homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Is the Church of England in terminal decline? (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Is the Church of England in terminal decline?
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'll buy your analysis to a large extent, ken, and can certainly understand the evangelical suspicions ...

Only today I read a review of a book about W H Auden's religious faith which noted that he was unorthodox in the traditional sense and that liturgy that was light on doctrine but heavy on bells'n'smells suited him.

There is, I think, an understandable, but also quite off-putting, interfering tendency about evangelical Anglicanism. Our vicar always prefaces the recitation of the Creeds with a proviso that 'you don't have to say it if you don't mean it ...' as if the sky would fall in if people were to come in and say them without necessarily signing up to them.

The summaries on this thread about Open Evangelicalism strike me as very accurate and well observed. Thanks, folks. But what it also reveals, I think, is how un-Open it actually is.

I think the gay issue will sort itself out in time, as has been suggested - and whilst I'm not (yet?) an out-and-out sacramentalist or liturgical freak - I do find myself wanting 'more' than the usual half-baked worship songs (which do tend into 'Jesus is my boyfriend' territory) and an often perfunctory approach to the eucharist as some kind of after-thought.

I suspect that Open Evangelicalism isn't really where I'm at these days ...

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379

 - Posted      Profile for Belle Ringer   Email Belle Ringer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
people went to church for dubious reasons and in many areas their reasons were purely because they would not have had a job on Monday if they hadn't turned up at church on Sunday. Mills, mines, factories, farms: we were a hycopritical nation when it came to faith and not above bullying our workforce.

A degree of shallow 'social churchgoing' or 'social Christianity' might be necessary in order to create an atmosphere in which a believing and heartfelt faith can be nurtured. At least some people who grow up in that environment see glimpses of something more, and make a spiritual discovery of their own. Without it, the chances of such a discovery are fewer.
I'm intrigued by this and pondering it. It sounds like becoming God-aware is dependent on already believing in a god, or already knowing the peculiar language the church developed to talk about God. My first reaction is no, the very early church didn't develop in a nominally Christian environment, but I suppose one can argue it grew in a religious environment, even if that environment was for several centuries anti-Christian most people believed in one or more gods.

Still, we have a God who likes to reveal himherself. Andrew Greeley (Catholic priest and sociology professor) did a lot of research and concluded 1/3rd of people have a mystical experience, some have multiple such experiences.

Maybe we need to start with a model "God communicates directly with individuals today" through circumstances that line up so perfectly one just has to wonder if it was somehow "planned." Through dreams (atheist friends tell me, wide eyed, about instances like being told in a dream "go to this ranch you've never been to, your horse is waiting" and going there and there's a horse they saw in the dream, and the owner has newly decided to sell it). Through mystical experiences. Through reassuring visits from a recently dead loved one -- some tell of that "visit" being how they first learned of the death.

If we start with a model of "people today have their own experiences that there is more than physical reality" and think of the church as helping people move into God-awareness through those experiences, and then broaden that awareness into it's implications about how we live, there is no need for a "Christianity aware culture" to grow the church.

(What's happening among my friends is, the church ignores or discourages this aspect of their reality, non-Christian groups accept it as normal, so they go to non-Christian understandings of reality. I'm not suggesting seeking spiritual experiences thru seances etc, but openly accepting the experiences people avoid talking about except with trusted friends lest they be labeled crazy or accused of trafficking in demons.)

If God has been silent since the Ascension, if all we have is an old story handed down, can't we at least stop using language that is meaningless to the man in the street (I'm not talking Chaucer, I'm talking words like "sin" and "justification" and "grace"; even the building uses strange words like Narthex and Sanctuary instead of normal English words). Use the language of today's non-believer if you want to reach non-believers.

I guess some people think first you get people into church somehow, then they'll find God, others think first people find God outside church, then they go to church to find more of God. Maybe it's both? In which case God is not at all dependent on a "Christian culture." Billy Graham argued many people have been inoculated against belief in God by passing acquaintance with Christian culture.

Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Most Western evangelism relies on the idea that people have a basic knowledge of the Christian narratives. You therefore have a common knowledge on which to start your conversation and something to reference.

About eighty years ago the Church (with maybe the exception of Roman Catholic Church) began withdrawing its support from the general projects that kept many people engage with the congregation but on the periphery and concentrating its focus on the people who were in the centre. If I recall correctly it was the Parish Communion Movement for Anglicans and the Family Church Movement for Non-Conformists.

Now if you take the congregation I was in when I was a teenager, they had among the adult members perhaps a division of thirds. A third had come from elsewhere, one third were the children of keen members and one third were the loosely attached as children. It was not a very big congregation. It is also true that there were a lot more loosely attached children in the congregation some forty years previously than there were children of keen members.

So it is true that they got a higher return of their members' children than they did from the loosely attached, but to decide to not recruit a third of your congregation means you would need to attain something like 100% retention for you to grow just by concentrating on members children. Need I point out that that is very unlikely.

We have lost a lot of ground due to this, mainly in general sort of support with the view that "church" is a good thing, perhaps innocuous but at least keeps the kids off the street sort of way. We also no longer provide children with ready access to the Christian narrative in a safe enviroment. This means our techniques of evangelism need to change, from looking at those who are "dechurched" to those for "unchurched".

Jengei

--------------------
"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
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
a sort of English Shinto, a coinage of which I am inordinately fond.

And which, on re-reading those old posts, I find I used ambiguously - in one case the kind of arts-and-crafty early-20th-century high churchmanship, in another the late-18th/early-19th-century high churchmanship - two very different kinds of Anglicanism united by little but the word "high" in the name and a tendency to conflate church and state.[/QB][/QUOTE]

I can see the tendency to conflate church and state in places like Westminster Abbey, and many cathedrals, which otherwise adopted enthusiastically the arts-and-crafts, rushes-on-the-floor (not literally in their case, usually) Warham Guild good taste Anglicanism. But it certainly wasn't true of most parish churches in that tradition (at least, nowhere near as much as with the Mattins-and-Parade central churchmanship places). It wasn't true of Conrad Noel (despite the reservations expressed above) nor of Blessed Percy Dearmer. I don't think it was true of Southwark Cathedral either (though being what and where it is I suppose they had to compromise to some extent).

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:


There is, I think, an understandable, but also quite off-putting, interfering tendency about evangelical Anglicanism. Our vicar always prefaces the recitation of the Creeds with a proviso that 'you don't have to say it if you don't mean it ...' as if the sky would fall in if people were to come in and say them without necessarily signing up to them.

From that perspective, I think many evangelicals misunderstand the more open and inclusive approach of catholics. W H Auden may very well have welcomed a theology-light, liturgy-heavy sort of religion. Many people do. That's not to say that the Church is play-acting and doesn't really believe the core doctrines. I suppose coming from a less individualist perspective we think 'belonging' is more important than 'believing', but at the same time, insist that somebody has to do the believing and it's the core of the Church. Not just bishops and priests of course; though maybe understanding and study has been undervalued and lay formation comparatively neglected.

The Church is most truly the Church when it worships, and draws all people into the mystery. The fact that some choose to stay on the fringes and simply 'enjoy the show', or that they continue to seek but are agnostic about many things, does not stop the Church from welcoming them. The Church needs a committed core, but it is not just the committed.

When we were considering re-ordering of the church some years ago, the architect, who was an evangelical, suggested arranging the seats in a semi-circle without a centre aisle. I was horrified at that suggestion since it symbolised a closed group with its backs turned to any newcomers. But I think it was the visual equivalent of Gamaliel's vicar's concern that the creed is for believers.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel


There is, I think, an understandable, but also quite off-putting, interfering tendency about evangelical Anglicanism. Our vicar always prefaces the recitation of the Creeds with a proviso that 'you don't have to say it if you don't mean it ...' as if the sky would fall in if people were to come in and say them without necessarily signing up to them.

This is certainly a trend I have noticed in OE circles, but I think you have misread the rationale. It's not a fear of "the sky falling in", but rather a desire to avoid anything that smacks of "in your face" evangelicalism, because that might be off-putting to unbelievers or those on the fringe. Of course, what it is really doing is giving people a subliminal message that there is, in fact, no challenge in the Gospel at all, and that it's quite OK, expected even, that incomers will be completely unaffected by the message that we profess with our lips to be life-changing. Apart from anything else, this is the height of condescension, and is, IMO, the greatest weakness of Anglican OE praxis, its tendency to underestimate the intelligence of those without its doors, and to infantilise those who it draws in. In a church that I know, there was a housegroup that had been in existence for three years, none of the members of which had ever prayed out loud because the leader had repeatedly told them that they didn't have to if they didn't want to.
quote:



The summaries on this thread about Open Evangelicalism strike me as very accurate and well observed. Thanks, folks. But what it also reveals, I think, is how un-Open it actually is.


Can you expand on this, Gamaliel? I fully understand that Anglican evangelicalism might not be your bag (though I think that, doctrinally, Opens, and particularly Charismatic Opens are much more sacramental than are traditional Conservative evangelicals, even if that is set in a praxis that is "liturgy lite"). Certainly, weekly Communion is pretty normative for many Opens, whereas ConEvo shacks tend to, perhaps, once or twice a month.

But I don't really see how it follows that they are "un-Open", rather than just that their particular perspective doesn't float your boat. The driving force in OE praxis is surely pragmatism. If JIMB songs work, we'll sing them, if people find icons or candles helpful in building faith, we have a theology that is cool with that. All age worship with silly action songs?; bring it on! I suppose their proof text is I Cor 9:22 What really counts for OEs is relationship, and the rest is, well, pretty much window dressing, to be rearranged as seems best.

[ 14. July 2012, 19:17: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[...even the building uses strange words like Narthex and Sanctuary instead of normal English words...

Possibly a rather niggly tangent, but please could you tell me which 'normal English word' expresses the exact, or even approximate, meaning of 'Sanctuary' in this sense.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[...even the building uses strange words like Narthex and Sanctuary instead of normal English words...

Possibly a rather niggly tangent, but please could you tell me which 'normal English word' expresses the exact, or even approximate, meaning of 'Sanctuary' in this sense.
Narthex is easier, "the back of church", but "upfront", "the front of church" or "the platform" would probably serve quite well, without carrying the confusing baggage of the normal English usage of the word "sanctuary".

[ 14. July 2012, 19:33: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199

 - Posted      Profile for (S)pike couchant     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
You've got to be joking, right?

I was employing a small dose of rhetorical hyperbole, but I was certainly not joking.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

I'm pretty well educated, and am usually considered to have some facility in written English, but I find Chaucer challenging to read, and can only make sense of it with considerable effort.

Chaucer is moderately challenging — although far easier that 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight' — but I suspect that, with a bit of effort, the average ruffian from London could manage it. Said person would probably share a large proportion of his or her working vocabulary with Chaucer including some of the words that are, shall we say, increasingly popular in the mass media since the days of the late Kenneth Tynan.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:


And, of course, even if we can understand it, can we understand it rightly. Words change their meaning over the centuries, and that which a Jacobean would understand by "the darkness has not comprehended it" is very different from that which a contemporary English speaker would understand.

The meaning of that passage is, I should have thought, very clear in context.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

In any case, why should we be expected to relate to God in what is, basically, a foreign tongue.

Speaking of (humourless) rhetorical hyperbole.


quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

the hoi polloi

[Disappointed]


quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
are content to be consumers of a religion produced for them by their betters, then there might be some substance to your argument,

Well, that's not quite the phrasing I would have used, but — now that you mention it — I see very little wrong in that statement. Nor, of course, would Cranmer — whose intent in the formation of the BCP you evidently hold in greater esteem than do I — have done so. The first BCP was nothing if not an élitist, top-down, imposition.

--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.

Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Does "in the back of the Church" mean the back of the nave or the narthex? Does "up front" mean the front of the nave or the chancel? By platform, do you mean the pulpit, lectern, chancel or sanctuary? Do actual people expect to try new things without ever having to ask questions?

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Does "in the back of the Church" mean the back of the nave or the narthex? Does "up front" mean the front of the nave or the chancel? By platform, do you mean the pulpit, lectern, chancel or sanctuary? Do actual people expect to try new things without ever having to ask questions?

All the terms I quoted are commonly used for the forementioned areas. Not in the Quinquennial, maybe, but in common usage. People seem to get along fine with them.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199

 - Posted      Profile for (S)pike couchant     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Apart from anything else, this is the height of condescension, and is, IMO, the greatest weakness of Anglican OE praxis, its tendency to underestimate the intelligence of those without its doors, and to infantilise those who it draws in.



For someone who disparages this tendency, you've provided a lot of examples of it on this thread, not least in your argument that congregations and the general public should be addressed in a kind of baby talk in which 'the sanctuary' becomes 'the bit up front with the thing like a table in it'.

--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.

Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370

 - Posted      Profile for tomsk   Email tomsk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Angloid said:

“But bearing in mind that the average English village has [a] lost much of its population in recent years; [b] is lucky to have a school, let alone a pub or a post office - or a bus service [c] many incomers continue to commute to town not just for work but leisure and (if they are so inclined) worship, I wouldn't have thought village churches do so badly. A population of a thousand would count as a fairly large village: if the church only attracted a congregation of 25 that is 2.5%. A city parish of 5000 would need 125 regulars to match it, and we'd regard that as successful.”

Rural areas’ population make-up has changed more because young people cannot afford to buy property so move away, and incomers tend to be older. Falling birth-rate also reduces demand for schools. I don’t think it’s a case of reduced population though (the industrial revolution involved an exodus, but that’s going back a bit).

I read Rural Church Watch by Leslie Francis on the kind recommendation of a couple of ship-mates. It’s rather bleak, but that’s because it highlights systemic problems and their symptoms of moribundity. It goes back a bit (published 1996 and field work must be a bit older). Things are probably much the same, just a bit further gone, especially rural Methodism and the average age of congregations up with numbers down.

While, yes, relative attendance looks good proportionately, it’s spread too thinly over too many churches, and it’s not enough to sustain full-time ministry. Congregations strongly associate with their own church, but incomers don’t have that affiliation. There is no renewal and congregations age and dwindle. Keeping things going becomes such a burden, people have little time to be outward looking or to become involved in lay ministry.

Chris Stiles on another thread pointed out the problems of impending retirement of many rural priests. I guess this is a big problem as rural churches depend so heavily on ordained priests.

The C of E has less money to pay for clergy too/subsidise parishes, putting a lot of pressure on congregations. The economics of it probably mirrors how rural facilities have been lost.

Francis suggests a need to be more ecumenical and weaned off buildings, which would be quite a drastic recasting of rural Christianity, which people probably aren’t ready for.

I think the Church of England has further to fall numerically. There’s still a deal of ‘churchianity’/cultural Christianity that will dwindle away.

Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Does "in the back of the Church" mean the back of the nave or the narthex? Does "up front" mean the front of the nave or the chancel? By platform, do you mean the pulpit, lectern, chancel or sanctuary? Do actual people expect to try new things without ever having to ask questions?

All the terms I quoted are commonly used for the forementioned areas. Not in the Quinquennial, maybe, but in common usage. People seem to get along fine with them.
People get along fine with narthex and sanctuary too.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Shire Dweller
Shipmate
# 16631

 - Posted      Profile for Shire Dweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Cross referencing posts a bit much perhaps but Effort is a key theme here.

CofE Open Evangelicalism may have a “tendency to underestimate the intelligence of those without its doors, and to infantilise those who it draws in” @ Jolly Jape

I think its fairly reasonable to say that OEs (me included) underestimate the level of effort anyone 'new' is willing to make. Which can and does lead to comments such as 'you don't have to if you don't want to', which may not have the desired relaxing and welcoming effect on a Seeker, but be a disincentive to explore faith more.

But on the other hand many very Church-ey people can have feelings such as “I suspect that, with a bit of effort, the average ruffian from London could manage it” @ (S)pike couchant

This IMHO is off the other end of the scale by an implicit expectation that newcomers should make a huge intellectual effort to understand the vast Liturgies, Histories, Doctrines, Literary influences and Practices of the Church. Which may be me being OE again, but that surely will put off most Seekers unless they are either consciously or unconsciously seeking to make such an effort.

“Do actual people expect to try new things without ever having to ask questions?” @ Beeswax Altar

Perhaps I'm not reading this as a rhetorical question, but it chimes with the example that most Seekers I've met want to ask a few questions, but don't want to be treated like they can only cope with the basics, whilst simultaneously not wanting to make a huge effort.

Perhaps we should just let Seekers be themselves and not worry about it no matter what Church tradition they cross the threshold of.

--------------------
Right around the Wrekin

Posts: 77 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant

Chaucer is moderately challenging — although far easier that 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight' — but I suspect that, with a bit of effort, the average ruffian from London could manage it. Said person would probably share a large proportion of his or her working vocabulary with Chaucer including some of the words that are, shall we say, increasingly popular in the mass media since the days of the late Kenneth Tynan.


But you miss the point. Even if what you say is true, and it sounds unlikely, though I can't speak with authority as I'm not an English teacher, no-one talks to their children or spouse in archaic language. Why then should they use it in the only other relationship with which they can compare with regards to intimacy. Why put an arbitrary barrier in the way of effective communication.

quote:


The meaning of that passage is, I should have thought, very clear in context.


Most people with no knowledge to the contrary would think that "comprehended" means "understood" rather than "overcome".

quote:


Speaking of (humourless) rhetorical hyperbole.


It was intended to be neither hyperbolic nor humorous, but a plain statement of fact. If the past is a foreign country, archaic language is a foreign tongue, in that it must be consciously learned rather than picked up in normal social intercourse.

quote:


Well, that's not quite the phrasing I would have used, but — now that you mention it — I see very little wrong in that statement. Nor, of course, would Cranmer — whose intent in the formation of the BCP you evidently hold in greater esteem than do I — have done so. The first BCP was nothing if not an élitist, top-down, imposition.


There is a discussion to be had about elitism, but it isn't this one. Cranmer may have used the best English that he could write for his Prayer Book, but it was the best contemporary English that he could write (albeit with an eye on timelessness). He aimed towards loftiness of expression, maybe, but that aim was subservient to the need to be understood by everybody in the society to whom the Church ministered, from the King to the pauper.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199

 - Posted      Profile for (S)pike couchant     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
He aimed towards loftiness of expression, maybe, but that aim was subservient to the need to be understood by everybody in the society to whom the Church ministered, from the King to the pauper.

And that aim has not changed today. Take a particular bit of Cranmer-ese:

quote:
beloved brethren, the Scripture moveth us, in sundry places, to acknowledge and confess our manifold sins and wickedness; and that we should not dissemble nor cloak them before the face of Almighty God our heavenly Father; but confess them with an humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart; to the end that we may obtain forgiveness of the same, by his infinite goodness and mercy. And although we ought, at all times, humbly to acknowledge our sins before God; yet ought we chiefly so to do, when we assemble and meet together to render thanks for the great benefits that we have received at his hands, to set forth his most worthy praise, to hear his most holy Word, and to ask those things which are requisite and necessary, as well for the body as the soul. Wherefore I pray and beseech you, as many as are here present, to accompany me with a pure heart, and humble voice, unto the throne of the heavenly grace, saying after me;
Loftiness of expression it certainly manages. Furthermore, every word, with the arguable exception of 'wherefore', is still very much used in 21st English, although I'll admit that 'sundry' seems to be confined largely to those of Subcontinental extraction.

--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.

Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199

 - Posted      Profile for (S)pike couchant     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Because I missed the 'Edit button':

Some churchmen, I will admit, do seem to delight in doing things like describing the Maundy Thursday as 'The Concelebrated High Mass of the Lord's Supper, with Pediluvium and procession of the Sanctissimum to the Altar of Repose'. I will even admit to being one of those people, but there is surely a middle ground between that sort of language and the lowest common denominator use of infantile English you're proposing.

--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.

Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Apart from anything else, this is the height of condescension, and is, IMO, the greatest weakness of Anglican OE praxis, its tendency to underestimate the intelligence of those without its doors, and to infantilise those who it draws in.



For someone who disparages this tendency, you've provided a lot of examples of it on this thread, not least in your argument that congregations and the general public should be addressed in a kind of baby talk in which 'the sanctuary' becomes 'the bit up front with the thing like a table in it'.

But whether or not we know the correct name for a particular part of the architecture of our local church doesn't really matter. It might be nice and interesting to know, as long as we don't use that knowledge to look down on those who don't have that knowledge. But if we convey with our words and actions that God is distant and formal and not to be approached by "the likes of us", as opposed to the reality that He delights in and values all His children, or else we portray Him as One who exists only for our convenience, who never makes us uncomfortable or challenges us, or who does not inspire us to be more fully ourselves by becoming more fully like Jesus, then both those equal and opposite errors really are serious, because they impact directly on our ability to come into relationship with the One who should be worshipped in spirit and in truth.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Shire Dweller
Shipmate
# 16631

 - Posted      Profile for Shire Dweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Furthermore, every word, with the arguable exception of 'wherefore', is still very much used in 21st English
Its more than the understanding of words in isolation.

Unless a person wants put the effort in to learn how to understand and enjoy such Liturgy (which is indeed fabulous stuff), they may well see such words as unintelligible as they are read and said in a monotone dirge-stream where the meaning is lost and all that is heard is just “noise”.

All of which can add up to being a barrier to new (and existing) church-goers understanding and loving the meaning of the Liturgy which regardless of church tradition, is surely where we want people to get to.

Liturgy is to be performed, as far as I know, not read as rote like Pre-1990s school children apparently had to learn times-tables.

The key is where the “middle ground” lies as ever. Too High = Unintelligible & Too Low = may as well be a Nursery Rhyme

--------------------
Right around the Wrekin

Posts: 77 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'll see your exhortation, and raise you a post-communion.


Father of all,
we give you thanks and praise,
that when we were still far off
you met us in your Son and brought us home.
Dying and living, he declared your love,
gave us grace, and opened the gate of glory.
May we who share Christ’s body live his risen life;
we who drink his cup bring life to others;
we whom the Spirit lights give light to the world.
Keep us firm in the hope you have set before us,
so we and all your children shall be free,
and the whole earth live to praise your name;
through Christ our Lord.
Amen*


Modern English can aspire to loftiness of expression, too. FWIW, I think that the modern version of the Lord's prayer is not only more intelligible, but scans better, and has a much punchier "climax" than the traditional version.

*alternative post communion prayer from Common Worship

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ooops, this double-posting thing seems to be happening to me a lot today. Could a kindly host delete the duplicate, please?

Ta!

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Roll Eyes]

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
People get along fine with narthex and sanctuary too.

Oddly, I think with both those terms, there may be a pond difference.

I get the impression from the Ship and elsewhere, that narthex is a much more commonly used word in the US than here, and so much more readily understood. It may even be that churches are more likely to have them rather than a porch.

Also, in the US, is sanctuary used to mean the whole part of the interior used for worship, as distinct from narthex or hall, rather than just the part of the east end of the chancel inside the rails?


I don't think it's either fair or demonstrating historical awareness to congratulate Cramner for stylistic elitism. The stylistically elitist option of that era was Latin. The whole point of even the short-lived BCP in 1549 was to produce something that was "understanded of the people".

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oops, where'd that post go, (S)pike?

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199

 - Posted      Profile for (S)pike couchant     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'll see your exhortation, and raise you a post-communion.
[qb]

Father of all,
we give you thanks and praise,
that when we were still far off
you met us in your Son and brought us home.
Dying and living, he declared your love,
gave us grace, and opened the gate of glory.
May we who share Christ’s body live his risen life;
we who drink his cup bring life to others;
we whom the Spirit lights give light to the world.
Keep us firm in the hope you have set before us,
so we and all your children shall be free,
and the whole earth live to praise your name;
through Christ our Lord.
Amen*


/QB]

[Projectile] There's really no other response to such a piece of sentimental pseudo-arty faux liturgical prayer. How do I hate it? Let me count the lines:

quote:
Father of all,
This is not a great beginning. It could be a lot worse, but it's not great.


quote:
we give you thanks and praise,
There is nothing particularly wrong with this line. Congratulations.

quote:
that when we were still far off
you met us in your Son and brought us home.

This is sentimentality, and contrived sentimentaility at that. There's nothing wrong with the imagery of 'home', but this is more like Hollywood's 'there's no place like home' than the more suitably Christian 'All praise ant thanks to thee ascent/ Forever more, blest one in three/ O grant us life that shall not end/ In our true native land with thee' (incidentally, I have heard 'O Salutaris' used as a postcommunion; it works rather well, certainly better than the monstrosity you've quoted).

quote:
Dying and living, he declared your love,
The hysteron proteron is an affectation reminiscent of a schoolboy composition exercise. 'He declared' is a rather weak statement.

quote:
gave us grace, and opened the gate of glory.
I'll grant that this is a fine, even elegant, line.

quote:
May we who share Christ’s body live his risen life;
A potentially fine sentiment arred by the silly combination of 'live' and 'life'. 'Share in his risen life' would be an improvement.


quote:
we who drink his cup bring life to others;
we whom the Spirit lights give light to the world.

The attempt to continue the subjunctive construction across several lines does not work in the absence of a repetition of the 'may'.


quote:
so we and all your children shall be free,
and, lo, it suddenly seems to switch into the indicative. Is there any reason for this?

All in all, it wholly merits my original assessment of [Projectile]

The crime of its existence is particularly grievous in that there are so many good alternatives, not only the glorious Cranmerian thanksgiving, but also the wholly serviceable proper post-communion collects from the Anglican and English Missals. I diagnose a case of a self-important 'liturgist' richer in good intentions than in ability, who wanted to be immortalized, and whose work has been adopted by vicars who want to show how 'trendy' and 'with it' they are. Never mind that this isn't even clear, much less elegant, English.

--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.

Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
originally posted by Enoch:
Also, in the US, is sanctuary used to mean the whole part of the interior used for worship, as distinct from narthex or hall, rather than just the part of the east end of the chancel inside the rails?

In most Protestant churches, sanctuary means the whole part of the interior used for worship. In Episcopal churches, sanctuary means the same thing it means in the UK. I've never heard Episcopalians use sanctuary to include all of the worship space but some probably do.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Shire Dweller
Shipmate
# 16631

 - Posted      Profile for Shire Dweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Perhaps its late, or that I've realised just how Low I really am.

But (S)pike couchant...

You have a liking for things Higher than the Highest Kite. Which is fine.

But the post communion prayers you've cited as “wholly serviceable” would struggle and find resistance in any tradition other than High Church.

Which is why material from Common Worship is used as a "wholly servicable" compromise.

--------------------
Right around the Wrekin

Posts: 77 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Arrietty

Ship's borrower
# 45

 - Posted      Profile for Arrietty   Author's homepage   Email Arrietty   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
that when we were still far off
you met us in your Son and brought us home.

This is sentimentality, and contrived sentimentaility at that. There's nothing wrong with the imagery of 'home', but this is more like Hollywood's 'there's no place like home' than the more suitably Christian 'All praise ant thanks to thee ascent/ Forever more, blest one in three/ O grant us life that shall not end/ In our true native land with thee' (incidentally, I have heard 'O Salutaris' used as a postcommunion; it works rather well, certainly better than the monstrosity you've quoted).
You may find it over sentimental - I think that's a matter of taste TBH - but I've always assumed it was a reference to the parable of the forgiving father/prodigal son - which I suppose could also be over sentimental for some tastes:

quote:
He arose, and came to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

“But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe, and put it on him. Put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. Bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat, and celebrate; for this, my son, was dead, and is alive again. He was lost, and is found.’ They began to celebrate.


Luke 15.19-24 WEB version



--------------------
i-church

Online Mission and Ministry

Posts: 6634 | From: Coventry, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:

quote:
that when we were still far off
you met us in your Son and brought us home.

This is sentimentality, and contrived sentimentaility at that.
Don't you catch the echo of the Prodigal Son?

As for the post-communions of the English Missal, I have never come across such a mish-mash of pseudo-latinate pomposity and tortured prose. Better the proper ones in Common Worship, though even many of those are not great.

But these are distractions from the main topic. I think it is pretty clear that no one style of liturgy, language or theology is the answer. Churches of all traditions can be struggling; churches of all traditions are flourishing. People in general aren't attracted to a particular church because it uses the English Missal, or Common Worship, or extempore Services of the Word. They are attracted because it is a Christian community of genuine people who have integrity in what they do. And they are as likely to be Open Evangelicals as Conservative Catholics, or any other combination of flavours.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Shire Dweller:
Perhaps its late, or that I've realised just how Low I really am.

But (S)pike couchant...

You have a liking for things Higher than the Highest Kite. Which is fine.

What Shire Dweller said! I'm postgrad educated, quite literate and have been a Sunday-church-meeting-attending Christian for over 15 years, but found the bit of 'Cranmer-ese' that(S)pike couchant quoted a few posts ago very hard work.

I'd have thought that anyone without a church background who was new to church-going would find it similarly hard work; thus in my view it's a barrier, and a thoroughly unnecessary one at that.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Shire Dweller:
Perhaps its late, or that I've realised just how Low I really am.

Me too. (S)pike couchant did a good job in smoking out a sockpuppet (albeit inadvertently). Brownie points for that. But I thought the critical analysis of that prayer was too fastidious.

That particular prayer has many NT echoes (including the one Arrietty referenced). And the NT itself was compiled originally using the Greek koine, a common or vernacular tongue. To seek somewhat rarefied standards of linguistic perfection seems pretty out of place given the original sources.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
(S)pike couchant
Shipmate
# 17199

 - Posted      Profile for (S)pike couchant     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
They are attracted because it is a Christian community of genuine people who have integrity in what they do.

Well, provided that it also has an integrity rooted in the aesthetic heritage of the people — for we are, of course, homo aestheticus, and we forget that at our peril. In England, the ecclesiastical aesthetic is not primarily rooted in the liturgical expressions of either a 'high' or a 'low' ecclesiology (although, in so much as it is, it tends to be rooted in things, such as Nine Lessons and Carols, that are MotR but really one size fits most). It is far more rooted in the tendency that causes people to put on pepper-and-salt knickerbockers and bicycle about country churches rubbing the monumental brasses. The clothing may have changed, but the instinct that is still there and it is that instinct, combined with a general uncertainty about 'what remains when disbelief is gone' that ensures that England will always be a Christian country, if the Church of England allows it be.

--------------------
'Still the towers of Trebizond, the fabled city, shimmer on the far horizon, gated and walled' but Bize her yer Trabzon.

Posts: 308 | From: West of Eden, East of England | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
TurquoiseTastic

Fish of a different color
# 8978

 - Posted      Profile for TurquoiseTastic   Email TurquoiseTastic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
They are attracted because it is a Christian community of genuine people who have integrity in what they do.

Well, provided that it also has an integrity rooted in the aesthetic heritage of the people — for we are, of course, homo aestheticus, and we forget that at our peril. In England, the ecclesiastical aesthetic is not primarily rooted in the liturgical expressions of either a 'high' or a 'low' ecclesiology (although, in so much as it is, it tends to be rooted in things, such as Nine Lessons and Carols, that are MotR but really one size fits most). It is far more rooted in the tendency that causes people to put on pepper-and-salt knickerbockers and bicycle about country churches rubbing the monumental brasses. The clothing may have changed, but the instinct that is still there and it is that instinct, combined with a general uncertainty about 'what remains when disbelief is gone' that ensures that England will always be a Christian country, if the Church of England allows it be.
Even if your claims about the "aesthetic instinct" of the English were true - and I really don't think they are - this would not ensure that England remained a Christian country. It would simply ensure that the English reverted to a going-through-the-motions "English Shinto" in ken's apt phrase. The outward forms only have value insofar as they reflect an inward reality!
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Christianity, real Christianity is, as Turquoise Tastic and ken point out, a bit more than a Betjemanesque aesthete's view of history.

The stones can tell you only so much: it's the living people who built the churches and lived long ago, who, if they could speak, might be able to tell you of their experience of God, which might be able to enlighten you.

The journey, if you like, has both a historic and a current aspect. I am quite sure, in England now, there is enough of Christian truth available. It's a matter of finding where it is, and, when you do, keeping it alive in your heart and life.

These days, in England, Australia and elsewhere, there is much talk about Christianity. I'm not sure the real scene is where the talk and fuss are. There is an element of silence and prayer which must be offered up to God. Prayer, which does not request the return of the attached "answers list" in response, might, just might, get "the answer".

I think there are enough English people seeking "the answer" sincerely for it to come. Perhaps it already has and people in general have not yet cottoned on? Sometimes it is right there under your very own nose.

How much the Church of England, as it now exists, will play in any general religious renewal I have no idea.

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(S)pike C.: Sorry to be so slow responding, small dose of IRL distracted me.

Actually Jolly Jape said it for me back at post 90.

One of the problems with the style of church that you like is that it tends to house people who really don't like the great unwashed. Snide comments about their ability to read, or to follow the choreography of the ritual, can be used to keep people from coming back. Superior tones about how much better "our" manner of speaking is will turn some of the remainder off.

And insistence that nothing has actually improved since 1549 simply won't wash in the present.

I live in an area that doesn't have the "magic stones" piled on each other in suitably Ruskin-esque glory, so we can't expect people to get a feel for that lovely Golden Era (that only sort-of existed, BTW). Wood rots even if the building isn't pulled down because the population has moved away. Oh, yes, there's a lovely miniCathedral in Fredericton - and they can't really afford to keep it open. Fighting a desperate rear-guard action against the powers of evil represented by OoW and SSM has lost the ACC its place in society.

Trying to get people to worship in what is TO THEM a foreign language (ya, ya, I know, you are educated so it is much better for you) is an uphill battle.

And telling them "But we have always done it this way" tells them that you don't take part in their world. Why should they take part in your Other World?

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
originally posted by Horseman Bree:
One of the problems with the style of church that you like is that it tends to house people who really don't like the great unwashed. Snide comments about their ability to read, or to follow the choreography of the ritual, can be used to keep people from coming back. Superior tones about how much better "our" manner of speaking is will turn some of the remainder off.

Bullshit. People who don't like the style of church he likes use the supposed ignorance of the "great unwashed" as an excuse for doing away with it. Rejecting a form of worship because the "great unwashed" are too stupid to follow it is nothing but good old fashioned paternalism masquerading as radical hospitality (or whatever buzzword Christians of that ilk are using this week).

Do you watch NFL or CFL games wondering how the "great unwashed" manage to follow all the complex choreography or even understand the terminology? Both leagues must hate the great unwashed. Don't they know the great unwashed are incapable of following complex movements and learning new words.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
... for we are, of course, homo aestheticus,

Are we? I thought we were homo sapiens. And that's not a picky point. Perhaps we need to think about the social and spiritual implications of the impulse towards aesthetic exclusivity? For example, in the light of the Magnificat?

[ 15. July 2012, 05:48: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Horseman Bree:
One of the problems with the style of church that you like is that it tends to house people who really don't like the great unwashed. Snide comments about their ability to read, or to follow the choreography of the ritual, can be used to keep people from coming back. Superior tones about how much better "our" manner of speaking is will turn some of the remainder off.

Bullshit. People who don't like the style of church he likes use the supposed ignorance of the "great unwashed" as an excuse for doing away with it. Rejecting a form of worship because the "great unwashed" are too stupid to follow it is nothing but good old fashioned paternalism masquerading as radical hospitality (or whatever buzzword Christians of that ilk are using this week).

Do you watch NFL or CFL games wondering how the "great unwashed" manage to follow all the complex choreography or even understand the terminology? Both leagues must hate the great unwashed. Don't they know the great unwashed are incapable of following complex movements and learning new words.

Two points:

Firstly, this discussion is not about whether worship after the form described by (S)pike should continue to exist. It is about whether or not the decline in such worship is a symptom of "terminal decline" in the CofE. I have absolutely no wish to stop (S)pike worshipping in any manner he finds helpful in terms of his relationship with God. I just don't think it is helpful to most others in those terms. I rejoice in any person coming to faith or discovering a new vibrancy in their spiritual life, but I think that it is just cloud cuckoo land to suggest that a return to a so-called "Golden Age" of Anglicanism is going to cut it with people who are in fact well-educated and intelligent, but who find the values enshrined in such practices (elitist, aesthetic, whatever) both uncompelling and unattractive.

Secondly, I don't see where anyone has suggested that "the great unwashed", as you put it, are incapable of anything at all. Paternalism, it seems to me, is to say, "we know better than you what is good for you, and if you are to belong, you must become like us. We reject your culture, your language, your sensibilities as inferior to ours, and insist that you abandon them if you want to participate in a worship where "we" are in control and make the rules." Judged by this standard, who is the paternalist?

[ 15. July 2012, 06:46: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jolly Jape

I agree. We all make aesthetic choices all the time. Where such choosing becomes poisonous is when it denigrates the choices of others.

Those of you who have read my stuff over the years can probably guess what's coming next. When it comes to worship, I make a point of not throwing stones at the windows through which others can perceive something of the glory of God. I like the fact that there are different windows, diversities of means. I just don't like the stone-throwing.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I just don't think it is helpful to most others in those terms.

I disagree. Traditional worship resonates with a significant segment of my generation and younger. Some form of contemporary worship resonates with another segment. I've honestly never met anybody in my generation or younger who prefers the sort of contrived MOTR worship given to us over the last few decades.

quote:
originally posted by Jolly Jape:
who are in fact well-educated and intelligent, but who find the values enshrined in such practices (elitist, aesthetic, whatever) both uncompelling and unattractive

Yes, those are usually the ones complaining about traditional worship. They always appeal to how traditional worship appears to the theoretical outsider (as if they know). I suppose appealing to the sensibilities of the theoretical outsider sounds like a more convincing argument than appealing to one's own preferences.

quote:
originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Secondly, I don't see where anyone has suggested that "the great unwashed", as you put it, are incapable of anything at all.

Great unwashed is how Horseman Bree put it. Apparently, Horseman Bree knows for a fact churches like (S)C's don't like the great unwashed because parishioners at such churches make fun of the great unwashed's illiteracy and inability to follow complex choreography. So, yes, somebody did suggest the great unwashed were incapable.

quote:
originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Paternalism, it seems to me, is to say, "we know better than you what is good for you, and if you are to belong, you must become like us. We reject your culture, your language, your sensibilities as inferior to ours, and insist that you abandon them if you want to participate in a worship where "we" are in control and make the rules."

What culture is being rejected? The prayer you posted no more reflects any specific culture than the one posted by (S)C. To my knowledge, all Anglicans use liturgical resources approved either by a diocese or national church. We aren't talking about worship practices that evolved organically in a particular location. Paternalism is a kind way of describing the practice of producing simplistic and sentimental liturgies intended to appeal to the "sensibilities" of others.

--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan

Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
BA: my comments on the attitude to the great unwashed come from observing particular churches in action. Why would people choose to join a group that disdains them?

I didn't say that the unwashed couldn't appreciate, I did say that their presence was disdained.

And maybe the NFL/CFL offer participation and support that the church does not.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
originnally posted by Beeswax Altar


Great unwashed is how Horseman Bree put it. Apparently, Horseman Bree knows for a fact churches like (S)C's don't like the great unwashed because parishioners at such churches make fun of the great unwashed's illiteracy and inability to follow complex choreography. So, yes, somebody did suggest the great unwashed were incapable.

Well, firstly, my bad for assigning to you what was, in fact, a quote from Horseman Bree.

But I really don't think your words can bear the interpretation which you put on them. The point being made is that people (that is, outsiders) might well perceive (or possibly misperceive) that attitudes such as those espoused by (S)c are, in fact, belittling them unfairly, and communicating the message that "their" cultural millieu is in some way morally or spiritually superior to their own. That is (perceived) paternalism. Why should articulate and intelligent people be required to worship in a "language" which is foreign to them, when they have a vernacular which is wholly as capable of bearing the full import of transcendant thought as any other? Is this not the "God is an Englishman" attitude which so bedevilled the otherwise laudible efforts of nineteenth century missionaries?

[Quote][qb]

What culture is being rejected? The prayer you posted no more reflects any specific culture than the one posted by (S)C. To my knowledge, all Ang

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
... the tendency that causes people to put on pepper-and-salt knickerbockers and bicycle about country churches rubbing the monumental brasses. The clothing may have changed...

Or possibly, in the circles in which I picture you moving, not [Biased] . Don't get me wrong- I was a knickerbocker man myself in my day, and I'm very fond of the BCP, which I believe often really does speak to the heart (and is FWIW a good deal more approachable and clear when you hear it spoken than when you read it)- but I do wonder whether you realise that your understanding of what normal (or even ideal) CofE churchmanship is is just a little bit rarified. Nothing wrong with your churchmanship at all, and it'd be a shame if we ever lost it, but fine Cambridge churches such as LSM/ St Edward's or wherever do not necessarily provide a model that should always be followed. Would that they did, perhaps, but there you are.

By the way, was your [Disappointed] at Jolly Jape's 'the hoi polloi' an expression of disapproval of the use of the expression itself in that particular context, or simply of the redundant 'the'? [Smile]

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'll see your exhortation, and raise you a post-communion.


Father of all,
we give you thanks and praise,
that when we were still far off
you met us in your Son and brought us home.
Dying and living, he declared your love,
gave us grace, and opened the gate of glory.
May we who share Christ’s body live his risen life;
we who drink his cup bring life to others;
we whom the Spirit lights give light to the world.
Keep us firm in the hope you have set before us,
so we and all your children shall be free,
and the whole earth live to praise your name;
through Christ our Lord.
Amen*


Modern English can aspire to loftiness of expression, too. FWIW, I think that the modern version of the Lord's prayer is not only more intelligible, but scans better, and has a much punchier "climax" than the traditional version.

*alternative post communion prayer from Common Worship

Like (S)pike couchant I loathe that prayer. We had it this morning so i checked my text messages instead.

--------------------
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
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Traditional worship resonates with a significant segment of my generation and younger. Some form of contemporary worship resonates with another segment. I've honestly never met anybody in my generation or younger who prefers the sort of contrived MOTR worship given to us over the last few decades.


I think the cultural context in England is a bit different from your experience.

Within my own experience of churchgoing and of ecumenical work in my small corner of England, those congregations with the most 'traditional' (a very vague term, I agree) forms of worship tend to have the oldest age profile. It's perhaps no coincidence that my own denomination, the Methodist Church, has among the oldest age profile for the mainstream denominations, while also having among the lowest involvement in alternative/ charismatic, etc. forms of church.

However, I can imagine that in London and in certain ancient university towns, high quality traditional forms of worship in the historical denominations find their place and do attract young people from a particular background.

I think it helps if there's already a critical mass of young people who are interested, because to some extent, young people will take part in anything if there are other young people involved, regardless of the label (High Church/ charismatic/alternative, etc.) given. Maybe it's not so much that young people don't like traditional forms of worship, but rather that young people are largely absent from most types of church in our country. You have a vicious circle whereby church is uncool because young people don't go, and young people don't go because it's uncool. To a degree London bucks this trend, simply because it attracts so many young people, some of whom are bound to be religious, or seeking.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The simple point is that it's not just the great unwashed. The washed aren't engaged either. Within a mile or two of where I am at the moment, there are all manner of Christian options they could choose. This includes examples of what I'd imagine appeals to (S)pike Couchant, with or without women, to taste.

The washed, though, are no more there than in any other sort of church. They are still in bed, relaxing over a leisurely breakfast with their Sunday papers, playing sport, walking dogs, off to the seaside, etc etc.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think Enoch might be right: the question is not an intellectual "problem".

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Shire Dweller
Shipmate
# 16631

 - Posted      Profile for Shire Dweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
“However, I can imagine that in London and in certain ancient university towns, high quality traditional forms of worship in the historical denominations find their place and do attract young people from a particular background.”

“I think it helps if there's already a critical mass of young people who are interested,...”

The point about London and ancient university towns is a good one. In such places there can be “a critical mass of young people who are interested”

But outside of the metropolis that London is and the concentrated youth of ancient University towns, young people (eg. Under 30), if they come at all, are not appearing in 'traditional' churches. They tend to go to Charismatic / Open Evo / Con Evo or possibly MOTR churches

That could be because in areas of lower population density, there's less churchmanship choice so a 'critical mass' cannot develop but I suggest that a key reason that the admittedly small pool of young people interested in Church go to Charismatic / Open Evo / Con Evo or possibly MOTR is because these styles are willing to speak to them “in their own language” or at least an intelligible language.

--------------------
Right around the Wrekin

Posts: 77 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Shire Dweller

In fact, the figures for London are quite telling. The 2005 English Church Census shows that 57% of all English churchgoers in their 20s are worshipping in London. (This figure is for all churches, not just the CofE.)The Director, Peter Brierley was shocked at that figure and had to check it again. What it means is that in many other parts of the country, twentysomething churchgoers are seriously underrepresented.

Bearing this in mind, it's probably unrealistic to expect that outside London traditional forms of worship are likely to be successful at appealing to this age group. (And even London has its blind spots, I'm sure!) Provincial churches are going to have to try so much harder than churches in London to reach out to younger people, and they have to try harder with less money and less manpower, and probably higher levels of resistance, because their congregations are older and more set in their ways.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools