provision for monks to nip out and answer calls of nature during lengthy services ... although they wouldn't have had flushing loos in those days of course.
It reminds me of Jon Ronson's very critical TV documentary about the Alpha Course a few years back. The 'Holy Spirit' slot at the 'Holy Spirit weekend' on an Alpha course he was following had to be abandoned because there were 4-wheel drive vehicles revving up by the boys-toys weekenders who were sharing the same venue ...
It made Ronson - and the viewers no doubt, myself included - wonder what was going on if God the Holy Spirit could be scared off so easily by a few revved engines.
The reality, of course, was that this section of the Alpha weekend relied on a certain level of expectation and a particular atmosphere in order for it to 'work' properly.
The organisers would have been well advised to read Jengie Jon's latest post ...
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I'm loving the idea that the Holy Spirit could be out-revved!
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The organisers would have been well advised to read Jengie Jon's latest post ...
And so would most of us.
Psalm 97 describes God by analogy with a volcano.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I suppose an Ignatian retreat probably requires a particular atmosphere. You wouldn't go to one situated across the road from an abattoir and next to a popular all-night disco! OTOH, by ministering to the clubbing crowd as a Street Pastor you might feel a strong sense of the Holy Spirit being at work.
Some people prefer to commune with God in all sorts of settings that don't involve formal 'worship'. Maybe such worship has become too limiting for most people, especially since we have so many spiritual tools and options at our fingertips and no longer have to rely primarily on what local clergy and congregations can offer.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
I would not be so sure. I have twice done a week of Ignatian Retreat in daily life (this takes seven weeks). The first while at University and meant me going to the chaplaincy to meet with the accompanier, the second one at work and that meant the accompanier coming to my office. So technically if your work office was in an abattoir you might just meet there.
Jengie
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... the Rule of St Benedict makes provision for monks to nip out and answer calls of nature during lengthy services ...
RB 8:4, discussing the timings for the Night Office: quote:
... Vigils should be followed immediately by Matins at daybreak, with a very short interval in between, when the brothers can go out for the needs of nature [ad necessaria naturae].
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Why do I see this thread and keep thinking of the story about the filming of whatever Biblical epic it was? -
quote:
Actor (woodenly): Truly this man was the Son of God.
Director: Can you say it with a little awe?
Actor: Awww, truly this man was the Son of God.
Anyhoo ...
I'm generally a fan of the "awe" thing in worship, but with a couple of caveats. First, I don't think it can be manufactured. At best, I think worship can be done in such a way as to be more conducive to an experience of awe. Secondly, one person's awe is another's kitsch. Theatrical stage-trickery is not awe. There is a story that in one CofE church, there was a spotlight aimed at precisely the spot where Father would elevate the Host during the Eucharistic Prayer. While this might give a new angle on "Shine, Jesus, Shine", I'd say it's more kitsch than awe.
That has to be John Wayne in The Greatest Story Ever Told. And I second both your points.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
I wonder is it to do with a loss of understanding God in terms of transcendence? The media certainly stereotypes the church as a bit fluffy bunnied and overtly and mawkishly sentimental. It may be a caricature, but might there not also be some truth to that? I can't really remember the time when I last heard a sermon on how coldly terrifying an unconditional love can be to us limited humans; or on God being wholly 'other'. I guess you could argue that it's the product of the age in which we live and it comes, in part at least, from our self congratulatory bollocks at being so wise and clever.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by fletcher christian quote:
I can't really remember the time when I last heard a sermon on how coldly terrifying an unconditional love can be to us limited humans; or on God being wholly 'other'.
While it wasn't the theme, the scary thing about unconditional love was part of the sermon at the last wedding in our church - in fact it is a staple of our PP's wedding words. Always makes the point about the difference between unconditional and uncritical too ...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Karl
Lets take it the other way. How is your God different from the God of "new" Christians who provides parking places if he can only do what you want him to do, what you classify as nice? A predictable God which is what you seem to want is as much a mechanical God as their vending machine model. Even the Hell Fire God is only another form of this mechanical God. The hell fire God is still responding as predicted, just the predictions are bad. Still that God can be controlled; "just pray the believer prayer and you will be saved from these bad things". It is time you opened up to the Godness of God.
God is not personal, he is meta-personal. Personal only works by analogy, the reality of God is always not what we say it is. That is why we need to understand is cannot control God. Saying the "right" words, doing the "right" deeds or behaving in a specific fashion does not guarantee how God will respond. It is no good trying flattery, or manipulation with God, God not only sees through it but is above it. Therefore, God is very different from any other person. God is not bound by human made institutions. God essentially responds as God responds. That is not the nature of God I am talking about.
If God is such then God is capable of unexpected/unprecedented good as much as anything else. What evidence there is suggests that his mercy extends far beyond that of any person. This good however is a good that is capable of restructuring society, not something that will leave us with the status quo. As the evidence suggests that God is not bound by our concepts of what is proper and what is not proper.
Jengie
No, I don't want a "predictable God". But nor do I want a God who's as dangerous to me as a volcano. I'd not live on a volcano, and I wouldn't want to be involved with a God who might do the God equivalent of pouring hot lava over me either.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Edit - I suppose you could say that that means I do want a predictable God - one who can be predicted not to pour hot lava over me. But I can't make myself want that. How can anyone? The problem is that the unpredictable God who may pour hot lava over me seems less good, less merciful, than the one who predictably wouldn't. You can say that's because my concept of Good is limited, but I can't see being covered in hot lava as good, no more than I can force myself to see grass as purple.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I imagine if you [impersonal 'you'] were Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane you wouldn't see the imminent crucifixion as something good. But at the heart of our faith, and not just our faith but the mystery of life, is this ultimate fact: that all our visions and expectations of God will crumble before the reality of God's self. Cosy, prepackaged religion is like fast food for the soul.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Angloid: I imagine if you [impersonal 'you'] were Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane you wouldn't see the imminent crucifixion as something good.
The crucifixion wasn't something good.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
No, but it was reality.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Edit - I suppose you could say that that means I do want a predictable God - one who can be predicted not to pour hot lava over me. But I can't make myself want that. How can anyone? The problem is that the unpredictable God who may pour hot lava over me seems less good, less merciful, than the one who predictably wouldn't. You can say that's because my concept of Good is limited, but I can't see being covered in hot lava as good, no more than I can force myself to see grass as purple.
The only way you can be certain something will not hurt you is if it is totally predictable; the only way you can be sure something will hurt you is if it is totally predictable. Even more so when you are dealing with something powerful.
So what do you want?
Jengie
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Edit - I suppose you could say that that means I do want a predictable God - one who can be predicted not to pour hot lava over me. But I can't make myself want that. How can anyone? The problem is that the unpredictable God who may pour hot lava over me seems less good, less merciful, than the one who predictably wouldn't. You can say that's because my concept of Good is limited, but I can't see being covered in hot lava as good, no more than I can force myself to see grass as purple.
The only way you can be certain something will not hurt you is if it is totally predictable; the only way you can be sure something will hurt you is if it is totally predictable. Even more so when you are dealing with something powerful.
So what do you want?
Jengie
Not to be covered in red hot lava, of course.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
So you invent a god that will prevent that?
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
"Invent" is a little harsh. Deduce may be more fair.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
You are right of course. I'm not suggesting that God is likely to cover us in red hot lava, only that his/her love and generosity can appear in strange ways. (Just watched Doctor Who and the exploding moon).
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on
:
A thoughtful thread, especially the OP.
I think the loss of awe is no coincidence and that one big factor is modern churchpeople have made themselves the center of worship instead of God.
I experienced this quite literally at the RC Cathedral in Santa Fe, New Mexico once when during an appalling service, a priest addressing the congregation said it was "all about… (I was for a second expecting him to say "God".)… you."
And the dreadful service reflected that in a number of ways.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
So you invent a god that will prevent that?
No, I hope that whatever God doesn't exist doesn't do that sort of thing.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0