|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: On "Stuffiness" in Worship
|
Circuit Rider
Ship's Itinerant
# 13088
|
Posted
Unfortunately, due to the independent and rebellious nature of Southern souls, one has to approach these things slowly. Sacred cows may make gourmet burgers but many of our churchgoers become vegetarian when it comes to butchering the idols. After all, they are imminently more qualified and knowledgeable than their duly appointed pastors, who they think exist to tend to their every whim and offer up a good sermon full of heavenly hope.
Barefoot Friar is following a pattern similar to the one I used in my place to implement the use of liturgy in a revivalist cultural setting. In the American Southeast Methodists are for the most part "Baptist with a Bishop," and they'd gladly shake loose of the Bishop the first chance they get. Preferred music is on the order of Gaither Homecoming and full of references to "going to heaven at the end of life's journey."
My project has gone fairly well except that I have been lately apprised that use of vestments comes across as "too Catholic" (horror of horrors!) which I gather really means "too stuffy" here in Gaither Homecoming land. They do not like the order of the Word and Table and consider it in some ways backwards, despite repeated explanations and references to the hymnal.
However, there is evidence it is growing on them. At the beginning of ordinary time this summer, which I label "Kingdomtide," I organized two services in the way they had done them in the past, took out elements of the liturgy, and let them be "Baptist." Three hymns, offering, sermon. I actually had people telling me how different that was and how they missed certain things. Go figure. I also slowed down on the use of vestments during the summer ordinary time, although I still wear my collar with black shirt.
I also celebrated Holy Communion weekly during Advent and Christmas, monthly during ordinary time after Epiphany, weekly during Lent, then back to monthly. Like Barefoot Friar I include a prayer of general thanksgiving in the place where the Great Thanksgiving would go, and include the traditional dialog and sursum corda before launching into the prayer. I am teaching them thanksgiving goes there and preparing them for gradual implementation of weekly Eucharist.
Some questions but not a full-on rebellion. The little resistance I received was from people who left when we came to Holy Communion. Most of the objection is not theological but more having to do with older people having tired bladders and seemingly unable to make it longer than an hour in worship. Here in the South worship must not go longer than one hour, but a "singin'" may last two or more.
Summer ordinary time is intentionally more laid back to give our Baptist wannabes a break, but this year I kept the liturgy following a mixed blend of Morning Prayer Rite II (BCP) and Word and Table.
I think advice contained herein to make things seem as extemporaneous as possible, such as the fixed prayers, and using familiar (albeit theologically disgusting) hymns at certain places is good advice. One of my tactics has been to frequently use "Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus," a Southern favorite, as a sequence to the Gospel reading.
About the time I have this project complete it will be time to pack up and move on to the next appointment in the itineracy. And the next one after me will no doubt change it all back. Such is the nature of unUnited Methodism.
My two cents. Now I need to pour another cup of coffee ...
--------------------
I felt my heart strangely warmed ... and realised I had spilt hot coffee all over myself.
Posts: 715 | From: Somewhere in the Heart of Dixie | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Sacred cows may make gourmet burgers but many of our churchgoers become vegetarian when it comes to butchering the idols.
Quotes File!
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Circuit Rider:
After all, they are imminently more qualified and knowledgeable than their duly appointed pastors
Point of order, it does happen sometimes...
quote:
One of my tactics has been to frequently use "Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus," a Southern favorite, as a sequence to the Gospel reading.
Well now, preach a good sermon on how Blessed Assurance is an excellent communion hymn because of "foretaste," and how the congregation would be able to sing it soooooo often if you had communion more frequently.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edgeman
Shipmate
# 12867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
That sounds like a good plan, actually.
Why does it seem that Eccles denizens like to introduce "temporary" changes and then forget to change back? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
That was how our place got back to using the altar rail It was during Advent only, and then during Lent only, but easter Sunday came, and then the second Sunday and then Pentecost. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
http://sacristyxrat.tumblr.com/
Posts: 1420 | From: Philadelphia Penns. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bax
Shipmate
# 16572
|
Posted
Personally, I think the word "stuffy" is unhelpful.
In my expereince, it more often than not (along with "fussy") simply a code word for "some sort of liturgical practice that I don't like".
There are many different ways to worship God that are "right" or "true". If you strive for authentic worship, done because you mean it and as well as you can (be it a complex ritual or an entirely informal way of worshiping) they you will not go wrong.
Not everyone will approve, whatever you do, of course!
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I suspect there are as many definitions of 'stuffy' as there are people. If it means anything to me it means the sort of thing exemplified in the parsonical voice. In other words, worship led by people who speak or act in the way they think is 'correct', or 'expected', but without the confidence in what they are doing to relax into it and be themselves.
This is by no means the same as 'formal'. Someone leading a traditional hymn sandwich service, or fronting a praise band, can be as stuffy as the most rigid anglo-catholic (and often more so). Someone can follow the rubrics, and the text of the liturgy, meticulously yet still appear relaxed and prayerful.
--------------------
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
|
|
Circuit Rider
Ship's Itinerant
# 13088
|
Posted
A few months ago I heard someone say that when you make major changes in a church, such as change the government and ministry to be more outward focused, or change the pattern and style of worship, you have two years to make it fruitful and effective or you will have trouble on your hands. It seems they give you enough rope to hang yourself. I am beginning to see the truth in that.
I came here just over two years ago, spent the first few summer months laying groundwork and introducing ideas, just as Barefoot Friar is doing, and launched into my gradual implementation of liturgical worship in my country chapel. Initially things went great and I got away with a lot of change. Just past the two year mark there have been declines in attendance not due to the change in worship but coincident enough to give the few vocal malcontents enough amunition to demand change. Of me. Let's stone this one and get another one to take us back. Stated reason? Like a funeral, hard to follow. In a word, stuffy.
I am convinced that in our entertainment obsessed culture if you don't have a block-buster special-effects filled multi-media extravaganza the intellectually and spiritually shallow, and emotionally driven consumers will raise a ruckus. In city churches they go elsewhere, in country chapels they demand you go elsewhere.
So, while the implementation of these things is underway, two efforts are necessary. First, get the folks you have to sign on and be committed to it. As soon as you can. Enthusiastically and whole-heartedly. But second and just as important, gain new people who come into the new liturgy and have only that memory of it. If the old guard really want new people they may attribute the growth to the new style. On the other hand, if they are threatened by the influx ...
Assessing what to do next.
[ 07. September 2012, 16:05: Message edited by: Circuit Rider ]
--------------------
I felt my heart strangely warmed ... and realised I had spilt hot coffee all over myself.
Posts: 715 | From: Somewhere in the Heart of Dixie | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Bax may have hit the nail on the head: "In my expereince, it more often than not (along with "fussy") simply a code word for "some sort of liturgical practice that I don't like"."
I would suggest to Circuit Rider that, if at all possible, he turn away from thinking of those not-on-board as dissidents or the old guard. He may find that a few hours or even afternoons spent in listening to those who differ with him, and meeting them halfway, will be far more productive for the parish. If the parishioners own the changes, then the changes will be far more solid, and less destabilizing. The blunt truth is that many people will not go elsewhere; they will simply go.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
It may be as simple as smiling more, or starting the service by saying "Good Morning" (a practice that annoys me, but may save the rest of the service).
In ELCA Lutheranism, we often have the same tensions between formal and informal. Our last interim wanted us to be "less formal," which it turned out simply meant that every service should start out with 10-15 minutes of chatty announcements.
His desire for that particular practice of yesteryear's rubrics is simply a reflection of his seminary formation when that pre-service announcement rubric was active.
I have almost two years helping to streamline parish announcements and communication, so the enforcement of his personal proclivity was a tremendous setback for us.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Circuit Rider
Ship's Itinerant
# 13088
|
Posted
Olaf, I wish it were a simple matter of saying "good morning," (which my associate does, BTW) and announcements.
At this point I am realizing that to continue is to "cast my pearls" and it occurs to me that the liturgy, a precious gift to the church from the Early Fathers, should not be trampled and subjected to ridicule. It will be lovingly returned to the keepsake chest and used on occasion when people are more receptive. And of course hope to put it to good use at the next place on the itinerary.
Now off to practice up on "He Touched Me." ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
[P.S.: I really liked "Martin L" better.]
[ 09. September 2012, 01:03: Message edited by: Circuit Rider ]
--------------------
I felt my heart strangely warmed ... and realised I had spilt hot coffee all over myself.
Posts: 715 | From: Somewhere in the Heart of Dixie | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Give every regular worshipper who objects to the way you want to do the services a job to do. It will become theirs, they will own it, when you are long gone they will be defending it.
(it works in trade unions, social clubs, political parties, pubs, and amateur dramatic societies. Maybe it might work in a church)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Give every regular worshipper who objects to the way you want to do the services a job to do. It will become theirs, they will own it, when you are long gone they will be defending it.
(it works in trade unions, social clubs, political parties, pubs, and amateur dramatic societies. Maybe it might work in a church)
I'm filing this away for future reference. Muchas gracias, amigo.*
_____
*"thank you, friend."
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
You gave it a valiant effort. On this side of the Mason-Dixon, the Great Thanksgiving from the UMH seems to be rather commonplace when Holy Communion is celebrated, and I have even encountered the seasonal variants from the UMBOW on several occasions. It is particularly in the Liturgy of the Word that Methodists cling to their hymn sandwich of yesteryear mentality.
I can empathize, as I have been trying to maintain our church's upper-MOTR ways through an onslaught of interim ministers and pulpit supply. It seems each one leaves in his wake a trail of old practices and bad habits, and then leaves me to clean up the mess. The good news for me, not being the person up front, is that I can vote with my feet whenever I want.
*UMH = United Methodist Hymnal (for the common pewfolk)
*UMBOW = United Methodist Book of Worship (Altar Book-ish)
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
I am always a little bit startled by the generic revivalist hymn-sandwich nature of Methodism in the USA. Either something was lost in the sea crossing, or there were some pretty funny Wesleyan Chapels in Lincolnshire. I found that the Communion service was almost always almost that of the 1662 until they got their modern version. There was also a pronounced hangover from Morning and Evening Prayer in the hymn sandwich, which often had the General Confession, both a psalm and a canticle, OT and NT readings, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Collect. I seem to recall the ex-Primitive Chapels were more sandwichy, but they seemed to get over that a bit when RCL came in...
I know what you mean about rural congregations praying that you go elsewhere.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Deep Fried Catholic
Apprentice
# 17328
|
Posted
To me, the only thing that makes a liturgy of any sort "stuffy" is when the priest is reciting the words without any indication he grasps the importance of what he's saying. Either he's reading straight from the book as though he were reading instructions for assembling an Ikea bookshelf, or he's rattling off words he's had memorized for the last thirty years, but his mind is clearly a thousand miles away.
But when the priest knows his parts well and is engaged with the matters at hand, it helps if he is willing to inflect his voice to emphasize important words or phrases, to bring out a fresh meaning from something the people hear every week. It also helps if he adopts a somewhat conversational tone overall; not informal or folksy, but in the tone of voice of one who is speaking to you, not over you.
(As an aside, this is my very first post at SOF. Hi, everyone!)
Posts: 8 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Deep Fried Catholic:
It also helps if he adopts a somewhat conversational tone overall; not informal or folksy, but in the tone of voice of one who is speaking to you, not over you.
Hello, Deep Fried Catholic ![[Smile]](smile.gif) I like your point here and I'd add that, for me, stuffiness is also very much about the language we use in our church gatherings (whether the style is liturgical or not). In my view, we should use contemporary language (so no King James Version for me, sorry) and avoid jargon as much as we possibly can. Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler - as I think Einstein said.
And it's not just liturgical-style services where this can be an issue; I was recently at a very happy-clappy, guitars and drums, speaking in tongues service recently where someone gave a message from God in KJV language. ![[Confused]](confused.gif) What's that all about?
This is my issue I need to deal with, I know, but it instantly makes me feel manipulated - whenever I hear non-contemporary language in a church service, the subtext I pick up is 'This is definitely from God so you must take it on board without question or discernment'. (I don't know if this counts as stuffiness, sorry if it's a bit off the point.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Circuit Rider
Ship's Itinerant
# 13088
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I am always a little bit startled by the generic revivalist hymn-sandwich nature of Methodism in the USA. Either something was lost in the sea crossing, or there were some pretty funny Wesleyan Chapels in Lincolnshire. ...
It was lost on the frontier. Our dear Father John sent us our own version of the BCP in the Sunday Service and it was promptly thrown in the trash can and forgotten for 200 years. I mentioned earlier in the thread we are a rebellious and independent lot. Here in the South it is on steroids.
--------------------
I felt my heart strangely warmed ... and realised I had spilt hot coffee all over myself.
Posts: 715 | From: Somewhere in the Heart of Dixie | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
South Coast Kevin, I couldn't disagree with you more without being a member of the Prayer Book Society ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Understanding should not be too easily or quickly won. There is nothing wrong with liturgical language that makes people think: liturgy is after all theatre, not teaching. It can lead to enlightenment but its aim is absolutely not instruction.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
South Coast Kevin, I couldn't disagree with you more without being a member of the Prayer Book Society
Understanding should not be too easily or quickly won.
The exact opposite of the original purposes of the Book of Common Prayer!
quote:
XXIV. Of speaking in the Congregation in such a tongue as the people understandeth.
It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer in the Church, or to minister the sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
You're all right of course. Obfuscatory (now there's a word!) language for the sake of it, or because it sounds imposing, is obviously wrong. But there is a danger in thinking that because the liturgy (including of course the Bible version used) is in simple language, therefore we can understand. The bits of the faith we can understand with our minds are like the bit of an iceberg that shows above the waterline. Most of it we will never understand in that way, and while there is no point in putting artificial obstacles in the way, we need to leave room for mystery. Which we can be drawn into and 'understand' in a deeper but inarticulate way.
I was presiding on Christmas day a couple of years ago when the then vicar, acting as deacon, read (or rather sang) the Gospel (John 1.1-14) in Latin. Without warning! I was gobsmacked, but his sermon made all clear. The Word was made flesh, and the only way we can really comprehend it is in the person of Jesus Christ and his Body, not (or only incompletely) in words.
--------------------
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
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The exact opposite of the original purposes of the Book of Common Prayer!
quote:
XXIV. Of speaking in the Congregation in such a tongue as the people understandeth.
It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer in the Church, or to minister the sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people.
A tongue, e.g., Latin. I'd hardly classify the traditional style of English as a separate tongue.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Understanding should not be too easily or quickly won.
Agreed. This is what I was getting at with the Einstein quotation; we should neither dumb down nor over-complicate our rituals and theology.
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
There is nothing wrong with liturgical language that makes people think: liturgy is after all theatre, not teaching.
Hmm, not with you here though. What are you implying by saying liturgy is theatre? I'm sure you don't consider it to be entertainment, like secular theatre...
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
...Understanding should not be too easily or quickly won.
The exact opposite of the original purposes of the Book of Common Prayer!
Ah, thanks for your quotation, Ken. It baffles me, this tendency to take something that was originally contemporary and modern some hundreds of years ago (like today's clerical clothing and, I now know, the Book of Common Prayer) and preserve it so it gradually becomes out of date. I'd sort of understand it if people advocated going back to the language, dress, rituals etc. of Jesus' time.
--------------------
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
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
I tend to think of the Prayer Book language as deriving from a desire to make everything as easily understood as possible to its hearers, whilst also being very, very exact as to its meaning. This is not a combination that is frequently encountered in other contexts, where one usually has a choice being language which is formal and full of difficult jargon (not that I'm thinking of my scientific writing of course...) or easily-read but sloppy (not that I'm thinking of my posts on the Ship of course...)
This may be one reason why people respond so differently to it!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
I'd hardly classify the traditional style of English as a separate tongue.
I wish people would stop referring to Tudor English as 'traditional'. It is no more 'traditional' than Anglo-Saxon, Times leaders or text-speak. 'Tradition' is something that evolves, hence by definition 'traditional' language is what we speak today.
That's not to deny that there are a number of registers of contemporary written and spoken English, not all of which are appropriate in a liturgical context.
--------------------
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
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
I'd hardly classify the traditional style of English as a separate tongue.
I wish people would stop referring to Tudor English as 'traditional'. It is no more 'traditional' than Anglo-Saxon, Times leaders or text-speak.
Well said!
I think that exclusive use of modern English, even in a poetic and dignified form, does have its problems as far as liturgical use goes. However, so does so-called "traditional" English, which, I believe actually has more problems. A slavish adherence to it is most unhelpful.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
There is nothing wrong with liturgical language that makes people think: liturgy is after all theatre, not teaching.
Hmm, not with you here though. What are you implying by saying liturgy is theatre? I'm sure you don't consider it to be entertainment, like secular theatre...
Theatre is not always (or even mostly) 'entertainment', in the sense of a light-hearted diversion from serious matters. More often than not it focuses on those serious matters and challenges us, makes us think. I wish I could say that I came out of church as moved and challenged as often as I do after a good drama, in the theatre or on TV.
--------------------
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
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I wish people would stop referring to Tudor English as 'traditional'. It is no more 'traditional' than Anglo-Saxon, Times leaders or text-speak. 'Tradition' is something that evolves, hence by definition 'traditional' language is what we speak today.
You may wish people would stop calling it "traditional," but our BCP has, for instance, two sections of collects labeled "traditional" and "contemporary." That's the sense in which I used the term. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
What are you implying by saying liturgy is theatre? I'm sure you don't consider it to be entertainment, like secular theatre...
Theatre is not always (or even mostly) 'entertainment', in the sense of a light-hearted diversion from serious matters. More often than not it focuses on those serious matters and challenges us, makes us think.
Sure, perhaps my choice of word wasn't the best... But this just adds to my confusion about FooloftheShip's distinction between theatre and teaching. Isn't teaching also supposed to focus on serious matters, challenge us, and make us think?
I don't want to derail this thread with discussion about whether or not we should use liturgy. My focus is on the language we use in our church gatherings, and I think we should pretty much always use contemporary language.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I wish I could say that I came out of church as moved and challenged as often as I do after a good drama, in the theatre or on TV.
Hmm, there's a sobering thought to reflect on!
--------------------
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
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
]Sure, perhaps my choice of word wasn't the best... But this just adds to my confusion about FooloftheShip's distinction between theatre and teaching.
I don't want to derail this thread with discussion about whether or not we should use liturgy. My focus is on the language we use in our church gatherings, and I think we should pretty much always use contemporary language.
Not so fast! My point is that the use of language in worship is of itself liturgical. The distinction I'm trying to make is between the didactic and the experiential. There are plenty of occasions where the didactic is appropriate, but for me at least public worship is not among them. Even the sermon, to my mind, should not be an exclusively, possibly not even a primarily, intellectual experience.
By liturgical, and indeed theatrical, I suppose I mean something along the lines of heightened, de-realised, skewed from the ordinary in order precisely to take participants to places which are otherwise hard to reach. It is, in my experience, simply not possible always to reach them with entirely ordinary language. Entirely ordinary language comes with an ideology behind it which is frequently unhelpful, or even completely contrary, to the message one is trying to convey.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I wish people would stop referring to Tudor English as 'traditional'. It is no more 'traditional' than Anglo-Saxon, Times leaders or text-speak. 'Tradition' is something that evolves, hence by definition 'traditional' language is what we speak today.
You may wish people would stop calling it "traditional," but our BCP has, for instance, two sections of collects labeled "traditional" and "contemporary." That's the sense in which I used the term.
I wasn't getting at you in particular, Oblatus. I know that both your BCP and Common Worship use 'traditional' in the sense you mention. It's understandable that you should use it as shorthand for 'Tudor'. It's just me being a bit pedantic and also trying to make the point that there is no more reason for using Tudor English than contemporary in the liturgy.
Though there is a difference I suppose between Anglican and Catholic approaches to the use of English (leaving aside for the moment the latter's reversion to literal renderings of the Latin). The customary language of the liturgy for centuries, in the former, was that of Cranmer; in the latter, Latin. There is less reason ISTM (and it does seem like vandalism sometimes) to rewrite Cranmer's prose when it can perfectly well stand alone. It's just that when new texts are introduced, either as new compositions or imports from the Roman mass or elsewhere, it is equally insensitive to write them in a sort of cod-Tudor. Like putting fake half-timbering on a modern house. Many congregations are quite happy to pray 'Our Father who art in heaven...' and sing hymns using thees, thous etc, in the context of an otherwise contemporary liturgy. It's like seeing an ancient picture in a modern gallery and there is nothing wrong with that. It would equally apply to prayers like 'Almighty God, unto whom all hearts be open...' etc. They don't need to be tampered with.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
By liturgical, and indeed theatrical, I suppose I mean something along the lines of heightened, de-realised, skewed from the ordinary in order precisely to take participants to places which are otherwise hard to reach. It is, in my experience, simply not possible always to reach them with entirely ordinary language. Entirely ordinary language comes with an ideology behind it which is frequently unhelpful, or even completely contrary, to the message one is trying to convey.
But I used the word 'contemporary', not 'ordinary'. I think some people have a great talent of using modern language in a very poetic way (not me, sadly; I'm not at all poetic!) but you seem to have equated ordinary and contemporary. Can modern language simply not be as poetic or beautiful as older language, in your view?
--------------------
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
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Can modern language simply not be as poetic or beautiful as older language, in your view?
Interesting question. It seems to me that when the function of a word in a sentence is apparent from the form of the word, then an author has more ways to arrange the order of words in the sentence without compromising comprehension. There is more scope for fine shades of meaning, for style, and for poetic arrangements of sound.
Compared to many other languages, English is relatively poor in such features and is gradually becoming poorer. But English does excel in the sheer number and variety of words at an author's disposal, and in its hospitality to further additions.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
But English does excel in the sheer number and variety of words at an author's disposal, and in its hospitality to further additions.
I guess this is where we say thank you to the Normans, sort of?
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Deep Fried Catholic
Apprentice
# 17328
|
Posted
quote:
Though there is a difference I suppose between Anglican and Catholic approaches to the use of English (leaving aside for the moment the latter's reversion to literal renderings of the Latin).
I would suppose the primary difference is the fact that the native language of the Anglican church is English, and the native language of the Catholic church is Latin. The Anglican church does not need to first translate its texts. And it seems to me it would be easier to update an older English text to a newer version of English; if for no other reason, but the earlier version can still be understood somewhat readily. The syntax even remains virtually the same.
That is, from at least one account I've heard from a priest, a major problem with the new English translation in the Catholic church. This translation adheres quite slavishly to the Latin, not just in word-for-word translation ("consubstantial" - REALLY? "one in being" wasn't obscure enough?), but in its syntax, which mirrors the Latin in its multitude of dependent clauses. The priest in question (who has a program on satellite radio) has said that he frequently finds himself running out of breath before he reaches the end of a complete sentence.
The implication to me is this: if a priest is running out of breath before he finishes a sentence, his listeners are running out of attention span. In English, we are used to shorter sentences. We equate long sentences with babbling, and thus tune them out. And if the congregants are tuned out during the liturgy, how are they getting anything out of it (whether it be teaching or worship)?
Posts: 8 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
But English does excel in the sheer number and variety of words at an author's disposal, and in its hospitality to further additions.
I guess this is where we say thank you to the Normans, sort of?
Yes, because it makes Modern English much closer in approach to Ancient Greek than Classical Latin. From that flow closer similarities of thought, so that the English is less legalistic and more descriptive.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I think some people have a great talent of using modern language in a very poetic way ...
I could mention Allen Ginsberg, Philip Larkin, RS Thomas, Sara Teasdale, Siegfried Sassoon, TS Eliot, WB Yeats, William Carlos Williams...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Deep Fried Catholic:
That is, from at least one account I've heard from a priest, a major problem with the new English translation in the Catholic church. This translation adheres quite slavishly to the Latin, not just in word-for-word translation ("consubstantial" - REALLY? "one in being" wasn't obscure enough?), but in its syntax, which mirrors the Latin in its multitude of dependent clauses. The priest in question (who has a program on satellite radio) has said that he frequently finds himself running out of breath before he reaches the end of a complete sentence.
The implication to me is this: if a priest is running out of breath before he finishes a sentence, his listeners are running out of attention span. In English, we are used to shorter sentences. We equate long sentences with babbling, and thus tune them out. And if the congregants are tuned out during the liturgy, how are they getting anything out of it (whether it be teaching or worship)?
Cranmer's English is very Latinate, and was used for 3 centuries before "modern-language" liturgies began to be adopted. Your priest ought to learn to breathe at commas; it would make the text easier to hear and understand as well.
And "consubstantial" is hardly a new word, nor are the translators of the liturgy to blame that Christian theological concepts are difficult to grasp. The new translation of the Mass is hardly without faults, but the desire to hew closer to the original text is laudable. The English translation seems to have been the only one to adopt dynamic equivalency (which, in retrospect, was no equivalency at all) as its guiding principle--e.g. the Europeans have been saying the equivalent of "and with thy spirit" since the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, while English-speakers have had to muddle along with "and also with you." Give me slavish accuracy over "close enough for the proles" any day!
Lex orandi, lex credendi*; when all that's sung during Communion are "songs" about bread and hunger, it's no great wonder that belief in the Real Presence dwindles.
*Loosely, "as one prays, so he believes".
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
If the response is "And with thy spirit", why isn't the versicle "The Lord be with thy spirit"?
It makes far more sense to me if both versicle and response agree. In other words, "The Lord be with you" goes with "And also with you" far better than "And with thy spirit".
The Lord be with you.
And also with you.
or
The Lord be with thy spirit.
And with thy spirit.
[ 12. September 2012, 19:48: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Cranmer's English is very Latinate, and was used for 3 centuries before "modern-language" liturgies began to be adopted. Your priest ought to learn to breathe at commas; it would make the text easier to hear and understand as well.
And "consubstantial" is hardly a new word, nor are the translators of the liturgy to blame that Christian theological concepts are difficult to grasp. The new translation of the Mass is hardly without faults, but the desire to hew closer to the original text is laudable. The English translation seems to have been the only one to adopt dynamic equivalency (which, in retrospect, was no equivalency at all) as its guiding principle--e.g. the Europeans have been saying the equivalent of "and with thy spirit" since the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, while English-speakers have had to muddle along with "and also with you." Give me slavish accuracy over "close enough for the proles" any day!
Lex orandi, lex credendi*; when all that's sung during Communion are "songs" about bread and hunger, it's no great wonder that belief in the Real Presence dwindles.
*Loosely, "as one prays, so he believes".
Thank you, Father. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Deep Fried Catholic
Apprentice
# 17328
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Your priest ought to learn to breathe at commas; it would make the text easier to hear and understand as well.
Well, strictly speaking, he's not MY priest. He is a priest on a radio show that I hear quite frequently. Before becoming a priest, he had a career in media (as an on-air radio personality and in television production). He's not exactly a critic of the new translation, either (for what it's worth, neither am I, really); but he has noted this new phrasing as quite a difference from the previous English translation.
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Give me slavish accuracy over "close enough for the proles" any day!
Given the choice, I too prefer accuracy over "close enough". I wouldn't want to find myself at Mass professing a belief in a fourth person of the Trinity because, "eh, the language fits pretty well."
But when I was first discerning whether the Catholic church was right for me - well before I had decided to find the nearest RCIA class - I discovered that the Catholic church was not an "either/or" church, but a "both/and" church. In other words, two things that appear to be contradictory may not be contradictory at all. Therefore, I don't think there needs to be a flip of the coin on this; heads we make it faithful to the original, tails we make it easy to use.
I'm not a linguistic scholar, so far be it from me to overly criticize ten years of work on this. They brought the text very close to the original meaning, for which I'm grateful. And I wouldn't say that Mass is the appropriate place or time to be overly explicative of theological concepts. However, it feels like it should be possible to express the true meaning of the original text, without making it MORE difficult for people to speak and understand, and thereby participate. Which, of course, is the whole purpose of the decision to allow the Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular. If people aren't understanding it, it might as well stay in Latin.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Thanks, DFC--I think we're closer to agreeing on this than I first thought.
A couple of thoughts. I hope RC clergy are taking the opportunity for teaching & preaching that the new translation provides. I agree that many people are unlikely to know what "consubstantial" means; they should be taught. Too often it seems as though the RCC treats doctrine as a kind of second tier of Christianity, as though all the laity need to know is caring, sharing, and fulfilling their obligations to hear Mass. Ideally, any Christian layperson should be able to explain the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds. Few of them are equipped to do so.
Second, it seems as though the Church has gone from a clunky and inaccurate translation to one that's more accurate but still clunky. Clearly, more work needs to be done, but I still think the new translation is a step in the right direction.
Lastly, I wonder how much time priests have spent preparing themselves to use the new translation. I get the impression that the most vocal opponents of it have spent much more time complaining about it than actually readying themselves to use it. Not picking on RCs alone here--in general it's my experience that most clergy spend more time thinking about what they're going to have for lunch than in getting ready to celebrate the Eucharist, more's the pity.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
If the response is "And with thy spirit", why isn't the versicle "The Lord be with thy spirit"?
It makes far more sense to me if both versicle and response agree. In other words, "The Lord be with you" goes with "And also with you" far better than "And with thy spirit".
The Lord be with you.
And also with you.
or
The Lord be with thy spirit.
And with thy spirit.
The "You" in "the Lord be with you" is plural, addressed to all the individuals who make up the congregation the priest is addressing.
"Thy" is singular, addressed by each individual in the congregation to the priest.
To address your real point (I think), the priest ought perhaps to say: "The Lord be with your spirits."
Don't see that catching on.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Deep Fried Catholic
Apprentice
# 17328
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I hope RC clergy are taking the opportunity for teaching & preaching that the new translation provides. I agree that many people are unlikely to know what "consubstantial" means; they should be taught. Too often it seems as though the RCC treats doctrine as a kind of second tier of Christianity, as though all the laity need to know is caring, sharing, and fulfilling their obligations to hear Mass. Ideally, any Christian layperson should be able to explain the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds. Few of them are equipped to do so.
Let's just say the teaching is ... what's the polite word? ... spotty. Catechesis is not exactly the Catholic Church's strong suit, to be mild about it. I think those further up the hierarchical chain in the Church forget that the rest of us don't live in the rarefied air of one whose vocation it is to know religious stuff.
The new translation aside, the everyday cradle Catholic gets (just) enough religious education in his childhood to get him through First Communion and Confirmation, and then he swims out on his own. The RCIA candidates and catechumens usually know quite a bit more, even before classes begin, but only because they have found themselves internally motivated to become part of the Church; and thus have done a fair amount of learning before ever setting foot inside a Catholic church.
And as regards the new translation itself, the education on its changes and the meanings thereof was not coordinated through the hierarchy, but was left to the individual parish to work out the details of what, if anything, was taught. At our parish, we were given summaries during the last four or five homilies leading up to Advent. Others, I've heard, received bupkis.
But on the plus side, the Church was thoughtful enough to provide "cheat sheets" so we would know the responses when the changes were implemented. That was helpful. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Second, it seems as though the Church has gone from a clunky and inaccurate translation to one that's more accurate but still clunky. Clearly, more work needs to be done, but I still think the new translation is a step in the right direction.
The translation we just got should have been the one in place since the '70s. It accurately reflects what should have been the Catholic church's first awkward attempts at a vernacular Mass in English. But no, someone back then decided to go overboard in their attempt to be "relevant" or something. Now we've lost not only the last 40 years or so, but the folks in the hierarchy who are already skittish about trying new things now have an example to point to, which will hinder further progress. "See what happened the last time we tried to be 'groovy', as the kids say? We wandered away from our roots. We won't be trying anything popular again for a while, let me tell you!"
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Lastly, I wonder how much time priests have spent preparing themselves to use the new translation. I get the impression that the most vocal opponents of it have spent much more time complaining about it than actually readying themselves to use it. Not picking on RCs alone here--in general it's my experience that most clergy spend more time thinking about what they're going to have for lunch than in getting ready to celebrate the Eucharist, more's the pity.
I won't speak for all priests, but ours was magnificent. He made it through the transition with nary a bump. He clearly studied well ahead of the transition date. By contrast, though, I've heard horror stories of priests who cracked their new book open on the First Sunday of Advent just before Mass and discovered to their chagrin that they didn't recognize it at all, and wound up stuttering their way through it for the next few weeks. That had to be painful for the parishioners.
And then there were the occasional rare tales of older priests who have been celebrating the Mass for 35-40 years, seven days a week, and just flat refused to change. They had the old book memorized, and did not see any reason to switch at this late date.
The tl;dr of it is, the hierarchy which should have come up with a coordinated education plan about the new translation, emphasizing the importance and relevance of the changes, instead left it largely up to individual parish priests. Nothing speaks to the universality of the Church like failing to get all the parishes to do the same thing. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 8 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
...[T]his is a new level of liturgy that we're going to try out for a limited time, and I want to avoid stuffiness if at all possible, while at the same time not being sloppy.
I just wanted to update with the results of our test.
The first week went very well. There were some moments when people were somewhat unsure of what was happening, but a gentle reminder and we were off again. We all managed to laugh at our slight missteps, and it was the best worship service I've experienced in well over a year. I was on cloud nine all week, and several others reported the same thing. I don't quite know what it was, but the earth moved for several of us.
The next couple of weeks have gone better. I've noticed no stuffiness. We had a meeting last night (roughly analogous to a vestry meeting) where I asked if everyone likes the new style and wants to keep it. Four of the six immediately said they love it, and the other two nodded assent.
We'll be keeping it around for a while. Next step: Weekly Communion.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Godric
Apprentice
# 17135
|
Posted
I want a Church that has a liturgy because that's what make it different from being in someone's home although the balance has to be struck between formality and informality. Oh dear....where to draw the line?
I would say that we need to avoid the "My name's Dave and I'm a Vicar!" approach where 'anything goes'.
--------------------
I write on funerals and burials http://godsacre.blogspot.co.uk/
Posts: 28 | From: England and Malta | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Godric:
I want a Church that has a liturgy because that's what make it different from being in someone's home although the balance has to be struck between formality and informality. Oh dear....where to draw the line?
I would say that we need to avoid the "My name's Dave and I'm a Vicar!" approach where 'anything goes'.
Of course, some people do have their worship service in a family home! That has its benefits and attractions. Obviously, not everyone would feel comfortable doing that.
I'd prefer a vicar to be introduced to me as 'David', rather than Revd. So-and-so, but I certainly don't want the vicar to give off a patronising vibe, as if everyone is expected to admire him for 'getting down to our level'!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Of course, some people do have their worship service in a family home! That has its benefits and attractions. Obviously, not everyone would feel comfortable doing that.
I'd prefer a vicar to be introduced to me as 'David', rather than Revd. So-and-so, but I certainly don't want the vicar to give off a patronising vibe, as if everyone is expected to admire him for 'getting down to our level'!
I introduce myself to new people as Father Weber, but what they call me after that is up to them. A number of church friends & associates who knew me before ordination still use my first name (only referring to me as "Father" when they want to chide!); some parishioners prefer "Fr Firstname" to "Fr Lastname" and refer to me that way. It's all good.
The only usage I would ever think of correcting is "Reverend Weber," and even then there is a time to gently insist on the correct usage and a time to just let it go.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
"Traditional Language" isn't Tudor English; it's Tudor English grammar and syntax with modern English pronunciation, intonation and phonology.
Real Tudor English would sound quite different and probably even be harder to understand.
Consequently it can be argued that "Traditional Language" in liturgy is a beast apart; not entirely unlike revived Cornish, which is a mediaeval Celtic language with pronunciation based on early 20th century dialectal pronunciation of English (west Penwith in the unlikely even anyone cares*).
*Actually, that's how it is in the books. How it's actually spoken is remarkably similar to RP English... but I digress.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Morlader
Shipmate
# 16040
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
"Traditional Language" [is] not entirely unlike revived Cornish, which is a mediaeval Celtic language with pronunciation based on early 20th century dialectal pronunciation of English (west Penwith in the unlikely even anyone cares*).
*Actually, that's how it is in the books. How it's actually spoken is remarkably similar to RP English... but I digress.
* I care! As a resident of Penwith (there's been no 'West Penwith' since 1974) and a Cornish language bard I can assure you that revived Cornish is not like RP English when pronounced by experienced speakers in conversation. As in all languages, there are different accents, depending on locality, background and education of the speaker and formality of situation. Liturgical use is more formal and more precise in grammar and vocabulary, as might be expected. But there are sounds in revived Cornish which don't occur in RP English: e.g. the reticulated 'r' consonant and the "French" 'u' vowel. Whether those sounds occur[ed] in Tudor English I don't know, but I doubt. (More likely to have been in Tudor Latin, as prime mediaeval sources are the Cornish Mystery plays, recorded by the monks of Glasney College).
[Sorry for continuing the tangent, but I had to take issue with the "RP English" statement.]
--------------------
.. to utmost west.
Posts: 858 | From: Not England | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
