Thread: If you enjoy worship, is it 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=030202
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Apparently, some people actually enjoy listening to worship music. I might struggle with this, but then some people like One Direction, so apparently I shouldn't be surprised.
But it raises the question as to whether, for such people, the singing part of worship is anything other than a pleasant sing-along. Like I might sing enjoy a rock classics cover band, say. Is a sing-along actually worship?
And I know that worship is not just singing, but the same might apply to the rest of it. If it is enjoyable, something we might do ourselves how is this worship?
And if it is, why isn't my chat down the pub* just as much worship? Why do I have to go somewhere I don't enjoy being at to worship**.
*Wine bar, free drinks at a wedding. Whatever.
** TBH, I don't any more, but the question is still valid.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Worship is anything and everything we do which both acknowledges God and shows appreciation of God at the least, love of and/or awe of God in its greater expression.
It should be something we enjoy.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Read some of the Methodist hymns - they are loaded with theology.
We remember songs long after sermons have faded and been forgotten.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I used to play a bit of third team club rugby many years ago. Weekly appointments with cold, wet, windswept fields with the only spectator often being the referee. Over hearing a conversation in the changing room afterwards, one chap said to the other, -- 'I don't know why, but I always feel better for playing'. The other replied 'I wouldn't play at all if I didn't '.
That is how I view worship even though I nolonger go to church every week. Personally I'm not over keen on modern worship songs but accept many of the old hymn dirges have had their day.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
The idea that we shouldn't enjoy worship (however defined) is strange. Surely the praise we offer to God should come from the heart, and not just the lips?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The idea that we shouldn't enjoy worship (however defined) is strange. Surely the praise we offer to God should come from the heart, and not just the lips?
I agree.
One of my biggest surprises when I lived in West Africa was the extent to which people there loved their worship services. There was honestly nothing in the world they would rather do. It was totally the highlight of their week.
There is nothing that explains the success of Christianity in that part of the world more clearly than this.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And if it is, why isn't my chat down the pub* just as much worship?
Perhaps it is, depending what the chat is about.
quote:
Why do I have to go somewhere I don't enjoy being at to worship.
Well, I guess you don't have to. But even if worship infuses all of our lives, as is the goal I think, there is value in community and focused intention.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
I'd imagine a conversation at the pub could well be made to be worship, depending on it's nature. There is ample precedent for a meal being worship.
I'd imagine each of the 4 categories of fun/worship have representatives (almost certainly by a single person at different times, and different people at the same time, maybe even one person at the same time). Probably 8 combinations when you consider others intent, and a lot of blurred lines**.
So (even at 'worship' events) you probably do have some
"Oh that is an impressive rendering of Bach's Mass, the common people wouldn't get it"/"Hey at this Xian 90's pop, I get to be jumping near to sexy stranger", sing-along fun non-worship
But also some
"Hey, through this haunting polyphony, I really understand what Jesus was going through" / "Through the miked up rapping, I really understand how God feels about injustice" (of course the manipulation thread then comes in)
And (with many graduations between)
"Oh God, how do people enjoy this dull, old fashioned rubbish. Mind you, I hadn't thought of that, um I suspect that's actually heretical, dear god please help me understand what I should be doing"/"Oh God, how do people enjoy this dull, old fashioned rubbish*. Still..."
And of course
"This is dull, why did mum/dad make me go"
*sorry, couldn't resist.
**No, not that
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And if it is, why isn't my chat down the pub* just as much worship?
Perhaps it is, depending what the chat is about.
quote:
Why do I have to go somewhere I don't enjoy being at to worship.
Well, I guess you don't have to. But even if worship infuses all of our lives, as is the goal I think, there is value in community and focused intention.
totally agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The idea that we shouldn't enjoy worship (however defined) is strange. Surely the praise we offer to God should come from the heart, and not just the lips?
I agree.
One of my biggest surprises when I lived in West Africa was the extent to which people there loved their worship services. There was honestly nothing in the world they would rather do. It was totally the highlight of their week.
There is nothing that explains the success of Christianity in that part of the world more clearly than this.
Yes, I've seen that too-- and worth noting that African worship often last 3-4 hours, and many people will walk up to an hour to get there. The last time I was teaching in central Africa, on one memorable morning I was awoken by worship that began around 6 am and did not finish until close to 10 pm (with a few meal breaks). All very very joyful, intergenerational, communal. There's no "compelling", no "ah, ma, do a gotta?" This is where they want to be.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
SvitlanaV2: quote:
The idea that we shouldn't enjoy worship (however defined) is strange.
Yeah, weird. "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord." Just not too joyful?
I don't attend services with modern worship music often. (I actually enjoy lovely old hymns; go figure.) But when I do, it can be refreshing and, yes, enjoyable.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
In some discussions various Shipmates have said you are not supposed to like going to church, that's what makes it a spiritual discipline. In real life people active in church and on vestry have responded to my "church is boring" with "church is boring but you have to go."
Maybe one reason churches aren't attracting more people these days is that church is (for many of us) boring and inaccurately teaches by that example "God is boring." Unfortunately, the vestry members who agreed with me church is boring think it's supposed to be boring.
Something's wrong with how we express worship if it's boring.
Yes singing along can be just a singalong, and reciting the lords prayer can be just empty words, and sermon time can be daydreaming, but a word or phrase or a line from a song will sometimes catch attention in a new way, open the door to God awareness - whether in church or in conversation in the pub.
The question is how to trigger that God awareness more often in life, and in gatherings to worship.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The last time I was teaching in central Africa, on one memorable morning I was awoken by worship that began around 6 am and did not finish until close to 10 pm (with a few meal breaks). All very very joyful, intergenerational, communal. There's no "compelling", no "ah, ma, do a gotta?" This is where they want to be.
Which begs the question, "Why?" Is it that the good folk there are engaging with more heart and soul than the average European or American congregation? Are they less begrudging of time spent in worship? Is the rest of life so boring that worship is the one highpoint? Do they have a more lively and deeply-felt faith? Do they have more of a sense of worship as "communal event"? Have they found a worship style that is more fun? .... etc., etc.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
C.S. Lewis doesn't seem to have had a hang-up about enjoying worship.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
We are enjoined to love God with all our mind, soul, heart and strength. My understanding is that worship is intended to give glory to God and to refresh all of these elements. Surely, the more deeply worship engages, the more glory it gives, and the more intensely it achieves these aims too?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Orthodoxen never tire of telling the story of the emissaries that St. Vladimir the Great (ruler of Kievan Rus' in the 10th/11th centuries, called by us "Enlightener of the Rus" or "Enlightener of Russia") sent out in 987.
They visited Catholic, Muslim, and Orthodox countries, both with an eye toward political alliance, but also to observe their worship.
When they observed the Divine Liturgy in the Church of Holy Wisdom (Hagia Sophia) in Constantinople they sent back this report:
"We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth... nor such beauty, and we know not how to tell of it."
We tend to feel that offering beautiful worship is a gift to God. Why not give our best? Boring worship is an affront to God.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
some catechism says we should 'enjoy Him foR ever.'
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
some catechism says we should 'enjoy Him foR ever.'
Indeed, not just that we should, but that is our chief end.
It's the Westminster Shorter Catechism.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I agree. But does "enjoy" in the Catechism have exactly the same meaning as its common usage today?
I ask this because one "model trust deed" for Baptist church buildings states that "The Trustees shall permit the said premises ... to be used occupied and enjoyed ...as a place of Public Worship for the service of Almighty God". I suspect that "enjoyed" here reflects a more archaic and legal meaning of the word, even though the trust deed itself is 20th-century.
[ 21. August 2016, 14:53: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
C.S. Lewis doesn't seem to have had a hang-up about enjoying worship.
Well, sort of... he could also be quite curmudgeonly about congregational singing:
quote:
"What we want to know is whether untrained communal singing is in itself any more edifying than other popular pleasures. And of this I, for one, am still wholly unconvinced. I have often heard this noise; I have sometimes contributed to it. I do not yet seem to have found any evidence that the physical and emotional exhilaration which it produces is necessarily, or often, of any religious relevance. What I, like many other laymen, chiefly desire in church are fewer, better, and shorter hymns; especially fewer." —CS Lewis in Christian Reflections p. 96.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The last time I was teaching in central Africa, on one memorable morning I was awoken by worship that began around 6 am and did not finish until close to 10 pm (with a few meal breaks). All very very joyful, intergenerational, communal. There's no "compelling", no "ah, ma, do a gotta?" This is where they want to be.
Which begs the question, "Why?" Is it that the good folk there are engaging with more heart and soul than the average European or American congregation? Are they less begrudging of time spent in worship? Is the rest of life so boring that worship is the one highpoint? Do they have a more lively and deeply-felt faith? Do they have more of a sense of worship as "communal event"? Have they found a worship style that is more fun? .... etc., etc.
Indeed. This would probably make a good doctoral thesis for somebody to unpack all the possibilities. From my somewhat limited experience, I'd probably guess: "yes". As in "all of the above." It certainly is a far far more communal culture so that's a huge element, as well as just the necessity to find joy in the ordinary. In some ways the joy I observed in worship services is not that different than the joy I observed everyday watching women interacting at the water hole-- engaging in long, tedious, repetitious work of washing clothes, filling water jugs, caring for kids-- yet doing it together and therefore finding joy in the talking the listening the laughing of community.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I agree. But does "enjoy" in the Catechism have exactly the same meaning as its common usage today?
I ask this because one "model trust deed" for Baptist church buildings states that "The Trustees shall permit the said premises ... to be used occupied and enjoyed ...as a place of Public Worship for the service of Almighty God". I suspect that "enjoyed" here reflects a more archaic and legal meaning of the word, even though the trust deed itself is 20th-century.
So are you suggesting the Westminster is telling us that man's aim is to "have use or benefit of" God? That's the debased meaning in the trust deed (debased from the etymological "find joy in"). It seems more likely that the catechism means just what it seems to mean to those unfamiliar with the utilitarian meaning.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
That's an interesting discussion.
The equivalent word in French is jouir, which can and is used in property-related documents to mean "have the benefit of".
And also means "have an orgasm".
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's an interesting discussion.
The equivalent word in French is jouir, which can and is used in property-related documents to mean "have the benefit of".
And also means "have an orgasm".
So if you don't enjoy it, is it really orgasm?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So are you suggesting the Westminster is telling us that man's aim is to "have use or benefit of" God?
Of course not. But I am saying that the nuanced meaning of the word may have changed slightly since the Confession was written, so its idea of "enjoyment" may not be quite the same as ours.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sorry, but here comes one of my both/ands not either/ors ...
It's a truism that what bores some people excites others. I have an uncle by marriage whose hobby is beetles. I'm glad he's interested in beetles but don't really want to sit down with him and discuss them for hours on end - although I'm sure I'd enjoy doing so as he started to expound some fascinating facts about the little fellas ...
I've been to the annual conference of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius this week. I found it heavier going than previously but worthwhile overall.
For those of you who don't know it's an ecumenical fellowship/conference to encourage dialogue and understanding between Eastern and Western Churches.
One of the priests who leads the Orthodox worship at the conference does so at a fair old lick - almost like a racing commentary or one of those rural cattle-market auctions ...
During one of the discussion times, one of the Orthodox delegates complained about this and noted how refreshing she'd found the slow, steady recitation of the Psalms antiphonally during the Anglican Evensong. It gave her space to reflect on the words.
The next morning, lo and behold, the Orthodox slowed down their Liturgy (although one or two prayers were rattled through at breakneck speed) and it was a thing of beauty and a delight to be present.
Back in the day, I'd have found it incredibly boring. I won't have 'got' it. Of course, we can't ever 'get' anything in its entirety and certainly not when we are dealing with Mystery and the numinous.
One of the things that struck me was how, when one of the choir went forward to receive Communion her face glowed with a kind of inner contentment and radiance. Talking to her later, I realised that she thoroughly 'enjoyed' her Orthodoxy in a very holistic way - the Feasts and fasts, the annual round of services, the words of particular hymns and prayers ...
Of course, we can find Methodists, Anglicans, evangelicals, Pentecostals, RCs, Copts and any and everyone else who would reflect a deep sense of joy and fulfilmnent in their own expression of faith - regardless of whether anyone else found it 'boring' or not.
This isn't to suggest that anything goes and that it's all subjective - far from it - but it is to acknowledge that these things operate on a 'soul' level and their paths are past tracing out.
I used to enjoy listening to cassette tapes (remember those?) of worship songs and choruses. I wouldn't do so now. That isn't to disparage the 'me' who did so at that time. That's where I was at and I found them helpful and meaningful.
I do so no longer but that doesn't mean that they don't remain helpful and meaningful to anyone else.
Worship can be hard work. It isn't always enjoyable. Whatever the tradition though, if it is true that the 'Whole Duty of Man' means that we 'enjoy him forever' then surely that means that we find some kind of joy and fulfilment in those things that are 'means' (to use an old Puritan phrase) that point us towards him.
None of these things are ends in themselves.
They point beyond themselves to the One who is the source of all joy and peace.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I agree. But does "enjoy" in the Catechism have exactly the same meaning as its common usage today?
I ask this because one "model trust deed" for Baptist church buildings states that "The Trustees shall permit the said premises ... to be used occupied and enjoyed ...as a place of Public Worship for the service of Almighty God". I suspect that "enjoyed" here reflects a more archaic and legal meaning of the word, even though the trust deed itself is 20th-century.
So are you suggesting the Westminster is telling us that man's aim is to "have use or benefit of" God? That's the debased meaning in the trust deed (debased from the etymological "find joy in"). It seems more likely that the catechism means just what it seems to mean to those unfamiliar with the utilitarian meaning.
I really can't believe I let others beat me to quoting the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Those from whom I learned it would be disappointed. I came back because I realized my omission. Oh well.
The legal meaning of "enjoy"/"enjoyment" is to have a right to use or benefit of for the purpose of deriving pleasure or satisfaction. It is related to the more usual use, though I have little doubt that the Westminster Divines had the more obvious meaning in mind—to find joy in glorifying God.
BTW, the answer to Q1 is on my in-laws' gravestone.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So are you suggesting the Westminster is telling us that man's aim is to "have use or benefit of" God?
Of course not. But I am saying that the nuanced meaning of the word may have changed slightly since the Confession was written, so its idea of "enjoyment" may not be quite the same as ours.
If so then it has changed back to the earlier meaning, and the meaning at the time of the confession was a temporary (and apparently unrecorded) aberration of the flow of the meaning of the word. Certainly there is nothing to suggest such a temporary change at etymonline, nor in my copy of the OED.
You seem to be inventing an unrecorded meaning of the word, apparently to avoid the simple and straightforward meaning of the text. There is absolutely no reason to believe it means anything other than what it says to our 21st century ears: we are meant to find joy in God.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Worship can be hard work. It isn't always enjoyable. Whatever the tradition though, if it is true that the 'Whole Duty of Man' means that we 'enjoy him forever' then surely that means that we find some kind of joy and fulfilment in those things that are 'means' (to use an old Puritan phrase) that point us towards him.
Right, but should it be expected to not be enjoyable? That seems to be the question raised in the OP. Some people, apparently, believe worship ought to be dreary, or it's not worship (hence the thread title). I don't see that you've spoken to this question.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
In some discussions various Shipmates have said you are not supposed to like going to church, that's what makes it a spiritual discipline. In real life people active in church and on vestry have responded to my "church is boring" with "church is boring but you have to go."
Maybe one reason churches aren't attracting more people these days is that church is (for many of us) boring and inaccurately teaches by that example "God is boring." Unfortunately, the vestry members who agreed with me church is boring think it's supposed to be boring.
I don't think there's any 'maybe' about it; boring, unengaging, uninspiring church worship has driven many people away from British churches over the past century, and such worship is going to do nothing to attract the unchurched in the century to come.
This isn't to say that 'enjoying worship' should mean the same thing to everyone, or that it's all about a particular worship style.
Regarding cliffdweller and Baptist Trainfan's comments about joyful worship in central Africa, I'm sure more could be said about particular African countries and cultures, but quite a lot has already been written about 'African spirituality', AFAIUI. What we know less about, it seems, is the kinds of spiritual expression which are meaningful and appealing to people in the secular West, especially in Europe.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Indeed, not just that we should, but that is our chief end.
It's the Westminster Shorter Catechism.
Curious isn't it, that St Ignatius says something very similar at the start of his Spiritual Exercises,
quote:
"Man was created to praise, reverence, and serve God our Lord and in this way to save his soul".
Incidentally, is the OP really saying that it's wrong to enjoy worshipping? Or is a version of 'they will know we are disciples by our disapproval one for another'?
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I should point out this is in purg because I wanted genuine discussion, so this is good. I actually don't think, instinctively, that worship should be a chore. But I also wonder if for some people it is no more than a singalong session - more importantly, what is the difference? What is worship, and what is a singalong?
And there is nothing wrong with having a good sing song. I am going to Greenbelt this weekend, and hope to have an enjoyable time. I hope to worship, somewhere (probably not at the Sunday service though).
It was an attempt to raise a question that probably comes down to "what is worship?", and how does it differ from having a good time?
I suppose it is also raised by me because I am not with the Quakers. I don't think I "enjoy" spending an hour in silence, but it is a special time, when I often get to be with God, and I feel better when I return, I feel more spiritually engaged. So have I worshipped? Probably.
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on
:
If it ain't painful, it ain't holy
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
If it ain't painful, it ain't holy
So heaven will be hell.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Presumably, worship is in some way significantly directed towards God. It is pointed upwards. Whereas a singalong is just a singalong - enjoying the music, the experience, feeling cheerful or being with other people.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This is where they want to be.
Which begs the question, "Why?"
Indeed. This would probably make a good doctoral thesis for somebody to unpack all the possibilities. From my somewhat limited experience, I'd probably guess: "yes". As in "all of the above."
In agreement with cliffdweller, I would also add that there is an interest in God and religion in West Africa that is amazing. I often observed people getting emotional at the very thought of God. Religious topics attract people's wholehearted attention.
I also observed that people in West Africa are more credulous than Westerners. This of course has its downside as well.
As to the form of worship, the long services are punctuated with a tremendous amount of very loud singing, often accompanied by a kind of dancing where people file out row by row and parade around the room. Then there is a punchy, engaging sermonette. Then more singing. Then another sermonette. It varies a lot, of course, from group to group. Catholic services in my village were actually very similar to Catholic services in my community here in Pennsylvania.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I'd be a lot more impressed about the religious enthusiasm of west Africans if it didn't also include killing gays.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Worship can be hard work. It isn't always enjoyable. Whatever the tradition though, if it is true that the 'Whole Duty of Man' means that we 'enjoy him forever' then surely that means that we find some kind of joy and fulfilment in those things that are 'means' (to use an old Puritan phrase) that point us towards him.
Duty? It's not the "duty of man" to glorify God and enjoy God forever, at least according to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, which is what I assume you're referring to. Glorifying and enjoying God forever is "man's chief end"—what we were made for, our destiny.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok, I was mixing up my references. It's a good while since I read the Westminster Shorter Catechism.
I also didn't 'speak to' the issue MT raises.
Anyway, surely there's a lot of subjectivity in our assessment of what is or isn't 'boring'. I'd be in heaven in cathedral worship, but New Wine style charismatic worship would bore my butt off.
Thing is, though, the OP seems to suggest that worship is all about singing. It isn't.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thing is, though, the OP seems to suggest that worship is all about singing. It isn't.
Well, that and preaching. Which if not boring seems to be so purely by accident.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's an interesting discussion.
The equivalent word in French is jouir, which can and is used in property-related documents to mean "have the benefit of".
And also means "have an orgasm".
Now that's an interesting line of thought. Having observed people singing modern worship songs, I would certainly say that they are not just having a 'sing-song', in fact they feel their relationship with God very intensely. But sometimes (just sometimes) that intensity does rather look like they are 'getting off' on it!
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
If you don't enjoy worship, is it really worship? This depends, of course, on "enjoy". Ideally, we should find joy in worship, but that is different from saying that hard pews are comfortable or that all contemporary worship music is inspiring or that sermons always make sense. Can you experience joy even though you are physically or intellectually uncomfortable? I suspect this depends on the individual.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thing is, though, the OP seems to suggest that worship is all about singing. It isn't.
I quite explicitly said that it wasn't.
The same issue applies to other areas of worship. If you find it enjoyable, if it is something you would do outside of church, what is it really about?
I guess the issue is as much about what makes something worship, not just yourself having fun?
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thing is, though, the OP seems to suggest that worship is all about singing. It isn't.
I quite explicitly said that it wasn't.
The same issue applies to other areas of worship. If you find it enjoyable, if it is something you would do outside of church, what is it really about?
I guess the issue is as much about what makes something worship, not just yourself having fun?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I guess the issue is as much about what makes something worship, not just yourself having fun?
So true.
The whole concept of "worship" is that it is about something that we absolutely adore. There are lots of things that not only seem interesting and attractive to us, but that we love, agree with, want to be close to, want to be associated with, want to hear, and want to follow and obey.
At least I think there are.
In any case, things and people who are idolized attract crowds, their words are savored, their suggestions are heeded.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I actually don't think, instinctively, that worship should be a chore. But I also wonder if for some people it is no more than a singalong session - more importantly, what is the difference? What is worship, and what is a singalong?
And there is nothing wrong with having a good sing song.
Some people who experience it as a sing-a-long may eventually gain a much deeper understanding of what they're singing about. Moreover, they may pick up ideas from the non-singing parts of the service.
Moo
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's an interesting discussion.
The equivalent word in French is jouir, which can and is used in property-related documents to mean "have the benefit of".
And also means "have an orgasm".
Now that's an interesting line of thought. Having observed people singing modern worship songs, I would certainly say that they are not just having a 'sing-song', in fact they feel their relationship with God very intensely. But sometimes (just sometimes) that intensity does rather look like they are 'getting off' on it!
You mean like this ?
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Something's wrong with how we express worship if it's boring.
If we're bored worshiping, what must it be like for God having to listen?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I guess the issue is as much about what makes something worship, not just yourself having fun?
What would you estimate the difference to be between "finding joy" and "enjoying oneself" and "having fun"?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
If you find [worship] enjoyable, if it is something you would do outside of church, what is it really about?
You write as if everything we do outside of church is fun, therefore what we do inside church ought to be different from that. It's an interesting assumption. Probably cultural.
Consider, though, that everyday life may be full of fun for you, but for other people, church may be where they go to experience something better.
Moreover, the notion that Sunday worship should represent a completely different experience from what happens the rest of the week is also cultural. In mainstream, traditional Western contexts churchgoing is to some degree still envisioned as a moderately serious, cerebral event, having as little in common with the banality, passion and physicality of the rest of ours lives as possible.
Many of us on this website probably lean in this direction, but we need to realise that our religion doesn't have to be like that for everyone. Jesus said nothing about separating worship from life, or making church a cerebral experience. That's our choice, and some of us 'enjoy' it, but there's nothing inevitable about it.
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
A thought:
'Worship' is the rendering to someone or something of what is due to them - what they are 'worth'. In Heaven we will all experience the perfect worship of God. The Saved will enjoy it - for Eternity. The Damned will be bored by it - for Eternity.
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
If it ain't painful, it ain't holy
I remember being told as a child that if I liked the taste of medicine, it didn't do me any good.
Seems like a similar philosophy.
(Joesaphat, I suspect you are being tongue-in-cheek, but some people do actually think like that).
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
It's not boring, it's not fun. It's not anything. It's meh.
Meh is my whole spirituality now. I don't feel anything about God. It's just meh.
Meh.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The boring churches are emptying. The church we now attend, after the boring one we previously attended until 4 years ago closed, can seat 1500, but about 10% or 150 is all that shows up. The midweek euchartists get about 10, all in their 70s and 80s. (the diocese here is closing churches all the time, and seems to be funding itself via real estate deals and investments)
The churches with lots of people have fun worship with catchy countryfied music, hummable tunes where they can engage in spiritual heavy petting but never orgasm their lifestyle.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Many of us on this website probably lean in this direction, but we need to realise that our religion doesn't have to be like that for everyone. Jesus said nothing about separating worship from life, or making church a cerebral experience.
The fact that we're all here having this discussion suggests that perhaps we incline more to the cerebral than average outside our church lives as well.
Certainly in my case that's why I incline to a "moderately serious, cerebral church" - it matches the rest of my life. I don't connect with banal physicality at all.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Many of us on this website probably lean in this direction, but we need to realise that our religion doesn't have to be like that for everyone. Jesus said nothing about separating worship from life, or making church a cerebral experience.
Jesus said nothing about a lot of things. But what he did speaks also. He did not spend his entire life in the Temple, nor in the Synagogue. But he did go there, presumably to worship. Now what you call what you do outside the Temple or Synagogue, isn't really the issue. The question of this thread as far as I can tell has to do with what we do INSIDE the Temple/Synagogue. Should THAT activity be boring? Whether or not something outside those confines counts as "worship," while interesting, is a separate question and not really relevant.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The fact that we're all here having this discussion suggests that perhaps we incline more to the cerebral than average outside our church lives as well.
Certainly in my case that's why I incline to a "moderately serious, cerebral church" - it matches the rest of my life. I don't connect with banal physicality at all.
I think there's a bit of a false dichotomy here. My church has a hell of a lot of "banal physicality" -- music, images, incense, etc. If you wanted to come and just get lost in that side of it, it would be easy to do.
But there is also a hell of a lot of cognitive content. The icons of course all tell stories and one can learn how to "read" them. All that music has words, and the words are pretty meaty. The music itself (the dots) has patterns both subtle and obvious, and I get a lot of enjoyment from thinking about these and ferreting them out. I'm probably not alone. Add to this the scripture readings and sermon/homily, and there is plenty to think about. It can be a very cerebral experience, if you choose to make it so, to mentally engage with the content.
So it's not either/or.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
I understand that there's a fine line between enjoying an aspect of worship because it enables you to better connect with God and enjoying it purely for itself as one would a play, pop concert or symphony. But trying to stay on the right side of that line can't mean we have to eliminate everything we enjoy from our worship. Can it?
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1qYQQEwPUU
Joyful Orthodox worship in Africa. I think this (in terms of the joy they are expressing) is how worship SHOULD be. OK, sometimes a more contemplative worship is also valuable. but overall, I think joyful singing of the liturgy is how it was intended to be conducted. WE (Russians) tend to slow down the singing and it starts to sound like a dirge.
and since I'm posting singing videos: here is my favorite version of the singing of the first psalm "Blessed is the man". a great example of something that is often sung much slower, and sounds very different when it is. this gives me goosebumps whenever I hear it, whether slow or fast (assuming everyone is singing on key). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PcRAZ35zLQ&list=RD_PcRAZ35zLQ#t=318
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
Joyful Orthodox worship in Africa. I think this (in terms of the joy they are expressing) is how worship SHOULD be.
Beautiful. That is very similar to what I have experienced many times.
I was surprised to see a white priest in Ghana.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
You mean like this ?
I'm sure the 21st Century doesn't have a monopoly on ecstatic worship.
Lovely sculpture, btw.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
From my experience, the Orthodox tend to slow down their hymns but, in many instances, rattle through the prayers at a fair old lick ...
At its most extreme it can sound like a cattle auction or a racing commentary.
Lovely video clips by the way. Both of them.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
From my experience, the Orthodox tend to slow down their hymns but, in many instances, rattle through the prayers at a fair old lick ...
That has not been my experience at all, although I will admit I have not worshipped in more than 10 or 15 Orfie churches. Indeed the only time I've ever heard about rapid-fire prayers, other than from you, is one time at J's church in Memphis, TN, when the air conditioning went out on a 90 degree day, and the deacon went through the petitions as fast as ever he could, combining three petitions per one "Lord, have mercy" and in general gittin' 'er done in record time.
ETA: Come to think of it, I have heard that military chaplains tend to rush things because they are used to having to get through the whole shebang in an hour so the next denomination's chaplain can have the tent for THEIR service.
[ 22. August 2016, 19:27: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm thinking of one priest in particular who flies through the whole thing so fast his words tumble over each other as if he's going for the 'How many Saints can you possibly name in one minute' record.
I've not come across any who do it quite as rapidly as this chap, but Orthodox friends here tell me that whilst he is particularly fast he's not unique ...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Clearly something about your island has an effect on the speed of Orthodox liturgies. Queer.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Our congregation just switched to our Trinity Mass, which essentially follows the ordinary mass outline, but has an African beat. We sway, we move, we sing in the round, we certainly enjoy it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not sure whether it's a British thing, Mousethief. It's something I've heard complained of by people in the Russian and Greek jurisdictions here but not something I've seen among the Antiochians, I must admit.
I've seen a few instances myself, but I must admit that the particular priest I'm thinking of takes it to the nth degree ...
'InthenameoftheFatherandoftheSonandofthe ...'
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
I only once heard an Orthodox priest really rush through the service (and at the time I appreciated it, because there were reasons to be in a rush). Often it's the opposite.. a priest who will drag things out. the norm, in my experience, is something in-between: fairly fast, but not so fast that one can't follow or words run into each other. Chanting does help with that, I think, although I guess it's possible to chant at a rapid-fire pace, it is harder. AT least seems so to me, although now that I think of it, I have heard some psalm readings (the hours) where the reader managed to chant so fast I was amazed their tongues could manage it. But that was not during liturgy.
In thinking of worship v. enjoyment, I thought about the composers who have written music for the liturgy. It's usually far to complex to use during a service, and was always intended more for concert performances. So, one can hear the exact same music (liturgy) sung as part of a service, or sung on stage in a performance. is it worship in one case and not the other? I think whether something is worship has nothing to do with whether it's enjoyed or not, but rather in how you react to it. you can worship during a concert, or be purely entertained during a service. It's about what you, and what is in your heart at the time, I think. Certainly enjoyment or non-enjoyment are completely irrelevant to whether something is worship. And the nature of the music, while a factor in whether it is worship-full, does not determine whether YOU are worshiping while listening to it/singing it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I'd agree with that, Anyuta.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
And there are times when, ISTM, worship can degenerate into nothing more than "performance" (think some places where they sing, be it with cathedral choir or Gospel music; but equally think of other places where people go to hear the preacher rather than what s/he says). Equally "secular" events occasionally have the capability of morphing into worship* - IME seeing a semi-staged version of the Bach "St. John Passion" at English National Opera, or attending a dance performance of "The Protecting Veil" at Sadler's Wells.
*Not necessarily for everyone present, possibly only those who already have a Christian faith.
[ 23. August 2016, 14:18: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
As you may know, while the reader is chanting the Epistle, various stuff happens in the altar. I gained something of a reputation for reading quickly, which I worked to overcome when someone told me they heard the priest say, "We gotta move quickly this morning, Reader [Mousethief] is doing the Epistle."
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
We have one reader who has an amazing voice. A deep bass, with some formal training (singing). So when he chants, it's just an amazing experience. He makes the most of that voice. Another reader has an awesome falsetto, and when he chants it sounds more like Gregorian chant than more common Orthodox chanting style, but still pretty amazing. Unfortunately, our primary priests nether have beautiful voices (which, for an Orthodox priest, is pretty important.) Not that these priests are tone-deaf or can't carry a tune, but their actual voices are not attractive. also, sadly, our choir leaves much to be desired, overall, considering that it's a major cathedral.
In another parish, we had a priest who was known far and wide for his voice. that was a pleasure to listen to, and when he had to move on for various reasons, we lost so much! I can still hear him in my mind in certain parts of the service.
to me the quality of the music can really make a huge difference in my enjoyment of the service. I sing, but don't attend service consistently enough (at this time) to commit to the choir. but I still sing in the congregation as much as possible. Which is why I actually don't like having a choir that is so professional they sing versions that are difficult and hard to sing with. beautiful to listen to, but for me, more of a performance than worship. So it goes both ways.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
All good thoughts, Anyuta. I am both a tonsured reader, and sing in the choir (as a tenor). In the latter I can almost pull my weight. There is no baritone part and my range doesn't go to the top of the baritone range anyway, so I find myself switching between my regular voice and falsetto a lot. Which has less power and can be a problem if I'm all alone on tenor.
When I get to read/chant in my natural register I can really project. I also enunciate carefully. Old people have told me they like it when I read because they can actually understand the words. (At least since I slowed down.) Many of our readers are quiet and don't enunciate as well. Even I can have a hard time understanding them.
We have some priests that just don't project at all (we have far too many priests for a parish of our size). Fortunately most of what they say is canned so you can follow along either mentally or in the little booklet. Both of our deacons have great volume.
Our choir really belts it. You can hear them across the parking lot if even one window is slightly open. Sadly we find it hard to sing quietly where that is called for in the music.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
we have far too many priests for a parish of our size.
My sympathies. Have you tried getting a cat or two?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
we have far too many priests for a parish of our size.
My sympathies. Have you tried getting a cat or two?
Do they cancel each other out?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
It kept down the pests at our old parish...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
A sung mass certainly helps to alleviate the boredom of a totally said service. Also, it helps to watch the clergy up at the altar - their actions (over the bread and wine, for example) are very symbolic and help keep your attention.
Anyone else have a church where dogs attend the Eucharist?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
A sung mass certainly helps to alleviate the boredom of a totally said service. Also, it helps to watch the clergy up at the altar - their actions (over the bread and wine, for example) are very symbolic and help keep your attention.
Anyone else have a church where dogs attend the Eucharist?
No, but I was visiting a shut-in once to deliver home communion, and the congregant was insistent that her beloved canine companion also receive some of the sacrament...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Did it manage to instinct? Or did it receive in the paw?
[ 23. August 2016, 22:09: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No, but I was visiting a shut-in once to deliver home communion, and the congregant was insistent that her beloved canine companion also receive some of the sacrament...
I'm guessing it probably wouldn't have helped to tell her that was not possible unless the dog had been baptized. I can hear her now: "What is to prevent him from being baptized?"
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No, but I was visiting a shut-in once to deliver home communion, and the congregant was insistent that her beloved canine companion also receive some of the sacrament...
I'm guessing it probably wouldn't have helped to tell her that was not possible unless the dog had been baptized. I can hear her now: "What is to prevent him from being baptized?"
Oh look, here's a pool now! (was he a eunuch by any chance?)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No, but I was visiting a shut-in once to deliver home communion, and the congregant was insistent that her beloved canine companion also receive some of the sacrament...
I'm guessing it probably wouldn't have helped to tell her that was not possible unless the dog had been baptized. I can hear her now: "What is to prevent him from being baptized?"
Oh look, here's a pool now! (was he a eunuch by any chance?)
Surely so, if she was a responsible pet owner. (Well, and if the dog was a he.)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Was the dog able to confess his or her sins and make a profession of faith?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Oh look, here's a pool now! (was he a eunuch by any chance?)
Our dog HATED water ...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Was the dog able to confess his or her sins and make a profession of faith?
Depends: would it be able to fill in the little card?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
'Yes, I see that paw ..'
'Now, I want you to pray this prayer after me: Bark, bark ... bark bark bark ... bark woof bark ... growl, growl, bark bark bark ... snuffle, snuffle, Amen.'
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'Yes, I see that paw ..'
'Now, I want you to pray this prayer after me: Bark, bark ... bark bark bark ... bark woof bark ... growl, growl, bark bark bark ... snuffle, snuffle, Amen.'
(for not just G but the entire canine conversion riff...):
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
...or should I say "ruff"?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Was the dog able to confess his or her sins and make a profession of faith?
How very low-church Protestant. His sponsors did that for him, until such time as he could confirm or deny their choice. We call it in-font baptism.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Would the dog be able to explain whether he or she has the right view on whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from just the Father, from the Father and the Son, or even from the Father through the Son? Or would only an Italian Greyhound be able to say that?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Presumably the dog's ability to do so would be a test of its pedigree credentials?
Will there be a Kennel Club in heaven?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Bark once if you think the Spirit proceeds from the Father only. Bark twice if you think the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Bark three times if you think the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Bark four times if you are a modalist or other non-Trinitarian.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
You're all airy-fairy liberals. Scripture clearly says "outside are the dogs" (Rev 22:15).
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Will they be the ones doing the Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You're all airy-fairy liberals. Scripture clearly says "outside are the dogs" (Rev 22:15).
That is used figuratively. In a society that had not yet come to fully appreciate the worth of dogs (they were shepherds, not hunters), dogs were not given the full measure of appreciation they deserved. As such the word "dog" was used as a euphemism for people the writer didn't like.
Jesus, on the other hand, was forced to admit that people feed their beloved pets scraps under the table, and proclaimed people who do this to have "great faith."
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Come now. The dogs are outside for the usual reason. When they finish their business, they'll be back inside and up on the couch, as usual.
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
Funny the subject of dogs in church came up, as I was just reading a debate about whether service dogs should be allowed in church (this was in an Orthodox context). Apparently, strictly speaking, the only animal allowed in a church is a cat (presumably for the above referenced pest control). But I've certainly seen (although rarely) service dogs in services (or at least in the Narthex). Seems to me all animals should be welcome, as long as they behave. Seems to me God loves all of creation, and these creatures never had a "fall" away from God. but rules are rules, I guess. (probably just as well I couldn't bring my dog--he snored like a lumberjack and fated like.. well, I don't know like what, but he could clear a room pretty quickly).
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
My grandparents used to love to tell how they were gathered at the font for my father's baptism, when the saw the family dog walking down the aisle of the church to join them. He had followed them from home.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
Funny the subject of dogs in church came up, as I was just reading a debate about whether service dogs should be allowed in church (this was in an Orthodox context). Apparently, strictly speaking, the only animal allowed in a church is a cat (presumably for the above referenced pest control). But I've certainly seen (although rarely) service dogs in services (or at least in the Narthex). Seems to me all animals should be welcome, as long as they behave. Seems to me God loves all of creation, and these creatures never had a "fall" away from God. but rules are rules, I guess. (probably just as well I couldn't bring my dog--he snored like a lumberjack and fated like.. well, I don't know like what, but he could clear a room pretty quickly).
I was told by somebody who looked into the church rules on behalf of a parshioner who had a service dog that the origin of the rule had to do with people bringing their animals into the church in inclement weather kinds of circumstances, and abusing the privilege. Using the rule to disallow service dogs is a gross misapplication. And typical rules-for-rules-sake Orthodox bullshit.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
The CofE has, so far as I know, never barred dogs. I can remember relatively rare instances of people attending church accompanied by a dog going back 60 years or so. However, the humans are expected not to bring a dog into church unless they can ensure that it will sit quietly and not draw attention to itself.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
*sigh* that was a nice thread we had about worship, once.
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
As I recollect, at St Beuno's Church, Nefyn, North Wales, they still have a set of dog tongs used by the churchwardens to separate argumentative dogs brought into services by their sheep-farmer owners.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Yes, I was going to mention that, although it's actually at Clynnog Fawr a mile or two up the road. I certainly remember seeing them in around 1970!
[ 25. August 2016, 11:15: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Yes, I recall seeing them too.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
*sigh* that was a nice thread we had about worship, once.
I've started a thread for folks who would like to pursue the tangent
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Jesus said nothing about a lot of things. But what he did speaks also. He did not spend his entire life in the Temple, nor in the Synagogue. But he did go there, presumably to worship. Now what you call what you do outside the Temple or Synagogue, isn't really the issue. The question of this thread as far as I can tell has to do with what we do INSIDE the Temple/Synagogue. Should THAT activity be boring? Whether or not something outside those confines counts as "worship," while interesting, is a separate question and not really relevant.
It's the OP that initially compared what happens inside church with what happens outside, and which raises the question of what we mean by 'worship'. I'm simply pursuing that thought.
Now you've raised the tangential question as to whether our we should envision our church worship as somewhat akin to 'temple' or 'synagogue' worship. I'm not entirely convinced that we should, but Christians from different traditions are likely to disagree about that.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Now you've raised the tangential question as to whether our we should envision our church worship as somewhat akin to 'temple' or 'synagogue' worship. I'm not entirely convinced that we should, but Christians from different traditions are likely to disagree about that.
I'm not sure what you mean here by "akin to." Do you mean to say I was suggesting our worship be somehow "like" synagogue worship, in form or appearance? If so then it wasn't my intention to do so.
Or do you mean I was suggesting that synagogue worship plays an analogous role in a Jew's life that church worship plays in a Christian's? I could cop to that. I think this is the case and this was what I was driving at.
That wasn't my intention. Just to make the analogue between what a Jew does inside versus outside the synagogue (in particular one specific Jew) and what Christians do inside or outside the synagogue. At the time I wrote that, modeling our
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Ooops. Preview post is your friend.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0