|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Yet saints their watch are keeping, Their cry goes up 'How long?'
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Would anyone who wants a short sermon also say that they should have a barebones eucharist?
If not why not?
Why is the Word allowed to be for shortened and not the sacrament?
Jengie
Within the Anglican tradition it certainly can be shortened when required, and I expect in other traditions too.
Yes but I do not hear anyone routinely calling for it to be shortened. That is what I hear with sermons.
Jengie
Even the shortest sermon takes longer than the longest eucharistic prayer.
The eucharist with all its ceremonial is much longer than the longest Eucharistic prayer.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
But you don't have to have ceremonial. (Not even the Nonconformist version).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But you don't have to have ceremonial. (Not even the Nonconformist version).
That is my point. I see nobody saying here that the service went on too long because of the ceremony at the Eucharist. Yet a lot of congregations have very elaborate Eucharists far more than is strictly necessary.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
That is my point. I see nobody saying here that the service went on too long because of the ceremony at the Eucharist. Yet a lot of congregations have very elaborate Eucharists far more than is strictly necessary.
Jengie
Those of us from a liturgical perspective tend to find more "nourishment" (if you will) from the sacramental part of the liturgy, rather than the sermon. Many of us also get more from the Scriptural readings than from someone's interpretation of them. YMMV, etc. etc.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've known churches where the way Communion is distributed gets discussed, with usually the time it takes being a factor. "It would be quicker if instead of [current method] we did [something different]".
...and when we have a "big" service where the church is bursting at the seams (Christmas and Easter, generally), we change the way we distribute Communion so as to reduce the overall time. Whilst nobody wants an undignified rush, nobody wants to spend too long waiting either.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
The eucharist with all its ceremonial is much longer than the longest Eucharistic prayer.
Jengie
But 'the eucharist' includes the sermon. And if the Sunday lectionary is followed, three scripture readings and a psalm (more than is customary in many 'evangelical' places.) Ceremonial, in the sense of movement, actions etc, does not take longer than the words in most cases; censing is usually done during a hymn or anthem which most churches have anyway. I'm not trying to score points, just point out that in Anglican understanding word and sacrament have equal billing. And 'word' includes more than the actual preaching.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Yeah
And I am pointing out that when you talk about cuts it is always in one section. I have been to plenty of Anglican Communions where there was no sermon.
I know because for me when that happens there is no "Eucharist" as well.
Jengie
[ 07. May 2016, 10:55: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
By the way my impression is that the hymn is used to cover the censing not that it would be there anyway.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
And I am pointing out that when you talk about cuts it is always in one section. I have been to plenty of Anglican Communions where there was no sermon.
I know because for me when that happens there is no "Eucharist" as well.
Christ said "do this in memory of me". Whatever else Communion is, at a minimum it is an act of remembering Christ and all that he said and did. It is, IMO, therefore essential that a Eucharist includes a reading of a Gospel passage, and an act of reflection on that.
So, yes - no sermon = no Communion. Without the act of collective remembrance then the minimal requirement of Communion ("do this in memory of me") isn't met, and therefore no other requirement is met. It's a bit of bread and a sip of wine, just that and nothing more.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Of course, a sermon isn't the same thing as a reading from the Gospels. You're surely likely to have the latter even if not always the former. And what if the vicar asks the congregation to engage in a silent 'reflection' of the text, or to contemplate a painting, for example?
[ 07. May 2016, 12:25: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
A sermon isn't even the same as remembering Jesus collectively.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, yes - no sermon = no Communion. Without the act of collective remembrance then the minimal requirement of Communion ("do this in memory of me") isn't met, and therefore no other requirement is met. It's a bit of bread and a sip of wine, just that and nothing more.
If I understand this correctly, how bizarre! The majority of masses I go to are without sermons - weekdays. Am I to believe that all of these are invalid?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Most midweek (and 8am) services I've attended have had a short talk following the readings. Those services tend to be said, so there is substantial amount of time saved as there are no hymns and the small numbers attending also reduce the time taken for communion (and the Peace). Even if everyone shakes everyone else's hand, if only 20 people attend that doesn't take long.
Although many denominations are fairly scathing about liturgy, it's mostly based on scripture. I've seen service booklets referencing the scripture quoted throughout the Eucharistic prayer and other sections of the service.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, yes - no sermon = no Communion. Without the act of collective remembrance then the minimal requirement of Communion ("do this in memory of me") isn't met, and therefore no other requirement is met. It's a bit of bread and a sip of wine, just that and nothing more.
If I understand this correctly, how bizarre! The majority of masses I go to are without sermons - weekdays. Am I to believe that all of these are invalid?
From a Reformed perspective, which is where I believe Alan is speaking from, not invalid necessarily, but definitely incomplete. In Reformed understanding, Word and Sacrament go together, and one is incomplete without the other. (And yes, I readily acknowledge how miserably we Reformed-types have lived up to this understanding with our historically infrequent communion.) I have attended Episcopal Eucharists with nothing but readings. I readily understand that from an Anglican understanding that is perfectly acceptable. But for me, coming from a a Reformed background, it does indeed seem incomplete.
This doesn't mean a 20 minute, 3-point sermon is required at every mid-week Eucharistic service. But it does contemplate more than simply reading Scripture; it contemplates some further reflection on the readings, some form of proclamation of the Word now. This might take the form of a homily, or it might take some other form. In some churches with an early morning or mid-week Eucharist with only a handful in attendance, I have seen it take the form of spontaneous reflection and conversation from worshippers. Of course, it also highlights one reason why regular mid-week Eucharists are rare in Reformed churches—you can't get by just with readings.
Once again, this shows how the different expectations and even ecclessiological understandings of our various traditions inform how the purpose of the sermon is perceived, and as a result, how length (or over-length) is perceived.
[ 07. May 2016, 14:35: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, yes - no sermon = no Communion. Without the act of collective remembrance then the minimal requirement of Communion ("do this in memory of me") isn't met, and therefore no other requirement is met. It's a bit of bread and a sip of wine, just that and nothing more.
If I understand this correctly, how bizarre! The majority of masses I go to are without sermons - weekdays. Am I to believe that all of these are invalid?
In some churches with an early morning or mid-week Eucharist with only a handful in attendance, I have seen it take the form of spontaneous reflection and conversation from worshippers.
I am not talking 'mid week' but daily - 7.30 am before getting the bus to work. 20 minutes is needed to say mass - anything extra and church becomes a leisure activity for pensioners.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
In some churches with an early morning or mid-week Eucharist with only a handful in attendance, I have seen it take the form of spontaneous reflection and conversation from worshippers.
I am not talking 'mid week' but daily - 7.30 am before getting the bus to work. 20 minutes is needed to say mass - anything extra and church becomes a leisure activity for pensioners.
The services I was referring to typically lasted 25 minutes.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And I doubt that churches in the reformed tradition don't have daily mass because of a lack of preaching.
They don't believe in eucharistic sacrifice - those of us who do want to offer the holy sacrifice rather than to be edified.
Which is why I said "one reason." Doubt all you want to, it is indeed one reason. Rejection of a Catholic understanding of the Eucharistic sacrifice and the implications of that understanding is of course another. There are other reasons as well.
As to wanting to offer the holy sacrifice rather than to be edified, you're trying to fit an Anglo-Catholic peg into a Reformed hole. For you, the sermon may be about edification. For us, it's not. For us, proclamation of the Word has something more akin to a sacramental character, because our understanding is that through the Holy Spirit Jesus is actually present in the proclamation, offering forgiveness and new life and calling us to follow him. So for us, omitting the proclamation in a Eucharistic service is ignoring the host of the meal.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Leo
Read for what the other person is saying. He did not say "for you", he said "for us". We are not required to understand the Eucharist as you do!
The Eucharist is perhaps best understood in Reformed terms as a participation in the heavenly banquet. The "host" is the Word present within the community. This is enacted/signified by the ministry of the Word. Otherwise, what is to distinguish us from a secular gathering of people?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The host of the meal is in the host on the altar.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
In Catholic and Anglo-Catholic understanding, yes. But that understanding is not shared by all Christians. And that's the point—any discussion of how long a sermon needs to be, or whether there needs to be one at all, is a comparison of apples to oranges if divorced from the context of the broader liturgical and ecclesialogical understands of a particular Christian community.
I am not saying that Anglo-Catholics are "wrong," at least not with regards to omitting a sermon or other exposition of Scripture at daily Mass. Doing so is consistent with and makes sense in the context of the foundational understanding of what the Mass is, what the Eucharist is and what a sermon is. I'm not suggesting you should be doing anything differently.
I'm simply stating that omitting some form of sermon may not be consistent with and may not make sense in the context of other traditions, where the foundational understanding of Eucharist and sermon is different from the Anglo-Catholic one. And I'm trying to explain why, for some of us, an Anglo-Catholic Mass where there is no form of homily or sermon at all seems incomplete—not because it is wrong per se, but because we operate out of a different foundational framework.
The host of the meal is the host at the table. For us, given our understanding of the role of proclamation in worship, omitting some form of proclamation of the Word before communion is akin to saying to the host, "we don't care what you have to say; just be quiet and give us the food." It's skipping the conversation on the road to Emmaus. For us. For others, this is not the case. I can live with that diversity.
Edited to add: Jengie Jon said it much more succinctly than I did.
[ 07. May 2016, 18:36: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Leo
Read for what the other person is saying. He did not say "for you", he said "for us". We are not required to understand the Eucharist as you do!
The Eucharist is perhaps best understood in Reformed terms as a participation in the heavenly banquet. The "host" is the Word present within the community. This is enacted/signified by the ministry of the Word. Otherwise, what is to distinguish us from a secular gathering of people?
Jengie
Jengie, and indeed Nick, would you mind expanding on that a little. I have my own understanding of what you are saying, but inevitably (for me) it shades into sacramentalism very quickly, and I want to be more sure that I am that this is reasonable. What I am reading is that they are both ways of making God present to and within the gathered faithful. Is this what you have in mind?
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Nick, on the basis of what you have just said, it would be improper for someone else to preach other than the celebrant.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
What I am reading is that they are both ways of making God present to and within the gathered faithful. Is this what you have in mind?
Yes, both are ways in which Christ is made present to the church, and both are means of grace. And in Reformed understanding, they are related to each other and (liturgically) incomplete without the other; the sacraments are often understood as the Word enacted.
That is not to say one cannot be saved without the sacraments at all. But in the context of worship, the sacraments are the "seals and signs" of the Word that has been proclaimed.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Nick, on the basis of what you have just said, it would be improper for someone else to preach other than the celebrant.
No, partially because ministers in the Reformed tradition are not viewed as acting in persona Christi, and partially because we don't think in terms of the minister as celebrant. The church celebrates the Eucharist; the minister of Word and Sacrament is the one designated by the church, for reasons of order, to preside on behalf of the entire community at the table. Our understanding is that Christ is present in and acts through the entire community, both in the proclamation of the Word and in the sacraments.
In congregations with more than one minister, it is not unusual for one minister to preach and another to preside at the table, or for both to preside together. By tradition, though, the benediction is pronounced by the minister who preached.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The host of the meal is the host at the table. For us, given our understanding of the role of proclamation in worship, omitting some form of proclamation of the Word before communion is akin to saying to the host, "we don't care what you have to say; just be quiet and give us the food." It's skipping the conversation on the road to Emmaus.
The quality of a meal is ultimately the people you dine with, not just the food on the table. We can sustain our bodies with a quick breakfast as we dash out the door for work. But, it is in sitting down together to eat and drink, and to talk, that we nourish our whole being. In really interesting, and interested, company even the most basic of fare would be a far more memorable meal than a fine dinner eaten alone.
And, at Communion we dine with Christ, who is the most interesting person to listen too and is infinitely interested in us. Even if the food on the table is just a bit of bread and a sip of wine*, that makes Communion the greatest feast imaginable. Why would anyone want to miss the opportunity of dining with our Lord, of hearing what he has to say to us? And, yes that does mean that we might need to take more than a few minutes to gather together, to hear the Gospel read and proclaimed and the sacrament administered. My memory of lunch-time Communion at the Anglican Chaplaincy while at university was that there was always a Gospel reading and a very short (2-3 minute) reflection on it before Communion - and, it was not unusual for the reflection to continue as some stayed on afterwards to discuss it.
* of course, it isn't just bread and wine. By some mystery we are nourished by the very body and blood of Christ himself even as he sits at the table with us.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Isn't the most interesting person we could invite to our table the homeless guy around the block?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It's not our table. We have been invited by Christ, who has also invited the homeless guy from around the block.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Well I grew up in a very motr reformed tradition, and your explanation says nothing to me.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Firstly you need to know two things. I am at the sacramental end of the Reformed spectrum and I have mystical tendencies. The language and description I use below are my understanding and are in tone distinctly different from how most Reformed theologians would put it. The emphasis in Reformed theology is on the rational and thus, that will be normally be brought to the fore. When the mystical occurs a sleight of hand is used to hide it from clear perception as it would break the rules of the debate. I am not here abiding by those rules.
A metaphor for a the local congregation in Reformed tradition is a workshop in worship. Before people start grumbling, I do not pretend to write poems when I attend a writers workshop, I write poems. We learn by focusing on what we are doing. Thus, we learn how to participate in the worship of heaven (or in the dance of the Trinity if you prefer) precisely by attempting to engage in it.
Equally, the Reformed understanding sees the gathering of the people around the Word as essential. The local congregation is a hermeneutical community of the Word. This is why preaching is not just teaching, it is the giving voice to the hermeneutical action of the community within worship. Pastoral visiting, mid-week Bible study, and such, other actions are the breathing in for this breathing out of the Word. Who does this breathing? It is Christ. Indeed, a major focus of Reformed understanding of the Church is that it is the body of Christ. The local congregation is a partial actualization of this and through worship seeks to become a truer actualisation. However this worship is not limited to the public services the local congregation puts on, it should shape the whole character of the community drawn together around this hermeneutical activity. Thus, the fellowship and the quality of that fellowship becomes the sinews of the Body of Christ.
Now let me take you to the upper room. The Reformed perspective would see the bread broken as standing for the fellowship of the disciples in the upper room Christ's crucifixion and resurrection are going to destroy that set of relationships so they can never be what they were, just as surely as the bread broken and eaten cannot be put together. However, if the disciples are to enter into the Worship of heaven rather than stay disciples of Jesus it has to happen. In this context, the covenant of the blood makes sense as the inception of the new community where there is a blurring between the divine and the created so that there is one great dance of love and worship. The leap John Calvin makes is to realise that if this is the nature of the last supper then that meal and thus all re-creations of it, are participants in the great feast.
Thus, for the Reformed the quality of the lives lived together of those who gather around the Word and Sacrament is as important an element as the physical bread and wine are to Aff-Caff.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
For me personally I see little difference, apart from possibly emphasis, between the Reformed ideas and the Catholic ones.
The Roman Mass is divided into two major parts :
1. The Liturgy of the Word and 2. The Liturgy of the Eucharist. Both of these are integral parts of the Roman Mass.
The Liturgy of the Word contains normally , a Scripture Reading from the Old Testament, a Scripture Reading from the writings of one of the Apostles, a Psalm which is sung or spoken and all this leads up to the Proclamation of the Words of Jesus in a passage chosen from one of the Gospels.
In recognition of the belief that Christ is truly present in the Proclamation of the Word it is surrounded on festal days with a certain amount of ceremonial. The Gospel book is held aloft just as later on the Sacred species are. The Gospel book may be greeted with incense and surrounded by candles and the people stand out of respect for the Word of God.
After the Proclamation of the Word the rubrics specify a period for reflection which may be either in silence or through the words of a preacher who directs our thoughts towards elucidation of the meaning of the Gospel.
Even when Communion is brought outside of Mass to those who cannot come to the celebration, there is usually a Proclamation of the Word before the distribution of Communion.
Surely this is much the same as what some of our Reformed friends have been saying ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Like I said, I grew up in a very motr Reformed congregation in the Netherlands. (I'm still a member.)
My experience is that yes, a sermon normally precedes the Holy Supper (Heilig Avondmaal; we definitely wouldn't call it Communion). However, this seems to be more a consequence of how things are organised than a theological need. Most churches have Holy Supper once per month during their regular Sunday morning service, and that will naturally have a sermon.
There are services without a sermon sometimes; Christmas carols for example. But those won't have Holy Supper. I guess part of that is that they're supposed to be 'low-threshold'. But also, we already have HS once per month.
So, in practice a sermon and HS always coincide. And they normally follow a liturgical order that has both. But is there a theological need to have a sermon first?
There is definitely a need for preparation before taking part in HS. The only thing I normally hear that's a necessary part of this preparation is the liturgical Confession of Since. There's a text in the NT somewhere that says we need to make amends before going to the table, right? I can't find it so quickly.
But the sermon? A sermon is useful as preparation for HS, but I've never heard that it is necessary. Most preachers I know (once again very mainstream) would shudder at the idea that during the sermon, they would be some stand-in for Jesus speaking.
Also, we believe that God is present throughout all of the service ("where two or three are gathered …). I've never heard that Jesus would be more present during the sermon. Holding the Gospel book or waving incense at it would be seen as papist idolatry.
The whole idea that a sermon is a necessary condition for Holy Supper is alien to me.
[ 08. May 2016, 14:35: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
The external rubrics are similar, but the web of meaning in which they are engaged differs. It is highly patronising, therefore to tell us Reformed that because we behave similar we must hold the same understanding. It matters in all sorts of complex ways whether the focus for Christ's body is the elements or the community.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
... For you, the sermon may be about edification. For us, it's not. For us, proclamation of the Word has something more akin to a sacramental character, because our understanding is that through the Holy Spirit Jesus is actually present in the proclamation, offering forgiveness and new life and calling us to follow him. So for us, omitting the proclamation in a Eucharistic service is ignoring the host of the meal.
I've been puzzling about that statement since yesterday, and I still think, that either I don't understand it at all, or it's didactic nonsense. I don't see how one can claim 'of course other inferior ecclesial households may edify or expound, but we proclaim'. It's a little bit like somebody who said a year or two ago on these boards, I can't remember who or where, that at the Eucharist, the sermon/homily/exposition/proclamation/(choose preferred term) had to be on the gospel passage and not one of the others.
It is also much narrower than Justin Martyr's description of preaching at the Eucharist c 150 AD (Apology I 65-7).
Where I was this morning, the sermon was on the Acts reading about the Philippian gaoler. It was not conducted as a 'proclamation'. The congregation was encouraged to engage with what happened and to give feed back. Jesus was presented, 'offering forgiveness and new life and calling us to follow him'. The intercessions drew inter alia on the passage we had just looked at. We then proceeded to Communion in the normal way.
So, I'm sorry, but unless someone can persuade me otherwise, I think the distinction between 'proclamation' and 'edification' or even 'just preaching' is illusory.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
... For you, the sermon may be about edification. For us, it's not. For us, proclamation of the Word has something more akin to a sacramental character, because our understanding is that through the Holy Spirit Jesus is actually present in the proclamation, offering forgiveness and new life and calling us to follow him. So for us, omitting the proclamation in a Eucharistic service is ignoring the host of the meal.
I've been puzzling about that statement since yesterday, and I still think, that either I don't understand it at all, or it's didactic nonsense. I don't see how one can claim 'of course other inferior ecclesial households may edify or expound, but we proclaim'. It's a little bit like somebody who said a year or two ago on these boards, I can't remember who or where, that at the Eucharist, the sermon/homily/exposition/proclamation/(choose preferred term) had to be on the gospel passage and not one of the others.
It reminds me of people who say, "Other people have religion. We have Jesus." Or similar twaddle.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Alright, a conversation with my father, in the middle of my thesis. I had just stumbled into the realisation that Reformed services nearly always start with a very precise formula. When the meeting place is set up and the people gathered a Call to Worship* is issued. What is more, I interpreted that behaviour as marking the boundary between the secular and the sacred. This next bit is often denied
Me: What is the Reformed Theology of Space
Dad: That where the people are gathered around the Word and the sacraments are administered there the sacred is encountered.
Me: So where do I find this?
Dad: Well there is a passage in Barth
Me: Which passage?
Dad: I came across it when a student in Edinburgh and thought it interesting.
Me:
Actually, it was not as difficult as it then sounded. The classic definition of the Church from the Augsburg confession had been given a particular twist so as to create a ritual process by which symbols of the elements of the Church are brought into a conjunction before worship every Sunday. The emphasis as in much Reformed takes is placed on the Word (proclaimed and heard) but it is understood that the sacraments are also present if only symbolically in the font and table.
Jengie
*Call to Worship - usually one or two Bible quotes that mark the start of worship.
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Conversely the Word would be present symbolically at a Communion service if an open Bible was displayed at the front of the church, even if there was no sermon. (Of course Scripture is always read as well.)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Dear all,
A general reminder that robust discussion and challenging of assumptions are very welcome, but there is also a need to remain respectful of other posters' beliefs.
Terms that may come across as dismissive and which generate more heat than light (such as 'twaddle') are starting to appear. Please keep it polite!
Your cooperation is appreciated, as ever.
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Conversely the Word would be present symbolically at a Communion service if an open Bible was displayed at the front of the church, even if there was no sermon. (Of course Scripture is always read as well.)
No because the Word must be "heard", there is not the simple mapping that allows for that.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Jengie jon: When the meeting place is set up and the people gathered a Call to Worship* is issued.
Services in the Dutch Protestant Church usually start with reading Psalm 124:8, Psalm 138:8 and 1 Corinthians 1:3 in a row.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Isn't the most interesting person we could invite to our table the homeless guy around the block?
Quite possibly, which may be why Jesus went to such pains to make sure we knew that homeless guy got the same invitation we did, and that failure to welcome him was rejection of Jesus himself.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
So, in practice a sermon and HS always coincide. And they normally follow a liturgical order that has both. But is there a theological need to have a sermon first?
I can't speak to other Reformed bodies, but at least for us, it is actually a requirement. The Directory for Worship of the Presbyterian Church (USA) specifically provides: "Whenever the Lord’s Supper is observed, it shall be preceded by the reading and the proclamation of the Word."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've been puzzling about that statement since yesterday, and I still think, that either I don't understand it at all, or it's didactic nonsense. I don't see how one can claim 'of course other inferior ecclesial households may edify or expound, but we proclaim'. . . .
So, I'm sorry, but unless someone can persuade me otherwise, I think the distinction between 'proclamation' and 'edification' or even 'just preaching' is illusory.
Enoch,
I have tried to balance clarity about what I am saying—and not saying—with not being long winded. Your post makes clear to me that I have failed on the goal of clarity. (I've likely failed on not being long winded as well.) My apologies. Let me try to do better.
I am absolutely not suggesting that inferior households edify or expound, but we proclaim. I am not even really trying to draw a distinction between edification, expounding, proclamation, or any other way of looking at the "preaching event" per se. Throughout this thread, I've been operating with a basic premise—that different traditions understand the place of preaching differently and have differing expectations of it, and that those understandings and expectations inform a simple question like "how long should a sermon be."
I really don't view one understanding as superior to another, nor was I taught that one is superior to another. I tend to agree with Forthview's post above, comparing how some of us have described the Reformed view with the Catholic view. I would liken it to the proverbial elephant and say that all of us are trying to describe the elephant, but we do so from different perspectives. No perspective is wrong (though all may be incomplete). I don't think my/our perspective is superior. But I do think it's valuable and has something to offer the wider church, just as I think the perspectives of other traditions have something to offer us (too often too-cerebral) Reformed-types.
And, I think that for all of us, our particular perspectives inform other things about our practices, such as considering the role of a sermon in a Eucharistic service. The reason I kept using the phrase "for us" was to make clear that I was talking about why we do things the way we do. I was in no way trying to suggest that our way is superior. It was simply a matter of "we require proclamation (more about the word in just a minute) whenever the Lord's Supper is celebrated, and this is why." Not a case of others are wrong; just a case of this is why we do it how we do it.
As for "edification" and "proclamation," I intended no value judgment or distinction. I used "edification" simply because leo had used it, when he mentioned those who wanted to offer the holy sacrifice, not be edified. I took him at face value. I intended no disregard of edification.
Likewise with "proclamation," I did not intend any superiority or value judgment. I used that word because in my particular tribe of Presbyterians, that is the generic, all-encompassing word we use to describe what might be called the ministry of the Word apart of the reading of Scripture itself. (See the quote from the PC(USA) Directiry for Worship in my response to le roc above, which refers to reading and proclamation of the Word.) 95% of the time, this proclamation will take the form of a sermon, which will as need be be edifying, challenging, comforting, instructive, etc. Sometimes it will take another form—music or discussion, for example. So really, by "proclamation" I only meant "that thing that happens after the Scripture reading that is related to them, whatever form it may take."
Finally, when I say that some services have felt "incomplete" to me without the kind of sermon I'm used to, I want to be clear I don't mean those services are inferior. I simply mean this: it's like being raised in a culture that eats bread at every meal, where bread is the staple food. Then one finds oneself in a culture that dorsn't eat bread at all; perhaps rice is the staple. The meals without bread maybe just as filling, nutritious and delicious as meals with bread. (Maybe even more so.) But if one has been raised to expect bread at every meal, it may took some time before a breadless meal still feels like a complete meal. Does that make sense?
I've definitely failed at being concise now, but I hope this clarifies where I'm coming from—and where I'm not coming from.
[ 08. May 2016, 20:59: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I'm sorry. I'm even more mystified. In what way would I perceive a sermon that you would classify as a 'proclamation' as different from a run of the mill one that wasn't? How would I know whether it passed the test?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm sorry. I'm even more mystified. In what way would I perceive a sermon that you would classify as a 'proclamation' as different from a run of the mill one that wasn't? How would I know whether it passed the test?
if it's a sermon, it is proclamation, at least as my tribe uses the term, and as I'm it using here. To follow on the homily-sermon idea mentioned above, all sermons are proclamation, but not all proclamation is in the firm of a sermon. Again, I was simply using "proclamation" as a more expansive and more inclusive term than "sermon" or "homily."
[ 08. May 2016, 21:33: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
"Proclamation" is bringing the Gospel message to the hearts and minds of the congregation, which includes the preacher*. The method by which that is achieved is secondary, so a sermon (of whatever duration), discussion, guided meditation etc all count as proclamation.
The ultimate test is that the Gospel proclaimed in worship leads to the Gospel proclaimed by the congregation in word and deed for the rest of the week.
* similar to presiding over Communion, the Reformed preacher is leading the proclamation of the Gospel, inorder to ensure good order, but stands as part of the congregation in needing to hear the proclaimed Gospel and collectively to proclaim it. We have an aversion to elevating individuals to positions which sets them apart from the congregation.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Is it possible, for Reformed Christians, for the words of the Gospel text to reach by the powers of the words alone, the hearts and minds of the community ? Or is it essential to have an 'interpretation' of the meaning of the text provided by a preacher ?
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
There is always interpretation even if with just the plain words. The words are never without interpretation. At the very least which words are chosen, the context in which they are spoken and how they are spoken all give a layer of meaning that people read when they interpret.
The Reformed emphasis on informed interpretation is rather to counteract ill-informed interpretation than because the Word is solely heard through it. Ideally, it is an informed preacher talking to an informed congregation who are weighing his words.
You are dealing with a tradition that is hyper-sensitive to the malleability of symbols (hence the absence of many) long before post-modernism came about.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Is it possible, for Reformed Christians, for the words of the Gospel text to reach by the powers of the words alone, the hearts and minds of the community ? Or is it essential to have an 'interpretation' of the meaning of the text provided by a preacher ?
Strictly speaking, interpretation by a preacher is not required. It may be the norm, but it is not the only option.
To add to what Jengie Jon said, and to what Alan Cresswell said a few posts earlier, I'd say that what is considered essential is that there be some sort of engagement by the gathered community with the Scripture that has been read. Again, a sermon is the most common way this is done, but it is not the only way.
And when talking about what would be considered "essential," I at least am talking only about the context of a Eucharistic service specifically, or of a Sunday service generally. I have attended many (Presbyterian) services of Morning Prayer or Evening Prayer, for example, where the Scripture readings stand alone. It's only when the Lord's Supper is celebrated, or in the Lord's Day Service, that something more than reading the Scripture is deemed essential.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
My understanding of the Dutch type of Reformism is that what's really required before going to the table is beproeving . I guess you could translate this as '(self-)examination' but in orthodox Reformed circles it has stricter overtones. Beproeving is like a physical test: it's going to hurt, whether you pass or fail. Beproeving is spending 40 years in the desert.
Now, in very strict congregations this will typically take the form of a hell and brimfire sermon, but I've looked through all church orders and ordinances and I've found nowhere that it has to take the form of a sermon.
[ 10. May 2016, 09:31: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Church of England rubric 13 only requires a sermon of Sundays and feast days.
I actually read the rubric as being much stronger, not far from the classical reformed position, "The sermon is an integral part of the Liturgy of the Word". All that comes after in the rubric (only on Sundays is this a norm, and various other activities may be occasionally be permitted) is a concession to human weakness!
(On weekdays I am grateful for the concession.)
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
