|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: MWing non-Trinitarian churches
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I have raised this issue in Eccles, but given it is a policy issue perhaps it should be discussed here.
ISTM that the rules relating to Mystery Worshipping are that it should be of Trinitarian churches because SoF is primarily coming from that theological position.
Amanda B. Reckondwythe (who incidentally I am not complaining about directly, I am just pointing out) has said that the rule on reviewing non-Trinitarian services has been relaxed.
I'd like to suggest that although it might be ideal to relax rules, and we all might like to see a wider diversity of MW reports, Simon and/or Erin put the rule there in the first place for a very good reason - namely that of fairness, and the risk of reviewing something negatively because the MWer does not hold fundamental beliefs in common.
Maybe the format needs a shake-up, but I think the choice is to either a) change the rules or b) stick to the existing rules.
Personally I think randomly allowing MWers to negatively review services of churches (meetings, etc) that they are not in sympathy with is a very bad direction to travel.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Personally I think randomly allowing MWers to negatively review services of churches (meetings, etc) that they are not in sympathy with is a very bad direction to travel.
Surely it comes down to trust not to be an idiot though? Otherwise, you could have exactly the same problem if you had a nosebleed Puseyite MW'ing somewhere that's lower than a low thing that's recently completed lowering itself into a pit. And that's without leaving the CofE.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Personally I think randomly allowing MWers to negatively review services of churches (meetings, etc) that they are not in sympathy with is a very bad direction to travel.
I'm not directly involved in the MW project, and have no official position regarding policy.
However, I think you'll find that even within the "trinitarian only" rule there's still plenty of scope for people to review churches where there are very significant points of difference between the theology/practice of the reviewer and the church. I would suspect that if someone from a more catholic position was to come to my church this Sunday they may have little sympathy with our practice - hopefully they'll have no problem with my sermon, but quite likely they may have issues with a layman presiding over Communion.
And, conversely, many aspects of church services will be universal. The extent to which a church adheres to trinitarianism, or catholic practice of reserving the right to preside at Communion to ordained clergy, shouldn't affect our welcome to visitors or the quality of the coffee.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
betjemaniac - Well yes, I think that is true, but in the Quaker MW that prompted the thought, the MW-er seems to be complaining that the meeting did not have any content about God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit.
To me that suggests that the MW expect those things to be present in the meeting and (if, for the sake of argument, this particular Quaker group is not Trinitarian) could therefore be judging it by a standard it is not claiming to be.
One can imagine a MW-er visiting a Unitarian church and harrumping about the lack of a doxology. Well, y'know, that's not going to happen.
The issues are similar within and between Trinitarian denominations, but I think there is a clear difference.
[ 30. June 2015, 08:09: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
However, I think you'll find that even within the "trinitarian only" rule there's still plenty of scope for people to review churches where there are very significant points of difference between the theology/practice of the reviewer and the church. I would suspect that if someone from a more catholic position was to come to my church this Sunday they may have little sympathy with our practice - hopefully they'll have no problem with my sermon, but quite likely they may have issues with a layman presiding over Communion.
Well yes, I accept that this is a tension and as I have said with regard to another MW report, I don't really see the value of a MW-er visiting something that they are clearly not going to like and submitting an overly negative report.
But it is almost inevitable that MW-ers visiting congregations which are well-off the radar (and for most of the recent MW reports, non-Trinitarian churches are clearly well away from what is expected), will produce negative reports.
quote:
And, conversely, many aspects of church services will be universal. The extent to which a church adheres to trinitarianism, or catholic practice of reserving the right to preside at Communion to ordained clergy, shouldn't affect our welcome to visitors or the quality of the coffee.
I accept that one can indeed review coffee and welcome in all kinds of places, but the MW template invites also a comment on the theology.
I submit that many very negative MW reports, particularly of non-Trinitarian services, will devalue the project.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
The reviewer didn't appear to understand the theology of the process at all - for example that their desire to hear Christ spoken of may have been a prompting of the spirit for they themselves to speak about Christ. (Though I grant you it would be unusual for a visitor to minister - it happens sometimes.)
Perhaps there could be a request that those stepping a long way outside their own tradition could do a brief bit of reading on the internal logic before attending ?
[ 30. June 2015, 08:21: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Perhaps there could be a request that those stepping a long way outside their own tradition could do a brief bit of reading on the internal logic before attending ?
Maybe more than just reading, possibly a bit of experience of that style of meeting would also help. If they know that they'll have problems with something intrinsic to that style of gathering then it's probably better to find a different place to MW.
Personally, if I was to start MWing I would never review a Friends Meeting. Which has nothing to do with Friends, who IME are invariably wonderful Christ-like people. It's that I know that quiet is something that does nothing for me (except allow me to catch up on sleep). I simply need structure to join with others in worship.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
If MWers submitted reports only on services they liked, the feature would quickly descend into boredom.
The trick is to report on the service as objectively as possible. Then, in the third-from-last question ("How likely are you to make this church your regular?"), the reporter should be free to say whether or not the service measured up to his personal expectation of church.
I think the majority of our reports are free of bias or hidden agendas. But the editing process is not perfect, and occasionally something slips by that exposes the reporter's prejudices.
I have re-read the report in question, and for the most part Old Rackensack seems to me to have reported on the service objectively. His only negative comment in the body of the report was his dislike of having been asked to stand and introduce himself -- although he is far from alone among reporters and reports in that regard.
Then, at the end, when answering the question as to whether or not he would make this church his regular, he chose to say no, that it didn't satisfy his personal concept of church. His remarks are in no way a reflection on the suitability of Quaker meetings for Quakers, or for those with Quaker-like leanings. He simply said it wasn't for him.
As for participating in the service, I happen to know who Old Rackensack is, as he lives in the Phoenix area as do I. And even though he didn't say so in the report, he told me that he was "Gentleman No. 2", the one who remarked about the aggressive behavior of doves.
As for whether or not the MW rules should ever be bent: Yes, it is true that the rules were formulated by Simon, Ancient Mariner and Erin way back when. But that does not mean that bending took place unbeknownst to them or against their wishes. Indeed, there is one particular report of a service that could in no way, shape or form be considered Trinitiarian or even Christian, that Simon himself requested be published. Other "nonconformist" reports have been published after discussion among the admins as to whether or not the rules should ever be bent. Erin, God rest her soul, is no longer able to participate in those discussions, but I am sure she is looking down from heaven and blessing (with a wave of her stuffed alligator) the endeavor.
Of course, the admins do not rule on each and every non-Trinitarian report, but the general feeling has emerged that such reports may be published from time to time on a case-by-case basis. Thus, we have had reports on Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarian and Mormon services, and on other services of denominations not clearly non-Trinitarian at first glance but indeed so.
Ultimately, the Mystery Worship project depends on reporters submitting a variety of reports on a variety of churches in a variety of locations. The more, the merrier. It is up to the editors to determine whether or not a particular report is fair or biased, and worthy of publication or rejection. It seems to me we do a pretty good job when all is said and done.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Of course, the admins do not rule on each and every non-Trinitarian report ...
Just to be clear, the board admins don't rule on any of the MW reports. Erin may have been a participant in the editorial decisions pertaining to the main site, the online magazine, but the current admins are not. The Styx is certainly the right place for this discussion, mr. cheesy, but please understand that Amanda and the Ship of Fools editors are your audience, not the board admins.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Well omitting you ministered in the service you are reporting seems a rather significant omission - more pertinently, the critique that nothing happened is an issue if he did minister.
quote:
the worship stiff-upper-lip, happy clappy, or what?
We sat in silence for one hour. Aside from the hum of the air conditioning unit, an occasional cough, and one sneeze (nobody said “God bless you”), there was no sound and nothing happened. Well, that’s not quite true – four people did speak briefly – two gentlemen and two ladies
Because the theology of the process is that you minister if you feel called to do so - and for someone who is Christian in a Quaker meeting that means feeling led by the holy spirit to minister. If your reviewer felt he was inspired by an aspect of God to minister to people gathered in worship - I struggle to understand how he thinks "nothing happened". If he didn't believe himself inspired, he probably should not have been giving ministry, anymore than I would randomly turn up at a Roman Catholic church and take communion.
Which is why I would contest his having a good understanding of what was going on, likewise his expectation everyone would be dressed in black and white.
This is not obscure information, but stuff you could find out on google in five minutes.
On a personal level, I do find the tone of the report mildly offensive.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The trick is to report on the service as objectively as possible. Then, in the third-from-last question ("How likely are you to make this church your regular?"), the reporter should be free to say whether or not the service measured up to his personal expectation of church.
'Objective' seems to be the wrong word, somehow, for describing a church service.
I tend to assume when reading the MW reports that the individual reporter is almost always more at home in a vaguely mainstream, traditional and historical church setting (and I say 'vaguely' because that's quite a broad thing in itself, of course). Hence, any report from some other kind of church is likely to present one of several fairly predictable criticisms.
It's not so much what they say but the way that they say it that's interesting.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not sure that's always the case, SvitlanaV2. There have been a fair few grumpy reviews over the years by happy-clappy types who've rolled up at a more traditional and staid style of service and who've complained that it's not lively enough etc etc.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I also wonder at the MW-er's Trinitarian credentials. "No mention of 'God' let alone Jesus and the Holy Spirit."
I presume they meant 'No mention of God the Father ... let alone God the Son or God the Holy Spirit ...'
I agree with Doublethink that a quick Google would have given this MW-er an idea of what to expect at Quaker meeting.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I agree with Doublethink that a quick Google would have given this MW-er an idea of what to expect at Quaker meeting.
Except there are programmed Quakers whose meetings I gather are a bit closer to standard Protestant (I don't think there are many if any programmed Quakers in the UK though but they make up a sizable chunk of American Quakers). Admittedly I've never attended one of their meetings though I have attended a few unprogrammed Quaker meetings for worship. On the Unitarian side I gather that Kings Chapel Boston's liturgy and music is very close to traditional Anglican (love to see a MW report on it one day).
I like reading the MW reports because they give a feel for both the MW and the service visited.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vidi Aquam
Apprentice
# 18433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
On the Unitarian side I gather that Kings Chapel Boston's liturgy and music is very close to traditional Anglican (love to see a MW report on it one day).
I went to one of their services once long ago. It was nice, I would like to go back sometime if I ever find myself in Boston again.
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
I like reading the MW reports because they give a feel for both the MW and the service visited.
I like reading them too. Very informative.
Posts: 33 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There have been a fair few grumpy reviews over the years by happy-clappy types who've rolled up at a more traditional and staid style of service and who've complained that it's not lively enough etc etc.
And vice versa. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Surely we just need to quote Adam Hills: don't be a dick!
If you've done your research on a church and hate everything you see, don't go. If in doubt, ask Amanda if it qualifies.
And double-check before sending. I once visited a church and wrote up the report, but couldn't find a good thing to say about it. As it was part of a denomination which some people get very tetchy about defending, I didn't submit it.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, Sipech - but in fairness that particular church sounded well off the spectrum when it comes to common-sense ...
I'd have probably had an issue with it even in my more full-on charismatic days ... so it's hardly surprising that a MW-er who wasn't at all that way inclined is going to struggle with it ...
But you're right - not being a dick is good advice.
Shame you didn't post your MW report about the service from whatever denomination it was that you are referring to ... you've got me intrigued now ...
PM me to put me out of my misery if you can't face naming and shaming in public. No need for the full report, but I would be interested in knowing which denomination it was.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
