Ship of Fools: 'Unsung' worship

Thread: 'Unsung' worship 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=028735

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

This thread follows on from the discussion in Purgatory about congregational singing and, to an extent, from the Ecclesiantics thread about worship which 'feeds the spirit'.

What I'd like to discuss are various forms of worship that don't actually involve singing.

And yes, I define worship as more than what we do in church - it's about fulfilling our vocations (if we can put it that way), being the people God intends us to be, serving others and doing all (hopefully) for the glory of God.

That's all a lot easier said than done.

But for the purposes of this thread, I'd like to concentrate on more 'tactile' as opposed to vocal, forms of worship and prayer.

Do people find physical actions or 'interactive' activities of various kinds helpful?

If so, how?

I'm interested to hear from Catholics and charismatics, Orthodox and Quakers, low-church, high-church, Calvinists and Pentecostals ... and whoever else has a view on such things.

What kind of physical actions and 'movements' are appropriate? Are any 'out of bounds'? How do we evaluate, say the activity of walking to a pilgrim site or removing our shoes or crossing ourselves or raising our hands in 'changing a light bulb' fashion in a charismatic service?

Answers on a postcard please ...

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

One observation from the Quaker perspective:

Not so very long ago it was customary for Friends to kneel when praying and to stand in response to another Friend praying. That's pretty much completely disappeared now (at least in the British context).

I don't know whether that was an 'original' practice or whether it developed after we became respectable!

Perhaps more seriously, our very name, of course, derives from the physical response to worship...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I thought one explanation for the name, Garasu, wasn't so much the way that the Friends apparently 'shook' when the Spirit moved upon them, so much as George Fox's comment in his journal (autobiography) that the magistrate Gervase Bennett was the 'first person that called us Quakers, because I bade them tremble at the word of the Lord.'

From what I can gather, there wasn't a whole lot of quakin' goin' on in early Quaker worship - but they did go in for some wild and woolly stuff that later and more respectable generations of Friends would eschew.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

There are two origin stories, but both of them involve quaking before the Lord...

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

In my Charismatic days (especially towards the end) I was always amused by the way that people who would roll their eyes at the idea of crossing yourself would have no qualms about all sorts of other physical actions, ranging from raising their hands in the air to "waving the Spirit" onto people.

Over the years, I have found it helpful to cross myself when praying and worshiping. It is not something that comes naturally to me, so it is always a conscious choice, rather than an inbuilt habit. And I doubt that I will EVER get the hang of when I am "supposed" to do it in services.

I also went through a period when I used so-called "Caim Prayers" or prayers of encircling, which I used to do whilst physically encircling myself. Actually making the circle seemed to me (at the time) to be a vital part of the prayer.

Another physical part of prayer and worship, for me, is to have open hands. Holding my hands open together, as if I were about to receive communion, helps me to be in an attitude of openness to God.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

The sign of the cross and other more "carflick" actions grew on me slowly as my god grew from good mate to infinite infinity. I have a few personal observations, too, but have found that sign most useful in public worship and private thoughts and devotion.

I do think though that the orans prayer position in song can be very liberating. I just don't do it - far too stuffy these days for that. I would love though to see it creep in in my pad.

The walking motion of a labyrinths can be too, but I prefer to walk in bush, surrounded by God's birds and animals and trees and light. I do not voice prayer at such time, but somehow the prayer of nature envelops me ... and I utter the amen that is our privilege as priests of creation. That, by the way, is pure Moltmann.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I have taken part in a silent eucharist. Literally silent: no words spoken or sung; all performed by gesture* and action. It was very moving, and I can imagine it would be very including of hearing impaired people.

*more or less traditional liturgical gestures I mean, not sign language.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I've just seen Zappa's post on the other thread (Worship which moves) which hints at the same thing.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Rather in the same way that I believe the Union Flag and Cross of St George should both be 'recovered' from the far Right, so I think that the open-handed 'orans' position should be redeemed and recovered from the charismatics ...

[Razz]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
…open-handed 'orans' position should be redeemed and recovered…

WWMD? (What would Mary do?)

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Heh heh heh ...

She'd carry on as she's always done. And probably 'tut' at the rest of us ...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I've very occasionally seen Methodists with hands raised during a particular hymn. And I've also worshipped with charismatics who didn't seem to do it at all, which surprised me.

Regarding unsung worship, I once went around Coventry Cathedral on a day when different parts of the building were designated as 'stations'. Every station had a different thing you could look at, read or reflect upon. No singing was involved. It was a memorable experience. (But not least because the Archbishop of Canterbury was also hanging around in the vicinity.)

There's a Methodist church I know that has what it calls 'Parallel Active Worship'. This involves different things happening at the same time during a service. They don't worship this way all of the time, but it obviously allows for unsung worship on some occasions. I've never attended a PAWS service as it would take me two or three buses to get there, but I might make the effort at some point.

This sort of thing surely requires lots of planning, resources, people, talents and money.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've very occasionally seen Methodists with hands raised during a particular hymn. And I've also worshipped with charismatics who didn't seem to do it at all, which surprised me.

It's not 'compulsory' in charismatic churches you know ... [Biased]

Nor is the gesture restricted to Protestant churches.

It's an ancient Christian one ... and may go back further than that.

The only difference in the way it's done in charismatic - as opposed to non-avowedly charismatic churches - is one of degree - or perhaps intention ...

On the Parallel Active Worship thing - I've not seen that but I have seen 'stations' and labyrinths and so on.

I'm sure there must be versions of these things available for those churches which lack the resources to mount full-scale versions such as those you describe.

A few candles, a few 'activities' and a bit of imagination might take us a long way ...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've very occasionally seen Methodists with hands raised during a particular hymn. And I've also worshipped with charismatics who didn't seem to do it at all, which surprised me.
It's not 'compulsory' in charismatic churches you know ...

Nor is the gesture restricted to Protestant churches.

It's an ancient Christian one ... and may go back further than that.
[...]

A few candles, a few 'activities' and a bit of imagination might take us a long way ...

I had in mind your jokey reference above to 'redeeming and recovering' this action from the charismatics. In a more serious vein, what you meant to say is that lots of different Christians do it, but charismatics currently have more of a reputation for doing it, even though some of them don't.

As for 'candles' and 'activities', they do have to be carefully planned by someone. But my reference to resources and money, etc. was particularly focused on stations and parallel worship. Lots of resources are needed there because so many different things are going on at the same time. It's rather like carousel lessons in the classroom - more prep is required of the teacher. But if you're simply getting people to sit down in 20-30 mins of silence around a candle during which the leader reads a short meditation from a book (as happened in a weekday service I attended a few months ago) then no, that doesn't take so much planning, communal effort or resources, I imagine.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I have taken part in a silent eucharist. Literally silent: no words spoken or sung; all performed by gesture* and action. It was very moving, and I can imagine it would be very including of hearing impaired people.

*more or less traditional liturgical gestures I mean, not sign language.

Perhaps this is uncharitable of me, but I would question the validity of the sacrament in that circumstance. Surely the speaking of the words is as essential to the form of the sacrament as the bread and wine are to its matter.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Surely the speaking of the words is as essential to the form of the sacrament as the bread and wine are to its matter.

I'm less sure. Certainly there are contexts in which action becomes more effective a vehicle of communication than spoken word - a Mass for the deaf being the obvious example. I think there may be less extreme incidences where it is appropriate, too - particularly in some sort of meditative context. The notion of "word" in the NT usually incorporates "action" and I think the words of liturgy carry that connotation ...

I wouldn't want it to be anything other than the rare exception to the rule, though.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Surely the speaking of the words is as essential to the form of the sacrament as the bread and wine are to its matter.
I'm less sure. Certainly there are contexts in which action becomes more effective a vehicle of communication than spoken word - a Mass for the deaf being the obvious example. I think there may be less extreme incidences where it is appropriate, too - particularly in some sort of meditative context. The notion of "word" in the NT usually incorporates "action" and I think the words of liturgy carry that connotation ...

And there are meals that use prawns and beer rather than bread and wine. But they aren't the Eucharist.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be attention paid to people who cannot hear. I fully support the idea of services with extended visual action that seek to include people who would otherwise struggle for this or for any other reason. But I don't see why that means you would remove what is a central part of the celebration of the Eucharist.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

It's sort of like 'by their fruits you will know them' in my experience. I think a silent eucharist should be very much the exception and certainly only take place in specialised contexts, whether a deaf congregation or a quiet day/ retreat. But having received Communion at the (only) one I have experienced I didn't feel short-changed and felt the real presence if anything more keenly than usual.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Until Vatican 2 in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Mass the Eucharistic prayer was said sotto voce or silently.It was felt to be so solemn that it could only be said in Latin and in silence.If the Mass was a sung Mass then the Sanctus and Benedictus were sung during the Eucharistic prayer (Canon of the Mass).Otherwise all was silent - apart from the ringing of the bells at the appropriate moments.The only exception was the speaking of three words Nobis quoque peccatoribus (To us sinners also) towards the end of the prayer.Since most Masses were Low Masses people were used to unsung worship and indeed to silence.

I prefer however to hear the Eucharistic prayer
as is now the case.

I go regularly to a Catholic prayer meeting,which includes many evangelical Christians who usually raise their hands in the air when singing hymns,as indeed do some of the Catholics.I would feel a bit self conscious about doing that but I realize,that it is just something I am not used to.

On the other hand for the first time in about 6 years some of the Catholics made the sign of the cross,when the speaker (an Episcopalian bishop) gave us the blessing at the end.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

It wasn't technically 'silent,' since the priest at the altar pronounced the words (I could see his lips moving), but he could not be heard, as the event was the late Sunday afternoon 'organ mass' at St Eustache in Paris. The lighting was dim, there were lots of candles, there weren't very many people, and it was simply splendid. This was circa 1995 ?, so definitely conta the expectations of Vat2, but deeply moving.

Closer to home and more recently (last Sunday in fact) we sang a GAbrieli mass, and the canon was said during the Sanctus & Benedictus. We've been generally doing this in Advent and Lent and on feast days (I know, strange combo), but the congo seems to like it.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0