Ship of Fools: Train Station Communion

Thread: Train Station Communion 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=028743

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

According to this article, United Methodists in the Greater New Jersey Annual Conference have been asked by Conference leadership to offer Communion to commuters at train stations in New Jersey.

While I applaud this very Wesleyan effort to go where the people are, the gesture has left me with a serious case of "spiritual heartburn". Something here isn't quite right.

On the one hand, my denomination's policy has been for many years that any person who wishes to receive communion, regardless of church membership or baptismal status, may do so. "Christ our Lord invites to his table all those who love him, who earnestly repent of their sins, and seek to live at peace with one another," we say as introduction to the prayer of confession and pardon. Besides that, we tend to think of the Eucharist as a means of grace. Wesley once referred to it as a "converting ordinance". Further, there are undoubtedly a number, however large or small, of people who were touched by the gesture and who may now feel more welcome in a church than they would have before.

On the other hand, however, I have problems with several of these justifications. For the first one, extending the table to those who were not present in worship is encouraged, but the Book of Discipline and the Judicial Council has made it clear that the ones to whom the table is to be extended are those who were unwillingly absent from worship. Further, it can be argued that this goes against Article XVI of the Articles of Religion because it is a case of the Sacrament being "carried about". Even reservation of the Sacrament is iffy, depending on how you read the Articles. Not only that, but there is more than one means of grace, and I fear that using Communion in this way somehow cheapens the idea of means of grace. Finally, Wesley's reference to Holy Communion being a converting ordinance was not a significant principle of his ministry or theology. He wrote it in response to a particular issue with one specific Moravian leader.

How seriously are we to take Communion? Where do we draw the line? I can kind of see this if Communion is just a symbol and an ordinance, but since to me it has Sacramental status (and I believe firmly in the Real Presence), I feel uncomfortable about this, in much the same way I am uncomfortable with "come-and-go" type Communion services on Christmas Eve. The Ship has taught me a lot, including the need for (at the utter and complete BARE minimum) a Gospel reading, a prayer of confession, and a proper Eucharistic Prayer with words of institution and epiclesis.* To me it cannot be simply like throwing feed to the cows. I believe the Eucharist is to be done as a work of the gathered, worshiping community, whereas come-and-go Communion (and by extension, train station Communion) divorces that community aspect from what should be a corporate thanksgiving. When you work in the historical and traditional requirement that those who receive be baptized (and in many cases, confirmed as Orthodox, Catholic, or whatever the proper case may be), justification for "drive by" Communion begins to fall apart.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the issue. Do all the warm fuzzy feelings this may create really outweigh the misuse of Holy Communion? Is it really misuse? Or are we guilty of throwing around something holy and sacred here?

_____
*I know there are EPs out there without one or the other, but that's beside the point.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Holy Moley that's a big link ... my downloads can't cope ....

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Further, it can be argued that this goes against Article XVI of the Articles of Religion because it is a case of the Sacrament being "carried about".

The full text of that article is that "The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about; but that we should duly use them".

I've always interpreted that to prohibit such things as Benediction or Procession of the Sacrament (both of which we do in my place anyway) rather than taking the sacrament to the people which, to my mind, means the sacrament is being duly used.

BTW, the link works fine for me.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I've absolutely no problem with communion outside the eucharist. The 39 Articles are just plain wrong. I've been in hospital three times in the last 2 and a bit years and received communion every week in my bed.

I'm appalled at about communion for the non-baptized. Communion isn't receiving magic smarties.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I'm quite happy with communion outside the Eucharist, although even there (absent serious circumstances - being near death or the like) I would still expect it to be accompanied by appropriate prayers and some ministry of the word (even if that's just a short reading of scripture). I suspect that doesn't take place and it's grab a bit of the body of Christ and go!

It's also not clear to me at what point in the train station arrangements the consecration takes place nor how. Good on them for wanting to minister with grace to commuters in their area but I'm not sure that communion is the right thing to be offering.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

When I take Communion to someone who is sick, I always read the Gospel reading from the previous week. If we have time, we talk a bit about the reading a bit. Then a prayer, including a plea for forgiveness, and then the full Great Thanksgiving.

When I was forced by local practice to offer come-and-go Communion last year, the above is substantially what I did with each person or family. It made it longer, but I simply didn't feel that I could do anything less.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Good on them for wanting to minister with grace to commuters in their area but I'm not sure that communion is the right thing to be offering.

Yes, I think that's where I stand. Full marks to the UM Church for wanting to reach out and "bless" the community - we've done it at our church by offering free burgers to passers-by. But I, too, am just a bit concerned that they may be devaluing the Sacrament by offering it in this way.

Now,I'm a "low" Baptist, so I'm not too fussed about, for instance, the right words of consecration being used. But I rather stand with VenBede and his comment about "magic Smarties", and would want to ask, "Why Communion?" - they could have offered Methodist mince pies, for instance, although that would not have had the same explicit Christian content.

BTW the "Commentary" piece no p.4 of the paper is, I think, very fair and shows that they are not unaware of these questions.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Not quite the same, obviously, but IIRC there's a church in West London (an A-C place) whose clergy (in cassock, cotta, and stole) go to the local station on Ash Wednesday to impose ash on the foreheads of any passing commuter who wishes it. The ash, again IIRC, was blessed at an early Mass.

I've not heard of Communion being offered as per the OP, and, like others, I'm not sure about the integrity of this practice! Full marks to the church for trying, though.......

Ian J.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I'm quite happy with communion outside the Eucharist, although even there (absent serious circumstances - being near death or the like) I would still expect it to be accompanied by appropriate prayers and some ministry of the word (even if that's just a short reading of scripture).

Maybe the prayers and readings will be done over the station tannoy system....

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

... and so be largely unintelligible!

[ 13. January 2015, 13:28: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Good on them for wanting to minister with grace to commuters in their area but I'm not sure that communion is the right thing to be offering.
Yes, I think that's where I stand. Full marks to the UM Church for wanting to reach out and "bless" the community...

I thought that this thread might be right up your street, BT! [Biased]

On Maunday Thursday, some of our clergy and bishops have taking to offering shoe-cleaning to railway commuters but actual Communion is a new thing.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Now that is a magnificent idea, incorporating mission, service and an encultured "take" on footwashing.

[ 13. January 2015, 13:38: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I'm also reminded that some evangelists use tube trains for preaching in, so perhaps this practice could be adapted. Each evangelist could take a bag of sachets containing the bread/wafer and the wine onto one train compartment, and then he or she could hand them out to any travellers who want them. Then after a short reading and prayer the people with the sachets could take communion together.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

It looks to me like a 'fast food' communion, similar to one that I Mystery Worshiped some time back from Trafalgar Square.

Some people stayed awhile, others just walked through and received.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Seems to me the reception of Communion ought to be part of the Eucharist as a whole. We make an exception for the Communion of the Sick (and I support that), but should we make an exception for Can't Be Arsed to Come to Church?

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
BTW the "Commentary" piece no p.4 of the paper is, I think, very fair and shows that they are not unaware of these questions.

I hadn't noticed that until you mentioned it, Baptist Trainfan. This paragraph stands out:

quote:
Originally written by Linda Ellwein:
From where I sit, no matter how reverently we hold the sacraments, placing the legality of our sacraments above meeting people where they are is a clear indicator we’ve lost touch with the heart of Christ’s message - not to mention, his example.

I'm not so certain, though I see her point. Meeting people where they are is indeed important, but I'm having a hard time using that as justification for misusing the Sacraments. I guess my question boils down to whether or not this is actually misuse, or if Mrs. Friar is correct that I'm being a bit too dogmatic about it.

quote:
To suggest this is irreverent or compromising to the sacrament is equivalent to saying we are too good for them.

No, I disagree here. I think it simply says that we hold certain things in high regard. Not everything has to be easy or open. Not everything has to be watered down to the lowest common denominator. Acknowledging that certain requirements be met (which, in the UMC, are simply "show up at church before the pastor is finished distributing Communion and show a smidgeon of due reverence") isn't saying that I'm any better than anyone else. I'm still a sinner, and I still screw up an awful lot. Maybe I'm screwing up with this argument. But I don't think I'm any better just because I think Communion is better done within (or as an extension of) the gathered community.

For the record, I do believe it is fine to take Communion that was consecrated at a previous service to those who were unwillingly absent from worship. I tend to read the Articles of Religion in a way that allows reservation for certain reasons, though I limit it to reserving on Maundy Thursday for Good Friday. I do not think anyone involved, whether bishop, pastor, lay minister, or communicant, is going to hell for this. God has a way of extending grace despite our intentions or practices.

What I would like to see is a different way of extending grace and welcome to commuters that doesn't cheapen the Sacrament.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Isn't the worry about this, that if one offers the Communion elements to all and sundry, people will receive them who aren't Christians but think 'O that's nice', don't discern the body (whatever St Paul means by that phrase), and will endanger their own souls? So if we offer Communion in ways that put others at risk, might not that endanger our souls as well? Do we have a responsibility not to administer the sacrament in ways that lay it open to misunderstanding, abuse or being profaned?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Do we have a responsibility not to administer the sacrament in ways that lay it open to misunderstanding, abuse or being profaned?

I would certainly say so!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Most Methodists wouldn't worry about people 'endangering their souls' via the Communion elements.

My concern would be that some commuters would take the bread and wine out of politeness or curiosity, and then just dump them somewhere in a spirit of indifference or forgetfulness. I'm not a sacramentalist, but this seems very disrespectful. I also fear that in this day and age images would quickly circulate of someone publicly using the elements in a degrading way for fun, and that wouldn't be at all edifying for the individual(s) concerned, or for the Church.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Actually, my biggest worry (given what I know about United Methodists in my own Annual Conference) is that the elements were never consecrated to begin with, and thus were just grape juice and bread given out under the mistaken idea that it's Communion. There are a surprising number of presbyters in my Conference who regularly don't consecrate the elements, or who do the absolute bare minimum -- and that's for the monthly Communion service in the sanctuary. Unfortunately, flagging them up to the bishop wouldn't really accomplish much except get me in hot water with the elders in question.

Svitlana's point about the possibility of it being misused by the receiver is valid, although one would hope that no one would take it if they didn't intend to carry through. It is really easy to pass someone in a train station who's giving out things you don't want.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
I do not think anyone involved, whether bishop, pastor, lay minister, or communicant, is going to hell for this. God has a way of extending grace despite our intentions or practices.

What I would like to see is a different way of extending grace and welcome to commuters that doesn't cheapen the Sacrament.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:

Svitlana's point about the possibility of it being misused by the receiver is valid, although one would hope that no one would take it if they didn't intend to carry through. It is really easy to pass someone in a train station who's giving out things you don't want.

In the UK I've noticed that lots of people take fliers and leaflets from people in the street and then just drop them a few metres away. Strange behaviour, I know!

Seriously, I think this would be a bad idea in the UK, because too many people really wouldn't have a clue what was going on, not having had any experience of taking Communion. Moreover, the commuters down in the South would have no interest in anything other than squeezing themselves onto the next train. The bread and wine (or the containers holding them) would end up scattered all over the place, unless the 'Train Station Communion' were restricted to quiet, off peak times.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

The whole idea seems to me to completely misunderstand the point of the Sacrament. Communion is not just a dollop of grace; it's not even 'just ' a portion of the Body of Christ (as if the Body could be apportioned anyway). It is the focus and climax of an encounter with Christ which begins in a local assembly of the Body to hear the Word of God and through that encounter is joined in the one offering of Christ on the Cross. Any understanding of the Sacrament which removes it from that context, in Cranmer's words 'overthroweth the nature of a sacrament' and reduces it to a magic spell.

Reservation, communion of the sick, even benediction, are all worthy practices, but only if they are understood as extensions of that offering. I doubt if handing out the elements to all and sundry in the manner suggested would meet that criterion.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Thank you very much Angloid for that.

And a similar argument applies to communion of the non-baptized - it is taking communion out of the context of the Body of Christ, the body of (inadequate) faithful.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I skimmed the main article and this thread. A few things:

--As I read the article, it seems like this already happened over Advent. Are they doing it again?

--I'm very surprised if they were allowed to do this at a gov't-owned train station. It's here in the US. Someone's apt to see it as a church/state conflict; and many commuters might be offended by being confronted with an actual religious ritual--having to view it, if not participate in it, without their consent.

A couple of groups (Salvation Army and 7th Day Adventists, IIRC) used to hand out literature at the main train terminal, here in SF, but that stopped. There are some other groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, and maybe Scientology) that hand things out in BART subway stations. I'm not sure how they get away with that.

But doing an actual ritual, or at least handing out the materials for it?? That seems very out of place. There might even be a court case.

--I'm not sure about the theology and appropriateness. I'm more or less a consubstantionalist: I think maybe something happens, but I'm not sure what. I grew up with strictly memorialist communion, and I've spent a fair bit of time in various liturgical churches. I'm not really a "Real Presence" person, so I don't worry about Jesus winding up in the trash. But I know that, here in SF, when food samples are handed out on the street to random passers-by, a good many of them wind up in the trash--or given to homeless people. (There was one rather memorable incident where bagels and cream cheese were handed out. One homeless guy got so many that he refused to take any more.)

Frankly, if we were dealing with a "magic smarties" situation and the recipient would be blessed or even saved, I probably would be in favor of handing them out. Even leaving them as surprises for people to find.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I skimmed the main article and this thread. A few things:

--As I read the article, it seems like this already happened over Advent. Are they doing it again?

As I understand it, they only were doing it for Advent/Christmas, leading up to the 25th.

quote:
--I'm not sure about the theology and appropriateness. I'm more or less a consubstantionalist: I think maybe something happens, but I'm not sure what. I grew up with strictly memorialist communion, and I've spent a fair bit of time in various liturgical churches. I'm not really a "Real Presence" person, so I don't worry about Jesus winding up in the trash. But I know that, here in SF, when food samples are handed out on the street to random passers-by, a good many of them wind up in the trash--or given to homeless people. (There was one rather memorable incident where bagels and cream cheese were handed out. One homeless guy got so many that he refused to take any more.)

Frankly, if we were dealing with a "magic smarties" situation and the recipient would be blessed or even saved, I probably would be in favor of handing them out. Even leaving them as surprises for people to find.

I am a member of the Order of St. Luke, an ecumenical United Methodist religious order that focuses on daily prayer and teaching about the Sacraments. Our Abbot has written an official letter to the Bishop and Annual Conference in question about this, imploring them to not repeat it and explaining why. I haven't seen it, so I don't know how it was worded or anything like that.

On a tangent, I'm curious how someone who believes in trans- or consubstantiation can not believe in the Real Presence.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Seriously, I think this would be a bad idea in the UK, because too many people really wouldn't have a clue what was going on, not having had any experience of taking Communion. Moreover, the commuters down in the South would have no interest in anything other than squeezing themselves onto the next train.

Not to mention issues with the wrong sort of bread...

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

--I'm very surprised if they were allowed to do this at a gov't-owned train station. It's here in the US. Someone's apt to see it as a church/state conflict; and many commuters might be offended by being confronted with an actual religious ritual--having to view it, if not participate in it, without their consent.

Maybe some might (see it as a conflict), but as such people only made up two ninths of the SCOTUS in 1994, their opinion doesn't control anyone. You can't allow secular groups space and deny it to religious, as was held in Capitol Square R&A Board vs. Pinette.

quote:

Private religious speech... "is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression." [In] a traditional public forum, any group may express their views there, and the Board may regulate the content of the Klan's expression on the plaza only if a restriction is necessary and narrowly drawn to serve a compelling state interest.

[ 27. January 2015, 14:06: Message edited by: Adam. ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Barefoot Friar--

You said:

quote:
On a tangent, I'm curious how someone who believes in trans- or consubstantiation can not believe in the Real Presence.

Well, as I said, I'm not sure if anything happens. It may well simply be that God is with us in a special way during Communion/Eucharist. (Two or three gathered together, etc.) I don't *think* Real Presence happens, in the RC sense. But I also take a "don't know" attitude towards most things.

Now, it's my turn. [Biased]

Have Methodists always believed in the Real Presence? This is the first I've heard of it. I thought that was more RC, maybe some Anglicans, and maybe some Orthodox.

And I admit I'm having cognitive dissonance over "Methodist" and "Abbot" being used in the same context! When I get a chance, I'll look up your order. I'm guessing it's like a Third Order in liturgical churches, like the one that focuses on Julian(a) of Norwich. (Not to derail the thread.)

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

http://saint-luke.net/

Yes, since Wesley. Well, officially anyway. Admittedly, there are quite a number of memorialists who are cradle Baptists and who got divorced. Suddenly they realized how Methodist they were!

I'm only half joking. [Roll Eyes]

As for the Order, here is a link.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Barefoot Friar--

You said:

quote:
On a tangent, I'm curious how someone who believes in trans- or consubstantiation can not believe in the Real Presence.
Well, as I said, I'm not sure if anything happens. It may well simply be that God is with us in a special way during Communion/Eucharist.

That's not what's classically meant by consubstantiation. This is Luther's view (though it wasn't original to him) that a consecrated host is simultaneously substantially bread and substantially the body of Christ.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
On a tangent, I'm curious how someone who believes in trans- or consubstantiation can not believe in the Real Presence.

I first misread this as "... how someone who believes in TRAINS ...." - well, we are talking about offering Eucharist on railway stations!

Mind you, there are so many delays and cancellations on our local line that people are being driven towards ferroequine agnosticism (or plain cynicism toward any spokesman of the Railway Company).

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Baptist Trainfan--

ROTFL!

Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :

Apologies for the tangent, but 'when I saw this, I thought of you' (old advert for non-UK shippies).

Unfortunately, due to travel arrangements I could not make it to an Ash Wednesday service yesterday. However, arriving at Oxford railway station I saw two men in cassocks guiding people to a priest offering ashes by the exit. It was only fitting to take up the offer... Not communion, but ashing by train!

(The priest was from the church of St Thomas the Martyr in Oxford - there seemed to be quite a few being ashed when I was there)

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

One of the pastors in my Annual Conference spent the day in the parking lot of the local grocery store/strip mall giving ashes to all who wanted them. He had a table set up under a small tent or awning, some distance from the front door of the store (so it wasn't like he was right there at the entrance in everyone's way). I'm not sure what I think of it, but it seems less of an issue to me than Communion would be.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Saw a clip on the news where a minister was standing at the side of a road, doing drive-up ashing.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I think that's pretty good, and something that I would consider suggesting to our vicar next year.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Trinity Cathedral, Phoenix, has offered Ashes the past two years at the Light Rail station which is right next to the Cathedral.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I think that's pretty good, and something that I would consider suggesting to our vicar next year.

Hmmm. It's a ritual that most people will be even less familiar with than taking commuion, I imagine.

I suppose you could have 'plants' in the vicinity who come up at intervals and have it done, hence encouraging other curious people to come forward, ask questions and participate.

The church I now attend does ashing, but I've never had it done before, and felt too self-conscious to attend the special service. It's not part of my tradition. Perhaps if I was out shopping and a vicar was doing the job outside Tesco or at the bus stop (etc.) I might have been spontaneous and taken part....

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Doesn't St Patrick's Cathedral in NYC do something along those lines? Or is it inside the building?

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I think that's pretty good, and something that I would consider suggesting to our vicar next year.
Hmmm. It's a ritual that most people will be even less familiar with than taking commuion, I imagine.
part....

There's always a first time

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

I'm not a fan of this (you knew I'd say that). I don't think it's a good idea to take sacramentals out of the context of the church services which give them meaning and toss them at people.

Obviously it's not as egregious as serving Holy Communion in a train station, but what exactly does it *do*?

It's fake-pastoral. The time would be much better spent visiting one sick old lady or listening to one troubled soul, in my opinion.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I don't know. I wouldn't see ashing as big-S sacramental, and ISTM that it could be a good teaching opportunity. It's something which I think is easy to understand at a gut level, and so a good starting point.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

No, it's not a sacrament, but a sacramental (like blessing yourself with holy water or the blessed palms on Palm Sunday). It seems to me that if you want to do a sidewalk ministry you might set up a table at which a priest can offer blessings to those who wish them, or will pray with those who have a need. Pulling liturgical customs out of the church service where they express their full meaning just seems kind of Mickey-Mouse to me.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It seems to me that if you want to do a sidewalk ministry you might set up a table at which a priest can offer blessings to those who wish them, or will pray with those who have a need. Pulling liturgical customs out of the church service where they express their full meaning just seems kind of Mickey-Mouse to me.

Sarah Miles did an ashing in a public square in San Francisco and argues that worship has always gone on outside religious buildings e.g. processions of witness, mystery plays, stations of the cross, roadside shrines, open air temples in Burma, blessings of ships etc.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Public religious rituals have always gone on, but usually in cultures where people are more united in their religious allegiances. Spain is culturally Catholic. Public Hindu rituals in India will, I presume, tend to attract participants who see themselves as Hindus. The same with Buddhist rituals in Myanmar.

In a modern pluralistic British city, the aim of Christian ashing or sharing communion would be far more evangelistic than would be the case in traditionally public rituals. Some people would simply be curious, or want to ask questions, or perhaps even resent the incursion of religion (or a rival religion) into a public space.

Maybe a small, fairly homogenous town or suburb would be fairly straightforward, but anywhere bigger than that would have to involve a handful of people (not just the vicar) willing to explain what was going on, and even to answer general questions about Christianity.

[ 28. February 2015, 15:36: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Indeed: it would offer an opportunity for people to ask questions.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Given that this afternoon I overheard someone going on about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John's surnames. This was in a public street around a Jesus Army stall just down from the Muslim evangelical stall. I am not sure whether it was someone visiting the stall or a member of the Jesus Army.

Jengie

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

This idea of sharing Christian rituals in a public place would certainly be interesting to see in the heart of a big British city. But I only ever notice independent evangelical groups out jostling with the crowds. I don't see any dog collars.

Does the parish system complicate matters for the CofE here? A city centre church won't necessarily be led by someone who 'has a heart' for this sort of outreach, but neither might they appreciate a vicar from elsewhere coming in to do something radical on their patch and then creating issues or expectations that the city church will then have to deal with.

The impression I have is that city centre CofE congregations are mostly fairly 'traditional'. Presumably it's in the suburbs where an open air commuter-focused outreach might excite the congregations. But as I say, following up the idea would require breaching parish boundaries. I understand that negotiating for this can be quite complicated.

The independent churches don't have to worry about geography and boundaries in this way and can go where they like. They're unlikely to offer communion or ashing, though.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

What sort of 'city centre' places do you have in mind? I can quite easily imagine out local city centre (CinW) place doing this (although I don't know whether or not they would) because in Advent they had a lot of things on which were aimed very clearly at the 'passing trade' of shoppers and so on. As for suburban (/ smaller town) churches, they may very well be located in or near a locally significant shopping street or railway station.

[ 28. February 2015, 20:42: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I was thinking of a multicultural city centre like Birmingham or Leicester. But it would probably be simpler on the high street of a popular suburb, or outside the railway station of a smaller town, as you say.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I suppose the obvious place to do it in somewhere like Birmingham might be the Cathedral, which IIRC is pretty central.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

It's very central, but perhaps too traditional to conduct public rituals.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
]Sarah Miles did an ashing in a public square in San Francisco and argues that worship has always gone on outside religious buildings e.g. processions of witness, mystery plays, stations of the cross, roadside shrines, open air temples in Burma, blessings of ships etc.

My issue isn't with it being in public. It's the separation of the imposition of ashes from the rest of the liturgy. You'd think that if someone were serious about repenting, they'd make time in their lives to attend church once a year.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
]Sarah Miles did an ashing in a public square in San Francisco and argues that worship has always gone on outside religious buildings e.g. processions of witness, mystery plays, stations of the cross, roadside shrines, open air temples in Burma, blessings of ships etc.
My issue isn't with it being in public. It's the separation of the imposition of ashes from the rest of the liturgy. You'd think that if someone were serious about repenting, they'd make time in their lives to attend church once a year.

However, if the purpose of having a public ritual is to reconnect the church to a de- or unchurched, alienated public, IOW to evangelise, then you can't expect so much of the participants. Most public religious rituals have traditionally served to bring believers together, but what's being suggested here is something else entirely.

Of course, it could be argued that sacramental acts should only be conducted among believers, but mainstream (Western?) Christianity has tended to blur the boundaries somewhat, and anyone who presents as willing is often accepted. After all, we can't look into men's souls and establish who has truly repented and who hasn't - even among those who attend church and participate in the whole liturgy....

[ 02. March 2015, 23:20: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

This. It'd be a way in, something to arouse the interest of the latently curious and to respond to and perhaps make them aware of something that is within thm already.

[ 03. March 2015, 06:44: Message edited by: Albertus ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0