quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've only been to two Quaker meetings and they were as structured as any other kind of service, as far as I could tell. There wasn't any 'spoken ministry's on either occasion.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Schroedinger's cat

the Quakers had a meeting every day, which is easy to organise (all you need is a venue), whereas the Sunday Communion took weeks to prepare

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Pretty much every church, with a few exceptions, follow the same style and structure of service. There is singing, sermon, prayers, bible reading. Even churches that are independent, that split and reject the traditional churches seem to adopt the same basic structure. Of course it is different, because we sing the songs we want to, preach the message we want to and pray what we want to, so it is radically different.

But why? As I look, I don't see this pattern in the bible (which is so important to many independent churches, and yet they don't use it to change their worship style). I don't even know any justification for the structure as it is, other than that we have always done it that way.

---

quote:

---

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
(Is there something in the Didache or other Apostolic-Fathers writings that talks about the shape of the liturgy?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It started on time and ended with the expected hand-shake an hour later with nothing said in between.

That looked pretty structured to me.

It's not as if it went on 10 seconds longer than the allotted time.

In more apparently 'imposed' or structured services, the sermon might go on longer than intended, there might be a mix up with one or t'other of the hymns, all sorts of variations might occur.

Other than someone saying something - which hasn't happened when I've attended a Quaker meeting (admittedly only twice) - then it was difficult to see what could possibly happen other than a small group of people sat silently for an hour - welcome though it might be.

Ok, so it was minimalist but that didn't mean there wasn't any structure to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:


So the answer to "Why do churches worship as they do?" is two-fold: (1) Why did the first century or early second century create this basic ur-pattern of worship? and (2) why does a Christian body that doesn't worship this way not worship this way?

Change is usually caused by something, some mutual felt need or aversion or such. You take what your parents did, and change it in some way because you find it icky, or think it has too much of one thing or not enough of another, or shouldn't have this thing at all (e.g. Sally Ann and the eucharist), or needs this other new thing (e.g. charistmatics and ecstatic behaviors).

So it would be interesting (to me, but may be I'm weird) to read about either of those two things, separately or in conjunction. But I think that that's the only way to make the question of the thread title work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
It's structured in the sense that a quarter of an acre of rough grass with a fence round it is structured, but not in the sense that a quarter of an acre with a hedge, a drive, a kitchen garden, a croquet lawn, a pond and a house with four bedrooms, a study, a lounge, a kitchen, two receptions and a loft with a model railway is structured.

---

quote:

---

But mostly I'm thinking that those basic things we can identify aren't really so easy to compare between Christian denominations anyway, and if we were to line up behaviours that are similar, the Orthodox would look, well, pretty unorthodox.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
@Lamb Chopped: And I know you know, while others here may not, that the division of the service into two parts, word and eucharist, goes waaaaay back. At least before the schism because we do it too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
(Is there something in the Didache or other Apostolic-Fathers writings that talks about the shape of the liturgy?)

---

The Didache was my first thought, but it only talks about the administration of baptism and of the Eucharist, not the liturgy as a whole. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure about other writings of the time. If I have time, I'll do some looking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
mr cheesy -- Nick Tamen laid it out:

gathering, scripture reading, sermon/homily, prayers, offering, Eucharist and sending


This pattern is common between the Orfies and the Caffix, so it must predate the schism of 1054. And the writing quoted from Justin Martyr makes it a lot older than the schism. This basic pattern goes back to at the latest 150.

---

quote:

---

Were there other variations (before 1054) that flourished then were killed off by the powers that be, and their very memories were suppressed? This gets into serious whackdoodle conspiracy territory. What we see in the real record is parts being tweaked or dropped or added or fiddled with in fairly small chunks.

---

quote:

---

Whether or not we can lump a bunch of those together and say "societal pressures," as if that's the whole story, I do not know. As I said, I'd be interested to learn more. But not if it requires reading through entire thick tomes for every denomination who changed their worship from that they inherited from their immediate spiritual ancestors.

---

quote:

---

You can think that; I won't stop you. But is it true? What's your evidence, or what's your argument? One can think anything, or assert anything. But a private belief doesn't move a discussion of history along.

---

quote:

---

I understand the thing about George Fox et al. developing a new religion from scratch. That at least explains the huge left turn in how the worship is conducted. A total break with the past. What I dislike are attempts to take something new and read it back into the history where it isn't. Not saying anyone here is doing that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, I don't know the sources. But couldn't one also write a similar list of all the things that are different? I mean, does it say how often they met, at what time of the day, how long the homilies went on for etc?

---

quote:

---

Well I admit to being rather dim about most Orthodox practices, but I understood that this involved many different services at different times of day and for different days of the week. Without going into the detail of it all, I'm thinking that's quite unusual for the rest of Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Singing might sound superficially similar, except that (I apologise if I'm wrong) I understood that the Orthodox priests do most of the singing in your services. So again, what is it that we're saying is basically the same?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
Non liturgical worship developed out of the Reformed movement. Calvin wanted to eliminate the Roman symbols as much as possible, and the liturgy was considered a Roman symbol. But if you look at most non liturgical worship forms you also see a definite pattern has developed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:
the shape of the church's worship, I would suggest both the influence of synagogue worship, and a strong element of inherent logic about it.

---

I'm not convinced that the pattern of the synagogue would have been that strong in the development of Christian worship.

For a start, before the destruction of the Temple, the synagogue was not a place of worship - worship happened at the Temple. We know from the Gospels that the Jewish Scriptures were read, and that there would be something said about them - Jesus on at least one occasion is invited to read the Prophets and say a few words. We know too that in the absence of a synagogue Jews gathered at rivers outside the city, as a place of prayer. So, presumably prayer was part of the practice at the synagogue. We know the Jews sang psalms, it was part of the Temple worship. But did they sing at the synagogue? And, of course, a very large part of Jewish religious practice was centred on the family at home, the Passover was eaten in the family home not the synagogue.

Several of the Epistles seem to strongly suggest that the Gentile churches took their model for gathering not from the synagogue but the symposium. The Epistles quite often address the lack of structure in the gatherings of the church, but it is clear that these gatherings would have centred around a meal - and not just a little bit of bread and wine, but a proper meal with enough wine for people to be drunk. Which was the pattern for the symposium - lots of food and drink, and a raucous discussion of philosophy, politics and whatever else took the fancy of the guests.

There certainly doesn't appear to be a particularly strong, universal pattern for what happened when Christians gathered. The Epistles, to an extent, attempt to curb some of the wildest excesses of behaviour (like getting drunk, or eating all the food before the poorest members of the community, who would be the slaves and servants of others unable to get to the meeting until after they have done their days work, had arrived) but don't really impose a structure.
 

---

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
Sorry I am blind in one eye and am working on a smallish phone screen. I don't know any Brutish Friends.

sabinr
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
@PresterJohn: Thank you for the reference to Psalms / Hymns / Spiritual songs. I didn't realize it was in there twice! I wonder if our NT scholars can say whether both Ephesians and Colossians are in the firmly Paul or Pseudopaul camp, according to the branch of criticism that makes that distinction?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Am I right in thinking that the service of the Word tends to reflect synagogue worship, and the service of Holy Communion the temple?

---

quote:

---

Well I admit to being rather dim about most Orthodox practices, but I understood that this involved many different services at different times of day and for different days of the week. Without going into the detail of it all, I'm thinking that's quite unusual for the rest of Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Singing might sound superficially similar, except that (I apologise if I'm wrong) I understood that the Orthodox priests do most of the singing in your services.

---

quote:

---

Of course George Fox was pretty keen on doing that and believed he had the true religion when everyone else who did it differently before was wrong and the antichrist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
Luther contributed to the liturgical movement by 1) writing the liturgy in the vernacular of the people,

---

quote:

---

2) encouraging congregational singing

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
It's structured in the sense that a quarter of an acre of rough grass with a fence round it is structured, but not in the sense that a quarter of an acre with a hedge, a drive, a kitchen garden, a croquet lawn, a pond and a house with four bedrooms, a study, a lounge, a kitchen, two receptions and a loft with a model railway is structured.

---

Well that's true, although I'm not sure that's a difference that is really relevant to this discussion. Quaker meetings still own property, put on meetings on Sundays at 11, are mostly populated by people wearing sensible clothing and end with coffee. In many Quaker meetings in North America they have pastors and hymns.

Of course, they don't have to do any of those things. But, in a curious and unexpected way, their very "otherness" has ended up - several hundred years later - becoming a mirror of every other church expression that is available to the extent that the only obvious difference is about their practice inside the meeting - and even that isn't really so much different to other forms of Christianity.

---

It seems different to me. In the Quaker meetings I've attended I've heard nothing like a corporate prayer or a sermon, a hymn or a worship song, there's been no offering, no children's talk or organ voluntary, no worship band, no responsive acclamation or confession, no Eucharist, no creed, no amens, no blessing, no standing or kneeling, no procession, no vestments, no altar, no choir, no bells or incense, no hymn books, no lectern, no pulpit, no projector, no liturgy.

Not so much different? I think the Quakers are radically strange.
 

---

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
Hatless, in about 2/3 of the Quaker Meetings in the US (and perhaps 100℅ if the Meetings in Kenya) you would hear a hymn, a reading (not always from the Bible, though), have a collection, and then hear a message, usually before the silence. I went to a Hispanic Meeting in my city where tambourines were s regular feature.

See my previous posts on this thread for some other examples.

Of course, we may still seem radically strange to you, but we have some range.

sabine
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Yes, I realise that. I was just reflecting on the British Quakers I have visited. And I didn't mention the lack of ministers/leaders/priests/vicars/pastors.

By the way, 'radically strange' is the finest compliment I know.
 

---

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
Thanks for the compliment, Hatless.

Most Quaker Meetings have pastors, too. Not in the UK, of courss, and not among unprogrammed Friends The radically strange part is that the pastor really can't do anything without the permission of the Meeting as a whole, and they are not ordained.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
British Quaker silence probably makes sense in a movement without official creeds. What 'Word' is there that a highly trained professional needs to expound, and why sing praise to God, if half of your members are happy to be atheists or agnostics?

No doubt there are secular and spiritual songs and texts that Quakers sometimes use, but while non-literalists in more orthodox denominations feel obliged to conduct an endless exercise in re-theorising streams of ancient, sacred words, it's unsurprising if British Quakers (and very many non-churchgoing Christians), feel no obligation to do so, or to sit under others who feel thus obliged.

But to give the Quakers a rest, it's interesting that the atheist assemblies seem to have adopted a version of the hymn sandwich. That's surely proof that many of them are ex-churchgoers. I wonder what symbolic moment they've incorporated to take the place of Communion?
 

---

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
I've been to a congregation of a church called Unity. Instead of a creed, they all stood up and recited their mission statement.

sabine
 

---

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
www.unity.org
 

---

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Thanks for the corrections

I also wanted to point out since Vatican II many denominations began to work together through the Council on Church Union or COCU to a new three year Lectionary. Many denominations have adapted it (with some changes) including non liturgical denominations. It also presented a basic outline of a revised liturgy that reflects many of the changes Luther began. Nearly all mainline denominations have this revised common liturgy in their newer hymnals, though not everyone is using it.

Of course, I know little about the Orthodox form of liturgy, so I am speaking from a Western perspective.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The basic shape of the Orthodox service is similar to that of pre-Vatican 2 Roman Catholicism and, indeed, the underlying structure of traditional Anglican liturgy - although it's not High Church Anglicanism on steroids ... And with a better line in beards and funny hats.

Most of the singing us done by the choir, often led by a cantor. The priest does a fair bit of chanting but he doesn't do the whole thing.

The argument would be that the RCs, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox - your Copts and so on - all derive their worship practices from very early models.

The Cathars broke away from the Catholic Church - they weren't some kind of parallel group. Sure, there were schismatic or non-standardised groups in various parts of Europe, such as the Cathars, Waldensians, Bogomils and so on but it's difficult to trace any form of 'succesion' from earlier Gnostic groups and so on - even if they appear to share some characteristics in common.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
British Quaker silence probably makes sense in a movement without official creeds. What 'Word' is there that a highly trained professional needs to expound, and why sing praise to God, if half of your members are happy to be atheists or agnostics?

---

quote:

---

No doubt there are secular and spiritual songs and texts that Quakers sometimes use, but while non-literalists in more orthodox denominations feel obliged to conduct an endless exercise in re-theorising streams of ancient, sacred words, it's unsurprising if British Quakers (and very many non-churchgoing Christians), feel no obligation to do so, or to sit under others who feel thus obliged.

---

quote:

---

But to give the Quakers a rest, it's interesting that the atheist assemblies seem to have adopted a version of the hymn sandwich. That's surely proof that many of them are ex-churchgoers. I wonder what symbolic moment they've incorporated to take the place of Communion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:
I've long thought that the style of worship is rooted in the culture in which it began. Thereafter, we like to stick to the safety and comfort of what we've known, call it tradition and get a bit sniffy at those who do things differently.

The case of Quakerism is interesting because the very early days of the Quakers were very different from what we see today. If anything, the early Quakers resembled something more akin to Azusa Street Pentecostals than Quetists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:
I've long thought that the style of worship is rooted in the culture in which it began. Thereafter, we like to stick to the safety and comfort of what we've known, call it tradition and get a bit sniffy at those who do things differently.

The case of Quakerism is interesting because the very early days of the Quakers were very different from what we see today. If anything, the early Quakers resembled something more akin to Azusa Street Pentecostals than Quetists.

---

To an extent ... but even that is to 'read back' later developments into earlier times. The early Quakers could be described as 'charismatic' in the broader, 'enthusiastic' sense but their gatherings wouldn't have resembled those at Azusa Street in terms of style and content - they wouldn't have had Afro-American musical styles nor Holiness/revivalist style hymns for a start.

I suspect one might cite contemporary 17th 'enthusiastic' movements for closer parallels, such as the Jansenists among the RCs or some of the more 'enthusiastic' forms of Huguenots such as those in the Cevannes.

Meanwhile, yes mr cheesy, I agree with your point that not all variations and developments have come down to us. Of course they haven't. I've read that there may have been up to 30 discernible variations/iterations of early Christianity - including Gnostic groups and so on - but it was what became the recognisable core Orthodox/Catholic model that survived and it's from there that all other forms of Christian worship have developed or diverged from to some extent or other.

It may be a de-facto 'normative' position but it'd become pretty normative by the end of the first millenium of Christianity and fed into developments that occurred 500 years later with the Reformation and beyond.

It's like anything else. There was a tradition of novel writing, a tradition of poetic metre, traditions governing art, architecture, dance, garden design and whatever else ...

Whether people riff with those traditions or depart from them, they're still working with or against the tradition to a certain extent. None of this stuff happens in a vacuum, it's all informed by whatever went before.

So if the Quakers are 'radically strange' (and I like the phrase) then they are only being so in relation to a particular received tradition. There wouldn't be anything remotely 'strange' about the way British Quakers worship if there hadn't been a received tradition to react against.

It's interesting to note, though, that the more free-flow and anarchic style of earlier Quakerism gave way to a principled quietism within a generation or so. It didn't take long.

I've long wondered whether some elements of the contemporary charismatic scene will follow suit - particularly on the more 'emergent' side of things.

That wouldn't surprise me in the least. I fully expect to see some form of neo-Quakerism emerge from that stable in the near future if it hasn't begun to do so already. I'm not saying that's good, bad or indifferent - but it's an interesting thought.

Sure, some 'enthusiastic' groups are able to maintain the fire and fury for some time but by and large all charismatic activity will routinise over time. That's why Pentecostal and charismatic groups tend to experience cycles of 'revival' and consolidation ... and why they have developed techniques to ramp things up every now and again if they feel things are becoming too staid.

FWIW, as far as the Quakers go, I don't think I could ever be one - I'm far too fond of my 'outward forms' - but I'm glad they're there and I appreciate their 'radical strangeness'.

I don't think any of us can avoid 'sticking to the safety and comfort of what we've known'. I mean, c'mon, the Quakers in the UK have done that - at least in worship terms - for some considerable time now. Sure, they've pushed the boat out when it comes to attitudes towards same-sex relationships and whether it's possible to be an atheist and a Quaker at one and the same time ... but when it comes to how they conduct their meetings - minimalist as they might be - I don't see how they are any more prepared to move outside their collective comfort zone as any other group.
 

---

Posted by DonLogan2 (# 15608) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sipech:
I've long thought that the style of worship is rooted in the culture in which it began. Thereafter, we like to stick to the safety and comfort of what we've known, call it tradition and get a bit sniffy at those who do things differently. <snipped>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But what happens when Fresh Expressions are no longer 'Fresh' or when 'emerging' groups have emerged?

---

They become a new existing form. Your point?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Simply that it ill-behoves Fresh Expressions advocates to take a sniffy line on 'traditionalists' as it were because as sure as eggs are eggs they'll settle into some kind of norm themselves and probably resist whatever comes next.

I'm not saying that everyone else should take a sniffy line on the innovators or pioneers though.

But constant reinvention of the wheel can make you dizzy.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Simply that it ill-behoves Fresh Expressions advocates to take a sniffy line on 'traditionalists' as it were because as sure as eggs are eggs they'll settle into some kind of norm themselves and probably resist whatever comes next.

I'm not saying that everyone else should take a sniffy line on the innovators or pioneers though.

But constant reinvention of the wheel can make you dizzy.

If you are wedded to the spirit of the age you can be widowed by it in the next.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I'm sure it only makes you dizzy if you participate in it, and participate unwillingly.

One can't always escape, of course. I understand that Vatican II introduced some changes to RC worship that had a destabilising effect upon very many RCs - to a far greater extent than a few Fresh Expressions of church run by a few sniffy Anglicans or Methodists a few decades later.

However, it could be argued that most changes in (Protestant) church worship occur fairly gradually. Innovations devised by leaders in pioneering congregations don't win everyone else over in one fell swoop, not least because most churchgoers are in the category of people who dislike change, and they can put up a fierce resistance if they want to.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, the seismic effects if Vatican 2 on RC worship dwarf anything that we've seen or are seeing with Fresh Excreta .. her, I mean Fresh Expressions ...

Ok, I am being unfair and deliberately provocative. In theory I don't have an issue with Fresh Expressions or new forms of 'neo-monastic' spirituality and so on.

But I do worry about innovation for innovations sake and some of the liturgy-lite aspects of this process because I tend to think it ultimately dilutes the substance and content as well as the outward form.

That may be an over-reaction or a misplaced concern, but it is my concern.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I do wonder what the aggregate gain is when new forms of worship from pioneering congregations become part of the mainstream.

Within evangelicalism, one of the most prominent innovations over the last 50 years has been the gradual ubiquity of the 'worship song/chorus' medley. This was fresh and innovative when it emerged from the Jesus Movement and the 'non-denominational' denominations ... But it's now become standard fare across many mainstream evangelical churches, whether Anglican, Baptist, independent ...

The only development/innovation with this format has been for it to become more soft-rock in style and 'band-driven' with greater prominence given to the roll of the 'worship leader' and a more 'performance' element intended to convey the atmosphere of the big rallies. I even know places with 30 or 40 regulars where they use tapes to enhance the atmosphere and make it sound as if there are dozens of people worshipping in the style of the big conventions.

Is this a welcome innovation?

I know plenty of people who are fed up of it but they don't know what to do about it because they perceive it as the new norm and think that because large and apparently successful churches do it, then so should there.

I have a lot more sympathy for those who experiment with 'Alternative Worship' or who go down the 'neo-monastic' route or use labyrinths and what-not ... But even there it all feels a bit self-conscious, forced and unnatural.

We are creatures of habit and become habituated to ways of doing things.

Yes, our traditional forms can creak and some times crack - but give me a lectionary and a daily office book, I'm not interested in cutting out shapes or messing with pebbles and poster paint. I don't want to be told what to do by a pimply Matt Redman wannabe who thinks playing the guitar will help him cop off with girls.

At least the Quakers give you space and silence. I may have reservations about their approach and fuzzy beliefs but they do have that in their favour. There is a rigour and discipline to it.
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I have never been in a church where the worship leader actually "rolls" ... but it might have happened, sometime, somewhere!

Perhaps that's what happens when you "move into a time of worship"?

[ 13. September 2016, 08:28: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 

---

Posted by DonLogan2 (# 15608) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I do wonder what the aggregate gain is when new forms of worship from pioneering congregations become part of the mainstream... <snipped for brevity>

---

The answer is they will probably not if they are truly fresh expressions (fxc). Yes they may display some forms of worship that come from other churches/denoms, because as human beings we tend to learn by copying. The whole idea is to have a culturally relevant church, not a graft from another church onto wild rootstock, which is just colonisation/church planting.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Doh ... 'role' not 'roll' .. 'rock and role'?

My apologies, incidentally, to Sabina for teasing her on her typos when I do the same. Particularly if I'm on my Smartphone.

On the cultural relevance thing - yes, I get that - but do worry that trying to be 'culturally relevant' only creates congregations that are 'people like us' churches.

I spent 6 years in a Baptist church-plant for which I retain great affection. But it was very much a Guardian-reading, graduates/professional singles and people with young families type of church. Nothing wrong with that as it reflecting something of the character of the area but I did wonder how sustainable that was longer term as people grew older. We were among the oldest people there.

When members used to tell me how 'culturally relevant' they found it, I used to observe that whilst that may have been the case for them, it wasn't necessarily the case for the old lady across the road.

There was a constant churn and turn-over of membership - up to 50% one year - due to the nature of the demographic - people moving away with jobs or else moving on to something they found more conducive - either a more full-on charismatic church of some kind or to one that was rather more liberal or 'emergent' - the church lay somewhere between those two poles.

It could well be that 'niche' or affinity-group type churches are a de facto reality and that all the Fresh Expressions people are doing are recognising that and cutting their cloth accordingly.

But it does beg some questions for me. I'm not sure what the answers are.

For instance, as the number of kids increased the need to make provision for them in the meetings grew - not only with a Sunday school but kiddies slots in the actual meetings/services themselves. Some of the singles and couples without kids objected to that and used to avoid those services either staying at home or meeting in a nearby cafe for coffee instead.

I can sympathise with that as I'd tend to make a bolt for any door as soon as kiddies action songs start ... but it does beg a few questions for me in terms of our aspirations for inclusivity and making room for everyone.

Is this an impossible aspiration?
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
You know Gam, I wonder if you might benefit from actually talking to people in FE and finding out why they're there and why conventional church failed for them. Often it takes a long time to realise it was the church that failed them, not they who failed at church. I get from your posts that you'd rather they thought the latter.

Better than standing at the side pissing on other people's bonfires, any road.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'd also say that a Fresh Expression that "runs out of steam" or becomes more like a standard church has not failed.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, I do have sufficient self-awareness for that thought to have occurred to me too, Karl.

I also 'get' the point that a Fresh Expression has a different aim and purpose to a 'church plant' or what DonLogan2 describes as some kind of 'colonising' effort.

That all sounds very laudable but my point is that whilst it's clearly the case that 'conventional churches' have failed many people there's no guarantee that a Fresh Expression isn't going to fail someone else. Indeed, the fact that it gathers particular people could imply that it is failing those it doesn't gather ...



But that's true of all churches, of course.

And as mr cheesy says, a Fresh Expression that becomes more like a 'standard church' may not have 'failed' as such, rather moved onto another phase in its development.

I'm not sure terms like 'success' or 'failure' are quite the ones to use in this respect, as we could end up with some kind of market-forces model. Perhaps we already have that anyway, but are kidding ourselves that we don't think that way ...

I'm sorry if I come across all cynical and curmugeonly but I've been round the block a number of times with churches that genuinely thought they were breaking new ground, being innovative, being the next big thing yadda yadda yadda ...

I got giddy and got off the merry-go-round.

So, no, I don't see it as a case of my standing on the sidelines and pissing onto everyone else's camp-fires - although as this is the Magazine of Christian Unrest I reserve the right to do so.

No, rather, I'm fully aware that by pissing into the wind then some of it'll splash back on my trousers. But one has to piss somewhere.

If some of it sizzles into someone else's camp fire then that can't be helped. If some of it slashes back onto my jeans or my cavalry twills (ha ha) or my sports-joggers, kilt or whatever else then that's my look-out.

I piss where I please. I particularly piss on initiatives that think of themselves more highly than they ought.

I would like to find out more about Fresh Expressions, if only to piss on it more accurately.



No, seriously, I'm sure many Fresh Expressions are terrific and are doing a great job for people who wouldn't darken the door of any kind of church anywhere. Fine. But I'm a warped and cynical old bastard and been around the block too many times to worry about my own incontinence.

If the piss splashes, then get out of the way of it. Hear it sizzle into the fire.
 

---

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
Tradition needs interrogating and renewing, constantly. It can't be frozen and then handed on to successive generations with no changes. The latter kills the tradition it seeks to preserve within a generation or two, at the most.

I see Fresh Expressions as being an interrogation of the inherited tradition, and of the ways in which it can serve in the current environment.

Doesn't stop me from feeling that there is incomparable spiritual nourishment to be gained from a choral solemn eucharist, but I am well aware that this is not immediately obvious to anyone, and even on full acquaintance is not going to nourish all. No new enquirer comes in off the street able to interpret everything that is going on. Hopefully there will be an atmosphere of generous self-offering (after the pattern of Christ) which will attract them to stay and find out more, but it is something I can see would take some unpacking.

So, returning to the original question, they do so because it is an expression of who they are as communities and what they believe they are there for. I think this is why experiments such as Fresh Expressions are needed and welcome. I would make a distinction between Fresh Expressions and church planting in that respect.

[excised the echo]

[ 13. September 2016, 11:28: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Within evangelicalism, one of the most prominent innovations over the last 50 years has been the gradual ubiquity of the 'worship song/chorus' medley. [...]

Is this a welcome innovation?

I know plenty of people who are fed up of it but they don't know what to do about it because they perceive it as the new norm and think that because large and apparently successful churches do it, then so should the[y].

---

quote:

---

I do worry about innovation for innovations sake and some of the liturgy-lite aspects of this process because I tend to think it ultimately dilutes the substance and content as well as the outward form.

---

I'm not convinced that traditional liturgies necessarily lead to traditional 'substance' when it comes to personal theology. In fact, I suspect that for many of us they become more important as our own theology becomes less orthodox. But they do bring a greater sense of our cultural connection with the past.

The truth, ISTM, is that these days almost all of us, whatever form of worship we go for, are likely to be less orthodox than the words on our lips proclaim us to be.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think that in our increasingly post-Christian and secularised context any form of Christian worship, church service or activity is going to need a lot more 'unpacking'.

People I know who are involved in choirs in quite traditional settings tell me that increasingly the people coming in for christenings, weddings, funerals and so on are unfamiliar with even the most familiar of traditional hymns. The whole thing is alien to them.

So, yes, in principle I can see the point of Fresh Expressions and don't have an issue with the motivation. If I'm pissing on it then I am doing so in a friendly fashion - if that makes sense. I'm trying to test the level of hiss and to see if it sparks.



I'd certainly like to take up Karl's point about engaging with those who have gone, or are going, down this particular route and he's entirely right that I should do that before pointing my pecker at the flames.

Or, preferably, instead of doing so ...

Most of what I've heard is anecdotal or from what I've read online and elsewhere.

I've been deliberately provocative on this thread so far. What I would say though is:

- I don't think that Fresh Expressions are, in and of themselves, necessarily whacky or some kind of dilution of the received tradition.

- That I've been intrigued by some elements of it that I've seen online, such as the idea of 'curatorial' worship ie. curating material for wider use and so on. Ok, so that's a buzz word and we are all 'curators' now but I like the concept.

- I can see that Fresh Expressions can provide a dialogue and creative challenge to the way things 'have always been done' ... and so on.

So, yes, those are the positives.

No church, movement or tendency is without its failings, nutters and experiments that fizzle out ...

I've heard a few anecdotal stories of hard-working, well-meaning and sadly unsupported Fresh Expressions leaders who've ended up with a load of loonies in their congregations ... but that can happen in 'regular' churches too, of course.

But the issue that does baffle me is this issue of 'cultural relevance'. I can understand that for particular language groups or affinity groups or even age-ranges but I dunno ... it's a concept that doesn't sit well with me.

I mean, over in Texas you get Cowboy Churches and so on ... ok, so they do have real cowboys in Texas so perhaps that's appropriate - but bloody hell ...

Ok, so what might be 'culturally relevant' to me as a middle-aged, liberally-minded Guardian-reading graduate isn't going to be so to the blue-rinse set nor to my own kids necessarily - aged 20 and 18. But so what? I've got plenty of things I can do that are 'culturally relevant' for someone like me - why should I expect church to tick all my culturally relevant boxes?

I understand that I'd probably feel very different if I were a recent migrant or not from the mainstream culture here and so on and so forth.

But why should I expect this, that or the other church to be full of people who read the same books as me, listen to the same music as I do, eat the same food etc etc?

I don't get that aspect.

Sure, I understand that the old medieval parish system is bust and that people gather according to like-mindedness and shared interests these days - but how the holy hell are we supposed to go about engineering churches that are directly relevant in every conceivable way with, say:

- Left-handed plumbers who drink lager.

- Goths.

- LBGT people (assuming they are all culturally homogenous which they aren't).

- Silver-surfers.

- Antiques Roadshow viewers.

- Birdwatchers.

The list goes on ...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Cross-posted with SvitlanaV2:

Ok, I get what you're saying, however in my experience most older charismatics are very aware of traditional forms of worship and are clinging onto the apparently 'newer' forms (or what was new for them in the 1970s and 1980s) out of nostalgia for their youth or because they think that to abandon or modify that in some way would imply some kind of failure or a regression to what they were reacting against.

By older charismatics, I mean 40+ and up to those in their 70s.

I also accept that adherence to traditional liturgical forms does not, in and of itself, guarantee small o orthodoxy on a personal level. However, at least with those you do get small o orthodox theology laid out in liturgical form - in a way that you might not be able to guarantee in all Fresh Expressions contexts.

That's fine, if, like the Quakers, you sit loosely by creedal statements and formularies. But for those of us who do feel those creedal aspects are important, it does represent a worrying development.

It all depends on where you're coming from, of course.

All worship is some kind of 3-D representation of what those engaged in it believe - or are supposed to believe. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

When I first attended an Orthodox service I thought, 'Goodness me, this is strange but I can see that it is some kind of representation/presentation of Nicene-Chalcedonian theology in liturgical form.'

What concerns me about some - but by no means all - Fresh Expressions worship is that rather than expressing small o orthodox belief/worship in a culturally relevant way (whatever that means) it could end up simply expressing the subjective values and interests of the particular niche group which is engaged with it - be it a motor-bike gang, a bunch of archaeologists or people named Trevor who like to watch Top Gear ...

That's my concern.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
how the holy hell are we supposed to go about engineering churches that are directly relevant in every conceivable way with, say:

- Left-handed plumbers who drink lager.

- Goths.

- LBGT people (assuming they are all culturally homogenous which they aren't).

- Silver-surfers.

- Antiques Roadshow viewers.

- Birdwatchers.

The list goes on ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Tradition needs interrogating and renewing, constantly. It can't be frozen and then handed on to successive generations with no changes. The latter kills the tradition it seeks to preserve within a generation or two, at the most.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Tradition needs interrogating and renewing, constantly. It can't be frozen and then handed on to successive generations with no changes. The latter kills the tradition it seeks to preserve within a generation or two, at the most.

---

*kof* Orthodoxy *kof*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


What concerns me about some - but by no means all - Fresh Expressions worship is that rather than expressing small o orthodox belief/worship in a culturally relevant way (whatever that means) it could end up simply expressing the subjective values and interests of the particular niche group which is engaged with it - be it a motor-bike gang, a bunch of archaeologists or people named Trevor who like to watch Top Gear ...

That's my concern.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DonLogan2:
Gamaliel – “People like us churches”? Is that not just a regular church, sit, stand, sing, pray, in a certain way then return to middle-class home?
Please do yourself a favour before you make a fool of yourself and read up a bit more about fresh expressions, what you describe above is not a fresh expression. They are not “Emergent” as many people seem to think, they are not messy church etc. I`m sick of people making offhand comments about something they clearly know a little about and then profess to know the lot just because they have been around the block a bit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

---

Fresh Expressions are not about doing things that you, Gamaliel happen to approve of. If those groups want to organise their own forms of church, the only question is whether you are going to do anything to help or just piss all over them - using your rather unnecessary phrase.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
but how the holy hell are we supposed to go about engineering churches that are directly relevant in every conceivable way with, say:

- Left-handed plumbers who drink lager.

- Goths.

- LBGT people (assuming they are all culturally homogenous which they aren't).

- Silver-surfers.

- Antiques Roadshow viewers.

- Birdwatchers.

The list goes on ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think church life is increasingly a series of niches for different kinds of people. Traditional churches have their own niches.

We like to say 'all are welcome' but it seems harder than ever for a single British church to appeal to very different kinds of people.

---

In a society where the consumer is king and finding satisfaction for oneself is paramount, this is inevitable. I regret it, both because Christians ought to be people who challenge the surrounding culture, and because churches ought to draw people from several cultures together (in fact this would be a wonderful testimony to the Gospel).

The only way to change it would be to decree that there should only be one, ecumenical, church in a locality, that churches should be 10 miles apart, and that anyone who travels more than 5.1 miles to church should be clapped in irons.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
In which case, Baptist Trainfan, you're advocating a return to pre-Reformation conditions where there was only one 'Catholic' (for which read 'ecumenical' or 'catholic' as in all-encompassing) Church per community.

As you know, that was also the model carried over by the Magisterial Reformers and which applied to the Church of England at the outset (or the Scottish Kirk, come to that).

So, as a Dissenter and a Baptist you'd be clapped in irons immediately ... thereby hoisting yourself with your own petard.



More seriously, @DonLogan2 - thanks for sharing your thoughts and the example from your particular community. I'm always impressed with initiatives of that kind, so please don't think I'm out to carp or criticise. What matters, ultimately, is the effect it's having on people in the community and what you guys are doing is clearly proving beneficial for the people you are reaching out to ...

If Fresh Expression forms of church do that, then great, more power to their (and your) elbows.

In general terms though, and I might be completely wrong here, my impression is that some well-intentioned Fresh Expressions initiatives can end up as 'alternative worship' exercises that suit the worship-style preferences of those involved - but then, the same charge could be levelled at many forms of 'regular' church and at cathedrals and so on, of course.

This might be one of those areas where it all depends on the intention as well as the outcome.
 

---

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think church life is increasingly a series of niches for different kinds of people. Traditional churches have their own niches.

We like to say 'all are welcome' but it seems harder than ever for a single British church to appeal to very different kinds of people.

---

In a society where the consumer is king and finding satisfaction for oneself is paramount, this is inevitable. I regret it, both because Christians ought to be people who challenge the surrounding culture, and because churches ought to draw people from several cultures together (in fact this would be a wonderful testimony to the Gospel).

The only way to change it would be to decree that there should only be one, ecumenical, church in a locality, that churches should be 10 miles apart, and that anyone who travels more than 5.1 miles to church should be clapped in irons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I would advocate the same approach to education. And yes, it probably is the only way to get people really interested in the provision for all.

---

And why not food? A commissary on every corner? That's bound to help you build relations with your neighbours, because you'll be eating on benches alongside them.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'd rather Chesterton's 'three acres and a cow' but take your point Leorning Cniht, but we are seeing consumerism eroding any semblance of community cohesion in some places.

Bags I the Commissar's hat though ...



But where do we draw the line? It seems to me that in some parts of the US there's a church on every block all competing with the one on the next block ...

Rampant religious consumer capitalism ...
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


But where do we draw the line? It seems to me that in some parts of the US there's a church on every block all competing with the one on the next block ...

Rampant religious consumer capitalism ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think church life is increasingly a series of niches for different kinds of people. Traditional churches have their own niches.

We like to say 'all are welcome' but it seems harder than ever for a single British church to appeal to very different kinds of people.

---

In a society where the consumer is king and finding satisfaction for oneself is paramount, this is inevitable. I regret it, both because Christians ought to be people who challenge the surrounding culture, and because churches ought to draw people from several cultures together (in fact this would be a wonderful testimony to the Gospel).

The only way to change it would be to decree that there should only be one, ecumenical, church in a locality, that churches should be 10 miles apart, and that anyone who travels more than 5.1 miles to church should be clapped in irons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Here in my small corner of Wales we have more churches than is sensible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So, as a Dissenter and a Baptist you'd be clapped in irons immediately ... thereby hoisting yourself with your own petard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I wasn't suggesting this as a realistic option, but merely to make a point.

As you very well know!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

Were there other variations (before 1054) that flourished then were killed off by the powers that be, and their very memories were suppressed? This gets into serious whackdoodle conspiracy territory. What we see in the real record is parts being tweaked or dropped or added or fiddled with in fairly small chunks.

---

So you don't agree this happened with the Cathars? I'm only bringing them up as being quite different to the (for sake of discussion, the pre-schism) norm and that they were systematically eliminated. There seem to have been quite a few other groups similarly stamped out by the RCC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Tradition needs interrogating and renewing, constantly. It can't be frozen and then handed on to successive generations with no changes. The latter kills the tradition it seeks to preserve within a generation or two, at the most.

---

*kof* Orthodoxy *kof*

---

I can't speak for Orthodoxy, having little experience. However, I can speak for Anglicanism, where this fundamental error is being made in certain circles, and the death-nell is becoming audible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I would advocate the same approach to education. And yes, it probably is the only way to get people really interested in the provision for all.

---

And why not food? A commissary on every corner? That's bound to help you build relations with your neighbours, because you'll be eating on benches alongside them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
We don't know that the liturgy of the Cathars was any different in shape than that of the RCC at the time. In fact, all the evidence we actually have indicates that the shape of the Eucharistic liturgy is consistent from very early times (Justin Martyr is mid-2nd c.) and across the breadth of Christendom both Eastern and Western.

---

quote:

---

And although the Reformers changed details of the Eucharist, the general shape is still the same from Luther to Cranmer to Calvin to Bucer.

---

quote:

---

So notionally, it is certainly possible that the liturgical practices of the Cathars were vastly different to those of the Catholics, and that they completely did away with the inherited template of Christian liturgy--but there's no actual evidence to support that contention.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't know if I'm right, but I've an idea that most pre-Reformation break-away groups tended to substitute something else for the Eucharist or developed their own pastiche versions.

That certainly seemed to happen with some of the often bizarre break-away sects that later emerged in Russia. They would parody the Orthodox pattern only with the addition of somewhat transgressive practices such as - at the extremes, mass flagellation and orgies ...

Whether the Cathars did or didn't adopt some form of eucharistic practice doesn't have any bearing on MT's idea of some kind of ur-liturgy.

---

quote:

---

I have absolutely no problem with the idea of a reasonably standard pattern emerging across the Christian world at an early stage - with variations across regions and cultures. That's not to suggest they would have been identical in 3rd century Syria, say, to those in 3rd century Spain. But they would have been recognisable to each other and held features in common.

Also, the idea that non-conformist Protestants don't have a fairly standardised form of liturgical or eucharistic practice isn't the case either. You'd pretty much know what you were going to get if you attended a communion service with the Brethren or if you went to a communion service at a Baptist church in the UK.

---

quote:

---

I'm not saying that a 3rd century Spanish Eucharist would have been identical to one held at Santiago de Compostela today, nor that one in 3rd century Aleppo would be exactly like a Syrian Orthodox one today.

---

quote:

---

But they would all share characteristics with the broad pattern described by Justin Martyr. I don't doubt that they were more informal, with less bling and the kind of baroque twiddles and flourishes associated with later iterations, but the underlying architecture was developing by that time. It didn't just start in the 4th century.

---

quote:

---

The thing is, however we worship we develop a pattern. Get over it already. The Quakers have a pattern. The Pentecostals have a pattern. Everyone does.

---

That's not in question. The point that you're trying to assert is that the patterns are variations on the same pattern. They're not.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No, it's not utter drivel.

The onus is on you to demonstrate that how Christians in 3rd century Spain were doing anything substantially different to those in 3rd century Syria.

You can't prove that they weren't any more than I can 100% prove that they were.

I also think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I can't speak for Mousethief. He can speak for himself.

It could be that I haven't articulated things as clearly as I could have done.

I'm not saying that everything was 100% identical between 3rd century Spain and 3rd century Syria when it came to how Christian worship was conducted.

What I am saying is that a broad pattern had probably emerged by that time and it had particular components in common right across the board.

Sure, there would have been regional variations, variations of custom and emphasis, but broadly speaking the pattern would be recognisable.

I don't see why that is so contentious.

I'm not suggesting that a particular 'ur-liturgy' was written down as some kind of official encyclical at 3.15pm on a Wednesday afternoon on 23rd August 175AD and immediately became 'binding' on all Christian congregations worldwide - whether in Egypt, Syria, Greece, Gaul or wherever else.

What I am suggesting is that a recognisable pattern had emerged by a relatively early date.

Cut me some slack. I don't believe that St Luke painted the first icon of the Virgin Mary nor that what became the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom was already firmly in place centuries before he was born ... nor even that St John Chrysostom had a great deal to do with the Liturgy that bears his name ...

Why does it matter that groups like the Cathars departed from the norm, or even that they may have been groups, now lost to history, who did things in a different kind of way?

So what?

Arius didn't believe in the Trinity. What does tht tell us? At the very least it tells us that there were dissenting voices. Fine. But am I going to become Arian simply because Arius didn't toe what was to become a particular party-line?



I'm not saying that Quakers shouldn't do what Quakers do nor that Baptists or Methodists or anyone else shouldn't do what they do either.

But what I am saying is that a basic pattern for Christian worship did evolve and did acquire something of a consensus. I don't see what's so contentious about that.

You can see echoes and elements of that consensus across most Christian groups today, for goodness sake. The reason I was able to 'clock' and recognise aspects of the Orthodox Liturgy when I first encountered it was because I could spot parallels with features of the Anglican and other liturgies I was more familiar with.

I can understand Americans when they speak and write English. They may use different idioms but it's still English.

You may as well say that American English and UK English bear no relation to one another and share no common 'ur-ancestor'. That would be equally as bollocks as your challenge to my post.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote, mr cheesy.

In relation to non-conformist Protestant styles of service I was referring to 'form' rather than belief. To be fair, perhaps I should have made that clearer.

As Mousethief wrote, upthread I think, the fact that a Seventh Day Adventist group meeting on a Saturday has a similar form of service to that of a Presbyterian one meeting on a Sunday, it doesn't follow that their beliefs are identical.

What I said was that you're pretty much sure what you are going to get if you rolled up at a Brethren breaking of bread service or to a Baptist communion service ... thinking primarily of the format rather than any similarities in terms of belief. Essentially, both would be 'memorialist' in the Zwinglian radical reformation sense - but that doesn't necessarily imply that they'll be on the same page in other ways.

Now, I really don't see, though, what is so contentious about suggesting that similar worship formats existed across the whole of the Christianised world from a relatively early date. I'm sure you wouldn't have been able to tell much difference in terms of outward form between an Arian service and a Trinitarian one - you'd have to pick up the cues and clues in terms of what was said and sung.

The frescoes at Ravenna are said to be more Arian than Trinitarian in terms of themes. I wouldn't have been able to tell that simply by looking at them. I need commentary and interpretation to help me with that.

Perhaps I've been living under the shadow of the Orthodox for too long but it does amuse me how many Protestants - and I think we see this with Mudfrog to an extent with his Salvationist viewpoint - seem to go up like scalded cats as soon as anyone suggests a modicum of continuation between a 3rd century Syrian congregation say, and the Orthodox Church around 1100 ... or between a 3rd century Spanish congregation and a Roman Catholic church around 1100 ...

No, no, no ... that can't possibly be the case! Shock, horror ... They must have been very, very different ... I can't allow it!

Of course there's a connection/continuation.

What developed into Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy or the Copts and Armenians etc didn't suddenly spring out of nowhere around the time of Constantine ...

I'm not for a moment suggesting that they all used identical liturgies nor that they were completely uniform in their beliefs ... the whole thing was under development, work in progress ... that's why there were the various Councils and so on.

All I'm suggesting is that there was a discernible and recognisable pattern comparatively early on - and Justin Martyr attests to that. It doesn't mean that there weren't groups somewhere or other who did things differently to how Justin describes.

Things could have worked out differently.

Arius might have 'won' for instance ...

But we are where we are and we've got what we've got.

However we cut it - and yes there's a lot of diversity - there are only so many ways you can conduct some kind of church meeting or service with the elements we've got to work with - some broad principles and indications from the scriptures, a shed-load of tradition (whether we like it or not) ...

The Quaker silence is pretty radical. But as far as what anyone else does it all seems a variation on a theme to me ... irrespective of the differences in belief there might be. There are still some songs or chants, still some prayers, still something done with bread and wine (alcoholic or otherwise), still somebody preaching, teaching or waffling on ...

Short of us all dressing up in zebra costumes I'm not sure what else we could do that breaks out of that basic pattern and format. Wear helicopter blades on our hats?
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


What I am saying is that a broad pattern had probably emerged by that time and it had particular components in common right across the board.

---

quote:

---

Sure, there would have been regional variations, variations of custom and emphasis, but broadly speaking the pattern would be recognisable.

---

quote:

---

I don't see why that is so contentious.

I'm not suggesting that a particular 'ur-liturgy' was written down as some kind of official encyclical at 3.15pm on a Wednesday afternoon on 23rd August 175AD and immediately became 'binding' on all Christian congregations worldwide - whether in Egypt, Syria, Greece, Gaul or wherever else.

What I am suggesting is that a recognisable pattern had emerged by a relatively early date.

---

quote:

---

Cut me some slack. I don't believe that St Luke painted the first icon of the Virgin Mary nor that what became the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom was already firmly in place centuries before he was born ... nor even that St John Chrysostom had a great deal to do with the Liturgy that bears his name ..

---

quote:

---

Why does it matter that groups like the Cathars departed from the norm, or even that they may have been groups, now lost to history, who did things in a different kind of way?

So what?

---

quote:

---

Arius didn't believe in the Trinity. What does tht tell us? At the very least it tells us that there were dissenting voices. Fine. But am I going to become Arian simply because Arius didn't toe what was to become a particular party-line?

---

quote:

---

I'm not saying that Quakers shouldn't do what Quakers do nor that Baptists or Methodists or anyone else shouldn't do what they do either.

But what I am saying is that a basic pattern for Christian worship did evolve and did acquire something of a consensus. I don't see what's so contentious about that.

---

quote:

---

You can see echoes and elements of that consensus across most Christian groups today, for goodness sake. The reason I was able to 'clock' and recognise aspects of the Orthodox Liturgy when I first encountered it was because I could spot parallels with features of the Anglican and other liturgies I was more familiar with.

---

quote:

---

I can understand Americans when they speak and write English. They may use different idioms but it's still English.

---

quote:

---

You may as well say that American English and UK English bear no relation to one another and share no common 'ur-ancestor'. That would be equally as bollocks as your challenge to my post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote, mr cheesy.

---

quote:

---

What I said was that you're pretty much sure what you are going to get if you rolled up at a Brethren breaking of bread service or to a Baptist communion service ... thinking primarily of the format rather than any similarities in terms of belief. Essentially, both would be 'memorialist' in the Zwinglian radical reformation sense - but that doesn't necessarily imply that they'll be on the same page in other ways.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps I've been living under the shadow of the Orthodox for too long

---

quote:

---

Of course there's a connection/continuation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You still don't get it.

Read.my.lips.

I did not say that the Orthodox are necessarily at the centre of everything. But the fact that there is a common pattern or order across the RC, Coptic and Orthodox Churches implies at the very least that a common tradition/way of doing things had emerged by the time they went their separate ways.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0