|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Wo/men for all seasons
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
From the "We all hate you-no-which-blog" debate turned to how much experience Anglican ordinands have of choral services. The accusation was that this seems to be "not much to none". In my opinion this quickly extends to all variations of worship, particularly outside of the main Sunday service.
The full time training colleges in the England tend to be very aligned with churchmanship*. St Steven's House is Anglo Catholic, Oak Hill is Conservative Evangelical. Having never attended any of them, I cannot say how much these institutions spend worshipping outside of the own tradition. The priests they train are certainly practiced within it.
The part time college that I attend tries to be very all-embracing, and the students will all have to lead in a variety of traditions including BCP by the rubric.
I guess the real question is: do we need generalists who can step in and take Choral evensong at the cathedral at a moments notice? Or do we need specialists with a depth of training in a particular style?
It would be very interesting to hear from some other provinces whose churches are lot more spread out than Canturbury or York.
3F
*ugh. Hate this word. Its devisive
--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom
Posts: 552 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
Congos, not perhaps in cathedrals, but in parish churches, are often very supportive of clergy who are unfamiliar with their ways. I heard of a local C of E church which had a "locum" cleric who came from a tradition where the bread is not consecrated. He blithely conducted a eucharist service without consecrating the Host, and the congo filed up for Communion, and no-one said a word to him about it. When the Diocesan Administrator, who attended that church, told me the story, I thought the congo's behaviour gracious.
But this story could also be an argument in favour of a more generalised training of clergy to include practices not current in their own tradition.
[ 11. January 2010, 09:56: Message edited by: jacobsen ]
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 5258 | From: Æbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
As the average theological course is already ridiculously overloaded, the suggestion that it should be expanded to cover elements that will be seldom of use to the ordinand seems unwise; most clergy will spend most of their ministry in their own parish, where they will rapidly learn the ropes even if they don't come from that tradition. To my mind the visit of a locum cleric might be a good opportunity for a congregation to broaden ITS education ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
I like the idea of people being prepared to take services outside their own immediate comfort zone because it would encourage open mindedness. I don't think choral services have to be a particular problem - choirs are usual quite capable of working around musically inept priests. But priests who only do things one way regardless of the needs of those around them could be a very mixed blessing.
Posts: 335 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
Congos, not perhaps in cathedrals, but in parish churches, are often very supportive of clergy who are unfamiliar with their ways. I heard of a local C of E church which had a "locum" cleric who came from a tradition where the bread is not consecrated. He blithely conducted a eucharist service without consecrating the Host, and the congo filed up for Communion, and no-one said a word to him about it. When the Diocesan Administrator, who attended that church, told me the story, I thought the congo's behaviour gracious.
How can you conduct a eucharist service without consecrating the Host?
Do you mean 'elevating the Host'?
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6674 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I think we need both.
I am a specialist inasmuch as I can sight read and conduct most choral evensongs in my church, whatever the setting for the responses. Our last curate couldn't sing a note so it was silly to expect her to do it.
However, we belong to a partnership cluster of churches and our clergy range from liberal catholic to open evangelical. They are all (except one, for doctrinal reasons) adaptable so have been willing to learn how to put on vestments, when to make the sign of the cross, how to cense an altar etc.
I think it works well.
(I also know a priest who trained, fairly recently, at St. Stephen's house, Oxford, who ran an interregnum in a charismatic evangelical Anglican church. He quite happily celebrated 'communion for them in surplice, scarf and hood.)
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 18637 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
quote:
How can you conduct a eucharist service without consecrating the Host?
Do you mean 'elevating the Host'?
Carys
I wasn't there, but was told that the words of consecration were not spoken, which would probably mean that the Host was not elevated, either.
The serice would have been advertised in the usual way. The visiting clergy wouldn't have any control over that.
[code]
[ 11. January 2010, 17:13: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 5258 | From: Æbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
To come off the fence a bit, I think the breadth of worship is among the strengths of my college. The students certainly have to deal with their own response to unfamiliar worship - with its implied theology. The Mass of All Saints with bells and smells was certainly challenging for some. Worship songs and prayers only for others. I know that some of my colleagues have radically changed their understanding and theology of worship through this.
Lack of house style can be a bit of a problem because it does mean not many students get to experience all roles within services and there can be the loss of familiarity with how things are done. It can feel like playing with a scratch side at times.
We are assuming that training ends at ordination, which is not supposed to be the case. I can see room for both breadth and depth to be a solid learning objective for POT and CME. Some newbies might appreciate a chance to sing.
As an aside on a thread I started, I like the idea of clustering churches across traditions. My experience of urban churches is that they get polarised and there is less opportunity for the congregation to benefit from more approaches to worship.
Re: consecration/elevation/whatever that may have been missed. That points to the significant gap in all of pre-ordination training. All these ordinands are not trained in the practice of celebrating the Eucharist at all. Only in the theory. This is a source of worry for the liturgically minded and probably might explain the lack of familiarity in some locums*.
3F
*or whatever the correct latin is, 'cos that's not in the sylabus either.
--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom
Posts: 552 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
quote:
How can you conduct a eucharist service without consecrating the Host?
Do you mean 'elevating the Host'?
Carys
I wasn't there, but was told that the words of consecration were not spoken, which would probably mean that the Host was not elevated, either.
The serice would have been advertised in the usual way. The visiting clergy wouldn't have any control over that.
Ok, that just sounds weird. What tradition whose members are acknowledged as priests by Anglicans doesn't have the words of institution? Surely they were there in the book being used -- or are we talking the sort of evangelical place which sits very lightly to authorised liturgy?
Carys
[ 11. January 2010, 17:14: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6674 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
I do know a priest of a very non-liturgical tradition(?) that basically riffs around the eucharistic prayer. However he does have the book in front of him. He also regularly takes the 8:00 am BCP service so he does know how things are done with a set liturgy. I reckon he would cope OK but he might forget the elevation.
Maybe an argument for the 8:00 am BCP is linking the non-liturgical with the liturgical, keeping us as one church. A challenge for "Rev. Mr May" on the Femina blog comments.
Not sure how to provide the reverse link from liturgical to non. Ideas?
3F
--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom
Posts: 552 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie Jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I'm suspicious that it wasn't an Anglican Communion service, but a Baptist, or maybe URC service conducted at an Anglican Church for an Anglican congregation. So the tradition of the preacher is not "Anglican".
Let me try and explain. There are countless cases where a free church minister leads worship including communion at an Anglican church and visa versa. Indeed this applies to URC ministers taking Methodist services and visa versa.
Now a URC minister cannot conduct an Anglican communion. Rather what happens is for that Sunday the rite is conducted under the auspices of the denomination of the presiding cleric.
This is not Anglicanism being pernickty it is standard practice in situations where this happens, I think the only exception amongst mainstream English congregation would be URC & Baptist and that is for long and involved* historical reasons. It particularly seems to happen when in an area where there is a shortage of people authorised in the given tradition and there is a retired ordained minister of another tradition available and on pulpit exchange Sundays to meet high church sensibilities.
This is not how people in the pew understand it, but it is how the ecumenical literate understand.
For Anglicans to do this my understanding would be that a "second" communion service should happen at the church on that Sunday but there is no need for this to be the main service.
"Low" URC ministers and Baptists might well produce a communion prayer that does not include the call for the Holy Spirit upon the elements. Prayers around communion are very modern within the tradition.
Jengie
p.s. Remember it is dubious in strict Reformed Ecclesiology whether Anglican Priests and even Methodist ministers are ordained. Baptists clearly are!
[ 11. January 2010, 15:26: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
my blog and thesis progress
Posts: 17664 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
I think it's important that those who are trained for ministry have an understanding of the breadth of traditions of worship that exist within the denomination for which they are training. Obviously, they will have their own preferences and indeed styles at which they are better and in which they feel more comfortable. However, by the time they completed training they should not be surprised to discover that there are services that are entirely sung by the choir or free-form informal services with little or no printed liturgy or there are prayers invoking Our Lady or whatever it is. During my training, I took part in planning and leading all three of those and many other styles too. Some of it I would use in church on a Sunday morning, but some of it probably not! That's partly to do with what I'm comfortable with doing and partly to do with what my churches would be ok with.
[ 11. January 2010, 15:53: Message edited by: seasick ]
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5438 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pardoner
Shrive me timbers
# 15043
|
Posted
Respectfully, I wonder if this thread didn't begin with a mistaken assumption, namely, that the role of theological training is to prepare a student in the practical skills of leading worship in different traditions, as opposed to the Christian theology which underpins all worship.
I trained on a non-residential course and I have now been ordained for about 6 years as a non-stipendiary. I have celebrated the eucharist at a death bed, in a field, in a children's service, using 1662 with the 8-o'-clockers, in an evangelical church (which is my own tradition) at a high church in the next village, in the university chapel, at Greenbelt, and so on. A training in the theology of eucharist has ben much more helpful to me than simply learning a set of moves which are presumed to belong to one's particular tradition, because then you know what you can adapt and what you must never leave out.
Similarly, if I had to lead choral evensong in a cathedral (though the contingency is a remote one, as Jeeves might put it) I already have a theological framework of understanding, and could soon learn the practical skills.
All of this just goes to show that we have to be flexible, but I must confess I would find it quite difficult to feel comfortable in a very high church setting unless someone taught me the choreography - but I'm fine with most of the eucharistic theology in operation in such a setting.
Apologies if I've misunderstood this thread
--------------------
Thin line between heaven and here (Bubbles)
Posts: 167 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pardoner:
Respectfully, I wonder if this thread didn't begin with a mistaken assumption, namely, that the role of theological training is to prepare a student in the practical skills of leading worship in different traditions, as opposed to the Christian theology which underpins all worship.
I think you are quite right, Pardoner. Though I'd include in the study of theology, the basic principles of liturgy.* The 'grammar' of worship is as important to a worshipping congregation as the grammar of language is to those who speak and write it. This doesn't mean a pernickety obsession with detail, in fact almost the opposite: if you have a grasp of the underlying structure of worship you can adapt the details according to the situation.
Had I been in the mood for an argument in Hell, I would have posted a rant about a recent Anglican baptism service which was clearly put together by someone with no such understanding. It was incorporated in 'All Age Worship', and although the actual baptism rite was more or less in accordance with Common Worship, there was no reading from Scripture; no reference to the liturgical season; and the National Anthem was incorporated as a concluding hymn.
Worship can be as simple or as elaborate as the people or occasion require. Simple does not necessarily equal evangelical, nor elaborate catholic. But if clergy are being trained without an understanding of the principles of worship, the simplest service will end up looking like a multiple pile-up, and the most elaborate one will be a tedious performance.
*ETA, having read your post more carefully, I see you say as much in your second paragraph.
[ 11. January 2010, 20:53: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 11603 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3rdFooter
Shipmate
# 9751
|
Posted
Pardoner,
Just to pacify any nerves, I do not think that teaching how one leads a service is the principal role of training. I would agree with you that a full theological basis for all aspects of priesthood is a fundamental, along side formation of the minister you will become*. There are also practical skills in which some grounding would be pretty handy.
Leading services is a significant part of what a public minister is called to do. Somewhere, the theory and theology needs to be manifested in acts of worship that honour God and enable the whole congregation to worship in spirit and in truth. The actual form of this can be pretty diverse as your experience indicates.
This thread grew out of an observation that some ministers fresh from college had no experience of some common forms of worship.
You have the benefit of first hand knowledge of post ordination training. Was this helpful in this area? Are there things you learnt by doing that you wish you could have learnt more formally? How did the worship as part of your college affect the priest you are now?
3F
*or already are, depending on your understanding of priesthood
--------------------
3F - Shunter in the sidings of God's Kingdom
Posts: 552 | From: outskirts of Babylon | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pardoner
Shrive me timbers
# 15043
|
Posted
quote:
Just to pacify any nerves, I do not think that teaching how one leads a service is the principal role of training. I would agree with you that a full theological basis for all aspects of priesthood is a fundamental, along side formation of the minister you will become*. There are also practical skills in which some grounding would be pretty handy.
Leading services is a significant part of what a public minister is called to do. Somewhere, the theory and theology needs to be manifested in acts of worship that honour God and enable the whole congregation to worship in spirit and in truth. The actual form of this can be pretty diverse as your experience indicates.
Amen to all that!
quote:
You have the benefit of first hand knowledge of post ordination training. Was this helpful in this area? Are there things you learnt by doing that you wish you could have learnt more formally? How did the worship as part of your college affect the priest you are now?
Well, time for me to be quite honest here! The course I went to offered a good preparation in that we regularly experienced formal worship, different approaches to presiding at the eucharist, and so on, although we learned more from example than from formal instruction. Post ordination training was not much use, really, and if I were to be sent to a place where the style is more formal than I'm used to, or a bit further up the candle stick, then I'd have a lot of learning to do.
But perhaps that's how it is for everyone? Even if I'd been on a full-time course, I wouldn't be comfortable or competent in the way thing are done in every part of the the C of E.
But its all a huge privilege, and very humbling sometimes. Yesterday, for reasons I wont go into here, all my planning for the service was thrown into disarray at the last minute and I had to chuck away my sermon and take the service in quite a new direction. It was nerve-wracking, but I learned a new lesson in trusting God and learning from the congregation. So its exciting and I learn something new every week.
I wish I could get the hang of using quotes and stuff on this site! Is there somewhere where it tells you how to do it properly?
Thanks for listening
--------------------
Thin line between heaven and here (Bubbles)
Posts: 167 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pardoner
Shrive me timbers
# 15043
|
Posted
quote:
Just to pacify any nerves, I do not think that teaching how one leads a service is the principal role of training. I would agree with you that a full theological basis for all aspects of priesthood is a fundamental, along side formation of the minister you will become*. There are also practical skills in which some grounding would be pretty handy.
Leading services is a significant part of what a public minister is called to do. Somewhere, the theory and theology needs to be manifested in acts of worship that honour God and enable the whole congregation to worship in spirit and in truth. The actual form of this can be pretty diverse as your experience indicates.
Amen to all that!
quote:
You have the benefit of first hand knowledge of post ordination training. Was this helpful in this area? Are there things you learnt by doing that you wish you could have learnt more formally? How did the worship as part of your college affect the priest you are now?
Well, time for me to be quite honest here! The course I went to offered a good preparation in that we regularly experienced formal worship, different approaches to presiding at the eucharist, and so on, although we learned more from example than from formal instruction. Post ordination training was not much use, really, and if I were to be sent to a place where the style is more formal than I'm used to, or a bit further up the candle stick, then I'd have a lot of learning to do.
But perhaps that's how it is for everyone? Even if I'd been on a full-time course, I wouldn't be comfortable or competent in the way thing are done in every part of the the C of E.
But its all a huge privilege, and very humbling sometimes. Yesterday, for reasons I wont go into here, all my planning for the service was thrown into disarray at the last minute and I had to chuck away my sermon and take the service in quite a new direction. It was nerve-wracking, but I learned a new lesson in trusting God and learning from the congregation. So its exciting and I learn something new every week.
I wish I could get the hang of using quotes and stuff on this site! Is there somewhere where it tells you how to do it properly?
Thanks for listening
--------------------
Thin line between heaven and here (Bubbles)
Posts: 167 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pardoner
Shrive me timbers
# 15043
|
Posted
Lordy, I've posted twice!
How did that happen?
--------------------
Thin line between heaven and here (Bubbles)
Posts: 167 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I'm suspicious that it wasn't an Anglican Communion service, but a Baptist, or maybe URC service conducted at an Anglican Church for an Anglican congregation. So the tradition of the preacher is not "Anglican".
I think not, if only because the congregation were expecting consecration. But at this late date, it's difficult to say absolutely positively, and the Anglican and Baptist traditions are not the ones I grew up with, even had I been there as a first hand witness.
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 5258 | From: Æbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stranger in a strange land
Shipmate
# 11922
|
Posted
I trained on a non-residential course.
The value of the worship on the course to leading worship once I was ordained was minimal to be honest. In the time I spent on the course we had one service that was supposed to be catholic and one that was supposed to be charismatic. I don't believe people from either 'camp' would have recognised them as such. We had two or three BCP services and an endless procession of amateurish 'alt- worship' services with no structure, no theology, and as few words as possible.
While I accept the point that pre-ordination training is not simply about learning the rules of liturgy, I do think that new curates need to be aware of them; their incumbents will assume it! I was unusual in that my 25 years of anglicanism pre-ordination included con-evo, prayer book choral and romanising churches. Even so the stress of 'busking' liturgy in my deacon year was enormous.
I envied those who at their colleges had received a much,much better grounding. I also know that (at least at some colleges) a whole term is dedicated to (eg) BCP so that the students really gain a background in it, rather than a perfunctory box-ticking exercise.
Post ordination training thus far has not addressed liturgy (or marriage prep., confessions etc) at all. But we have got yet another session on using stones in worship - sadly not for use on heretics!
Posts: 601 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
If Aidan Kavanagh is right, and theology, rightly understood, is largely liturgical theology, then the study of liturgy should be a central part of ordination training. I think his point is that the Church is most characteristically the Church when it gathers for worship, so understanding what that is all about is the key to understanding what the Church, and hence our relationship to God, is all about.
I hasten to add that by 'the study of liturgy' I don't mean the ecclesiastical trainspotting which is such fun in Ecclesiantics.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 11603 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
If ... theology, rightly understood, is largely liturgical theology
How does this work? I appreciate it's unlikely to be a trivial but I can make no sense of this.
Posts: 4683 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Aidan Kavanagh (the late, I think, American Benedictine liturgical scholar), explains this in his book On Liturgical Theology. quote:
...worship conceived broadly is what gives rise to theological reflection, rather than the other way around... it is the law of worship which founds or establishes the law of belief - rather as a foundation establishes a house or as the virtue of justice founds the law.
If I understand him correctly, he is saying that the Church is most identifiable as the Church when it is worshipping God, and being confronted by the mystery of God, and it's the reflection on this encounter which we call 'theology'. Which is not to say that the Christian duty of healing the sick, striving for justice, doing 'good works' are in any way secondary, but they are not exclusively Christian activities in that we are joined in those tasks by many outside the faith.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 11603 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
Thanks. I guess it all hinges on how broadly worship is defined. I think that gives me enough to justify my initial suspicion. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 4683 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
