Ship of Fools: Church on Christmas Day

Thread: Church on Christmas Day 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=028082

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

So did anyone go to church on Christmas Day, out of tradition/respect for your hosts/whatever? Assuming that you don't normally attend. What were your reactions? I actually think it is interesting to see church as someone who understands but doesn't attend - it gives a whole new perspective!

I did go, because it is something that we have done (and it does feel right to go on Christmas). It reminded me of why I no longer go: Amateurish, plagued with problems, boring, not relating for me to the meaning of Christmas, points being made that I don't agree with, but couldn't discuss.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I went. Unfortunately I also had to attend 2 Xmas eve services. I feel that I have topped up on Hark the Herald Angels Sing, and shall not need to hear that song again for a long time.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

SC, can I ask what you found boring? And also, what for you is the meaning of Christmas vs. what was at the service?

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

Actually this is probably the first Christmas in a long time that I have completely and intentionally avoided churches and religious stuff.

I am away from my family as I live in NZ and they are in the UK but I've had the best Christmas in terms of relaxing and enjoying myself aside from missing them in a long time. I am considering making attendance at a Boxing day test match to be my new Holy day of Obligation.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Boring: Its hard to say specifically, because I just felt bored through much of it. There was nothing new, nothing that was particularly challenging. It was all done before.

Meaning: There was a hacked film of the Penguin John Lewis ad, which finished at the church crib. The point being that true love is found in Jesus, but seemed to be saying a need for the love of another person was trivial. Jesus is the answer, whatever the question.

The real meaning? Harder to say - something about there being hope and light in the darkest times.

I suppose it was a strange experience, and I don't see how it relates to the rest of my life.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I sat through a nondescript service. Then our Church did a full Christmas meal on Christmas day - with all the trimmings for 100 people who would otherwise be alone, including 20 homeless and 30 meals taken out to the housebound. Everyone putting in a really big effort and pulling together. The person who organised it all is a marvellous woman - gentle, kind, organised and sensible.

A really special reminder of just what can be done, and what Church should be all about imo. I am not 'religious' any more but our Church is a marvellous place for caring for the local community. [Big Grin]

I was washer-upper-in chief.

[ 27. December 2014, 15:33: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

I went, (thought I do traditionally go, so I'm not technically included in the OP description). It was good to sing Joy to the World, which is one of my favourites. Otherwise it was the usual business of trying to keep the 2 year old happy, and hoping the technical stuff wouldn't fail. (It didn't).

Our rector took a photo of everyone to put on social media, to prove the church was full. Some media campaign instigated by the CofE about the reason for Christmas - and to counter the rumours that no one goes to church these days. Or something. I found it patronising and cringeworthy. And pointless, esp given that a lot of the people in church that morning don't come the rest of the year - so what does being full at Christmas actually prove in that context?

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

This is the first Christmas I have missed Church altogether. I stopped going completely on the first anniversary of being made redundant about four months ago.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I managed two cathedral services - RC Midnight Mass and Anglican Christmas Day. The sermon at the RC was better, but it was being organised on the hoof.

Boogie - I spent 10 of the last 13 years doing just that - helping at a meal for people who would otherwise be on their own at Christmas, not homeless particularly, mainly elderly who have outlived all their friends and relatives. That is a Churches Together meal organised by an amazing RC lady. We only stopped helping when that lady insisted we hosted tables, which means sitting at a table and eating with the guests, which my daughter can't do (gluten or dairy allergic). (We'd managed to run the bar, serve, wash up and do other things that didn't mean sitting down for a few years.) Having offered to cook, wash up or do anything else but host and been asked to host again, we gave up and the last couple of years have ended up staying elsewhere.

This year, because my daughter had to stay in her department until noon on Christmas Eve and couldn't get to London and then home before the tube stopped, we ended up in Liverpool in a packed Youth Hostel, with very few people doing Christmas. It looked as if there were quite a few international students who didn't have time to go home. There was a Christmas meal on offer - the few takers were singletons who were hostel regulars choosing to stay with others over Christmas.

Last year I helped clear away with Crisis (I can't get to their centres for Christmas Day) and the people I was helping with were regulars and very definitely not Christian. I can't remember how it came up, but there was a definite anti-Church feel, so I'm not sure churches do have a right to say that they are exclusively supportive in this way. (I came back to find tweets asking for volunteers and support and signed up then.)

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
There was nothing new, nothing that was particularly challenging. It was all done before.

Isn't that what most people expect from Christmas Day services, something unchallenging and familiar?

Even the alternative church scene doesn't try to compete with tradition at this time of year, AFAIK. But as fewer and fewer people choose to attend Christmas Day services perhaps this will change in future.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Even the alternative church scene doesn't try to compete with tradition at this time of year, AFAIK.

It does in our (very) traditional Nonconformist church. We have no history of "Midnight Mass", however a few years ago several folk felt they were missing out by not having a Midnight service, so we decided to put one on. This is - by choice - the most "untraditional" service of the year and is very much a reflective and "alternative" type of service.

Although numbers are not high (around the 30 mark) it has become an established part of the Church's programme and those who attend welcome the approach. Some people who have never come on Christmas Day come to it, on the other hand it has caused a decline on the Day as some come at Midnight instead.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

But this was something that was culturally traditional in the minds of many people, even though not traditional in terms of your congregation or denomination.

I think quite a few Nonconformist churches have tried to incorporate some of these things, because they know that CofE-style traditions are now what 'makes' Christmas for many people who want some sort of Christian input. Nonconformist Christmas traditions (whatever they may be!) haven't had much cultural stickability.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

No, I agree; and those folk who "only go to church at Christmas" are much more likely to go to the CofE than elsewhere - unless, of course, they have Nonconformist (or Catholic) roots. Despite quite a lot of advertising, we don't get many "casuals off the street" (so to speak) to our Christmas services.

[ 28. December 2014, 17:47: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
There was nothing new, nothing that was particularly challenging. It was all done before.
Isn't that what most people expect from Christmas Day services, something unchallenging and familiar?

Yes, but I would also like a polished presentation of the Gospel message. Not "professional", but (by not doing anything different) is should have been slick - there were all sorts of technical problems. It was very much a little personal gathering to have a good time, not something I felt part of.

It is hard to say why it was bad, but it was. I am trying to express why, and not doing well. But it was poor.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

TBH, the service I went to was cheesy. I wasn't impressed that the priest's talk focused more on Santa than Jesus. But IME this sort of thing isn't unusual in Christmas Day services where children are present.

As for the technical problems - always awkward. The only way to reduce the likelihood of coming across those is to go to a service in a very traditional church where hardly any technology is used other than the mike.

Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :

This was the first year that we didn't go on Christmas day AND didn't even think about that as unusual. I think leaving church must come in stages.

My oldest is nearly 6 and we certainly went on xmas day when she was small - its hard to pin point the changes as to how we got to not even really thinking about church at xmas. I did take them to a christingle service as they enjoy that, and a "messy church" as we enjoy the craft....

... but all the religious side of it passed us by. It's strange looking at it from the other side.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
I think leaving church must come in stages

Definitely. One of the reasons for asking about this is that a lot of people who have no real Christian faith go to church at Christmas (and maybe Easter), and for me it is the only time I have been in church this year.

Leaving church is, I suppose, a little like changing jobs - something I have done a few times. The process often starts slowly, with an view of a new possibility, but can end a long time later, somewhere different from when you were expecting. Somewhere in that process, you actually leave your previous job - but the process is a whole lot longer.

What is more, it continues for a while beyond this, as the previous job becomes something you did once, but no longer do. It can actually take a couple of years between the first thinking of moving and actually being settled into your new role.

Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :

Absolutely. When we first cut down on going to church we were very conscious on a sunday that we were Not Going To Church. We used to have conversations about whether we were going to go that week or not.

Now it doesn't really enter our thought process at all. It slid from being something I was aware we werent doing to not being something I think about that often.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
...why I no longer go: Amateurish, plagued with problems, boring, not relating for me to the meaning of Christmas, points being made that I don't agree with, but couldn't discuss.

Church is all of that but I think some of those are symptoms, the real problem is deeper.

Think for a moment, what's more amateurish than a bunch of us half singing half croaking on no common key "happy birthday" to a friend just before cutting a home-made cake decorated with frosting "flowers" that mistakenly look like blobs.

Utter amateurish - and fun! Amateurish is not a true problem.

But offer that cake with an air of "I had to bake it but I didn't want to," start the singing with "I suppose we have to", and the fun is gone. It's not amateurishness that matters, but attitude.

The choir look bored, they sing "Gloria!" with frowns. The clergy typically look bored, except for putting on an obviously fake public smile before the sermon.

Those attending sit as far back as possible, not behavior of characteristic of people eagerly anticipation what they came for.

I suspect the reason church is usually boring and seems unrelated to life in any meaningful way is because the people charged with creating and presenting the event are bored.

Passion is compelling, attention getting, anti-boring. A speech isn't persuasive no matter what facts it contains unless the speaker obviously cares about the content. But some churches have made lack of passion a virtue, some Shipmates have posted that church is suppose to be boring so attending can be a "spiritual discipline." Some posts scorn any hint of emotional engagement as "manipulative."

So everyone up front looks and acts bored. No one is thrilled to be doing the stuff. The congregation pick up their emotional cues from the leaders.

Humans are inherently emotional beings and that is part of what God called good. Churches that eliminate all emotion are dehumanizing, on purpose, and that is boring (and destructive.)

P.S. I didn't know churches are open Christmas day! I've never seen it unless Christmas is Sunday.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Belle Ringer - I partly agree, but there is another issue, I think - the format of services.

If you are sitting around a table (at home, or in a restaurant) chatting together, and sitting eating a cake, the "amateur" nature of it is fine, because it is just about the fun of being together.

A service - at least within most churches I have met - is laid out more as a "presentation" - the leaders at the front, the audience - sorry congregation - watching and sometimes joining in. So the amateurism stands out more.

I would prefer the sitting around, exploring, engaging approach. I suppose it was the combination of "presentation" feel with "amateur" skill level.

Not that I ever said my impressions made sense, of course.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Dare I say this but - as a Minister - I am well aware that I have to "put on an act" to make the service go well. This is possibly more true in my Nonconformist tradition where the "performance" of the preacher makes or breaks the service, than in a more structured liturgical setting

Now, that is not to say that I am being hypocritical or dishonest, far from it. But it makes me try to "raise my game" even, perhaps, when I'm not feeling much like it, as I know that my task is to facilitate peoples' approach to God. In other words I must therefore be as professional as I can, both in preparation and execution.

Now, of course, there is a fine line to be drawn between doing this and becoming a sham. That would be wrong and debase my personal integrity. But every good school-teacher does exactly the same thing (so my wife assures me). Equally a stage actor has to project enthusiasm, commitment and even enjoyment even when s/he's playing "Lady Macbeth" or "Hamlet" for the n00th time.

In worship a balance has also to be struck between cringe-making amateurism and over-slick professionalism. At times, the sheer "reality" of the amateur approach will strike home - but I wouldn't like it all the time!

[ 30. December 2014, 17:23: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Dare I say this but - as a Minister - I am well aware that I have to "put on an act" to make the service go well...

Now, that is not to say that I am being hypocritical or dishonest, far from it. But it makes me try to "raise my game" ...

Yes, I'm conscious that when on stage I need to project focused energy and pleasure in being there, even if I have a blinding migraine and just want to go home. I need to look confident even if I'm fearful I'll forget some of the words. Reading a scripture or singing a solo in church is similar (but some shift of focus - God-awareness needs to be part of it). It's not lying, it's calling on all the resources in me to communicate to the listeners what I came to convey and what they presumably came to hear.

If the person up front doesn't care to call on all his or her resources of focus and energy, they come across as not really caring about what they say and do, so why should anyone else care?

I get S. Cat's comment about a chat around a table being a heck of a lot more interesting than a one way lecture. I suspect that's why I far prefer the mutuality "we all have things of value to share" of a house gathering. A sermon followed by small group Sunday schools to discuss it might be interesting but my (limited) experiences with Sunday schools is few participate, and almost none will hint any disagreement with what "pastor" or "father" said.

Church people scared of independent thinking about God-stuff are as much the problem as the structure or staffing.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0