quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Why are my Protestant friends so reticent?

Perhaps they want to eavesdrop on an Anglican-to Anglican explanation, so here goes.

---

HT asked a similar question at the start of this thread. The answer is that those of us in the low churches have been absolutely staggered by all of the tat, rituals and bizarre practises in the high churches. We never stopped to think that our own churches might seem strange to others. Well, after all they are just so normal, and it is the high churches that are abnormal.

I was very surprised at the amount of interest in pew-cloths, communion cards and the like. I suspect that if people from the higher side of things went to the churches that have been mentioned here they would still be in for some surprises. But it can be so difficult to work out which of the very ordinary things we do might be strange to others.

Mission Time:
Your mission should you choose to accept it is to visit a church of a vastly different tradition between now and Christmas.

bb

quote:

---

Meanwhile the BU has a reputation for being reluctant to ordain new young ministers because there are already too many old ones out there without churches to look after!

---

Please don't interpret this as a chellenge to your post on confession, but I know that in many Protestant churches, the minister spends a fair amount of time in pastoral counseling. Wouldn't the counseling often include disclosure and attempted resolution of spiritual problems and/or sin and assurance of God's aid and mercy? It seems to me that this is not entirely dissimilar fron auricular confession (minus the tat of course). If I am mistaken, please set me straight. Btw, I remember a church in Paris that had removed its confessionals and replaced them with a glassed-in area in the transept which was furnished with a desk, leather chairs and a sofa, much like a therapist's or minister's office.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
...I know that in many Protestant churches, the minister spends a fair amount of time in pastoral counseling. Wouldn't the counseling often include disclosure and attempted resolution of spiritual problems and/or sin and assurance of God's aid and mercy? It seems to me that this is not entirely dissimilar fron auricular confession

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasper:
It's like that at my parents' church (a Christian Fellowship) ....
(I must MW them sometime...)

---

A little reminder to all MW-ers:

quote:

---

First, please try to choose a church where you are unknown. A report on a service in your home church will not be accepted for publication; a report on a church where you are an occasional visitor is tolerable, but not ideal. The ideal is a report on a church where you are completely unknown.

---

I don't know how if Jasper is known in his parents' church, but if he is recognised on sight then I don't think that the church would qualify to be MW-ed by Jasper.

However, if you want to tell us about practises in that church that the MW crowd might be interested in then please do so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by babybear:
I don't know how if Jasper is known in his parents' church, but if he is recognised on sight then I don't think that the church would qualify to be MW-ed by Jasper.

---

Sometimes it gets a bit hard to remember everyones sex. Tubbs is female and married to Polly (who is male and named after the cat). Jasper is female and named after the dog.

Will try harder next time,

Firstly all churches have bizarre practises.

Secondly it is very revealing the way we develop spiritual interpretations for practical actions.

I once heard a beautiful explanation about how the removal of cloths before communion marked the rolling away of the stone on Easter Sunday. It really was very good. The only problem was we had a long serving elder listening in and he informed us the real reason. To stop plaster getting into the elements the items were covered for as long as possible.

Standing for the Bible at least in the congregation I attend is because of the amount of disregard that was shown to the Bible when it was simply processed.

Non-Alcoholic wine is due to the temperance movement on the whole and today is largely continued by the desire to make communion as inclusive as possible. I have heard that some recovering alcoholics do not like to even take the small quantity of aclcholic involved in communion. Others who are keep the pledge would on principle not take communion if the wine is alcoholic. Non-Alcoholic communion wine is truely awful hence the use of grape juice.

Tiny glass communion glasses are an import from America. It started off as a worry over hygiene (just think back to the scares over the common cup at the start of the 1980s when AIDS was first in the news and you will get what motivated it though far earlier). It is often continued for convenience. You can serve a lot of people fairly quickly with this method.

Confession has never been discontinued completely in the reformed tradition. Just it is not held to be a sacrament. It holds an ambiguous status and the rarity of personal confession I think comes from this. In actual fact every Sunday communal confession takes place in most URCs. It is a formalised process but includes a declaration of sin possibly silence to bring our own sins before God and an assurance of pardon.

Elders visits are still surviving as are communion cards in the congregation I go to. It is a complicated affair and actually provides the backbone to the pastoral system in the congregation. Pastoral responsibility in the URC is held in the elders meeting which is made up of elders and ministers.

There are true liturgical practises that are unusual. One church moved the communion table into the body of the church for communion to symbolise that this was a meal of the whole church not something the celebrant did. Equally many URC all eat the bread together and drink the wine together. You equally can not have communion in any URC without the proclamation of the Word. This is preaching rather than the reading of scriptures.

What may help you grasp why some of these customs persist, is that 'the presence' at communion for those of my theological bent is in the action of the congregation and not contained in the elements or performed by the priest.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie:
Tiny glass communion glasses are an import from America. It started off as a worry over hygiene (just think back to the scares over the common cup at the start of the 1980s when AIDS was first in the news and you will get what motivated it though far earlier). It is often continued for convenience. You can serve a lot of people fairly quickly with this method.

---

As I understand it, we've had the little glasses much longer than that.

quote:

---

What may help you grasp why some of these customs persist, is that 'the presence' at communion for those of my theological bent is in the action of the congregation and not contained in the elements or performed by the priest.

---

I think that's what we've been getting at - only noot as succinctly. Thank you

quote:

---

Sorry this is long I tend to glory in my tradition and so enjoy explaining it. I hope this has been useful.

---

Nothing wrong with that. No need to apologise.

[ubb code]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
As I understand it, we've had the little glasses much longer than that.

---

Our Church buys wine in boxes from Sainsburys, this the lasts us a few Sundays, we drink it out of normal wine glasses, with ribena for the children (this is normal practice in the House churches). We pass around chunks of bread which we rip pieces off from, and then the Children scrabble for the crusts after the service.
We do not always have the bread first, it depends on which makes its way around the room first...

Actually, they probably wouldn't recognise me - I rarely go there, and even if I'm with my parents, they still mistake me for my sister

Starbelly - that communion sounds familiar - except that in my parents' church, even the children are allowed the wine (usually a Stowells of Chelsea box!). We used to polish off the bread afterwards, too!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
Another one which occurred to me at the church business meeting tonight: where ministers get their salary from.

Were y'all aware that Baptist ministers are paid by their congregations, and depend pretty much on the offering in a given year?

---

At my Baptist church we rather do it the other way round - we have agreed on a salary for our pastor before and then have to give as much as is needed to pay him, the mortgage for our meeting house and all our other expenses. The meetings where we all decide on next years finances are well attended and normally financial matters are discussed openly - and sometimes rather endlessly
At the end of the year we are informed how the money was spent and how much - if any - is left over.

quote:

---

How old do children have to be to join in Communion at your church? At SCF, there was never an age limit - it was up to the individual child or parents.

---

[tidied UBB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by angloid:
back to bizarre practices - what about the ultra-protestant end of the CofE and its strange custom of the minister (not priest surely) standing at the 'north end of the table'?

---

Angloid -- did you wear a black scarf? I have never seen this custom in practice. Do you stand facing the Holy Table, as the Prayer Book enjoins, so that the people see you in profile, or do yo stand facing them?

starbelly -- is there some significance to the boxed wine, or is it merely chosen for the sake of thrift?

The thing about the pint glasses is probably the most bizarre thing I've read here. I won't look at my beer the same way again.

quote:

---

is there some significance to the boxed wine, or is it merely chosen for the sake of thrift?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abo:

At my Baptist church we rather do it the other way round - we have agreed on a salary for our pastor before and then have to give as much as is needed to pay him, the mortgage for our meeting house and all our other expenses. The meetings where we all decide on next years finances are well attended and normally financial matters are discussed openly - and sometimes rather endlessly
At the end of the year we are informed how the money was spent and how much - if any - is left over.

Abo

---

Err, actually, that's more or less exactly what my church does - and of course, if we can't make the salary... we go overdrawn.

In practice, it works out OK, because we have a reasonably sized congregation and a number of people with a healthy giving ethic.

In the UK, those Baptist churches with congregations too small to support a minister get subsidised by the BUGB Home Mission fund.

I have a bizarre practice from the URC I used to drop into in another town from time to time. During the communion hymn 4 elders would make their way to the big chairs behind the communion table. About 8 servers would make their way to the front pew. After the narrative of the institution, prayers and blessing, the minister would squeeze out from between the table and the elders to pass out the plates of bread, the servers would serve the congregation and return things via the minister. S/he would then serve each of the four elders in the big chairs, then sit down, serve her/himself and invite us all to eat. The whole thing was then repeated with the trays of cups.

My question: what was the point/funtion of the 4 elders in this? (In other URCs it seems usual that the elders round the table serve the congregation and finally the minister/president).
Has anyone else come across this one?

Yes other URCs do. Mine has only 2 but the still fill the same role.

It would be quite common among URCs that have their routes in the Presbyterian Church of England.

What do they do. Well I think they are in charge of the setting of the table before the service, the allocation of duties to the elders for serving communion, the keeping of the minister on the right track during communion e.g. making sure the non-alcoholic communion wine goes to the right elder. The count of how many attend communion etc etc. They basically do all the behind the scenes coordinating. It includes choosing the communion wine!

I guess the duties change from congregation to congregation.

The change happens with the 'wine'. M serves the elders and organist, then the elders take the 'wine' to the congregation.

It makes me wonder how many different ways there could be of administing the whole event!

quote:

---

although it's then their job to do the serving.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by frin:
sorry, I'm not clear - the serving of the minister or the congregation?

---

Well, I'm not really aware of many HUGE Baptist churches - lots of a good size, but they get huge it's my impression they don't tend to stay Baptist but just end up as a large independent evangelical/charismatic - or am I wrong there?

But I also wasn't aware Baptist ministers were particularly badly off, compared to the UK C of E stipend (let alone the poor RC priests!). I'm not knowledgeable about it but such discussions as I have been in on have been about achieving a balance between the average congregational wage and reflecting the professional training undertaken.

I think that giving in such congregational churches is often pretty strong precisely because there's no-one else either demanding it or giving it, so everyone knows the score and has no excuse to get disgruntled about it.

Ian

[UBB code]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian Metcalfe:
Well, I'm not really aware of many HUGE Baptist churches - lots of a good size, but they get huge it's my impression they don't tend to stay Baptist but just end up as a large independent evangelical/charismatic - or am I wrong there?

But I also wasn't aware Baptist ministers were particularly badly off, compared to the UK C of E stipend (let alone the poor RC priests!). I'm not knowledgeable about it but such discussions as I have been in on have been about achieving a balance between the average congregational wage and reflecting the professional training undertaken.

I think that giving in such congregational churches is often pretty strong precisely because there's no-one else either demanding it or giving it, so everyone knows the score and has no excuse to get disgruntled about it.

Ian

---

I guess it depends on what you call HUGE I'd say Mutley Baptist in Plymouth was what I was thinking of (although I couldn't possibly comment on the minister's salary, not being privy to that kind of information ) - although you're right, it is more of an evangelical alliance kind of place than a Baptist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
The minister is the last person to partake.

---

Another bizarre practice. The Prayer Book instructs:

"Then shall the Minister first receive the Communion in both kinds himself"

So the priest and other ministers always receive FIRST. I have never known the altar party to recieve last.

The only Methodist church I've ever taken Communion in followed the Prayer Book instructions.

So -- among protestants, is it celebrant receieving first or last? I am informed that in the ELCA the celebrant receives last.

Lutherans will have various procedures. At my church we stand in the round. At others, folks kneel at an altar rail. I have been to churches, both Lutheran and Episcopal, especially when there have been stairs between the main seating area and the altar area, in which servers will go out to people who cannot easily come forward--wheelchair uses or other people with mobility handicaps.

The age of first communion is variable. When I was growing up, it was at confirmation--about age 13 or 14. In the Episcopal church where my children were baptised, the idea was if the child could walk up unassisted and had teeth (or at least one of these criteria!) then communion was OK. The idea is that the child would grow up with the memory of always having been fed at the Lord's Table.

At my current church, which I began attending when my sons were ages 4 and 7, they were at the time doing the "after confirmation" criteria. My little one cried after going forward and getting only a "blessing," and so I made an appointment to talk to the pastor about it. Bless his heart, he went to the church council, which was divided on the issue. Finally, he blurted out, "I'm NOT going to ex-communicate a 4-year-old!" So the congregation instituted the following procedure: if parents and child felt that the child was ready to receive, there would be a private meeting with the pastor, and communion would be explained, and then the child was able to choose to take communion.

We serve wine in a common cup and wine in little glass cups and grape juice in little glass cups. Most of the children think the wine tastes "icky" and go for the grape juice. Those who are pregnant or alcoholic or whatever often take the little cups of grape juice, also.

quote:

---

So -- among protestants, is it celebrant receieving first or last? I am informed that in the ELCA the celebrant receives last.

---

In most of my experience, the celebrant/ president receives last then says one of the standard distribution phrases (The body of Christ/ take, eat ... / drink this, all of you, in remembrance of me) and everyone eats or downs their shot glass of grape juice together.

Nancy, I remember the utter fury I experienced the first time I went to a church which assumed I could not be a communicant (I was younger than 8). Though, lest anyone think otherwise, I would note that children receiving communion seems very much to be up to the individual church meeting to decide in the URC.

However, in my congregation it has long been the practice for the communion assistants and pastor(s) to receive last. Having stood on both side of the (non-existent) altar rail, I find it very meaningful to serve others first. And it fits with the commitment to the biblical concept of hospitality that has engaged and informed the worship and service of this congregation for decades.

Welcome, Joyce. There are certainly a lot of librarians from the Maryland/DC/Virginia area floating about here!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

starbelly -- is there some significance to the boxed wine, or is it merely chosen for the sake of thrift?

HT

---

It just keeps better that way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
I think the pastor would like to change it (he has said that he sees great merit in the view that you cannot give what you have not received -- sounds a bit sola gratia

---

Ah-ha! You see, that's part of the point - sola gratia (by grace alone, for those of you not versed in Latin - for those of you who are, yes it is *by* grace alone, beccause it's ablative, which ends in the same letter in the first declension, but which is correctly pronounced 'sol-aah grah-ti-aah', cos the last syllable is long. err, sorry. Latin tangent. PM me if you think I'm wrong), is, like 'the priesthood of all believers', one of the most fondly held doctrines of the NC protestant churches. Like, probably the last one they'd ever be willing to let go.

The real reasons why we do stuff in 'odd' ways (daft little glasses, ribena, leavened bread, minister takes last etc.) may well be lost to the mists of time, but often theological aetiologies* are given to these things - an argument I've heard about the minister taking last is precisely what FCB has highlighted: you can't give what you've not received... but then, it's not the minister doing the giving. It comes directly from Christ.

Because of the doctrine of the 'Priesthood of all Believers' (henceforth POAB, cos I'm sick of typing it repeatedly), there is no real need for anyone to mediate between Christ and the Church. Obviously, someone's got to lead the communion, but that can be anyone with a gift of leading and the blessing of the church.

It's not just a question of 'bizarre practices', really - the fact that NC Protestants do things so differently is often underpinned by a fundamental difference in doctrine and ecclesiology.

___________

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
*Aetiology: the attribution of a plausible origin to something that doesn't have one, sometimes without any regard for the correctness of the reason.

---